Re: [FT] Battlecruisers vs. battleships

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard and Emily Bell" <rlbell@sympatico.ca>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 7:50 PM
Subject: Re: [FT] Battlecruisers vs. battleships

> The results of the Bismark's fire on the Hood give credence to the
notion
that
> the Hood was inadequitely protected, but analysis of the events shows
that
it
> was an improbable hit that caused her loss.

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.

> In many ways, the battlecruiser was rendered obsolete by the aircraft
carrier,
> as carriers were fast (often built on hulls of BC's cancelled by the
Washington
> Naval Treaty), and their aircraft could strike out beyond the range of
return
> fire.

Well, that makes the whole discussion moot...

E