Who fires first wins ?????

[neil hilton]

Geez thats almost scary. As Fieldmarschall Rommel said "I have found again and again that in encounter actions, the day goes to the side that is the first to plaster its opponent with fire. The man who lies low and awaits developments usually comes off second best.
Guess this is only true for the Panzers!
Regards,
Celticmarine10

Agincourt and Crecy. The English were 'plastering' their enemies long before Germany was even a concept. Many other nations can claim the same no doubt

[Seekanone]

It is usually the side that hits first who wins. Bismarck won because she hit first, although I am not sure Hood could have defeated Bismarck in any event. Japan won Savo Island because she caught the US covering force off guard and landed the first gunfire and torpedo blows.

[lwd]

Well the following was offered in one of the British French wars: "Gentlemen of France, perhaps you would care to fire first?" The French did and got some hits but lost as I recall.

Getting telling hits early is certainly good but it may not be enough. History is full of counter examples.

[RF]

It is usually the side that hits first who wins. Bismarck won because she hit first, although I am not sure Hood could have defeated Bismarck in any event.

Not sure on this one - the latest analysis of the DS battle suggests that POW hit Bismarck before Hood was hit at all.

It is an interesting hypothesis about what would have happened if Hood had opened fire on Bismarck instead of the Prinz Eugen, as it has been suggested that the gunnery that produced the near misses on the cruiser would otherwise have hit Bismarck in the bow, miships and stern, before the Bismarck third salvo hit on Hood. But this of course is conjecture. Just as the question ''what if the shell that blew up the Hood was a dud?''

[RF]

Well the following was offered in one of the British French wars: "Gentlemen of France, perhaps you would care to fire first?"

It makes war sound almost like a game of cricket......

It also brought back to my mind the alleged comment from Oliver Cromwell at the start of the Battle of Edge Hill, when he enquired why the Parliamentarian Army wasn't opening fire and on being told that the commanders were waiting for the ''appointed hour'' exclaimed ''the appointed hour? whose stupidity is this? Colonel Hampdon - open fire!''

[lwd]

Well the following was offered in one of the British French wars: "Gentlemen of France, perhaps you would care to fire first?"

It makes war sound almost like a game of cricket......

It also brought back to my mind the alleged comment from Oliver Cromwell at the start of the Battle of Edge Hill, when he enquired why the Parliamentarian Army wasn't opening fire and on being told that the commanders were waiting for the ''appointed hour'' exclaimed ''the appointed hour? whose stupidity is this? Colonel Hampdon - open fire!''

If I recall correctly in the case above the French fired. The British then closed the range and delivered a much more devestating volley.

[Bgile]

In naval combat it's often the case that the side firing first achieved tactical surprise and has a substantial advantage because of that.

[RF]

Admiral Holland did just this at the start of the DS battle, as the German observers were only able to confirm the identity of the British ships when they opened fire. Despite the delay in the Germans opening fire they still of course decisively won that encounter....

[Bgile]

The Germans thought they might be German battleships? Good grief.

I was primarily referring to night actions in the Pacific, where one side would sometimes strike first with torpedoes and then gunfire at close range. Two prominent examples are Savo Island and Surigao Strait, but there are others.

[lwd]

No the Germans thought that they were British cruisers.