>>63924172
>poor torpedo defense system
in practice no worse than any battleship, because it was overspecced in design
the real issue was that the torpedo hit crippled POW's shafts, as it did Bismarck
>>63923616
>I guess it really depends if you count surviving as returning to port or not immediately sinking due to damage from the torpedoes
>Depends on what you're looking for
I should explain; my POV is that in all engagements, two torpedo hits were sufficient to mission-kill any capital ship and render it sufficiently damaged / slowed down that its enemies could catch up to it or land the killing blow more easily. thus in practice, two torpedo hits was all it took to essentially doom the ship.
in the case of Bismarck and Musashi, each ship shrugged off one torpedo hit, which detonated causing minor flooding. these first hits caused them to lose only a few knots in speed, significant but not ordinarily deadly, and they could still make best speed to port.
the next torpedo hit however damaged their rudders / engines enough to inflict crippling damage to the ships.
in Bismarck's case, it was unsteerable and the British fleet caught up and sank it. in Musashi's case it was already under heavy air attack but even if no further hits had landed, its main engines had flooded, it was virtually dead already.
both ships could have been towed with some difficulty but I didn't figure that in.
