The Sweedish navy

[Hubert Cater]

No

[J Wagner]

Thanks...

[husky65]

Originally posted by Old Patch:

[QB]Aloid;

Husky65;

Conway isn't a person, like Fred T. Jane (of "Jane's Fighting Ships"), it's the name of the company that publishes the series (and a lot of other neat books).

I know, I have Conways the worlds battleships

None of my references give either the location, number, or size of the bomb hits on the POW, so from that evidence I would guess that neither those who were there nor thse who studied the incident later felt that the bomb hits were a significant factor in the sinking of the POW.

I agree, however the bombs were a significant factor in which direction it rolled to sink.

The second set of torps leveled the list and then the bombs made a pathway for lots more water to come in the port side.

The fact that POW rolled to port does not prove that 1 x torp sank her (as conways contends), just that, when she was on the verge of sinking from 5 torps, she was hit on the port side by bombs.

As an anonymous American Admrial one quipped: "In attacking a ship, it is more efficient to let water in from below than to let air in from above" ("Attack on Taranto", Lowery and Wellman, p. 35).

Efficiency isn't the issue, your reference contends that 1 torp sank the POW (because of the direction she rolled), yet ignores the fact that POW was level when the bombs hit the port side, then she rolled to port - join the dots conways.

[Guest Mike]

According to the accounts I read PoW shipped up to 18,000 tons of water through the damage done to her port prop shaft and hull. Much of the damage was done by the flailing propeller that cut huge chunks out of the hull adjacent to it.

The bombs didn't help at all, but the ship was a gonner from that torp hit - unable to manouvre and unable to defend herself she was a casualty waiting to happen