Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

Sorry for butting in but for some reason the distinction between a warship being "sunk" or "scuttled due to enemy action" is a distinction that I personally never thought mattered ...

It matters in Grigsby's Pacific games; you don't lose as many points if you can scuttle your own derelict ships.

Warspite1

[X(]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

Sorry for butting in but for some reason the distinction between a warship being "sunk" or "scuttled due to enemy action" is a distinction that I personally never thought mattered.  A warship was lost and that's good if it's your enemy and bad if it's one of yours.  If I remember correctly the US carrier Lexington lost at the Battle of the Coral Sea and the Yorktown lost at the Battle of Midway were both finished off by US destroyer safter it became obvious that it couldn't be saved.  And if I remember my facts correctly weren't 1 or even all 4 of the Japaneses carriers lost at the Battle of Midway finished off by Japaneses destroyers?  Does it really matter.  They're lost and lost due to the enemy.

The same with the Bismark.  It was lost due to actions from the RN.  Personally, I view the first and last voyage of the Bismark as folly and if not for an unfortunate and lucky salvo against the Hood it's history would probably have been that of it's sister ship the Tarpitz.

Very well put.. Ship is floating under flag. VS Ship is sitting on the bottom sunk.
The deciding factor was the British navy. The Germans can crow all they want about how "they" sank their own ship. Just so they remember to add, "Oh yeah thanks to the Royal navy she was defenseless and a burning wreck before we "had" to do it."

However impressive the 'Bismarck' may have looked, she was built using some of the design concepts from WW1 as these plans were brought out to speed the building process. The main armoured deck was set quite low, which ensured that the lower decks were protected, especially from the close range flat trajectory shots 'KG5' and 'Rodney' were delivering near the end of the battle, but it did mean that some communication and electrical systems were not adequately protected. The upper decks could be pulverised, whilst lower decks and flotation were better protected.

In common with German practice in both world wars, major vessels (with the exception of the 'pocket battleships', with a commerce raiding capability) were designed for specific missions, rather than worldwide naval service. RN ships were designed for long cruising in conditions from the Artic to the Tropics, with consequently large crew spaces. German ships, with crews mainly based ashore, until a mission was launched, could have greater sub-division into smaller internal spaces, greatly improving flotation after damage.

German warship design showed an amazing ability to absorb considerable damage and remain afloat, as demonstrated by 'Seydlitz' after Jutland, but this is of little value in the open ocean, where help is not near at hand.

'Bismarck' was no super ship and suffered from all the vulnerabilities which afflicted battleships in WW2 (as with 'Prince of Wales' and 'Yamato'), the main point being that she was quickly disabled and unable to effectively fight back.

Sinking, or not, a ship unable to function is 40,000 tons of scrap iron.

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

Sinking, or not, a ship unable to function is 40,0000 tons of scrap iron.

Warspite1

Wow, 400000 tons - she was bigger than I thought! Thats a lot of scrap iron [;)]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa
Sinking, or not, a ship unable to function is 40,0000 tons of scrap iron.

Warspite1
Wow, 400000 tons - she was bigger than I thought! Thats a lot of scrap iron [;)]

Ooops ! hits edit button, retires at high speed making smoke.[8|]

'Bismarck' was no super ship and suffered from all the vulnerabilities which afflicted battleships in WW2 (as with 'Prince of Wales' and 'Yamato'), the main point being that she was quickly disabled and unable to effectively fight back.

Sinking, or not, a ship unable to function is 40,000 tons of scrap iron.

A battleship in WWII was vulnerable like a tank was in some ways if unsupported. Too easy to sneak up on both weapon systems when isolated. (Its also possible that Bismarck was 52K tons);

Dogfights: "Sink the Bismarck" 1 of 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuTNJ2oz1aE

It seems that the Germans are strangely taking pride in saying they werent sunk. Which as I said seems strange to me, I would rather say "I was sunk" then "I got beat up so bad I had to ignominiously blow myslef up"

It seems that the Germans are strangely taking pride in saying they werent sunk. Which as I said seems strange to me, I would rather say "I was sunk" then "I got beat up so bad I had to ignominiously blow myslef up"

During the war both sides always tried to distort the facts in order to disinform the enemy no matter how outlandish it seemed. I agree that they made a mistake on this one because enduring 400+ hits followed by torpedos along with possible demo charges is much more badass. However my primary complaint is that the Royal Navy allowed the majority of Bismarcks sailors to drown on the rumor of a U-Boot sighting. That was unforgivable and I consider it to be an another Allied atrocity.

ORIGINAL: Tolstoy

However my primary complaint is that the Royal Navy allowed the majority of Bismarcks sailors to drown on the rumor of a U-Boot sighting. That was unforgivable and I consider it to be an another Allied atrocity.

Warspite1

However my primary complaint is that you are a troll.

Can we please put an end to this topic?

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Can we please put an end to this topic?

Shannon, could you please check the WAN IP addresses of the folks who have posted to this thread? I ask because it would appear that at least one of the participants is posting under more than one account/username. If your forum UI doesn't allow you to do so, an admin's almost certainly will. So long as members are allowed to use sock-puppets on the forums, you're going to have flare-ups like this.

Thanks.[:)]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Can we please put an end to this topic?

I previously talked with a moderator if it was time to lock this thread. That time had not yet arrived but I think it is time now. Most views on this topic has been posted already. Time to close it and move on. Could you lock it Steve?

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Can we please put an end to this topic?

I previously talked with a moderator if it was time to lock this thread. That time had not yet arrived but I think it is time now. Most views on this topic has been posted already. Time to close it and move on. Could you lock it Steve?

Done.