Colonel_Jenkins
Mongoose
So y'all are saying that the game accurately represents the effectiveness of British airpower, but not American airpower? Well, I must admit, American airpower is pretty awesome.
The newbie wonders
- Thread starter Colonel_Jenkins
- Start date
Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
Put it this way: If you sit a model of Tirpitz on the table the Fleet Air Arm could bomb it all day and not sink it... how much better you colonials would fare I can't really say... :wink:
captainsmirk
Mongoose
Well considering that when the RAF finally did sink her, she didn't really sink... (Beause the fjord was so shallow)
She couldn't move, but then she hadn't moved much for a while anyway...
And they had to have another go to make her capsize...
Also thinking about it most ships sunk by airpower suffered damage from torpedoes (Yamato and Musashi included). Torpedoes couldn't be used against the Tirpitz. Bombs really need to hit something vital (magazine, parked aircraft, etc) especially on heavily armoured ships, as they generally don't cause damage which lets water in.
Look at the Bismarck (very similar to the Tirpitz), she was pounded mercilessly by the RN battleships when they caught her. They effectively destroyed most of her superstructure, yet she was still afloat. She had to be finished off by torpedoes/scuttling (depending on whose account you believe).
If Tirpitz was anything near as resiliant as her sister to above waterline damage then the lack of torpedoes may have had a very significant effect.
Ignoring the apparent inability of the FAA to hit a stationary target of course...
Nick
She couldn't move, but then she hadn't moved much for a while anyway...
And they had to have another go to make her capsize...
Also thinking about it most ships sunk by airpower suffered damage from torpedoes (Yamato and Musashi included). Torpedoes couldn't be used against the Tirpitz. Bombs really need to hit something vital (magazine, parked aircraft, etc) especially on heavily armoured ships, as they generally don't cause damage which lets water in.
Look at the Bismarck (very similar to the Tirpitz), she was pounded mercilessly by the RN battleships when they caught her. They effectively destroyed most of her superstructure, yet she was still afloat. She had to be finished off by torpedoes/scuttling (depending on whose account you believe).
If Tirpitz was anything near as resiliant as her sister to above waterline damage then the lack of torpedoes may have had a very significant effect.
Ignoring the apparent inability of the FAA to hit a stationary target of course...
Nick
captainsmirk
Mongoose
Ok.
The RAF and FAA's apparent inability to hit a stationary target...
Everyone happy now?
Still the Bismarck and Tirpitz did seem to be pretty resiliant to above waterline damage. But then again a lot of other ships may have been as well, and I just don't know enough about them to tell... :?
Nick
The RAF and FAA's apparent inability to hit a stationary target...
Everyone happy now?
Still the Bismarck and Tirpitz did seem to be pretty resiliant to above waterline damage. But then again a lot of other ships may have been as well, and I just don't know enough about them to tell... :?
Nick
Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
DM said:I don't think the RAF's record was much different overall
http://www.bismarck-class.dk/tirpitz/miscellaneous/airattackstirpitz.html
That's the site I was talking about... :wink:
Fitzwalrus
Mongoose
Old US Navy torpedo bomber squadron saying:
"If you want to fill 'em with air, bomb 'em.
If you want to fill 'em with water, torpedo 'em."
"If you want to fill 'em with air, bomb 'em.
If you want to fill 'em with water, torpedo 'em."
