Warships of the World (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

Kraut -> Warships of the World (11/23/2002 6:51:02 AM)

This is a pretty exhaustive data-base

http://www.warships1.com/



CCB -> (11/23/2002 7:17:36 AM)

So who sank HMS [I]Hood[/I]? [I]Prinz Eugen[/I] or [I]Bismarck[/I]? :confused:



Sgt.Striker -> (11/23/2002 10:50:00 AM)

Bismark. A 15 inch shell penetrated the magazine of the hood



CCB -> (11/23/2002 10:10:47 PM)

That seems to be the popular theory, though I have heard that it was actually a plunging shot from one of [I]Eugen[/I]'s guns.



Kraut -> (11/23/2002 10:33:11 PM)

I'm no expert on this, but lack of protection against plunging shots is supposed to have been the deciding factor.



Sgt.Striker -> (11/23/2002 11:40:17 PM)

but do you think a 8 inch shell could do it?



CCB -> (11/23/2002 11:54:07 PM)

Yes, if its a plunging shot, which is more likely to come from one of [I]Eugen[/I]'s 8" guns than from one of [I]Bismarck[/I]'s 15" guns. But its only a theory and one that's very hotly debated at that!



rockymtndoc -> (11/24/2002 2:11:59 AM)

Be sure to watch James Cameron's special presentation on Dec 8th: [I]Bismarck![/I]

I imagine he'll address that issue.



CCB -> (11/24/2002 4:38:19 AM)

I've recently viewed one documentary on PBS where they dived on the [I]Bismarck[/I] and [I]Hood[/I]. The [I]Hood[/I]'s bow and stern where torn off and the main part of the ship was upside down.

They also did a more exporation on the [I]Bismarck[/I] than Ballard did. They found something like four torpedo holes in her that had been delivered from British surface ships during the final battle. They couldn't however find any evidence that the [I]Bismarck[/I]'s crew had tried to scuttle the ship. But the report stated that even if they did try, it only speed up the inevitable.



Waylander -> Hood (11/25/2002 1:37:43 AM)

All the stuff I have read over the last 4-5 years seems to lean more towards Eugen as being the culprit. maybe its just a fashionable theory, but an 8" shell could certainly do this to Hood's relatively thin armour, if, as was noted, it was a plunging shot. Regardless of who did the dirty deed, both got there come-uppance, Bismark shortly after, and Eugen in Atom bomb tests after the war.
The plain fact was that the battlecruiser concept never really worked, as was demonstrated at Dogger bank, Jutland (there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today)and by the "mighty" hood's sad demise.

reagrds
Waylander



Kraut -> Re: Hood (11/25/2002 2:11:51 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Waylander
[B]All the stuff I have read over the last 4-5 years seems to lean more towards Eugen as being the culprit. maybe its just a fashionable theory, but an 8" shell could certainly do this to Hood's relatively thin armour, if, as was noted, it was a plunging shot. Regardless of who did the dirty deed, both got there come-uppance, Bismark shortly after, and Eugen in Atom bomb tests after the war.
The plain fact was that the battlecruiser concept never really worked, as was demonstrated at Dogger bank, Jutland (there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today)and by the "mighty" hood's sad demise.

reagrds
Waylander [/B][/QUOTE]

Dirty deed? This was simply war.



Sgt.Striker -> (11/25/2002 2:26:47 AM)

You have to wonder how the Finest navy at the time came up with such a bad concept and then failed to use there white elephants correctly (Big Cruisers)



Kraut -> (11/25/2002 3:13:16 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sgt.Striker
[B]You have to wonder how the Finest navy at the time came up with such a bad concept and then failed to use there white elephants correctly (Big Cruisers) [/B][/QUOTE]

Properly used they could have been advantageous; less expensive than battleships they could have been built in larger numbers to cover more ocean, a bonus for apprehending transports.



sven -> Re: Re: Hood (11/25/2002 3:14:56 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kraut
[B]

Dirty deed? This was simply war. [/B][/QUOTE]


sort of contradicts your stand on the Argie b UK battle there guy...

;)



Sgt.Striker -> (11/25/2002 3:15:32 AM)

exactly,or for making sure the surface raiders stayed away,and running from the battleships.



Kraut -> Re: Re: Re: Hood (11/25/2002 3:21:38 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sven
[B]


sort of contradicts your stand on the Argie b UK battle there guy...

;) [/B][/QUOTE]

Not quite, the Argentine battleship was no direct threat to the British sub, but the Hood was a real and direct threat to the Bismarck (the possible contradiction occured to me before I wrote this, but the difference in situations justifies my post above. [IMG]http://perry-rhodan.net/smileys/smiley34.gif[/IMG] (Evil smile)


Besides, I already had learned my lesson form you guys ;)



Sgt.Striker -> (11/25/2002 3:23:16 AM)

here we go again,can't we just talked about what happened and not why it happened. lol



sven -> (11/25/2002 3:24:55 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sgt.Striker
[B]here we go again,can't we just talked about what happened and not why it happened. lol [/B][/QUOTE]


You misunderstand my intent, and Kraut read me loud and clear.

I am very much a "what happened" kind of guy.



Kraut -> (11/25/2002 3:24:57 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sgt.Striker
[B]exactly,or for making sure the surface raiders stayed away,and running from the battleships. [/B][/QUOTE]

I can easily imagine ships of that size that would have been faster than battleships and at the same time more powerful than cruisers.



Sgt.Striker -> (11/25/2002 3:29:23 AM)

Sorry Svend.it just seems to be that every post seems to become a left wing vs Right wing battlegroud,lol all bout deep issues like morality and justification. And of course hindsight is ..................



Kraut -> (11/25/2002 3:32:26 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sven
[B]


You misunderstand my intent, and Kraut read me loud and clear.

I am very much a "what happened" kind of guy. [/B][/QUOTE]

You are right, let's talk about what happened. I won't try to apply my hindsight.

I want to speculate for a moment though (no politics):

Can anybody think of clear disadvantages of battle cruisers?

Maybe logistics? I can imagine that a battle cruiser wouldn't use much less fuel than a battleship; so relatively large number of battle cruisers would mean a proportionate increase in the number of tender-ships.

And if you forego building a large number of battle cruisers you would be better off building battleships instead.



Kraut -> (11/25/2002 3:33:34 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sgt.Striker
[B]Sorry Svend.it just seems to be that every post seems to become a left wing vs Right wing battlegroud,lol all bout deep issues like morality and justification. And of course hindsight is .................. [/B][/QUOTE]

I'm not leftwing, thank you very much. I'm a compassionate conservative. ;)



Sgt.Striker -> (11/25/2002 3:36:53 AM)

Me TOO

Conservative Party of Canada,which of course makes me a Democrat in American Standards and fascist in Canadian ones lol. And yes battlecruisers would take away vaublabe resources from buidling cap ships but if they had been better designed they might have had a longer life in diffrent conflicts,serving into the 60s as fire support ships,like the American Iowas



sven -> (11/25/2002 3:38:08 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sgt.Striker
[B]Sorry Svend.it just seems to be that every post seems to become a left wing vs Right wing battlegroud,lol all bout deep issues like morality and justification. And of course hindsight is .................. [/B][/QUOTE]


It may seem that way now. I was once one of the Tiger Team that did the OOB scrub. I am a bit of a hobbyist historian.

Politics is politics and history is history...sometimes they are involved with one another but not always.

I didn't notice a similar critique of Mr KG Erwin.



Sgt.Striker -> (11/25/2002 3:42:14 AM)

I didn't notice a similar critique of Mr KG Erwin. [/B][/QUOTE]

come again?



Kraut -> (11/25/2002 3:43:45 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sgt.Striker
[B]Me TOO

Conservative Party of Canada,which of course makes me a Democrat in American Standards and fascist in Canadian ones lol. And yes battlecruisers would take away vaublabe resources from buidling cap ships but if they had been better designed they might have had a longer life in diffrent conflicts,serving into the 60s as fire support ships,like the American Iowas [/B][/QUOTE]

The Arizona even served into the 80s.

I'm not sure if the admiralty back then (we are talking about WW I era ships, like the Hood originally was) thought about such long life-spans. I read somewhere that the British saw the dreadnoughts, let alone smaller ships like battle cruisers, as assets to be used and spent.



Sgt.Striker -> (11/25/2002 3:46:57 AM)

thats true and i guess Britian didn't even keep any of its modern battleships for fire support like the Americans had until recently



sven -> (11/25/2002 3:48:14 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sgt.Striker
[B]

come again? [/B][/QUOTE]


You accuse me of turning EVERYTHING into left/right and yet I see no post of that type to a gentleman who is guilty of bleeding AoW forum business here-something I have never initiated.


This is not a flame, just an observation.

I am hardly alone in my flaws, and I at least make the attempt to not pollute other forums with the insanity of the "Art of Wargaming". If you would like me to recuse myself from participation in this discussion merely say so and I will correspond with Kraut through alternative means. I by no means wish to diminish your experience here at Matrix forums.

regards,
sven



Sgt.Striker -> (11/25/2002 4:00:32 AM)

Its alright,i was not singling you out in my critisicms of left and right. and no,i want you to continue talking on the forum. lol, i will stick to discussing battlecrusiers from now on.

Another question for you gentlemen,do any navies still have gun/missle crusiers in service?



Kraut -> (11/25/2002 4:08:07 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sgt.Striker
[B]Its alright,i was not singling you out in my critisicms of left and right. and no,i want you to continue talking on the forum. lol, i will stick to discussing battlecrusiers from now on.

Another question for you gentlemen,do any navies still have gun/missle crusiers in service? [/B][/QUOTE]

Gun/missile cruisers? Not the modern navies.

Aegis is in size between a destroyer and a cruiser, a weapons plattform with very advanced sensor arrays.

Some cruisers are cruise missile capable:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1997/iraq/military/ships/cruisers.html



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.0625