Search found 141 matches
- Tue Jan 29, 2013 5:05 am
- Forum: Naval History (1922-1945)
- Topic: The First Battle of Narvik, 10 April 1940
- Replies: 32
- Views: 29426
Re: The First Battle of Narvik, 10 April 1940
Even if they had radar, the "clutter" from reflections off the surrounding terrain inside the fjord would have rendered them useless.
- Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:15 am
- Forum: Hypothetical Naval Scenarios
- Topic: Bismarck v Warspite
- Replies: 20
- Views: 8770
Re: Bismarck v Warspite
"I'd rather be lucky than good."
-- The Unknown Gamer
-- The Unknown Gamer
- Tue Jan 15, 2013 3:04 am
- Forum: Bismarck General Discussion
- Topic: "Yeah, about that air cover..."
- Replies: 7
- Views: 3066
Re: "Yeah, about that air cover..."
Thorsten, the context of the question was, "Did the Luftwaffe know that Bismarck was approaching?" The answer to that and my other questions all appear to be "Yes." I find this mildly surprising, since bad/no communications seems to occur so often, especially when different servi...
- Mon Jan 14, 2013 10:29 am
- Forum: Hypothetical Naval Scenarios
- Topic: Twins v Warspite & Valiant
- Replies: 55
- Views: 10520
Re: Twins v Warspite & Valiant
One notes that the Tirpitz had an explosion that blew C turret off its barbette while rolling over. It did not, however, blow the hull apart, nor was it as violent as the Barham explosion. I wonder if this was an explosion in the shell storage, rather than in the propellant magazine? The shells onl...
- Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:21 am
- Forum: Bismarck General Discussion
- Topic: "Yeah, about that air cover..."
- Replies: 7
- Views: 3066
"Yeah, about that air cover..."
I have read in several places that, at the time of Ark Royal's attack on Bismarck, the latter was only 12 hours from the safety of air cover from occupied France. Assuming that the battleship would be that close within a half-day's time, Did the Luftwaffe actually have any plans or orders for provid...
- Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:06 am
- Forum: Naval History (1922-1945)
- Topic: WASHINGTON NAVAL CONFERENCE OF 1922
- Replies: 22
- Views: 9682
Re: WASHINGTON NAVAL CONFERENCE OF 1922
In short, Motive & Method. Objectively, the 5-3 ratio was not a bad deal for the Japanese, since the US had to divide its fleet between two oceans, and the RN could not afford to deploy a substantial fraction of its fleet to the Pacific. The Japanese did not see it that way. They saw it as an in...
- Sun Jan 13, 2013 9:50 am
- Forum: Naval History (1922-1945)
- Topic: WASHINGTON NAVAL CONFERENCE OF 1922
- Replies: 22
- Views: 9682
Re: WASHINGTON NAVAL CONFERENCE OF 1922
NB*Capital ships were those vessels exceeding 10,000 tons or bearing guns in excess of an eight-inch caliber, effectively denoting battleships and aircraft carriers Not quite correct. The treaty did not apply to aircraft carriers. You may or may not have missed this loophole, but the Japanese defin...
- Tue Jan 01, 2013 8:08 am
- Forum: Bismarck General Discussion
- Topic: Victorious and its involvement
- Replies: 152
- Views: 77236
Re: Victorious and its involvement
Perhaps you could study the mystery of "paragraphs" first.
- Sun Dec 30, 2012 1:05 pm
- Forum: Hypothetical Naval Scenarios
- Topic: Twins v Warspite & Valiant
- Replies: 55
- Views: 10520
Re: Twins v Warspite & Valiant
Apologies, ede, but I do not understand the expression "counter proof". Could you rephrase or elaborate?
Thanks in advance.
Thanks in advance.
- Fri Dec 14, 2012 4:29 am
- Forum: Naval History (1922-1945)
- Topic: LOSS OF HMS ARK ROYAL IN WW2
- Replies: 9
- Views: 4589
Re: LOSS OF HMS ARK ROYAL IN WW2
No. Next thread... Seriously - Your ship is your home. It's more than that: It is the center of your existence. It's crew is your family: You may fight with each other, but if the thing that brings you together and protects you is threatened, you pull together and give your all to save it. This is f...
- Thu Dec 13, 2012 7:21 pm
- Forum: Naval Weapons
- Topic: Practical ranges
- Replies: 70
- Views: 40667
Re: Practical ranges
Hmm, remember that New Jersey was sent to bombard Lebanon in 1984 and missed its targets by as much as 10,000 yards. In fact, it didn't hit anything it aimed at. My recollection is that she knocked-out 30 Syrian gun batteries and the Syrian army HQ in Lebanon. A BB FC explained to me that she had o...
- Sun Dec 02, 2012 9:47 am
- Forum: World War II
- Topic: THE BATTLE FOR TARAWA-20-23 NOV.1943
- Replies: 4
- Views: 4958
Re: THE BATTLE FOR TARAWA-20-23 NOV.1943
One of the things that I find striking is what Betio looks like today - a residential & mercantile community that can be walked from end-to-end in 45 minutes. Leaving aside the lessons-learned for amphibeous warfare and the course of the Pacific war, I consider Betio as a microcosm of all of WWI...
- Thu Nov 22, 2012 4:19 pm
- Forum: Naval History in General
- Topic: Jutland - a fight to the finish?
- Replies: 3
- Views: 10272
Re: Jutland - a fight to the finish?
After the first "battle turn-away", what if the German line had done a corpen-right to 270 and said, "Come and get it!"?
- Thu Nov 22, 2012 2:03 am
- Forum: Hypothetical Naval Scenarios
- Topic: Italian fleet v British fleet
- Replies: 24
- Views: 5797
Re: Italian fleet v British fleet
...assume that all ships are fully operational when battle commences and that Nelson and Rodney are using PoW's radar and fall of shot for ranging purposes... My first thought when I read that, I wondered if communications of the day allowed it, and if so, was it standard doctrine? Then I remembere...
- Wed Nov 21, 2012 7:29 pm
- Forum: Hypothetical Naval Scenarios
- Topic: Italian fleet v British fleet
- Replies: 24
- Views: 5797
Re: Italian fleet v British fleet
Also, would the Italian fleet actually want to fight if they knew what they were up against? *sigh* <face-palm until the urge to be snarky subsides> OK, it is really difficult to have a hypothetical naval scenario (the name of this section) when you decide in advance that one or both sides are not ...