RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

Tiornu -> RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!! (1/16/2005 7:47:31 AM)

Hood didn't have weak steel. She jack-knifed because an 80m section of her hull basically vaporized.



Apollo11 -> RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!! (1/16/2005 10:38:15 AM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

Hood didn't have weak steel. She jack-knifed because an 80m section of her hull basically vaporized.


Is now known the real reason for this?

Was the Bismarck's shell penetrating Hood responsible?

Was the Prinz Eugen's shell penetrating Hood responsible?

Was the Prinz Eugen's shell inginting Hood's AAA shells on deck responsible?


Leo "Apollo11"



Tiornu -> RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!! (1/16/2005 11:06:48 AM)

Only God knows for certain, but there is no way to explain how a shell from Eugen could have done it. The 8in was a nose-fuzed HE shell that could not penetrate. It simply caused a fire. This fire was no threat to the ship; in fact, the skipper ordered his men not to bother trying to put it out. No one has theorized any possible way for this fire to walk its way down into the vitals of the ship and cause an explosion.
Hood exploded just after a 15in salvo landed around her, a salvo which reportedly was missing a splash or two. Since this indicates that one or two shells did not hit the water, there are few alternatives; either they hit Hood, or they found themselves drawn through a rift in the time-space continuum.
Really, there's no credible explanation for Hood's loss other than the boring one--she was blown up by a really big shell.



Apollo11 -> RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!! (1/16/2005 11:28:59 AM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

Only God knows for certain, but there is no way to explain how a shell from Eugen could have done it. The 8in was a nose-fuzed HE shell that could not penetrate. It simply caused a fire. This fire was no threat to the ship; in fact, the skipper ordered his men not to bother trying to put it out. No one has theorized any possible way for this fire to walk its way down into the vitals of the ship and cause an explosion.
Hood exploded just after a 15in salvo landed around her, a salvo which reportedly was missing a splash or two. Since this indicates that one or two shells did not hit the water, there are few alternatives; either they hit Hood, or they found themselves drawn through a rift in the time-space continuum.
Really, there's no credible explanation for Hood's loss other than the boring one--she was blown up by a really big shell.


RGR - thanks!


Leo "Apollo11"


P.S.
I asked about PE's 8" shell(s) just in case because I saw that theory (about fire spreding from Hood's deck below) on several occasions...



Tiornu -> RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!! (1/16/2005 11:55:18 AM)

There is no end to all the weird theories for Hood's loss. A couple years ago, an author claimed PE sank Hood by dropping a shell down her stack; how an 8in shell might be coaxed into plunging straight down from the sky, he did not try to explain. There are at least two versions of the Hood Blew Herself Up theory. I even found one guying trying to say Norfolk did it.
Oy!
The Admiralty conducted two inquiries into her loss, and every reasonable possibility was considered, including the fire among the AA ammo and an explosion of Hood's torpedo weaponry. They gave concientious attention to the possibilities of the 8in shell starting a chain reaction, but the evidence was pretty conclusive. The recent exploration of the wreck didn't raise any new possibilities. The matter is pretty much settled, or should be. But the novelty of a heavy cruiser destroying a giant battleship is too attractive for some folks to give up.



Apollo11 -> RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!! (1/16/2005 1:23:33 PM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

There is no end to all the weird theories for Hood's loss. A couple years ago, an author claimed PE sank Hood by dropping a shell down her stack; how an 8in shell might be coaxed into plunging straight down from the sky, he did not try to explain. There are at least two versions of the Hood Blew Herself Up theory. I even found one guying trying to say Norfolk did it.
Oy!
The Admiralty conducted two inquiries into her loss, and every reasonable possibility was considered, including the fire among the AA ammo and an explosion of Hood's torpedo weaponry. They gave concientious attention to the possibilities of the 8in shell starting a chain reaction, but the evidence was pretty conclusive. The recent exploration of the wreck didn't raise any new possibilities. The matter is pretty much settled, or should be. But the novelty of a heavy cruiser destroying a giant battleship is too attractive for some folks to give up.


OK.

Ths Bismarck sunk the Hood (most probable and logical explanation) but afterward was sunk herself ...


Leo "Apollo11"



Djordje -> RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!! (1/16/2005 4:35:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skyros

The sunk by shows the last weapon to hit the Yamato. She was obviously hit by more than one torpedo. The intelligence report underesstimated the hits.


No, it always shows the biggest weapons that has hit the ship.
That's why whole this thing is odd.

About the other question, I've had several differently generated turns too, but I was never able to determine why. When I tried to replicate it to have a repeatable save all turns were the same as the first generation...



Richelieu -> RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!! (1/16/2005 10:54:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: marky

after all

HMS Hood was sunk by 1 hit fdrom the bismarck



Right, but you can't establish comparisons...

HMS Hood was a lightly armoured first WW1 Battlecruiser,
the Yamato was the biggest battleship and the sturdiest ship ever built...
And her technology was post-washington treaty...
This 64000 tons of steel Monster could not be sunk by a single torpedoe !



denisonh -> RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!! (1/16/2005 10:57:45 PM)

Yea,

And the Titanic was "unsinkable"......

quote:

ORIGINAL: Richelieu

quote:

ORIGINAL: marky

after all

HMS Hood was sunk by 1 hit fdrom the bismarck



Right, but you can't establish comparisons...

HMS Hood was a lightly armoured first WW1 Battlecruiser,
the Yamato was the biggest battleship and the sturdiest ship ever built...
And her technology was post-washington treaty...
This 64000 tons of steel Monster could not be sunk by a single torpedoe !



Tankerace -> RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!! (1/16/2005 11:12:51 PM)

Tonnage doesn't matter. World War One torpedoes were crap, under armed, under powered, and highly unreliable, yet one blew the Pommern all to hell. While I do admit it is highly unlikely that Yamato could be sunk from one torpedo, it is not all together impossible.

It was unlikely that a single torpedo could turn Bismark 180 degrees, but it did.

It was unlikely that 1 (now theorized 2) torpedoes cause the Kongo to blow up, but it did.

In war, anything is possible. To quote Mr. Spock, "Anything, no matter how improbable, is not impossible."



Tiornu -> RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!! (1/17/2005 2:38:10 AM)

"HMS Hood was a lightly armoured first WW1 Battlecruiser"
Your point is certainly correct that the historical Hood loss and a hypothetical Yamato loss are not very comparable simply because both involved a single hit of some sort. However, I'd like to quibble with this characterization of Hood. She was arguably the best-armored ship in the RN at the time of her commissioning. But in 1941, she still was pretty much a WWI dreadnought--no armor modernization.



Tankerace -> RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!! (1/17/2005 2:52:45 AM)

HMS Hoods biggest flaw, in my opinion, was her fire control. WWI had shown that the Dreyer control table was ineffective, and Hood still used it at the time of her loss.

While not great, she wasn't nearly as thin skinned as Repulse and Renown.



pasternakski -> RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!! (1/17/2005 3:38:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Richelieu
the Yamato was the ... sturdiest ship ever built...

Nonsense. Her design deficiencies have been depicted time and time again in these forums and in the reality of WWII combat.

The two Yamatos were experiments on a scale not previously attempted in naval architecture. The fact that they both now are nothing more than figurines in the great Pacific aquarium is testimony to their failure.



Tiornu -> RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!! (1/17/2005 5:52:31 AM)

The fact that the Yamatos sank may be seen as evidence of failure in the large perspective. They emerged from a doctrine that pursued national security via armed conquest rather than via neighborly relations with countries far too powerful to defeat. However, it isn't evidence of failure of naval architecture. Some very fine ships have been sunk. I refuse to see Yorktown and Hornet as failures of naval architecture. Johnston, Shokaku, Tashkent, S 142....



Richelieu -> RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!! (1/17/2005 2:54:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

The fact that they both now are nothing more than figurines in the great Pacific aquarium is testimony to their failure.


And the Prince of Wales ? testimony of Naval doctrine failure, surely, but of naval architecture failure, surely not !
The japanese BBs were sacrificed in hopeless missions, following a false doctrine...
The tremendous amount of damage that both supported before sinking shows their capacity to sustain damage.



Mike Scholl -> RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!! (1/17/2005 3:10:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Richelieu

quote:

ORIGINAL: marky

HMS Hood was sunk by 1 hit fdrom the bismarck


HMS Hood was a lightly armoured first WW1 Battlecruiser,
the Yamato was the biggest battleship and the sturdiest ship ever built...
And her technology was post-washington treaty...
This 64000 tons of steel Monster could not be sunk by a single torpedoe !


RICHELIEU is basically on the right track. Hood was sunk by one penetraiting hit that
ignighted her magazines. Such penetration isn't possible by a torpedo against the
Yamato's (or much of anything else, for that matter) Both of the Yamatos were
put under by massive damage from bombs and torpedoes..., LOTS of bombs and
torpedoes. Yes, they had some design flaws, but not in this area. About the only
way you get this kind of "critical hit" on Yamato is if you postulate someone smoking
in the magazines being suprised by the noise of a torpedo hit and flipping his butt into
a stack of ready charges for the main guns as he left to see what the noise was. It's
way out there on the probability tables.



wild_Willie2 -> RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!! (1/17/2005 3:24:38 PM)

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skyros

The sunk by shows the last weapon to hit the Yamato. She was obviously hit by more than one torpedo. The intelligence report underesstimated the hits.


No, it always shows the biggest weapons that has hit the ship.
That's why whole this thing is odd.


That is not correct, i have seen a DD listed in the "sunk" list By a 0.50 calliber bullet (PT's)!!

The mighty M2 is powerfull, but to sink a jap destroyer with it??



CynicAl -> RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!! (1/19/2005 6:39:59 AM)

While I agree that a magazine penetration isn't in it, progressive flooding might still account for the loss. Granted that it would require a very bad day even by IJN standards of DC, but it's the only mechanism I can think of which would allow one dinky little airborne torpedo to sink something that size.



rtrapasso -> RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!! (1/19/2005 7:08:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CynicAl

While I agree that a magazine penetration isn't in it, progressive flooding might still account for the loss. Granted that it would require a very bad day even by IJN standards of DC, but it's the only mechanism I can think of which would allow one dinky little airborne torpedo to sink something that size.


Why is magazine penetration out of the question?

From what i have read - don't think any country armored the keels of their ship although some had double bottoms. If a torpedo managed to explode against the bottom of the ship under the magazine, i don't think what was there would necessarily stop the explosion. This was the theory behind the magnetic warheads (of course, the fuses didn't work, but they were great in theory!)



CynicAl -> RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!! (1/19/2005 8:04:18 AM)

I don't know. Maybe. If the torpedo actually struck the keel and detonated in contact with the ship's bottom... Remember this is an air-launched torpedo - it belongs over at the "smaller and less powerful" end of the spectrum. Also, did any nation put magnetic detonators on aircraft torpedos? I really have no idea. Finally, I think the idea with the under-keel explosions was to break a ship's back, rather than to touch off the magazines.

All in all, I think this might require more of a fluke than a loss to progressive flooding.



Tiornu -> RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!! (1/19/2005 9:23:47 AM)

Yamato was one of the few ships built with armor under the magazines. I have no idea how this would affect results of an underbottom explosion.



rtrapasso -> RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!! (1/19/2005 3:32:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CynicAl

Also, did any nation put magnetic detonators on aircraft torpedos?


IIRC - the Brits did early in the war, but removed or deactivated them after they found they weren't reliable.



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!! (1/19/2005 6:22:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wild_Willie2

That is not correct, i have seen a DD listed in the "sunk" list By a 0.50 calliber bullet (PT's)!!

The mighty M2 is powerfull, but to sink a jap destroyer with it??


Perhaps the .50 cals killed the skipper and the ship honored naval tradition and shared the fate of its captain....

I've had a ship in the 'sunk' list with *no* weapon shown at all - probably died of fright because rumor had it that there were enemy subs ahead.



WhoCares -> RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!! (1/19/2005 6:35:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

...
I've had a ship in the 'sunk' list with *no* weapon shown at all - probably died of fright because rumor had it that there were enemy subs ahead.

Was it no weapon or 'unkown' weapon? I think it reports 'unknown' when the ship gets scuttled upon capturing the base it is in.



Mr.Frag -> RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!! (1/19/2005 6:39:07 PM)

quote:

I've had a ship in the 'sunk' list with *no* weapon shown at all - probably died of fright because rumor had it that there were enemy subs ahead.


unknown = scuttled



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!! (1/19/2005 6:43:09 PM)

k, thx



pompack -> RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!! (1/19/2005 6:54:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

There is no end to all the weird theories for Hood's loss. A couple years ago, an author claimed PE sank Hood by dropping a shell down her stack; how an 8in shell might be coaxed into plunging straight down from the sky, he did not try to explain. There are at least two versions of the Hood Blew Herself Up theory. I even found one guying trying to say Norfolk did it.
Oy!
The Admiralty conducted two inquiries into her loss, and every reasonable possibility was considered, including the fire among the AA ammo and an explosion of Hood's torpedo weaponry. They gave concientious attention to the possibilities of the 8in shell starting a chain reaction, but the evidence was pretty conclusive. The recent exploration of the wreck didn't raise any new possibilities. The matter is pretty much settled, or should be. But the novelty of a heavy cruiser destroying a giant battleship is too attractive for some folks to give up.


OK.

Ths Bismarck sunk the Hood (most probable and logical explanation) but afterward was sunk herself ...


Leo "Apollo11"


Nice article analyzing the loss of the Hood:

http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/index_inro.htm



Nikademus -> RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!! (1/19/2005 7:11:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso


Why is magazine penetration out of the question?



It isn't but it would be a very remote possibility. In game, the chance for a critical hit is supposed to be 4% per penetrating hit. (belt or deck armor penetration)



AmiralLaurent -> RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!! (1/19/2005 7:25:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wild_Willie2

That is not correct, i have seen a DD listed in the "sunk" list By a 0.50 calliber bullet (PT's)!!

The mighty M2 is powerfull, but to sink a jap destroyer with it??


In probably the most efficient antishipping attack of WWII, six B-24 of 308th BG sank 6 Japanese tankers and transports (total tonnage 41,967 tons) off Indochina on 22 April 1944. One of the ships was sunk by machine-gun fire, that ignited soemthing aboard the ship that then exploded.

Full story here: http://www.308thbombgroup.org/drunken_308th.htm



AmiralLaurent -> RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!! (1/19/2005 7:29:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso


Why is magazine penetration out of the question?



It isn't but it would be a very remote possibility. In game, the chance for a critical hit is supposed to be 4% per penetrating hit. (belt or deck armor penetration)


That is that every penetrating hit on Yamato has 4% chance of see her exploding. Given the number of people playing the game, and the fact that people losing (or sinking) this ship with one torpedo will probably report to this board, I'm rather surprised that so few Yamatos perished like that. Or rather that this was the first report.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.656006