Karl Heidenreich wrote:Lee,
Your capability for evasion is outstanding!
...Leyte Gulf is the name for the whole action and both ships were engaged in it AND YOU KNOW IT VERY WELL.
Actually I've seen some variation on just what that term refers to but it's hardly worth argueing about.
You shift your definitions and contexts to fit your purposes:
... It was damaged, at least more than an Iowa ever got in combat (???)
was it? Do near misses and 12.7mm bullets do more damage than 4.7" shells? And certainly Missouri took more being hit by a couple of kamikazes. And Wisconson was hit by a 152mm shell. And New Jersey also took a hit from a 4" gun and lost crew to an airburst. But it's not at all clear how this is relevant to anything.
.... Everybody else agrees that there were misterious reasons that made Kurita disengage when having a good breakfast in front of him,
So you need to read some serious books on that particular battle, because besides your own admision of ignoring that Sibuyan Sea was part of it, then you are playing dumb, very dumb, with Kurita's decision and the potential outcome of him taking another course of action. Instead of wasting your time reading the comics of navweaps maybe you can read some serious book:
My reading is hardly going to correct inaccuracies of your statements. The problems with the statment above are your use of the terms "everyone" and "mysterious".
And this is different from the Iowa's how?
Yamato was there for surface action. The Iowas were never risked for one.
Niether correct or relevant as far as I can see. And of course there's Vangard which saw even less action than the Iowas so by your standard must be inferior to even SoDak.
Of course I asked from you the evidence of the Iowas battleship vs battleship actions, which you claimed there was in an earlier post, and you have avoided it with this smokescreen so typical of yours.
You really didn't think she'd engaged in other surface actions? OK. I'll use wiki as a quick reference I'm sure your various books have more details and are probably more accurate but this will give you a start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_( ... dmiral_Lee
During this action, Iowa helped sink the Japanese light cruiser Katori
It's also worth noteing that Iowa in reference to your comments about the US risking the Iowa that it spent some time guarding against a sortie by Tirpitz. See:
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/battles ... i.htm#bb61
and of course the Iowa and company were pulled back at the last minute from enageing the Northern force at Leyte in case they were needed vs the center force. Clearly it wasn't a lack of confidence that prevented them from engaging in more surface action it was lack of opertunity combined with luck and tactical/strategic errors. Of course that's hardly any different from most capital ships.
And your point is?
Have you forgot how to read? Read again, maybe is puzzling for someone as deceiving as you, a direct argument.
I can read. You just keep bringing up irrelevancies as far as I can tell.
Iowa would probably been happy to engage a few swordfish all by themselves.
Non consequential. In 1941 the AA systems were of a kind totally obsolete for 1945. But you know, very well, what I am refering to and you are simply avoiding it, again you shift your definitions and contexts to fit your purposes.
Make a silly statement and you can expect a response pointing it out either directly or indirectly.
Indeed that's called combined arms and it wins wars.
Non consequential again. We are talking individual battleship capabilities AND combat records and you came with one of your smokescreens which, by the way, I have pointed out in several ocassions refering to doctrine tendencies.
You are the one who keeps bringing irrelevancies into things and confounding capabilities with combat records. The point of this discussion was the former and while the latter may give some clues your over dependence on it weakens your arguments to the point of making them irrelevant.
But it's you who keep making the comparisons.
The thread invites to comparisons. And when talking of the Iowas your friend Bgile came and made the comparison with Yamato. So, please, stop your decieving tactics.
Perhaps I should have said you keep making comparisons that are superficial or irrelevant. The fact that Iowa or for that matter Vangard or Yamato didn't see surface action vs other battleships implies exactly 0 as for their capability to do so. Indeed if it was action vs other battleships that is the indicator of the "best battleship" then we likely end up with WWI battleships at the top of the list.