Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/28/2008 6:54:39 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		Nik....the vicodin fanboy.

_____________________________


(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 61
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/28/2008 7:06:10 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		" There was an old thread around here, many moons ago (by Feinder?) that attempted to ask whether there any ships (other than Yamato and Musashi) that required three or more torps to sink. "

Weren't we just discussing the Hornet in another thread? How many torpedoes did it take to put her under? The original attack put two into her and a follow up attack put one more into her. Upon abandoning salvage efforts the US destroyers fired several more into the Hornet, but she continued to float until the Japanese navy fired a couple of more torpedoes into her. I forget how many she took, but think that it was about eight torpedoes before finally sinking.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 62
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/28/2008 7:12:30 PM   
mlees


Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Weren't we just discussing the Hornet in another thread?


"What do you mean "we", pale face?" Heh.

quote:

How many torpedoes did it take to put her under? The original attack put two into her and a follow up attack put one more into her. Upon abandoning salvage efforts the US destroyers fired several more into the Hornet, but she continued to float until the Japanese navy fired a couple of more torpedoes into her. I forget how many she took, but think that it was about eight torpedoes before finally sinking.


Ok. Hornet took 8. Any others? (I am really interested, I am not trying to be snarky. )

< Message edited by mlees -- 2/28/2008 7:15:42 PM >

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 63
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/28/2008 7:46:36 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline 		Didn't Yorktown take three torpedoes before sinking?  Two by aerial attack and then at least one from the submarine.

USS Helena was hit by I believe three torpedoes (Long Lances even!), and Houston survivors remember several torpedo hits in her last melee.  Of course, Oklahoma and West Virginia both were hit by more than three torpedoes...

IIRC no warship 10,000 tons or larger sank from being hit by just one Long Lance torpedo, although many were badly damaged.  Not many survived two though.  Allied torpedoes were smaller so it would make sense that more hits would be needed (but then you've got Kongo...), but AFAIK only Shinano was hit by 3-4 torpedoes before sinking.

(in reply to mlees)
Post #: 64
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/28/2008 7:53:15 PM   
Cavalry Corp

 

Posts: 3107
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline 		quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

quote:

The exception that proves the rule is Marat. A Stuka hit her with a 500kg bomb and detonated her forward magazine. (The other three turrets were all back in action within a month.) Deck protection on the Sevastopols was poor by pre-WWI standards; a typical WWII light cruiser might be better off.
The Marat was hit by a 1000kg AP bomb, not a 500kg. Moreover, some sources quote that it was a 1800kg AP bomb...


Not any Stuka!!!!!!!! but one flown by ... a man they could make films about that no one would believe
Hans-Ulrich Rudel The most highly decorated German serviceman of the war.

Michael

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 65
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/28/2008 8:04:55 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

" There was an old thread around here, many moons ago (by Feinder?) that attempted to ask whether there any ships (other than Yamato and Musashi) that required three or more torps to sink. "

Weren't we just discussing the Hornet in another thread? How many torpedoes did it take to put her under? The original attack put two into her and a follow up attack put one more into her. Upon abandoning salvage efforts the US destroyers fired several more into the Hornet, but she continued to float until the Japanese navy fired a couple of more torpedoes into her. I forget how many she took, but think that it was about eight torpedoes before finally sinking.


There have been other ship classes that have taken 3 to 3+ and not immediately sink. Hornet was crippled after one or two (away from source) A weakness of the Yorktown class was the vulnerability of it's motive power plants to a single disabling hit by a torp if in the right spot. A number of torps were fired at her afterwards though how many actually detonated or detonated properly is in question given they were the infamous Mk-15's. Its funny sometimes how derilicts can sometimes prove the most stubborn to surcomb. Ultimately though she was done in by the 1 or 2 hits.


_____________________________


(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 66
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/28/2008 8:30:19 PM   
panda124c

 

Posts: 1692
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Houston, TX, USA
Status: offline 		So the procedure would be to flatten a BB to deck level with GP's then send in the Torpedo's.

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 67
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/28/2008 9:36:50 PM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline 		How many torps did it take to sink all of force Z?

Seems to me it is impossible to say how many hits a ship requires to be effectively sunk.  Wasn't Hornet essentially done for by the time the last torpedos hit?

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to panda124c)
Post #: 68
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/28/2008 9:40:56 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

How many torps did it take to sink all of force Z?

Seems to me it is impossible to say how many hits a ship requires to be effectively sunk.  Wasn't Hornet essentially done for by the time the last torpedos hit?


Took 86 torps to sink all of Force Z, that's the number of G4Ms that attacked it. Of course, only a handfull of those 86 torps actually hit.

And actually all of Force Z didn't sink, the DDs escaped.

Here's a good site for Force Z info: http://www.forcez-survivors.org.uk/


< Message edited by Shark7 -- 2/28/2008 9:43:11 PM >

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 69
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/28/2008 9:49:24 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

How many torps did it take to sink all of force Z?

Seems to me it is impossible to say how many hits a ship requires to be effectively sunk.  Wasn't Hornet essentially done for by the time the last torpedos hit?


Took 86 torps to sink all of Force Z, that's the number of G4Ms that attacked it. Of course, only a handfull of those 86 torps actually hit.

And actually all of Force Z didn't sink, the DDs escaped.

Here's a good site for Force Z info: http://www.forcez-survivors.org.uk/




did all Nells carry torps? I remember bombs being dropped also...

< Message edited by castor troy -- 2/28/2008 9:54:05 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 70
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/28/2008 9:57:55 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		no. Force Z's executioners used both bombs and torpedoes.



_____________________________


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 71
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/28/2008 9:58:52 PM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

How many torps did it take to sink all of force Z?

Seems to me it is impossible to say how many hits a ship requires to be effectively sunk.  Wasn't Hornet essentially done for by the time the last torpedos hit?


Took 86 torps to sink all of Force Z, that's the number of G4Ms that attacked it. Of course, only a handfull of those 86 torps actually hit.

And actually all of Force Z didn't sink, the DDs escaped.

Here's a good site for Force Z info: http://www.forcez-survivors.org.uk/




did all Nells carry torps? I remember bombs being dropped also...

IIRC there was a night bomb attack, but it didn't produce any damage.



_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 72
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/28/2008 9:59:56 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline 		Right, found the info.

61 Betty's carrying torpedos, the rest were bomb armed Nells.

Repulse took 5 torpedo hits, as well as at least 1 250kg bomb hit.

PoW took at least 6, possibly 7 torpedo hits.

Edit, typo on the number of Betty's.


< Message edited by Shark7 -- 2/28/2008 10:02:41 PM >

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 73
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/28/2008 10:00:42 PM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

How many torps did it take to sink all of force Z?

Seems to me it is impossible to say how many hits a ship requires to be effectively sunk.  Wasn't Hornet essentially done for by the time the last torpedos hit?


Took 86 torps to sink all of Force Z, that's the number of G4Ms that attacked it. Of course, only a handfull of those 86 torps actually hit.

And actually all of Force Z didn't sink, the DDs escaped.

Here's a good site for Force Z info: http://www.forcez-survivors.org.uk/




did all Nells carry torps? I remember bombs being dropped also...

I don't know how many Nells attacked, but I'd be willing to bet it was less than 86. IIRC the hit rate of the torpedo bombers on these sorties was ultra high (something like 25%-30% of torpedoes hit).

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 74
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/28/2008 10:01:46 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

How many torps did it take to sink all of force Z?

Seems to me it is impossible to say how many hits a ship requires to be effectively sunk.  Wasn't Hornet essentially done for by the time the last torpedos hit?


Rather than count torpedoes, Force Z provides (to me anyway) the ulitmate example of proof of the eclipse of the beloved battleship as Queen of the Seas by the Carrier. It took 1 torpedo hit to cripple one of the most recent and modern BB's then built....a BB designed to operate and survive in an environment that included air attack.

Granted it was a very unlucky hit with a further (though quick) unlucky chain of events that helped make it. But it still happened. Thats what killed the battleship. No matter how well built....no matter how tough made, you still couldn't eliminate the possibility that a far cheaper to build weapon [[i.e. the torpedo] carried by a far cheaper to build airplane might still cause severe damage to your large investment.




< Message edited by Nikademus -- 2/28/2008 10:03:24 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 75
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/28/2008 10:05:26 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

How many torps did it take to sink all of force Z?

Seems to me it is impossible to say how many hits a ship requires to be effectively sunk.  Wasn't Hornet essentially done for by the time the last torpedos hit?


Took 86 torps to sink all of Force Z, that's the number of G4Ms that attacked it. Of course, only a handfull of those 86 torps actually hit.

And actually all of Force Z didn't sink, the DDs escaped.

Here's a good site for Force Z info: http://www.forcez-survivors.org.uk/




did all Nells carry torps? I remember bombs being dropped also...

I don't know how many Nells attacked, but I'd be willing to bet it was less than 86. IIRC the hit rate of the torpedo bombers on these sorties was ultra high (something like 25%-30% of torpedoes hit).


Read the story. It was 27 G3Ms, and 61 G4Ms that attacked Force Z. This number is a direct quote from one of the Japanese air unit commanders who took part in the attack.


_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 76
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/28/2008 10:08:21 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


Read the story. It was 27 G3Ms, and 61 G4Ms that attacked Force Z. This number is a direct quote from one of the Japanese air unit commanders who took part in the attack.



and they didn't all carry torpedoes.


_____________________________


(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 77
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/28/2008 10:08:31 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

How many torps did it take to sink all of force Z?

Seems to me it is impossible to say how many hits a ship requires to be effectively sunk.  Wasn't Hornet essentially done for by the time the last torpedos hit?


Took 86 torps to sink all of Force Z, that's the number of G4Ms that attacked it. Of course, only a handfull of those 86 torps actually hit.

And actually all of Force Z didn't sink, the DDs escaped.



During most of the war, one in nine air-borne torpedoes launched actually hit, but the early-war IJN pilots were able to double that.

The basic idea is that torpedoes or mines sink a ship by destroying its water-tight integrity incrementally--which translates into exposing portions of its water-line area to the open ocean. A torpedo warhead destroys or damages the water-tight integrity of those compartments within a blast radius proportional to the cube root of the warhead weight times the explosive power. Statistics of warship losses in WWII and some post-war studies indicate that a good estimate of the average number of airborne torpedoes required to sink a WWII surface warship was LPPxBeam/10000, with perhaps 70% of that number being required if all the torpedoes hit on one side. WWI designs and carriers were about 2/3rds as resistant to this mode of sinking as WWII-era surface warships.

86 torpedoes launched would suggest about 19-20 hitting. 7 would have been enough for the Prince of Wales and perhaps 4 or 5 for the Repulse. Bubble-bubble.

To see where this goes, suppose the US Battle Fleet had moved to Lahaina Roads and the KB had found it and launched a strike. 6x18x2/9 = 24 torpedoes expected to hit. That would have sunk 4-5 of the US BBs or (more likely) seriously damaged about 6, with a couple more sinking. Meanwhile, Pearl was hit by the IJN VBs. I suspect it would have been pucker up time for both sides.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 78
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/28/2008 10:09:55 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline 		Prince of Wales wasn't the first BB to succumb to a "golden BB" hit though.  The year before, Bismarck suffered a similar fate when her steering was disabled by a torpedo.  She's one of the examples of ships needing several torpedoes to actually sink; didn't she get hit by three aerial ones and at least that many fired by destroyers and cruisers before finally sinking?

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 79
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/28/2008 10:12:53 PM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7
Read the story. It was 27 G3Ms, and 61 G4Ms that attacked Force Z. This number is a direct quote from one of the Japanese air unit commanders who took part in the attack.


I just saw your other post. I could believe 61 torpedo bombers. 11 topedo hits out of 61 planes is 18% which is reasonably high.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 80
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/28/2008 10:15:48 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


Read the story. It was 27 G3Ms, and 61 G4Ms that attacked Force Z. This number is a direct quote from one of the Japanese air unit commanders who took part in the attack.



and they didn't all carry torpedoes.



No they didn't, my intial torpedo estimate was wrong. It was 61 torpedos and 27 with 250kg bombs. However, they managed 11(12) hits out of the 61 launched, which hits that magic 20% hit ratio mentioned earlier.


< Message edited by Shark7 -- 2/28/2008 10:16:37 PM >

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 81
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/28/2008 10:20:06 PM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

How many torps did it take to sink all of force Z?

Seems to me it is impossible to say how many hits a ship requires to be effectively sunk.  Wasn't Hornet essentially done for by the time the last torpedos hit?


Rather than count torpedoes, Force Z provides (to me anyway) the ulitmate example of proof of the eclipse of the beloved battleship as Queen of the Seas by the Carrier. It took 1 torpedo hit to cripple one of the most recent and modern BB's then built....a BB designed to operate and survive in an environment that included air attack.

Granted it was a very unlucky hit with a further (though quick) unlucky chain of events that helped make it. But it still happened. Thats what killed the battleship. No matter how well built....no matter how tough made, you still couldn't eliminate the possibility that a far cheaper to build weapon [[i.e. the torpedo] carried by a far cheaper to build airplane might still cause severe damage to your large investment.




That was one of the points I was wanting to raise. While the question about bomb penetration really is interesting...I'm learning a lot....it really all comes down to, if you put your fleet under enemy air space you are really just playing high stakes russian roulette. It's only a matter of time until that lucky torpedo or bomb hit.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 82
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/29/2008 5:38:29 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		Nikademus wrote: "[about the USS Hornet] Ultimately though she was done in by the 1 or 2 hits."


I'm going to have to disagree here. Yes, she was put out of action by the initial hits, but if it weren't for the proximity of the approaching superior forces, she would have been saved - so it wasn't the first two torpedo hits that actually sank her. Had these just been long range attacks by Betty torpedo bombers without an approaching task force, the US would likely have salvaged the Hornet - though it is still possible that more hits could have been made.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 83
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/29/2008 4:12:36 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		They might have salvaged her but it was still the intiial 1-2 hits that crippled her. The subsequent air attacks helped gurantee that it was a longshot/near impossible conclusion. Yorktown might have been salvaged as well but it was still Hiryu's planes that doomed her. Bismarck in a different situation might have been salvaged but she too was crippled by a lowly Stringbang which led directly to her destruction at the hands of two RN battleships.

_____________________________


(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 84
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/29/2008 4:21:07 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Military history is full of might-have-beens... The Ark Royal might have been saved too...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 85
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/29/2008 4:38:11 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Military history is full of might-have-beens... The Ark Royal might have been saved too...


And a couple of the Illustrous sisters might not have been.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 86
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/29/2008 4:51:08 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Military history is full of might-have-beens... The Ark Royal might have been saved too...


And a couple of the Illustrous sisters might not have been.


HMS Hood might have one the battle with Bismarck if she hadn't taken a direct hit to her X turret Magazine. Just another example, but then some might-have-beens are still a stretch, no?


_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 87
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/29/2008 4:55:22 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

HMS Hood might have one the battle with Bismarck if she hadn't taken a direct hit to her X turret Magazine. Just another example, but then some might-have-beens are still a stretch, no?



Hood's quick demise was certainly bad luck, but the fact that her present condition at the time made her ill-suited to take on Germany's best with only an unworked up BB for support did not help, nor did it make the outcome such a stretch.



_____________________________


(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 88
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/29/2008 8:45:16 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

HMS Hood might have one the battle with Bismarck if she hadn't taken a direct hit to her X turret Magazine. Just another example, but then some might-have-beens are still a stretch, no?



Hood's quick demise was certainly bad luck, but the fact that her present condition at the time made her ill-suited to take on Germany's best with only an unworked up BB for support did not help, nor did it make the outcome such a stretch.




Yep, Hood was top-heavy and had thin deck armor. The only possible way the outcome could have been better would have been if Hood had managed to close to short range so that Bismarck's main gun trajectories would have been more flat. Also didn't help that PoW was having issues with her main turrets.

But then, a few days later it was Bismarck's turn for horrid bad luck. BBs just weren't survivable in an age where the carrier and airplane were coming into their own.


_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 89
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/29/2008 9:09:57 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


Yep, Hood was top-heavy and had thin deck armor. The only possible way the outcome could have been better would have been if Hood had managed to close to short range so that Bismarck's main gun trajectories would have been more flat. Also didn't help that PoW was having issues with her main turrets.

But then, a few days later it was Bismarck's turn for horrid bad luck. BBs just weren't survivable in an age where the carrier and airplane were coming into their own.



Holland ducked in fast, but then allowed the range to get too close. He also masked part of his firepower in the process (it didn't help too that Prinz Eugen was initially targeted too). Done a little differently, things could have turned out better but alas, hindsight always makes me a great Admiral...and General for that matter too.

One of the great ironies of Bismarck's saga was that her 1st class tracking systems for her AA guns were unable to get good solutions on the Stringbags because the planes were so slow! Bismarck's luck ultimately proved as bad as Hood's... It just took longer, starting with the suprisingly good shooting from Prince of Wales (scoring a lucky hit which fouled a portion of her fuel supply), then a timely PBY sighting followed of course by the torpedo hit near the rudders so close to the finish line.




< Message edited by Nikademus -- 2/29/2008 9:10:46 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.141