Omg wrong in sooooo many ways. There was no aircraft that was built that could match a Japanese Zero in flight ability. Secondly, the tide turned after the Battle of Midway, in which the US managed (yes, MANAGED) to kill most of the Japanese veteran pilots/aces.
The F6F and F4U would like to have a word with you. The P51 is also trying to decide whether to chime in or not.
The F6F and F4U would like to have a word with you. The P51 is also trying to decide whether to chime in or not.
They can talk to me all they want. There was still never a prop driven aircraft that could match the Japanese Zero in maneuverability or flight capability. The only reason those planes were successful were because, yes, they were well designed, but they never went up against the Japanese elite airmen and ace pilots.
It is said the best weapon is one that is never fired. I disagree. The best weapon is one you only have to fire... once.
They can talk to me all they want. There was still never a prop driven aircraft that could match the Japanese Zero in maneuverability or flight capability. The only reason those planes were successful were because, yes, they were well designed, but they never went up against the Japanese elite airmen and ace pilots.
Bull****. All three aircraft I named were faster, could outclimb, outdive, outlast and outmuscle the Zero, and any other Japanese made craft. In the pre-jet era, and in atmospheric combat aviation in general, the ability to turn better doesn't remotely counter any of the above.
She may have been the top dog in the pacific at the start of the war, but the A6M couldn't by any stretch of the imagination match the capabilities of the craft it went up against in the latter two thirds of the war.
well romulans build them big becuase thier tech is inferior to other factions. so they emphesise fear factor (being big and intimidating), and also stealth (clock). also the DD doesnt have rapid fire torpedo tubes, so they mounted several of them all over its hull, and also nothing like phaser strips - hence build big to mount all these topedo tubes and distruptors. its deadly in front arc, but very weak if attacked from behind or from the sides (jemhader attack fighters and prometheus proved that). the mogai was an attempt by the star empire to correct the DD problam, by decreasing its size.
The problem is size (volume/mass/displacement) as it relates to handling (inertia/turn-rate) and the way that size relative to the other objects on the 2D screen tell your mind's eye where you are in 3D space. The game is built around size, and it has all been flushed by the Ha'apex and its two constiutent ships (the rest of the romulan ships seem to preserve the relationship and are fine).
They can talk to me all they want. There was still never a prop driven aircraft that could match the Japanese Zero in maneuverability or flight capability. The only reason those planes were successful were because, yes, they were well designed, but they never went up against the Japanese elite airmen and ace pilots.
The reason why the P-51 "never went up against the Japanese elite airmen and ace pilots" was that they were in the European Theatre fighting the greater threat of the Luftwaffe. Another reason why the planes didn't meet the "Japanese Elite" was that the Zero was made the plane had no armor and couldn't take a hit, guaranteeing pilot attrition. And both P-51's and F4Us showed their value by shooting down jet powered MiGs in Korea.
Bull****. All three aircraft I named were faster, could outclimb, outdive, outlast and outmuscle the Zero, and any other Japanese made craft. In the pre-jet era, and in atmospheric combat aviation in general, the ability to turn better doesn't remotely counter any of the above.
She may have been the top dog in the pacific at the start of the war, but the A6M couldn't by any stretch of the imagination match the capabilities of the craft it went up against in the latter two thirds of the war.
So... you still never answered my other comment about how they never went up against skilled pilots. Typical. Oh, and for the record, turning better means you can get your nose around and get an enemy off your tail faster. Or, even better, turn around and maybe... oh, I dunno, shoot at them?
But no, the Japanese were just helpless little girls waiting to die. My mistake. And the Japanese had no idea what they were doing when they built anything, which is why the Imperial Air Force and Imperial Navy just lay down and let the mighty America walk all over them. Right?
The reason why the P-51 "never went up against the Japanese elite airmen and ace pilots" was that they were in the European Theatre fighting the greater threat of the Luftwaffe. Another reason why the planes didn't meet the "Japanese Elite" was that the Zero was made the plane had no armor and couldn't take a hit, guaranteeing pilot attrition. And both P-51's and F4Us showed their value by shooting down jet powered MiGs in Korea.
I never said the Japanese were smart with how they used their pilots. And I know why the Mustang was never used against the Japanese elite aviators. I was simply pointing out that the Zero was much better for combat than most of what the Americans were able to deploy against it. And with the skilled pilots that Japan had in the first two years of the war, they dominated.
Now. Stirling. Read this carefully.
If Japan had not wasted her best pilots at the Battle of Midway, the war possibly could have gone on longer/differently, regardless of how good American tech was. HOWEVER, since they lost all their good pilots, and were forced to use newbies barely out of flight school, it didn't matter how good either side's aircraft were, since the Americans were more experienced, and as such, were better combat aviators.
Just as ANYONE. 90% of the time, experience beats out tech any day of the week.
It is said the best weapon is one that is never fired. I disagree. The best weapon is one you only have to fire... once.
I dunno why Im jumping into an STO thread about ww2 here but it drives me nuts. Seriously books on naval engagements (pivtol ones) run something like 200 pages, read one if you want to start making comparisons.
It wasn't technology in planes, the crippling blows of Midway where done with F4 Wildcats and Dauntless dive bombers, TBF Avenger torpedo planes and one very unfortunate flight of Devestators (who inadvertently made it so the dive bombers could get through since the Japanese cap dove to engage them and wasn't at alititude to catch the dive bombers)
It was over confidence on the part of the Japanese even with failed battle simulations, horrible planning and the belief that somehow the battleship was going to be the crux of battle (even though they had been winning the war through aircraft carriers, proving themselves that this was false) they proceeded with a spread out fleet certain they could counter us.
It was Radar they had none, we had a lot of it on our boats, we could direct planes while they couldn't.
It was Radio communication ours where superior there's where terrible.
Failure to engage the enemy when encountered
gaps in patrols
The japanese submarines forces delay to Hawaii to keep tabs on our naval forces
The failure of refueling subs to reach (forgot the name of the atoll) so seaplanes could recon around Hawaii.
poor handling of muntions on japanese carriers as they kept changing armament
finally just so really damn good luck on our part catching the Japanese carriers in the worst possible situation.
Seriously you could classify the battle of Midway as a worst case scenario. As the saying goes "We forget that victory in every war goes to the side that commits fewer mistakes and learns more from them in less time, not to the side that makes no mistakes" The Japanese made many mistakes and learned less than we did.
And yes as pointed out the war finally fell apart because the Japanese could not replace their planes at the rate they where losing them nor could they replace pilots fast enough. Most pilots towards the end of the war where only shown mock ups of US Ships in tubs or other pools of water, reports of hitting aircraft carriers and battleships by Japanese pilots shot through the roof when they where actually hitting destroyers. Also they where taught how to take off from a carrier, they never learned how to land because they weren't coming back (I'm not talking kamakazie here just the knowledge on the part of the Japanese trainers and commanders that they would all be shot down)
Planes like the F6F and F4U while having impressive combat records did not turn they war they sped up the inevitable wrought by F4Fs
And to try to get some on topic hell yeah Romulan ships are huge, I've always loved the D'deridex and I think the new designs fill the Romulans well, the homeworld may be gone but the Star Empire is still here
For the record, I have read books on the war in the Pacific. And I actually know what I am talking about. And these are books, not the internet. Therefore accuracy = HIGH. And it gets better, these books were written by NAVY ADMIRALS. Hm...
But yes, back on topic, Romulan Warbirds are quite large, but who cares, they're impressive to look at, see in combat, and just awesome period.
/thread
It is said the best weapon is one that is never fired. I disagree. The best weapon is one you only have to fire... once.
So... you still never answered my other comment about how they never went up against skilled pilots. Typical. Oh, and for the record, turning better means you can get your nose around and get an enemy off your tail faster. Or, even better, turn around and maybe... oh, I dunno, shoot at them?
If you somehow think that every single Japanese pilot with skill magically dropped dead by the second quarter of 1942...you're completely delusional.
Additionally, somebody clearly missed out on the fact the target still has to be there to shoot it. The velocity advantage American aircraft had over the Zero, either by raw power or the capacity to trade altitude for airspeed (that's where the outclimbing and outdiving comes in, or had you forgotten that air combat takes place in a fully three dimensional plane?), coupled with the absurd resilience more than outmatched Japanese aircraft.
If you so much as sneezed at a Zero, it went down in a ball of flames. By comparison the Corsair, Hellcat and Mustang were incredibly tough. The Hellcat especially was built like a tank (not quite so much as say the Thunderbolt, which was so tough you could literally crash it headfirst into a tank and walk away from the wreckage, but damn close. Especially for a carrier-launched plane where every pound counts).
But no, the Japanese were just helpless little girls waiting to die. My mistake. And the Japanese had no idea what they were doing when they built anything, which is why the Imperial Air Force and Imperial Navy just lay down and let the mighty America walk all over them. Right?
Absurd hyperbole doesn't get you anywhere, especially when it's contradicted by statements I've already made.
She may have been the top dog in the pacific at the start of the war, but the A6M couldn't by any stretch of the imagination match the capabilities of the craft it went up against in the latter two thirds of the war.
The Zero was an excellently built plane. The problem was, her design theory (being fast and light) was trumped by the combination of advancing technology (things like superchargers, self-sealing fuel-tanks, materials engineering advances allowing for planes to handle greater and greater stresses, propeller construction changes etc) and an American aviation design mindset (bigger, faster and more resilient) that countered all of the Zero's initial advantages over Allied aircraft.
Simply put, Japan didn't have the capacity, or the willingness to adapt to their enemy in time to field a craft that could counter the aircraft the US built explicitly to counter the Zero. Or did you forget about that crashed, but intact, Zero the US recovered before the war, and used to draw up plans for their next-gen carrier planes (yes, that includes the Hellcat and Corsair)?
If Japan had not wasted her best pilots at the Battle of Midway, the war possibly could have gone on longer/differently, regardless of how good American tech was. HOWEVER, since they lost all their good pilots, and were forced to use newbies barely out of flight school, it didn't matter how good either side's aircraft were, since the Americans were more experienced, and as such, were better combat aviators.
Just as ANYONE. 90% of the time, experience beats out tech any day of the week.
Kindly point out where I've ever argued that Midway wasn't the start of the turning of the tide in the Pacific. You can't, because I never have.
Losing four carriers was a major blow to the Imperial Navy, especially given the existential struggle within that Navy as to what the composition of the force should be (carrier vs. battleship). Of greater import though was that it allowed the US to stall the Japanese advance until it could field it's own fleet of super-carriers (Essex-class carriers didn't start floating out of drydock until the end of '42).
As for pilot losses being catastrophic...not really. At the start of the war Japan had something on the order of 2000+ carrier ready pilots. Very, very few of those were rookies (most had seen action against Russia and in Manchuria). They lost 110 at Midway. I'll let you do the math on how "crippling" losing 5% of your force is.
For the record, I have read books on the war in the Pacific. And I actually know what I am talking about. And these are books, not the internet. Therefore accuracy = HIGH. And it gets better, these books were written by NAVY ADMIRALS. Hm...
And yet, you still have no grasp on what WWII era aerial combat was at all like. Which is not really all that surprising if you kept your focus solely on Admirals instead of aviators.
If you somehow think that every single Japanese pilot with skill magically dropped dead by the second quarter of 1942...you're completely delusional.
Ok, where did I say that? I know that Japan lost it's more skilled pilots slowly over the first two years of fighting. Did you miss the part where I commented that Japan may have had excellent pilots but didn't use them intelligently? Probably.
Additionally, somebody clearly missed out on the fact the target still has to be there to shoot it. The velocity advantage American aircraft had over the Zero, either by raw power or the capacity to trade altitude for airspeed (that's where the outclimbing and outdiving comes in, or had you forgotten that air combat takes place in a fully three dimensional plane?), coupled with the absurd resilience more than outmatched Japanese aircraft.
Which doesn't change the fact that American aircraft may have been better designed, but they were hardly better flown UNTIL LATER IN THE WAR after the Americans had had time to actually learn to use their aircraft. Japanese pilots may have been flying inferior aircraft on paper, but they were far superior pilots.
At the start of the war, the Americans were still using the WW1 playbook, which involved large fleets of dreadnoughts and battleships, and their aircraft carriers were more of a show piece than anything. It was only AFTER Pearl that the Americans figured out that maybe carrier based aircraft might be something to look in to.
If you so much as sneezed at a Zero, it went down in a ball of flames. By comparison the Corsair, Hellcat and Mustang were incredibly tough. The Hellcat especially was built like a tank (not quite so much as say the Thunderbolt, which was so tough you could literally crash it headfirst into a tank and walk away from the wreckage, but damn close. Especially for a carrier-launched plane where every pound counts).
I have never at any point said that the American naval aircraft were badly designed. On the contrary, they were well designed, and well built. They just weren't well flown until much later.
The Zero was an excellently built plane. The problem was, her design theory (being fast and light) was trumped by the combination of advancing technology (things like superchargers, self-sealing fuel-tanks, materials engineering advances allowing for planes to handle greater and greater stresses, propeller construction changes etc) and an American aviation design mindset (bigger, faster and more resilient) that countered all of the Zero's initial advantages over Allied aircraft.
I highlighted the point I have been trying to make the whole time here. I have always said they were better EARLY ON. I know that later the American superior designs and better pilots were the reason that they won the Pacific. Of course like I also stated, the Japanese ran out of actually competent pilots and as such fielded green fliers, and as such got their clocks thoroughly cleaned.
Simply put, Japan didn't have the capacity, or the willingness to adapt to their enemy in time to field a craft that could counter the aircraft the US built explicitly to counter the Zero. Or did you forget about that crashed, but intact, Zero the US recovered before the war, and used to draw up plans for their next-gen carrier planes (yes, that includes the Hellcat and Corsair)?
I won't argue this. Asians are stubborn. Especially the Japanese culture. But they are quite adept at taking things and making them better. Which does make you wonder why they didn't do the same here.
Kindly point out where I've ever argued that Midway wasn't the start of the turning of the tide in the Pacific. You can't, because I never have.
Just like I have never said that the Japanese had any chance of winning the war to begin with. I said they might have stood a chance EXCEPT that x, y, and z happened.
Admiral Yamamoto was even quoted as having told Tojo that he could hold the Americans for maybe a year, two tops, but they stood no chance of winning in the long run. He was also quoted as saying "We have awakened a sleeping giant." shortly after the attack on Pearl. He knew they had just lost the war. He was the experienced military commander, and Tojo, the beaurocrat, screwed the pooch.
Losing four carriers was a major blow to the Imperial Navy, especially given the existential struggle within that Navy as to what the composition of the force should be (carrier vs. battleship). Of greater import though was that it allowed the US to stall the Japanese advance until it could field it's own fleet of super-carriers (Essex-class carriers didn't start floating out of drydock until the end of '42).
I have also never argued this point. I never even brought up the conflict within the Navy about Battleship vs Carrier. And considering the economic might of the US, ESPECIALLY since the Japanese had had embargoes on them for years (arguably the reason Japan attacked the US in the first place), the fact that the US couldn't actively start winning the war until 1942-43 is saying something. And that was due to the Imperial Navy AND Air Force.
As for pilot losses being catastrophic...not really. At the start of the war Japan had something on the order of 2000+ carrier ready pilots. Very, very few of those were rookies (most had seen action against Russia and in Manchuria). They lost 110 at Midway. I'll let you do the math on how "crippling" losing 5% of your force is.
They had been taking losses the entire time. Their problem wasn't the loss of pilots, but the lack of training they then gave to newbies. For some reason the Japanese were under the "trial by fire" mindset with their pilots, when they knew they were outnumbered and out-gunned, quite badly. Training was lackluster and usually inconsistent, and more often than not, they just threw them straight into the fray.
So a 5% loss can be quite crippling when your elites/peeps that actually know what they are doing, are at a premium.
And yet, you still have no grasp on what WWII era aerial combat was at all like. Which is not really all that surprising if you kept your focus solely on Admirals instead of aviators.
And the assumptions just keep on coming. I know that ariel combat is three-dimensional. And the Admirals had to know EVERYTHING that was going on in their fleets, from their purty little boats to their little paper planes. All I have to say, is if you want to know how informed a lot of those Admirals writing those books were, I would recommend you read "The Two Ocean War" by Rear Admiral Samuel Eliot Morison.
That will show you exactly how informed they were of what was going on in the war.
Just going to say this, but this is really off topic XD.
It is said the best weapon is one that is never fired. I disagree. The best weapon is one you only have to fire... once.
The D'Deridex is supposed to be big, I get that, but it's also designed in such a way to show that, while it may have a great deal of volume, mass-wise, it's not much bigger than a Galaxy. The model scaling for this one's probably fine.
IIRC (and I may be wrong) the D'Deridex is supposed to be about twice the size of a galaxy. By mass, not volume. By volume, it's just massive.
As to WHY they were made so large there are no gameplay or even lore reasons I can think of. Yes, the D'D was just bigger than a Galaxy, but the Mogai didn't look that big (admittedly it was Insurrection so I will my mind to not recall much of it).
And even if those two ships were rather large, why do ALL Romulan ships have to follow that trend?
Of course, people can ask "why NOT make them big for some variety?". Which is a valid question but there are very big gameplay and immersion reasons why ships should not be that huge. I have friends playing Romulans that do not stop complaining about how oversize their ships look, they compare them to mobile space stations and how they're almost as big as DS9! This creates a odd out of place look for them that is very jarring. The idea for player models (and this includes ship models) is for them to both look good and cool while seamlessly fitting into the world. The Romulan ships fail at this and feel like frail giants when their huge in world size does not match their stats or gameplay feel.
All I can imagine is that its somehow a mandate or "suggestion" from marketing? Maybe something about bigger ships looking more impressive so more people will buy them? It sounds farfetched, even for Cryptic but its all I can come up with. I say this because making the ships so large has actively negative effects in gameplay and immersion.
My only hope is that this bigger just for lolz thing does not spread to fed an kdf ships released in the future.
And while they seem huge in game, the in game D'D is much smaller then it should be... Do you remember the episode where it decloaked directly in front of the Enterprise? The D'D is supposed to dwarf a Galaxy class. It might be unwieldy to make them actual size, but they certainly shouldn't make them any smaller.
Edit: I'm no Romulan expert, but some of their other ships seem a little big ingame... the one with the straight wings, Mogai I think? It seems way out of whack but I really have no idea how big it is supposed to be. That one that splits is kinda crazy big, but I don't think it would work any smaller, not if it is supposed to be sitting next to D'Ds.
I once again match my character. Behold the power of PINK!
Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
As to WHY they were made so large there are no gameplay or even lore reasons I can think of. Yes, the D'D was just bigger than a Galaxy, but the Mogai didn't look that big (admittedly it was Insurrection so I will my mind to not recall much of it).
It's no wonder you don't remember much of the Mogai in "Insurrection" because it was in "Nemesis" ...and yeah from its look in the movie it appeared like a Romulan Vor'cha...but
I'm ok with the Size of the D'Deridex and the Mogai.
But, seriously the Ha'feh Assault Warbird is really too big, especially for a ship with a turnrate of 16(!). I mean that thing has a bigger volume than a Galaxy Class.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
I'm ok with the Size of the D'Deridex and the Mogai.
But, seriously the Ha'feh Assault Warbird is really too big, especially for a ship with a turnrate of 16(!). I mean that thing has a bigger volume than a Galaxy Class.
Yes, I agree.
It should have the Patrol Escort size.
Photon Torpedoes and Disruptor DHC's bolts are almost invisible.
It's no wonder you don't remember much of the Mogai in "Insurrection" because it was in "Nemesis" ...and yeah from its look in the movie it appeared like a Romulan Vor'cha...but
Ack! You're right! Insurrection, Nemesis...just a pile of garbage I try to put behind me. Not sure how I got the names mixed up, maybe its because those stupid back to basics space elves got replaced by elves of the emo variety in LoR? lol
Ack! You're right! Insurrection, Nemesis...just a pile of garbage I try to put behind me. Not sure how I got the names mixed up, maybe its because those stupid back to basics space elves got replaced by elves of the emo variety in LoR? lol
Maybe it's because of the Reman insurrection...thingy.
Or because Picard has to slap his rebellious younger...brother...thingy in the neck...really hard.
Meh, the movie just defies any reasonable description.
Oh, I forgot to point out in the previous post why it seems Romulan ships need to be so big:
there's a line in DS9's "The Search" that the Defiant has a high energy output for her size, which makes hiding it energy signature even behind the cloak difficult.
So it seems that the power-to-size-ratio is important for optimum stealth.
And my guess is the Klingons don't give a rat's behind and just build warships and slap a cloak on them while the Romulans build their ship around the cloak...and to get the most out of them the ships need to be larger than their counterparts.
I'll take your Haakona and raise you my Khnial class. Seriously, that thing is SO big, me and a fleet mate had to come up with a new name for her size. She's bigger than any dreadnought, any warbird, even bigger than any carrier, and I haven't added the borg set upgrades yet, which should make her much longer. And deadlier. We decided to call her a Trebuchet class after the giant Seige engines of mideval times.
I AM THE HARBINGER OF HOPE!
I AM THE SWORD OF THE RIGHTOUS!
Some of the maps are too small for these giant ships. CSE gets very crowded with three of the big warturds, crowding the lane, bumping into each other, blocking peoples camera, etc.
The maps need to be made bigger to keep from being broken by the ships
Comments
The F6F and F4U would like to have a word with you. The P51 is also trying to decide whether to chime in or not.
They can talk to me all they want. There was still never a prop driven aircraft that could match the Japanese Zero in maneuverability or flight capability. The only reason those planes were successful were because, yes, they were well designed, but they never went up against the Japanese elite airmen and ace pilots.
Bull****. All three aircraft I named were faster, could outclimb, outdive, outlast and outmuscle the Zero, and any other Japanese made craft. In the pre-jet era, and in atmospheric combat aviation in general, the ability to turn better doesn't remotely counter any of the above.
She may have been the top dog in the pacific at the start of the war, but the A6M couldn't by any stretch of the imagination match the capabilities of the craft it went up against in the latter two thirds of the war.
The reason why the P-51 "never went up against the Japanese elite airmen and ace pilots" was that they were in the European Theatre fighting the greater threat of the Luftwaffe. Another reason why the planes didn't meet the "Japanese Elite" was that the Zero was made the plane had no armor and couldn't take a hit, guaranteeing pilot attrition. And both P-51's and F4Us showed their value by shooting down jet powered MiGs in Korea.
So... you still never answered my other comment about how they never went up against skilled pilots. Typical. Oh, and for the record, turning better means you can get your nose around and get an enemy off your tail faster. Or, even better, turn around and maybe... oh, I dunno, shoot at them?
But no, the Japanese were just helpless little girls waiting to die. My mistake. And the Japanese had no idea what they were doing when they built anything, which is why the Imperial Air Force and Imperial Navy just lay down and let the mighty America walk all over them. Right?
-.-
I never said the Japanese were smart with how they used their pilots. And I know why the Mustang was never used against the Japanese elite aviators. I was simply pointing out that the Zero was much better for combat than most of what the Americans were able to deploy against it. And with the skilled pilots that Japan had in the first two years of the war, they dominated.
Now. Stirling. Read this carefully.
If Japan had not wasted her best pilots at the Battle of Midway, the war possibly could have gone on longer/differently, regardless of how good American tech was. HOWEVER, since they lost all their good pilots, and were forced to use newbies barely out of flight school, it didn't matter how good either side's aircraft were, since the Americans were more experienced, and as such, were better combat aviators.
Just as ANYONE. 90% of the time, experience beats out tech any day of the week.
It wasn't technology in planes, the crippling blows of Midway where done with F4 Wildcats and Dauntless dive bombers, TBF Avenger torpedo planes and one very unfortunate flight of Devestators (who inadvertently made it so the dive bombers could get through since the Japanese cap dove to engage them and wasn't at alititude to catch the dive bombers)
It was over confidence on the part of the Japanese even with failed battle simulations, horrible planning and the belief that somehow the battleship was going to be the crux of battle (even though they had been winning the war through aircraft carriers, proving themselves that this was false) they proceeded with a spread out fleet certain they could counter us.
It was Radar they had none, we had a lot of it on our boats, we could direct planes while they couldn't.
It was Radio communication ours where superior there's where terrible.
Failure to engage the enemy when encountered
gaps in patrols
The japanese submarines forces delay to Hawaii to keep tabs on our naval forces
The failure of refueling subs to reach (forgot the name of the atoll) so seaplanes could recon around Hawaii.
poor handling of muntions on japanese carriers as they kept changing armament
finally just so really damn good luck on our part catching the Japanese carriers in the worst possible situation.
Seriously you could classify the battle of Midway as a worst case scenario. As the saying goes "We forget that victory in every war goes to the side that commits fewer mistakes and learns more from them in less time, not to the side that makes no mistakes" The Japanese made many mistakes and learned less than we did.
And yes as pointed out the war finally fell apart because the Japanese could not replace their planes at the rate they where losing them nor could they replace pilots fast enough. Most pilots towards the end of the war where only shown mock ups of US Ships in tubs or other pools of water, reports of hitting aircraft carriers and battleships by Japanese pilots shot through the roof when they where actually hitting destroyers. Also they where taught how to take off from a carrier, they never learned how to land because they weren't coming back (I'm not talking kamakazie here just the knowledge on the part of the Japanese trainers and commanders that they would all be shot down)
Planes like the F6F and F4U while having impressive combat records did not turn they war they sped up the inevitable wrought by F4Fs
And to try to get some on topic hell yeah Romulan ships are huge, I've always loved the D'deridex and I think the new designs fill the Romulans well, the homeworld may be gone but the Star Empire is still here
For the record, I have read books on the war in the Pacific. And I actually know what I am talking about. And these are books, not the internet. Therefore accuracy = HIGH. And it gets better, these books were written by NAVY ADMIRALS. Hm...
But yes, back on topic, Romulan Warbirds are quite large, but who cares, they're impressive to look at, see in combat, and just awesome period.
/thread
If you somehow think that every single Japanese pilot with skill magically dropped dead by the second quarter of 1942...you're completely delusional.
Additionally, somebody clearly missed out on the fact the target still has to be there to shoot it. The velocity advantage American aircraft had over the Zero, either by raw power or the capacity to trade altitude for airspeed (that's where the outclimbing and outdiving comes in, or had you forgotten that air combat takes place in a fully three dimensional plane?), coupled with the absurd resilience more than outmatched Japanese aircraft.
If you so much as sneezed at a Zero, it went down in a ball of flames. By comparison the Corsair, Hellcat and Mustang were incredibly tough. The Hellcat especially was built like a tank (not quite so much as say the Thunderbolt, which was so tough you could literally crash it headfirst into a tank and walk away from the wreckage, but damn close. Especially for a carrier-launched plane where every pound counts).
Absurd hyperbole doesn't get you anywhere, especially when it's contradicted by statements I've already made.
The Zero was an excellently built plane. The problem was, her design theory (being fast and light) was trumped by the combination of advancing technology (things like superchargers, self-sealing fuel-tanks, materials engineering advances allowing for planes to handle greater and greater stresses, propeller construction changes etc) and an American aviation design mindset (bigger, faster and more resilient) that countered all of the Zero's initial advantages over Allied aircraft.
Simply put, Japan didn't have the capacity, or the willingness to adapt to their enemy in time to field a craft that could counter the aircraft the US built explicitly to counter the Zero. Or did you forget about that crashed, but intact, Zero the US recovered before the war, and used to draw up plans for their next-gen carrier planes (yes, that includes the Hellcat and Corsair)?
Kindly point out where I've ever argued that Midway wasn't the start of the turning of the tide in the Pacific. You can't, because I never have.
Losing four carriers was a major blow to the Imperial Navy, especially given the existential struggle within that Navy as to what the composition of the force should be (carrier vs. battleship). Of greater import though was that it allowed the US to stall the Japanese advance until it could field it's own fleet of super-carriers (Essex-class carriers didn't start floating out of drydock until the end of '42).
As for pilot losses being catastrophic...not really. At the start of the war Japan had something on the order of 2000+ carrier ready pilots. Very, very few of those were rookies (most had seen action against Russia and in Manchuria). They lost 110 at Midway. I'll let you do the math on how "crippling" losing 5% of your force is.
And yet, you still have no grasp on what WWII era aerial combat was at all like. Which is not really all that surprising if you kept your focus solely on Admirals instead of aviators.
Peacekeeper High Command
Scorpius - Zelbinion Mk II
Ok, where did I say that? I know that Japan lost it's more skilled pilots slowly over the first two years of fighting. Did you miss the part where I commented that Japan may have had excellent pilots but didn't use them intelligently? Probably.
Which doesn't change the fact that American aircraft may have been better designed, but they were hardly better flown UNTIL LATER IN THE WAR after the Americans had had time to actually learn to use their aircraft. Japanese pilots may have been flying inferior aircraft on paper, but they were far superior pilots.
At the start of the war, the Americans were still using the WW1 playbook, which involved large fleets of dreadnoughts and battleships, and their aircraft carriers were more of a show piece than anything. It was only AFTER Pearl that the Americans figured out that maybe carrier based aircraft might be something to look in to.
I have never at any point said that the American naval aircraft were badly designed. On the contrary, they were well designed, and well built. They just weren't well flown until much later.
You just seem intent on not giving any credit at all to the Japanese, so I decided to just let you have that.
I highlighted the point I have been trying to make the whole time here. I have always said they were better EARLY ON. I know that later the American superior designs and better pilots were the reason that they won the Pacific. Of course like I also stated, the Japanese ran out of actually competent pilots and as such fielded green fliers, and as such got their clocks thoroughly cleaned.
I won't argue this. Asians are stubborn. Especially the Japanese culture. But they are quite adept at taking things and making them better. Which does make you wonder why they didn't do the same here.
Just like I have never said that the Japanese had any chance of winning the war to begin with. I said they might have stood a chance EXCEPT that x, y, and z happened.
Admiral Yamamoto was even quoted as having told Tojo that he could hold the Americans for maybe a year, two tops, but they stood no chance of winning in the long run. He was also quoted as saying "We have awakened a sleeping giant." shortly after the attack on Pearl. He knew they had just lost the war. He was the experienced military commander, and Tojo, the beaurocrat, screwed the pooch.
I have also never argued this point. I never even brought up the conflict within the Navy about Battleship vs Carrier. And considering the economic might of the US, ESPECIALLY since the Japanese had had embargoes on them for years (arguably the reason Japan attacked the US in the first place), the fact that the US couldn't actively start winning the war until 1942-43 is saying something. And that was due to the Imperial Navy AND Air Force.
They had been taking losses the entire time. Their problem wasn't the loss of pilots, but the lack of training they then gave to newbies. For some reason the Japanese were under the "trial by fire" mindset with their pilots, when they knew they were outnumbered and out-gunned, quite badly. Training was lackluster and usually inconsistent, and more often than not, they just threw them straight into the fray.
So a 5% loss can be quite crippling when your elites/peeps that actually know what they are doing, are at a premium.
And the assumptions just keep on coming. I know that ariel combat is three-dimensional. And the Admirals had to know EVERYTHING that was going on in their fleets, from their purty little boats to their little paper planes. All I have to say, is if you want to know how informed a lot of those Admirals writing those books were, I would recommend you read "The Two Ocean War" by Rear Admiral Samuel Eliot Morison.
That will show you exactly how informed they were of what was going on in the war.
Just going to say this, but this is really off topic XD.
IIRC (and I may be wrong) the D'Deridex is supposed to be about twice the size of a galaxy. By mass, not volume. By volume, it's just massive.
Edit: I am wrong. Should be about the same mass.
We're hoping for a Space Battleship Yamato lockbox is my best guess.
[ edit / add ]
Yes, the ships are massively huge. I get the D'deridex being the size it is, but did the ha'apax really need to be that big?
As to WHY they were made so large there are no gameplay or even lore reasons I can think of. Yes, the D'D was just bigger than a Galaxy, but the Mogai didn't look that big (admittedly it was Insurrection so I will my mind to not recall much of it).
And even if those two ships were rather large, why do ALL Romulan ships have to follow that trend?
Of course, people can ask "why NOT make them big for some variety?". Which is a valid question but there are very big gameplay and immersion reasons why ships should not be that huge. I have friends playing Romulans that do not stop complaining about how oversize their ships look, they compare them to mobile space stations and how they're almost as big as DS9! This creates a odd out of place look for them that is very jarring. The idea for player models (and this includes ship models) is for them to both look good and cool while seamlessly fitting into the world. The Romulan ships fail at this and feel like frail giants when their huge in world size does not match their stats or gameplay feel.
All I can imagine is that its somehow a mandate or "suggestion" from marketing? Maybe something about bigger ships looking more impressive so more people will buy them? It sounds farfetched, even for Cryptic but its all I can come up with. I say this because making the ships so large has actively negative effects in gameplay and immersion.
My only hope is that this bigger just for lolz thing does not spread to fed an kdf ships released in the future.
I was under the impression that the Scimitar was smaller then the D'D.
http://visual.ly/sci-fi-starship-size-comparison-chart
And while they seem huge in game, the in game D'D is much smaller then it should be... Do you remember the episode where it decloaked directly in front of the Enterprise? The D'D is supposed to dwarf a Galaxy class. It might be unwieldy to make them actual size, but they certainly shouldn't make them any smaller.
Edit: I'm no Romulan expert, but some of their other ships seem a little big ingame... the one with the straight wings, Mogai I think? It seems way out of whack but I really have no idea how big it is supposed to be. That one that splits is kinda crazy big, but I don't think it would work any smaller, not if it is supposed to be sitting next to D'Ds.
Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
It's no wonder you don't remember much of the Mogai in "Insurrection" because it was in "Nemesis"
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20071010234610/memoryalpha/en/images/8/8f/Nemesis_comparison.jpg
it is this friggin big.
But, seriously the Ha'feh Assault Warbird is really too big, especially for a ship with a turnrate of 16(!). I mean that thing has a bigger volume than a Galaxy Class.
Yes, I agree.
It should have the Patrol Escort size.
Photon Torpedoes and Disruptor DHC's bolts are almost invisible.
please, fix it.
Ack! You're right! Insurrection, Nemesis...just a pile of garbage I try to put behind me. Not sure how I got the names mixed up, maybe its because those stupid back to basics space elves got replaced by elves of the emo variety in LoR? lol
Maybe it's because of the Reman insurrection...thingy.
Or because Picard has to slap his rebellious younger...brother...thingy in the neck...really hard.
Meh, the movie just defies any reasonable description.
Oh, I forgot to point out in the previous post why it seems Romulan ships need to be so big:
there's a line in DS9's "The Search" that the Defiant has a high energy output for her size, which makes hiding it energy signature even behind the cloak difficult.
So it seems that the power-to-size-ratio is important for optimum stealth.
And my guess is the Klingons don't give a rat's behind and just build warships and slap a cloak on them while the Romulans build their ship around the cloak...and to get the most out of them the ships need to be larger than their counterparts.
I'll take your Haakona and raise you my Khnial class. Seriously, that thing is SO big, me and a fleet mate had to come up with a new name for her size. She's bigger than any dreadnought, any warbird, even bigger than any carrier, and I haven't added the borg set upgrades yet, which should make her much longer. And deadlier. We decided to call her a Trebuchet class after the giant Seige engines of mideval times.
I AM THE SWORD OF THE RIGHTOUS!
The maps need to be made bigger to keep from being broken by the ships
Which is this? A variation on one of the Tier V warbirds?