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

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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Mostly into weight saving. So can get more armour on the go.

Also coal bunkers were no longer required.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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