Help support TMP


"Are We Building Battleships?" Topic


5 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please do not use bad language on the forums.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2014-present) Message Board


Areas of Interest

Modern

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Featured Ruleset


Featured Showcase Article

Cheap Buys: London Taxi from Matchbox

"Hefty" metal die-cast cars are cheap this time of year.


Current Poll


Featured Book Review


Featured Movie Review


987 hits since 20 Jul 2018
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango0120 Jul 2018 9:43 p.m. PST

"Diagram: H.M.S. Hood (top), a battleship of the British Royal Navy that the German Battleship Bismarck (bottom) sunk with plunging fire on 24 May 1941. The H.M.S. Hood's hull (commissioned 1920) was designed to withstand flat-trajectory projectiles and was vulnerable to high-angle shells that could pierce her deck. In turn, the more modern Bismarck (commissioned 1939) was disabled by primitive British torpedo planes and eventually sank on 27 May 1941. Photos taken from whiteensignmodels.com and kbismarck.com , respectively.

At the beginning of the American Civil War formations of Federal and Confederate armies faced off in pseudo-Napoleonic battles where officers trained in Napoleonic doctrines maneuvered closely packed formations against the rifled musket and the minié ball. By 1864, trench warfare, mines, and mortars defined the terrible battles of Cold Harbor and Petersburg – foreshadowing the trenches of World War I. In the battles of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871, the Prussian Guard Corps attacked with frontal assaults against prepared French defensive positions…."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

nsolomon9921 Jul 2018 1:44 a.m. PST

Ummm … ahemm … HMS Hood was NOT a battleship!

She was a battlecruiser – loosely defined as the firepower of a battleship BUT the speed AND importantly the armour of a crusier. Meaning she could dish it out but couldn't take it and therein was the problem in the Denmark Strait that fateful day.

Haven't read the rest of the article. I know its harsh but a basic faux pa like this in the opening paragraph kind of mutes the credibility and validity of the authors message at least for me.

Personal logo StoneMtnMinis Supporting Member of TMP21 Jul 2018 5:28 a.m. PST

Actually, a very interesting article that only uses the "battleship" analogy as a lead-in. Also, the comments are very well thoughtout as well.

A very thought provoking find Armand.

Dave

Tango0121 Jul 2018 11:00 a.m. PST

Glad you enjoyed it my friend!. (smile)


You have to read it… sometimes … you have not get carried away by first impressions … (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Lion in the Stars23 Jul 2018 12:24 p.m. PST

The authors question of 'are we building battleships' is really asking 'are we building things to fight the last war, or are we building the things that revolutionized war'?

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.