Aren’t humans ourselves a pretty good example of this theory? Let’s see a four year old try to kill us by stabbing in the trunk, but if same four year old happens to get the jugular what happens?
It happens in nature too. You can throw a rather soft ball not all that quickly into someone’s heart zone and it will cause them to drop dead if you hit it at exactly the right time in between beats. It shorts out the normal heart rhythm and an unlucky few people are killed by it every year.
This concept is known as ‘Achilles heel’ - other mythologies have their own versions of it, even modern ones such as Superman (Kryptonite).
But in general, design processes tend to try to avoid any single point of failure. Of course, logically, for any entity composed of multiple different pieces, one of them must be the weakest - but that doesn’t mean it must inherently be very weak.
Well it’s a good thing nobody used the term “main guns” isn’t it?
Maybe you should try reading your own links?
Do you get the difference now? “A shell struck near the aft ammunition magazines” and “a single shell was fired and struck near the aft ammunition magazines.” Those two sentences do not mean the same thing, although you seem to believe that they do.
This Bismark fired multiple shells at the Hood. Several hit her, as many as 6, while most missed altogether. In no sense was this a “proverbial golden BB”. The Hood was being pummeled simultaneously by two battleships and was struck a minimum of 3 times in a 5 minute period, with many, many more shots fired that missed altogether.
IOW exactly as I originally stated, and utterly unlike what you claimed.
By your bizarre interpretation, every vehicle or structure that was ever destroyed was destroyed by a “golden BB”, just because one shot was finally the straw that broke the camel’s back. It doesn’t matter that the object was shot at a million times over a period of days, or that it was hit dozens of times, or that it was on fire and covered in gaping holes from that damage. So long as there was one final shot that destroyed it you call that a golden BB.
That is not a usage that anybody else accepts and definitely not what the OP was asking for.
A single bullet killed the Red Baron too. Do you also think that means that counts as an example? At at least 300 rounds of ammunition were fired at him in that encounter, and only one hit, that shouldn’t matter should it. That one magic bullet killed him. That makes it a golden BB by your standards. 
And yet Robocop never gets shot in the chin.
Bravo!
Car? Easy. One bullet - heck, just one BB - through the radiator will eventually piss away all of the coolant and lead to an overheat condition.
A BB might not penetrate a tire, but a bullet will, and will disable the car.
What about the USS Arizona?
As with the Hood, multiple hits from multiple sources over a prolonged time period. No magic BB, no individual taking it down with a well-placed shot. Just random chances with a barrage and one shot got eventually got lucky.
Not exactly. The armouring scheme offered marginal protection against 15 inch shells, and was flawed in other ways, but HMS Hood did have a positive zone of immunity against Bismarck’s guns. If kept close to the optimum range, neither the belt nor deck armour could have been penetrated.
Blake’s post contains a number of errors. Prinz Eugen was not a battleship, and there were only two confirmed hits on Hood. Hood wasn’t sunk by cumulative damage, but by deflagration of the aft cordite magazine. By far the most likely explanation for her loss is that a single shell penetrated the main belt. This seems to fit the terms of the OP rather well, placing a single shot in a critical area, but battleship guns aren’t accurate enough for this. It was a lucky hit.
The Arizona was struck by 4 bombs over a 10 minute time period, not really an “extended barrage”. But the sinking wasn’t due to a “single weakness”, it was a general weakness of all surface ships of the time against aircraft. Battleships were built to fight other battleships. They weren’t particularly well armored against 2000 lb armor piercing bombs striking the decks from directly overhead, since such things didn’t exist (and weren’t even contemplated to exist) at the time the Arizona was designed.
You can always take out a dragon with one well placed arrow/sword in the weak spot.
This wouls apply to Death Star, wouldn’t it? Fighters were shooting it up all over the place, and then Farmboy made a lucky hit. Sure, they knew the vulnerability and were trying to hit it; but there was more going on than just the trench.
My point exactly.
Hit twice some damage. One more hit and BOOM no more Hood.
Compare and contrast that to what it took to put the Bismarck down.
Unless it’s a one-hoss shay.
Well, it’s a matter of opinion, but I make a distinction between a lucky hit with a BB and a lucky hit with a volkswagon-sized armor piercing, exploding shell.
I mean, nobody expected the Hood to come away completely unscathed from a direct hit from a 15" shell. Sure, the Hood’s armor was weaker than expected, and the shell broke through in the worst possible place, but to my mind it’s not the same as a rifle bullet destroying a tank or a single shot destroying the death star. But, again, each to his own opinion on this one.
I’ve heard that chimpanzees are vulnerable to being simultaneously punched on both sides of their head and will be instantly rendered unconscious by such an attack.
Perhaps the HMS Indefatigable in the battle of Jutland is a better example than the Hood? The armor on top of the gun turrets was thin enough that shells from the German battleships were able to penetrate down to the magazines and blow the entire thing up like a firecracker.
When I was touring an aircraft facility I talked to an older engineer about some of the biggest design flaws he had seen. I don’t remember what aircraft it was, but he told me that one of the jets had multiple sets of hydraulic lines as backups but that they all ran through a single junction in the fuselage. It could take a beating all over the craft and would still be controllable but that if anything happened at that junction the craft would lose almost all controls.
The DC-10 had all three hydraulic systems close together directly below the #2 engine (in the tail). Since it was considered virtually impossible for all three systems to fail during one flight, there was mechanical back-up system (cables, push-rods, etc.). This is why the failure of the #2 engine on UA Flight 232 resulted in disaster.