Re: Historical DD's and torpedos - was Re: [OFFICIAL] Missile Ideas

On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, M Hodgson wrote:

> True - but I don't think they were that pessamistic.	A good spread of
> torps would sink a BB or at least slow her to a point that the DD's
and
> acompanying ships could escape.

The problem is getting within torp range. If both ships are closing,
it's
easy. But sane BB captains try to maintain range, which means the DDs
are
closing only at relative 5-10 knots. And the BB can open fire over 30km 
away...
 
> (6x11", 8x6")  However having crippled Exeter, her only real threat,
Graff
> Spee fled battle due to the risk of a torpedo run from Ajax and
Achillies,

There are *numerous* accounts of that battle, and no one agrees quite
why 
Graf Spee chose to disengage. The threat of torpedo attack is possible,
but falls in the "they chickened out" category. Graf Spee had taken very

little damage and she was only slightly slower than the British CLs that

had already taken fire.

> One questions here, what would people classify a pocket battleship as
???
> BC or CA or something else ???
 
Well, the American "large cruiser" classification CB fits best.
Non-anglo
navies often didn't have the good sense fit their ships in the same
classifications. Jane's calls them "CA of an exceptionally 
powerful type". By Naval Treaty terms of the era, they're capital ships 
since they mount over 8" guns. The Germans *did* build them on the 
battlecruiser principle. It depends on whose classification system you 
subscribe to.

--
maxxon@swob.dna.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) 	  | A pig who doesn't
fly
+358 50 5596411 GSM +358 9 80926 78/FAX 81/Voice  | is just an ordinary
pig.
Maininkitie 8A8 02320 ESPOO FINLAND | Hate me?	  |	     - Porco
Rosso
Http://www.swob.dna.fi/~maxxon/     | hateme.html |