Paul Lakowski wrote: ↑17 Jun 2019 20:01
Can't understand HANNY , If you don't understand "garbage in garbage out", you are doomed!!!
I understand GIGO/RIRO rather well, and your entire posting history is replete with examples of it, and your doomed to continue to do so it appears.
Paul Lakowski wrote: ↑17 Jun 2019 20:01
Yes we have very different views of naval warfare, large warships are a waste of resources.
Yes your view is unique, because its RIRO, every nation in ww2 built them and every amphib landing used them in large numbers.
Paul Lakowski wrote: ↑17 Jun 2019 20:01
AMPHIBIOUS INVASIONS count on numbers of smaller vessels not large warships. The only real value of large warships would be to provide long range fast escort in port to port invasions , which could be a day ahead of any Wallie response , so they would be gone before any response arrived. RN Ocean surveillance was so bad most ships transiting the channel and GIUK gap until well into the war [41/42].
Except thats not how any nation in ww2 conducted amphib operations, naval gunfire was one of the 3 pre requiste requirements for amphib ops. See
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a051873.pdf so again your posting RIRO.
Paul Lakowski wrote: ↑17 Jun 2019 20:01
What naval exchanges that did occur, went the AXIS way. from 1939-1941 reportedly 90 ALLIED warships with 718 guns battled with 62 German warships sporting 486 guns . In these clashes 15 NAZI warships were sunk or crippled, while 11 were damaged, while 23 ALLIED warships were crippled of sunk and 11 damaged.
Er your counting ( and completly mis using the data in Ohara books) 20mm as a gun, the same as a 14inch is a gun, and counting only the main and secondary armaments of any surface ship of 500 tons.
Paul Lakowski wrote: ↑17 Jun 2019 20:01
Using O'HARA VOLUMES; 62 NAZI warship sorties -each averaging 55% chance of inflicting damage on ALLIED warships in these exchanges [34/62].90 ALLIED warships sortie sank/crippled /damaged 26 NAZI warships or 29%.
Your using the following book. it starts with surface fleet strength of 75 German v UK 275, so any tactical engagement has to be a 3 and half in favour of the Germans to to stand still in relation to force strength.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Gkb ... &q&f=false
Lets see what it says about Norway
7 encounters in Norway. Tables list units engaged and outcomes.
1. German CA and DD V Allied 1 DD: Outcome German CA damaged, Allied DD sunk
2. German 2BB V Allied 1 BC and 9DD: Outcome German BB damaged, Allied BC damaged.
3. German MTB 2 and 2 ML/S V Allied 3 ML/S 1 MTB:Outcome German 1 ML/S sunk 1 damaged, 1 MTB damaged. allied 1 ML/S damaged
4.German 3 DD V Allied 2 DD:Outcome Allied 2 DD sunk.
5.German 10 DD V Allied 5 DD:Outcome German 2 DD sunk 5 damged. Allied 2 DD sunk 1 DD damaged.
6.German 8 DD V Allied 1 BB, 9DD:Outcome German 8DD sunk. Allied3 DD damaged.
7.German 2BB V Allied 1 CV, 2DD:Outcome German Allied 1 Cv sunk 2 DD sunk.
German committed to action, 31 ships, sufferd 9 damaged, 13 sunk.
Allied committed to action, 35 ships, suffered 6 damaged, 8 sunk.
German efficiency at sorties resulting in combat action, it required 31 german ships to reduce allied numbers by 14, while Allied required 35 ships to reduce German numbers by 22.
German efficiency at inflicting losses was 14/31=0.4 compared to Allied 22/35=0.6, so the Allies were more efficient over Germany by 50%.
At suffering losses, German lost (sunk/damaged) 71% of its ships committed to action, Allies 40%, the allies were almost twice as efficient at not losing their ship committed to action.
German 75 reduced by 13 sunk is a 17% loss, UK 275 reduced by 8 of 275 is 3% sunk, German 75 reduced by 22 sunk and damaged is 30%, and Uk 14 sunk and damaged is 5%
Paul Lakowski wrote: ↑17 Jun 2019 20:01
In other words NAZI sortie were twice as effective as ALLIED sortie at inflicting damage during battles.
As usual, your GIGO/RIRO claims can be shown for the trollish nonsense they are, chiefly because you cannot use maths to find the answer.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.