Thank you Steve Cartwright for your excellent Tribute to FS2002, but in particular the section Part 3: FS2002 for 1940-1946. As many have remarked, the screenshots were first class, but the text relating to World War II was of special interest to me. I think you have done a remarkable job of weaving a diverse set of stories into a short, coherent and informative article, a very fine job of journalism indeed.I did find what I think amounts to two typos and one error of fact however. The British ship the Bismarck sank was HMS Hood, not RMS Hood and the Swordfish that scored a hit on the Bismarck

I will let Steve respond to your letter Denis, but I do have an opinion on the discussion about aircraft carriers. I agree that Toranto was the first effective use of the a/c carrier and that navies around the world raised their eyebrows. It got their attention... including that of the U.S. Navy. However, it was a "limited" use of the platform and it took Pearl Harbor to really get the attention of the "battleship" main stream thinkers.Why? Because even though Toranto was an effective use of the a/c carrier, it was not seen as being a true projection of power - not a "leap frog" over what a conventional destroyer squadron could have done given the right circumstances. The battleship folk argued convincingly that BB's could "project" power; that means, take it to the front door of the enemy regardless of distance and time, and lay in devastating fire at long range - something a destroyer squadron could not do. And that was the mainstream thinking in all navies from the introduction of the Dreadnaught by the RN and the Delaware class in the U.S. until Pearl Harbor. I suspect, though don't know for sure, that Toranto was seen in the parochial U.S. Navy as being in the Royal Navy's "back yard", equivalent to a destroyer attack under other circumstances, and therefore not a true projection of power.Pearl Harbor forever shut the yaps of the BB types. Pearl Harbor, as the thinking went, was a "true" projection of power. Convincing, overwhelming, and with devastating effect at great range.

S'mae Tom (Hi),It cannot be denied that whereas the shock waves produced by Toranto echoed around the Mediterranean, Pearl Harbour produced shock waves that echoed around the world.For the circumstances to be right to allow a conventional squadron of destroyers to attack and inflict damage on the battleships of an enemy fleet in the enemy

Denis,History is full of examples that prove that the slowest mind known to accept change, for what it is, is the military mind. When Billy Mitchell showed (in the 1930s) how easy it was to fly out to sea and bomb a ship (he used a captured WWI era German battleship for his demonstration) all that happened was that he got court-martialed and the US Army Air Corp was no longer allowed to enter the domain of the US Navy. Go back to June of 1876, at the Battle of the Little Big Horn, Lt Col. Custer and his 7th Calvary were not just out manned, but his men were out-gunned as well, as the Native Americans all had repeating rifles (mostly 1866 model Winchester lever actions given to them by the US Government) whereas Custer's Calvary only had Springfield single-shot weapons.The significance of Toranto was missed by most Navy Admirals, as it was the danger of being struck by torpedos in shallow water was what most military minds feared and not the fact that it was the airplane that had delivered them. Amazingly, a number of Japanese Admirals still felt that the only important capital ships were the battleships at Pearl Harbor and simply did not realize the importance of their having missed our carriers there.Bear!