www.ditl.org

Captain Seafort wrote:A crumpet:

What size is this? like a cookie, a toast, or a cake?

Difficult to explain. I've always eaten them as lunch, its like a savoury replacement for a bagel. but its much softer and lighter than a bagel, yet still as filling.

Reliant121 wrote:Difficult to explain. I've always eaten them as lunch, its like a savoury replacement for a bagel. but its much softer and lighter than a bagel, yet still as filling.

Yeah, well, you guys eat beans for breakfast also. And blood pudding. At least even the Scots came up with an artifical replacement for the casing for a haggis.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:What size is this? like a cookie, a toast, or a cake?

About six inches across, give or take.

Captain Seafort wrote:

SolkaTruesilver wrote:What size is this? like a cookie, a toast, or a cake?

About six inches across, give or take.

Bagel-scale?

SolkaTruesilver wrote:Bagel-scale?

No, it's considerably smaller than Archer's dog.

Crumpet is also posh slang for female companionship. At least if Blackadder is to be believed.

Captain Seafort wrote:

SolkaTruesilver wrote:Bagel-scale?

No, it's considerably smaller than Archer's dog.

Silly. I am talking about Montreal delicacies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal-style_bagel

Not the Chinese's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat

SolkaTruesilver wrote:Silly. I am talking about Montreal delicacies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal-style_bagel

Kill it - it's an abomination! That bears a passing physical resemblance to a real bagel, but "sweet," "light," and "airy" are not adjectives that should ever be used to describe a bagel.

Mikey wrote:

SolkaTruesilver wrote:Silly. I am talking about Montreal delicacies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal-style_bagel

Kill it - it's an abomination! That bears a passing physical resemblance to a real bagel, but "sweet," "light," and "airy" are not adjectives that should ever be used to describe a bagel.

Indeed. Which is why I prefer the Montreal bagels, which are densier, heavier.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Atekimogus wrote:did she ever fought an engagement were she was not seriously outnumbered?

Yes, all of them - Bismarck was only ever engaged pair pairs of battleships (Hood and Prince of Wales in the Denmark Straight and King George V and Rodney at the final action) and was only under the effective fire of more than one ship while combat capable for a few seconds, if that. Hood managed to straddle her with her last salvo before she blew up, and KGV's first accurate salvo was partially or wholly responsible for knocking out Caesar and Dora and silencing her.

I am not sure I understand you correctly here but to me it sounds like she was always seriously outnumbered (as in two against one). Maybe she was not engaged by two ships at the same time, but being able to take turns seems like a huge advantage to me (just think crew morale and exhaustion). Also, in the last engagement it seems that prior to engagement with the Rodney and King George V she was hounded by Swordfish' from Ark Royal and the night before the sinking was harrased by Tribal-class destroyers Cossack, Sikh, Maori and Zulu. Additionally, you forgot to mention the two heavy cruisers Norfolk and Dorsetshire adding their firepower to the last engagement. I am sorry but to me it seems it was basically one ship (+U556 resorted to reporting positions since being out of torpedoes) against a small armada........(2 battleships, 2 heavy cruisers, 1 carrier, at least 4 destroyers)

Therefore it seems we have one rather "fair" engagement (two battleships against one newer battleship and a heavy cruiser) which could have gone both ways and was decided by a lucky shot and afterwards she was grinded to death. Maybe they could have built a better ship with less flaws but I am really not sure if it had mattered against such opposition, as I said, she shouldn't have been built in the first place.

Atekimogus wrote:I am not sure I understand you correctly here but to me it sounds like she was always seriously outnumbered (as in two against one). Maybe she was not engaged by two ships at the same time, but being able to take turns seems like a huge advantage to me (just think crew morale and exhaustion).

They weren't taking turns in either battle - they were simply ineffective because more most of the relevant sections of both actions Bismarck was only being engaged by a single ship.

Also, in the last engagement it seems that prior to engagement with the Rodney and King George V she was hounded by Swordfish' from Ark Royal and the night before the sinking was harrased by Tribal-class destroyers Cossack, Sikh, Maori and Zulu. Additionally, you forgot to mention the two heavy cruisers Norfolk and Dorsetshire adding their firepower to the last engagement.

Minor forces. In a battleship fight, the only forces that matter are the heavies.

Maybe they could have built a better ship with less flaws but I am really not sure if it had mattered against such opposition

Oh it mattered all right - a ship without Bismarck's flaws wouldn't have been crippled as she was by that stern torpedo hit.

The Bismark's weak ass is why that one torpedo wrecked their rudder. It wasn't a direct rudder hit mind you. It hit the hull but the shock jammed the rudder.

Tyyr wrote:The Bismark's weak ass is why that one torpedo wrecked their rudder. It wasn't a direct rudder hit mind you. It hit the hull but the shock jammed the rudder.

It did worse than that - the stern structure collapsed onto the rudder. That (along with the triple-screw arrangement) is why they weren't able to simply jam it midships and steer with the props.

Captain Seafort wrote: They weren't taking turns in either battle - they were simply ineffective because more most of the relevant sections of both actions Bismarck was only being engaged by a single ship.

Rodney steered to the north so that her gunfire would work the length of Bismarck, while King George V took the side. They opened fire at 08:47. Bismarck returned fire, but her inability to steer and her list to port affected accuracy. Her low speed of seven knots made her an easy target, and she was soon hit several times, with heavy cruisers Norfolk and Dorsetshire adding their firepower. - Bismarck, Robert Jackson, p91

Not sure if the source is genuine, if so it seems she was engaged by two battleships during her last engagement.

Captain Seafort wrote:Minor forces. In a battleship fight, the only forces that matter are the heavies.

I disagree, because:

At 09:02 an 8-inch (200 mm) shell from Norfolk hit the main gun director, killing the gunnery officer,......... - same source as above

Sure, a heavy cruiser doesn't have the same artillery as a battleship but disregarding them out of hand when they obviously are able to dish out some damage......(and that is without counting destroyers hounding her with torpedoes)

Captain Seafort wrote:Oh it mattered all right - a ship without Bismarck's flaws wouldn't have been crippled as she was by that stern torpedo hit.

Hm...ok, here I agree with you, without the weak stern section she wouldn't have been quite so a sitting duck as she was, still building a ship which is proof against anything is not possible and what would interest me is how lucky a hit this torpedo was. But still, one ship without air-cover against an armada,....it WAS only a matter of time.