太空战舰看多了,来看看人类历史上真正的大炮巨舰!
-
[quote]原帖由 [i]jedijedi[/i] 于 2008-1-14 19:33 发表 [url=http://bbs.xyz-soft.com/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=301655&ptid=16376][img]http://bbs.xyz-soft.com/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
那我們看看大和旅館的戰績怎樣吧
1944年25日在薩馬島海與美軍艦隊交戰，當中使用主砲共發射了104發砲彈。更將企圖突入的驅逐艦約翰斯頓號以副砲擊沈。
.
.
.
沒了...
看來大和比首相戰績還好看阿???
首相的戰績是垃 ... [/quote]
声望单挑沙格二舰队
打的对方落荒而逃没了
华盛顿带着只能挨打的南达
击退日本舰队，击沉雾岛没了
HMS更创造了
轻巡赶跑袖珍战列舰和重巡洋舰的光荣历史，还有英国重巡＋轻巡逐退战巡的光荣战绩
世界上的光荣战绩还真不少啊～～～
更重要的是还有厌战～～～～厌战啊～～～～～～恍然大悟
世界上战绩辉煌的战舰还是不少的 -
[quote]原帖由 [i]bluesun[/i] 于 2008-1-14 20:20 发表 [url=http://bbs.xyz-soft.com/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=301739&ptid=16376][img]http://bbs.xyz-soft.com/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
另外
衣服要真的是航行中海水灌炮管问题严重的话,大米再怎么有钱也不会造4条吧?(记得是6条,一条备料阶段的直接取消了,另外一条已经在舾装了-同时英国的VG舾装快完了-被拿去当废铁卖了)
而且大西洋艏的出现本来就是为 ... [/quote]你这么说我就无语了，高速航行时海水会灌进第一炮塔是在实际服役期间发现的问题，预算批下的6艘，其中4艘是在一年多一点的时间全部建成的，难道因为第一艘衣阿华服役以后发现有海水灌炮的问题就对外宣布，我国最新锐的高速战列舰因为海水会灌入炮塔，所以造成战斗力下降？
再停掉其他3艘完工率都超过80%的？老美再有钱也不会这么白扔，也不会做这么纱布的事情。P.S:另外两条，一条是进度22%时取消，另一条将舰艏拆给撞上驱逐舰舰艏损坏的威斯康星，主机拆给另外2条船后被拆解
再P.S:老美是有钱，后来花快4亿美元改装成导弹战列舰，改完之后发现维持费太高养不起又退役掉，就足以说明问题:lol:
-
[quote]原帖由 [i]脑残神教才是宇宙正教[/i] 于 2008-1-14 20:03 发表 [url=http://bbs.xyz-soft.com/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=301707&ptid=16376][img]http://bbs.xyz-soft.com/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
:-_,-
你能找10个专家说他防护差
我也能找11个专家说他防护好
你的共识是哪里的共识现在就给你找个外国专家的原文
The bismarck's internal vitals could not be directly reached through the side belt armor u ... [/quote]你这是引自Nathan Okun的《Armor Protection of the Battleship KM Bismarck》，那句话的意思是BSM的侧舷装甲与穹甲的重叠布置在常态下(正常作战吃水，没有大角度倾斜)使它内部的重要部位很难被直接击中
但是你为什么不把下面列举出的那BSM穹甲的7条缺点也贴出来？那我来帮你贴好了
(1) Due to the main armored deck's low position in the ship, extensive flooding of the ship above the sloped/flat armored deck is likely if the side armor is holed, which could cause serious stability problems and which reduced protected reserve bouyancy by one complete deck(2) The upper hull area can be destroyed at much longer ranges than any other design due to the weak side belt armor. Furthermore, some important equipment, cables, etc. were in this region, compromising the effectiveness of the protection to some (possibly critical) extent
(3) The weak lower main deck armor design -- especially the close-range zone of vulnerability after the projectile penetrated the 1.97" weather deck and was deflected downward through the thin 3.15" main armor deck over the amidships region -- allowed the possibility of reaching the vitals by hits that were deflected off of other structures, such as barbettes, or which hit "shot traps" where ricochet was inhibited (such as where a solid object was bolted to the armor deck and the projectile hit the joint, requiring the projectile to lift the solid object up or to punch through it in order to ricochet)
(4) The requirement for a rather heavy upper side hull armor belt to protect the thin main armor deck from side hits above the main armor belt, which costs considerable weight that could be used to beef up the deck armor or belt armor or both
(5) Unlike the USS SOUTH DAKOTA (and USS IOWA) or the VITTORIO VENETO, the BISMARCK's side armor does not ensure that a completely penetrating projectile is virtually always shattered and rendered "ineffective" by being decapped prior to hitting the face hardened belt armor, which reduces the damage that the projectile will usually case even if it does not penetrate through the belt
(6) The armored transverse bulkheads at each end of the Citadel were weakly protected and had no sloped deck behind them, making the BISMARCK very vulnerable to raking fire from either end, especially as the main magazines were located directly behind these bulkheads
(7) The shallow extension of the belt allowed hits below it to frequently occur, as was demonstrated during the fight with the HMS Prince of Wales, bypassing the main armor belt and aggravating any flooding effects that projectiles punching through the belt above the low main armored deck might cause
还有最终结论
The USS SOUTH DAKOTA (or, better yet, the USS IOWA) armor scheme shows that for most naval battles, an improved "conventional" side armor design (thin armored weather deck, high mounting of the heavy main armor deck at the top edge of the main armor belt, thin upper belt armor, inclined main armor belt, thin fragment screen plating spaced behind the belt armor, decapping plate in front of the main belt, and tapered lower belt armor to protect against diving projectiles) gives protection to the vitals that is just as good, if not better, than the BISMARCK's side armor protection with equal weight of armor and without most of the bad points that the BISMARCK's low and, in the flat regions, thin main armor deck gave. If the enemy can get close enough to frequently punch through an Iowa-type belt, the battle is probably already lost, anyway, as the last battle of the BISMARCK demonstrates.
美国南达装甲专题显示：在消耗相同装甲重量的情况下，改进的传统侧面装甲设计对战列舰要害部位的防护与俾斯麦的设计一样好，甚至更好，而且没有俾斯麦上述的几个弱点。 如果等到敌人能够靠得很近，能击穿Iowa类型的侧面装甲的时候，那么（最重要的）战斗很可能在这之前就已经结束了，正如俾斯麦最后的战斗所展示的那样。
顺便，传说中某著名哈德铁扇公主巴掌同志对Nathan Okun这人的言论是一律否定的，比如“NATHAN OKUN 对装甲并不了解，连NVNC钢是改进自VC钢还是KC钢都不知道。”
咱们这里是SSW论坛，还是不要搞成别的军坛那样成了哈德门对SC的战争，断章取义这种事情，还是少搞点比较好
-
[quote]原帖由 [i]bluesun[/i] 于 2008-1-14 20:22 发表 [url=http://bbs.xyz-soft.com/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=301744&ptid=16376][img]http://bbs.xyz-soft.com/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
BB防空最美
BB本来就够大够稳.对于防空来说,最怕摇
而且BB皮够厚
一时半会搞不沉它
又有足够的甲板面积来大量堆积小口径防空炮 [/quote]乒乓炮美 :lol:
-
[quote]原帖由 [i]bluesun[/i] 于 2008-1-15 12:33 发表 [url=http://bbs.xyz-soft.com/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=302955&ptid=16376][img]http://bbs.xyz-soft.com/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
真的没看出来哪点容易上浪导致海水灌炮塔 [/quote]这是哪年的依阿华啊= =
怎么副炮都拆了 -
[quote]原帖由 [i]露卡公主[/i] 于 2008-1-15 12:43 发表 [url=http://bbs.xyz-soft.com/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=302968&ptid=16376][img]http://bbs.xyz-soft.com/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
这是哪年的依阿华啊= =
怎么副炮都拆了[img]http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/016151.jpg[/img] [/quote]
这不怪他，很多人对Iowa的印象都是海湾战争的密苏里留下的 :lol3:
[[i] 本帖最后由 貴家澪 于 2008-1-15 12:51 编辑 [/i]]
-
[quote]原帖由 [i]movemove[/i] 于 2008-1-15 12:59 发表 [url=http://bbs.xyz-soft.com/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=303002&ptid=16376][img]http://bbs.xyz-soft.com/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
活到90年代还能在海上开火参战的也就他了吧....:-_,- [/quote]参加海湾战争的就2艘，老美也不是都能养的起的。
-
[quote]原帖由 [i]movemove[/i] 于 2008-1-15 13:07 发表 [url=http://bbs.xyz-soft.com/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=303027&ptid=16376][img]http://bbs.xyz-soft.com/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
不过得要承认，大口径火炮对岸攻击仍然是性价比较高的选择啊:maybe: [/quote]在没有获得绝对制空权和没有完全压制敌方岸防力量的情况下，军舰抵近海岸用舰炮轰击无异于自杀。
![http://bbs.xyz-soft.com/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]](http://bbs.xyz-soft.com/images/common/back.gif%5B/img%5D%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
![http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/016151.jpg[/img]](http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/016151.jpg%5B/img%5D){kind=link}