|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 28, 2013 15:14:52 GMT
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. okay, let's make a fresh start of this: by "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" do I take it that the older "white elephants" sunk the (then modern) cruisers? that would seem to me to demonstrate that "obsolete" is a relative term. My brother's common expression is "It's not obsolete if it still does what you need it to do." |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jul 28, 2013 20:34:06 GMT
In terms of the Royal Navy at that and earlier periods you'd be quite correct - obsolete was relative.
The Royal Navy deployed ships based on the probable strength of the opposition they might have to face in that location. For most of its recorded history that meant keeping the most up to date ships and the largest number in Britain, as the principal threats came from European powers.
Older ships, that were no longer powerful enough to deal with the best that Europe could throw at them, ended up being stationed overseas. On those stations the ships would not expect to have to deal with such powerful opposition, so they were not obsolete in this context*. This is why you see the old 64 gun line ships disappearing from the Channel fleet by 1805 (ish) but still in service at the Cape, the Caribbean, India and the Canadian (North America Station) as flag ships for at least another decade. Basically there was nothing based there that was a serious threat to them - even the big American 44 gun frigates would have thought twice about engaging a 64 gun ship of the line on their own.
(*This logic is similar to that used when setting up naval bases. The bases needed to be large enough to support the number and types of ship that were needed in that area, which was based on the probable opposition. This is why the Royal Navy's bases in India didn't have shipyards capable of taking in the largest ships of the line. Thankfully the east India Company did have a shipyard that could take in big ships of the line, as they were building and using ships that were in some cases as large as the line ships - at least in terms of tonnage. The EIC was also quite happy to let the RN use that yard, after all the RN helped protect their ships.)
The problems started when a newer and more powerful ship from Europe managed to get into those areas, or as was the case in WW1 and WW2, happened to already be deployed overseas when the war started. The local ships were simply not up to dealing with such strong opposition, the best they could realistically do was cause enough damage to force the enemy to seek a place to repair and refit - buying time for a more powerful force to be sent from Britain.
This was what Cradock was trying to do when he engaged Admiral Spree's force - cause enough damage that Spree would have to withdraw for repairs which would bring the RN time to bring in a larger force. It is also, ironically, what Commodore Harwood was trying to do when his force engaged the Admiral Graff Spree a generation later. (In both cases the commanders would have hoped to sink the ships they were facing alone, and certainly would have talked about doing so. But both would have been quite happy to simply buy time for bigger ships to turn up - which they did.)
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 29, 2013 2:29:41 GMT
In terms of the Royal Navy at that and earlier periods you'd be quite correct - obsolete was relative. The Royal Navy deployed ships based on the probable strength of the opposition they might have to face in that location. For most of its recorded history that meant keeping the most up to date ships and the largest number in Britain, as the principal threats came from European powers. Older ships, that were no longer powerful enough to deal with the best that Europe could throw at them, ended up being stationed overseas. On those stations the ships would not expect to have to deal with such powerful opposition, so they were not obsolete in this context*. This is why you see the old 64 gun line ships disappearing from the Channel fleet by 1805 (ish) but still in service at the Cape, the Caribbean, India and the Canadian (North America Station) as flag ships for at least another decade. Basically there was nothing based there that was a serious threat to them - even the big American 44 gun frigates would have thought twice about engaging a 64 gun ship of the line on their own. (*This logic is similar to that used when setting up naval bases. The bases needed to be large enough to support the number and types of ship that were needed in that area, which was based on the probable opposition. This is why the Royal Navy's bases in India didn't have shipyards capable of taking in the largest ships of the line. Thankfully the east India Company did have a shipyard that could take in big ships of the line, as they were building and using ships that were in some cases as large as the line ships - at least in terms of tonnage. The EIC was also quite happy to let the RN use that yard, after all the RN helped protect their ships.) The problems started when a newer and more powerful ship from Europe managed to get into those areas, or as was the case in WW1 and WW2, happened to already be deployed overseas when the war started. The local ships were simply not up to dealing with such strong opposition, the best they could realistically do was cause enough damage to force the enemy to seek a place to repair and refit - buying time for a more powerful force to be sent from Britain. This was what Cradock was trying to do when he engaged Admiral Spree's force - cause enough damage that Spree would have to withdraw for repairs which would bring the RN time to bring in a larger force. It is also, ironically, what Commodore Harwood was trying to do when his force engaged the Admiral Graff Spree a generation later. (In both cases the commanders would have hoped to sink the ships they were facing alone, and certainly would have talked about doing so. But both would have been quite happy to simply buy time for bigger ships to turn up - which they did.) one of my brother's buddies was on a ship bound for mothballs in Hawaii when the first gulf war broke out. at top speed, they made it to the Persian gulf in time for the land war to be over - and spent the next few weeks using the Iraqi navy* for target practice. literally. the gunners only got points if they swamped the boat without actually hitting it. * denotes a paramilitary force operating with waterborne vehicles |
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Aug 3, 2013 11:41:09 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. It should be mentioned that all three British Battle Cruisers of Beatty's squadron lost at Jutland were lost in action against Hipper's German Battle Cruiser force, not Battleships. As such it should have been expected that the naval artillery duel should have been even, but the British gunnery was hampered by smoke from their ships own stacks and the fact that Hippers Battle Cruisers had basically the same armour as the British battle ships. The Germans had traded off smaller guns 11 inch to the British 12 or 13.5 inch guns to achieve the extra speed. Interestingly HMAS Australia (1) a battle cruiser would have been hopelessly out ranged in a gun duel By HMAS Australia (2) a heavy cruiser. Most of the British battle cruisers at the end of the First World war were placed into reserve and finally cut up for scrap due to the Washington naval treaty. HMAS Australia was striped and sunk off the coast of NSW under terms of the same treaty. What should be remembered is the rapid technology advance in naval architecture at that time, the USS Texas used two dual acting triple expansion engines for propulsion, while around the world steam turbines were the up and coming thing. As previously mentioned Hoods Gunnery was under the tracking radar mounted atop the GCT, it was certified in 1940 (?) to have a 3deg accuracy, fingers have been pointed at the GC table from memory the only one of its type/design. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Aug 3, 2013 14:28:56 GMT
Yeah, its always difficult to compare ships based purely on their class even today. You'd think that the size and power of ships would go Frigate-Destroyer-Cruiser today. But you see Frigates that are larger than several destroyer classes and some destroyers that are larger than cruisers.
We can only imagine how confusing things were during the early part of the 20th century when you suddenly had a huge number of different classes turning up practically overnight. And this doesn't even take into account that a navy may classify as ship as belonging to one class while it really belongs to another class entirely. (The Deutchland class ships used by the German Navy in WW2 were originally classified as 'armoured ships', then cruisers, then heavy cruisers by the Germans. While the British called them 'Pocket Battleships' and some historians could call them 'commerce raiders' as that was what they were mostly used for.)
Unless you are talking about ships at a fairly limited point in history, it is usually best to assume that a ships class is a rather vague description as to its real capabilities.
I remembered, btw, that the Russian Kirov class guided missile cruiser is sometimes referred to as a Battlecruiser. It still has many of the problems as the original Battlecruisers, in that it is large, expensive and lightly armoured. Meaning that you could build several smaller ships that could fill the same duties for less money and use them to patrol a larger area.
The reason Battlecruisers were restricted by the Washington Naval Treaties (there was more than one) was because of their potential as commerce raiders. They were powerful enough to take out escort ships and (at least at the time) fast enough to avoid tangling with battleships. Neither Britain or the US, both of whom relied on sea-going trade, liked this as the only way to counter it would have been to build large powerful ships that could act as convoy escorts - which they simply could not afford to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Aug 3, 2013 15:34:17 GMT
Yeah, its always difficult to compare ships based purely on their class even today. You'd think that the size and power of ships would go Frigate-Destroyer-Cruiser today. But you see Frigates that are larger than several destroyer classes and some destroyers that are larger than cruisers. We can only imagine how confusing things were during the early part of the 20th century when you suddenly had a huge number of different classes turning up practically overnight. And this doesn't even take into account that a navy may classify as ship as belonging to one class while it really belongs to another class entirely. (The Deutchland class ships used by the German Navy in WW2 were originally classified as 'armoured ships', then cruisers, then heavy cruisers by the Germans. While the British called them 'Pocket Battleships' and some historians could call them 'commerce raiders' as that was what they were mostly used for.) Unless you are talking about ships at a fairly limited point in history, it is usually best to assume that a ships class is a rather vague description as to its real capabilities. I remembered, btw, that the Russian Kirov class guided missile cruiser is sometimes referred to as a Battlecruiser. It still has many of the problems as the original Battlecruisers, in that it is large, expensive and lightly armoured. Meaning that you could build several smaller ships that could fill the same duties for less money and use them to patrol a larger area. The reason Battlecruisers were restricted by the Washington Naval Treaties (there was more than one) was because of their potential as commerce raiders. They were powerful enough to take out escort ships and (at least at the time) fast enough to avoid tangling with battleships. Neither Britain or the US, both of whom relied on sea-going trade, liked this as the only way to counter it would have been to build large powerful ships that could act as convoy escorts - which they simply could not afford to do. It should be noted that the British battle cruisers mothballed at the end of WW1 were obsolete and the RN knew it.The theory that the boffin's had at the time was speed and out ranging your opponent, hence three battle cruisers each with 15 inch guns as opposed to those armed with with 12 or 13.5 destined for the oxyacetylene torch. Battleships at the end of WW1 like HMS Ramilies were flat out making 23 knots with a tail wind, that said her presence in a convoy was enough to see off the battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau which was more than HMS Jervis Bay (armed merchant cruiser) was capable of. If we look at RN ships built during the period of the second world war, no new Heavy cruisers were commissioned, only one new class of Battleship was completed. To reinforce your point Heavy Cruisers like HMS Exeter of the Battle of the River Plate fame were hopelessly out gunned by Japanese Heavy cruisers at the first and second Java sea Battles like the Haguro. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Aug 3, 2013 16:35:30 GMT
We also have to put things into the political, economic and strategic context of 1919.
The British Grand Fleet had been built up to counter the increasing size and power of the German Navy, in essence it was built on the same lines as Nelsons Fleet. Because the German navy deployed battlecruisers so did the British - this was a period of design followed by counter-design*. By 1919 however the German fleet simply didn't exist, so the need for a large fleet containing Battlecruisers wasn't there. Just as importantly politically and economically no one could afford to build a large number of big ships - especially those who's value was questionable.
The newer Battlecruisers did have some value, as they were powerful enough to go toe to toe with anything short of a battleship. But the older ships were not really any better than a heavy cruiser, and came with a greater cost to build and maintain.
If Germany had possessed a larger and more modern fleet by the start of WW2 it is probable that they would have included battlecruisers of some type - mainly because of their usefulness in attacking shipping. This in turn would probably have resulted in the RN commissioning new battlecruisers of their own. As it was battlecruisers were not powerful enough to challenge battleships, while being too valuable to use as cruisers. The only potential units they could have been perfect to deal with was other BC's - which didn't really exist.
(*The torpedo-boat was countered by the Torpedo-Boat Destroyer, which was shortened to 'Destroyer' as the two individual types became merged into a hybrid class.)
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 3, 2013 16:46:54 GMT
*a note which is only indirectly relevant*
it's always good to get brownie points for taking something out of service that you are done using, anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by oscardeuce on Aug 3, 2013 16:58:18 GMT
1944 manufactured Remington 1903-A4 @ 200 yards. The last 3 rounds made 2 holes near the X. Hard to believe a 69 year old rifle designed 100+ years ago can still do this. The lower rounds were from a 1943 Springfield M1 Garand  |
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on Aug 3, 2013 23:14:42 GMT
Not hard to believe at Oscar Deuce!
I have a Chileno Model 1895 Mauser, manufactured in 1895, that still puts 175gr 7x57 Mauser bullets where I want them.
|
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Aug 10, 2013 14:58:41 GMT
We also have to put things into the political, economic and strategic context of 1919. The British Grand Fleet had been built up to counter the increasing size and power of the German Navy, in essence it was built on the same lines as Nelsons Fleet. Because the German navy deployed battlecruisers so did the British - this was a period of design followed by counter-design*. By 1919 however the German fleet simply didn't exist, so the need for a large fleet containing Battlecruisers wasn't there. Just as importantly politically and economically no one could afford to build a large number of big ships - especially those who's value was questionable. The newer Battlecruisers did have some value, as they were powerful enough to go toe to toe with anything short of a battleship. But the older ships were not really any better than a heavy cruiser, and came with a greater cost to build and maintain. If Germany had possessed a larger and more modern fleet by the start of WW2 it is probable that they would have included battlecruisers of some type - mainly because of their usefulness in attacking shipping. This in turn would probably have resulted in the RN commissioning new battlecruisers of their own. As it was battlecruisers were not powerful enough to challenge battleships, while being too valuable to use as cruisers. The only potential units they could have been perfect to deal with was other BC's - which didn't really exist. (*The torpedo-boat was countered by the Torpedo-Boat Destroyer, which was shortened to 'Destroyer' as the two individual types became merged into a hybrid class.) Naval history debated by amateur historians often comes down to "woulda coulda shoulda" As I grew up, before many of you were born The KM Graf Spee, Admiral Scheer, and the Deutschland/Lutzow were classified as Pocket Battleships, now they are classed as heavy cruisers. At the battle of the River Plate a British heavy cruiser HMS Exeter was heavily damaged leaving two light cruisers HMS Ajax and Achilles to force the issue, sources state that in the engagement these ships fired off 2/3rds of their main guns AP amunition. The damage to the Graf Spee was limited, with no damage to its main guns or gunnery control. These Guns were the same type as those on the KM Scharnhorst. which is credited with the longest range hit on any other ship HMS Glorious, out ranging HMS Warspite's hit on an Italian Battleship by 500 yds. KM Scharnhorst reduced the Glorious to a burning wreck before she finally sank, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau then set about sinking the Glorious destroyer escort With Scharnhorst damaged by torpedoes. With this it is easy to classify Gneisenau and Scharnhorst as a serious threat to any surface ship, it is also easy to classify them as either Battle Cruiser or Battleship. That said both went up against HMS Renown, a Battle cruiser their, 18 guns against the Renown's six. Argument could be made about the heavy seas, but the British Battle cruiser did knock out with RADAR fire control one of the German turrets(two hits the other on the Germans aft GCT) with the result of the Germans withdrawing. Now to say that British Battle cruisers were not powerful enough to engage a battle ship becomes a point of well yes it did happen but one engaged two and lived to be scrapped in peacetime. Iron bottom sound has two Japanese Battle cruisers argument could be made that these sister ships of WW1 were actually converted to be battleships?  One was sunk/scuttled by aircraft after a fierce battle with an American cruiser force off Savo Island, the other the next night engaging two US Fast Battleships USS South Dakota? and USS Washington? The Americans had the advantage of Radar and both engagements were at night and at point blank range. One of the American Battleships lost power, technically speaking the auxiliary AC generators were accidental brought on line with out being previously synchronised with the main generators. It was stated that this occurred due to the aft 16 x 3 turret firing causing breakers to close and unattended circuit breakers being locked down. It caused all radar and gunnery operations to cease. This battleship was hit several times by its opponent, fortunately it was either ineffective or did not explode. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Aug 10, 2013 17:10:51 GMT
The classifications I gave for the Deutschland were those used by the Kregsmarine. It was the British who referred to them as 'Pocket Battleships', which was not an official designation. It did however sound better and more worrying at a time when the Royal Navy was trying to find the funds to build up and modernise its fleet.
Technically Battlecruisers were faster, more lightly armed and has less armour than battleships - even when the size and displacement was not all that dissimilar.
Of course by the late 1930's there were battleships that were not all that much slower than the Battlecruisers, and some battlecruisers who's main guns were equal in calibre (if not numbers) to battleships. So the only real way to tell the difference is to look at the thickness of the hull - especially since this is one area you couldn't really change without effectively rebuilding the entire ship. You can replace the guns fairly easily, and the engines with a major refit. But changing the amount of armour would require taking the entire ship apart.
Ships (and for that matter tanks) have three main 'statistics'; Armour, Speed and armament/firepower. Assuming roughly equal technologies you can only gain a significant advantage in one area by reducing one or both of the other statistics. So if you want high speed you either have to reduce the size of the guns, the thickness of the armour or a bit of both. Battlecruisers tended to reduce the armour - it is after all the heaviest single component of the three. But other nations (Germany being one) decided to reduce the size of the guns instead. Arguably this was the better option, as it removed any temptation to engage bigger ships entirely.
|
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Aug 11, 2013 14:23:31 GMT
The classifications I gave for the Deutschland were those used by the Kregsmarine. It was the British who referred to them as 'Pocket Battleships', which was not an official designation. It did however sound better and more worrying at a time when the Royal Navy was trying to find the funds to build up and modernise its fleet. Technically Battlecruisers were faster, more lightly armed and has less armour than battleships - even when the size and displacement was not all that dissimilar. Of course by the late 1930's there were battleships that were not all that much slower than the Battlecruisers, and some battlecruisers who's main guns were equal in calibre (if not numbers) to battleships. So the only real way to tell the difference is to look at the thickness of the hull - especially since this is one area you couldn't really change without effectively rebuilding the entire ship. You can replace the guns fairly easily, and the engines with a major refit. But changing the amount of armour would require taking the entire ship apart. Ships (and for that matter tanks) have three main 'statistics'; Armour, Speed and armament/firepower. Assuming roughly equal technologies you can only gain a significant advantage in one area by reducing one or both of the other statistics. So if you want high speed you either have to reduce the size of the guns, the thickness of the armour or a bit of both. Battlecruisers tended to reduce the armour - it is after all the heaviest single component of the three. But other nations (Germany being one) decided to reduce the size of the guns instead. Arguably this was the better option, as it removed any temptation to engage bigger ships entirely. Lets be clear, I am not being critical of your description of the Lutzow et al, just bemuseing just how things change in life. We are less than 100 years (just) from the Battle of Jutland, yet the misconception persists that the British Battle cruisers were sunk by German Battleships, and that the British gunnery was off, this despite one German battle cruiser Salditz(?)edit SMS Lutzow being hit 30 + times by ammunition that instead of penetrating armour exploded on contact. If your weapons are ineffective due to malfunctioning ordinance, you cannot exactly blame the ships guns their design or men that layed them on target. The IJN Kongo class Battle Cruisers were striped down and rebuilt with additional armour and upgraded power plants being heavier but faster, re classified as Fast Battleships, the opportunity to up gun them was missed, so they went into WWII with their original 14 inch guns originally picked to out gun the British 13.5. HMS Repulse along with Hood did not receive the favourable upgrades that the Renown received. Off Singapore the Repulse dodged 9 Japanese torpedoes, but did not receive the torpedo blisters that Renown had during her modernisation, she really stood no chance without air support Singapore's obsolete Brewster Buffaloes being destroyed piecemeal by zeros proving Winston Churchill's "Fortress Singapore" as rhetoric. In the Denmark straight Hood feel foul to mistaken recognition, originally opening fire on the Prinz Eugene instead Of Bismark reacquisition of the target takes time. So there are two occasions where Battle cruisers fought Battleships, luck played its hand one disaster and one victory no matter how small. Had "Jakie Fishers" Battle cruisers had correctly functioning ordinance at Jutland, more Battle cruisers may have graced the seas. this is not the way natural selection or history works. There is no doubt that "Jakie" Fishers Dreadnoughts morphed with his Battle cruisers to become the Impotent Fast Battleships that fell foul to Aircraft carriers and submarines. But he was born in a different age, where the threat was navies without capitol ships as they came to be known, but served by cheap and nasty torpedo boats and submarines. Aircraft being those things.............. |
|
"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...
One was sunk/scuttled by aircraft after a fierce battle with an American cruiser force off Savo Island, the other the next night engaging two US Fast Battleships USS South Dakota? and USS Washington? The Americans had the advantage of Radar and both engagements were at night and at point blank range. One of the American Battleships lost power, technically speaking the auxiliary AC generators were accidental brought on line with out being previously synchronised with the main generators. It was stated that this occurred due to the aft 16 x 3 turret firing causing breakers to close and unattended circuit breakers being locked down. It caused all radar and gunnery operations to cease. This battleship was hit several times by its opponent, fortunately it was either ineffective or did not explode.