World's Worst Warships?

Trebuchet said:
I was, but I believe The Movie That Must Not Be Named refers to Pearl Harbor.
Click to expand...


Nooo! You named it! :jaw-dropp

Seriously, though, that's what we call it on Matrix Games' War in the Pacific forum, because of how awful it is, especially to a bunch of WWII naval grognards*. :eek:
___________
*A term for hard-core wargamers, after Napoleon's nickname for his Old Imperial Guard, "Mes anciens Grognards." (My old grumblers.)
 
Last edited:
SpitfireIX said:
Nooo! You named it! :jaw-dropp

Seriously, though, that's what we call it on Matrix Games' War in the Pacific forum, because of how awful it is, especially to a bunch of WWII naval grognards*. :eek:
___________
*A term for hard-core wargamers, after Napoleon's nickname for his Old Imperial Guard, "Mes anciens Grognards." (My old grumblers.)
Click to expand...

Did you have to quote? That makes two. One more mention and it will appear.
 
Klimax said:
Could you please explain it? Sounds odd, that you can't forget it.
Click to expand...


See here:

No one goes to watch a Michael Bay movie expecting historical accuracy. But the chasm between Pearl Harbor the movie and real Pearl Harbor facts, as shown in photos from December 7, 1941, is clear. The film contains an armada-sized number of errors about the military, including the wrong planes, nuclear-powered subs before the advent of nuclear power, and magical 21st-century radio technology.

And then there are all the plot holes, like how Ben Affleck broke US law by joining the Royal Air Force (RAF), and how the movie claims the climactic scene was the turning point in a months-old war that continued for several more years. Plus, the movie ignores 1940s racism while treating Cuba Gooding Jr.'s character as a token, and neglects many WWII contributions from women. In contrast, consider films like Saving Private Ryan, which was so realistic, it reportedly triggered veterans' PTSD.

While historians have found numerous historical inaccuracies in Pearl Harbor, at least one thinks some good may come from the movie. Professor Bruce Reynolds said, "The best thing that could happen is that people will see it, be entertained, and come away interested in why this stuff happened."

Another history professor, Nicholas Evan Sarantakes, had a slightly less optimistic take: "Another Pearl Harbor movie will come along sooner or later, and it will most likely be better." Fans of Michael Bay movies might still appreciate the film for its drama or special effects, but it's time to admit Pearl Harbor barely gets any history correct.​
 
SpitfireIX said:
See here:

No one goes to watch a Michael Bay movie expecting historical accuracy. But the chasm between Pearl Harbor the movie and real Pearl Harbor facts, as shown in photos from December 7, 1941, is clear. The film contains an armada-sized number of errors about the military, including the wrong planes, nuclear-powered subs before the advent of nuclear power, and magical 21st-century radio technology.

And then there are all the plot holes, like how Ben Affleck broke US law by joining the Royal Air Force (RAF), and how the movie claims the climactic scene was the turning point in a months-old war that continued for several more years. Plus, the movie ignores 1940s racism while treating Cuba Gooding Jr.'s character as a token, and neglects many WWII contributions from women. In contrast, consider films like Saving Private Ryan, which was so realistic, it reportedly triggered veterans' PTSD.

While historians have found numerous historical inaccuracies in Pearl Harbor, at least one thinks some good may come from the movie. Professor Bruce Reynolds said, "The best thing that could happen is that people will see it, be entertained, and come away interested in why this stuff happened."

Another history professor, Nicholas Evan Sarantakes, had a slightly less optimistic take: "Another Pearl Harbor movie will come along sooner or later, and it will most likely be better." Fans of Michael Bay movies might still appreciate the film for its drama or special effects, but it's time to admit Pearl Harbor barely gets any history correct.​
Click to expand...

Just a minor comment about Americans in the RAF, there were 3 "Eagle" Squadrons - 71 (formed 1940), 121 and 133 (both formed in 1941) with American Pilots. All three squadrons were equipped with Spitfires (though started with Hurricanes)!!!

These pilots just crossed the border to Canada where they were inducted into the RAF or RCAF. In spite of the law!

On 29th September 1942 the three squadrons were transferred to the 8th Air Force, USAAF, as the 4th Fighter Group, 334, 335 & 336 Squadrons. They moved onto the P-47 (must have been 'interesting' after the Spitfire!) then onto the P-51. Later they fought in Vietnam.

So - it would have been a major issue for Mr Affleck's character to have been in Hawaii in 1941!
 
Last edited:
Historically, though, exactly none of the pilots which served in the three RAF "Eagle Squadrons" had served in any capacity in the USAAF. They were civilians who went and joined a foreign military, and really there wasn't a whole lot you could do to prevent that kind of thing from happening. If you want to emigrate and then join that country's army, well, that's that. Active members of the US military, though, are a whole other issue.

They also transferred back to the USA, surprisingly enough, from being fighter pilots to being... fighter pilots. It makes very little sense to take a veteran fighter pilot, which were a very limited commodity, especially for the USA at the time, and put them in strategic bombers. And doubly so when some of them basically stop being pilots in the process.
 
Last edited:
Trebuchet said:
Same with the "Flying Tigers", who fought for China.
Click to expand...

The AVG was a quite different situation. All the pilots, and almost all of the ground echelon, were recruited from the US Military, and left with permission from the government. They did not become part of a foreign military, but were contract employees of a civilian company (CamCo, a daughter corporation of Curtiss-Wright) financed and controlled by the US State Department. Almost all of them returned to US Military Service after the AVG was wound up. Although it took some time, the Tigers were all eventually given credit for Active Duty time while with the AVG, with no break in service. This resulted in retroactive, and in some cases posthumous, promotions and retirement eligibility.
 
SpitfireIX said:
See here:

No one goes to watch a Michael Bay movie expecting historical accuracy. But the chasm between Pearl Harbor the movie and real Pearl Harbor facts, as shown in photos from December 7, 1941, is clear. The film contains an armada-sized number of errors about the military, including the wrong planes, nuclear-powered subs before the advent of nuclear power, and magical 21st-century radio technology.

And then there are all the plot holes, like how Ben Affleck broke US law by joining the Royal Air Force (RAF), and how the movie claims the climactic scene was the turning point in a months-old war that continued for several more years. Plus, the movie ignores 1940s racism while treating Cuba Gooding Jr.'s character as a token, and neglects many WWII contributions from women. In contrast, consider films like Saving Private Ryan, which was so realistic, it reportedly triggered veterans' PTSD.

While historians have found numerous historical inaccuracies in Pearl Harbor, at least one thinks some good may come from the movie. Professor Bruce Reynolds said, "The best thing that could happen is that people will see it, be entertained, and come away interested in why this stuff happened."

Another history professor, Nicholas Evan Sarantakes, had a slightly less optimistic take: "Another Pearl Harbor movie will come along sooner or later, and it will most likely be better." Fans of Michael Bay movies might still appreciate the film for its drama or special effects, but it's time to admit Pearl Harbor barely gets any history correct.​
Click to expand...

Ouch. Thanks for link. I guess it's good thing I never saw it...
 
Two of my flying jackets are painted up for the AVG and Eagle Squadrons.
Both Aero jackets. AVG one is an 'early' pattern with the more complicated collar and the Eagle is painted for Dom Gentile's P-51 'Shangri-La' that he flew after he was transferred to the 8th Air Force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominic_Salvatore_Gentile.
He flew in Korea too, he was one of the top US aces.

picture.php


picture.php


picture.php


The Tigers jacket is the first one I got, It's over thirty years old, it's been back to Aero for new lining and cuffs.
Both were painted by a friend.
 
Last edited:
One way to make a ship less flammable is to fill it up with water.

Now, this might seem like it would make the ship sink. Russian engineers, however, have come up with a workaround to the basic physics of that: fill it up with water while in drydock!

Well, anyway. The Admiral Kuznetsov may not be able to leave drydock due to corroded metal below the waterline. Because it's lower decks seems to be flooded.

Russian military and shipbuilding trading blame for naval failures, reports military intelligence
...an attempt was made to move the vessel with the help of several tugs, but this proved impossible due to the critical condition of its hull – reportedly, the ship is likely to capsize and drown if it’s put out to sea.

....inspections of the Admiral Kuznetsov’s hull revealed that the metal superstructure below the third deck had suffered significant corrosion, and the holds were completely filled with water.
Click to expand...

I do, however, have a legitimate question: Engines. The Kuznetsov's engines crank out a ton of smoke. But the Liaoning (ex-Varyag, ex-Riga) is of the same class, mostly built at the same time. But Liaoning's engines don't seem to smoke all that much and there is no mention of China re-engine-ing the thing. I have read suggestions that it isn't practical to replace the engines without destroying the hull in the process.

So what's different about the engines? Why does Kuznetsov smoke while Liaoning doesn't?
 
Maintenance? Tuneup? Better fuel? Competent crew? Hard to say.

ETA: The key may lie in this statement from the Wikipedia article:
Contrary to initial reports that the ship had no engines, Xu reported that all four original engines remained intact at the time of purchase, but had been shut down and preserved in grease seals.[26] A refit restored them to working order in 2011.
Click to expand...
That "refit" would have taken place 20 years after construction was stopped and would have to have been extremely extensive.
 
Last edited:
crescent said:
I do, however, have a legitimate question: Engines. The Kuznetsov's engines crank out a ton of smoke. But the Liaoning (ex-Varyag, ex-Riga) is of the same class, mostly built at the same time. But Liaoning's engines don't seem to smoke all that much and there is no mention of China re-engine-ing the thing. I have read suggestions that it isn't practical to replace the engines without destroying the hull in the process.

So what's different about the engines? Why does Kuznetsov smoke while Liaoning doesn't?
Click to expand...

The quality of the fuel might cause the smoke (just speculating)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom