Glider
Captain
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.'
feasibility of keeping WW I battleships around for WW II.
- Thread starter Shortround6
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
'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
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Defense of the beachheads. Duh.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
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!
And the final boss Killer Emus.
So any invading army is not long for this earth.
Who needs battle cruisers!
don4331
Senior Airman
Where does the koala fit in that list of killers
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.
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.
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
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Fifth column.Where does the koala fit in that list of killers
Those suckers have nasty claws, man.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
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.
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.
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.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Drop Bears.Where does the koala fit in that list of killers
This is a serious concern...
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
I would say Indefatigable armour scheme was not good enough against armoured cruisers....never mind battleships
Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,641
- Dec 6, 2006
In his book The Grand Fleet, D K Brown produced the following table: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.
Looking back: Australia's Emu Wars
In 1932 Australian troops were dumbfounded when they found themselves outmaneuvered by clever birds during the Emu Wars.
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
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Courageous wasn't a battle cruiser.
It wasn't anything!
If that was at Jutland then lordy lordy.
It wasn't anything!
If that was at Jutland then lordy lordy.
Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,641
- Dec 6, 2006
Agreed. Fishers follies. I didn't come up with the list DK Brown did. His list was actually a list of large cruisers.
Last edited:
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?
Last edited:
Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,641
- Dec 6, 2006
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.
Last edited:
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
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.
British Empire not British Charity.
Don't want to give the overseas territories the good stuff.
They might get ideas.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Those pesky colonists... 
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
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.
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.
GreenKnight121
Senior Airman
- 740
- Mar 16, 2014
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!
