teleportation in time PoW and KGV v Bismarck

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7490
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: teleportation in time PoW and KGV v Bismarck

Postby RF » Mon Oct 03, 2016 10:51 am

He would be aware of the possibility given Victorious has to manoeuvre as a carrier as opposed to the movements and speed of battleships.
The same issue Halsey and Spruance had in the Pacific - the battleships (when available) got left behind. But that was of course later on in the war.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3990
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: teleportation in time PoW and KGV v Bismarck

Postby alecsandros » Mon Oct 03, 2016 11:02 am

Victorious did not have a significant speed margin over KGV - maybe 2kts tops in ideal conditions, but close to zero in real operating conditions. The limitation was of range per given speed (Victorious having more range), with KGV rapidly exhausting her existent fuel supply when running at 29kts and beyond.

Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: teleportation in time PoW and KGV v Bismarck

Postby Steve Crandell » Mon Oct 03, 2016 12:53 pm

RF wrote:He would be aware of the possibility given Victorious has to manoeuvre as a carrier as opposed to the movements and speed of battleships.
The same issue Halsey and Spruance had in the Pacific - the battleships (when available) got left behind. But that was of course later on in the war.


I believe you will find that later in the war both Halsey and Spruance used Iowa and New Jersey as flagships when they were available.

Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: teleportation in time PoW and KGV v Bismarck

Postby Steve Crandell » Mon Oct 03, 2016 12:53 pm

Steve Crandell wrote:
RF wrote:He would be aware of the possibility given Victorious has to manoeuvre as a carrier as opposed to the movements and speed of battleships.
The same issue Halsey and Spruance had in the Pacific - the battleships (when available) got left behind. But that was of course later on in the war.


I believe you will find that later in the war Halsey and Spruance used Iowa and New Jersey as flagships when they were available.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3990
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: teleportation in time PoW and KGV v Bismarck

Postby alecsandros » Mon Oct 03, 2016 1:55 pm

Nagumo usualy hoisted his flag on Akagi , despite having Hiei or Kirishima close by as support units.
It makes some sense to hoist the flag on a fleet carrier, as that is the unit most likely to deal the first attack on the enemy.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7490
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: teleportation in time PoW and KGV v Bismarck

Postby RF » Mon Oct 03, 2016 4:58 pm

alecsandros wrote:Victorious did not have a significant speed margin over KGV - maybe 2kts tops in ideal conditions, but close to zero in real operating conditions. The limitation was of range per given speed (Victorious having more range), with KGV rapidly exhausting her existent fuel supply when running at 29kts and beyond.


The issue I was thinking of was of positioning for air attack rather than just one of speed and of course range which you mention.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7490
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: teleportation in time PoW and KGV v Bismarck

Postby RF » Mon Oct 03, 2016 5:01 pm

Steve Crandell wrote:
I believe you will find that later in the war both Halsey and Spruance used Iowa and New Jersey as flagships when they were available.


Indeed - but by then the tactical position was different, in that the battleships were faster and longer ranged and could keep up with the carriers, and the USN forces overall were very much larger than in 1942.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7490
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: teleportation in time PoW and KGV v Bismarck

Postby RF » Mon Oct 03, 2016 5:04 pm

alecsandros wrote:Nagumo usualy hoisted his flag on Akagi , despite having Hiei or Kirishima close by as support units.
It makes some sense to hoist the flag on a fleet carrier, as that is the unit most likely to deal the first attack on the enemy.


Yes.

The IJN carrier force was a fleet in itself whereas Tovey had one carrier and battleships/battlecruisers were his main force of final despatch.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3990
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: teleportation in time PoW and KGV v Bismarck

Postby alecsandros » Tue Oct 04, 2016 5:38 am

But that is of minor importance - Victorious was a fighting unit, expected to torpedo the enemy (and probably to engage first).


Return to “Hypothetical Naval Scenarios”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest