.
She didn't have the capacity to carry enough depth charges to drop patternS.
.
Search found 167 matches
- Wed Jul 24, 2013 10:43 am
- Forum: Naval History (1922-1945)
- Topic: Depth Charges Aboard HM cruisers 1939-45
- Replies: 13
- Views: 10812
- Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:22 pm
- Forum: Naval History (1922-1945)
- Topic: Longest Gunfire Hit
- Replies: 48
- Views: 73594
Re: Longest Gunfire Hit
.
If you go to this thread ;
http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.c ... eRJn9KOToc
And look at the third response ( "~3" ) - i.e. the 4th post, you will see a post by the Author "rlundgren"
.
If you go to this thread ;
http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.c ... eRJn9KOToc
And look at the third response ( "~3" ) - i.e. the 4th post, you will see a post by the Author "rlundgren"
.
- Sun Jul 14, 2013 7:19 pm
- Forum: Naval History (1922-1945)
- Topic: Longest Gunfire Hit
- Replies: 48
- Views: 73594
Re: Longest Gunfire Hit
. The effect of near misses were something that the RN learnt a lot about early in the war (Norway and Med). The effect was often summarised as "the mining effect" (as it was related to the effect magnetic mines also had - depending on the depth of water) and led to a huge effort during th...
- Sat Jul 13, 2013 4:49 pm
- Forum: Naval History (1922-1945)
- Topic: Longest Gunfire Hit
- Replies: 48
- Views: 73594
Re: Longest Gunfire Hit
.
So a "near miss" and "splinter/blast damage" are now to be defined as a hit ?
Silly
.
So a "near miss" and "splinter/blast damage" are now to be defined as a hit ?
Silly
.
- Fri Jul 12, 2013 8:49 am
- Forum: Naval History (1922-1945)
- Topic: Longest Gunfire Hit
- Replies: 48
- Views: 73594
Re: Longest Gunfire Hit
.
I think this claim has been revived because someone posted that there was a book coming out later this year which would claim that the hit was a possibility.
.
I think this claim has been revived because someone posted that there was a book coming out later this year which would claim that the hit was a possibility.
.
- Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:01 am
- Forum: Bismarck General Discussion
- Topic: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War
- Replies: 1950
- Views: 176814
Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War
. Antonio - you are a complete idiot (fact, not a "flame war"). READ the reasons in the official reports - they make total sense, whereas you are thinking totally differently from a 1940s mindset and especially a 1940s Royal Navy mindset. The INTERESTING thing is the "discussion"...
- Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:31 pm
- Forum: Bismarck General Discussion
- Topic: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War
- Replies: 1950
- Views: 176814
Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War
.
As stated above the main problem was with the interlock system and specifically the safety lock system (where the rods were had too much flex).
The 14-inch turrets were NOT "too complicated"/
Too much playing unrealistic wargames.
.
As stated above the main problem was with the interlock system and specifically the safety lock system (where the rods were had too much flex).
The 14-inch turrets were NOT "too complicated"/
Too much playing unrealistic wargames.
.
- Sat Jul 06, 2013 9:54 am
- Forum: Bismarck General Discussion
- Topic: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War
- Replies: 1950
- Views: 176814
Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War
. The MAIN problems with the 14-inch turrets was with the inter-lock system (specifically the safety interlocks). These were identified before PoW was finished but needed time at a dockyard to be fixed (these are noted in the KGV class Ships Book). After 1941 there seems to have been little problems...
- Thu Jul 04, 2013 9:02 am
- Forum: Bismarck General Discussion
- Topic: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War
- Replies: 1950
- Views: 176814
Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War
.
Sheer idiocy.
.
Sheer idiocy.
.
- Sun Jun 30, 2013 2:02 pm
- Forum: Naval History (1922-1945)
- Topic: Armour improvements
- Replies: 4
- Views: 2136
Re: Armour improvements
. Just to agree that strict comparisons between nations was difficult as testing was severely limited and armour penetration was a statistical matter NOT an absolute. Testing of armour and projectiles was INTER-DEPENDANT and NEITHER was an absolute. The limits given were arrived at by doing multiple...
- Wed Jun 19, 2013 2:36 pm
- Forum: Bismarck General Discussion
- Topic: Rescue Operations After Bismarck's Sinking
- Replies: 88
- Views: 20163
Re: Rescue Operations After Bismarck's Sinking
.
More fantasy trolling.
.
More fantasy trolling.
.
- Tue Jun 18, 2013 10:29 am
- Forum: Bismarck General Discussion
- Topic: Rescue Operations After Bismarck's Sinking
- Replies: 88
- Views: 20163
Re: Rescue Operations After Bismarck's Sinking
.
I would lay off the bottle if I were you.
.
I would lay off the bottle if I were you.
.
- Sat Jun 15, 2013 8:26 pm
- Forum: Bismarck General Discussion
- Topic: Rescue Operations After Bismarck's Sinking
- Replies: 88
- Views: 20163
Re: Rescue Operations After Bismarck's Sinking
.
Idiotic trolling.
.
Idiotic trolling.
.
- Fri Jun 14, 2013 6:11 pm
- Forum: Bismarck General Discussion
- Topic: Rescue Operations After Bismarck's Sinking
- Replies: 88
- Views: 20163
Re: Rescue Operations After Bismarck's Sinking
You're just trolling -Vic Dale wrote:
Yes dead right. My mistake. An attack on that sighting could have resulted in Dorsetshire's doubling the score on the same day that she put her torpedoes into Bismarck.
As for your second post - pure fantasy, no evidence and in reality just more trolling.
.
- Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:58 am
- Forum: Bismarck General Discussion
- Topic: Rescue Operations After Bismarck's Sinking
- Replies: 88
- Views: 20163
Re: Rescue Operations After Bismarck's Sinking
....... There were 35 U-Boats sunk in May of 1941. Prompt and decisive action on the 27th could have made it 36. ........... Lunacy. There was 1 ( one ) U-boat lost in May 1941, the "35" figure is for the WHOLE of 1941. The turning point moth ( May 1943 ) only managed 40 I-boat losses. .