Page 2 of 4
RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!!
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2005 11:03 pm
by pasternakski
ORIGINAL: Richelieu
Historically, these two Juggernauts were hardly sunk.
Nobody knows how many of those hits it took to inflict fatal damage. Just because you stick 20 torpedoes in a boat doesn't mean that it wouldn't have sunk eventually after the first one or two. At this point in the war, the American carrier TFs had a "plethora" of aircraft and often not enough seagoing targets to aim them at.
So, these junglenuts might not have been as durable as advertised.
RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!!
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2005 11:30 pm
by mlees
Historically, these two Juggernauts were hardly sunk.
Umm, the ships ended up on the bottom like any other sunk ship. Is "hardly sunk" sorta like "a little pregnant"?[;)]
I assume you meant "hard to sink".
RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!!
Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2005 12:39 am
by Tiornu
"HISTORICALLY, he was hit in the air with a torpedo I think."
I guess he didn't have enough bulge protection.
RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!!
Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2005 7:49 am
by akdreemer
Well not many ships can hold up to being torpedoed in the same spot twice.
RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!!
Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:29 am
by Richelieu
ORIGINAL: mlees
Historically, these two Juggernauts were hardly sunk.
Umm, the ships ended up on the bottom like any other sunk ship. Is "hardly sunk" sorta like "a little pregnant"?[;)]
I assume you meant "hard to sink".
Yes, I wanted to say "hard to sink". My english is quite aproximative... [:o]
RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!!
Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2005 4:46 pm
by DamoclesX
Ya, I ran into it and it killed my entire convoy.
not to mention sinking 3 carriers
at this point I Decided it might be smart to maby look up some basic tactics lol
RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!!
Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2005 7:33 pm
by scout1
In one of my pbem games, I got lucky and took the Kaga down with a single 1,000 lb from an SBD. Actually, the 1,000 lb started the process. It was the long trip back from PH that they could contain the damage [:D]
RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!!
Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2005 9:13 pm
by mlees
Yes, I wanted to say "hard to sink". My english is quite aproximative...
Your doing fine. My high-school French would be unreadable by
real French speakers.[:)]
RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!!
Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 2:35 am
by marky
lol
sounds like either sum type of insect to me...
or a lucky mag hit
are lucky mag hits modelled in WITP?
RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!!
Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 2:37 am
by marky
after all
HMS Hood was sunk by 1 hit fdrom the bismarck
a shell penetrated her deck armor, hit a cordite mag, and she became HMS Flambe
also, weak hull steel and her being overweight, made her break her back and she sank like a rock with 1400 dead and 3 survivors -
Ted Briggs
Bob Tilburn
Bill Dundess
not sure if i spelled theyre names rioght tho lol
RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!!
Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 5:47 am
by Tiornu
Hood didn't have weak steel. She jack-knifed because an 80m section of her hull basically vaporized.
RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!!
Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 8:38 am
by Apollo11
Hi all,
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"
RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!!
Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 9:06 am
by 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.
RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!!
Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 9:28 am
by Apollo11
Hi all,
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...
RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!!
Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 9:55 am
by 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.
RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!!
Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 11:23 am
by Apollo11
Hi all,
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"
RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!!
Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 2:35 pm
by Djordje
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...
RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!!
Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 8:54 pm
by Richelieu
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 !
RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!!
Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 8:57 pm
by denisonh
Yea,
And the Titanic was "unsinkable"......
ORIGINAL: Richelieu
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 !
RE: I sunk the Yamamoto with one torpedo!!!
Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 9:12 pm
by Tankerace
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."