feasibility of keeping WW I battleships around for WW II.

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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!
Click to expand...

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
 
The Basket said:
Australia was bad but not Furious bad. There is always worse.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 

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.
 
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.
 
The informative is for Fred T. Jane. In my sixty plus years I never knew his full name.
 
The Basket said:
Oddly Agincourt caused Ottoman Empire to join WW1 so that ship has some history.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
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.
 
Shortround6 said:
Part of the problem with the Indefatigable (and sisters) was Fishers initial lying about the amount of armor the Invincibles had.
Click to expand...

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).
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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 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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Some observations on WW II small arms, and bit on artillery.
2 3
Replies
42
Views
3K
BarnOwlLover
C
looking for information on some servicemen.
Replies
0
Views
213
coffman
C
Z
Best tank engines of WWII
15 16 17
Replies
335
Views
22K
Reluctant Poster
R
Favorite "obscure" theater or World War II to research?
Replies
9
Views
1K
EwenS
E
I
Help needed with the translation of my WWII Japanese Going To War Banner
Replies
8
Views
1K
ironmannf
I
Menu
Log in
Register