No arrogance is intended, sir, and if that is your impression, I apologize. However, as far as the examples I cited repeatedly, unless I am mistaken that Bismarck's heavy armor citadel WAS successful in excluding both Rodney's and KGV's main-armament shells, even long after the battleship was rendered incapable of further battle, then my statement surely bears merit. In fact, it is EXACTLY why I stated my opinion about the value of even the best defensive armor, in the first place. A ship destroyed by such pounding yet still afloat is, nonetheless, FINISHED.RF wrote:This isn't correct. POW under the orders of its XO was able to disengage from the battle, and was later in a condition where that battle could be recommenced.RNfanDan wrote: Prince of Wales, although somewhat lucky not to have suffered even further damage (see Garzke & Dulin analysis), was dealt a "blow to the head" that effectively ended its ability to carry out the battle.
I think this is a rather arrogant and intemperent point. It is also inaccurate and out of context to the position that Bismarck and Scharnhorst respectively were in.So to repeat my original point, armor is over-rated when it comes to defeating an enemy. Not SINK, but DEFEAT.
Thank you for confirming this.
As far as Prince of Wales' damage is concerned (and I welcome correction on this point), she WAS fortunate in the incident to have received penetrating enemy shellfire which failed to detonate after reaching points well-behind her armor protection. She was driven out of the fight by hits having nothing to do with the penetration of that armor citadel, regardless of her later ability to commence battle.
Nothing I have asserted re: defensive armor determines the victor, appears invalid. Again, a ship does not have to be sunk, to be defeated in battle. My apologies if this hasn't been made clear by this late moment...
Respectfully,
Dan