# feasibility of keeping WW I battleships around for WW II.



## Shortround6 (Nov 26, 2019)

To keep from derailing a few other threads I am opening up this thread to discuss possible retention of WW I battleships for duties in WW II.

Extensive rebuilds were costly and the Japanese and Italians lied ( or were rather disingenuous) as to the actual increase in displacement which was supposed to be 3,000 tons by treaty.

Because new machinery was hundreds if not thousands of tons lighter than old machinery it offered a considerable area of "fog" when hiding weight added other places. That and the treaty might not have counted machinery weights? only armor and armament? 

In any case a small chart from Nelson to Vanguard by D.K. Brown says

Machinery weights

Ship....................................................................lbs/SHP
Queen Elizabeth, as built............................86.1
Hood, Small tube boilers............................65.9
Queen Elizabeth, modernized..................43.9
King George V................................................37.3 

Please note that cruiser machinery was lighter and destroyer machinery was even lighter. But since there were more of those ships a higher number of breakdowns (or more maintenance)could be tolerated.

Please note that reliability and/or expectations of the same varied greatly from Navy to Navy and actual comparisons are difficult.



The Tiger , it required 85,000hp for it's design speed of 28kts. I don't know how far off they were but 91,103hp was required to make 28.38knots on trials in 1914. 104,635hp only got the Tiger to 29.07kts. 
The Queen Elizabeths were just about the same beam and draft but about 58ft shorter, on trials they could make nearly 24kts on 71-76,000hp.
The Iron Dukes were about 23ft shorter and were good for abou 21kts on 29-30,000hp. A longer hull has less wave making resistance (the reason for that long skinny bow on the New Jerseys and the Italians and Japanese lengthening some of their hulls).

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Nov 28, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> To keep from derailing a few other threads I am opening up this thread to discuss possible retention of WW I battleships for duties in WW II.
> 
> Extensive rebuilds were costly and the Japanese and Italians lied ( or were rather disingenuous) as to the actual increase in displacement which was supposed to be 3,000 tons by treaty.
> 
> ...


The Tiger might have been upgraded in a similar manner to her near sisters in the Kongo class and provide some useful service. The Iron Dukes were too small and slow to justify upgrades, note the the much newer R class was retained in service but not upgraded. Even though the Queen Elizabeth’s were older than the Rs 3 of them were upgraded, Also the 13.5“ guns on the Iron Dukes were not nearly as capable a weapon as the 15” guns on the Queen Elizabeth’s and Rs.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 28, 2019)

There are a host of small problems with keeping old ships in service. 
The older ships used mixed firing, some coal boilers and some oil, exact proportions varied with class. Replacing boilers on battleships means tearing out the superstructure and decks down to the top of the boiler rooms. Changing the turbines was probably a good idea even though expensive and required tearing the superstructure and decks above the turbine rooms out. 
Habitability was poor on the older ships and would only get worse with larger crews unless some way of cutting the crews was found (less engine room staff, cut the 6 in guns and so on)
the older ships didn't have the electrical generation capacity of newer ships or the redundancy, often an important part of damage control. Later ships got large and more numerous pumps. Domestic use of electricity (lighting and fans) went up in addition to the radios/radar and the greater fitting of light weapons requiring electric power (in some cases an electric motor powering a hydraulic pump for elevation and traverse. British 2pdr octuple mount used an 11 hp electric motor for example). 

Some of the firing arcs of the main guns on the older ships was an illusion. The British ships for example were often built for a battleline engagement with ships sailing bow to stern and firing to the broadside. Blast damage at limits of train was often severe and the 13.5in turrets had a flaw in where the sights were located. the superfiring turrets could not be fired over the lower turrets through a 30 degree arc over the bow and stern (or 30 degrees to one side of the bow/stern?) without concussing the gun aimers in the lower turret. A major flaw in single or small numbers engagements in bow and stern chases. Yes it could be fixed. 
short range of the main armament of the older ships could be fixed by changing the elevation, this was not as easy at sounds as the area behind and below the breeches had to be lowered to allow for the elevation and the recoil movement at high elevation. Japanese may have gone overboard in modifying some of their ships to 43 degrees of elevation. 

On some of the older ships the coal bunkers were actually part of the protection. Shell getting through the outer armor had to travel through a number of feet of coal before penetrating the inner armor or bulkhead. Just changing the boilers and going to oil fuel doesn't solve the protection problem (at least one ship kept coal in the coal bunkers after changing to oil fuel simply for the protection).

Given enough money and time none of these problems are unsolvable. Different nations (French and Italians instance) adopted different solutions due to national ambitions and finances. 
French spent very little on modernizing old battleships during the 20s as they were recovering from WW I and their ships were among the oldest designs, prewar and early war French building times were longer than British and German build times meaning their ships were often obsolescent or borderline when completed. Even the Bearn was completed with reciprocating steam engines for cruising because early turbines were very uneconomical at cruising speeds. Other nations had solved that problem in other ways. But the french may have concluded that building new ships was a better bargain that rebuilding old ones.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 28, 2019)

There were quite a few WWI era battleships that saw action in WWII.
The U.S. had the Nevada (BB-37) which was commissioned 11 March 1916 (her sister ship in the class, Oklahoma (BB-37) was sunk 7 December 1941 and lost during salvage operations in 1944).
The Pennsylvania (BB-38) commissioned 12 June 1916 (her sister ship Arizona (BB-39) was lost 7 December).
The New Mexico (BB-40), Mississippi (BB-41) and Idaho (BB-42) all served during WWII, the three bwing commissioned between 1917 and 1919.
Then there were the New York (BB-34) and Texas (BB-35), both commissioned in 1914.
Older still, the Wyoming (BB-32) and Arkansas (BB-33) were both commissioned in 1912.
The Japanese had the Kongo class, Karachi class and Fuso class - all from the WWI era...so it wasn't all that unusual to have old battlwagons kept in service and up-fitted to remain modern.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 28, 2019)

It was not uncommon but it was limited by treaties and economics.
Without the treaties there may have been more scrapping of old ships and more construction of newer ships. The treaties not only limited total tonnage but they placed limits on the age of ships or minimum limits on how soon certain ships could be replaced. The provision/s in the treaties that allow "improvements" is part of what fuelled the major rebuild programs.

As to age of ships, the USS Arizona was not ordered until four of the Queen Elizabeth's had been laid down. In some of these navies the building programs were such that they were on the 3rd or 4th design or modification before the 1st went to sea which meant that quite a few ships were completed with some rather dubious features or were modified while building.
The Arizona was ordered in March of 1913, laid down in March of 1914 launched June of 1915 and commissioned Oct of 1916. about 5 months after Jutland. 

The US needed some other older ships to make up numbers/tonnage allowed by treaty while other navies were faced with scrapping ships of the same age or newer.

Some of the American ships had seen less service (time at sea) than British ships of the same age. Not all machinery aged at the same rate. I don't know when the US started using chemical additives to the feed water to prevent corrosion and scaling but the British resisted such advances for quite a number of years. (engineering officer who tried it in the carrier Victorious in the Pacific was threatened with court martial).

The British, French and to some extent the Italians could not afford the new construction they had planned or were sitting on the ways. The Japanese would have been hard pressed to complete their 8-8 program. The US had no need to build it's planned battleships/battlecruisers if the Japanese and British backed off.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## WARSPITER (Nov 29, 2019)

Although the Queen Elizabeth class was of WWI vintage they lent themselves to modernisation due to being more advanced than contemporaries.

The point raised about mixed coal/oil burning is very valid as a case in point. The Elizabeths were full oil burners so upgrades in the mid 30's to the propulsion systems
lightened them enough to be able to add more armour. 6" gun numbers were lowered to allow more AA and electronics while keeping the weight / balance good.

Of these Warspites upgrade cost over two million pounds after the initial build cost in WWI of two and a half million giving nearly five all up. Compared to the King
George V class of 1940 of over seven million it looks reasonable. After inflation from 1915 to 1940 the cost of the KGV ships is only .3 million more.

The difference is also stark in that the KGV's were built to specifically house the latest electronics / AA and were a step up in range (15600 nautical miles at 10 knots
vs 5000 nautical miles at 12 ) as well as speed (28.3 knots vs 24). The armour was well thought out and when introduced the KGV's were only beaten for protection
by the Yamato class.

Britain had gone for armour and torpedo protection as a design priority. Many of the earlier British ships could not be upgraded as the Queen Elizabeth class could
be without incurring an overall cost greater than that of a brand new KGV ship.

When it comes down to useful ships, what Britain really needed from 1940 on was not more or better Battleships or too many more aircraft carriers. The ship needed
was the ASW capable destroyer. There were not enough of these and they would be pushed in the longest sea campaign / campaign of the war - The Battle of the
Atlantic.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 29, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> I'm sure that after the Japanese seizure of Manchuria and Japan walking out of the League of Nations then it was clear to all that war with Japan was inevitable. My idea does two things. It provides upgrades for 4 battleships and 1 battle cruiser built in 1914 by 1937 so providing a deterrent against Japan in China, and 3 new deck edge lift Ark Royal carriers by 1940/41 for the Indian Ocean and for 2 more in 1942 for use in the Pacific. Surely that is not only a sufficient deterrent but eminently plausible.


Japan doesn't walk out of the league of Nations until 1933, well after all these ships (except the Iron Duke) have been turned into razor blades and Austen 7 fenders.

The Iron Dukes were not built in 1914, they commissioned in 1914, they were laid down in 1912 to a design that mostly complete in 1911. First two ships laid down in Jan of 1912.
This may seem to be a bit picky but the Iron Dukes were laying down 5 years and 3 months after the HMS Dreadnought started sea trials and 2 1/2 years before WW I started.
There was considerable development going on at this time in marine propulsion. There was also rapid development in guns, projectiles and mounts and the beginnings of central fire control. in just under two years the Revenge class was being laid down with the _QE_s in between. And the "R"s were supposed to be a slightly smaller, cheaper _QE_.

The Japanese tried a lot of things to get around the treaties even while paying lip service to them. 

The Kongos were rebuilt twice. they originally had "65,000 shaft horsepower (48,000 kW), using steam provided by 36 Yarrow or Kampon water-tube boilers, with working pressures ranging from 17.1 to 19.2 atm (1,733 to 1,945 kPa; 251 to 282 psi).[10] The boilers, arranged in eight compartments, were mixed-firing with fuel oil sprayed onto the coal for extra power. The ships had a stowage capacity of 4,200 long tons (4,300 t) of coal and 1,000 long tons (1,000 t) of oil, giving them a range of 8,000 nautical miles (15,000 km; 9,200 mi) at a speed of 14 knots (26 km/h; 16 mph).[11] The battlecruisers were designed to reach a speed of 27.5 knots (50.9 km/h; 31.6 mph) and all of them exceeded that speed on their sea trials. "

during the 20s the Japanese reboilered them with "10, 11 (_Hiei_) or 16 (_Haruna_) Kampon boilers, and their fuel stowage was rearranged to accommodate 2,661 long tons (2,704 t) of coal and 3,292 long tons (3,345 t) of oil. This increased their range to 8,930 nautical miles (16,540 km; 10,280 mi) at 14 knots and allowed the fore funnel to be removed, which greatly decreased smoke interference with the bridge and fire-control systems. Coupled with the addition of external torpedo bulges, this reduced their speed to 26 knots (48 km/h; 30 mph) and caused the IJN to reclassify them as battleships."

and then in the 30s they went to " eleven oil-fired Kampon boilers.[15] These upgraded boilers gave the _Kongō_ and her sister ships much greater power, with the ships of the class capable of speeds exceeding 30.5 knots (56.5 km/h; 35.1 mph). " they may have gotten new turbines at this time?

The Fuso was rebuilt twice and her sister the Yamashiro was rebuilt once. these rebuilds included new boilers and turbines and almost doubled the installed power despite removing the forward boiler room, the 6 new boilers providing steam for 75,000hp vs teh 24 old boilers making 40,000hp. speed increased by a knot and half despite the increase in displacement and range went up about 50%. the improvements to the Ise class were roughly similar.

The Iron Dukes, without a large increase in speed could not catch the Japanese 12 gun ships let alone (or never) the Kongo class. The Japanese had provided their ships with greatly increased main gun elevation, perhaps more than needed, but even at 20 degrees elevation they out ranged the Iron Dukes by 3-4,000 yds.

The Japanese might not have been deterred by the moderately rebuilt Iron Dukes. Since the British never really modernised the "R" class one wonders if there was enough money or dock yard capacity to upgrade even older ships.

We are also back to timing and possible modifications to the treaty. Ships modernized in the 20s may not have the extent of improvements that ships modernized it the 30s got (again, marine propulsion was constantly evolving.

as to the treaty, is it modified to allow the British to keep an extra 100-110,000tons of battleships? 
Do the British get to keep the Iron Dukes but have to give up the Nelson and Rodney (and perhaps the Renown or Repulse?) 

Do the US get to keep some of their older ships ( and perhaps the Washington BB-47)? 

Do the Japanese get an extra 60-70,000tons?
an extra two Nagatos or some sort of Nagato-Tosa hybrid? 

The chances of the British keeping 4 battleships and a Battlecruiser and the other nations not getting something extra are pretty slim.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 30, 2019)

WW1 battleships were kept around for WW2, so it was certainly feasible 

Just about everybody's armed forces were under severe financial pressure in the 1920s and 1930s, for different reasons: isolationism and calls for reduced government spending* (US), external war debts (UK, France, and Italy), infrastructure damage (France), civil war (USSR _cum_ Russia), and anti-militarism (France, UK: in both because the war _as reported by the combat survivors_ was totally mismanaged by incompetent, callous, ill-informed, dimwitted generals who would ignore any data disagreeing with their personal opinions. While pacifism was certainly present in both countries pre-war, having 10 to 25 percent of a nation's military age men killed or maimed would seem to strengthen one's belief in the futility of war). 

Limiting this to "why weren't RN battleships kept around for WW2," well, they were: the Rs and _Queen Elizabeth_ class ships were WW1 ships. So was the unfortunate HMS _Hood_. The older ships had been hard-used and were seen as both superfluous and incompatible with the demands of modern warfare, even without aircraft, such as limited gun range, mediocre protection against long-range gunfire, poor underwater protection, and deficiencies in ammunition storage. While there are some cases where having more capital ships would be useful -- having one of the RN's _Lion-_class battle cruisers or HMS _Tiger_ meet up with _Graf Spee_ likely wouldn't permit that ship's captain the option of scuttling -- the British taxpayer** would have to support several thousand more sailors (each ship had a crew of about 1500, plus some number of additional personnel in shore support roles, plus additional support ships, plus all the stores needed to support the ships' armament and machinery) and a very expensive modernization on each ship. 



----

* The GOP of the 1920s was _not_ pro-military; they largely viewed the military as just another government program. 

** While there do seem to be some people who believe that the defense budget comes out of some magical pot of leprechaun gold, it doesn't. In the case of the UK (and France and ...), since a great deal of that defense budget seemed to exist solely to keep the natives from governing themselves, one wonders how a day laborer would react to his taxes going up so the viceroy of India needn't worry about losing his palace.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 30, 2019)

There is no question that there were WW I ships kept around till and during WW II. 

For this discussion it is how many, with what modifications and to what effect. 
Just as importantly, as Swampyankee notes, was what was the cost? 
the older ships were not very cost effective. The rate of progress was phenomenal from 1905 to 1918. Just a few years could see a capital ship go from first rate to 2nd class. Even before WW I there were two classes, Dreadnoughts (usually 12 in guns or under) and Super Dreadnoughts ( over 12 in guns) and by the end of WW I the 13.5/14in gun ships were being demoted to 2nd class if not 3rd. Britain had introduced the 15in gun early but the US and Japan had leapfrogged to the 16in gun. with the British and Japanese talking about 18in guns. (actual Hardware in England) 

The Italians and Japanese did the most extensive renovations (British did not extend or modify hulls) , in part due to treaty limits, they were trying to make the most effective ships possible under the rules of the treaty rather than send WW I ships unmodified into battle. Both countries could expect to face superior numbers and quality was their only hope. 

With the "R"s going unmodified (basically, a small change in AA guns notwithstanding) and not all the _QE_s getting a really extensive modernization the idea that there was a lot of money available or dockyard capacity to substantially change the combat capabilities of the Iron Dukes and Tiger in the late 20s or early/mid 30s to where they would not just be targets for the Japanese needs a lot disregard for the actual situation of the times. 

A Rebuilt "R" might be close to the capabilities of a _QE _and be a better bargain than rebuilt Iron Duke_. _

As an example of how fast things were changing another table from D.K. Brown


Ship.....................................year.....................SHP.................Wt(lbs/shp)..................space(sq.ft./shp)..................fuel(lbs/shp/hr)

Dreadnought.................1905...................23,000..................184.......................................0.45........................................1.522
Lion....................................1909..................70,000...................154......................................0.25.........................................1.67
Repulse.............................1914................112,000..................113......................................0.166.......................................1.28
Hood.................................1916.................144,000....................84......................................0.136.......................................1.11

Not all WW I battleships (or even pre WW I) were equal in propulsion technology let alone armament or fire control. Fire control was subject to constant revision, even after the main armament got director control as new/er directors, new and larger rangefinders, new plotting tables and computers (mechanical) and other aids were fitted. Later directors incorporated a gyro system to automatically fire the guns as the ship went through 0 degrees in the roll rather than depend on the director operators judgement. 

Modern ships (and some refitted ones) had the fire control center located below the armored deck with the range finders/gun sights (and later radar ) feeding information down to it and the information (bearing and range/elevation) going back out to the guns rather than going from a director mounted high up and then going to the guns.


----------



## WARSPITER (Dec 3, 2019)

The Carrier was the other problem as not a lot was known re capabilities / impact. The only info gained was from inter war games against the USN. In these it was found
that he who strikes first wins. The US went for more carrier fighter protection which was sensible given the distances involved in the Pacific which made the biggest
threat aircraft from opposition carriers.

Ark Royal was designed and built as a counter to the rise of Japan. It was more along the lines of the US type.

Fairly soon after things changed as Germany and Italy became a real threat. For this a different type of carrier was required - enclosed flight decks to cater for operations
anywhere from the Med through to the Arctic and North Seas. The armoured deck came into being as well due to the high likelihood of attacks from land based aircraft.
This also became a quandary for Britain. Build X number of the Ark type for Indo - Pacific operations and X number for home based or concentrate on home based.
Home based won out and events proved this to be the correct way to go.

As has been noted, the resources and time to perform difficult upgrades on WWI battleships / Dreadnoughts as opposed to building the more modern KGV class 
would have taken away from carrier program which in the end was more important to Britain (operations in the Mediterranean bear this out).


----------



## The Basket (Dec 3, 2019)

One point is that in WW2, a R class or QE class was a match for any other European battleship and apart from the Yamatos, in the world.

Rodney maybe slow but no enemy battleship would want to tangle with it.

The UK had problems with naval warfare in that we had a world empire which needed ships to defend. Whereas Italian navy was a Mediterranean navy so didn't have issues with numbers or range.

So Royal Navy had a number of battleships which could neither chase or run away from the latest German or Italian or Japanese battleships so was at a disadvantage when the Bismarck and Prinz Eugene showed up.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 27, 2021)

Bumping this thread to cover HMAS Australia.

The Australia was a bad bargain as she was obsolete when laid down. 
The Lion was laid down 29 September 1909 while the Australia was laid down 23 June 1910.
The Australia was completed just over a year after the Lion. 
In Fact the Japanese Kongo was completed just two months after the Australia. 

As shown in post #9 there was very rapid advancement in ship propulsion before and during WW I (and after) and the Indefatigable class suffered by being near repeats of the Invincible which means that their propulsion system was closer to the Dreadnought than to later ships. The Invincible's being laid down in 1906 and the Indefatigables pretty much duplicating the machinery with some minor improvements. 

On the Broadside they were often restricted to six guns, they were supposed to have better firing arcs than the Invincible but there was still blast damage to the decks and superstructure from the cross firing turret. 
The Indefatigable class were tight, crowded ships with poor habitability, especially in the tropics. 

For the Australia, just what shape her machinery was in after WW I is subject to question, She had seen much service. 

She would need at least some upgrading just to fight the new "treaty" cruisers of the late 20s. And since the County class started laying down in 1924 it is not hard to see the advancements just 14-15 years had brought. 
The Australia was coal fired. This required a large crew, large machinery spaces and meant short range and several days of back breaking work to refuel. 
Her guns had limited elevation and thus were short ranged, about 20,000yds with the mid WW I change in elevation and using 4 cal radius shells. 

Anything can be fixed if you spend enough time and money on it. 

But for the Australia to be much use at all it needs new boilers (oil fueled), revised fuel stowage (make sure the old coal bunkers are oil tight.)
Improved habitability (smaller boiler room crew will help), increase elevation on the main guns, better fire control.

It is still a fuel hog (needs new turbines, etc) Needs a new secondary battery/improved AA. Protection against 8in cruiser guns may be adequate? 

Chances against a Kongo, even a 1918 Kongo are not good. 

By 1922-24 it is neither fish nor fowl. Not strong enough to stand up to even a weak battleship and too slow to chase modern cruisers. 

As for turning it into a carrier?

Ship......................................length..................................beam........................................speed
Australia..............................590.........................................80...............................................26kts
Canada................................661..........................................92..............................................22.5kts
Glorious..............................787..........................................81..............................................32kts
Kent......................................630..........................................68 (bulges) ...........................31kts
Cleveland...........................608...........................................66..............................................32kts

Canada was sister to the Eagle, Glorious is as battlecruiser, Kent is county class cruiser, under design in 1922-24, Cleveland is what they built the Independence class carriers on. 
The Australia had a deeper draft than the cruiser hulls. That is one reason she displaced much more water, She didn't really have that much extra useable volume inside the hull. 

Best you can hope for is a short, narrow Eagle that is just a bit faster. Limited in as to both the ability of the planes it can carry and the number it can carry. 

The Japanese poured money into rebuilding their old battleships not because it was cheaper than new construction but because the treaties forbid new ships leaving expensive rebuilds as the only way to try to match the US and Britain.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Aug 27, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Bumping this thread to cover HMAS Australia.
> 
> The Australia was a bad bargain as she was obsolete when laid down.
> The Lion was laid down 29 September 1909 while the Australia was laid down 23 June 1910.
> ...


Excellent post. Indefatigable was the product of very muddled thinking by the Admiralty. The Lion was already designed by the time she was laid down. To build the HMAS Australia 2 years later was sheer folly. Australia had no place in any post WWI navy and would have been scrapped anyway.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 27, 2021)

If Oz wanted a battle cruiser then Tiger would have been a better bet.

But Australia, given a full Kongo style refit would have been interesting.

Australia could act as a deterrent based on the fleet in being idea. You know Australia is in a given area so you can't operate cruisers and you have to send major capital ships to meet her which is resource intensive and so maybe not worth it.

A Yamato AP shell would make a terrible mess. I wonder if it could go clean through one armour belt and out the other armour belt?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 27, 2021)

The Basket said:


> Australia could act as a deterrent based on the fleet in being idea. You know Australia is in a given area so you can't operate cruisers and you have to send major capital ships to meet her which is resource intensive and so maybe not worth it.


 As stated above, without very extensive renovations the Australia is hard pressed to fight more than a single 8in gun cruiser at the same time. It would have trouble with a single 8in gun cruiser. Even with higher elevation guns than it ended WW I with it cannot out range the 8in cruisers. It cannot out run them (or chase them). It guns fire much slower and due to the cross deck arrangement it's ability to bring more than 6 guns to bear is limited. Many times it will be four guns. 

Graf Spee didn't do so well against one cruiser with six 8in and two with eight 6in. The Australia doesn't need a capitol ship to oppose it. A heavy cruiser division would steam roller it.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 27, 2021)

I think without major retrofits, their value would be more secondary such as coastal bombardment, support amphibious landings, or loaded up with light & medium (ie 20mm & 40mm) guns and used as AA platforms which IIRC is what Germany did with their 2 remaining WW1 battleships.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 27, 2021)

German old battleships were pre-dreadnoughts and had a lot more superstructure space to put AA guns on. 

Australia had a somewhat limited superstructure and with 3 funnels unless re-powered poor sky arcs. 
The staggered wing turrets really suck up deck space and restrict gun placement due to blast problems.

Australia (the country) has a lot less money than Germany and shouldn't be wasting it on dubious ships that might be useful in specialized scenarios.
Supply is a problem that needs new machinery to fix, not just converting to oil fuel but new, geared turbines instead of the old, direct drive turbines. Pacific distances are much greater than European. Australia needs ships with long range, not ones that need refueling every few days unless running at10 kits.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 27, 2021)

As advised, Australia with a full refit would still have been hell as a cruiser killer.

Without any kind of refit, then Australia is limited to either Blockship, barracks ship or museum ship.

Problem is the Australia’s minimum peer opponent in the Pacific is Kongo and that is not good match up

Many a WW1 ship staggered into WW2 without much to do. The R class is a good example of a warship too slow to catch a cold but still can do sterling work within its limited sphere.

Graf Spee had thinner armour and less guns.

So basically any WW1 spec capital ship is in a heap of trouble in ww2.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Aug 27, 2021)

The Basket said:


> If Oz wanted a battle cruiser then Tiger would have been a better bet.
> 
> But Australia, given a full Kongo style refit would have been interesting.
> 
> ...


Trying to give Australia a Kongo style refit would be polishing a turd. There is no comparison in the capabilities of each ship. Australia was a badly compromised design with its peculiar armament arrangement and generally poor protection. The 12 inch 50 cal gun it was equipped with was not successful and had a reputation for poor accuracy. The poor performance of the 12 inch spurred the development of the 13.5, a far superior weapon. The Australia was also much slower than the Kongo. I don’t see it catching many cruisers. As I stated previously the Admiralty had some very peculiar ideas at the time Indefatigable was designed resulting in a ship that wouldn’t look out of place in the French navy.

Correction the Australia was armed with the 12 inch 45 caliber.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Aug 27, 2021)

I am merely being the Devil's advocate.

I agree that HMAS Australia was not perfect and her scuttling was a fair fate for her.

But as this is an internet forum so I am duty bound to stir the pot a little.

The threat the RAN would have faced was obviously the IJN. And any refit to the Australia was small potatoes to what she could face.


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 27, 2021)

Regarding HMAS Australia and HMS New Zealand, the two inextricably tied as the concept of the Dominions having their own dreadnoughts was a common idea born in 1909 independently in each country, but for the same reasons, it even became an election issue in Australia, the original intent was that the "Gift Dreadnoughts" as they became known were to originally be First Class dreadnoughts more powerful than the Indefatigables, but cost came into the decision, at the time the Indefatigables were considered the most cost-effective capital ships of the period, not to mention Fisher's false assertions about the class's capabilities. Jellicoe at the time argued that they were too poorly protected and couldn't see what Fisher was hinting at, but that's another story for another time.

The crux of the matter was that the dreadnoughts gave both countries a semblance of security against the nervousness they felt over Germany's naval expansion; Australia got her own navy and New Zealand was still tied to the Royal Navy, but had a tangible defence asset in home waters (although the ship was nominally based in Britain), despite its weaknesses, although there was no enemy force in the Pacific region that had anywhere near the capability of defeating two battlecruisers of their size around the outbreak of the Great War - Japan was an ally, Japanese cruisers escorted the ANZAC fleet from home waters through the Indian Ocean. With the outbreak of war HMS New Zealand was part of Beattie's battlecruiser squadron at Rosyth.

The Falklands battle, where von Spee's squadron was defeated by British battlecruisers appeared to vindicate the decision and ease fears, the success obscured the disadvantages of these ships, but that kind of action was what they were bought by the dominions for, to be fair.

HMAS Australia's ship's bell in Canberra.





DSC_5342

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## don4331 (Aug 27, 2021)

Thanks to WNT and its successors, the late WWI ships with 15" guns/oil fired boiler and geared turbines were still relevant in WWII.

But HMAS Australia (1913) isn't one of those. 

If in '21, national pride says Australia won't let the BC they have just paid for, to keep it relevant in mid 24s, you would need to do the following:

Pull the main guns so they can be reworked to handle 6crh rounds so the guns will have the range for expected conflicts in any upcoming action.
While the main guns are out, the elevation mechanism needs to be updated to allow 30° or more.
The barbettes need to be removed, partially to move to more modern A, B, X, Y configuration from the A, P, Q , Y one as built, partially because when constructed, the RN's shell wouldn't penetrate 1/2 caliber i.e. SMS Armoured Cruisers 21cm guns couldn't penetrate 4" of steel. It was very disconcerting to find out German shell could penetrate caliber and still explode high order in WWI. By end of war, it is assumed everyone's shells will penetrate caliber, so even if the BC is just being turned in a "Treaty" cruiser killer, the barbettes need to be thickened to 8"+.

As ship is being reworked to A, B, X, Y configuration, all the superstructure needs to be razed to be rebuilt modern which will have side effect of allowing modern fire control and proper arcs for AAA which is becoming a requirement. We also need a proper armoured deck against plunging fire.

With the super structure out of the way, all the coal fired boilers need to be pulled to make way for more powerful/less manpower intensive oil fired ones. And the direct drive paired turbines need to removed for vastly more compact/efficient geared ones - might get away with just 2 like the Italian rebuilds.

As we are installing geared turbines, driving the shaft at a slower, more efficient speed, we need to cur away and rebuild the aft hull for larger propellers.

On beams, we need to remove the thin belt (same issue as barbettes) and replace it with one thick enough to withstand modern cruisers.

While the belt is off, the hull needs to be remodeled to replace the coal bunkers with oil tanks and to incorporate a torpedo defense system. It will also need to increase beam as the extra armour is making ship heavier.

The loads on the keel have changed dramatically, so the keel needs to be removed and replaced with one designed for the new ship.

I think I have left the stem and the rudder untouched...

p.s. All RN BC up to and including HMS Tiger (1913) have the same issue.

The Courageous class and HMS Eagle all have oil fired boilers and geared turbines - that is why they were spared the scrappers.


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 27, 2021)

As mentioned earlier, the Indefatigables were, by the end of the war, next to useless. Their disposal was the only thing that could have happened that made military sense after the war. They were the British version of what the Germans called "The five Minute Ships", as long as they were expected to last in a fleet engagement, but, as mentioned, their purpose in the hands of the dominions was to keep German expansion from the naval base at Tsingtao at bay. The German navy via Spee's squadron captured Samoa, a New Zealand dependency as well as the rather successful rampage (until it wasn't, when the ship was caught by HMAS Sydney in the Indian Ocean) the Emden went on at the outbreak of the war reminded the Pacific nations that there was definitely a need for naval strength in the region.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 27, 2021)

Here is what you are dealing with.






There was a major conflict between the size of the existing docks and the length of ship needed for the boilers and turbines. 
Yes, oil fired boilers of the type available in even 1918 would have saved a lot of space. 

From a practical or cost standard it was simply easier and cheaper to start over rather than disassemble such a ship to the point needed and start assembling things again. 
Not to mention supporting the hull as major bits are taken away and added so the remaining hull structure doesn't bend/warp. 

Moving the barbettes was a major undertaking, not only do you have to move whatever was in the way (boilers, auxiliary machinery rooms, propeller shafts, etc) you have to install new magazines and supports for the barbettes. One can see how far down the ammunition hoists went. 

The "turrets" themselves need a bit of revamping. Not only do they need more elevation (which probably means the barbette floor needs to be lowered.) but the sighting arrangements need to be changed. 




The 3 "scoops" on top of the gun house near the front are the sighing hoods. later ships had these placed on the sides to prevent the turret aimers from being concussed
when the super firing turret arrangement was adopted. 

everything can be changed if enough time and money is spent but the vast sums needed to bring this ship into even the 1920s would have been better spent elsewhere. 

I will repeat again, do not be confused by the completion date, this is a 33ft stretch job of a design that was first laid down in 1906. In no way, shape or form was the Australia a contemporary of the best design practice of 1911-13. Preliminary design work was being done on the Renown in 1914 and the Hood was laid down just a bit over 3 years after the Australia was completed. Granted it took around 3 years for the British so build a large warship but the pace of design and development was very rapid.


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 27, 2021)

Quite a few of the pre-WW2 battleships were not worth keeping (USS _Arkansas_, anyone), although something like HMAS _Australia_ may have been useful to be something with guns big enough to deter one of the _Graf Spee_s sibliyngs and near-siblings, but would still be too manpower and resource intensive for the RAN to justify. 


don4331 said:


> Thanks to WNT and its successors, the late WWI ships with 15" guns/oil fired boiler and geared turbines were still relevant in WWII.
> 
> But HMAS Australia (1913) isn't one of those.
> 
> ...


Given the structure and volume required below decks for heavy gun turrets, I suspect converting HMAS _Australia_ from its HG arrangement to all-centerline would be impractical without replacing the entire hull between A and Y with new construction.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Aug 28, 2021)

Refitting the Australia is simply an issue of money. A British Shipyard would have no bother with that.

Problems thou.

Washington Naval Treaty would have seen Australia as a big gun capital ship. So if Australia was kept then maybe something else had to go. The British Empire####salute#### was seen as a one and Oz was not seen as an individual country. So there's that.

Minimum threat is a Kongo and there is no way Australia can be rebuilt to match a Kongo. Not ever. So it's a total none starter and even trying to rebuild her is total nonsense. Especially when Tiger is available.

Deutschland class is certainly an interesting matchup but Australia was in her watery grave well before a Deutschland hit the water so that's not a consideration.

Odd but against Kormoran then Australia should wipe the floor with her. Saving 645 lives. Even in ww1 config. Perhaps that would be a good incentive to keep her around.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Aug 28, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> Regarding HMAS Australia and HMS New Zealand, the two inextricably tied as the concept of the Dominions having their own dreadnoughts was a common idea born in 1909 independently in each country, but for the same reasons, it even became an election issue in Australia, the original intent was that the "Gift Dreadnoughts" as they became known were to originally be First Class dreadnoughts more powerful than the Indefatigables, but cost came into the decision, at the time the Indefatigables were considered the most cost-effective capital ships of the period, not to mention Fisher's false assertions about the class's capabilities. Jellicoe at the time argued that they were too poorly protected and couldn't see what Fisher was hinting at, but that's another story for another time.
> 
> The crux of the matter was that the dreadnoughts gave both countries a semblance of security against the nervousness they felt over Germany's naval expansion; Australia got her own navy and New Zealand was still tied to the Royal Navy, but had a tangible defence asset in home waters (although the ship was nominally based in Britain), despite its weaknesses, although there was no enemy force in the Pacific region that had anywhere near the capability of defeating two battlecruisers of their size around the outbreak of the Great War - Japan was an ally, Japanese cruisers escorted the ANZAC fleet from home waters through the Indian Ocean. With the outbreak of war HMS New Zealand was part of Beattie's battlecruiser squadron at Rosyth.
> 
> ...


I don’t know how anyone could claim they were cost effective. Cost yes, 1.5 vs 2 million for a Lion. Effective no. 5,100 lb broadside vs 10,000, less accurate, shorter range. Much less well armored, worse underwater protection, 2 knots slower.
Interesting fact. New Zealand was the worst shooting British ship at Jutland. Supposedly 4 hits out of 420 shells fired.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 28, 2021)

New Zealand didn't blow up. So that's a plus.
Australia missed Jutlland by a few days so no shooting for her.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Aug 28, 2021)

I would have thought that the 13.5in WW1 Battlecruisers would find a role in WW2. They would certainly need oil fired engines, increased elevation and significant upgrades to their deck armour and AA capabilities.
However to try and pitch them against a capital ship would be an error. Their role would have been to support the Carriers and hunt down any surface raiders. Most navies had few capital ships but had a decent number of cruisers and these would have been at significant risk against a modified Battle Cruiser.

The types of changes were done in other ships or could fairly easily be done as I think most of them had fuel and coal in their engines, and I think the Kongo class still had this arrangement throughout WW2. The Kongo would have had the advantage over a modified Cat style BC but I don't think it would have been a forgone conclusion as they weren't that fast and their armour wasn't that thick. A 13.5 could probably penetrate the Kongo without much difficulty as of course the 14in could penetrate the Cat type BC.

With hindsight scrapping the R Class in the 1930's and keeping the Cat might well have been a better bet but at the time the 'big gun' proponents had a bigger sway over developments.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 28, 2021)

Kongo's coal fired boilers (with oil injection) were replaced during her refit in the 30's to a full oil burning Kampon boiler system.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Aug 28, 2021)

I live and learn, thanks for this

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Aug 28, 2021)

Was Tiger converted fully to fuel oil?
Dunno.
Tiger and her 13.5 inch guns would have been a logistics pain. Only one in the fleet with that gun.
Although she would have been perfect for a Deutschland chaser.

An option with the R-Class is to Vanguard them. When that was desirable or feasible is open question


----------



## don4331 (Aug 28, 2021)

From what I can find, Tiger wasn't fully converted to fuel oil; so her top speed was compromised to ~24kn if you couldn't find coal and strokers (and that assumes the coal boilers didn't have issues with being unused for 15+ years). Worse she, she would burn through her fuel oil bunkers, they being only 1/2 the total fuel storage, in less than a week - direct drive turbines partial fuel economy being atrocious.

The scary part of Tiger (or Australia) is that instead of meeting one of the Deutschlands, they run into the twins (G & S) who use their speed, armour, newer fire control to pick the RN BC apart. Not a sure thing, but its a lot of Bismarck vs Hood.

Kongos big advantage is their geared turbines probably makes them >2X as efficient to operate versus the older RN BCs. The "R's" would have been on the block if the KGV class had managed to be completed before the war.

If one doesn't change HMAS to all center line armament, you have magazine right against hull. Komoran blowing a RAN BC out of water with single torpedo would be even more embarassing and costly than historic.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Aug 28, 2021)

Would the sisters took on Tiger?

I am of the opinion they would not.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Aug 28, 2021)

The idea was that all the surviving 13.5in BC's would have been kept and modified with oil fuel, instead of keeping the R class which were too slow for anything much apart from shore bombardment and escorting convoys knowing that they wouldn't be able to catch anything that ran away. The 13.5in BC's would be far more useful.

HMAS Australia was a much weaker ship, poorly armed, poorly protected, slow and very unsuitable for modification.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Aug 28, 2021)

Glider said:


> The idea was that all the surviving 13.5in BC's would have been kept and modified with oil fuel, instead of keeping the R class which were too slow for anything much apart from shore bombardment and escorting convoys knowing that they wouldn't be able to catch anything that ran away. The 13.5in BC's would be far more useful.
> 
> HMAS Australia was a much weaker ship, poorly armed, poorly protected, slow and very unsuitable for modification.


The gun club wouldn’t go for that. The RN, USN and IJN all wanted to fight a proper Jutland. A 15 inch is what you want when your battle fleet is slugging it out with the enemy battle fleet. Note that the Rs were no slower than the USN standard battleships. The Japanese seemed to value speed more than the other 2, but obviously for them firepower was the most important feature in a battleship, culminating in the Yamatos.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Aug 28, 2021)

No way an _Invincible_ clone will stand up to a _Kongo_. Good for cruiser-killing, perhaps.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Aug 29, 2021)

Kongo was a very good British battle cruiser.
All 13.5 inch ships were rid so not sure on that. Tiger was turned into a training ship which is why she was never modernized.
Lesson from Jutland is thin armour and small guns don't count. And Australia had both.


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 29, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> No way an _Invincible_ clone will stand up to a _Kongo_. Good for cruiser-killing, perhaps.


That phrase just never comes up in usual conversation.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 29, 2021)

The Basket said:


> Kongo was a very good British battle cruiser.
> All 13.5 inch ships were rid so not sure on that. Tiger was turned into a training ship which is why she was never modernized.
> Lesson from Jutland is thin armour and small guns don't count. And Australia had both


Australia also had emus.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Aug 29, 2021)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The gun club wouldn’t go for that. The RN, USN and IJN all wanted to fight a proper Jutland. A 15 inch is what you want when your battle fleet is slugging it out with the enemy battle fleet. Note that the Rs were no slower than the USN standard battleships. The Japanese seemed to value speed more than the other 2, but obviously for them firepower was the most important feature in a battleship, culminating in the Yamatos.





Reluctant Poster said:


> The gun club wouldn’t go for that. The RN, USN and IJN all wanted to fight a proper Jutland. A 15 inch is what you want when your battle fleet is slugging it out with the enemy battle fleet. Note that the Rs were no slower than the USN standard battleships. The Japanese seemed to value speed more than the other 2, but obviously for them firepower was the most important feature in a battleship, culminating in the Yamatos.


I totally agree and in an earlier posting did say

'_With hindsight scrapping the R Class in the 1930's and keeping the Cat might well have been a better bet but at the time the 'big gun' proponents had a bigger sway over developments_.'


----------



## The Basket (Aug 29, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Australia also had emus.


Dropping truth bombs

Can Emus swim?


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 29, 2021)

The Basket said:


> Dropping truth bombs
> 
> Can Emus swim?


Defense of the beachheads. Duh.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 29, 2021)

Australia is full of desert, sharks, spiders and crocodiles. 

And the final boss Killer Emus.

So any invading army is not long for this earth.

Who needs battle cruisers!

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## don4331 (Aug 29, 2021)

The Basket said:


> Australia is full of desert, sharks, spiders and crocodiles.
> 
> And the final boss Killer Emus.
> 
> ...


Where does the koala fit in that list of killers


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 29, 2021)

Reluctant Poster said:


> I don’t know how anyone could claim they were cost effective. Cost yes, 1.5 vs 2 million for a Lion. Effective no. 5,100 lb broadside vs 10,000, less accurate, shorter range. Much less well armored, worse underwater protection, 2 knots slower.
> Interesting fact. New Zealand was the worst shooting British ship at Jutland. Supposedly 4 hits out of 420 shells fired.




Let's put this into context, so you are suggesting that somehow the Australian and New Zealand governments knew this at the time? This is what Fred T Jane of Jane's had to say about the new Indefatigable in 1912, the year Australia and New Zealand were told they would be getting these instead of the First Class Dreadnoughts they wanted to pay for;

"The cost of construction was £1,547,42, which works out at about £82 10s per ton, as against the average £120 per ton that the Invincibles cost to build. she is the cheapest ship yet built for the British Navy."

There's no way either the NZ or Aussie governments in 1912 could have known what you're suggesting there, 'poster. Jane's was the industry's Wikipedia.

As for HMS New Zealand's dismal performance at Jutland, it's well known that she achieved the highest rate of fire of any of the battlecruisers, but with the poorest accuracy, in fact, my sources state an even lower figure than four hits - around one, and even then there are questions about that. What was well known at the time was that the battlecruiser squadron at Rosyth had a very lax attitude toward gunnery training compared to the Grand Fleet based at Scapa Flow; Beattie, for all his youth and tenacity did enjoy the trappings of his position, which meant less time was spent doing the things he should have been doing in his position; the Princess Royal was not known as the Gin Palace for nothing.




Thumpalumpacus said:


> Good for cruiser-killing, perhaps.



Pretty much what I've been saying for a few posts now, as demonstrated at the Falklands in late 1914; exactly the enemy that the New Zealand and Australia was expected to encounter in the Pacific.



The Basket said:


> So any invading army is not long for this earth.



Pretty much, the emus beat the Australian army's attempts at controlling them!









Looking back: Australia's Emu Wars


In 1932 Australian troops were dumbfounded when they found themselves outmaneuvered by clever birds during the Emu Wars.




www.australiangeographic.com.au

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 29, 2021)

don4331 said:


> Where does the koala fit in that list of killers


Fifth column.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 29, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Fifth column.



Those suckers have nasty claws, man.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Aug 29, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> Pretty much what I've been saying for a few posts now, as demonstrated at the Falklands in late 1914; exactly the enemy that the New Zealand and Australia was expected to encounter in the Pacific.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So put three to five emus on each turret, birds armed with a couple of 3-5 inch rockets on each side. Port Moresby sends its gratitude.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 30, 2021)

don4331 said:


> Where does the koala fit in that list of killers


Drop Bears.
This is a serious concern...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Aug 30, 2021)

I would say Indefatigable armour scheme was not good enough against armoured cruisers....never mind battleships


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Aug 30, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> Let's put this into context, so you are suggesting that somehow the Australian and New Zealand governments knew this at the time? This is what Fred T Jane of Jane's had to say about the new Indefatigable in 1912, the year Australia and New Zealand were told they would be getting these instead of the First Class Dreadnoughts they wanted to pay for;
> 
> "The cost of construction was £1,547,42, which works out at about £82 10s per ton, as against the average £120 per ton that the Invincibles cost to build. she is the cheapest ship yet built for the British Navy."
> 
> ...


In his book The Grand Fleet, D K Brown produced the following table:






RPI = retail price indicator, which he uses to estimate inflation.

As can be seen the Invincible was an outlier, being far more expensive than the other prewar battlecruisers. Using it as a comparison smacks of cherry picking data to justify a poor decision. The cost of the Lion was known in 1912 and would have been a much more appropriate basis of comparison. A comparison the Indefatigable loses.

New Zealand was commissioned in 1912 (as were Lion and Princess Royal). Your statement that that was the year Australia and New Zealand were told they were getting the old style battlecruisers instead of First Class Dreadnaughts cannot be true. In fact Australia was ordered in 1909 the same year as Lion and Princess Royal.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 30, 2021)

Courageous wasn't a battle cruiser.

It wasn't anything!

If that was at Jutland then lordy lordy.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Aug 30, 2021)

The Basket said:


> Courageous wasn't a battle cruiser.
> 
> It wasn't anything!
> 
> If that was at Jutland then lordy lordy.


Agreed. Fishers follies. I didn't come up with the list DK Brown did. His list was actually a list of large cruisers.


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 30, 2021)

Reluctant Poster said:


> As can be seen the Invincible was an outlier, being far more expensive than the other prewar battlecruisers. Using it as a comparison smacks of cherry picking data to justify a poor decision. The cost of the Lion was known in 1912 and would have been a much more appropriate basis of comparison. A comparison the Indefatigable loses.
> 
> New Zealand was commissioned in 1912 (as were Lion and Princess Royal). Your statement that that was the year Australia and New Zealand were told they were getting the old style battlecruisers instead of First Class Dreadnaughts cannot be true. In fact Australia was ordered in 1909 the same year as Lion and Princess Royal.



Yup, that's true, the dominion battlecruisers were launched in 1912 (not what I said), but that doesn't change the premise of my post, in that the ships were _considered_ value for money at the time of their construction, regardless of what Brown wrote or the point you are making a hundred years later. Cherrypicking? The quote was from Jane's. Are you saying Fred Jane was wrong for making that comparison? You're presuming (again) that the New Zealand and Australian governments knew in 1909 what we do today and if Fisher is telling porkies about the capabilities of these ships, which we know he was, how would the two Dominions know any different compared to the Lions?

The dominions didn't_ want_ battlecruisers in 1909, that's not what they asked for. They wanted a semi-autonomous naval presence in the Pacific, either headquartered in Hong Kong or Australia, with two dreadnought class battleships. They expressly requested First Class Dreadnoughts but didn't seem to mind too much that that wasn't what they were to ultimately get. To be clear, neither country requested an Indefatigable class ship in 1909, and given a chance to choose, which they were not, they probably would have requested something better, that is, if they knew any better. Fisher wanted his most powerful ships in home waters, and, exaggerating the capabilities of the Indefatigable served more than one purpose, even Jane's was given suspect information in 1912, so how can you expect the New Zealanders and Australians to have known any different?


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Aug 30, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> Yup, that's true, the dominion battlecruisers were launched in 1912 (not what I said), but that doesn't change the premise of my post, in that the ships were _considered_ value for money at the time of their construction, regardless of what Brown wrote or the point you are making a hundred years later. Cherrypicking? The quote was from Jane's. Are you saying Fred Jane was wrong for making that comparison? You're presuming (again) that the New Zealand and Australian governments knew in 1909 what we do today and if Fisher is telling porkies about the capabilities of these ships, which we know he was, how would the two Dominions know any different compared to the Lions?
> 
> The dominions didn't_ want_ battlecruisers in 1909, that's not what they asked for. They wanted a semi-autonomous naval presence in the Pacific, either headquartered in Hong Kong or Australia, with two dreadnought class battleships. They expressly requested First Class Dreadnoughts but didn't seem to mind too much that that wasn't what they were to ultimately get. To be clear, neither country requested an Indefatigable class ship in 1909, and given a chance to choose, which they were not, they probably would have requested something better, that is, if they knew any better. Fisher wanted his most powerful ships in home waters, and, exaggerating the capabilities of the Indefatigable served more than one purpose, even Jane's was given suspect information in 1912, so how can you expect the New Zealanders and Australians to have known any different?


I think we are agreeing. I am not blaming the Australians or New Zealanders for having the wool pulled over their eyes. The British were always good at fleecing the "colonials" (a term I detest). The British put a lot of pressure on Canada to buy one as well, which we successfully resisted.
Yes I do think Jane was cherry picking, clearly in 1912 he knew the cost of the Lion. As to Fred Jane's opinion on effectiveness, there was a lot of discussion pre WWI about what type of battleship was required. This morning I was reading Admiral Sir Reginald Custance 's chapter on armour and guns in Viscount Hythe's Naval Annual 1913, in which he argues that the INVINCIBLES were over armoured for the ranges at which battles would actually take place. He wasn't a proponent of speed but rather of a strong secondary battery. Britain wasn't broadcasting their developments in fire control so I don't know if Jane was privy to the importance of long range fire. Which would actually be even more important in the Pacific as compared to the North Sea.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Aug 30, 2021)

The clue is in the question.
British Empire not British Charity.
Don't want to give the overseas territories the good stuff.
They might get ideas.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 30, 2021)

Those pesky colonists...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Aug 30, 2021)

We as expert naval historians are missing the big pix.

Australia is god tier in comparison to Courageous Furious and Glorious. The three stooges of the naval world.

These 3 were the absolute nonsense of the naval world. They had no role and could serve no role. And they didn't even do that very well.

So they were not obsolete as that would imply that at one point they had some kind of service. They were useless. 

Australia was bad but not Furious bad. There is always worse.

Von Der Tann is the issue. If the RN know about VDT then the Indefatigable class should have scrapped forthwith. VDT becomes the default minimum and that is well above the Indefatigable.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Sep 2, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> .....Beattie, for all his youth and tenacity did enjoy the trappings of his position, which meant less time was spent doing the things he should have been doing in his position; *the Princess Royal was not known as the Gin Palace for nothing.*


Well, since HMS Princess Royal was *NOT *"known as the Gin Palace", then I suppose it was nothing. 

HMS Agincourt (ex-Rio de Janeiro) is the ship that carried that moniker... *A gin court* of course!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 2, 2021)

GreenKnight121 said:


> Well, since HMS Princess Royal was *NOT *"known as the Gin Palace", then I suppose it was nothing.
> 
> HMS Agincourt (ex-Rio de Janeiro) is the ship that carried that moniker... *A gin court* of course!



To be frank, can you verify with 100% certainty that the Princess Royal was _not_ nicknamed the Gin Palace? Just because you can't find it on the internet doesn't mean it wasn't...

(your posts and use of bold always suggests you're angry that someone dare get it wrong, Green knight)

This will probably never be able to be verified, certainly not by me as I'm over 1,000 miles away from where I read it and it was a very long time ago, so I'm digging it out of the recesses of my memory, I read that was the case (maybe another ship that Beatty frequently was found aboard if not the Princess Royal, then?) in a personal account in an archive in a museum in Scotland, - it was definitely NOT the Agincourt (that's everywhere on the interweb, so is easy to find) that was being discussed but was associated with Beatty at Rosyth.

That same year at the museum I was fortunate to meet a woman in her 90s who was a child during the latter half of the Great War and used to play at this air station, where her family was based and the RNAS had airships, and the Furious' aircraft squadron was based. She remembered seeing these magnificent craft in their natural habitat, which was something. I remember showing her albums filled with fantastic shots of these things...





Coastal 24

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 2, 2021)

The Basket said:


> Australia was bad but not Furious bad. There is always worse.



Very true, even before Furious was completed, its value was questioned - this was Fisher at his most extreme, but remember it and its sisters were built for his Baltic Project and even before they were finished there were discussions in the Admiralty that these ships should be converted to aircraft carriers - Furious was launched with a flying-off deck, but still fitted with its 18-inch gun. In 1917 the Admiralty made the far-reaching decision to ensure that every British capital warship was capable of carrying an aeroplane, for reconnaissance and Zeppelin defence, by the end of the war, no less than 26 capital warships had equipment for carrying aeroplanes, as well as a multitude of cruisers and auxiliary vessels. 



The Basket said:


> If the RN know about VDT then the Indefatigable class should have scrapped forthwith.



Yeah, the rationale behind building these lumps of lard, which, admittedly demonstrated good speed during trials is a mystery and based on Fisher's exaggerating their characteristics hints at a recognition that they were no better than the Invincibles. The book sources I have all suggest that the Indefatigables were not much more than warmed up Invincibles, but the aim was to have ships and more ships.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Sep 2, 2021)

Agincourt was not a British ship made to a British design.

It was a Brazilian ship. And when asked how many turrets, the Brazilians said a brazilian.

It had so many turrets that it's armour was weak for a battleship.

It was considered very comfortable due to its Brazilian design and so it was called the gin court as a joke on its name.

Oddly Agincourt caused Ottoman Empire to join WW1 so that ship has some history.


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 2, 2021)

And seven turrets. Delightfully quirky.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 2, 2021)

The Agincourt was a British built ship to a design by a British designer. 
It was also a commercial ship and the customer is always right 

The design was redone several times in an effort to make the ship cheaper as Brazil could not afford the initial designs with 14in guns. 
The as built armament of fourteen 12in guns was to make it appear that it was a powerful ship (more powerful than it's predecessors) and more powerful than the Argentine and Chilean ships. The admirals knew what they were getting.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 2, 2021)

Reluctant Poster said:


> I think we are agreeing. I am not blaming the Australians or New Zealanders for having the wool pulled over their eyes. The British were always good at fleecing the "colonials" (a term I detest). The British put a lot of pressure on Canada to buy one as well, which we successfully resisted.
> Yes I do think Jane was cherry picking, clearly in 1912 he knew the cost of the Lion. As to Fred Jane's opinion on effectiveness, there was a lot of discussion pre WWI about what type of battleship was required. This morning I was reading Admiral Sir Reginald Custance 's chapter on armour and guns in Viscount Hythe's Naval Annual 1913, in which he argues that the INVINCIBLES were over armoured for the ranges at which battles would actually take place. He wasn't a proponent of speed but rather of a strong secondary battery. Britain wasn't broadcasting their developments in fire control so I don't know if Jane was privy to the importance of long range fire. Which would actually be even more important in the Pacific as compared to the North Sea.



Maybe we are agreeing, but I don't buy that Jane is cherry-picking for a second; if he was, to what end? Jane's intent was to provide information to the public, which is why he bagan publishing his All The World's Fighting Ships in the first place, seeking information from as many sources as he could. There was no advantage to him to deliberately misrepresent information. That the Admiralty was doing it, at least Fisher, is well known, but an author not associated with the Admiralty? Remember, Jane didn't work for the government; he was a journalist and a writer and had published books on both the Russian and Japanese fleets before 1912.

I suspect that you might be looking through the retrospectoscope again; what we know today wasn't necessarily known at the time and society regarded these things quite differently compared to today. These days, society is angst-ridden, self conscious and paranoid to a ridiculous degree, but back then, to openly question government figures was just not the done thing. It happened of course, I have a newspaper clipping from after the end of the war from British gunnery expert Percy Scott, who wrote a series of letters as editorials criticising the government's reliance on the battleship, and that the aircraft carrier was the way forward. 

But getting back to the point, it just doesn't serve any purpose for Jane to deliberately misrepresent information he received. Looking back through old copies of the issues of ATWFS, there are loads of errors that Jane's was unapologetic about, but for reasons of security or out of sheer lack of information went into print.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 2, 2021)

As a naval historian....cough....I loves the Germans Battlecruisers I does.
Love em to bits.

HMAS Australia was bought and sold when Von Der Tann was known. So it's construction is a bit dodgy.

However, it was thought they would operate in the Pacific against say the German East Asia Squadron so it wasn't up against much but what Von Spee had. And against Scharnhorst and Gneisanau it don't look too bad.


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 2, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> Very true, even before Furious was completed, its value was questioned - this was Fisher at his most extreme, but remember it and its sisters were built for his Baltic Project and even before they were finished there were discussions in the Admiralty that these ships should be converted to aircraft carriers - Furious was launched with a flying-off deck, but still fitted with its 18-inch gun. In 1917 the Admiralty made the far-reaching decision to ensure that every British capital warship was capable of carrying an aeroplane, for reconnaissance and Zeppelin defence, by the end of the war, no less than 26 capital warships had equipment for carrying aeroplanes, as well as a multitude of cruisers and auxiliary vessels.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the rationale behind building these lumps of lard, which, admittedly demonstrated good speed during trials is a mystery and based on Fisher's exaggerating their characteristics hints at a recognition that they were no better than the Invincibles. The book sources I have all suggest that the Indefatigables were not much more than warmed up Invincibles, but the aim was to have ships and more ships.


The informative is for Fred T. Jane. In my sixty plus years I never knew his full name.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 2, 2021)

The Basket said:


> Oddly Agincourt caused Ottoman Empire to join WW1 so that ship has some history.



Yes, HMS Erin as well; German efforts to influence Turkey were quite successful, Liman von Sanders was quite the persuasive gent - Turkey was keen on playing both sides against each other. In not receiving the British battleships the Turks certainly lost out and the Germans sneaking the Goeben and Breslau into the Med was a swift reaction to circumstance, but Turkey had German firepower, even if her crews were poorly trained and out of practise - the two old Weissenburg Class pre-dreadnoughts gave good service, the Turgut Reis even firing on HMS Queen Elizabeth during the Dardanelles campaign. By the way, Turgut Reis' main armament still exists in Turkey, south of the city of Cannacale on the Dardanelles, the turrets were mounted as coastal batteries and are still there. Her sister the Barbarros Hayreddin was sunk.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 2, 2021)

The Basket said:


> However, it was thought they would operate in the Pacific against say the German East Asia Squadron so it wasn't up against much but what Von Spee had. And against Scharnhorst and Gneisanau it don't look too bad.



Exactly, as I keep saying... And that is also part of the rationale for the ships in the first place; that Jellicoe should choose to put battlecruisers in the line of battle in a fleet action was only natural; how could he ignore the big guns on those things? It's like (I've made this comparison before, I'm sure of it) Dowding during the Battle of Britain counting Gladiator, Blenheim and Defiant squadrons in as available fighters, when it was well known they couldn't withstand combat against superior numbers of Bf 109s, but he had no choice; they were counted and used because they were needed (that Defiant squadrons could have been used up north where the bombers were out of single-seater escort range is another argument for another time).


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 2, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> The informative is for Fred T. Jane.



Jane was an avid writer and provided an enormous service to the public, even going so far as producing the same volumes on aircraft as he did on ships. He died during the war, but was a vicar at one time, I seem to recall.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 2, 2021)

Out of interest, here we go...



NOinD 1915 - Ottoman Battleships

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 2, 2021)

Part of the problem with the Indefatigable (and sisters) was Fishers initial lying about the amount of armor the Invincibles had. 
The public did not know they only had 6in belts and the rest of the armor in proportion. 

Reports of the German ships armor may have been underplayed.


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 2, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Part of the problem with the Indefatigable (and sisters) was Fishers initial lying about the amount of armor the Invincibles had.



Which is what I've been saying for a while now; Fisher's exaggeration of these ships' capabilities sold them to whoever was listening. He talked them up casually at parties and social gatherings... fascinating conversations to be had at admiralty functions... In a letter to a colleague, Fisher said the following about the Indefatigable, before it was launched, that the ship, "...would make your mouth water, and the Germans gnash their teeth..." (quoted from a book I have on the New Zealand navy).


----------



## The Basket (Sep 2, 2021)

The German Battlecruisers were shooting up coastal towns so they had to be stopped. So it wasn't a choice.

In the Royal Navy, been outgunned and outclassed meant a noble death. Running away is a no no. At Jutland, would you New Zealand or Black Prince?

I am not sure if the Royal Navy had a Valhalla. Maybe a quiet cottage in the country somewhere with constant tea and scones.

I was watch a doc on Guy D'Oyly Hughes and at the beginning of the war he was telling everyone he was getting himself a VC. He nearly got one in ww1. So he had a bad case of sore throat as the Germans would say. So if that was his goal then everyone's else's goal is to be 100 miles away.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Sep 2, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Part of the problem with the Indefatigable (and sisters) was Fishers initial lying about the amount of armor the Invincibles had.
> The public did not know they only had 6in belts and the rest of the armor in proportion.
> 
> Reports of the German ships armor may have been underplayed.


I just downloaded the Naval AnnuaI 1907. It states the armour belt of the Invincibles (which have just been laid down) as 7 inch tapering to 4 inches at the ends. The Naval Annuals are surprising detailed with illustrations of the extent of armour. In this edition there is no drawing of the Invincible but there is of Dreadnought.


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 2, 2021)

The Basket said:


> At Jutland, would you New Zealand or Black Prince?



Exactly the point I'm making back in post #70.


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 2, 2021)

The Basket said:


> In the Royal Navy, been outgunned and outclassed meant a noble death. Running away is a no no.



The mere fact that materially the RN suffered a greater loss than the Germans at Jutland verifies this, yet it was strategically a British victory.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 2, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> The mere fact that materially the RN suffered a greater loss than the Germans at Jutland verifies this, yet it was strategically a British victory.


It appears that containing the High Fleet, forcing it to become a "Fleet in being", makes it an overall victory for the Royal Navy.
Battle-wise, the Germans were outnumbered but took quite a toll on the Royal Navy.


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 2, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> It appears that containing the High Fleet, forcing it to become a "Fleet in being", makes it an overall victory for the Royal Navy.
> Battle-wise, the Germans were outnumbered but took quite a toll on the Royal Navy.



That's right. In 1917, when the admiralty's focus had changed to combatting the U boat menace, Beatty expended much paper corresponding with the admirals regarding the High Seas Fleet as a 'Fleet-in-Being', becoming a supporter of Admiral Richmond and Capt Rutland's scheme of using torpedo-carrying aeroplanes to sink the ships in the Jade River where they swung about their anchors. They got so far as to building the aeroplanes, but never got as far as converting merchant vessels to aircraft carriers, as suggested in the paper, so they took it seriously in Admiralty House, but Beatty wrote several scathing letters at the pace of delivery of the torpedoplanes that were undergoing torpedo dropping training not far from him at Rosyth, across the Firth of Forth.




Cuckoo releasing torpedo 1918

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Sep 3, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> The mere fact that materially the RN suffered a greater loss than the Germans at Jutland verifies this, yet it was strategically a British victory.


“ It takes the Navy three years to build a ship. It will take three hundred years to build a new tradition. The evacuation will continue.”
Admiral Andrew Cunningham Battle of Crete.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Sep 3, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> Maybe we are agreeing, but I don't buy that Jane is cherry-picking for a second; if he was, to what end? Jane's intent was to provide information to the public, which is why he bagan publishing his All The World's Fighting Ships in the first place, seeking information from as many sources as he could. There was no advantage to him to deliberately misrepresent information. That the Admiralty was doing it, at least Fisher, is well known, but an author not associated with the Admiralty? Remember, Jane didn't work for the government; he was a journalist and a writer and had published books on both the Russian and Japanese fleets before 1912.
> 
> I suspect that you might be looking through the retrospectoscope again; what we know today wasn't necessarily known at the time and society regarded these things quite differently compared to today. These days, society is angst-ridden, self conscious and paranoid to a ridiculous degree, but back then, to openly question government figures was just not the done thing. It happened of course, I have a newspaper clipping from after the end of the war from British gunnery expert Percy Scott, who wrote a series of letters as editorials criticising the government's reliance on the battleship, and that the aircraft carrier was the way forward.
> 
> But getting back to the point, it just doesn't serve any purpose for Jane to deliberately misrepresent information he received. Looking back through old copies of the issues of ATWFS, there are loads of errors that Jane's was unapologetic about, but for reasons of security or out of sheer lack of information went into print.


He wouldn’t be the first journalist to toe the government line. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you. I’m not claiming he did, but I will maintain for whatever reasons he used the wrong comparison.
I disagree with your statement that questioning government figures just wasn’t done. The Naval Estimates were public and they were broken down in excruciating detail. The debates in parliament were public and were memorized in Hansard.
There was a very public feud between Fisher and Beresford.





Charles William de la Poer Beresford, First Baron Beresford - The Dreadnought Project







dreadnoughtproject.org




Admiral Sir Reginald Custance artIcles in the Naval Annual were scathing criticisms of Royal Navy ship design.
I would suggest that a mini Lion could have been produced. No Q turret, shortened hull, smaller power plant would make it affordable. Judging by the proliferation of capital ship designs produced in that time period I would imagine the British could have developed such a design.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 3, 2021)

Jutland is a difficult one. Had the British shells worked then different outcome.

But ifs and buts 

They were able to recover duds from the coastal towns so they copied the German shells. 

When I went to Scarborough I saw the hotel they hit. Baby killers of Scarborough Churchill said. Makes me want to enlist just thinking about it


----------



## don4331 (Sep 3, 2021)

Recovering duds from the raid in Dec, 14. Working out that even though the shell found were duds that had the fuses worked correctly they shells would have been able to penetrate >caliber armour and then doing something about it is well after Australia is complete.

When she was built, RN thought they had state of the art shells, and those shells couldn't penetrate 1/2 caliber armour intact to explode high order. So, at the time of construction, the armour of the Indefatigable class 6" was seen as proof against 28cm guns of VdT.

With 20/20 hindsight over 100 years later, we know that was very bad assumption, but we have information they didn't. J. Fisher might have blown a lot of smoke, but he thought he had his facts right in this case.


----------



## don4331 (Sep 3, 2021)

I wouldn't say Canada successfully resisted the RN efforts - the Naval Aid Bill had funds for 3 QE class BB: Acadia, Ontario and Quebec.

Has partisan politics not brought down the gov't before 3rd reading of the bill (it has passed 1st 2), Canada would have had 3 super-dreadnoughts.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Sep 3, 2021)

don4331 said:


> I wouldn't say Canada successfully resisted the RN efforts - the Naval Aid Bill had funds for 2 QE class BB: Acadia, Ontario and Quebec.



I can't really follow your math here, Don.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## don4331 (Sep 3, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I can't really follow your math here, Don.


is that 3?


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Sep 3, 2021)

don4331 said:


> is that 3?



You tell me: "the Naval Aid Bill had funds for *2* QE class BB: *Acadia, Ontario* and *Quebec.*"

[Emphasis added -- Thump]

I don't even need to take off my shoes to see an issue though my processing power is admittedly strained

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Sep 3, 2021)

Am liking idea.

British ain't penetration armour so armour strong.

But shells detonate on contact.

Do you have a sauce on this?

I would like to know the facts.

If the tests are showing armour on capital ships is much stronger than actual due to defective AP then that's a Kodak moment for sure.


----------



## don4331 (Sep 4, 2021)

The Basket said:


> Am liking idea.
> 
> British ain't penetration armour so armour strong.
> 
> ...


I can't find the definitive article - continuing to look.

There are a number of articles by Nathan Okun on the Navweaps site:
History and Technology - How Shell Fuzes Work - NavWeaps in 4th paragraph Nathan explain that prior to 1911, no one had a long delay fuse. And RN began using Picric acid in 1910, which was notorious for exploding on contact. Definitions and Information about Naval Guns - NavWeaps

If the shell is going off upon contact, if isn't penetrating.

There is also problem of shell metallurgy: too soft and it doesn't penetrate, too hard and it skips off if it doesn't hit sufficiently perpendicular to target, to brittle and it shatters - either at impact or during the rotation to perpendicular during penetration.

History and Technology - Naval Propellants - A Brief Overview - NavWeaps is interesting read on RN propellants (and by extension IJN propellants of 20s).

The experts on navweaps get into how many angels on head of pin discussions about how the shells works/failed.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Sep 4, 2021)

I am interested cos it's a false positive.
Cos my bad shells are not defeating my armour then my armour is god tier.
Cos the shells are not bad see.

Although you would expect them to be tested but that's just stupid

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## don4331 (Sep 4, 2021)

The Basket said:


> I am interested cos it's a false positive.
> Cos my bad shells are not defeating my armour then my armour is god tier.
> Cos the shells are not bad see.
> 
> Although you would expect them to be tested but that's just stupid


An example of the opposite: German army started WWII thinking their 3.7cm Pak 36 was a state of the art as it punched holes in their Panzer I & IIs. The _Heeresanklopfgerät _was a real let down when facing Matildas and Char B1s. Unfortunately, Germans had Flak 8.8cms.

I believe there were a number of navies who went into WWII thinking their torpedoes were works of art, their AAA would shoot down everything in range, their bombers would have a field day shooting down an fighter which dared come in range, etc. So, it wasn't confined to just RN pre-WWI.

No military likes to think their state of the art is a couple generations behind.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Sep 5, 2021)

In the Battle of the Falklands 1914 it was said the shells performs poorly so it was known. Just by 1916 not much had been done.


----------



## kitplane01 (Sep 6, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> The Kongos were rebuilt twice. they originally had "65,000 shaft horsepower (48,000 kW), using steam provided by 36 Yarrow or Kampon water-tube boilers, with working pressures ranging from 17.1 to 19.2 atm (1,733 to 1,945 kPa; 251 to 282 psi).[10] The boilers, arranged in eight compartments, were mixed-firing with fuel oil sprayed onto the coal for extra power. The ships had a stowage capacity of 4,200 long tons (4,300 t) of coal and 1,000 long tons (1,000 t) of oil, giving them a range of 8,000 nautical miles (15,000 km; 9,200 mi) at a speed of 14 knots (26 km/h; 16 mph).[11] The battlecruisers were designed to reach a speed of 27.5 knots (50.9 km/h; 31.6 mph) and all of them exceeded that speed on their sea trials. "
> 
> during the 20s the Japanese reboilered them with "10, 11 (_Hiei_) or 16 (_Haruna_) Kampon boilers, and their fuel stowage was rearranged to accommodate 2,661 long tons (2,704 t) of coal and 3,292 long tons (3,345 t) of oil. This increased their range to 8,930 nautical miles (16,540 km; 10,280 mi) at 14 knots and allowed the fore funnel to be removed, which greatly decreased smoke interference with the bridge and fire-control systems. Coupled with the addition of external torpedo bulges, this reduced their speed to 26 knots (48 km/h; 30 mph) and caused the IJN to reclassify them as battleships."
> 
> ...


About reboilering ...

I've always wondered what when into the now-empty space.

About the speed/guns ...

I don't know what you thought British battleships were for, but fighting Japanese battleships is not it. As I'm sure you know, battleship vs battleship is very rare. In the pacific, the role of the battleship was to bombard shore and carry AA guns around the carrier. In the atlantic the role of the battleship was to escort convoys and be on the lookout for submarines and long-range air attack.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 7, 2021)

Mostly into weight saving. So can get more armour on the go.

Also coal bunkers were no longer required.


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Sep 7, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> To be frank, can you verify with 100% certainty that the Princess Royal was _not_ nicknamed the Gin Palace? Just because you can't find it on the internet doesn't mean it wasn't...
> 
> (your posts and use of bold always suggests you're angry that someone dare get it wrong, Green knight)
> Coastal 24


That HMS Agincourt was informally called "Gin Palace" is something that has been in print since long before the first glimmerings of what would eventually become the internet began to take shape in the universities of the US in the 1960s.

All caps, especially bold all caps is shouting and angry in internet culture - bolding is, both in the internet and as used in publishing for well over a century, used for emphasis, to bring attention and focus to the item of information being presented.

I find it amusing that you launch into a defense of your position, not on a basis of fact, but by taking offense and imputing a motive and state of mind on my part that you have no way of knowing at all, but which is convenient to present to discredit me and therefore my statement.

Additionally, the "defense" of "you can't prove that no one ever said it so I'm right" is, from the standpoint of debate logic, a weak argument.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 7, 2021)

kitplane01 said:


> As I'm sure you know, battleship vs battleship is very rare. In the pacific, the role of the battleship was to bombard shore and carry AA guns around the carrier


Some of the largest battleship battles in maritime history occurred in the Pacific - battle of Leyte is one example.
Some of the most savage battleship on battleship action occured in the Solomons.
The brief encounter of the Bismark versus Hood should also be pointed out.

Yes, the age of the battleship passed during WWII, but before twilight set on them, they engaged and fought more battles in WWII than any other time in naval warfare.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Sep 7, 2021)

The discussion of the value and honesty of Fred T. Jane's volumes of naval reference material must include their origins... An avid miniatures wargamer, Jane first published _All the World's Fighting Ships_ (known as _Jane's Fighting Ships_ after 1905) in 1898, which catalogued all the warships operated by each country, their armaments, and other details, *as a supplement to a wargame he designed*. It was a success from the start and has become the standard reference directory on the topic. _The Naval Warrant Officer's Journal_ suggested that the book be on every ship, and in 1902 said that it should be available to every naval officer.

Note that such games were not then the province of bored middle-class people such as most of ourselves... it was the naval professionals and nobility, many of whom had their own sources of accurate information, who were his market. Therefore, his information had to be up-to-date and as accurate as possible, or his customers would grow dissatisfied and look elsewhere for their information.

Reading this preface, and especially its "thanks due" section, provides a glimpse of the quality of his sources and of his intended audience - indeed he hoped that the navies themselves would use it in their training programs, and it appears that they did.

RULES FOR THE JANE NAVAL WAR GAME (1898 preface)

The Strand Magazine, in 1904, published an 8-page article which claimed that his game was "played by every navy in the world", and specifically that "The Japanese and Russian navies trained on it for the present war" (Russo-Japanese War 1904-1905).

It also contains his relation that the game reached its final development aboard HMS Majestic, supported by such personages as Majestic's Captain, Prince Louis of Battenberg, Grand Duke Alexander (a Russian naval officer and brother-in-law of the Czar), and aided in rules-development by Rear-Admiral H. J. May (RN) and Captain Kawashima (IJN).

The game was purchased by multiple nations' navies, and it was especially purchased by the British War Office for training its coastal artillery officers etc. 



> In the British Navy the official home of the naval war game is at Greenwich Naval College, where captains play it during the "war course.” In the United States the War College is its home.



The whole article may be found here: The Strand Magazine, Volume 27







So you see, it was not "just a popular reference book", but an essential reference for naval training programs worldwide before WW1.

Needless to say, accuracy was paramount.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 7, 2021)

kitplane01 said:


> I don't know what you thought British battleships were for, but fighting Japanese battleships is not it. As I'm sure you know, battleship vs battleship is very rare. In the pacific, the role of the battleship was to bombard shore and carry AA guns around the carrier. In the atlantic the role of the battleship was to escort convoys and be on the lookout for submarines and long-range air attack.



I will most certainly stand by my statements.

You are confusing what late (post 1935, or extensively rebuilt)) battleships were used for in Pacific, not the battleships that existed in 1939 and before. 
It the Atlantic the role of the battleship, while escort, was most certainly NOT to lookout for submarines and long range air attack. It was to counter surface raiders, up to and including German battleships. If a Battleship is the first to spot a submarine the destroyers and other ASW ships have screwed up. The cruisers carried the same Air warning radar the battleships did so using a R or QE class BB with it's much larger crew and much larger fuel burn was a very uneconomic use of resources. 

Going back the Pacific the same date separation applies. The older battleships were not fast enough to accompany carriers and the old/un-modernized ones carried a a suite of AA guns no better than a 10,000ton cruiser (perhaps more ammo per gun?), shore bombardment would not start until mid 1942 and was rarely used then compared to what happened latter. 
The Battleships were very definitely intended to engage the enemy BBs, if only to prevent them from doing shore bombardment. 

Many of the OLD US battleships at Pearl Harbor were rebuilt to have sixteen 5in/38s instead of eight 5in/25s before they rejoined the fleet, not to mention a vast increase in light AA guns. 
Older British battleships generally had eight 4in AA guns, two twin mounts per side, unless extensively modified. 
Repulse was even worse and had a poorer AA than many of the County Class cruisers. She was sent to the Pacific to counter Japanese surface ships. 

What battleships wound up doing from 1942/43 on is not to be confused with what they were intended to do in the years leading up to WW II or in the first few years of WW II.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Sep 7, 2021)

The Basket said:


> In the Battle of the Falklands 1914 it was said the shells performs poorly so it was known. Just by 1916 not much had been done.


Sadly for the British, if not the Germans, the British knew their shells were poor performers in 1910 after the Endinbutgh trials. In one of his final acts as DNC Jellicoe tried to initiate a program to improve the shells but it was not followed up by his successor.








The Long range Battle and Shell debate - The Battle of Jutland - Centenary Initiative


Website dedicated to the Centenary of the Battle of Jutland (1916-2016): The Long range Battle and Shell debate




www.jutland1916.com




The British also knew that the Germans used TNT in their shells, which was less sensitive that Lyddite. Krupp had developed a fuse system that worked with TNT and in fact the British tried to purchase it.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## kitplane01 (Sep 7, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> I will most certainly stand by my statements.
> 
> You are confusing what late (post 1935, or extensively rebuilt)) battleships were used for in Pacific, not the battleships that existed in 1939 and before.
> It the Atlantic the role of the battleship, while escort, was most certainly NOT to lookout for submarines and long range air attack. It was to counter surface raiders, up to and including German battleships. If a Battleship is the first to spot a submarine the destroyers and other ASW ships have screwed up. The cruisers carried the same Air warning radar the battleships did so using a R or QE class BB with it's much larger crew and much larger fuel burn was a very uneconomic use of resources.
> ...


What surface raiders required a battleship in WWII? Maybe the Bismark (which could have been done by carriers), and just about nothing else. No one would have constructed 15 British BBs and BCs (plus a bunch of American ones ) just to fight German surface raiders.

In the Atlantic, there really was no mission where the battleship was the best answer. Convoy escort, ASW, surface bombardment all could have been done better by carriers.

In the Pacific there was also little use for BBs. I agree the old battleships had to work with escort carriers because they could not keep up with fleet carriers, and that their AA gun fit was inadequate. 



> What battleships wound up doing from 1942/43 on is not to be confused with what they were intended to do in the years leading up to WW II or in the first few years of WW II.



Totally agree.


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 7, 2021)

Battleships are for when everybody is out of carriers.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Sep 7, 2021)

GreenKnight121 said:


> The discussion of the value and honesty of Fred T. Jane's volumes of naval reference material must include their origins... An avid miniatures wargamer, Jane first published _All the World's Fighting Ships_ (known as _Jane's Fighting Ships_ after 1905) in 1898, which catalogued all the warships operated by each country, their armaments, and other details, *as a supplement to a wargame he designed*. It was a success from the start and has become the standard reference directory on the topic. _The Naval Warrant Officer's Journal_ suggested that the book be on every ship, and in 1902 said that it should be available to every naval officer.
> 
> Note that such games were not then the province of bored middle-class people such as most of ourselves... it was the naval professionals and nobility, many of whom had their own sources of accurate information, who were his market. Therefore, his information had to be up-to-date and as accurate as possible, or his customers would grow dissatisfied and look elsewhere for their information.
> 
> ...


Jane’s statement that the Indefatigable was more cost effective than the Invincible was certainly an accurate statement but it was a disingenuous one when the Lion was available for comparison. Increasing the cost by 1/3 gets a far more effective ship, much faster, better armor and most importantly far greater hitting power.
The Indefatigable was the product of muddled thinking by the British. Their obsession with end on fire coupled with their refusal to use superfiring turrets resulted in designs more in line with French designs. The objection to superfiring was based on their archaic use of open sighting hoods at the front of the turret when everyone else had moved to periscopes. While havng a open path into the turret facing the enemy at the front of the turret seems foolish to begin with, it further prevented the top turret from firing dead ahead, being restricted to 30 degrees off the bow. The irony is that the wing turrets ended up having the same restrictions as any closer angle than 30 degrees had disastrous effects on the bridge personnel.
The design process of the Indefatigable was constantly changed until finally the clock ran out and the only possible solution was an “improved“ Invincible. The word improved is used loosely since despite the greater separation of the P and Q turrets they still couldn‘t fire crossdeck with the other turret in operation. Even worse the total weight of armor was reduced from Invincible’s 815 tons to 741.
The DNC at the time d’Eyncourt stated after the war that the Indefatigable should have been a lot better design.
Indefatigable was a reiteration of a 3 year old design that ignored progress in other Navy’s designs that should not have been built in the first place. Building 2 more a year later seems an even greater folly.


----------



## Glider (Sep 7, 2021)

kitplane01 said:


> What surface raiders required a battleship in WWII? Maybe the Bismark (which could have been done by carriers), and just about nothing else. No one would have constructed 15 British BBs and BCs (plus a bunch of American ones ) just to fight German surface raiders.
> 
> In the Atlantic, there really was no mission where the battleship was the best answer. Convoy escort, ASW, surface bombardment all could have been done better by carriers.
> 
> ...


There is a lot of truth in what you are saying however I think timing is an important factor. In the first couple of years the Germans used the Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Bismark and Prinz Eugen as commerce Raiders. Against these the old R class Battleships were a real danger as the German vessels couldn't afford a single damaging hit. Also of course in this period there were no carriers to be spared.

Later on the situation was very different and the R class were no longer needed and most were given secondary roles.

​


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 7, 2021)

So what happens when a carrier, despite the efforts of it's air compliment, can't keep a battleship at bay and ends up being sunk by shellfire?

Sort of renders the "battleships are only good for shore bombardment" idea rather moot...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## don4331 (Sep 7, 2021)

kitplane01 said:


> What surface raiders required a battleship in WWII? Maybe the Bismark (which could have been done by carriers), and just about nothing else. No one would have constructed 15 British BBs and BCs (plus a bunch of American ones ) just to fight German surface raiders.
> 
> In the Atlantic, there really was no mission where the battleship was the best answer. Convoy escort, ASW, surface bombardment all could have been done better by carriers.


Convoy escort in Atlantic from '39 to '43 and a bit - battleship is best answer to fight German surface raiders.

North Atlantic isn't exactly known for having nicest weather, especially at night. Your CV can't operate planes/find the raider in winter storm conditions and can't stop it when it appears within gun range.

BB can drop 2,000lb HE rounds within 100 yds, time after time to support troops in 1st 20 miles off beaches. Very few planes/pilots did.

(RN/RAF numbers converted to USD) includes purchase, maintenance & operating expenses
A Battleship costs ~$3.5M/year to operate
A 36 plane CVL costs ~$4.5M/year; an 80 plane CV about $8M/yr, even Argus cost ~2.5M/yr.
A Heavy cruiser ~1.5M/year
8 Destroyers (J class) ~$2.5M/year
A squadron (16) of twin bombers (Beauforts) ~$2M/year

Note: 10 of those RN BB/BC were left over from WWI; RN only build 6 new ones.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 7, 2021)

kitplane01 said:


> What surface raiders required a battleship in WWII? Maybe the Bismark (which could have been done by carriers), and just about nothing else. No one would have constructed 15 British BBs and BCs (plus a bunch of American ones ) just to fight German surface raiders.


As noted by others most of the Battleships already existed. The "R"s were actually newer the than QEs, but they were a bit smaller/slower with smaller boiler rooms but with oil fuel like the QEs. 
Any schemes to keep Iron Dukes/Tiger/Lions has to take into account that they were older, had seen more service, had coal fired boilers that needed replacing in the 1920s. 


Glider said:


> In the first couple of years the Germans used the Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Bismark and Prinz Eugen as commerce Raiders


Germans also had, just before the war, the Graf Spee/Deutschland/Scheer as commerce raiders that any prudent admiralty would want either a battleship or 3-4 cruisers at a minimum to counter. The Germans also got the Tirpitz into service so the need for battleship escorts did not disappear when the Bismarck was sunk. 
The Blucher had been laid down in 1936 and commissioned Sept of 1939. Made history as the only cruiser sunk by by shore based torpedo tubes. 

The idea in escorting convoys is not to set up a fair fight but to smash/disable the attacker as fast as possible. 

Very few people expected the Taranto raid to be a successful as it was. British needed battleships to counter the Italian ones. Especially as the Italians were putting more effort into rebuilding their old ships and building new ones than the French were. 

In 1935-40 the carriers had yet to prove themselves and even from 1940 to 1943 there weren't enough carriers to go around. 

British had even laid down two battleships with nine 16in guns out of a class of six in the summer of 1939 but work was suspended soon after the war broke out and they were broken up on the slips in 1942. 

The carrier's dominance over the battleship did not come in an instant but over several years as both aircraft and AA guns improved and fought it out. 
An American 1945 AA outfit would have made a ship almost untouchable by 1939-40 aircraft but not only didn't some of the guns exist (in numbers) but the radars, gun directors and proximity fuses didn't exist. Likewise 1944/45 carrier aircraft would have made short work of any 1939-40 battleship with their improved protection, higher performance, increased fire power, heavier bomb loads and the ability to launch torpedoes at speeds and heights that 1939-40 pilots couldn't even dream about.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 13, 2021)

GreenKnight121 said:


> That HMS Agincourt was informally called "Gin Palace" is something that has been in print since long before the first glimmerings of what would eventually become the internet began to take shape in the universities of the US in the 1960s.
> 
> All caps, especially bold all caps is shouting and angry in internet culture - bolding is, both in the internet and as used in publishing for well over a century, used for emphasis, to bring attention and focus to the item of information being presented.
> 
> ...



Sure, whatever. I think we might be getting our wires crossed here, GK, it certainly wasn't meant as an attack, just a thing I find amusing when people use CAPS and *BOLD *it always looks angry (there's another forum member who does the same and it looks so CERTAIN. As for defensiveness, not at all. Sure I'm trying to stake my claim because that's what I remember reading. Your answer is so emphatic that the question has to be asked, are you sure you can justify it?

The point is, the fact still remains, I remember reading somewhere that it might have been and you can't be so sure that it wasn't, so it still remains, although now you've got me thinking... Maybe it wasn't the Princess Royal but the Queen Mary...It was a while ago...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 12, 2021)

Reluctant Poster said:


> but it was a disingenuous one when the Lion was available for comparison.



In what context? Can you prove that he deliberately misrepresented the information? He was a journalist and bringing up the spat between Beresford and Fisher bears no relation to this since both were admirals, so waaaay out of context. Jane was a civilian. He didn't represent the Admiralty, he wrote the books for information's sake and there's no reason at all that he would deliberately misrepresent information. For what reason? There's no justification for it.

If you are so certain this is the case, prove he did.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Oct 12, 2021)

If Fred T. Jane was an avid wargamer, and it certainly appears so, he'd probably be dead certain of his facts.


----------



## The Basket (Oct 17, 2021)

Maybe Indefatigable was cheaper than a Tiger for cruiser killing so that's where the extra savings were.

A monitor is much cheaper for shore bombardment.

A carrier should be able to run away from any battleship. So the battleship will never get in range.

One aspect of carrier operation is versatility. 

Royal Navy had 15 big gun ships at war start and only 3 could catch Bismarck and out of those 3 none were safe fully from her guns.

So in a 15 v Bismarck scenario, Bismarck was not in a terrible situation.

It's odd but running away is an important aspect of warfare which never gets the recognition it deserves.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 17, 2021)

The Basket said:


> Royal Navy had 15 big gun ships at war start and only 3 could catch Bismarck and out of those 3 none were safe fully from her guns.


And the Bismarck was not operational at the start of the war. In fact the Bismarck only started gunnery trials (test firing) in Nov of 1940.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Oct 17, 2021)

Indeed but it's top speed would have been known or predicted.

Of course it would be very soon 14 plus the loss of Courageous and Glorious.

So the Italian navy to add to the list.

So the Admiralty really needed a panic button to press urgently.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 17, 2021)

The Basket said:


> So the Admiralty really needed a panic button to press urgently.


Last two of five KGV battleships were laid down 28 April 1937
Four Illustrious class carriers laid down in 1937
Two Implacable class carriers laid down in 1939. 

War got in the way but how much more of a panic button do you want?

Two Lion Class battleships with 9 16in guns were laid down in 1939.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Oct 17, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> In what context? Can you prove that he deliberately misrepresented the information? He was a journalist and bringing up the spat between Beresford and Fisher bears no relation to this since both were admirals, so waaaay out of context. Jane was a civilian. He didn't represent the Admiralty, he wrote the books for information's sake and there's no reason at all that he would deliberately misrepresent information. For what reason? There's no justification for it.
> 
> If you are so certain this is the case, prove he did.


You are correct I have no justification. I shouldn’t have attacked the reputation of a dead who can’t fight back.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Oct 17, 2021)

Problem is Lion and Temeraire was no where to be seen.

So Sept 39 you got what ya brung.

Which is a problem if you're chasing Scharnhorst and Gneisanau and the Deutschlands.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 17, 2021)

Moving the goal posts. 
In Sept 1939 the Bismarck was nowhere to be seen. 
Hood and Renown are a pretty good match for Scharnhorst and Gneisanau. Repulse not so much. 
The Deutschlands can be countered with several cruisers apiece as was done to the Graf Spee. Britian had the extra cruisers. 

The British can afford losses, the Germans cannot. 

The 1936-39 rebuild of the Renown cost £3,088,008 according to Wiki and took 3 years. 
In the context of this thread any left over WW I battleships/battlecruisers that did not have similar, expensive refits were pretty much targets that burned huge amounts of coal. 

If given old ships are given 3 million pound refits, what new ships does the RN give up to pay for them?


----------



## The Basket (Oct 17, 2021)

Since the Lions were not built then not a case of moving goal posts but rather no goal posts made.

The KGV were not fast either so the Littorios, Kongos and Bismarck were are theoretically faster.

Naval strategy is built strategy so you cannot make amends in 1940.

The only viable options is the KGV have to be at least 31 knots. Or to Vanguard the Rs or to get the French to move all the big gun ships to UK. Or to ask America nicely for battleships.

Building a battleship in war time is hard work as resources suddenly become scarce and other ships like asw become more vital.

In many ways the KGV were not was wanted but again that's a 1936 problem which can't be fixed in 1940.


----------



## swampyankee (Oct 17, 2021)

Battleships were expensive, both in initial cost and in operational expenses, and would reasonably be expected to have 20+ year lifetimes (the sudden obsolescence caused by HMS _Dreadnought_ was an aberration), so one would expect some pre-WW1 battleships to be in service at the start of WW2. Indeed, no battleship user -- even Germany* -- didn't have pre-WW1 battleships in use in WW2. Would they all have been replaced without the disarmament treaties in place between the wars? I suspect not, if for no other reason than the older battleships were still more than adequate for one of the most important purposes of warships of imperial powers: cowing the colonized peoples. 

Only four of the world's battleship-owning countries** had the financial strength to replace their pre-war battleships, and even then, they'd be unlikely to be able to do so on a one-for-one basis. The other battleship owners*** were simply unable to do so.


---

* _Schleswig_-_Holstein_, _Schlesien_, and _Hannover_ all served the _Kriegsmarine_ during WW2
_** _The US, the UK, and Japan, the last only because they were spending completely unsustainable amounts of their country's wealth on naval construction_. _Germany could only because it had lost all of its dreadnoughts. 
***France was still recovering from a war largely fought in its most industrialized region, with the resultant wreckage (a significant portion of which was due to Germany's official policy of looting), Italy didn't have a strong economy to start with and was massively in debt, and the USSR (_née_ Russia) was in recovery from a massive civil war preceded by years of massive mismanagement of the country. Spain may have been able to replace its two battleships, but, again, economic problems precluded that. Argentina, Brazil, and Chile couldn't build battleships and all had economic troubles.


----------



## The Basket (Oct 17, 2021)

Had battleship design and construction continue a pace in 1920s and 1930s then who knows what monsters would have appeared. In this time frame, Warspite would have looked like a tugboat.

The Washington and subsequent treaties certainly limited what a battleship could have been.

So old ships were retained as part of the treaty and even new ships like the original KGV dreadnought battleships were scrapped due to treaty limitation or placed into training roles.

Warspite would have been hopelessly outmatched by a N3 or a G3.


----------



## SaparotRob (Oct 17, 2021)

Warspite woulda' kicked its stern.


----------



## The Basket (Oct 17, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Warspite woulda' kicked its stern.


The way Warspite would have defeated Yamato is by ramming. Clean through and not a scratch.

I should have said a less fortunate more mundane ship like QE or Barham.

The pre dreads in the German fleet were there purely as force majeure. They were certainly not there for effectiveness.

Look at the Lord Nelson Battleships that were launched in 1908. They were obsolete from the moment they hit the water. Even Dreadnought herself was in 2nd roles by Jutland.

In a mad world of arms race then today's hot ticket is tomorrow's scrap iron. Ships like Indefatigable or Invincible were pretty much obsolete within 6 years.

Reactions: Like Like:
 1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 17, 2021)

Bismarck was not a 1939 ship, it wasn't even a serviceable 1940 ship. Using it as a metric to judge the RN against in 1939 seems a bit much.

The KGVs were just as fast as the US short 16 in gun ships so borrowing battleships from the US gains nothing in speed until 1943 when the Iowa's show up.

The original KGVs weren't really new ships. Battleship technology was changing fast in the 1890s, 1900sand 1910s. and continued on into the 20s and 30s. 

Look at the Renown again. Her 1936 refit saved 2800 tons out her machinery weight (propulsion) and allowed the two forward boiler rooms to be taken out. 
The new boilers and turbines were more economical. The Renowns original machinery was lighter and more economical than the old KGVs even though they were only a few years apart. 

Saving coal fired ships was only viable with the treaty limitations. It made little economic sense other wise. 
And after WW I the British had little use for coal fired warships unless forced upon them. 
Coal had less BTUs per ton, it required larger crews and it took longer to refuel a large ship. It could take 3-4 days to refill coal bunkers using every member of the crew. And several days cleaning afterwards. Coal meant more costs to run a ship and lower availability.

Protection against mines a torpedoes changed quite often and some of the older dreadnoughts were woefully ill protected against under water explosions. 
Most rebuilt/refitted ships got external bulges to add protection. Which slowed the ships down unless they got more powerful machinery.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 17, 2021)

If I remember right, battlecruisers traded armor for speed.
So while Renown was fast, how would she compare to a North Carolina class Battleship, which could make 28 knots?


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 18, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> If I remember right, battlecruisers traded armor for speed.
> So while Renown was fast, how would she compare to a North Carolina class Battleship, which could make 28 knots?


Very poorly. 
Which, once more, shows that rebuilding old ships was not a wise use of money unless forced by treaties. 

See. HMS Renown (1916) - Wikipedia

for details of the Rebuild/s and the changes. 
Also note that the rebuild was almost 3 times as much money as the original build, not corrected for inflation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Oct 18, 2021)

Yamato also became operational in 1941.

The year a ship becomes operational is not necessarily gives the full picture. The Lord Neslons were late and obsolete in 1908 so they cannot be classed as 1908 battleships. 

Onto our matchup fight.

It would depend on the scenario.

Closed sea or open sea? Day or night? Good visibility or bad visibility?

Crew abilities or fire control. Monday or Tuesday? All sorts of variables going on.

Renown is faster and that gives the advantage of been able to dictate the range and run away if necessary.

Renown has 6 15 inch guns and 9 inches of armour.

North Carolina has 9 16 inch guns and 12 inches of armour.

So NC has the bigger guns, more guns and more armour.

I don't have the penetration charts to hand but what that roughly means is the NC will go through the thinner armour of Renown well before the 15 inch shells will go through NC armour and that's a big ooooffff. This means that NC will be able to destroy Renown well before Renown can get into range and do the same.

However….maybe Renown will be able to maneuver and get into range without being hit. Maybe Renown has better gunnery and hit NC repeatedly and NC will miss with every hit. Maybe Renown will get a golden BB and destroy NC with a single hit. Or get a Mission kill.

SO if both ships were stationary at a given range and they just knocked lumps out of each other then North Carolina should win.

But a stormy snow blizzard night in the Arctic and all bets are off.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 18, 2021)

Having a competent/experienced Captain also helps - a good case would be the Admiral Hipper during it's engagement with the Gloworm.
I'm aware that a battle between a Heavy Cruiser and a Destroyer seems one-sided, but the Gloworm's speed seems like it would have an advantage.
The Captain of the Hipper, however, knew well enough to keep his bow to the destroyer (which meant moment by moment course corrections) in order to avoid the Destroyer's torpedoes. The Gloworm's Captain also used considerable skill in both bringing the attack and trying to keep his ship in the fight in spite of the situation and odds.

If the Hipper's Captain had not been as aggressive or competent, the Gloworm may have prevailed.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Oct 18, 2021)

Did the RN have super(?) charges for 15" rifles at time?


----------



## The Basket (Oct 18, 2021)

Renown was modernized but Repulse wasn't. So I am going to say Renown didn't get supercharge but Repulse may have.

Renown had the 30 degree gun angle so supercharged ammo was more for range from the 20 degree guns and not for stopping power.

But not sure. That's a guess.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Oct 18, 2021)

The Battle between Kirishima and Washington and South Dakota proved that anything and everything can happen. So it's like a train wreck with extra monkeys. 

HMS Acasta got a mission kill against Scharnhorst so it's a box of frogs and take your best shot.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Oct 18, 2021)

How much more for the extra monkeys? I’m asking for a friend.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Oct 18, 2021)

As an *****expert*****cough cough on naval warfare.....one must look at all the variables of naval warfare.

Just looking at the stats like a game of top trumps is not how wars are fought.

Good example is South Dakota had electrical failures in the Battle with Kirishima and Hood was one shotted. 

A word on super charges. 

A Wile E Coyote way of trying to get more power from a gun. Give it to Bubba to add more powder. 

See what happens first. The Shell is launched or the breech explodes! 

Not a good idea.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 18, 2021)

The Basket said:


> " So it's like a train wreck with extra monkeys."
> 
> 
> 
> ...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 18, 2021)

Reluctant Poster said:


> You are correct I have no justification. I shouldn’t have attacked the reputation of a dead who can’t fight back.



It's nae drama, I'm sure he won't take it personally  To me there doesn't seem to be any justification for it, hence my persistence. Nothing personal.


----------



## Glider (Oct 18, 2021)

The Basket said:


> Renown was modernized but Repulse wasn't. So I am going to say Renown didn't get supercharge but Repulse may have.
> 
> Renown had the 30 degree gun angle so supercharged ammo was more for range from the 20 degree guns and not for stopping power.
> 
> But not sure. That's a guess.


I believe that the supercharges were only issued to those sips with 20 degree elevation to try and get the most out of the gun. Those modified to the 30 degree were not issued with the supercharge as they didn't need it. The limitation being the fire control to hit the target at extreme range, not the ability of the shell to make the range. In the early part of the war approx 30,000 yards was the practical limit of anyone's fire control. A number of guns could fire further but not with any real hope of hitting the target.

A bigger change was a change to the design of the shell which improved the streamlining and therefore the range, which I think was a common issue to all 15in ships

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Oct 18, 2021)

Vanguard had superchargers but only because to hide the fact it was using ww1 guns and was way down on power compared to the Iowas.

Or figures were given for supercharged 15 inch shells.

Super charges were never used as it would pretty much trash the gun.

They were pretty much a proof charge which just went below what was theoretically safely possible. So the possibility of them blowing up the turret was a real fear. Especially on old battleships that could be 30 years old. Super charges were an idea fuelled more by beer than good naval practice.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## WARSPITER (Oct 19, 2021)

The Basket said:


> Vanguard had superchargers but only because to hide the fact it was using ww1 guns and was way down on power compared to the Iowas.
> 
> Or figures were given for supercharged 15 inch shells.
> 
> ...



Which is a good point considering all "good" naval practice was fuelled only by rum.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Oct 24, 2021)

Should the US Navy use it's WW1 battleships in WW2?

IJN enters the chat.

Let's think of a naval question.....er..... controversial naval question....err....

Why didn't Austria have battleships in WW2? Errr....that maybe stupid. But they had them in ww1? 

Yamato v Iowa? The Yamato will punch through Iowa armour before Iowa can punch through Yamato.

Yamato had armour based on the Kongo which is good old fashioned British ww1 armour so it's thickness is not the full story.

If the Kongos were upgrade in armour it may have played a battleship role. May have saved Hiei but Kirishima is going down regardless.

The Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre was still active in WW2 so was probably a ww1 battleship in WW2 or maybe the closest thing to it.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 24, 2021)

The US had several Battleships of WWI or pre-WWI vintage in service during WWII:
Wyoming class;
USS Wyoming (BB-32) 1912-1947
USS Arkansas (BB-33) 1912-1946

New York class;
USS New York (BB-34) 1914-1946
USS Texas (BB-35) 1914-1948


Nevada class;
USS Nevada (BB-36) 1916-1948
USS Oklahoma (BB-37) 1916-1944

Pennsylvania class;
USS Pennsylvania (BB-38) 1916-1946
USS Arizona (BB-39) 1916-1941

There's a few others that were in service during WWI, but did not have an active role, that did see service in WWII.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 24, 2021)

The Basket said:


> Why didn't Austria have battleships in WW2? Errr....that maybe stupid. But they had them in ww1?



Well, Austria lost their ports/harbors after WW I so there was nowhere to put the battleships (or most of the rest of the navy). 


The South American battleships (Brazilian and Argentine and Chilean) were pretty much useless in WW II. This is despite several overhauls or refits.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Oct 25, 2021)

I would class Tennessee as a ww1 ship.
Is Hood a ww1 ship?

What is a ww1 ship and what would be a cut off?

I obviously don't see Nelson but I could see Mutsu as a ww1 ship.


----------



## EwenS (Oct 25, 2021)

For the US, everything up to and including the Colorado class is a WW1 ship. All these were designed in that period. Everything up to the Maryland had been laid down by mid 1917. Only Maryland’s 3 sisters were not laid until 1919/20, and the Washington Treaty allowed 2 of them to be completed.

Hood is also a WW1 ship. Designed in WW1 and modified as a result of lessons learned at Jutland. Laid down Sept 1916.

Same with the Japanese Nagato and Mutsu. Designed in WW1, laid down 1917/18.

The cut off has to be ships whose design was completed in WW1. After that Washington Treaty 1922 intervenes to cancel all designs on the drawing board or early stages of construction as at Nov 1921. The Nelrods then become the first post WW1 design to be started post Treaty and then only because they were specifically permitted by the Treaty.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 25, 2021)

The four classes of Battleships I posted above, were ones who were in service and participated in WWI either with Atlantic escort duties or joined with the Royal Navy at Scapa Flow.

Of those listed, only two did not survive WWII, but were directly involved with the U.S. entry into WWII.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Oct 25, 2021)

There likes the problem.

We have West Virginia battleship and Bellerophon battleship.

So 12 inch v 16 inch.

So Colorado class...yeah I see it.
Bellerophon class not so much.

Nassau with it's 11 inch guns and triple expansion engine wasn't fit for WW1!!!!! Never mind WW2!!!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Oct 25, 2021)

The Basket said:


> There likes the problem.
> 
> We have West Virginia battleship and Bellerophon battleship.
> 
> ...


New York, Texas and Oklahoma also had triple expansion engines.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 25, 2021)

The Basket said:


> There likes the problem.
> 
> We have West Virginia battleship and Bellerophon battleship.
> 
> ...


And that is part of the problem, in 10-11 years you went from the Nassau to the Tennessee. 

Twelve 11in guns but only eight could fire on the broadside to twelve 14in guns, all of which could fire on the Broadside. Shell weight more than doubled. 
The Americans had adopted an all or nothing armor system. 
_EVERYBODIES _boilers and engines got a lot better in the same 10-11 years. Most of the new ships went to oil fuel. Which reduced the boiler room crews by several hundred, which changed the space needed for the crew and changed food storage and other aspects. 
'Newer' WW I dreadnoughts were much more effective than older ones, even if only 4-5 years different. 
Tennessee was built with 30 degree elevation to main guns. This was an advantage and also a bit of a disadvantage. The more "modern" features a ship had, the lower down on the priority list it was for an extensive refit and not just getting some boiler repairs and a few AA guns.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Oct 25, 2021)

If you look at HMS Hercules or HMS Neptune then the RN just got about 10 years out of them. Staggering how these expensive ships didn't last.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 25, 2021)

It's all relative. The South American battleships were not going to find themselves on the receiving end of any enemy vessels except other South American battleships, which is why they were bought in the first place, like two tyrannosaurus' going at it head-to-head. The US upgraded its battleships because, 1) it could afford to and 2) it wanted to keep them in service to maintain a given size of fleet, which, let's face it, only the US could have done at any rate because of the cost and the logistics in keeping that size of fleet in service and running during WW2. Britain kept what it could following the treaties and to keep a number of ships following the reduction in size of its navy during peacetime until newer types entered service. The USA will always be the exception in these sorts of comparisons because it had resources galore to be able to do so. Japan and Britain certainly could not compete in numerical terms.

Speaking of relative, this is a painting of what the Uruguayan navy sent to harass the Admiral Graf Spee when it entered Uruguayan waters. This is the pre-Great War protected cruiser Uruguay, built in Germany and the most powerful warship in Uruguayan possession. At one time during the fighting between the Achilles and the Graf Spee it sailed between the two vessels, even Achilles' six inch guns would have made a heck of a mess of it.





River Plate 12

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Oct 25, 2021)

A toddler throwing a tennis ball would make a mess of the Uruguay.

Although it is adorable. I just want to take it home and hug it.

The British empire....in my view....could have matched any American naval expansion in the 1920s.

Regardless of cost.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Oct 25, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> The USA will always be the exception in these sorts of comparisons because it had resources galore to be able to do so.



While we did have the resources to do anything any other navy could do after a time, the fact is that Congress wasn't happy releasing the funding -- 1) the Depression lowered incoming tax revenues and 2) a good part of our body politic, including a large swath of Congress, was isolationist, which would of course affect the force charged with power projection (the USN) more than the Army.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 25, 2021)

The Basket said:


> Although it is adorable. I just want to take it home and hug it.



Here's a model you can hug...




River Plate 13 

And its bell you can ring while you are doing so...




River Plate 14

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 25, 2021)

Here's a bit of info on the Uruguay from a Uruguayan military site:

"Built in Stettin Germany by Vulcan in 1910 to Uruguayan specifications. It was incorporated in August of that year. This ship provided services for more than 40 years, requiring throughout all of them the fulfillment of the most varied and important activities, being the pride of the Country and the Navy.
Displacement 1400 tons; machines of 5,700 IHP; 25 knots; Carbon capacity 210 tons = 3,000 miles at 12 knots. Armament: Two 4.7" rapid-fire guns; four 12-pound TR, six machine guns and two 18" torpedo tubes, scrapped in 1953."

A bit of data about its role in the River Plate action:

"On December 13, 1939, while making an instructional trip with students of the Naval School, the torpedo boat cruiser "Uruguay" witnesses the combat between the battleship Graff Spee and the cruisers of the British community Ajax, Exeter and Achilles (Battle of the Río de la Plata).
Its Commander Captain Fernando Fuentes, based on these observations, and that part of the combat was taking place in Uruguayan jurisdictional waters, he set out to intercept the belligerents so at 7:00 p.d. while the Graf Spee was 12 miles from Punta del Este, and the Ajax 18 miles south of José Ignacio sounded the alarm again in the Graf Spee, this time it was the Uruguayan war cruiser "Uruguay" that left at the crossing of the Graf Spee to prevent it from sailing between the Island of Lobos and the coast, in addition to being located between the Graf Spee and the British cruisers so that they did not enter the Uruguayan coast in a very reckless action almost suicidal since any of the ships exceeded in firepower the old Cruiser of national flag, this action that later the German captain Langsdorff himself would declare his admiration for Captain Fuentes of the cruiser Uruguay that despite seeing the conflict and the power of the ships involved, he bravely stood in the way to protect Uruguayan rights in a determined act of exercise of national sovereignty.--


The "Uruguay" remained vigilant until seeing that the Graf Spee entered the Bay of Montevideo and in addition, double surveillance was ordered to search for possible castaways. She later moored near Flores Island and departed at dawn the next day heading east again to check that the ships left in the area were out of jurisdictional waters. Days later when the German battleship left the door to face its destination again the Cruiser Uruguay was waiting for it to escort it out of jurisdictional waters act that was not necessary since the German captain would order to fly his own ship when all his crew was evacuated."

From here: Los cruceros de la Armada Nacional

Reactions: Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Oct 26, 2021)

Uruguay was a war cruiser?

On what planet?

It was a torpedo boat at best. My garden shed would make a better cruiser.

What heroic nonsense.

If USA didn't want to build a navy that's fine by me. The British Empire with our Japanese ally will rule the world. First thing I would do with all this power is go to Uruguay and sink that bloody gunboat.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Oct 26, 2021)

You cannot ignore the effects of the inter war treaties starting in 1922. Washington Treaty meant a limited number of named capital ships, no new construction and scrapping of what was on the slips or planned (except for the Nelrods and the two Colorados and the permitted carrier conversions. Everyone wanted peace and was prepared to make sacrifices to avoid another arms race that was already beginning and would have bankrupted many.

The US began modernisation of its older capital ships in the 1920s because they were technically behind those of Britain. So they reused some of the boilers and machinery from the cancelled capital ships to modernise the oldest and make them oil fired. And they increased the elevation of the guns to match those of Hood at 30 degrees.

Then the 1930 London Treaty extended the moratorium on new construction and forced a further round of scrappings / conversions to secondary roles leaving the US and Britain with 15 capital ships and the Japanese with 9. No new construction possible until 1 Jan 1937, except for the French and Italians who have special provisions.

Modernisations/reconstructions were not seen as a replacement for new vessels at least by the RN. They were simply a way of ensuring fleet strengths could be maintained until such times as new construction could begin again. The general tendency (there are exceptions) was to start with the oldest and then work through the fleet to the newest. Except WW2 came a bit earlier than everyone was planning for, so not everything underwent that process.

The Treaties themselves are worth reading but can be confusing at times.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Oct 26, 2021)

I was going to call you out on this but my brain was working.
Japan had 9 ships because Hiei wink wink was non operational wink wink.

One could argue the naval treaties allowed peace in the 1920s but it set up war in the 40s.

Had Britain and USA built it's naval fleets to the max then the Japanese and Germans and Italians would have been so far behind that it would be folly to even dare match the RN.

N3 battleship and her successors would have scourged the seas clean.

And with Japan as our ally then no problems in the East. As long as they don't touch our stuff.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## WARSPITER (Oct 26, 2021)

Yes, treaties and limits tend to be troublesome over time as someone will generally try to 'fudge' around the details. 

It seems that only the US and Britain really made serious attempts to stick to the provisions of the naval treaty/s as there were
voters and media to consider.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Oct 26, 2021)

Britain did try to scrupulously adhere to treaty restrictions but they did come up with some creativity as to tonnage terms, which everyone signed off on.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Oct 26, 2021)

The Basket said:


> I was going to call you out on this but my brain was working.
> Japan had 9 ships because Hiei wink wink was non operational wink wink.



The Japanese did comply with the terms of the 1930 Treaty with HIEI’s disarmament. It was only after Japan did not sign up to the 1936 London Treaty that she was reconstructed to the same standards as her sisters between 1937 and 1941.

The 1930 Treaty also saw Britain convert Iron Duke to a partially disarmed gunnery training ship and the USN did the same with Wyoming BB-32. Both countries chose not to further reconstruct them although various proposals did float about for them.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Oct 26, 2021)

WARSPITER said:


> Yes, treaties and limits tend to be troublesome over time as someone will generally try to 'fudge' around the details.
> 
> It seems that only the US and Britain really made serious attempts to stick to the provisions of the naval treaty/s as there were
> voters and media to consider.


Well even the US and Britain disagreed over some of the terms for example over increasing the elevation of main armament guns. The RN finally accepted the USN view in the 1930s when presented with a fait accompli. And the USN stretched things over the declared weights of the Lexington class carriers.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 26, 2021)

USS Utah (BB-31) was also a victim of the London Treaty.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Oct 26, 2021)

Hiei was always planned to be reactivated from what I read.

Which as soon as the treaties were over, then she was.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## msxyz (Oct 27, 2021)

Imho a better question would have been "why would anybody want to stick with a battleship after ww1".

Even if the threat of an attack from the air was not well understood till the beginning of ww2 (and Britain sending Repulse and Prince of Wales without an air escort in 1941 really shows how 'out of the world' certain strategists were), the modern steam powered torpedo which was perfected during ww1, the advent of lightweight motor boats powered by 1000hp+ engines that could attack in swarms at 40+ knots while being small and nimble enough to evade most gun fire, should have shown that the markings were on the wall for such big ships. Not to mention submarines, though these were slow moving, so they were really useful to ambush or stalk battle groups.

Keeping battleships around for shore bombardment also seems wasteful, since being at guns range means that also the enemy can fire on your ship from bunkers and emplacements; there are minefields near the shores, big rail guns that can be easily moved out of the harm's way after a few well placed shots and of course there's the enemy aviation. So, unless you achieve complete control of the sea and skies around the target (i.e. Iwo JIma) sending battleships to support land operations would be a dangerous move.


----------



## EwenS (Oct 27, 2021)

msxyz said:


> Imho a better question would have been "why would anybody want to stick with a battleship after ww1".
> 
> Even if the threat of an attack from the air was not well understood till the beginning of ww2 (and Britain sending Repulse and Prince of Wales without an air escort in 1941 really shows how 'out of the world' certain strategists were), the modern steam powered torpedo which was perfected during ww1, the advent of lightweight motor boats powered by 1000hp+ engines that could attack in swarms at 40+ knots while being small and nimble enough to evade most gun fire, should have shown that the markings were on the wall for such big ships. Not to mention submarines, though these were slow moving, so they were really useful to ambush or stalk battle groups.
> 
> Keeping battleships around for shore bombardment also seems wasteful, since being at guns range means that also the enemy can fire on your ship from bunkers and emplacements; there are minefields near the shores, big rail guns that can be easily moved out of the harm's way after a few well placed shots and of course there's the enemy aviation. So, unless you achieve complete control of the sea and skies around the target (i.e. Iwo JIma) sending battleships to support land operations would be a dangerous move.


Well firstly no aircraft sank a battleship in WW1. The RN was only planning its first airborne torpedo strike when WW1 ended. The results from exercises between the wars satisfied, quite falsely as it turned out, the Admirals that Battleships could not only survive multiple torpedo hits but remain operational despite them. The torpedo was held in such low regard in the USN that in 1931, late in the design process, CV-4 Ranger had all her torpedo stowage deleted. She didn’t begin to operate torpedo bombers again until 1941. Organising effective torpedo strikes in daylight in WW2 proved extremely difficult.

While an MTB/PT type vessel managed to sink an Austrian dreadnought in 1918, I think that is the only occasion such a feat was achieved. From memory the largest RN warship sunk that way in WW2 was the cruiser Manchester. They did sink many lesser vessels. PT boat performance in the Battle of Surigao Strait in 1944 against a Japanese fleet including several Battleships, produced no torpedo hits at all from 39 boats (enough to qualify as a swarm?) which would have been carrying up to 4 torpedos each. And anyway such craft would not be encountered far out to sea where everyone was expecting to fight the next Jutland/decisive battle.

As for the loss of PoW and Repulse, the surprise by that stage of the war wasn’t so much in them being sunk by air power, than in them being sunk by land based air power so far out to sea. No one seems to have appreciated the range of the Japanese torpedo bombers.

Torpedo bombers in general suffered terrible losses in WW2 to achieve the successes they did whether against Battleships or other vessels. It is worthy of note that in mid 1945 when the USN was reorganising it’s carrier Air Groups, they chopped the TBF/TBM torpedo bombers from the CVL altogether, and intended to increase the dive bomber complement on the CV, reducing the number of fighters and leaving the torpedo bombers at 15 (out of about 105 aircraft). The larger Midways would only have carried fighters and dive bombers.

Battleships don’t go into action themselves. They are accompanied by escorting cruisers, destroyers etc which are supposed to keep enemy destroyers, submarines, MTBs etc clear of them. When approaching enemy shores minesweepers are brought in as required. Shore batteries didn’t prove very effective, even against ships of all size sitting anchored within their range. Single rail guns are unlikely to be able to fire fast enough to hit any ship (how successful were the Channel guns on both sides in WW2).

Despite the rise of the aircraft, Battleship design went on into the post WW2 period. Nations continued to believe they had some use for carrier escort (due to their very heavy AA armament) and shore bombardment. Britain completed Vanguard in 1946. The French completed Jean Bart in the 1950s. The US recommenced construction of the fifth and sixth Iowa class ships in late 1944, only to cancel them at wars end. The Iowas were brought out of mothballs to provide gunfire support in Korea and Vietnam. And it was thought worthwhile reactivating, and modernising them, one final time in the 1980s.

So I think you are a bit quick to dismiss their utility after WW1. You certainly overestimate the various threats against them.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## msxyz (Oct 27, 2021)

EwenS said:


> Well firstly no aircraft sank a battleship in WW1. The RN was only planning its first airborne torpedo strike when WW1 ended. The results from exercises between the wars satisfied, quite falsely as it turned out, the Admirals that Battleships could not only survive multiple torpedo hits but remain operational despite them. The torpedo was held in such low regard in the USN that in 1931, late in the design process, CV-4 Ranger had all her torpedo stowage deleted. She didn’t begin to operate torpedo bombers again until 1941. Organising effective torpedo strikes in daylight in WW2 proved extremely difficult.
> 
> While an MTB/PT type vessel managed to sink an Austrian dreadnought in 1918, I think that is the only occasion such a feat was achieved. From memory the largest RN warship sunk that way in WW2 was the cruiser Manchester. They did sink many lesser vessels. PT boat performance in the Battle of Surigao Strait in 1944 against a Japanese fleet including several Battleships, produced no torpedo hits at all from 39 boats (enough to qualify as a swarm?) which would have been carrying up to 4 torpedos each. And anyway such craft would not be encountered far out to sea where everyone was expecting to fight the next Jutland/decisive battle.
> 
> ...


True, no battleship was sunk by aircraft in ww1, but I was referring to the threat of the modern fuelled torpedo which saw in increase in speed (from 20-30Kts to 35-40kts) and in rage (from 2000-3000m to >10000m). Such a torpedo can be used by plane, motorboat, submarine or even a larger ship (ie. cruiser, destroyer) and meant that attackers could stay at a relative safe distance and send dozen of torpedoes downrange against formation of ships. The probability to hit something was quite high and it possibly changed the way sea battles were fought even before the advent of attacks from the air.

It's also true that there is only one recorded instance in WW1 of a battleship sunk by torpedoes launched by a motorboat, but I think it was because only Italy in ww1 fielded purpose built fast attack motorboats that could sneak in harbours or make hit and run attacks against passing ships, and it was a successful gamble. In ww2 many nation followed suit with the PT boats, E-boats or the Schnellboot but, this time the conditions on the battlefield were different, since even a lightly armed plane could by a danger to them.

As for the value of the battleship post ww2, the examples mentioned (Korea, Vietnam) happened in a situation in which the user has almost complete control of the surrounding and the enemy cannot field the necessary countermeasures. For the contribution they gave to ww2, I think battleships were an egregious waste of resources for all nations that used them.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 27, 2021)

EwenS has made a number of good points. 

The small boat navy (MTBs) was tried several times in history. It failed. The US in the early 1800s the the Jeffersonian gunboat navy and the French in the 1890s/early 1900s? using steam powered torpedo boats. The small boats have limited range/endurance (like food/water for crew) and limited sea keeping ability. 
Larger steam powered vessels were built to counter the small steam torpedo boats, they were called torpedo boat destroyers (TBDs) and later the the name was shortened to just destroyers. 
Some of the successes against battleships were due to mismatches. The Repulse had about the worst AA gun suite of any RN capitol ship at that point in WWII. The Prince of Wales AA suite was not as good in practice as it looked on paper, being too heavily biased for surface action (stopping enemy destroyers/torpedo craft.) 

The MTB took a while to develop, the early ones could only carry one or two 18in torpedoes due to weight vs low powered engines. The British used a number of 55ft boats against the Russians in 1919-1920 with success. However we are back to the early boats having an endurance measured in hours, not days. No bunks for the crew, no galley. British were building 40ft boats in 1916 and the Germans built several dozen (?) but had no opportunity to use them. 

Naval tactics were heavily influenced by the torpedo. At Jutland more than one battle fleet turn away was either to avoid torpedo attack or torpedo attack was used to screen a battle fleet turn away. Hundreds of torpedoes were fired at Jutland, few hit. 

However, much like the advance in warship propulsion, anti torpedo protection was advancing quite rapidly. Early dreadnaughts may have been designed to survive a single 220lb (100kg) warhead. by the end of WW I the anticipated war head weight had at least doubled. By the late 30s they were planning on 500-600lb war head hits of TNT and not wet gun cotton. WW II saw new explosives' being used, increasing warhead effectiveness by 40-50%. 
Anticipating some of these changes would have been rather hard. Some yes, which is why keeping WW I ships (especially early WW I ships) around was a poor bargain. 

Please remember that the Washington treaty allowed up to 3000 tons of "improvements" to be made to refitted/rebuilt ships for improved "protection" including anti-torpedo protection. Some ships never got the improvements.


----------



## The Basket (Oct 27, 2021)

Fam is using the The Jeune École theory my guys.

Please use the search engine of your choice to find out the pros and cons of such a theory.

A torpedo boat and the torpedo has advantages and disadvantages. Problem is the destroyer was designed to defend against the torpedo boat. 

A torpedo is short ranged and so naval gunfire is longer ranged so you having to enter the kill zone of a Destoryer to launch a torpedo. And the torpedo can still miss or malfunction.

A torpedo boat is very short ranged and can only operate within enclosed water like the English Channel. So heavy seas and in the middle of the Atlantic is no place for a torpedo boat.

I don't mind torpedo boats but only as part of a calorie controlled diet. I like ice cream but can't eat ice cream all day. So everything has to be balanced cos if you put all your eggs in one basket and then the fox steals the basket then you gonna look a proper Charlie.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 27, 2021)

Just imagine any major landing assault conducted in WWII without benefit of Battleship support.
Normandy would be one of many examples: the German shore defenses, even after being bombed, laid down dangerous fire from their batteries.

Without the benefit of Battleship bombardment prior to and during the assault, Allied landing craft would have been decimated.
Even days after the Allies had secured the beachhead and moved inland, the Battleships continued to provide valuable and accurate support many miles inland, as the Allies pushed the Germans back.

Each 15 and 16 inch shell was comparable to a bomber's load, very accuarate, could be called in on demand with little wait and could not be intercepted by fighters or flak.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Oct 27, 2021)

Before ww1 there was a concept of mines and torpedo boats.

That the enemy fleet will literally park themselves off a port to do a blockade. Similar to age of sail.

So that's where coastal batteries and mines and coastal submarines and torpedo boats would have target rich environment going at this blockade fleet like a woodpecker at an oak tree.

Problem was the British didn't do that. And the blockade was in the North Sea. So to challenge you would like for like battleships and Battlecruisers.

So depending on coastal defences only works if they are attacking your coast. So the limitations of torpedo boats are obvious. Especially if you have to fight on the open seas.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Nov 1, 2021)

Does Rodney count as a torpedo boat?

USN didn't have torpedo boats at the beginning of the war.

They had things they launched but didn't explode boats.

Were German U Boats torpedo boats? I would say yes indeed.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 1, 2021)

msxyz said:


> Imho a better question would have been "why would anybody want to stick with a battleship after ww1".



Hindsight is a wonderful thing. At the time aircraft carrier operations were very much in their infancy, the British still had not figured how to restrain an aircraft landing on a carrier deck by the time the war had ended. A lot of Sopwith Deck Pups and Beardmore WB.IIIs sacrificed themselves aboard Furious and Argus' decks before a successful means of stopping an aeroplane aboard a carrier had been conceived. By the end of the Great War, the battleship was still the undisputed king of the sea and remained as such for some years afterwards. Aircraft carriers had potential in the between the war years, but much of the theory had not been realised and was not to be so until during World War Two, when the theories were put to the real test.



msxyz said:


> Keeping battleships around for shore bombardment also seems wasteful, since being at guns range means that also the enemy can fire on your ship from bunkers and emplacements; there are minefields near the shores, big rail guns that can be easily moved out of the harm's way after a few well placed shots and of course there's the enemy aviation. So, unless you achieve complete control of the sea and skies around the target (i.e. Iwo JIma) sending battleships to support land operations would be a dangerous move.



Ironically, using big guns at sea for shore bombardment was considered fruitless before the Great War and it was the rise of aviation that progressed the idea since the fall of shot was difficult to predict on land as there was no splash, whereas aeroplanes could spot impacts from the air. This was the rationale for the British/French/Russian assault on the forts in the Dardanelles; send in the old battleships and offer fire support in the form of naval aviation; the seaplane tender Ark Royal was sent to provide spotting aircraft and a class of monitors was designed specifically with the capability to operate aircraft for gunnery spotting. This was the Abercrombie Class monitors, the very first naval vessels designed from the drawing board to be fitted with aircraft.



EwenS said:


> The results from exercises between the wars satisfied, quite falsely as it turned out, the Admirals that Battleships could not only survive multiple torpedo hits but remain operational despite them.



Very true, but the concept of the "Fleet-in-Being" troubled certain admirals, namely Beatty, who was an advocate for the air strike using Sopwith Cuckoo torpedo aeroplanes. Despite the logistical and operational realities of what was being planned however, if even one battleship or battlecruiser was damaged during the raid against the High Seas Fleet, the psychological value would have been enormous on the Germans. One admiral referred to the raid's potential as a German Copenhagen. The term "to Copenhagen an enemy fleet" was applied to such an action where enemy ships were attacked in their home port after Admiral Nelson's action against the Danish fleet in 1801.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 1, 2021)

Well, since WW1 battleships _were_ kept, the question is rather moot. Whether they would have been kept had there been no disarmament structure in place is also moot, but I suspect the answer would be "yes," simply because most of the tasks for battleships involve peacetime prestige and providing flagships for distant stations. Consider that all navies kept their quite thoroughly outdated pre-dreadnoughts throughout WW1.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Nov 1, 2021)

Pre Dreads did get some action.

Canopus at the Falklands. The German Pre Dreads at Jutland and the Gallipoli campaign.

So they got some combat.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 5, 2021)

The problem post WW I was cost. Even during WW I many of the pre dreadnoughts were taken out of fleet service and used as auxiliaries.
By early 1918 the Canopus was being used as a barracks ship and had been taken out of service in April of 1916, two months before Jutland.

The cost of manning and maintaining old ships in relation to their actual fighting value was often considered too high.

British and French often used Pre-dreadnoughts as shore bombardment ships because they were expendable. The loss of several pre-dreadnoughts would not affect the actual strength of the battle fleet and the construction of actual shore bombardment ships (like WW I Monitors) sometimes was restricted due to shortages of slipways and boiler/engine supply.

Oldest British Pre-dreadought to fire her guns in anger was the HMS Redoubtable (ex- Revenge) used for shore bombardment off Belgium in 1914/15. 





One of her blisters being deliberately flooded to give her a list to increase the elevation of her guns for more range. 
By Jan 1916 she was an accommodations ship.

Post war the use of such ships even for "showing the Flag" or providing distant station flag ships might be rather expensive. The engines (and boilers) needed much more attention than more modern ships. The very act of refueling (coaling) took 3-4 days and then 3-4 days of cleaning the ship. Cruising speed was 10-12 knots at best without increased risk of breakdown and/or vibration problems. Not to mention harder work for the boiler stokers (coal shovelers). 
A Kent class cruiser used a crew not much different than many of the British Pre-dreadnoughts. 

Many of the Pre-dreadnoughts in the British navy had seen more time steaming than the Dreadnoughts in Scapa Flow and were rather worn out by the end of the war. So were many of the early Dreadnoughts. War experience had also shown that the Pre and early war layouts of the secondary guns were a lot less than ideal (gun positions washed out in moderate seas), main guns needed higher elevation for more range and other changes needed. 

Keeping old ships that needed extensive modifications and repairs (new boilers if not new engines) was not cost effective without the pressure of the naval treaties forcing the retention of the old ships.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PFVA63 (Nov 5, 2021)

Hi,
The Russians also made use of their Pre-Dreadnought in the 1st World War both in the Baltic and in the Black Sea against the Ottoman/Axis Battlecruiser Goeben. And the Germans used their remaining pre-Dreadnoughts in WWII for shore bombardment with one of them firing in support of the German invasion of Poland at the very start of the war.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 5, 2021)

PFVA63 said:


> Hi,
> The Russians also made use of their Pre-Dreadnought in the 1st World War both in the Baltic and in the Black Sea against the Ottoman/Axis Battlecruiser Goeben. *And the Germans used their remaining pre-Dreadnoughts in WWII for shore bombardment with one of them firing in support of the German invasion of Poland at the very start of the war.*


The Germans were constrained buy both treaties and economics into keeping the Pre-dreadnought battleships. The Treaty allowed them to keep 6 of the Pre-dreadnoughts. 
It also spelled out how old they should be when replaced and specified the max size of the guns and the tonnage of the replacements. 
The Treaty also specified the number and size of the cruisers and destroyers (an no submarines or aircraft).
It also limited total naval personnel to 15,000 men. If the Germans had tried to man all six allowable battleships at the same time it would have taken just about 1/3 of their total manpower. They needed over 700 officers and men each. 
German economy was a disaster for most of the 20s. 
The Deutschland (lead pocket battleship) wasn't laid down until 5 February 1929 and not completed until April of 1933. The Germans didn't have enough time (or money) to replace all the old ships even after Hitler came to power. But the Germans weren't dumb enough to try to use the two remaining old battleships against anything that could fight back. 

These old ships in a number of navies were used as depot ships, floating barracks, training ships and other minor duties. Jutland in 1916 had put any ideas of them being 2nd class battleships usable for beefing up the battlefleet or useful for independent operations on the shelf. They were too slow to keep up with the turbine powered dreadnoughts. Top speed didn't matter. Their reciprocating machinery wouldn't stand up to cruising speeds even in the mid teens. Their guns were weak, and short ranged, their protection was poor and they had poor fire control. 
Better rangefinders/directors weren't going to solve the problem entirely. 4 guns is the about the minimum needed for salvo firing and ranging. an eight gun ship can fire 4 guns at a time at short intervals and get the range quicker than waiting for the time needed for the shells to travel the full distance. 
Most of the Pre Dreadnoughts had crappy placement of 2ndary guns for anything but calm or at best moderate sea conditions. They were also usually wet and pitched more than longer ships. A British King Edward was about 20% longer than a Fletcher class destroyer. 

As long as your opponent didn't have anything better you were fine. Once they did pre dreadnoughts had a lot of liabilities.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jan 12, 2022)

Interesting theories of why New Zealand and Australia were Indefatigables and not Lions....or even battleships.

Cost was not the issue although giving the colonies 2nd rates rather than the good stuff was certainly on the cards. However.....

They were for the Pacific and Asia squadrons so like China Station and so they would act as super cruisers or flotilla leaders rather than big gun v big gun action and this would be a marked increase in capabilities. Especially against Von Spees East Asia Squadron.

Also 12 inch guns and turrets could be rolled out like sticky buns whereas there was a logjam with the 13.5 and Britain was getting that load.

An Indefatigable could do commerce raiding or protection or cruiser killing or waving the flag as good as an Invincible or Lion. And wouldn't expect to run into a battleship. Emden yes but Derfflinger no.

Since there was no battleship or Battlecruiser threat in the Pacific then you don't need a Death Star just a New Zealand would do.

If Craddock had New Zealand and Australia at Coronel then the ending would have been very different.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 12, 2022)

Just watched today's video on Drachinifel's channel. It's about an hour of HMS New Zealand.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jan 13, 2022)

Yes indeed.

That where got info from.

Makes sense.

Shame couldn't be kept as a museum ship.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jan 13, 2022)

Japan was an ally at the time. So bring out 2 powerful Billy big balls Lions or Tigers or even an Orion class battleship or two and the Japanese would lose it.

They would feel a pinch and no mistake. So by sending 2 weaker Indefatigable to the Pacific doesn't send the wrong signals to the IJN.

12 inch guns were the best the Germans were doing and so her time line German equivalent was Goeben.

She wouldn't meet a German capital ship so her weakness was not that weak. Unless you end up at Jutland but that wasn't why she was built for.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 13, 2022)

I agree that it is a shame none were preserved. I think the SMS Goeben was around until 1975 or so. At least we have U.S.S. Texas. The last dreadnought.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 13, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I agree that it is a shame none were preserved. I think the SMS Goeben was around until 1975 or so. At least we have U.S.S. Texas. The last dreadnought.



My son and I visited her about seven years ago. Two things struck me: 1) the turrets with their 14" guns being so big on the outside, they were pretty cramped on the inside; and 2) the gallery deck with the casemated 5" guns would have been hell to fight in a battle with steel flying around.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 13, 2022)

Agree. You can't even dig a hole and hide.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 13, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Agree. You can't even dig a hole and hide.



Right? And every surface around you provides ricochet, unlike mother Earth.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 13, 2022)

The Basket said:


> Japan was an ally at the time. So bring out 2 powerful Billy big balls Lions or Tigers or even an Orion class battleship or two and the Japanese would lose it.
> 
> They would feel a pinch and no mistake. So by sending 2 weaker Indefatigable to the Pacific doesn't send the wrong signals to the IJN.
> 
> ...


Ah, so to avoid upsetting the Japanese you spend your tax money on a 2nd rate ship? 

The Japanese are not likely to impressed by it. 

If the Japanese in 1910 and onward do become an enemy the HMS Australia is not likely to influence them very much. 

The Early British battlecruisers made a lot of claims but they were short of substance. 

They may have been good for chasing commerce raiders but they weren't very good commerce raiders themselves. They either had to to 12in guns and use up ammo on freighters or try to use 4in guns, neither was a good solution. The British had accepted low elevation main guns and they increasing outclassed by other ships.

The Japanese had to two large armored cruisers that took quite a while to build, but they had four 12in guns and eight 8in guns and they could out range the Australia,
The _Ibuki_-class as had fourteen 4.7 in guns which meant as commerce raiders they didn't have to use their 12in guns on freighters. 
The Japanese also had two post 1905 battleships with four 12 in guns and twelve 10in guns guns.
And they had two "dreadnoughts" that were building before the Australia was laid down. 
Odd balls in that they had four 12in 50cal guns and eight 12in 45 cal guns but they were powerful ships for their time (1912 which was about a year before the Australia was completed.)

One big British battlecruiser won't swing the balance but building a 2nd rate ship isn't going to impress the Japanese, especially in 1911-1913 when the Japanese can see just how fruit-loopy the British design process was. The Japanese sure didn't get sucked into those Lion fiascoes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 13, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Right? And every surface around you provides ricochet, unlike mother Earth.


Probably some Armageddon grade echo as well.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jan 14, 2022)

Japan was a firm ally in 1910 so there was no need to impress them or base future threat strategy against them. Japan would help us so no matter.
Japan would also buy into the Battle cruiser concept with the Kongo.
By the standards of the time, NZ would still have been considered a powerful ship and certainly more powerful than any cruiser or Pre-Dread. I think the idea was to use her as a flagship for cruiser squadrons and in this role she would have been fine.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 14, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Probably some Armageddon grade echo as well.



Right, could you imagine the _kerrang_?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 14, 2022)

Actually the Japanese didn't buy into the British Battlecruiser concept as much as the British did. 
And they were the ones had the most experience with it in battle. They were also the ones who had the most experience with long range gunnery, having opened fire at 19,000yds in teh Yellow sea in 1904. The Japanese Kongo class had more protection than the Lion class did let alone the older ships. 

The utility of the Battlecrusier was also in doubt once people figured out the cost of such ships, there was no way ANY navy could afford such ships in the numbers that would be needed. Unfortunately many navies took a 3-5year gap in the design of cruisers while they figured out which way to go. 
Fisher's insistence that no type of ship was needed in-between the battlecruiser and large destroyers was a damper to development. 

And like I have said the, The Australia and New Zealand were border line when compared to some of the semi-dreadnoughts. 
The limited firing arcs meant they often could not bring more than 4-6 guns to bear so the theoretical fire power advantage wasn't as great as it appeared. The fact that the 12in guns were only built to allow 13.5degrees of elevation (later modified to 16 degrees) limited their max range to an alarming degree. Ammo capacity was "The initial war outfit was 33 APC, 38 CPC and 39 HE"
With the secondary battery being 4" breech loading guns with a rate of fire of 6-8 rpg and with only 100 rounds per gun their combat endurance was limited.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 14, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Right, could you imagine the _kerrang_?


What was that? I can't hear you.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 14, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> What was that? I can't hear you.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jan 14, 2022)

Not sure about that comment but IJN didn't build 4 Kongo cos they didn't like battle cruises. Very much part of the 8-8 plan of the IJN.

Whether Kongo was a wotever is a difficult discussion.

But Lion and Kongo and Tiger were all British Battlecruiser. Kongo was an improvement over Lion and Tiger was an improvement over Kongo.

I am not saying NZ is a jet fighter. All I is saying is that NZ makes sense within it's narrow logic of the narrow time window that it was originally designed and was built for. Who is going to invade New Zealand? That is an amphibious landing to beat them all.

So as a Pacific cruiser killer taking care of business with our Japanese allies in perpetual peace and harmony then it's all gravy.

Australia was certainly earmarked for Pacific service as the Oz wanted a navy and obviously Australia was going to be the flagship.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 14, 2022)

Neither _Australia_ nor _New Zealand_ did anything of note in the Pacific.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 14, 2022)

The Basket said:


> But Lion and Kongo and Tiger were all British Battlecruiser. Kongo was an improvement over Lion and Tiger was an improvement over Kongo.


The Japanese built Battlecruisers that were biased more to fast battleships than the tin cans Fisher was pushing. 
The Lion and the Princess Royal were both laid down before the Australia and New Zealand, The Lion was laid down about 8 months earlier showing that the Australia and New Zealand were obsolete as built. The Germans laid down the Moltke and the Goeben before the the British ships were laid down. In fact the Moltke was launched before the British ships were. The Seidlitz was laid down later but finished earlier (about one month) reinforcing what a bad bargain the Australia was. But the checks were signed and Australia was stuck with it. 


The Basket said:


> am not saying NZ is a jet fighter. All I is saying is that NZ makes sense within it's narrow logic of the narrow time window that it was originally designed and was built for. Who is going to invade New Zealand? That is an amphibious landing to beat them all.


The logic was more related to Press releases rather than military need. Ships also have to be able to be used for more than a few years. Yes this was a time of very rapid change but the Australia and New Zealand were repeats ( a year late) of the Indefatigable which were pretty much repeats of the Invincible class of 1906. This was close to deciding to order Gloster Gladiators in 1940 when you already had the plans for the Hurricane and Spitfire on your desk and building in the factories. 
How many light cruisers/destroyers could have been built for the price of the Australia? 
You want a large cruiser to match the German ships on the China station? Then build a large cruiser with eight-ten 9.2 inch guns and some 4.7in or 6in secondary guns. 
Something that could out match the Blucher if the Germans deicide to send her out to the China station. 


The Basket said:


> So as a Pacific cruiser killer taking care of business with our Japanese allies in perpetual peace and harmony then it's all gravy.


All is good if the Australia only has to kill one ship per sortie. And if the enemy ship is kind enough to allow the Australia to get with in range. 

and going back to the thread title. The Australia was even more useless by 1919 let alone keeping her until the 1930s. 
A Kent class Cruiser was more effective than the Australia without a very, very costly rebuild.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jan 15, 2022)

I could be harsh and say NZ and Australia were vanity projects designed to be shiny white elephants to show the world that the colonial outposts were playas. 

But they also had deterrent factor. Von Spee didn't run away at Coronel. He did from the battlecruisers. Had he seen NZ on the horizon he would of ran away too HMS Warrior or Defence he may have felt were fair game. So they are making tactical and strategic choices simply by existing.

Japan wanted battlecruisers and they got Kongo more by timing than design. A few years earlier and they may have got a NZ. Remember one ship a navy don't make. IJN was trying to make a battle fleet and New Zealand wasn't.

Certainly that era was moving so fast that 2 years late is obsolete overnight. We may say Von Der Tann had good stuff but it had 11 inch guns and Warspite shrugged of 11 inch shells as if they were sweeties. Goeben ran like a beehatch when she was cornered. So even the much vaunted German battlecruisers were no match for time.

Of course by ww2 standards NZ was obsolete but so would be the Kongos. So yeah a total rebuild.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 15, 2022)

How much did Von Spee rearm? Was he able to refill his magazines after Colonel?

Not saying that would have made the difference in eventual outcome but it shows the difference in commerce raiding vs chasing a force of raiders. It also shows one of the things that should be takin into account when selecting ships for that role.

A raiding force should only accept battle when it knows it can win. Cradock

Cradock had no hope of winning, the best he could hope for was to cripple or heavily damage one or both of the big German ships.
But with only two 9.2 in guns in his force and everything else 6in or smaller he was facing very poor odds.
Even if the Germans misidentified the Monmouth for a cruiser with a pair of 9.2s it was not going to change things. Each of the German ships had eight 8.2 guns Which of which six could fire on the broadside.
The Germans could hold the range outside where the British 6in guns could either hit or be effective.

At the Falklands the British had the overwhelming advantage of not only the battlecruisers but numbers.

The Warrior and Defense were both significantly stronger than the older British armored cruisers.

Goeben's "job" wasn't to die in glorious battle against superior forces. It was to cause as much trouble as she could, and if opportunity resent itself, then cause damage to the British forces. In the Goeben is sometimes said to have cause more suffering than any other ship in history history.

The Von Der Tann may have been no match for the Warspite but it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.
The Von Der Tann was about 19,400tons.
The Warspite was about 33,600 tons.
The Australia was about 18,500tons.

It wasn't a question of the Von Der Tann equaling the Warspite, it was a question of the Australia equaling (or providing a good value) the Von Der Tann.
The Australia and New Zealand were poor value for the money.
Granted a lot of naval engagements do come down to luck but the Von Der Tann managed to sink the Indefatigable with 5 rounds hitting out of 52 fired in 14-15 minutes.
Von Der Tann took 4 shell hits during Jutland from 13.5 guns and above and was seriously damaged but was still making 18 kts and had two turrets working at the end.
A better value for the money?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jan 15, 2022)

I could be blunt and say the whole high seas fleet was a total waste of money.

Better spent on anything else.

Warspite fought against German battlecruisers so it was certainly a question. The battlecruisers had a secondary role filling the battle line so an 11 inch gun was no hope against anything modern. 

Craddock was a British admiral who had the choice of dying or being court martial for cowardice. Hardly a choice. Even though he should have had Defence and Canopus and let down by London.

I would be fair to say that NZ had no place in any line of battle. I would fancy my chances on a modern British battlecruiser like Hood or Queen Mary or Repulse....err....

NZ had plot armour and that is far better than steel. Better not get hit in the first place.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 15, 2022)

The High Seas Fleet may have been more than a waste of money. It may have wound up costing the Kaiserreich the Kaiserreich itself.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 15, 2022)

The QE's were fast battleships. They could make 24 kts or about 3 knots more than the standard battle line. They were about 3,000 tons (about 10%) heavier than the Revenge class that came after them but were good for 21-22 kts. The early Battlecruisers were only good for about 25kts. 

Both sides filled their fleets with ships that should not have been there since you cannot pick and chose which ships out of line ships you "duel" with. Most of the British ships with 12in guns should not have been there if the German ships with 11in guns should not have been.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 15, 2022)

WNT and LNT meant that obsolete battleships needed to be upgraded and kept in service. I think only the QEs managed that process in a combat-effective manner, but even they were mainly pitched against Italian BBs of mainly the same vintage.


----------



## The Basket (Jan 16, 2022)

Don't bring 11 inches to a 15 inch gunfight.

That's why Scheer got out of Dodge when he knew what's what.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 16, 2022)

British had trouble with ships shooting 12 in and 13.5 in guns.
If you don't use enough armor the size of your guns may not matter. 
the Repulse and Renown were looked at with horror when they showed up at Scappa Flow.





The two rows of scuttles showed anybody who glanced at them they were not fit for gun duel.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 16, 2022)

The Basket said:


> Don't bring 11 inches to a 15 inch gunfight.
> 
> That's why Scheer got out of Dodge when he knew what's what.



Right, and that's why for all their armor I'm not satisfied calling the Ugly Sisters "fast Battleships."


----------



## The Basket (Jan 16, 2022)

Don't call them ugly Bro.

They out trying to live their best life. They trying their best. Makeup and wine and it's in the lap of the gods.

Sinking of Glorious alone probably pays for the manufacturing so they got back plenty in return. 11 inch guns no good but they worked it.

I will say Renown was well armed and fast. Can't hit what you can't chase. So in open water Renown can run away nicely. Maybe after Jutland I be wanting 12 inches of armour. But Renown was fast for a big girl. Just like Jackie Fisher likes em.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 16, 2022)

Classic Fisher.
Egg shells armed with Sedge hammers. 

Speed did not equal protection.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jan 17, 2022)

I will argue for New Zealand as a thing but Renown....ok you got me.

I cannot really justify Renown in its 1916 form.

Why have 15 inch guns unless it's going against something big and minimum threat would be Derfflinger.

Armour wise the Renown is nothing. Cannot take even a single punch. Yeah faster than Derfflinger but one lucky hit and it's boom time.

So I will give you that one. Can't argue with that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jan 27, 2022)

Ships as deterrent.

I would say more ships equals more deterrent so johnny foreigner has a new wrinkle to think about before he dares to tangle with the Empire.

So thickness of armour is not important if Johnny foreigner is cowering under his bed by the sheer undiluted might of the RN.

Indefatigable, New Zealand and Australia may have been glass cannons but they were 3 Dreadnought armoured cruisers and 3 more than the Kaiserliche Marine had to account for.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 27, 2022)

The Basket said:


> Don't call them ugly Bro.
> 
> They out trying to live their best life. They trying their best. Makeup and wine and it's in the lap of the gods.



You Brits were the ones as nicknamed them the "Ugly Sisters", take it up with Dudley Pound or someone ... bro.

They were fairly weak battlecruisers but good for the Germans to put on a "right, but now we're _serious_" show. Getting lucky with the _Glorious_ having incompetent leadership ain't much of a feather in the cap of a pair of "battleships". Shit, they ran from an R-class [edited to add: actually, the battlecruiser _Renown_]. Color me unimpressed.

All the praise these things receive set aside, with 11" guns they were bringing knives to a gunfight.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jan 28, 2022)

Not what you got but what you do with it.

Not saying the Scharnhorsts were god tier but their service history was pretty good.

Had the 15 inch guns installed as per spec then pretty spectacular.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 28, 2022)

The Basket said:


> Not what you got but what you do with it.
> 
> Not saying the Scharnhorsts were god tier but their service history was pretty good.
> 
> Had the 15 inch guns installed as per spec then pretty spectacular.



Yeah, those fifteens would have made them damned good. 

The Germans got some good service out of the ships, true. Imagine the Uglies armed with 15s stumbling upon _Renown_.

On the other hand, they often took damage from the weather. Not a good look for anything alleged to be a battleship.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 28, 2022)

I did not know that.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 28, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I did not know that.


Yeah, even after being modified with the Atlantic bow they were shaky. Forgive the use of Wiki but it's quick and in this case accurate:



> Four Allied capital ships, the British _Hood_, _Nelson_ and _Rodney_, and the French _Dunkerque_, followed in pursuit. The Germans reached Wilhelmshaven on 27 November, and on the trip both battleships incurred significant damage from heavy seas and winds.[15]​ _Scharnhorst_ was repaired in Wilhelmshaven, and while in dock, her boilers were overhauled.





> [...] the two ships left Wilhelmshaven on the morning of 7 April.[13]​ They were joined by the heavy cruiser _Admiral Hipper_. Later that day, at around 14:30, the three ships came under attack by a force of British bombers, which failed to make any hits. Heavy winds caused significant structural damage that evening, and flooding contaminated a portion of _Scharnhorst_'s fuel stores.[16] ​





> Following the completion of repairs, _Scharnhorst_ underwent trials in the Baltic before returning to Kiel in December 1940. There she joined _Gneisenau_, in preparation for Operation Berlin, a planned raid into the Atlantic Ocean designed to wreak havoc on the Allied shipping lanes.[29]​ Severe storms caused damage to _Gneisenau_ but _Scharnhorst_ was undamaged. The two ships were forced to put into port during the storm: _Scharnhorst_ went to Gotenhafen while _Gneisenau_ went to Kiel for repairs.



Pretty fragile for "battleships", especially BBs which were obviously required to operate in the North Sea and the North Atlantic.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 28, 2022)

Incredible. I had thought more highly of The Sisters thinking they were merely under armed. I didn’t know you shouldn’t get them wet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## WARSPITER (Jan 28, 2022)

The Scharnhorst type came about from the earlier idea that Germany would have to be able to attack shipping between France and Poland
as well as being able to deter any attacks or landings along the German coastal area. This required fast ships which could run easily from
larger types but could also easily take on smaller types - mainly cruisers. As a result they had excellent firepower against most enemy
shipping but it came at a cost in rougher seas. Scharnhorst suffered forward turret flooding in heavy seas and water easily came over the stern
as well.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jan 28, 2022)

do not expose the Scharnhorst to light, especially sunlight, which will kill it; 

do not let it come in contact with water; and above all, never feed it after midnight.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 28, 2022)

The things one learns here.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 28, 2022)

The Basket said:


> do not expose the Scharnhorst to light, especially sunlight, which will kill it;
> 
> do not let it come in contact with water; and above all, never feed it after midnight.



Nice to have against cruisers, but useless against battleships.

Classic definition of a battlecruiser.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jan 28, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Nice to have against cruisers, but useless against battleships.
> 
> Classic definition of a battlecruiser.


I am trying to formulate a reply.

I can mention that some battlecruisers were better than some earlier battleships?

Derfflinger v Nassau?
Weak sauce I know but that's all I got.

I guess if you have to run away the you ain't no battleship. I actually like your reply and trying my best not to agree with you.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 28, 2022)

Same here, T B.


----------



## The Basket (Jan 29, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Same here, T B.


T B?

Tuberculosis? That would have been a better call sign on reflection.

I hate agreeing with people. Especially on the internet. Especially about battlecruisers. Especially about the Royal Navy. Especially about the heyday of the British Empire. 

Drives me mad.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 29, 2022)

The Basket said:


> T B?
> 
> Tuberculosis? That would have been a better call sign on reflection.
> 
> ...


I think your wrong.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 29, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Nice to have against cruisers, but useless against battleships.
> 
> Classic definition of a battlecruiser.


It would probably have problems against one class of USN cruisers: the _Alaska_s.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jan 29, 2022)

Alaska would have rocked the casbah in 1942.

In 1944 it's about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

So let's look at what it's rivals are.

Hood? Not in 1944. Scharnhorst? Not in 1944. Kongos? 2 were still about I guess. Renown? 

At my learned colleague Thumpacalumpus said, it ain't going up against any battleship and coming out intact. It can run away but running ain't winning wars.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 29, 2022)

The Basket said:


> Alaska would have rocked the casbah in 1942.
> 
> In 1944 it's about as much use as a chocolate teapot.
> 
> ...



Yeah, the remaining Kongos would be the only possible victims.

Hell, once the Baltimore-class introduced auto-firing 8" cannon, they made the Alaskas even more irrelevant.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jan 29, 2022)

In 1944 or 45 even if the Alaska could fight the Kongo then there is no guarantee that it's going to come through.

And the Iowa could match the speed with of course more firepower.

And plenty carriers gave airpower the nod.

Plus the older battleship could do shore bombardment better.

This is why the Alaska didn't last around. It simply had no role or reason.

Your certainly not chasing Yamato.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 29, 2022)

The Basket said:


> In 1944 or 45 even if the Alaska could fight the Kongo then there is no guarantee that it's going to come through.


True enough, the Kongos have the heavier shot. But the Alaskas have more vessel speed, better fire-control, and the 12" guns, while nominally smaller, had similar range to the Kongos' 14"/45, could fire faster, and was roughly equivalent to the US 14"/50 in penetration, so takes your chances and throws your dice, 'cause it's still a crapshoot.


----------



## WARSPITER (Jan 30, 2022)

The Alaska came about due to reactive reporting. In other words it was a reaction to a report that Japan was going to build
ships similar to Deutschland / Scharnhorst. Thus the bit bigger guns and high speed. It turned out Japan never had any plan
to build similar ships at all so Alaska and Guam were rebels without a cause. 

Thanks to their large AA armament and speed they were given the job of carrier protection instead.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 30, 2022)

WARSPITER said:


> The Alaska came about due to reactive reporting. In other words it was a reaction to a report that Japan was going to build
> ships similar to Deutschland / Scharnhorst. Thus the bit bigger guns and high speed. It turned out Japan never had any plan
> to build similar ships at all so Alaska and Guam were rebels without a cause.
> 
> Thanks to their large AA armament and speed they were given the job of carrier protection instead.


However since they didn't have any better heavy AA than a Baltimore (or a Cleveland) and not much better medium AA (40 mm) they were an expensive way to get twelve 5in/38s into action. I don't know if they carried more ammo.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## WARSPITER (Jan 31, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> However since they didn't have any better heavy AA than a Baltimore (or a Cleveland) and not much better medium AA (40 mm) they were an expensive way to get twelve 5in/38s into action. I don't know if they carried more ammo.


That's right but since the opposition never appeared I suppose there had to be a use found.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Feb 10, 2022)

Drachinifel slags off HMS Indefatigable in his latest video like it's on sale for 1999. He don't pull no punches and he riding that pony until the wheels fall off.

Now....is he saying history stuff or has he been told to be entertaining and building up the boil to get the extra clicks Coz it plenty funny.

I am not sure. Of course I have my doubts but a ranting bitch slap video bad? Again maybe not.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 11, 2022)

I agree with Drach that a warmed-over _Invincible_ in 1911 is not a great ship against any putative peer, much less in a battle-line.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## don4331 (Feb 11, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> However since they didn't have any better heavy AA than a Baltimore (or a Cleveland) and not much better medium AA (40 mm) they were an expensive way to get twelve 5in/38s into action. I don't know if they carried more ammo.


Yorktown (CV-6) and Essex (CV-9): 450 rounds
North Carolina (BB-55), South Dakota (BB-57) and Iowa (BB-61): 450 rounds
*Alaska (CB-1): 500 rounds
Baltimore (CA-68)*, Oregon City (CA-122) and Des Moines (CA-134): *500 rounds*
Saint Louis (CL-49),* Cleveland (CL-55)* and Fargo (CL-106): *500 rounds*
Atlanta (CL-51): 450 rounds
Pre-war destroyers of the Farragut (DD-348) through Sims (DD-409) classes: 300 rounds
Benson (DD-421) and Gleaves (DD-423): 320 - 360 rounds
Fletcher (DD-445): 350 rounds (420 in later ships)
Allen M. Sumner (DD-692) and Gearing (DD-710): 360 rounds (472 in later ships)

Same as CA/CL of the same vintage

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jun 4, 2022)

The Basket said:


> Yes indeed.
> 
> That where got info from.
> 
> ...


In the video you are referring to 
() 
Mathew Wright makes the point I was trying to make earlier. The New Zealand and Australia were 2nd class ships which were obsolete before they were ordered and should never have been built as repeat Indefatigables. Even if 13.5 in guns were in short supply a scaled down Lion would have been better. Britain's 12 in gun ships were all crippled by the desire to avoid superfiring turrets. Wing turrets added weight and compromised protection. Britain had already accepted superfiring (Neptune) before New Zealand and Australia were ordered.

Drachinifel gives the place of honor to Indefatigable in his list of "Naval Engineering Disasters - How not to design a ship"

He makes another point I was trying to make. The Indefatigables were inferior to the Invincibles they based on due to the much inferior armor protection. A and X magazines were not even proof against the armored cruisers they were supposed to dominate. New Zealand and Australia were slightly better in that regard but still inferior to the Invincibles built 4 years earlier.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jun 4, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Right? And every surface around you provides ricochet, unlike mother Earth.


Read D K Brown when he quotes from test reports. Splinters travel around corners for surprising distances. And were not talking wood slivers here. Terrifying.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 4, 2022)

The Basket said:


> What heroic nonsense.



One person's heroic nonsense is another person's navy enforcing its sovereign waters with whatever it is equipped with, regardless of how out-of-date.


----------



## Frog (Jul 11, 2022)

USS Wyoming BB32, Habana 1933.
From the estate of PFC Carlo ROTTI - ASN 392707493 - 620th Military Police Escort Guard Company, 9th US Army .
The WW 1 vintage Wyoming was used to train scores of thousands of trainees to gunnery practice with 5" and AA guns, after removal of the 12 '' turrets.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Oct 12, 2022)

The Basket said:


> Drachinifel slags off HMS Indefatigable in his latest video like it's on sale for 1999. He don't pull no punches and he riding that pony until the wheels fall off.
> 
> Now....is he saying history stuff or has he been told to be entertaining and building up the boil to get the extra clicks Coz it plenty funny.
> 
> I am not sure. Of course I have my doubts but a ranting bitch slap video bad? Again maybe not.


Indefatigable was inferior in amour protection to the Invincible it was based on with no redeeming features to counterbalance that. To build an inferior version of a 3 year old design cannot be justified. In particular the French style "lozenge" turret layout badly comprised protection of the magazines. There was no excuse for perpetuating this design when the RN had already dropped their objections to super firing turrets.
DK Brown was also critical of the Indefatigable design in his book "The Grand Fleet".


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Oct 13, 2022)

The Basket said:


> The Battle between Kirishima and Washington and South Dakota proved that anything and everything can happen. So it's like a train wreck with extra monkeys.
> 
> HMS Acasta got a mission kill against Scharnhorst so it's a box of frogs and take your best shot.


The battle of Kirishima vs Washington and South Dakoata was a foregone conclusion. It is hard to visualize an outcome other than Kirishima laying at the bottom.
Two of the most modern Battleships in the world against a WWI Battlecruiser. Two against one in of itself should ensure victory for the Americans. The single ship can only fire against one of its 2 opponents leaving the other to fire unmolested which is exactly what happened.
Individually each American ship was far superior. 9x16-inch (SD only had 7 operable) guns firing 2700 lb shells against 8-inch amor (inferior in quality to the American) vs 8x14-inch firing 1485 lb shells against 12-inch armor. Kirishima's armor arrangement was also inferior as would be expected for a 25 year old design.
The Americans were reading the Japanese codes and knew what they were facing, the Japanese had no clue. This obviously was a huge advantage and further compounded Kirishima's gun inferiority as she was loaded with anti-aircraft shells which were not effective against armor (these shells could not penetrate San Fransico's armor two nights previously). It was late in the battle before Kirishima managed to fire any AP rounds.
If the Japanese had known they were facing battleships it is doubtful that Kirishima would have been sent in the first place and certainly she wouldn't have charged into the battle armed with anti-aircraft shells. They would have sent in the destroyers for a torpedo attack and held back the Kirishima. There would have been no one sided gun duel.
The Americans had radar and finally had someone in charge who knew how to use it they were firing on the Japanses well before the 
Much is made of South Dakota losing power, but it only lost power for 3 minutes and later lost radar and radio for 5 minutes. South Dakota actually fired as many main battery shells as Washington during the engagement.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Oct 13, 2022)

I just know someone is going to comment on the “anti-aircraft “ shells.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Oct 13, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I just know someone is going to comment on the “anti-aircraft “ shells.


From Naval weapons website





Japan 36 cm/45 (14") 41st Year Type - NavWeaps







navweaps.com





"Common Type 3 IS: 55.1 in (140 cm)
Common Type 3 IS 6a​: 1,371 lbs. (622 kg)
^IS is my abbreviation for the incendiary shrapnel round (sankaidan) intended for AA use."
Also used for shore bombardment

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Oct 13, 2022)

I had thought you meant fragmentation shells suitable for ripping up soft targets and other general mayhem as opposed to the “beehive “ type anti aircraft shells I have read about. I have never read that description about IJN ammo before. I thought that there were two different kinds of shells. 
The things one learns here.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Oct 13, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I had thought you meant fragmentation shells suitable for ripping up soft targets and other general mayhem as opposed to the “beehive “ type anti aircraft shells I have read about. I have never read that description about IJN ammo before. I thought that there were two different kinds of shells.
> The things one learns here.


The shells were not effective in the AA role but were quite effective in the "ground attack" role wrecking 56 out of 87 aircraft parked on Henderson Field during the bombardment of Oct 13/14, 1942.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Oct 13, 2022)

I had thought it was two separate types of ammo. I did read that they weren't effective anti-air ordnance.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Oct 13, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I had thought it was two separate types of ammo.



My understanding is that the Japanese also had standard HE shells as well. They would use both the HE and the "AA" shells for shore bombardments, to my knowledge.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Oct 13, 2022)

That's what I thought.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Oct 13, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> That's what I thought.



Right, and I'm wondering if that is not where a miscommunication might be. To be fair, most of what I've read about _Hiei_ and _Kirishima_ mention ammo loadout for "shore bombardment" but do not go into specifics. A couple mention that they had the "AA" shells in the turrets' ready-rooms too, but most don't specify. Most just say the immediate rounds to hand were not AP, but for bombardment duties.

I've read that _Kirishima_ hit _South Dakota_ with "AA" shells first, then switching to AP. _Hiei_, I think, had the same transition of ammunition shot two nights earlier.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 13, 2022)

The IJN did have Anti-Aircraft rounds for their large caliber guns, including the 18.1" guns aboard Yamato and Musashi.

They were called Sanshikidan or "San Shiki" and often called "Beehive" rounds (as mentioned above).

They did use the San Shiki for shore bombardment, which were quite effective.
These shells were like monster flaming claymore mines on steroids.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Oct 13, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Right, and I'm wondering if that is not where a miscommunication might be. To be fair, most of what I've read about _Hiei_ and _Kirishima_ mention ammo loadout for "shore bombardment" but do not go into specifics. A couple mention that they had the "AA" shells in the turrets' ready-rooms too, but most don't specify. Most just say the immediate rounds to hand were not AP, but for bombardment duties.
> 
> I've read that _Kirishima_ hit _South Dakota_ with "AA" shells first, then switching to AP. _Hiei_, I think, had the same transition of ammunition shot two nights earlier.


Exactly
From Imperial Battleships:
!st Battle
"During the battle, KIRISHIMA fires 27 Type 1 AP, 22 Type 3 and 8 Type 0 incendiary 14-in shells, plus 313 secondary caliber shells."

2nd Battle
"Within the next few minutes KIRISHIMA fires a total of 117 14-inch shells (68 Type 3 incendiaries, 22 Type 0 Common and 27 Type 1 APC), scoring multiple hits with secondary and main guns. One Type 1 APC explodes against SOUTH DAKOTA's No. 3 turret's barbette." 
In this case the Type 0 common is the HE shell. The APC hit took place late in the battle.

The bombardment of Henderson Field
"KONGO fires 435 14-in. shells (104 Type 3, 331 Type 1) and twenty-seven 6-in shells. HARUNA fires 433 14-in. shells (189 Type 0, 294 Type 1) and twenty-one 6-in shells.
The 1,378-lb HE Type 3 "Sanshikidan" is used by KONGO for the first time in action. Only KONGO receives them before departure because there are not enough available for both battleships. Originally designed as anti-aircraft rounds, each time-fused shell contains 480 incendiary (rubber thermite) tubes and 192 steel stays. The older Type 0 is similar to the Type 3, but their 1,000 incendiary tubes are filled with a mix of rosin, magnesium, barium and sulphuric acid. Some 1,485-lb. Type 1 AP shells are also fired."

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Oct 13, 2022)

Reluctant Poster said:


> Exactly
> From Imperial Battleships:
> !st Battle
> "During the battle, KIRISHIMA fires 27 Type 1 AP, 22 Type 3 and 8 Type 0 incendiary 14-in shells, plus 313 secondary caliber shells."
> ...



Thanks for the clarity, much appreciated. I'm just shocked I was somewhat right!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## delcyros (Oct 21, 2022)

Scharnhorst & Gneisenau were among the most succesful naval surface combatants of ww2. Combined they sank:

CV GLORIUS, 22,690ts
DD ARDENT, 1,773ts
DD ACASTA, 1,773ts
AMC RAWALPINDI, 16,697ts

additionally. the following merchant vessel were sank or captured by both vessels during north Atlantic raid in 1941
A D HUFF, 6,219ts
ATHELFOAM, 6,554ts
BIANCA, 5,668ts
BRITISH STRENGTH, 7,139ts
CHILIAN REEFER, 1,793ts
DEMERTON, 5,215ts
EMPIRE INDUSTRY, 3,721ts
GRANLI, 3,721ts
HARLESDEN, 5,483ts
KANTARA, 3,237ts
LUSTROUS, 6,156ts
MANGKAI, 8,298ts
MARATHON, 7,926ts
MYSOM, 4,564ts
POLYCARP, 6,405ts
RIO DORADO, 4,507ts
ROYAL CROWN, 4,388ts
SAN CASIMIRO, 8,046ts
SARDINIAN PRINCE, 3,491ts
SILVERFIR, 4,347ts
SIMNIA, 6,197ts
TRELAWNY, 4,689ts

by whatever metric this is considerable accomplishment for a small navy like the KM.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------

