Here we go again.First of all, standard displacement is not "normal - 50% fuel load". Standard is full load minus fuel and feed water. Normal is 2/3 full load supply of consumables including fuel, ammo, etc. Note that you are also now disputing your very own source, pop3, who I am actually just quoting:
Here he is very specific about these numbers and there is no chance he is beautifying the lowest displacement. I just happen to think that both you and lazy are significantly overplaying the ambiguity of 万 here as it relates to the 055. As used by pop3, could 万吨级 be an elegant rounding off of 10,500? Certainly. Could 万吨级 be an elegant rounding off of 13,500? Not IMO.
My, my, what a little hypocrite we have here. You love to highhandedly lambast me (or rather try to) about my exchanges with other posters that has stretched for pages in the past with you and Bltizo tagteaming me uselessly, but you are clearly a dirty little debater yourself. Nobody likes to be wrong (including you), but you don't seem to even remotely understand other peoples' perspectives and prefer to resort to more prosaic motivations for why they disagree with you.
055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread
- Thread starter FarkTypeSoldier
- Start date
- Status
Here we go again.
The Sampson which is the largest of the "thousand tonners" displaced 1,111t normal and 1,225t full, with all the earlier classes being smaller than that, so "significantly higher" is clearly a matter of interpretation. Nobody is saying there is no room for literary elegance, but at what point does literary elegance become an untenable proposition as the difference between elegance and actual becomes larger and larger? I don't agree that any of us here definitively knows the answer to this question, but at least I'm willing to say the case isn't clear-cut.
Oh please, as if you aren't clearly the instigator of renewed conflict here.
No, the PLAN doesn't use conventional "normal displacement." Their definition is on top of standard displacement.
He picked a number (1500t) and formed a range based around 12,000 tonnes using that number. See what I mean by 50% load?
0% = 12,000 - 1500; 50% = 12,000; 100% = 12,000 + 1500.
Does 1500t actually denote the 055's 50% fuel load? Or is pop3 just giving us an illustrative range to give us an idea of the 055's scale without compromising classified information?
Fine, fine. Sounds acceptable to me. ~10,500 standard (which the PLAN does not use), ~12,000 normal, ~13,500 full is within bounds of what insiders have indicated over the years.
You were in combat mode long before I pipped a squeak.
Or... maybe when pop3 uses "万吨级" he is not using it as a term of approximation for what 055's actual displacement is (whether it's full, standard or normal), but rather is using it in the same way as what state media have been -- a catchy and linguistically and symbolic phrase to refer to the ship as having crossed into the 10,000 ton mark.
Jura The idiot
General
I was thinking about it while in the bath tub, and I could imagine if they had made an announcement like
'People, we need bigger warships, we go for ten-thousand-tonners now!',
the ship in fact could've displaced 14,567 tons full, and once this figure (14,567 tons full) was later announced, the public would say
'Look at that ten-thousand-tonner, that's exactly what they need!"
LOL
I'm not sure whatever that source is, is any more authoritative than anybody else. "Standard", "normal", and "full" displacements have long established definitions that go back way in history. I also would not place too much emphasis on the fact that 12,000 is right between 10,500 and 13,500; for me it is coincidence until proven otherwise. And even if "standard" isn't what PLAN routinely uses, pop3 is using it.
Nah, everything was fine until you started with your crap again. You're like the rotten little boy who goes around needling people and then saying "What? What did I do?", which is as pathetic as justifying provocation by saying "you look 'combative' so here's some FU".
Or... maybe when he says 10,500, 12,000, and 13,500 he actually means what he says, and him using "万吨级" is in reference to the first number only.
"Ten-thousand-tonner" is more likely an after-the-fact description rather than some kind of prior naval requirement.
Last edited:
Jura The idiot
General
That's pop3's personal blog.
The PLAN has their own standards regardless of world history, some of which coincide with international standards, some of which don't. As an American still sticking with the Imperial system, you should know all about exclusivity of systems of measurement.
Pop3's of his article doesn't even mention 10,500t nor 13,500t, only the 12,000t normal displacement. He obviously places a higher emphasis on the 12,000t figure over the 10.5-13.5kt range. If you could brush aside any figures as a "coincidence", 10.5kt and 13.5kt should be at the top of the list, not the 12kt. 12,000t is your axiom.
It's strange that your definition of China's "normal" displacement (that is allegedly different from Western normal displacement) requires a standard displacement which you claim China also doesn't use, which I find hilarious. As a Chinese that likes to co-opt Western terms and add "Chinese characteristics" to them, you should know all about co-opting Western definitions.
- Status