Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Minor question about Battlecruisers

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Minor question about Battlecruisers Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Minor question about Battlecruisers - 5/6/2016 3:28:48 PM   
Revthought


Posts: 522
Joined: 1/14/2009
From: San Diego (Lives in Indianapolis)
Status: offline
So I notice that the game does a pretty good job of assigning the correct abbreviations for all the ship classes; but, I was under the impression that, at least in the US navy, the designation for a Battlecruiser was CC and not BC. Am I hallucinating that fact?

I figure someone here will no far better than I.

_____________________________

Playing at war is a far better vocation than making people fight in them.
Post #: 1
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers - 5/6/2016 3:30:20 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9243
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
Well, Guam and Alaska were designated CB. But I don't know if that answers your question.

(in reply to Revthought)
Post #: 2
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers - 5/6/2016 3:39:50 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 3270
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline
You are correct, the original World War One order for "battlecruisers" was designated "CC" for "large cruiser" as the USN didn't like the name "battlecruiser". Thus originally the Lexington and Saratoga had the designation of "CC" (but as we all know, became CVs instead). However when the Alaska class was built the letters were changed to "CB" NOT BC as is popularly suggested. Again they were termed "large cruisers" and the word "battle" was avoided.

_____________________________


(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 3
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers - 5/6/2016 5:19:43 PM   
geofflambert


Posts: 14828
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
Solved! Now we just need the Germans to stop using officer ranks like "obersturmbannführer".

_____________________________

Currently fighting for the Emperor against AW1Steve. As of 8/21 it is 8/45.

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 4
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers - 5/6/2016 5:21:41 PM   
KenchiSulla


Posts: 2883
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline
That is a paramilitary rank, not a military one...

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 5
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers - 5/6/2016 6:33:46 PM   
Rising-Sun


Posts: 2074
Joined: 11/5/2009
From: Clifton Park, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Well, Guam and Alaska were designated CB. But I don't know if that answers your question.


Yup, the USN use that designated CB for Alaska. Guess it all different for each nations how they recognize the naval vessels.

_____________________________


(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 6
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers - 5/6/2016 6:50:04 PM   
geofflambert


Posts: 14828
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
In my view the BCs were always a bad idea. If you build a battleship armour it properly. Alaska and Guam would have been nice at the beginning of the war as CA killers, but I would have been satisfied with 11" guns. Again, a warship should be armoured to receive the same ammunition it is throwing. The Queen Elizabeths were the way to go.

_____________________________

Currently fighting for the Emperor against AW1Steve. As of 8/21 it is 8/45.

(in reply to Rising-Sun)
Post #: 7
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers - 5/6/2016 7:30:47 PM   
Revthought


Posts: 522
Joined: 1/14/2009
From: San Diego (Lives in Indianapolis)
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

In my view the BCs were always a bad idea. If you build a battleship armour it properly. Alaska and Guam would have been nice at the beginning of the war as CA killers, but I would have been satisfied with 11" guns. Again, a warship should be armoured to receive the same ammunition it is throwing. The Queen Elizabeths were the way to go.


On paper the concept seems rational enough. Outgun anything you cannot outrun and outrun anything you cannot outgun. The problem of course was always in the details, and those were that Battlecruisers were almost never put into situations where their design paradigm applied.

Instead they were used almost universally as fast battleships, and ended up trying to slug it out with ships they didn't outgun and for whom their armor was insufficient.

By the time you get to the second World War they were, with the exception of maybe Hood, hopelessly antiquated because of their lack of proper compartmentalization as much as their lack of proper armor.

_____________________________

Playing at war is a far better vocation than making people fight in them.

(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 8
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers - 5/6/2016 7:50:56 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 45032
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

In my view the BCs were always a bad idea. If you build a battleship armour it properly.
warspite1

But this ignores why they were designed in the first place - and, more importantly, what they were designed for. They were not designed to be poorly armoured battleships that slugged it out in a battlefleet role.

If you do not use something as intended - and it all goes wrong - don't blame the manufacturer


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 9
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers - 5/6/2016 9:28:11 PM   
Rising-Sun


Posts: 2074
Joined: 11/5/2009
From: Clifton Park, NY
Status: offline
Well the speed and firepower is the key of warfare, those heavy armored warships wont be around for long if she doesn't have her screen of escorts. Now when the airpowers have taken it steps, it started to get even into more serious business. Most of us already seen what happen to powerful yamato. Same thing happen to Prince of Wales and Repluse.

_____________________________


(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 10
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers - 5/6/2016 10:05:38 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7645
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Solved! Now we just need the Germans to stop using officer ranks like "obersturmbannführer".



Noooooo!!!!

Those are the coolest rank titles in the history of warfare.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 11
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers - 5/6/2016 11:10:01 PM   
jmalter

 

Posts: 1673
Joined: 10/12/2010
Status: offline
I don't blame the mfr, I blame David Beatty.

Fisher's 'battle-cruiser' concept was vindicated at the Falkland Islands, but sunk (several times) at Jutland. For my money, the later 'pocket-battleship' design was a better ship design, tho' it's not strictly comparable to the battle-cruiser idea.

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 12
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers - 5/6/2016 11:12:20 PM   
Reg


Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

In my view the BCs were always a bad idea. If you build a battleship armour it properly.
warspite1

But this ignores why they were designed in the first place - and, more importantly, what they were designed for. They were not designed to be poorly armoured battleships that slugged it out in a battlefleet role.

If you do not use something as intended - and it all goes wrong - don't blame the manufacturer



Practically speaking I suppose the swan song of the Battle Cruiser was Battle of the Falkland Islands. After this capital ships were used in the line of battle role.

The German cruiser squadron under Admiral Graf Maximilian von Spee was exercising their true role all over the South Pacific and Atlantic oceans until they were finally cornered and destroyed - always an occupational hazard for an inferior force if your options have been exhausted.

Australia annexed New Guinea and Rabaul in 1914 to deny bases of operation to this squadron.



_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 13
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers - 5/7/2016 1:10:59 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 17608
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmalter

I don't blame the mfr, I blame David Beatty.

Fisher's 'battle-cruiser' concept was vindicated at the Falkland Islands, but sunk (several times) at Jutland. For my money, the later 'pocket-battleship' design was a better ship design, tho' it's not strictly comparable to the battle-cruiser idea.

The pocket-battleships did not measure up as well as the German navy thought they would either. The Graf Spee took penetrating 6" hits from British/NZ cruisers even though the design was supposed to stop 8" shells. The British had learned a lot about making AP shells after Jutland!

As for The Falklands being the last appropriate use of the BC, I would suggest that Dogger Bank was also a good matchup, although it should have been a bigger British victory if fire distribution was followed instead of everyone shooting at the slowest ship (Blucher).

The Alaska Class were built because the Japanese were reported to be building similar ships of 27,000 tons. It turned out the Japanese CBs were a ruse to hide the volume of steel going into Yamato, Musashi and Shinano (which were officially supposed to be 35,000 ton ships). Add 27,000 and 35,000 and you get a Yamato.


_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to jmalter)
Post #: 14
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers - 5/7/2016 1:01:58 PM   
casmithasl

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 4/28/2011
Status: offline
All three BCs destroyed at Jutland were destroyed by turret hits. They had insane suicidal ammunition handling practices. Beatties ship also had a turret hit that penetrated and destroyed the turret, but because sane ammo practices, the ship was saved.

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 15
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers - 5/7/2016 2:26:47 PM   
Rising-Sun


Posts: 2074
Joined: 11/5/2009
From: Clifton Park, NY
Status: offline
Once the magazine stores been hit and catch on fire, that ship is zoomed! That the hardest parts, by protecting the vessels with all that ammo, powder kegs and fuels. All vessels have it weakness, regardless.

_____________________________


(in reply to casmithasl)
Post #: 16
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers - 5/7/2016 6:41:51 PM   
Revthought


Posts: 522
Joined: 1/14/2009
From: San Diego (Lives in Indianapolis)
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: casmithasl

All three BCs destroyed at Jutland were destroyed by turret hits. They had insane suicidal ammunition handling practices. Beatties ship also had a turret hit that penetrated and destroyed the turret, but because sane ammo practices, the ship was saved.


This is true, but one could argue that Battlecruiser's weren't even reall designed to engage each other. Thus, there is some blame, in addition to your powder handling practices and your terrible AP shells (which are preventing your hits for doing like damage to enemy), for using these ships to slug it out with any ship whose armament can so easily score penetrations in areas which could reasonably lead to catastrophic magazine detonation if your crews are practicing anything less than perfect powder and ammunition handling regimens.

_____________________________

Playing at war is a far better vocation than making people fight in them.

(in reply to casmithasl)
Post #: 17
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers - 5/8/2016 12:58:31 AM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14503
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline
The case of the Battle cruiser is once again marketing run amuck. Jackie Fisher wanted the Battle cruiser to be the ultimate scout. It was big (so could operate in bad weather and carry a LOOOOOTTT of fuel, so it run at high speeds a long time). But no one wanted to spend that kind of money on a big scout. So other duties were assigned , like anti-commerce , long range patrol, and showing the flag. And of course the word "battle" sounds so damned sexy. Irresistible. Thers your problem. A Battle cruiser was never intended to go to to toe with a battleship. If it spotted one , it was to turn and run from it. Remaining just in sight , but just out of range.

Historically it was a "large frigate". In Nelson's day a 44 gun frigate , or a fast Razee (cut down ship of the line) would have done the same duty. The problem was , aircraft were just arriving on the scene for the same mission. Now the USN hated the word Battle Cruiser. A cruiser was a scout vessel, a commerce protection or raider, a general purpose vessel. Consequently it felt that "Large cruiser" was must more appropriate a word , and description.

The "Territory class" of CB's were a strange breed. By the time they were laid down the scouting mission was gone, but there's some debate over their intent. Maybe it's a case of "The Jone's have it"...(the Japanese are building them so we need them...) but the USN had never feared NOT playing the game. Since they were designed before the war , I suspect it would be easier to sell congress on 6 more "Large cruisers" than 6 Battle cruisers, or battleships. And they could be used for convoy and carrier escorts to protect against the surface threat (a role they eventually did any way) freeing the big new battleships to go out and kill other battleships. War changes things, theories change, doctrine changes , but hardware takes a long time to change. So you build two, cancel four.

(in reply to Revthought)
Post #: 18
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers - 5/8/2016 2:10:00 AM   
Revthought


Posts: 522
Joined: 1/14/2009
From: San Diego (Lives in Indianapolis)
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

The case of the Battle cruiser is once again marketing run amuck. Jackie Fisher wanted the Battle cruiser to be the ultimate scout. It was big (so could operate in bad weather and carry a LOOOOOTTT of fuel, so it run at high speeds a long time). But no one wanted to spend that kind of money on a big scout. So other duties were assigned , like anti-commerce , long range patrol, and showing the flag. And of course the word "battle" sounds so damned sexy. Irresistible. Thers your problem. A Battle cruiser was never intended to go to to toe with a battleship. If it spotted one , it was to turn and run from it. Remaining just in sight , but just out of range.

Historically it was a "large frigate". In Nelson's day a 44 gun frigate , or a fast Razee (cut down ship of the line) would have done the same duty. The problem was , aircraft were just arriving on the scene for the same mission. Now the USN hated the word Battle Cruiser. A cruiser was a scout vessel, a commerce protection or raider, a general purpose vessel. Consequently it felt that "Large cruiser" was must more appropriate a word , and description.

The "Territory class" of CB's were a strange breed. By the time they were laid down the scouting mission was gone, but there's some debate over their intent. Maybe it's a case of "The Jone's have it"...(the Japanese are building them so we need them...) but the USN had never feared NOT playing the game. Since they were designed before the war , I suspect it would be easier to sell congress on 6 more "Large cruisers" than 6 Battle cruisers, or battleships. And they could be used for convoy and carrier escorts to protect against the surface threat (a role they eventually did any way) freeing the big new battleships to go out and kill other battleships. War changes things, theories change, doctrine changes , but hardware takes a long time to change. So you build two, cancel four.


Frankly, I'm a strong defender of Battleships and their continued usefulness as capital ships during and just after the second world war. Yes, Yamato was sunk after being attacked by 300 airplanes for an hours. News flash everyone, less planes did more to the IJN at Midway. Similarly force Z was sunk, after being attacked all day, with the PoW High Angle radar out, and she still nearly survived, while Repulse was sunk by literally the last two torpedoes dropped before night set in--all while the TF was being commanded by a man who insisted it didn't air cover until over an hour after the air attack had started.

These things weighed against the shore bombardment role, the battleships continued successful use as an anti-ship platform at Guadalcanal and Leyte Gulf (and the near success of the Japanese with them on multiple occasions)--not to mention that it was the only capital ship worth it salt at night during the period--does not equal the antiquated reputation Battleships seem to have been assigned to the "history" of the Second World War.

Now having said that, those territory cruisers always made me scratch my head. They canceled the Montanas--rightly so I think, the Iowas were more than enough--but kept right on building these...

They finished them a few months before the war ended, immediately put them in reserve/moved them to the scrap yard when the war was over.

< Message edited by Revthought -- 5/8/2016 2:24:10 AM >


_____________________________

Playing at war is a far better vocation than making people fight in them.

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 19
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers - 5/8/2016 3:56:31 AM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 5386
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
quote:

Now having said that, those territory cruisers always made me scratch my head. They canceled the Montanas--rightly so I think, the Iowas were more than enough--but kept right on building these...

They finished them a few months before the war ended, immediately put them in reserve/moved them to the scrap yard when the war was over.


I confess I'm something of a fanboy about the Alaska class. The ships cost only two-thirds of what an Iowa-class cost, and they were highly useful for both carrier escort and bombardment runs. Which they did -- they were not immediately put in reserve, and both Alaska and Guam did in fact fire their main guns in anger. They even made an anti-shipping sweep into the Sea of Japan (which admittedly came to nothing because of a lack of targets).

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Revthought)
Post #: 20
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers - 5/8/2016 4:52:04 AM   
geofflambert


Posts: 14828
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
This is a lot of blow about basic theory. Everyone is looking for something that makes the Dreadnought obsolete. As I have said, I believe the Queen Elizabeths to be exactly what everyone was looking for. Everything else was experiments and prototypes. The QEs were every bit as much a revolution as the [I]Dreadnought]. Hood was superb in many ways but it couldn't take receiving shells lesser than the ones she was hurling herself. Once armoured sufficiently, while sacrificing speed, she would be the equal of most other WWII BBs, and shouldn't have feared any so much as to not engage. The POW was very well designed but undergunned. If handled correctly they should have defeated Bismark.

All that aside, how do simple threads like the one that was started here morph into what we see before us? The answer is, we do this because we can.

_____________________________

Currently fighting for the Emperor against AW1Steve. As of 8/21 it is 8/45.

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 21
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers - 5/8/2016 5:59:28 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 45032
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

This is a lot of blow about basic theory. Everyone is looking for something that makes the Dreadnought obsolete. As I have said, I believe the Queen Elizabeths to be exactly what everyone was looking for. Everything else was experiments and prototypes. The QEs were every bit as much a revolution as the [I]Dreadnought]. Hood was superb in many ways but it couldn't take receiving shells lesser than the ones she was hurling herself. Once armoured sufficiently, while sacrificing speed, she would be the equal of most other WWII BBs, and shouldn't have feared any so much as to not engage. The POW was very well designed but undergunned. If handled correctly they should have defeated Bismark.

All that aside, how do simple threads like the one that was started here morph into what we see before us? The answer is, we do this because we can.
warspite1

That's a very sweeping statement. So what practically should Holland have done to avoid his ship being blown to smithereens? You know that PoW was suffering teething problems with her main guns (she still had dockyard workers aboard so quickly did she sail)?


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 5/8/2016 6:02:00 AM >


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 22
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers - 5/8/2016 6:13:10 AM   
geofflambert


Posts: 14828
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
POW had the armour to withstand Bismark's fire. Therefore POW should have closed with Bismark while Hood fired at range. This proves nothing, but I tried this strategy with "Fighting Steel" about thirty times and in every case prevailed. POW could sustain Bismark hits while Bismark could not sustain Hood hits. As I said, I tried this strategy (in a silly game) about thirty times and I never lost either POW or Hood and in every single case Bismark was sunk. Prince Eugene usually got away with minimal damage, and unfortunately that alone is a bit of a disaster, potentially. She simply couldn't carry enough fuel to make use of her freedom.

_____________________________

Currently fighting for the Emperor against AW1Steve. As of 8/21 it is 8/45.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 23
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers - 5/8/2016 6:16:18 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 45032
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

POW had the armour to withstand Bismark's fire. Therefore POW should have closed with Bismark while Hood fired at range. This proves nothing, but I tried this strategy with "Fighting Steel" about thirty times and in every case prevailed. POW could sustain Bismark hits while Bismark could not sustain Hood hits. As I said, I tried this strategy (in a silly game) about thirty times and I never lost either POW or Hood and in every single case Bismark was sunk. Prince Eugene usually got away with minimal damage, and unfortunately that alone is a bit of a disaster, potentially. She simply couldn't carry enough fuel to make use of her freedom.
warspite1

But Hood had to close the range - her biggest weakness was from plunging shellfire - as was proven.




_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 24
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers - 5/8/2016 6:21:30 AM   
geofflambert


Posts: 14828
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
If she doesn't close, she's not a target. Doesn't matter whether it's plunging or not if it doesn't exist. What are you doing up this late? It's way past my bedtime. Is this going to be a contest about who falls asleep at his keyboard first?

< Message edited by geofflambert -- 5/8/2016 6:23:44 AM >


_____________________________

Currently fighting for the Emperor against AW1Steve. As of 8/21 it is 8/45.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 25
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers - 5/8/2016 6:26:31 AM   
geofflambert


Posts: 14828
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
I understand, this is gardening time in jolly old England, so that raises another question; why aren't you gardening or at least watering your plants instead of watering my comedy?

_____________________________

Currently fighting for the Emperor against AW1Steve. As of 8/21 it is 8/45.

(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 26
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers - 5/8/2016 6:27:47 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 45032
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

If she doesn't close, she's not a target. Doesn't matter whether it's plunging or not if it doesn't exist. What are you doing up this late? It's way past my bedtime. Is this going to be a contest about who falls asleep at his keyboard first?
warspite1

If she doesn't close she's not a target.... but she can't hit Bismarck either - and you also have the PoW (complete with dodgy main armament) closing the two German ships alone. I'm not understanding your tactics - maybe this is standard Gorn battlefleet engagement practice - but sounds like a load of old toss (if you'll pardon the expression)


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 27
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers - 5/8/2016 6:28:17 AM   
Orm


Posts: 22600
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

POW had the armour to withstand Bismark's fire. Therefore POW should have closed with Bismark while Hood fired at range. This proves nothing, but I tried this strategy with "Fighting Steel" about thirty times and in every case prevailed. POW could sustain Bismark hits while Bismark could not sustain Hood hits. As I said, I tried this strategy (in a silly game) about thirty times and I never lost either POW or Hood and in every single case Bismark was sunk. Prince Eugene usually got away with minimal damage, and unfortunately that alone is a bit of a disaster, potentially. She simply couldn't carry enough fuel to make use of her freedom.
warspite1

But Hood had to close the range - her biggest weakness was from plunging shellfire - as was proven.




What if Prince of Wales enter gun range before Hood? And then PoW close the range? Would Bismarck change their target once Hood is within range, or continue to shell Prince of Wales that they already have pinpointed?

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 28
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers - 5/8/2016 6:29:08 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 45032
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I understand, this is gardening time in jolly old England, so that raises another question; why aren't you gardening or at least watering your plants instead of watering my comedy?
warspite1

a) I am not gardening because that is what I employ a gardener for
b) Please let me know when the comedy show begins





_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 29
RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers - 5/8/2016 6:32:23 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 45032
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

POW had the armour to withstand Bismark's fire. Therefore POW should have closed with Bismark while Hood fired at range. This proves nothing, but I tried this strategy with "Fighting Steel" about thirty times and in every case prevailed. POW could sustain Bismark hits while Bismark could not sustain Hood hits. As I said, I tried this strategy (in a silly game) about thirty times and I never lost either POW or Hood and in every single case Bismark was sunk. Prince Eugene usually got away with minimal damage, and unfortunately that alone is a bit of a disaster, potentially. She simply couldn't carry enough fuel to make use of her freedom.
warspite1

But Hood had to close the range - her biggest weakness was from plunging shellfire - as was proven.




What if Prince of Wales enter gun range before Hood? And then PoW close the range? Would Bismarck change their target once Hood is within range, or continue to shell Prince of Wales that they already have pinpointed?
warspite1

Well that is a question I have asked previously. But I guess to put PoW in front would mean having to admit the Hood was no match for Bismarck - and maybe that unpalatable truth was not something Holland wanted to recognise. But whether, had PoW taken the lead, Bismarck and Prinz Eugen would have fired at her or Hood? We will never know but it makes sense for the 15-inch gunned ship to be prioritised perhaps.


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Minor question about Battlecruisers Page: [1] 2 3 4   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

0.342