|
Post by Cybermortis on Jul 20, 2013 13:04:20 GMT
HMS Hood; The Hood was a WW1 Battlecruiser (She was launched after the war). Battlecruisers were intended to full two functions - be the heavy scouts for battleships and heavy 'commerce raiders'. Not only were they never intended to engage battleships, but the one time they did (The Battle of Jutland in 1916) they suffered very badly - they simply didn't have the armour to survive the big guns of Battleships. After the Battle of Jutland the role and usefulness of the Battlecruiser was investigated*, and most nations stopped building them after WW1. By the start of WW2 the Royal Navy only had three Battlecruisers left in service including the Hood. The Hood herself hadn't been refitted since the 1920's - during her last battle** she was replying on the range finding equipment carried by the Prince of Wales.
The interesting thing about Battlecruisers is than when they first started to appear, a British Admiral predicted that because they looked like battleships sooner or later someone was going to end up forgetting that they were not battleships and send them against the big ships with disastrous results. This is exactly what happened to the Hood. It might be argued that the Hood was there because of the Prince Eugen...except that the Admiral choose the Hood as his flagship.
(*It is easy to forget that the nature of naval warfare had been drastically altered over the 20-30 years before WW1 by new technologies. This in turn spawned a large number of ship designs who's function and effectiveness in battle was purely theoretical, since no one was quite sure how ship battles would be fought. Real combat showed that most of these designs were of at best of questionable value.)
(**HMS Hood's first battle was the action to prevent the French Fleet from falling into the hands of the Germans after the fall of France.)
HMS Prince of Wales; The Prince of Wales was a brand new ship, in fact she was so new she left for her battle with the Bismark still carrying workers from the dockyard aboard. It is likely that some of the damage she sustained was simply down to being launched too early and therefore not really being in the best condition to start with.
Bismark; Although both the Bismark and her sister ship the Tirpiz are often talked about as some form of 'super-battleship', the reality is that both were obsolescent designs. They were in effect WW1 designs with some newer equipment. The real threat these ships posed was to convoys, since they totally outclassed everything the British were using as escorts.
It is sometimes claimed that the Bismark had a better fire control system than British ships, but while it does seem that the German's produced better quality optics. In the case of the Bismark-Hood battle it is often forgotten that the British ships were downwind and their main range-finders were unusable due to spray covering them, forcing them to use the less accurate secondary optics.
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Jul 20, 2013 15:47:09 GMT
HMS Repulse 6 x 15 42cal 3x2 guns (Jan1916) HMS Renown sister ship 6 x 15 42cal 3x2 guns (March 1916) HMS HOOD 8 x 15 42cal 4x2.{oops edit} (1920) Operation Weserübung KM Gneisenau and KM Scharnhorst Battleships/Battlecruisers? 9 x 11 52cal 3x3 on the 9th April 1940 engaged HMS Renown and after a short engagement where Gneisenau and Renown were both hit The German ships withdrew. It was stated on one web site that the seas were such that both the German ships A turrets were being flooded by the heavy seas. This restricted Gneisenau to its B turret, as its aft turret was knocked out of action by one of the hits from the Renown. Renown survived the war and was eventually scraped. HMS Repulse was sunk along with HMS Prince of Wales off the coast of Malaya by Japanese aircraft prior to the fall of Singapore the fleet Admiral put to sea without his Carrier. Hood was due for a refit at the outbreak of war economies and the great depression had postponed it previously and prior to engagement at the Battle of the Denmark Straight Adm Holland had ordered the Prince of Wales to turn off her main Gunnery RADAR as it interfered with Hoods, there is an inference that after the Prince of Wales took emergency action to avoid Hoods sinking hulk that the Prince of Wales with its primary gunnery Radar restored, its gunnery improved. Re no (oops edit) new Battle Cruisers according to Janes the US laid down 3 ships Alaska class, USS Alaska 15/8/43, USS Guam 21/11/43 USS Hawaii (?) 3/11/45 , 9 x 12inch 50Cal According to the notes Hawaii has no completion date and the other two were completed in 1944. Jane's classify them as Battle Cruisers while they were (September 1940) officially classified as "large Cruisers". While the Hood did have deficiencies in armour protection it has been argued that were she not "healed over in the turn" history may be different, that the angle of the shell hit may have been more favourable. Re Jutland evidence has emerged that the failure to close magazine hatches ( as prescribed by condition Zulu ) that the loss of some if not most of the Battle Cruiser may have been reduced. To my mind comparing Hood Repulse and Renown to those earlier classes of battle cruisers is like comparing the USS Texas and the USS Iowa. Re Bismark Gunnery it was not controlled by RADAR as was the British/US Radar which was integrated into the fire control table/analogue computer. German optics were superior at Jutland and as a system that worked they kept it, the distance between each optical unit in the range finder was much larger than the British hence more accurate. I do not remember discussions about British optics being a problem at the Battle of Denmark Straight.
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Jul 25, 2013 12:39:40 GMT
The RADAR system being used by the Bismark was a "search" radar, while the Hood was using a split dipole "tracking" RADAR. Both were mounted on top of the GCT but the Hoods system was fixed, so when the return signals were equal the tower was pointed at the target. The gun Turrets follow the GCT but with offsets, the analogue sum of the other various input information. The RN at that time used a follow the pointer system (two sets of pointers the gun crew aligning theirs to the remote fire control solution), while the US Navy both turret direction and elevation were remotely controlled by the fire control computer. The Germans used half remote control and half follow the pointer.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jul 25, 2013 13:00:22 GMT
I didn't say there were no new battlecruisers, I said that most nations stopped building them - especially after the Washington Naval Treaties came into effect. However that didn't mean that navies scrapped the hulls that had already been laid down - many were converted into Carriers.
The RN considered the Battlecruiser to be something of a white elephant, especially with the appearance of the 'fast-battleship' designs which were not all that much slower. But then the RN's primary strategic roles for its surface fleets didn't really require high speed from its big ships. Britannia didn't rule the seas by patrolling all of them, but by holding strategic locations that allowed them to cover the bottle-neck areas of the shipping routes. As such they, maybe ironically for an 'Empire of the Sea', didn't really need to cover large areas with their main fleets.
The USN however had to contend with conditions in the Pacific, where there are fewer (if any) real choke points so high speed escorts and patrol ships made more sense - especially since many of the US Carriers were and still are very fast ships in their own right.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 25, 2013 14:24:13 GMT
I didn't say there were no new battlecruisers, I said that most nations stopped building them - especially after the Washington Naval Treaties came into effect. However that didn't mean that navies scrapped the hulls that had already been laid down - many were converted into Carriers. The RN considered the Battlecruiser to be something of a white elephant, especially with the appearance of the 'fast-battleship' designs which were not all that much slower. But then the RN's primary strategic roles for its surface fleets didn't really require high speed from its big ships. Britannia didn't rule the seas by patrolling all of them, but by holding strategic locations that allowed them to cover the bottle-neck areas of the shipping routes. As such they, maybe ironically for an 'Empire of the Sea', didn't really need to cover large areas with their main fleets. The USN however had to contend with conditions in the Pacific, where there are fewer (if any) real choke points so high speed escorts and patrol ships made more sense - especially since many of the US Carriers were and still are very fast ships in their own right. that has to do with the American philosophy that there is no vehicular problem that cannot be solved with the addition of more horsepower.
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Jul 26, 2013 8:11:45 GMT
I didn't say there were no new battlecruisers, I said that most nations stopped building them - especially after the Washington Naval Treaties came into effect. However that didn't mean that navies scrapped the hulls that had already been laid down - many were converted into Carriers. The RN considered the Battlecruiser to be something of a white elephant, especially with the appearance of the 'fast-battleship' designs which were not all that much slower. But then the RN's primary strategic roles for its surface fleets didn't really require high speed from its big ships. Britannia didn't rule the seas by patrolling all of them, but by holding strategic locations that allowed them to cover the bottle-neck areas of the shipping routes. As such they, maybe ironically for an 'Empire of the Sea', didn't really need to cover large areas with their main fleets. The USN however had to contend with conditions in the Pacific, where there are fewer (if any) real choke points so high speed escorts and patrol ships made more sense - especially since many of the US Carriers were and still are very fast ships in their own right. Corrected under oops edit.
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Jul 27, 2013 15:34:27 GMT
I didn't say there were no new battlecruisers, I said that most nations stopped building them - especially after the Washington Naval Treaties came into effect. However that didn't mean that navies scrapped the hulls that had already been laid down - many were converted into Carriers. The RN considered the Battlecruiser to be something of a white elephant, especially with the appearance of the 'fast-battleship' designs which were not all that much slower. But then the RN's primary strategic roles for its surface fleets didn't really require high speed from its big ships. Britannia didn't rule the seas by patrolling all of them, but by holding strategic locations that allowed them to cover the bottle-neck areas of the shipping routes. As such they, maybe ironically for an 'Empire of the Sea', didn't really need to cover large areas with their main fleets. The USN however had to contend with conditions in the Pacific, where there are fewer (if any) real choke points so high speed escorts and patrol ships made more sense - especially since many of the US Carriers were and still are very fast ships in their own right. this all sounds kinda nice and puts things in perfect boxes, but since when was the Battle of Coronel 1/11/1914 a choke point? Rear Admiral Cradocks force of antiquated warships V Admiral von Spees modern (then) cruiser force. That von Spees force was a month latter destroyed at the Battle of the Falkland Islands by a force consisting not less than two of these "white elephants" showed the value of these type of vessels. These were HMS Invincible and HMS Inflexible commissioned around 1909 of the 3 of this class one was sunk at Jutland. It was not considered a choke point. The first and second Battles of the Java sea, the Battle of The River Plate...., the RN with its Colonial allies covered vast areas of ocean and fought where it had too and when it had too and with the weapons the politicians of the day allowed. As for choke points and bottle necks these have not been clearly defined, unless they are the point where two opposing fleets/forces meet to compete over some place at some time... At the beginning of the 1st/second gulf (?) war NGS was provided by 5 inch guns/rifles, as compared to the 16 inch of a war of a generation ago.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 27, 2013 15:45:12 GMT
in debating the obsolescence of platforms, it must always be considered that you are dealing in relative terms. you don't have to outclass the best there is - you only have to outclass what the opposition is throwing against you.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 27, 2013 16:17:30 GMT
in debating the obsolescence of platforms, it must always be considered that you are dealing in relative terms. you don't have to outclass the best there is - you only have to outclass what the opposition is throwing against you. Take a history lesson and talk from a point of knowledge for a change. What part of what I said is incorrect?
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 27, 2013 16:20:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Jul 27, 2013 16:26:52 GMT
Is there any real point to this? you have a good one
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jul 27, 2013 16:36:43 GMT
There are 'choke-points' on the seas, these being the areas where shipping has to pass through or past. If you can control those areas you can cripple the movement of ships both merchant and military.
The Royal Navy has always known this from its earliest days - even before it was the Royal Navy - since the British Isles is itself a strategic location. Hold England and you can hold the English Channel and by doing so cripple trade to most of Northern Europe and Western Russia. Just as importantly you can concentrate your forces to do this.
British Strategic doctrine (even before there was such a thing) was based on this since 1588, and as England (later Britain) started to become an empire it used this as the basis of its deployments and overall strategy. If you look at the deployment of Naval bases you'll notice that they were picked so that they could patrol and control those shipping routes.
In the sailing age the shipping routes were denoted by the prevailing winds - so ships travelling to the America's from Europe sailed south then west at the lower latitudes. While those doing from the Americas headed north before turning East. You'd think that the event of the steam engine would have changed the shipping routes, and to some degree this is true. However many of the choke points remained - both the English Channel and the Caribbean have been major shipping routes for as long as there has been any trade to or from those areas. This is because the shipping routes also tend to be the shortest and safest routes - it is safer and faster for a ship to pass through the English channel than to go north around Scotland for example.
Military ships do, of course, have more freedom of movement. But if they are not after an opponents Navy they are looking for merchant ships - which means that they end up having to look near the shipping routes anyway. The same holds for patrolling ships, which usually have to stay fairly close to the same shipping routes to keep them safe.
In this context the Royal Navy didn't really need large fast ships - traditionally it is FAR more cost effective to use smaller ships to patrol large areas of the seas. So the RN used frigates and smaller ships in the 'cruiser*' role and kept the larger and more powerful ships close to their home ports where they could be ready to deal with an opponents big ships if they decided to come out and play. Of course this was dictated by the fact that the RN was used to having to counter powerful fleets that came from Europe rather than the far East. It is in this context that British Strategy worked very well until they ended up having to deal with Japan, and why larger but slower ships were preferable. When you see raiding enemy ships causing the RN serious problems it was either because they were able to bypass the Channel - such as the German Navy suddenly getting access to the French ports on the Atlantic coast in 1940. Or because they were already overseas when a war started. In both cases the RN was able to dispatch some of the larger ships to deal with serious opposition while making sure they were cut off from direct support. The drawback was that in order to provide adequate coverage in all of these areas the RN needed a lot of ships, which is why they often held onto questionable designs long after they should have been removed from service. For example the RN was still using 50 gun ships in 1800, even though they had been considered obsolete for a good thirty years or more. In fact the old 50 gun ships compare in some respects to the later Battlecruisers in that both were originally considered part of the main fleets but ended up being used in the patrol roles and as command ships in smaller squadrons. (Much the same holds for the 64 gun ships as well).
(*'Cruiser' was originally an indication of a ships mission, not its size and type. The mission in question was to simply 'cruise' around looking for enemy ships to protect the shipping routes. So a 'cruiser' could be of any size - even ships of the line could be referred to as a 'cruiser' on rare occasions. More usually a 'cruiser' was a brig or sloop that was more or less permanently assigned to this role. The larger frigates did tend to fill the cruiser role as well, but their larger size and force made them more useful as 'multi-mission' ships.)
The USN's position was somewhat different, in that the Pacific has fewer of such choke points and far more room for ships to get lost in between them. For the USN having fast powerful battlecruisers made more sense, as the larger area they had to cover made fast powerful ships more useful.
In both cases the decision as to what types of ship a navy builds and puts into service is based on the needs and intended purpose of that fleet. Which in turn is related to the needs of the country and its position. During the First World the German surface fleet's role was (maybe ironically) not to beat the RN, but simply be so large and powerful that the RN would be forced to maintain a large chunk of its fleet at home. By WW2 the German Navy was tasked principally with commerce raiding, not dealing with the RN's main fleet directly. Part of this was simply down to the size of the fleet and the restrictions placed on the number and type of ships they could build between the wars. However a much larger part seems to be that the German surface Navy was being built up without any specific role in mind - beyond existing.
The size of the guns carried on ships falling is simply effectiveness. Even a fairly simple missile system has 10 times the range of the most powerful gun.
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Jul 27, 2013 16:43:38 GMT
Yawn..... time for bed
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Jul 28, 2013 1:53:06 GMT
Is there any real point to this? you have a good one yep. when you accuse me of ignorance, be prepared to back it up. Best I ? and why is that? Without going for a dictionary, ignorance is a lack of knowledge. If you feel insulted by my comments well its simply par for the course isn't it. You have a bee in your bonnet about something and you have had it since the school janitor joining scrap wire together to magnetise a screwdriver thread in the old forum. Its not hard for me to imagine that you would really like it if this forum had one less member and it is not hard for me to guess who that is. Now once again I wish you well
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 28, 2013 2:28:42 GMT
yep. when you accuse me of ignorance, be prepared to back it up. Best I ? and why is that? Without going for a dictionary, ignorance is a lack of knowledge. If you feel insulted by my comments well its simply par for the course isn't it. You have a bee in your bonnet about something and you have had it since the school janitor joining scrap wire together to magnetise a screwdriver thread in the old forum. Its not hard for me to imagine that you would really like it if this forum had one less member and it is not hard for me to guess who that is. Now once again I wish you well I have no memory of the school janitor magnetizing a screwdriver thread. I don't think the forum needs to lose members - I just think the member you are thinking of needs to realize there is more to life than taking gratuitous shots at certain other members. particularly when a comment that should have had a "thank you, captain obvious" response, and instead you gave a "you don't know what you are talking about" response.
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Jul 28, 2013 3:09:33 GMT
Best I ? and why is that? Without going for a dictionary, ignorance is a lack of knowledge. If you feel insulted by my comments well its simply par for the course isn't it. You have a bee in your bonnet about something and you have had it since the school janitor joining scrap wire together to magnetise a screwdriver thread in the old forum. Its not hard for me to imagine that you would really like it if this forum had one less member and it is not hard for me to guess who that is. Now once again I wish you well I have no memory of the school janitor magnetizing a screwdriver thread. I don't think the forum needs to lose members - I just think the member you are thinking of needs to realize there is more to life than taking gratuitous shots at certain other members. particularly when a comment that should have had a "thank you, captain obvious" response, and instead you gave a "you don't know what you are talking about" response. Lets see I was talking the Battle of Coronel (and apparently the only one talking) where over 1400 men died, then the Battle of the Falkland Islands where a substantial number more died. You got the response of someone who at 4am was tired of someone's constant sniping.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 28, 2013 5:52:39 GMT
I have no memory of the school janitor magnetizing a screwdriver thread. I don't think the forum needs to lose members - I just think the member you are thinking of needs to realize there is more to life than taking gratuitous shots at certain other members. particularly when a comment that should have had a "thank you, captain obvious" response, and instead you gave a "you don't know what you are talking about" response. Lets see I was talking the Battle of Coronel (and apparently the only one talking) where over 1400 men died, then the Battle of the Falkland Islands where a substantial number more died. You got the response of someone who at 4am was tired of someone's constant sniping. and let's see, after you made the comment about modern ships being sunk by obsolete ships, I pointed out that obsolescence is relative because you only have to outclass what you are facing - just as those "white elephants" did. how is that sniping?
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Jul 28, 2013 11:12:43 GMT
Lets see I was talking the Battle of Coronel (and apparently the only one talking) where over 1400 men died, then the Battle of the Falkland Islands where a substantial number more died. You got the response of someone who at 4am was tired of someone's constant sniping. and let's see, after you made the comment about modern ships being sunk by obsolete ships, I pointed out that obsolescence is relative because you only have to outclass what you are facing - just as those "white elephants" did. how is that sniping? I actually said this all sounds kinda nice and puts things in perfect boxes, but since when was the Battle of Coronel 1/11/1914 a choke point? Rear Admiral Cradocks force of antiquated warships V Admiral von Spees modern (then) cruiser force. That von Spees force was a month latter destroyed at the Battle of the Falkland Islands by a force consisting not less than two of these "white elephants" showed the value of these type of vessels. These were HMS Invincible and HMS Inflexible commissioned around 1909 of the 3 of this class one was sunk at Jutland. It was not considered a choke point. The first and second Battles of the Java sea, the Battle of The River Plate...., the RN with its Colonial allies covered vast areas of ocean and fought where it had too and when it had too and with the weapons the politicians of the day allowed. As for choke points and bottle necks these have not been clearly defined, unless they are the point where two opposing fleets/forces meet to compete over some place at some time... At the beginning of the 1st/second gulf (?) war NGS was provided by 5 inch guns/rifles, as compared to the 16 inch of a war of a generation ago you said next "in debating the obsolescence of platforms, it must always be considered that you are dealing in relative terms. you don't have to outclass the best there is - you only have to outclass what the opposition is throwing against you." The British lost the Battle of Coronel the two ancient armoured cruisers were sunk. To use your vernacular they were hopelessly outclassed. Had you taken a history lesson you would have realised it. You may have also made enquiry to clarify any misunderstanding.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jul 28, 2013 14:13:33 GMT
The Battlecruiser was considered a white elephant after the Battle of Jutland in 1916, the Battle of the Falklands took place two years earlier.
And it is no surprise that a ship with the speed and armour of a cruiser but the guns of a battleship was going to flatten another cruiser.
The reason for the 'white elephant' comment is simple - they were large expensive ships to build, but who'd roles could be handled just as well by smaller and cheaper ships.
Choke points are areas of the sea where you have a large amount of shipping moving through a (relatively) small area - The English channel is one of the best examples. The routes ships used were denoted by the wind, then the need to refuel and last of all ease of navigation. The Falklands was principally a refuelling station although its position did allow ships based there to hamper trade moving from the Pacific up the South American Coast. The RN never needed to do this, since there were no large fleets in the area or possible threats that required such a move.
While warships have always had more freedom of movement on the oceans in theory, in practice they were either hunting merchant ships or trying to protect them. This means that warships have tended to stick close to the same shipping routes as merchant ships.
Note; I'm using the past tense here, since we are talking in terms of WW2 ships and earlier. Much of this however still holds for modern ships, even though modern navigational systems and ship designs are more than capable of allowing trade to go anywhere they like with little danger.
{Now, Mod Hat On; Enough of the arguments and snipping please. Smilies do not make everything you might write OK no matter how many of them you might use. If something or someone has got your back up it is best to avoid posting until you have calmed down. This will not only ensure you don't post something that could be offensive in the heat of the moment. But will also make any reply less likely to make you look like an argumentative idiot. - CM}
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Jul 28, 2013 14:27:59 GMT
The Battlecruiser was considered a white elephant after the Battle of Jutland in 1916, the Battle of the Falklands took place two years earlier. And it is no surprise that a ship with the speed and armour of a cruiser but the guns of a battleship was going to flatten another cruiser. The reason for the 'white elephant' comment is simple - they were large expensive ships to build, but who'd roles could be handled just as well by smaller and cheaper ships. Choke points are areas of the sea where you have a large amount of shipping moving through a (relatively) small area - The English channel is one of the best examples. The routes ships used were denoted by the wind, then the need to refuel and last of all ease of navigation. The Falklands was principally a refuelling station although its position did allow ships based there to hamper trade moving from the Pacific up the South American Coast. The RN never needed to do this, since there were no large fleets in the area or possible threats that required such a move. While warships have always had more freedom of movement on the oceans in theory, in practice they were either hunting merchant ships or trying to protect them. This means that warships have tended to stick close to the same shipping routes as merchant ships. Note; I'm using the past tense here, since we are talking in terms of WW2 ships and earlier. Much of this however still holds for modern ships, even though modern navigational systems and ship designs are more than capable of allowing trade to go anywhere they like with little danger. {Now, Mod Hat On; Enough of the arguments and snipping please. Smilies do not make everything you might write OK no matter how many of them you might use. If something or someone has got your back up it is best to avoid posting until you have calmed down. This will not only ensure you don't post something that could be offensive in the heat of the moment. But will also make any reply less likely to make you look like an argumentative idiot. - CM}since I am the only one using smiley faces 1/ my back is not up 2/ I have wished my detractor well on several occasions 3/ I have a reputation to uphold that being idiot first class {Both you and Light have noted that you are used to having such discussions, which is why I commented rather than bringing out the Mod Hammer. My concern here is that as of writing we get some 200 visitors every day, and I'd rather not give those people the wrong impression - especially when you happen to be addressing come comments towards myself that could come over as flippant or disrespectful. While I'm content to be called out if I get things wrong in discussions about ideas ect. I'm not happy if it seems people are being see as being disrespectful towards anyone - let alone the Board's Admin - when this is bordering on breaking the boards rules. I know this wasn't your intent, but if you go back and read some of the comments and imagine how they would be read by someone who doesn't know you...well you can see where I get concerned. Imagine making racial comments and death threats towards a friend in jest, then imagine what people would think of you if they could only read what you said....
I'm saying this as the Admin, not as someone you happen to disagree on in regards the subject(s) we are discussing in this thread.
And to sort of prove that, I'll admit that I could and should have worded by original Mod-Comment better. I should have taken my own advice and held off commenting at that time. Not because my back was up but because I've had a migraine for the last four days and staring at a screen for any length of time really doesn't help. Of course being the Admin means that I feel compelled to check the board frequently, so OUCH!
And you thought my 'job' was easy... CM}
|
|