Re: [OT] Battlecruisers vs. battleships

I've run that scenario four times, using both Seekrieg and Command at
Sea.
The honors are even, two wins each. In all cases, the win went to the
side
that had the best tactics (in my judgement anyhow).
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Llaneza" <maserati@earthlink.net>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 6:04 PM
Subject: 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >