Re: [OT] Battlecruisers vs. battleships

The action I wanted to see was a hypothetical Dec 10th, 1941 engagement 
between the Prince of Wales and the Repulse against the Haruna and the 
Kongo (both originally BCs, later converted to fast battleships). I have

wargamed this action once (using Raider Operations - ask me about 
multiplayer Internet naval warfare offlist) and the Japanese BCs seemed 
fairly effective - although a lucky torpedo strike left the Prince of 
Wales fighting alone in very short order. I'll try the scenario again 
and hope the RN can dodge torpedoes.

Eric Foley wrote:

>  
>
>>    
>>
>
>That may be true... except for the fact that the three battlecruisers
that
>were sunk at Jutland were destroyed in pretty much exactly the same
way:
>weak armor that got hit in the wrong place, causing a catastrophic
magazine
>explosion.
>
>If Hood had been the only example, it could've been passed off as a
freak
>case.	However, it wasn't, and as Jutland and the Hood are the only two
>serious examples of battlecruisers engaging battleships in naval
actions
>(that I know of), that basically puts the occurence rate of such
disasters
>at 100%.  Which, in turn, doesn't suggest that the sort of hit required
to
>do this is that improbable at all.
>
>  
>
>