PDA

View Full Version : general ineffectiveness of Battleships WW2



gdfo
10-29-2007, 06:52 PM
Having given this some thought and realising that this is off topic, I am concluding that the Battleship/Battlecruiser was an expensive and ineffective weapon overall during WW2.

For the cost of 1 battleship perhaps several Aircraft carriers and/or Destroyers could have been built.

Look at the expectations and loss of the famous ships of this type. Hood/Bismark, Prince of Wales/Renown, Yamato and Musashi.

Fast Light cruiser and Heavy Cruisers with more Carriers and Destroyers of the time would have been better and more effective than Battleships
in the Pacific War. Also in the Atlantic.

The rein of the Battleships was over after WW1.

Perhaps the really great 'battleships' were made of wood.

badaboom.1
10-29-2007, 07:19 PM
HERETIC!!!!!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif
just kidding http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

Although they were not as effective as the Aircraft carrier[in PTO]They did do a formidable job at land bombardment in the PTO island hopping Campaign,also the Iowa class has served up to as late as the 1st Gulf War,long after The Yorktown & Enterprise saw action.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v27/badaboom/Picture011.jpg

God I love those "BIG GUNS"

fabianfred
10-29-2007, 07:24 PM
but 90% of the bombardments of shore during the island-hopping in the PTO...especially Okinawa...was an absolute waste of munitions since the japanese were dug into caves in the coral and left very little exposed

leitmotiv
10-29-2007, 07:28 PM
Absurd. In the Guadalcanal campaign the battleship still reigned at night. A bombardment by Japanese battleships did more damage to Henderson than any of the air attacks, and nearly shut it down. WASHINGTON singlehandedly sank KIRISHIMA and saw off an entire Japanese bombardment force.

VW-IceFire
10-29-2007, 08:23 PM
The battleship was essentially obsolete before it was even built. The submarine was the real danger to just about any ship.

But you can't discount the battleship as both an effective weapon in several battles as well as a powerful symbol of power or a threat that demanded great resource. Look what the Bismarck did to the Royal Navy or the Tirpitz in mobilizing the RAF to keep her pinned down or what the Yamato was as a symbol to the Japanese Navy. Some of these elements have power that goes beyond a purely war by the numbers sort of look.

Billy_DeLyon
10-29-2007, 09:02 PM
...a powerful symbol of power or a threat that demanded great resource... Some of these elements have power that goes beyond a purely war by the numbers sort of look.

Main (only?) reason Iowa class was re-commissioned for Gulf War I.

CNN was all over it.

ElAurens
10-29-2007, 09:56 PM
You trust CNN?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

VonGrantoven
10-29-2007, 10:05 PM
While Battleships were outclassed by airpower in a ship-to-ship role during WW2, I wouldnt say they were useless.
In support of amphibious landings or for striking coastal targets (especially heavily armored/dug in positions) big Naval guns are unrivalled.
Even after WW2 this was still true:

"Between 23 May and 27 May and again 30 May 1951, New Jersey pounded targets near Yangyang and Kansong, dispersing troop concentrations, dropping a bridge span, and destroying three large ammunition dumps. Air spotters reported Yangyang abandoned at the end of this action, while railroad facilities and vehicles were smashed at Kansong...
Between 4 July and 12 July, New Jersey supported a United Nations push in the Kansong area, firing at enemy buildup and reorganization positions. As the Republic of Korea's First Division hurled itself on the enemy, shore fire control observers saw New Jersey's salvos hit directly on enemy mortar emplacements, supply and ammunition dumps, and personnel concentrations. New Jersey returned to Wonsan 18 July for an exhibition of perfect firing: five gun emplacements demolished with five direct hits."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_New_Jersey_(BB-62))
Compared to what can be doled out by air craft or missles, the sustained weight of firepower of a BB is staggering. Also, unlike airpower or missles, a batteships shells can not be shotdown or spoofed.

With the increase in effectiveness of AA guns and missles, the battleship's vulnerability to air attack has been considerably reduced also.

In fact the British experience in the Falklands (from their losses to Argie Exocets) would tend to make the foot of case-hardened steel belt armor on the ships like the Iowa class BBs very attractive indeed. These old battlewagons were build to take a major pounding.

Not to mention the fact that battleships are perhaps the single most potent symbol of foreign policy ever invented.
Nothing projects power like armored batteries of 16 inch guns.

Wepps
10-29-2007, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
The battleship was essentially obsolete before it was even built. The submarine was the real danger to just about any ship.

But you can't discount the battleship as both an effective weapon in several battles as well as a powerful symbol of power or a threat that demanded great resource. Look what the Bismarck did to the Royal Navy or the Tirpitz in mobilizing the RAF to keep her pinned down or what the Yamato was as a symbol to the Japanese Navy. Some of these elements have power that goes beyond a purely war by the numbers sort of look.

Yes but what is the cost of all that? Yamato and Musashi for instance did nothing at all. But imagine what those two ships could have provided in Carriers to the Imperial Navy.

They serve better purpose now than in WWII because now nobody is trying their hearts out to sink them! They are gigantic floating tomahawk launchers.

On the other hand they have no place in carrier task forces, they are too slow and suck too much oil.

Really, whereas cruisers were the ship type of choice during British Imperial days, Battleships might have the same effect on regional control in modern times. It's something to think about.

Ernst_Rohr
10-29-2007, 11:25 PM
Actually, from the late 1800's on, battleships were THE pinnacle of force projection.

A battleship of the period dominated anything in range of its guns, and that was often a very large swath of the coastline and some miles inland.

The decisiveness of the battleship at war was pretty much conclusively proved to the world during the Russo-Japanese War, and the results of the naval component of that war completely reshuffled the map of world powers at the turn of the 20th century.

Despite the rise of torpedoes and subs, until WW2, torpedoes proved erratic and unreliable (for that matter the torps in early WW2 were pretty iffy). Torpedo boats and destroyers didn't prove to be major threats the development of longer range (and accurate) torpedoes in WW2. In WW1, torpedo boats, destroyers and even some capital ships mounted torpedoes, but they were more often used as a threat to break or divert formations, rather than a decisive weapon.

All of that convinced the battleship proponents that the "big guns" were still kings of the sea. There role wasn't eclipsed until more modern subs, longer range torpedoes and higher speed torps, and most importantly, aircraft showed up.

Not surprisingly, the Japanese clued into this a lot earlier then other major navies, which is why they started the war with very advanced night fighting capability on their big battlewagons. The had decided that the BB's would rule the night, the carriers owned the day and the subs would be the eyes of the fleet.

Worked very well for them early on, until losses and lack of replacement broke their strategy and left the IJN vulnerable to allied air power.

HotelBushranger
10-30-2007, 02:05 AM
Pre 1939 and the Winter War, the Finnish government spent millions of markka's on buying the Väinämöinen and the Ilmarinen coastal defence ships. Think how many more planes the FAF could have had, or tanks or vehicles, or updated equipment (especially radios) the Finnish Army could have had before the outbreak of hostilities http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif Especially considering the 2 ships had basically no role in the Winter War, and only a bombardment role in the Continuation War, and were up against the whole Baltic Sea fleet.

woofiedog
10-30-2007, 02:31 AM
badaboom.1... Great shot of the USS Missouri BB-63. You wouldn't have a few more to share by chance? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Skoshi Tiger
10-30-2007, 03:14 AM
Back in the good old days (late 80's???) the USS Missouri paid a visit to Fremantle in West Oz, unfortunately she was too big to enter the port so she anchored off the coast.

So me and my Bro's and our girl friends threw a carton (case) of beer into my dad's boat and went for a visit. In those days you could get up fairly close without being labeled a terroist or protestor, so as we were going slowly around one of the sailors waved at us.

My Brother yelled out "Do you want us to send up one of the women?" and he replied "NO! we've got those, just throw up the BEER!"

Until you get up close to a battleship it's hard to understand the awe and sense of power they present!

gdfo
10-30-2007, 03:49 AM
While I agree that the Iowa class Battleships were the best representation of the entire class, and were used in Korea and Desert Storm, for what they cost to run and the relative effectiveness, OTHER weapons are less expensive and equally or more effective.

The Tirpitz is a prime example of what I mean. As a fighting ship it was a failure as a ruse it was successful.

Look what happened at Leyte Gulf where a group of US Destroyers and Destroyer Escorts beat off an attack by IJN Battleships and Cruisers when they began shelling one of the TAFFY groups.

I loved the old Battlewagons.

joeap
10-30-2007, 06:34 AM
Strange but battleships saw more action, I mean fired their guns at other ships and at shore targets more often in WWII then WWI.

MEGILE
10-30-2007, 07:22 AM
Maybe they were a big fat deterrent.

Just throwing it out there.

Blutarski2004
10-30-2007, 08:20 AM
Dreadnought battleships were the ultimate arbiters of sea power through the 1920's. Submarines presented a minor threat only to properly escorted battleships during that period of time. To the best of my memory no dreadnought was sunk by submarine attack during WW1 [although a number of obsolete PRE-dreadnoughts were].

Dive-bombing and aerial torpedoes certainly did demote the battleship from its premier position as a naval weapon, but they did not make it obsolete.

The fast battleship took on a new role as an effective carrier escort, protecting them from both surface attack and aerial attack. US BB's for example carried absolutely prodigious number of AA weapons and acted much like "umbrellas" for the carriers.

As mentioned before, the older BB's provided a massive shore bombardment capability. While I agree that their pre-landing shore bombardment of Japanese prepared atoll defences did not altogrther live up to expectations [principally due to the flat trajectory nature of their main batteries], their presence offshore meant that there was NO Japanese defensive structure within reach that, once located, could withstand attack by BB main batteries; no other ships had this capability. BB's were also order of magnitude more accurate than a/c in delivery of their munitions, had a much shorter reaction time than an air strike, and could deliver much greater amounts of ordnance within any given unit of time. A single salvo, say 4 or 5 guns, delivered 4 to 5 tons of ordnance accurately on target. Each such salvo was the equivalent of at least flight of fighter-bombers. A battleship could do that once per minute for as long as necessary.

Provided that a batleship had air cover, it remained a useful weapon during WW2. Much the same could be said for any other weapon in WW2. Air cover was the key. IMO, while the aircraft carrier superceded the battleship as the naval weapon system of premier importance, it did not make it obsolete.

Daiichidoku
10-30-2007, 08:30 AM
surprised no-one has mentioned the normandy invasion yet (specifically), as naval bombardment really helped bollox up getting reinforcements to the battle line proper

this is one of the factors that could have made securing the beachhead (and holding it) impossible to accomplish without it

jarink
10-30-2007, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by gdfo:
For the cost of 1 battleship perhaps several Aircraft carriers and/or Destroyers could have been built.

Hmmm. I read a looong time ago that the cost of building a BB was actually not that much greater than building an Essex-class carrier. When you talk about costs, don't forget to include the cost of the aircraft in the carrier's air wing. 80+ planes (even in WWII) can cost quite a bit of money!

Adding in the human element evens out the score even further. How much (and how long) does it cost to train a hundred-something naval aviatiors compared to the enlisted gun crews on a BB?

As for the BB's effectiveness, they did have their moments. Naval gunfire was very effective in Normandy. DDs and cruisers quickly lost their usefulness after D-Day since they didn't have the range to fire very far inland. Pre-invasion bombardments weren't very effective in the Pacific, true, but that would apply to both ship and aerial bombardment. A lot of people also forget that the later-war US "fast" battleships (South Dakota and Iowa classes) were extremely effective AA platforms, (The Iowas had a nominal AA armament of 20 5" guns, 80 40mm guns and 50 20mm guns!) which is whey were included in the fast carrier task forces.

Where BBs had their greatest effect was as a "fleet in being". Their presence and the threat of their power was used to cause the enemy to change plans or dilute combat power. Sure, the Tirpitz never really fought a successful battle, but look at the resources (naval and air) that the US and UK dedicated to countering her threat!

general_kalle
10-30-2007, 08:48 AM
Bismarck the most powerful Battleship in the world.
beaten not by but due to an Obsolate Biplane Torpedo bomber, the Swordfish... which came from a carrier

ya battleships sunk it but that could aswell have been divebombers or more torpedos

zardozid
10-30-2007, 09:08 AM
Battleships where/are not obsolete/useless...they simple did not "Rule Supreme" after the widespread deployment of aircraft carriers and submarines.

If two armada's where to meet at sea for a "slug fest" to the death. And they where of equal strength aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers, supply ships, submarines...but one armada was equipped with Battleships and the other not. The armada with the big guns could bombard the other from beyond the range of the others "light cruisers". Granted this is an over simplified scenario that is weather dependent,(airplanes can't fly), but it "could" happen...Many WW2 sea battles had an element of good or bad luck...

Kurfurst__
10-30-2007, 09:23 AM
Midway is pretty good counter-example to the above... One side had some excellent Battleships, but they never came into use (I`ve always wondered about why the IJN did not make a push for it, though..)

Otherwise, Battleships, as the ultimate surface warship at the time, were indeed very useful and their presence was indeed very important. This may be less visible on the surface, but that`s because the other side acknowledged that and tried to avoid unequal combat with a battleship. There are plenty of examples of how much of a deterrant the presence of a battleship could be, it`s presence in itself would often alter enemy plans without having to fire a single shot.. Narvik, Tirpitz and PQ17, Med convoy battles, old RN BBs escorting convoys are just a few examples. If battleships/battlecruisers would not exist, you`d bet cruisers would have been far more of a headache for convoys, but in the real world, their operations had to belimited in face of superior vessels (ie. BBs).

How more daring cruiser raiders would have been, had they did not have to worry about the presence of a much superior vessel in the convoy, that could blast them out of the water in a matter of minutes if they`d foolishly come closer..?

BBs could simply do tasks other ships would have been incapable of. They can sustain their presence and control the surface waters, easily overpower all other smaller surface vessels and fight enemy BBs. How do you protect a convoy/coastline with a carrier (and I mean a carrier smaller sized than a battleship, so that it would be actually cheaper) from sustained attack, for example? In bad weather? During the night? If the enemy suddenly turns up within visual range? If it keeps coming?

What really killed the battleship was not aircraft carriers. Come to think about it, aircraft carriers didn`t kill off other smaller surface vessels, which are very similiar to BBs in their combat profile, just smaller. The fact that they`re retained in modern navies show that the carrier can`t solve all problems alone, you still need guns, and you still need surface vessels capable of fighting surface vessels.

What really killed BBs were tactical nukes, and large, guided warheads beyond the scale against which a ship of any size can hope to offer protection.

Sergio_101
10-30-2007, 11:04 AM
Wrong again Kurfie/Barbie/Izzy.
(or should I say wrong as usual?)
Battleships were killed off by carriers.
The evidence is overwhelming.

Sinking of the Italian fleet in Taranto.
Japanese devestation at Pearl Harbor.
Bizmarck, stopped by a obsolete biplane. (yes, sunk by a massive dose of overkill later).
Yamato, sunk by massive Naval airpower.
Musashi, sunk by massive Naval airpower.
Tirpitz was destroyed by surface bombers. But Aircraft proved the key again.


Funny thing, a greater threat to BB's is torpedoes and large iron bombs than traditional nukes.
In the Abel and Baker tests at Bikini the USS Nevada
survived nearly direct hits
by two 50 kiloton atomic devises.
But the crew would have been dead within weeks from radiation.
IJN Nagato also survived the airburst with no significant damage.
After the underwater test Nagato was likely salvable, but allowed
to sink at anchor.

The expenature of a weapon large enough
to destroy a BB would be prohibitive.
However, a direct hit, preferably a penetrating hit
would do the job.
A nuclear tipped torpedo would sink any ship
like shooting a melon with a 8MM Mauser.

Carriers are equally vulnerable to large precision nukes.
Notice there are lots of them still in service.

Sergio

badaboom.1
10-30-2007, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by woofiedog:
badaboom.1... Great shot of the USS Missouri BB-63. You wouldn't have a few more to share by chance? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Why Woofie,Yes....YES I DO!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gifI never thought you would ask!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

I hope you guys dont mind if I post a few of "THE MIGHTY MO"BB-63 Missouri at Ford Island Pearl Harbour Hawaii

The Business end of the MO 16"inchers
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v27/badaboom/Picture013.jpg
Looking from The Arizona Memorial site
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v27/badaboom/Picture008.jpg
A look from mid-deck
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v27/badaboom/Picture020.jpg
The end of the war
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v27/badaboom/Picture018.jpg

ElAurens
10-30-2007, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by general_kalle:
Bismarck the most powerful Battleship in the world.


Probably not in reality. Just it's post war hype. Any US BB from North Carolina on was far better in every measureable way.

The only reason the Brits had so much trouble was they got too close.

Sergio_101
10-30-2007, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by general_kalle:
Bismarck the most powerful Battleship in the world.


Probably not in reality. Just it's post war hype. Any US BB from North Carolina on was far better in every measureable way.

The only reason the Brits had so much trouble was they got too close. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will argue that, as a operational Battleship
the Bismarck was likely the best non carrier surface
weapon at the time.
All of the US 16" battleships were superior But legally the US was not in the fight yet.

Bismarck in the context of it's time was a dangerous
weapon to any non carrier.
Few understood yet that carriers had replaced the Battleship
as the ultimate capitol ship.

BUT yes! The brits could have destroyed Bismarck far more safely and easily.
But that was not an option in the panic when
Bismarck went to war. It had to be stopped
at all cost. Massive over kill and agressivness made
for easier targets, and the Hood's crew
paid the ultimate price.

Sergio

Blutarski2004
10-30-2007, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Wrong again Kurfie/Barbie/Izzy.
(or should I say wrong as usual?)
Battleships were killed off by carriers.
The evidence is overwhelming.

Sinking of the Italian fleet in Taranto.
Japanese devestation at Pearl Harbor.
Bizmarck, stopped by a obsolete biplane. (yes, sunk by a massive dose of overkill later).
Yamato, sunk by massive Naval airpower.
Musashi, sunk by massive Naval airpower.
Tirpitz was destroyed by surface bombers. But Aircraft proved the key again.


..... I think you have misunderstood K's comments. Within the overall context of an airpower dominated war [I don't think anyone would disagree the WW2 qualified as such], the BB remained a valuable weapon of war. It had capabilities available with no other platform.

All your citations [except Tirpitz] involve surprise attacks and/or attacks upon targets lacking any air cover. The RAF must have mounted 1,000's of sorties in order to finally destroy Tirpitz. It took something like 300 sorties to sink a defenceless [in terms of air cover] Yamato. Give air cover to Yamato or to Repulse and PoW and the situation alters dramatically. How many US BB's were sunk at sea by the IJN?

WOLFMondo
10-30-2007, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by joeap:
Strange but battleships saw more action, I mean fired their guns at other ships and at shore targets more often in WWII then WWI.

Lots and lots of fire support I guess.

joeap
10-30-2007, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:


..... I think you have misunderstood K's comments. Within the overall context of an airpower dominated war [I don't think anyone would disagree the WW2 qualified as such], the BB remained a valuable weapon of war. It had capabilities available with no other platform.

All your citations [except Tirpitz] involve surprise attacks and/or attacks upon targets lacking any air cover. The RAF must have mounted 1,000's of sorties in order to finally destroy Tirpitz. It took something like 300 sorties to sink a defenceless [in terms of air cover] Yamato. Give air cover to Yamato or to Repulse and PoW and the situation alters dramatically. How many US BB's were sunk at sea by the IJN?

I agree with you and Kurfurst. A more important reason carriers replaced battleships is simply they could fly and hit targets much farther than a BB's guns. They could also hit more kinds of targets, even subs (though fleet carriers were not as good as the small expendable CVEs, ask HMS Courageous). They could also defend against enemy airpower better, no matter how many AA guns...the best defence was still some fighters.

gdfo
10-30-2007, 07:13 PM
Times and technology change faster than symbols.

The Battleship as we think of it is a great but outmoded symbol and also expensive. No one has built any since WW2. Many of those were built because they were already in progress. The designs of the Germans for the BB after Bismark and Tirpitz were never built due to expense and effectiveness. They switches to Sub warfare for good reason.
The fantasy slugfest between Battleships was few and far between. And it was aircraft who made the Bismark crippled enough for the Brits to finish her off. Brit ships actually fired on thier own planes to keep them from further attacks on the doomed Bismark.

Even when Olendorff crossed the T in the battle of Leyte Gulf much of the damage to the IJN was due to smaller ships.

Athosd
10-30-2007, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by gdfo:
..Brit ships actually fired on thier own planes to keep them from further attacks on the doomed Bismark...


Source please

gdfo
10-31-2007, 03:57 AM
The 'source' are the pilots who went after the Bismark after she was already crippled.

joeap
10-31-2007, 04:56 AM
Originally posted by gdfo:
The 'source' are the pilots who went after the Bismark after she was already crippled.

You spoke with them? This is a big revelation! Where is it published, or actually where did you read they were fired on by their own ships?

I hope you're not confusing the mistaken attack on the HMS Sheffield before the attack that crippled Bismarck.

No seriously, if you say the source is from the pilots, where was this published because I've never heard this before.

Philipscdrw
10-31-2007, 05:51 AM
I understand that, because the battleships were so expensive, admirals could not dare to risk them and kept them away from combat. i.e. Jutland

Heard a theory that the German battleships did their biggest damage in diverting British resources into sinking them. Ships and aircraft and crews which could otherwise be doing something more useful were instead used on battleship hunts...

woofiedog
10-31-2007, 06:15 AM
badaboom.1... Extremely Mint photos... really like the one looking down at the main turrets from the bridge.

A Big Thank's for sharing! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/Picture004.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/Picture003.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/Picture087.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/Picture091.jpg

Ratsack
10-31-2007, 06:46 AM
Woofie,

What is that half mangled object next to the shell?

cheers,
Ratsack

Blutarski2004
10-31-2007, 06:58 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
Woofie,

What is that half mangled object next to the shell?

cheers,
Ratsack


..... It's the broken nose of a 16-inch AP projectile after having lost its ballistic and AP caps.

leitmotiv
10-31-2007, 07:50 AM
The U.S. was unable to sink a battleship with bombs and torpedoes in 1942---HIEI---because the U.S. did not possess an armor-piercing aircraft bomb (the 1,000-lb. AP bomb did not enter service until 1943), and because U.S. aerial/destroyer/submarine torpedoes were very unlikely to explode against their target. HIEI was crippled by an 8" shell fired by cruiser SAN FRANCISCO which destroyed her steering engine. The next day all the bombers on Henderson swarmed over her, but were unable to inflict significant damage. She was scuttled in the evening despite orders by Yamamoto to save her. Her sister ship, KIRISHIMA, was demolished by WASHINGTON in a matter of minutes by 16" AP.

It took a mass attack by Task Force 58's fleet carriers to sink YAMATO in 1945.

Battleships were in far greater danger in European waters because the Germans had effective AP bombs and pinpoint delivery systems (the Ju 87 and Ju 88)---and the Royal Navy had completely ineffective AA defense for their warships due to the lack of a modern high-angle fire control director, and lack of effective close-in defense (the .50 cal. quad was useless, and the 2-pdr pom-pom's range was too short). Not until they were able to fit massed batteries of 20mm cannons in 1942-43 did they have a fair close-in defense.

The Germans had superb tachymetric high-angle directors for their big ships, but their close-in defense was mediocre due to the failure of the twin 37mm medium AA mount, and due to an awkward mount for their single 20mm guns.

Two things made air attack on U.S. warships nearly suicidal by 1943-45: the proximity-fuzed shell for the 5" high-angle gun, and the Bofors 40mm gun. Add air superiority and radar into the mix, and the Japanese were unable to effectively attack the fast carriers and battleships until they resorted to suicide attacks in 1944.

The matter of the battleship is very complex. The control of the Mediterranean in 1940-41 was largely decided by battleships. The Italians mounted all their major convoy attacks with battleships. When the British had their battleship strength in the Med chopped by the loss of BARHAM and the wrecking of QUEEN ELIZABETH and VALIANT in the fall of 1941, they lost their ability to dispute Italian control of the Western Med. Thus, in early 1942 Rommel received a glut of supplies after nearly being cut off in 1941.

British battleships were shown to be impotent in the face of Luftwaffe attacks off of Norway when they were not defended by fighters from ARK ROYAL and GLORIOUS. On the other hand, in the same campaign, WARSPITE single-handedly destroyed the German destroyer flotilla in Narvik in a classic surface action. RENOWN drove off SCHARNHORST and GNEISENAU from a covering position off Narvik in a gunnery action.

A hit by PRINCE OF WALES forced BISMARCK to abort her sortie into the Atlantic. SCHARNHORST and GNEISENAU severely disrupted British trade in their lengthy raiding sortie into the Atlantic in winter 1941.

Battleships were part of the combined arms of WWII navies. Aircraft carriers were usually impotent at night because most of their air units were not night trained. They needed battleships to cover them from warships at night. American battleships were formidable AA platforms to defend the carriers. In the Marianas battle of June 1944, Spruance placed his battleship task force on the distant flank of his carriers to absorb the main blow of the Japanese air attacks. The battleships and Hellcats minced the Japanese strikes.

WWII saw naval forces in transition. PRINCE OF WALES and REPULSE were lost because Churchill sent them to the Far East without the fleet carrier they were supposed to have with them. Admiral Phillips who was in command did not believe aircraft could sink battleships despite what was learned in Norway and Crete and in the BISMARCK foray. No battleship had been sunk at sea by airplanes until they were sunk in Dec 1941. Churchill believed the battleship was still capable of intimidating a hostile power. He miscalculated, but nobody in the West had any idea how effective the Japanese naval air force was until Dec 1941.

woofiedog
10-31-2007, 07:52 AM
Blutarski2004... you must have been out to the Cove. Great place to visit.

USS Massachusetts (BB-59) (http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/battleships/massachusetts/bb59-mass.html)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/Picture085.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/Picture084.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/Picture002.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/Picture081.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/Picture074.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/Picture113.jpg

gdfo
10-31-2007, 03:12 PM
You spoke with them? This is a big revelation! Where is it published, or actually where did you read they were fired on by their own ships?

I hope you're not confusing the mistaken attack on the HMS Sheffield before the attack that crippled Bismarck.

I have in my posession a VHS tape of a series that I saw on PBS. This particular series was about the Hood and Bismark. In it a british explorer (ala Robert Ballard) found the Hood and Also found the Bismark. The lone surviving Hood crew member was featured in the series along with some of the Pilots from Ark Royal and some of the German survivers from Bismark.

On the tape I have one of the pilots who was involved in all of the action against the Bismark recounted the Sheffield incident but also went on to describe the attack that crippled the Bismark and then they tried to attack again as the British forces closed on the Bismark. He stated that his own ships shot at the 'stringbags' to warn us off as the ships wanted to get even for the Hood.

No seriously, if you say the source is from the pilots, where was this published because I've never heard this before.

badaboom.1
10-31-2007, 03:56 PM
Great Pics Woofie,Thanks for sharing,looks like it was a great trip to THE COVE!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Sergio_101
11-01-2007, 01:10 AM
What I pointed out in reference to Kurfie/barbi/izzy's
comments was primarily that nukes finally did in the BB's.

Not at all true.

Yes it takes a lot of planes to sink a BB.
But the point is that those Battleships never
managed a shot at the attacking carriers.
300 or 3,000 planes, it does not matter.

What finally did in the Battleships was two things.
Good accurate cruise missles and long range smaller
naval guns.
Today there are 5" guns that can fire 25 miles.
Cruise missles can hit at thousands of miles.


"KIRISHIMA, was demolished by WASHINGTON in a matter of minutes by 16" AP"

My source says it was mostly HE rounds.
But the point is well made.
In a BB vs BB fight the US should dominate
with the 16" guns.
Even the 18" Jap guns were not better
and fired more slowly.

But you fail to mention that Krishima faced two US Battleships that night.
USS North Dakota BB-29 was there but had a electrical problem that forced it out of the fight early.

Same source says KIRISHIMA, was almost certainly scuttled in the end.

My uncle was aboard Washington, a gunnery officer. ;-)
Unfortunately he's passed on, so it is a bit tough to pass on any more questions.

Sergio

woofiedog
11-01-2007, 01:44 AM
A modern Battleship or Battlecruiser? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

In December 1977 the Baltic Shipyard in Leningrad launched the largest warship other than aircraft carriers built by any nation since World War II. Commissioned into Soviet fleet service in 1980s Kirov was assigned the RKR (Raketnyy Kreyser, or missile cruiser) designation by the Soviets and a CGN designation by the Americans. Planned initially to find and engage enemy missile submarines, it became a much more capable warship when it was equipped with the long-range P-700 Granit anti-ship missile. In appearance and firepower Kirov is more like a battle cruiser than a normal missile cruiser.

Its powerplant is unique in being a combined nuclear and steam system. Two reactors are coupled to oil-fired boilers that superheat the steam produced in the reactor plant to increase the power output available during high-speed running.

Most of the weapons systems are located forward of the massive superstructure. The stern is used to house machinery and a below-deck helicopter hangar, which accesses the flight deck via a lift. Up to five Ka-27 Helix helicopters can be accommodated in the hangar, though a normal complement is three.

The helicopters are a mix of ASW and missile-guidance/Elint variants. The latter provide target data for the main battery of 20 Granit (SS-N-19 Shipwreck) Mach-2.5 anti-ship cruise missiles, located below decks forward in 45? angled launch tubes.


http://www.military-today.com/navy/kirov_class.jpg

Kirov class (http://www.military-today.com/navy/kirov_class.htm)

joeap
11-01-2007, 04:21 AM
Originally posted by gdfo:

I have in my posession a VHS tape of a series that I saw on PBS. This particular series was about the Hood and Bismark. In it a british explorer (ala Robert Ballard) found the Hood and Also found the Bismark. The lone surviving Hood crew member was featured in the series along with some of the Pilots from Ark Royal and some of the German survivers from Bismark.

On the tape I have one of the pilots who was involved in all of the action against the Bismark recounted the Sheffield incident but also went on to describe the attack that crippled the Bismark and then they tried to attack again as the British forces closed on the Bismark. He stated that his own ships shot at the 'stringbags' to warn us off as the ships wanted to get even for the Hood.



Well I've never heard this "conspiracy" before but just have 2 comments.

First off the Stringbags I doubt would have been a threat to actually sink the Bismarck as they had already done the most damage they could do with their torpedoes in hitting the rudder. I mean the expeditions did not find many or any penetrations of the hull by torpedoes IIRC. They could not carry bombs big enough to hurt Bismarck either.

Second is more practical...if the big ships are firing heavy shells at each other, do you really want to risk hitting your own planes by mistake. Even at the start with shell trajectories rather the planes would be at risk flying through all the splashes from misses.

So the pilot's theory makes no sense.

leitmotiv
11-01-2007, 04:59 AM
My source is BATTLESHIP AT WAR by Musicant (the history of WASHINGTON) re WASHINGTON's annihilation of KIRISHIMA. The account of the fight is entirely based on her After Action reports, and interviews with the ship's gunnery officer on the night of the battle. I have no doubt W used AP. USN doctrine called for only AP to be used against battleships. There was not even a 16" 45 cal. HE round available in 1942---WASHINGTON's complete load-out was AP. For that matter, HE would not have put K out of commission. SOUTH DAKOTA was out of the fight before she could fire at K. Latest Japanese sources claim K was not scuttled, she exploded, and went to the bottom after burning out of control. The wreck of K, found by Ballard, is lacking its bow suggesting a massive explosion.

JG53Frankyboy
11-01-2007, 05:31 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
.............. For that matter, HE would not have put K out of commission. ..............

perhaps it would (would they have existed , what they didnt as you claimed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )
the Kirishima could not be called a full Battleship.
It was more a kind of a british kind of WW1 Battlecruiser in its origin - even modified before the war. so its protection was not the best - compared to "real" BBs.

leitmotiv
11-01-2007, 06:49 AM
HE would have smashed up her upperworks, destroyed rangefinders, directors, perforated funnels, wrecked engine room intakes, but K's 9" belt would have kept out even 16" HE from her vitals. AP speared her in her guts and destroyed her fast and brutally.

Blutarski2004
11-01-2007, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
What I pointed out in reference to Kurfie/barbi/izzy's
comments was primarily that nukes finally did in the BB's.

Not at all true.

Yes it takes a lot of planes to sink a BB.
But the point is that those Battleships never
managed a shot at the attacking carriers.
300 or 3,000 planes, it does not matter.

.....Sergio, I don't think that anyone disputes that the aircraft carrier replaced the battleship as the principal naval platform in WW2. The position is that, although superceded, the battleship remained a valuable weapon system.




What finally did in the Battleships was two things.
Good accurate cruise missiles and long range smaller
naval guns.
Today there are 5" guns that can fire 25 miles.
Cruise missles can hit at thousands of miles.

..... Cruise missiles armed with conventional HE warheads pose little threat to a battleship armored as they were in WW2. DK Brown has commented that the warhead of an Exocet missile equates to a conventional 13.5-inch HE round in destructive force. Both would be defeated by 6-inch armor.

A conventional 16-inch gun of WW2 vintage could reach to 20 miles as a matter of course. Add the same technology as that applied to the 5-inch gun and you have 9 guns capable of reaching 100 miles [w/ terminal guidance to be sure] with a payload 40x greater per gun and all protected by heavy armor.

In their last periods of commission, the Iowa Class BB's carried numbers of Tomahawk cruise missiles themselves.

Anyways, getting back to topic, while the BB was no longer mistress of the seas in WW2, it was definitely a useful handmaiden to the new mistress, at least in the USN.

leitmotiv
11-01-2007, 12:47 PM
Right B, as usual. The cruise missile is the equivalent a battleship HE shell---lethal to the unarmored warships below the size of the contemporary American armored supercarriers. That's right, folks, in order for the carrier to survive it had to borrow the massive size, and massive armor of the battleship. Thus, the modern American carrier became a battleship with airplanes instead of big guns. The Americans recognized the error of building carriers without heavy flight deck armor during WWII, and corrected the mistake with the colossal armored flight deck MIDWAY class carriers---the first of which just missed participating in the war. They were the prototypes of the modern supercarrier.

Had not there been the Oerlikon, Bofors, radar AA barrage directors, tachymetric high-angle directors, and the proximity-fuzed shell Japanese aircraft would have had a field day---look at their job on POW, REPULSE, HERMES, CORNWALL, and DORSETSHIRE to see what they could do against ships with primitive AA systems. The U.S. Navy was extremely fortunate it recognized the need for all that was listed above. Even with only part of the final system in place in 1942, the first major Japanese confrontation with the firepower generated by U.S. warships in a carrier task force, Coral Sea, was scarifying to the Japanese aircrews. Because of the inefficiency of radar fighter direction in 1942, the primary defense of the U.S. carriers was by gun in the classic carrier battles of that year. The ship which made the greatest impression was the battleship SOUTH DAKOTA in the Santa Cruz battle which laid on a fantastic wall of fire to protect ENTERPRISE. The hapless HORNET, which only had cruisers and destroyers to protect her in this battle, was wrecked by the best-executed coordinated dive bomber-torpedo bomber attack the Japanese conducted in the war.

jarink
11-01-2007, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by woofiedog:
A modern Battleship or Battlecruiser? :surp

Battlecruiser. It lacks the armor protection necessary to call it a BB.

M_Gunz
11-01-2007, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
No battleship had been sunk at sea by airplanes until they were sunk in Dec 1941.

The ones at Pearl were in the harbor.

Was it Curtiss who demonstrated air power vs big ships in the 30's?
Yamamoto was going to school in the US and did see enough dive bombing exhibitions to recognize
the truth that "my budget" minded politicians and US Admirals would not.

What's a salvo of all-weather, non-interceptable, 20 mile range 2000-lb blockbusters worth?

Really, every carrier group should have one.

ploughman
11-01-2007, 02:31 PM
I think Leit was referring to Force Z, Prince of Wales and Repulse sunk off of Malaya, Dec 10, 1941.

leitmotiv
11-01-2007, 02:53 PM
PRINCE and REP were the first battleships sunk at sea on 10 Dec 1941. Noteworthy, it wasn't until 1943 another was sunk at sea by an aircraft---ROMA, which was sunk by the radio-controlled Fritz-X AP bomb. Then, it was not until more than a year later another was sunk, MUSASHI, in October 1944, and it took a mass attack to put her under. The next battleship sunk at sea by aircraft was YAMATO in April 1945. Thus, in the entire Second World War the supposedly invincible aircraft claimed only five dreadnoughts at sea, and four were sunk by massed attacks.

Billy Mitchell's Martin bombers sank the unmanned OSTFRIESLAND with bombs in 1922. Interestingly, the damage which sank the old dreadnought was not caused by direct hits, but near-misses by the large bombs which mined her hull

leitmotiv
11-01-2007, 06:56 PM
Where the aircraft asserted its superiority over the battleship was when they were forced to leave the open seas where they could maneuver, and retire to port. GNEISENAU was torpedoed in port by a Beaufort, and had her entire bow blown off after being hit by a bomb. SCHARNHORST was badly damaged by an aircraft bomb. Nobody needs to be reminded of what happened at Taranto and Pearl Harbor. ISE, HYUGA, and HARUNA were all sunk in port by USN air attack. PRINCE OF WALES was damaged by bombing while fitting out. TIRPITZ was sunk by Tallboys. "Pocket battleships" LUTZOW and SCHEER were sunk by bombs while in port (LUTZOW, in the biggest example of overkill in WWII, was sunk by Grand Slam 22,000-pound bombs).

ploughman
11-02-2007, 04:28 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
"Pocket battleships" LUTZOW and SCHEER were sunk by bombs while in port (LUTZOW, in the biggest example of overkill in WWII, was sunk by Grand Slam 22,000-pound bombs).

Ouch! I look forward to the 617 Mod for SoW.

I note Hitler's holiday retreat at Berchtesgarten was Grand Slammed, that's some high level hate and definately a nominee for most overly killed WWII target.

woofiedog
11-02-2007, 06:21 AM
jarink... The Kirov class might not have the steel/cement/waterjacketed armor of the older Battlewagons.

But I wouldn't be surprized if there wasn't some type of layered or double hull with some extra steel/Chobham type armor in the machine/weapon areas.

WWSensei
11-02-2007, 10:08 AM
The aircraft more than dethroned the BBs from premier status. May not have sank many but forced many in port or avoiding battle altogether. A "Battleship" that can't "battle" may as well be sunk and not chew resources.

Took a lot of aircraft to sink the Yamato? and how many ships did the Yamato sink? Midway?--0. Santa Cruz?--0, Battles for Guadalcanal? Did not even participate as she was anchored at Truk for fear of losing her. First time she ever really fires her guns at the enemy? June of 1944....at aircraft....which turned out to be Japanese.

How did she do in the Marianas? Nada. Leyte Gulf? Nothing. Leads the Battle of Palawan Passage where her overwhelming influence in the battle was to pick up Kurita after the Cruisers Atago and Maya are sunk and the Takao is heavily damaged.

She doesn't actually get any credit for sinking a ship until they ran into Taffy 3. An escort carrier. Give her credit for a couple of destroyers and destroyer escorts as well. After all, it took three of four them to fight her to standstill for over two hours before they lost out. Arguably, it only accomplished that because Halsey went trapsing off after the remaining Japaese carriers to the north--after all, they considered the carriers a bigger threat.

For most the war she was a glorified floating hotel. She didn't even shoot down that many aircraft in total. Her one and only real big engagement ended with her sinking.

Some were made useful because they already had them, most higher ups in the Navy were still BB advocates and found ways to use them, but the reality was they did nothing to help a nations navy achieve it's goals. Look at Pearl Harbor and Midway for examples. They attack on Pearl harbor destroyed the US BB Pacific capability.

It gave the Japanese a 6 month advantage.

Which was lost at Midway when they lost 4 carriers. The battle that turned the tide of the war from one side to another was fought and won without a single BB firing a shot or being sunk--they were irrelevant. The Japanese had BB superiority for a good portion of 1942 and it meant absolutely nothing.

Did they do some good/provide some usefulness? Absolutely, but they were not the masters of the sea nor were they major contributors. What they did accomplish they did so because the carriers had already done the heavy lifting allowing the BBs to finally contribute to the war.

Sort of like the sword after firearms became prolific. Still a weapon, still used on occasion, but no longer relevant to changing world events like it once did.

Kurfurst__
11-02-2007, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
I note Hitler's holiday retreat at Berchtesgarten was Grand Slammed, that's some high level hate and definately a nominee for most overly killed WWII target.

Perhaps the bunker? I don`t think they`d the holiday house itself Grand Slammed, because it`s still there.. uhm, so is most of the bunker as a matter of fact.

leitmotiv
11-02-2007, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
"Pocket battleships" LUTZOW and SCHEER were sunk by bombs while in port (LUTZOW, in the biggest example of overkill in WWII, was sunk by Grand Slam 22,000-pound bombs).

Ouch! I look forward to the 617 Mod for SoW.

I note Hitler's holiday retreat at Berchtesgarten was Grand Slammed, that's some high level hate and definately a nominee for most overly killed WWII target. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Definitely a 617 mod for displacing anger after a bad day. Drop a Grand Slam on anything for superior gratification. What amazes me is that the Lancs could haul 22,000 pounds to 20,000 feet for the drop. What an airplane.

luftluuver
11-02-2007, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Perhaps the bunker? I don`t think they`d the holiday house itself Grand Slammed, because it`s still there.. uhm, so is most of the bunker as a matter of fact.
Has someone has made his pilgrimage to his mecca. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Sergio_101
11-02-2007, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Perhaps the bunker? I don`t think they`d the holiday house itself Grand Slammed, because it`s still there.. uhm, so is most of the bunker as a matter of fact.
Has someone has made his pilgrimage to his mecca. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LMAO!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif
Sergio

JG6_Oddball
11-02-2007, 02:46 PM
goering really did help the allies win the war http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=434

p.s the german battleships had the same the effect the tiger tanks did...NO ALLIED soldier wanted them around.

S!

Sergio_101
11-03-2007, 02:10 AM
Ok, lets take an intelligent look at what a Battle Ship was by mid war.

It was a very heavily armed and armoured gun platform.

Far from being worthless, it was a very effective
and more or less impregnable floating fortress.

What really changed was the need for air superiority and
a complete task force. Aircraft carriers, submarines destroyers etc.

Even into the early 1990's a Battleship was a nice thing to have
in your battle group.
All non nuclear anti ship missles would have found it impossible
to take one out.
Even the famed "Exorcet" would have done little except scortch the paint.

Where a Battle Ship was useless was the old style hunter/raider
role.
Germany made a poor decision to send any surface ship out as a raider after
the loss of Graf Spea at Montevedeo.

It is not that the Bismarck or Tirpitz was a bad weapon.
They may have been second to any 16" gun American BB, but they
were effective weapons. What rendered them useless and worse, a liability
was the total lack of anything resembling a modern battle group
in the German navy. No carriers especially rendered them worthless.

Then why the fuss about Bismark when it went to sea?
Left alone the damage would have made the cruise of the Graf Spea
look like a vacation tour.

Same went for Yamato and Mushashi.
Any BB left to it's own devises was a massive threat.
But alone they simply "chew up resources" and place
a lot of precious steel and manpower at the mercy of the new capital ship.
The aircraft carrier.

Bismark, Yamato, Mushashi, Graffspea, Prince of wales and the US BB's at Pearl Habour
all posed a threat that had to be neutralised (I missed a few, sorry).

Just think, for 1% of the cost of a Battleship, a "Jeep Carrier" loaded with cheap aircraft
could easily take out a Battleship before the enemy ever got within sight.

Sergio

rfap
11-03-2007, 02:59 AM
You're all forgetting Rudel, his Stuka and the battleship Marat!

Sergio_101
11-03-2007, 08:42 AM
Originally posted by rfap:
You're all forgetting Rudel, his Stuka and the battleship Marat!

Not a Battleship by 1940's standards.
But just like at Midway it points to the battleship's
#1 enemy, big heavy iron bombs delivered by dive bombers.

By the way, "Marat" continued to provide heavy gunfire
throughout the siege of Leningrad
despite being "sunk".
Any BB is tough.....

"Marat was raised in 1950 and served as the training ship Volkhov until finally being scrapped in 1952."

Sergio

Kurfurst__
11-03-2007, 08:55 AM
The Battleship(s) Marat after Rudel`s hit :

http://www.wlb-stuttgart.de/seekrieg/4109-bilder/marat-2b.jpg

Make your own conclusions. IMHO, the crew was lucky that the ship was in shallow water when it was teared apart.

JtD
11-03-2007, 02:20 PM
In the Artic and Mediterrainian battleships were of crucial importance. It could be argued that due to their impact in these theatres the BB was a decisive weapon strongly influencing the outcome of the war in Europe.

Simply put, without BB's no convoys would have made it past Malta and no convoys would have made it past the North cape. This would have decided North Africa and could have decided both the war on the Eastern front and the survival of Britain.

Sergio_101
11-03-2007, 03:59 PM
Yes Kurfie/Barbie/Izzy, we agree.
The damage was catastrophic.
And the Marat would have been rendered useless in only
a few more feet of water.

The re-floating of the Marat was more of Joe Stalin's
insanity. Just another way to snub the Germans.
It was a useless ship by 1945, why re-float it and make it operational?

Marat was a "kill" for certain.

Sergio

Sergio_101
11-03-2007, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
In the Artic and Mediterrainian battleships were of crucial importance. It could be argued that due to their impact in these theatres the BB was a decisive weapon strongly influencing the outcome of the war in Europe.

Simply put, without BB's no convoys would have made it past Malta and no convoys would have made it past the North cape. This would have decided North Africa and could have decided both the war on the Eastern front and the survival of Britain.

Germany had little that it could do against BBs
except submarines. The most effective weapon was
dive bombing, and most dedicated dive bombers
lacked range.

Again the lack of carriers for the European AXIS "powers" crippled them.

Of course if Germany had operational carriers
the allies would have dealt with them in a similar
manner as was dealt to Yamato, Bismarck and the others.
Massive over kill.

Sergio

JtD
11-04-2007, 04:12 AM
Again the lack of carriers for the European AXIS "powers" crippled them.

Actually, German battleships sunk more carriers than vice versa.

British battleships sunk more German battleships than British carriers.

In the Med the story was different, but there land based Axis air power could in theory provide sufficient backup.

But for the Northern regions, there is no way carriers could replace battleships as the most important instrument of sea power. BB's had to operate in weather conditions that made air operations impossible.
http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/smallrenown.gif

gdfo
11-04-2007, 04:54 AM
During WW2 the Major waring nations had Battleships. Those ships were used.

My point is for what they cost and what they actually accomplished compared to lighter and faster ships was not enough to justify building more of them and in fact most new builds were stopped in favor of faster lighter ships. To defend a carrier group don't you need ships that can keep the same speed as the carriers?

OK. Some one mentioned how many planes and sortees it took to sink the Yamato. Those planes were a lot less expensive to produce than the Yamato and the Y was crewed by almost 2000 compared to the couple of hundred who were bombing and torpedoeing her.

luftluuver
11-04-2007, 05:01 AM
Originally posted by gdfo:
OK. Some one mentioned how many planes and sortees it took to sink the Yamato. Those planes were a lot less expensive to produce than the Yamato and the Y was crewed by almost 2000 compared to the couple of hundred who were bombing and torpedoeing her.
How many in the crew of the carrier(s) that launched those a/c?

joeap
11-04-2007, 05:21 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Yes Kurfie/Barbie/Izzy, we agree.
The damage was catastrophic.
And the Marat would have been rendered useless in only
a few more feet of water.

The re-floating of the Marat was more of Joe Stalin's
insanity. Just another way to snub the Germans.
It was a useless ship by 1945, why re-float it and make it operational?

Marat was a "kill" for certain.

Sergio

Funny, the remaining turrets could and did fire to defend Leningrad which was their main role anyway. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

woofiedog
11-04-2007, 05:57 AM
The guns from the HMS Hood are still around to this day and also played a role during WWII.

Hood's 5.5" Guns in the Faroe Islands (http://www.hmshood.com/hoodtoday/faeroegun.htm)

<A HREF="http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_55-50_mk1.htm" TARGET=_blank>British
5.5"/50 (14 cm) BL Mark I </A>

JtD
11-04-2007, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by gdfo:

My point is for what they cost and what they actually accomplished compared to lighter and faster ships was not enough to justify building more of them and in fact most new builds were stopped in favor of faster lighter ships. To defend a carrier group don't you need ships that can keep the same speed as the carriers?

Let's assume the RN had not built any new battleships. How would it have stopped the Bismarck from wrecking havoc all across the North Atlantic?

BB's were not reduced to carrier escorts and shore bombardment everywhere and/or since the beginning of WW2.

In general, you are probably right, the high costs for battleships did not pay off everywhere and/or on average. If you, however, want to say that all battleships generally were ineffective, then you are wrong.

Sergio_101
11-04-2007, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Again the lack of carriers for the European AXIS "powers" crippled them.

Actually, German battleships sunk more carriers than vice versa.

British battleships sunk more German battleships than British carriers.

In the Med the story was different, but there land based Axis air power could in theory provide sufficient backup.

But for the Northern regions, there is no way carriers could replace battleships as the most important instrument of sea power. BB's had to operate in weather conditions that made air operations impossible.
http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/smallrenown.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

German BB's scored carrier kill(s)?
I am curious, what carriers and which BB(s) scored kill(s)?

Aergio

ultraHun
11-04-2007, 12:43 PM
The ugly sisters sunk HMS Glorious off Norway in bad weather on June 8th, 1940.

Airmail109
11-04-2007, 01:01 PM
Battleships will rule the oceans once again when the railguns under development that can lob shells 500km are introduced

Technology will see the return of Battlecruisers at least. With the advent of directed energy defence systems, stealth, railguns, more effective SAMS, ships will be far more capable in terms of active self defense. Its hard now with the new generation of anti-missile systems for even multiple missiles to penetrate a warships defence system. With the new energy based weapons, that ability is only set to increase dramatically.

In my opinion theyre will be a trend away from lots of small frigates to accommodate more firepower and defensive systems, the more railguns you have (which take up vasts amounts of enegery) the more ability you have to flood an enemies active defenses. Conversely the more active defense systems you have the harder it will be for enemy warships to flood your defences.

Plelv44_Mangrov
11-04-2007, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
Think how many more planes the FAF could have had, or tanks or vehicles, or updated equipment (especially radios) the Finnish Army could have had before the outbreak of hostilities.

The ships were ordered in 1928. The naval tactic demanded ships that could protect the Ålands during the war. If the funds would have been spend on aircrafts those would have been obsolated when the Winter War started. The best tanks in 1928 were as obsolated as the FT-17 in 1939.

WOLFMondo
11-04-2007, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:


Germany had little that it could do against BBs
except submarines. The most effective weapon was
dive bombing, and most dedicated dive bombers
lacked range.

The Germans and Italians had torpedo boats too. They were very effective in the med.

joeap
11-04-2007, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by ultraHun:
The ugly sisters sunk HMS Glorious off Norway in bad weather on June 8th, 1940.

Except they were very attractive vessels I would say.

Wolfmondo is right, the Axis MTBs were rather effective, not only in the Med but in the Channel (Slapston Sands tragedy) the Baltic and the Black Sea too.

erco415
11-04-2007, 04:38 PM
My point is for what they cost and what they actually accomplished compared to lighter and faster ships was not enough to justify building more of them and in fact most new builds were stopped in favor of faster lighter ships. To defend a carrier group don't you need ships that can keep the same speed as the carriers?

The North Carolina, South Dakota, and Iowa class battleships had no trouble keeping up with the carriers, and provided invaluable anti-air support. Only three capital ships were left unbuilt, two Iowas and an Alaska class Battlecruiser.

ElAurens
11-04-2007, 05:30 PM
The keel was laid for the USS Ohio as well, essentially an enlarged Iowa with 4 triple 16" turrets and increased numbers of secondary weapons.

Sergio_101
11-04-2007, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by erco415:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">My point is for what they cost and what they actually accomplished compared to lighter and faster ships was not enough to justify building more of them and in fact most new builds were stopped in favor of faster lighter ships. To defend a carrier group don't you need ships that can keep the same speed as the carriers?

The North Carolina, South Dakota, and Iowa class battleships had no trouble keeping up with the carriers, and provided invaluable anti-air support. Only three capital ships were left unbuilt, two Iowas and an Alaska class Battlecruiser. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Truth is that the US agreed. Most
resources were directed to carriers and smaller vessels.
As to torpedo boats, again, the Allies also made heavy use of them.
Torpedo boats were primarily useful as harassment
weapons. but they were cheap and used little
in the way of resources.

Sergio

Blutarski2004
11-05-2007, 05:19 AM
The Germans also had an effective anti-BB weapon in the Fritz air-launched guided bomb. The Italian BB Roma was sunk by such a weapon.

Also construction of the US Montana class BB's continued through WW2. IIRC, work on them did not cease until the end of the war.

The AA capability of US battleships in the second half of the war should not be under-estimated. No other warship type in the US fleet could effectively carry and use such prodigious numbers of AAA, The BB's acted as the umbrellas protecting the carriers.

leitmotiv
11-05-2007, 02:35 PM
Right you are, B!

erco415
11-05-2007, 04:30 PM
I never knew that any of the Montana class were laid down. Where were they building?

Blutarski2004
11-05-2007, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by erco415:
I never knew that any of the Montana class were laid down. Where were they building?


..... Erco, I went back to my Friedman book and you are 100 pct correct. The Montanas were approved, but none were ever laid down.

I had Illinois and Kentucky in mind, but both of those were Iowa class. It is worth noting, though, that these two ships were laid down in Jan 445 and Dec 44 respectively.

JG6_Oddball
11-06-2007, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by erco415:
I never knew that any of the Montana class were laid down. Where were they building?


..... Erco, I went back to my Friedman book and you are 100 pct correct. The Montanas were approved, but none were ever laid down.

I had Illinois and Kentucky in mind, but both of those were Iowa class. It is worth noting, though, that these two ships were laid down in Jan 445 and Dec 44 respectively. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The first BB bearing the name Kentucky did pretty well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Kentucky_(BB-6)

the second one http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif you just cant say "what a shame enough times"
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/66.htm

S!

Xiolablu3
11-06-2007, 04:21 PM
Its all about reach/range when it comes to powerful ships at sea.

In the 1800's, the ships with the biggest cannon could sit back and pound the ships with the shorter range guns. In the first world war, if two ships met, again, the ship with the longer range guns was at a big advantage. At this time, the bigger the ship, the more powerful the guns, the more range/firepower = generally a more fearsome/powerful ship.

In WW1 the two sides are so worried about losing the 'big battle' at sea, that not much happens at all. Both Admirals are aware that they are two of the few people who can almost lose the war for each side in one wrong move. WW1's lack of sea action is not really about battleships being useless, more about them being so valuable to each side.

Once the Aircraft carrier had come along, range of firepower was now extended hundreds of miles. A lone battleship could be hit by torpedo planes well before she could get into guns range. However obviously if a BAttle ship could get close to her target, be it shore guns or enemy ships or aircraft carriers, she could still have a devatating effect, even in WW2.

The logical answer is a fleet including an aircraft carrier and a battleship, along with many smaller ships. This way the fleet has range of fire and also heavy close in firepower to bombard shore targets or close enemy ships. Battleships were still very dangerous in WW2, its just that alone they were now very vulnerable. Ships now needed (in WW2) to move in convoys, with at least one aircraft carrier to support a battleship IMO.

A fleet including a Battleship and Aircraft Carrier would be a formidable force. What is debateable is if its better to forget the battleship altogther, and build two aircraft carriers instead.

Which is more useful in WW2 style warfare?

Battleship + AIrcraft Carrier + Fleet

or

2x Aircraft CArrier + Fleet?

leitmotiv
11-06-2007, 04:41 PM
Only build carriers and no batteships? Then the carriers would have been at risk if an enemy battleship managed to get among them at night. A mishandled carrier was dead meat when confronted by dreadnoughts---the classic lesson provided by the ridiculous loss of fleet carrier GLORIOUS to SCHARN and GNEIS in June 1940. If AKAGI, KAGA, SORYU, and HIRYU had been protected by USN battleships with their radar-directed guns, and murderous medium and light AA, the American dive bombers would have had a rough time trying to hit them at Midway. Luckily for the U.S., they were "protected" by two fast battleships, two heavy cruisers, a useless light cruiser with no AA, and some nearly useless destroyers. The Japanese high-angle directors were antiquated, and unable to track WWII aircraft, and their combo-light-medium AA, the 25mm Hotchkiss was a roaring dud. The USN was frightened silly by the tremendous explosions of Japanese AA, but the tally of shot down American aircraft was small.

Kurfurst__
11-07-2007, 01:19 AM
Radar controlled naval AAA at Midway..?

JtD
11-07-2007, 01:37 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Radar controlled naval AAA at Midway..?

In theory, yes. The USN started equipping the BB AAA with radar in 1942. It were the 5" guns and only the newest ships would have had it had they participated in the BoM.

But I think that leitmotiv was referring to the late war AAA radar standards, just to make a point.

Kurfurst__
11-07-2007, 02:15 AM
I was wondering on the application`s difficulties. How would the system look like exactly? Ie. if only a single radar director was available, it would be only capable of direction all twenty 5" AAA guns on a single target or flight - this could be a problem with mass attacks from multiple direction, small formations etc. And I don`t think that every single mount would have it`s own designated radar, radar operator etc. That would be certainly visible on pictures.

Also, the gains of radar control in good visibility conditions (daylight) and relatively short ranges are rather dependant on the system`s technical capabilities and the quality of the radar operators. The problem of fuzing still ramains (until VT shells come), we are speaking here of small, relatively fast, and manouvering targets. Heavy ship AAA was primarly meant against high flying level bombers, against other targets, ie. dive bombers, fighters etc. their usefullness are limited (again without a VT fuse). For these, you need masses of 3.7cm or 40mm batteries or equivalent, and those were pretty much manual operation stuff. Ideally, you`d need the 57mm intermediate autocannons, but those things just didn`t exist yet in WW2 in an operational form.

Sergio_101
11-07-2007, 02:22 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Radar controlled naval AAA at Midway..?

In theory, yes. The USN started equipping the BB AAA with radar in 1942. It were the 5" guns and only the newest ships would have had it had they participated in the BoM.

But I think that leitmotiv was referring to the late war AAA radar standards, just to make a point. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, a definate possibility. Also RADAR proximity fused AAA
on ships was a reality.

Although never 100% reliable the "VT" radar fuses
made air surface to air kills much more likely for 5" guns.
No more need for adjusting the old style fuses for range.

First documented kill for a RADAR prox fuse was at Guadalcanal I believe in early 1943.

"In the middle of November 1942, 5,000 rounds of proximity-fuzed projectiles in storage at Mare Island were rushed to Noumea for distribution to ships of a task force in the southwest Pacific. The first ship to introduce them to the enemy was the U.S.S. Helena. On January 5, 1943, four Japanese bombers attacked the task force and the Helena downed one with the second salvo of proximity-fuzed ammunition."

Above is a quote from the below listed site.

http://www.smecc.org/radio_proximity_fuzes.htm

Sergio

leitmotiv
11-07-2007, 02:35 AM
Check out Friedman's U.S. NAVAL WEAPONS or Campbell's NAVAL WEAPONS---the USN was using radar-direction for 5" DP guns in 1942. I forget when radar direction for the 40mm guns was available. With the addition of prox fuzes in 1943, USN flak became a wall which very few Japanese could penetrate. The very depressing and informative Osprey on the G4M "Betty" charts the decline and fall of the Japanese torpedo bomber against USN AA. By 1943, the wall was nearly inpenetrable.

Kurfurst__
11-07-2007, 02:57 AM
Was the 5" guns radar-directed in the AAA role, too? If so, was it RPC or just target data feed to turrets? How many targets could be engaged at a time? Was one main FC director controlling all the guns onto a single target/flight at a time?

Did radar AAA FC improve lethality/accuracy of the guns compared to previous visual/optical target acquisition? Was the latter (V/O) AAA FC centralised or done in each individual gun mount on it`s own before that?

WOLFMondo
11-07-2007, 03:14 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:

As to torpedo boats, again, the Allies also made heavy use of them.
Torpedo boats were primarily useful as harassment
weapons. but they were cheap and used little
in the way of resources.


Tell that to my Grandfather and the crew of HMS Manchester. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JtD
11-07-2007, 06:01 AM
The 5" guns radar system could be used both in AAA and surface action. Four were fitted on the battleships. These were additions to the four "normal" fire control system. As with other fire control system, I'd expect every single fcs to be able to engage 1 target/group of targets at a time with any number of guns, giving the ships the option to engage 4 targets simultaneously.

Yes, AAA direction largely improved AAA efficiency, the errors in bearing, range and speed were reduced a lot. It also allowed spotting a far greater ranges, thus enabling the ship to get optimal preparation.

This alone could have changed the BoM - had the Japanese had radar to spot the incoming dive bombers, the battle may have had a different outcome.

I think the radar for the 40mm Bofors was fitted in 1944.

woofiedog
11-07-2007, 06:16 AM
Quote...

Radar was also fitted on 5 inch anti-aircraft shells used for long range anti-aircraft fire. These proximity fuse shells exploded when near the target, instead of at a specific set time with previous fuses, which vastly improved the effectiveness of the guns. The Bureau of Ordnance estimated that guns firing proximity rounds were four times more effective than guns firing regular time-fused rounds and had an advantage of 8.1 to 3 over the 40mm weapon. The proximity fuze's performance in battle was impressive. Soon after their introduction, an American task force reported that it downed 91 planes of a 130 plane Japanese formation.

For medium range anti-aircraft duty, a quick firing Bofors 40 mm gun with exploding shells was adopted. These guns were later tied in with the fire control system used for 5 inch guns, bringing improvement to both gun types. Late in the war, half of all downed aircraft were shot down by the 40mm guns. For close-in anti-aircraft protection the newly adopted 20mm Oerlikon gun was 8 to 10 times more effective than the .50 caliber machine gun that it replaced. Up until September 1944, 20mm guns accounted for 32% of downed aircraft. New gyroscopic optical fire controllers which calculated a target's rate of change helped make the guns more effective than when used with a standard sight over the gun barrel. Improved fire control systems made AA weapons much more effective. An early indication of this was in October 1942 when the battleship South Dakota shot down ALL 38 planes of an attacking Japanese force. Electrical, as opposed to mechanical fire control computers were developed, and further improvements included the connection of fire control to the ship's radar equipment. This allowed "blind firing" at targets approaching from the sun, a favorite tactic of the time, and at night.

Anti-aircraft protection increased not just because of the new proximity fuses and the improved QUALITY of the guns and fire control. The QUANTITY of anti-aircraft guns was drastically increased also. The battleship Nevada, an old Pearl Harbor survivor is a good example. It's 5 inch gun armament was doubled from 8 to 16 guns, its four 3 inch guns were replaced by eight 40 mm quad mounts with a total of 32 gun barrels, and its eight .50 caliber machine guns were replaced by forty 20 mm guns. The battleship South Dakota completed during the war is another example. Originally designed to have three 1.1 inch quad mounts, by March 1945 there were instead seventeen 40 mm quad mounts. Instead of its planned twelve .50 caliber machine guns, in March 1945 there were no less than seventy seven 20 mm guns! Ships were crammed with so many anti-aircraft weapons that it became impossible to use each of these weapons up to its potential. The improved anti-aircraft defenses could even deal with the kamikaze threat of 1945.

Kurfurst__
11-07-2007, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
The 5" guns radar system could be used both in AAA and surface action. Four were fitted on the battleships. These were additions to the four "normal" fire control system. As with other fire control system, I'd expect every single fcs to be able to engage 1 target/group of targets at a time with any number of guns, giving the ships the option to engage 4 targets simultaneously.

Yes, AAA direction largely improved AAA efficiency, the errors in bearing, range and speed were reduced a lot.

Excellent info, thanks, so there was four AAA directors already which received a radar update.
Do you know if these AAA/FC-to-AAA/guns link worked by data-feed or as an RPC type?


It also allowed spotting a far greater ranges, thus enabling the ship to get optimal preparation.

I am not sure if that wasn`t already possible with existing naval radars..? After all, the naval radar the Germans were using was essentially the same origin as the Freya the LW was using for aircraft detection. The principle are the same.


This alone could have changed the BoM - had the Japanese had radar to spot the incoming dive bombers, the battle may have had a different outcome.

I don`t think so - technology just doesn`t make or eradicate completely poor human decisions. In case of Midway, the Japanese were just asking for trouble by rearming the planes several times, with fuel and ammo laying everywhere, making the outcome rather predictable if even a single enemy plane got through... plus, I believe the Japanese had their own naval radar for detection, no?


I think the radar for the 40mm Bofors was fitted in 1944.

Coupled with proximity fused shells, it indeed makes a lot of sense to link AAA weapons working on the same principle, though I doubt radar in it`s 1944 would even nearly capable of providing sufficiently accurate ballistic data to make achieving direct hits aircraft on aircraft possible (in case of a 40mm autocannon). Though, it would make sense in order to coordinate and concentrate the whole heavy/medium AAA on the most dangerous enemy aircraft, provided RPC was provide to Bofors batteries.

JtD
11-07-2007, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Do you know if these AAA/FC-to-AAA/guns link worked by data-feed or as an RPC type?

I do not know, but I very strongly think that AAA could be remote controlled. If that broke down, data feed was still an option. But looking at the speed ac move, remote control is somewhat mandatory in short range defense.


I am not sure if that wasn`t already possible with existing naval radars..?

Yes, most navies deployed a "search radar", the fire control radar came later or in some cases never. I didn't mean to say the _FC_ radar gave this benefit, but radar in general.


plus, I believe the Japanese had their own naval radar for detection, no?

Japan only used radar as late as 1944, I think. The two battleships escorting the carriers did not carry radar in June 1942.


Though, it would make sense in order to coordinate and concentrate the whole heavy/medium AAA on the most dangerous enemy aircraft, provided RPC was provide to Bofors batteries.

I think you nailed how it was done. Radar would pick one threat and have the assigned guns fired. You'd need a lot of bad luck if you were to miss with every single one. Bofors shells were often set to self destruct at 5000yards, and at that range you'd truly have a curtain of fire.

20mm guns were not equipped with radar fire control.

KG66_Gog
11-07-2007, 02:09 PM
Not going to wade through 6 pages but from what I have read so far some people are on the money while others...are not.

I will offer this opinion,

When used for thier DESIGNED purposes during WW1 and WW2, the Battleship and Battlecruiser were the ultimate fighting machine.

In WW1, Battleships were designed to slug it out with thier opposite numbers in the battle line, as we saw at Jutland. WW2 was similar though the need for shore bombardment became more apparent and when utilised for those purposes, they performed well (Washington/Kirishima and D-day and the PTO)

The Battleships and Battlecruisers effectiveness only came into question when, due to necessity and apathy or foolhardiness, they were employed for tasks that they were not designed for, this and only this was the reason for thier losses.

First and best known example,

HMS HOOD

Hood was NOT designed to slug it out with ships like Bismarck. Hood was a Battlecruiser and as Jackie Fisher designed them for was meant to hunt down and kill cruisers. Hood, like most battlecruisers had bigger guns than anything that it could catch and was faster than anything that had bigger guns than she did, the perfect weapon for catching and killing heavy cruisers.
When you employ BC's in the battle line with battleships is inviting disaster. Battlecruisers are fast ships, they get that speed from sacrificing armour, so to have them slug it out with Battleships is stupid. Hood was doomed from the start as pre-war apathy and lessons not learnt from Jutland sealed her fate when she went into action with Bismarck.
Can you imagine if the Germans had sent out the Prinz Eugen as a surface raider and Hood caught her? All over for the Prinz, a role that the Hood was meant to fulfill.

As surface raiders, a Battleship is vulnerable. In WW2 air power was dominant so they had to work arm in arm with aircraft (carriers), when they didn't, the BB's died. Prince of Wales and Repulse are prime examples.

It was all about timing. Being in the right place at the right time and in war that can be pretty hard to pull off. A good case is HMS Warspite at Narvik. What better way to sort out the German destroyer flotilla than to sail a WW1 Battleship into a fjord at night and blow the crappers out of everything and then escape before the Luftwaffe can do anything about it? Perfect use of a Battleship.

ploughman
11-07-2007, 02:23 PM
Well, in defence of the Hood and every other ship that was used in a manner they were not designed for, when the game is on you go with what you've got and when in harm's way it is the tradition of the service to sail into danger, not away from it.

JtD
11-07-2007, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by KG66_Gog:
First and best known example,

HMS HOOD

Hood was NOT designed to slug it out with ships like Bismarck. Hood was a Battlecruiser and as Jackie Fisher designed them for was meant to hunt down and kill cruisers....

For most of it's existence Hood was the largest battleafloatthing in the world. While initially intended to be a lightly armored battlecruiser, it got the armor beefed up after Jutland and that gave it as good as if not better than protection and the same firepower the Queen Elizabeth and R-class battleships - the most modern battleships the RN had at that time. While it was still labeled a battlecruiser by the RN, it could just as well be labeled a fast battleship.

It just happened to be 20 years older than the Bismarck. It did not have the benefits of a full evaluation of WW1 warship design and it did not receive any major overhauls or upgrades between the wars. It had outdated underwater protection, poor subdvision and certainly fire control was not up to date. Still, the hit that killed the Hood was a very lucky one and it is not that she was completely outclassed by the Bismarck.

To sent a 40000ts ship to hunt for cruisers is some serious overkill. When it was completed, it was capable of fighting many of the existing battleships and battlecruisers in the world and had a speed superior to all.

ploughman
11-07-2007, 03:04 PM
I think it's true to say that the vulnerability of BCs is largely due to the poor ammo handling of RN BCs at Jutland, where 3 ships were lost in catastrophic magazine explosions.

The German BCs, which had learned a great deal from Dogger Bank, did not suffer to the same degree even though they were subjected to the attentions of the very sharp shooting and heavily gunned QEs.

Perhaps if the the RN ships had an effective AP shell at Jutland the collective memory would be different.

Nobody knows the immediate sequence of events that killed the Hood, but Holland considered her vulnerable from long range plunging fire and sought to race her in to a point where the incoming fire would be coming in at an angle that least threatened her before turning his ship so all his guns could shoot it out with the Bismarck.

As you say, a lucky hit, but it was a vulnerability Holland was aware of and was hoping to mitigate.

JtD
11-07-2007, 04:30 PM
The range and angle the Hood blew up at, neither the decks nor the main belt would be penetrated by the German guns.

joeap
11-07-2007, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by KG66_Gog:
Not going to wade through 6 pages but from what I have read so far some people are on the money while others...are not.



Yes perfect summary. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


Still you made some good points afterwards just didn't see the need for the dismissal of all the other opinions.

Blutarski2004
11-07-2007, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
I think it's true to say that the vulnerability of BCs is largely due to the poor ammo handling of RN BCs at Jutland, where 3 ships were lost in catastrophic magazine explosions.


..... Actually five ships if the armored cruisers are counted -

QUEEN MARY
INDEFATIGABLE
INVINCIBLE
DEFENCE
BLACK PRINCE

leitmotiv
11-07-2007, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
The range and angle the Hood blew up at, neither the decks nor the main belt would be penetrated by the German guns.

Source?!

The best analysis of this action, and of the wreck of the HOOD, by Jentz in WARSHIP INTERNATIONAL found the HOOD was vulnerable to a belt or 15" turret barbette penetration at the moment of her destruction from BISMARCK's salvo. There has been a great deal of fascinating reaearch done on British naval cordite in the last 20 years, and the last word has not been written. In WWI it was the packing of the ammunition chain with bags of cordite, and the removal of the doors to the magazines (!!!!!!!!) which clearly led to the British debacle at Jutland. John Campbell in WARSHIP magazine and others have found evidence to suggest WWII British naval cordite was still dangerously unstable like the WWI variety. Whether this had anything to do with the loss of the HOOD remains moot. Most agree her 4" DP magazine right aft was penetrated by a shell from BISMARCK and this exploded the 15" magazine adjacent blowing the ship to pieces.

HOOD was, according to Capt. Stephen Roskill, the official Royal Naval historian (who, coincidentally, had visited the ship to check her AA batteries right before she was sunk), not fully worked up from her recently completed refit. Thus, she and PRINCE were facing a very tough customer at a huge disadvantage. As Ploughman wrote, in war you can't choose to fight at times. The problem was strategic. Britain could not fight two major powers simultaneously. Currently, they were fighting two, Germany, and Italy. The RN was stretched to the limit. The fleet was being smashed off Crete, and now evey dreadnought was needed to search the wide seas for the German squadron. Thus, two inadequately prepared ships met BISMARCK. Still, PRINCE hit her three times, and made the hit which forced her to break off the sortie. PRINCE fought a hell of a fight. HOOD was shooting at the wrong ship, EUGEN, and shooting poorly.

KG66_Gog
11-07-2007, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
The range and angle the Hood blew up at, neither the decks nor the main belt would be penetrated by the German guns.

That's garbage JtD, what killed the Hood then, an iceburg maybe?. Do some reading please.

I have read most if not all of the books on Hood and her demise and can tell you categorically that her deck armour was most certainly vulnerable to plunging fire from Bismarck. That is why Adm. Holland was so keen to close the range in order to bring Hoods thicker belt armour into play. He grew increasingly apprehensive during the rush in as Bismarck had Hoods range almost immediately and with only A and B turrets able to return fire he ordered the now famous turn by blue pennant to bring Y and Z to bear. Simply, he had to turn far earlier than he wanted to and Hood was still vulnerable to plunging fire.

Holland had his strategy for engaging Bismarck planned before Bismarck broke out. It was always going to be a mad dash into close range and then turn and slug it out. The lucky, or unlucky fifth volley put an end to that as Hoods poor deck armour was penetrated near the main mast (which is not the tripod mast but the mast aft of the funnels)which ignited the 4 inch magazine which in turn touched off the 15inch magazines inder the aft turrets.

Hood was an anomoly. She was not a fast battleship and she definately was not up to tackling modern battleships. At 850' long, give or take, her strength was her speed. It was this speed that the admiralty thought would get her in and out of trouble quickly. Yes, if that 5th salvo had been less accuarte she may well have survived but as a mad Hood fan my money would still be on Bismarck.

Lessons from Jutland were only partially incorporated into her design and the refits she so desperately needed between the wars were piecemeal. The few she had before her demise were not enough as she was always needed elsewhere.

If you want to look at the different characteristics of the British Battle ships and Battlecruisers, take a look at Warspite at Jutland and see how much a ship designed to hold its place in the battle line against its opposite numbers can fair.

Ultimately, the mighty Hood rode on the crest of her reputation from 1920 to 1941 but she was always a flawed design and doomed.

KG66_Gog
11-07-2007, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
The range and angle the Hood blew up at, neither the decks nor the main belt would be penetrated by the German guns.

Source?!

The best analysis of this action, and of the wreck of the HOOD, by Jentz in WARSHIP INTERNATIONAL found the HOOD was vulnerable to a belt or 15" turret barbette penetration at the moment of her destruction from BISMARCK's salvo. There has been a great deal of fascinating reaearch done on British naval cordite in the last 20 years, and the last word has not been written. In WWI it was the packing of the ammunition chain with bags of cordite, and the removal of the doors to the magazines (!!!!!!!!) which clearly led to the British debacle at Jutland. John Campbell in WARSHIP magazine and others have found evidence to suggest WWII British naval cordite was still dangerously unstable like the WWI variety. Whether this had anything to do with the loss of the HOOD remains moot. Most agree her 4" DP magazine right aft was penetrated by a shell from BISMARCK and this exploded the 15" magazine adjacent blowing the ship to pieces.

HOOD was, according to Capt. Stephen Roskill, the official Royal Naval historian (who, coincidentally, had visited the ship to check her AA batteries right before she was sunk), not fully worked up from her recently completed refit. Thus, she and PRINCE were facing a very tough customer at a huge disadvantage. As Ploughman wrote, in war you can't choose to fight at times. The problem was strategic. Britain could not fight two major powers simultaneously. Currently, they were fighting two, Germany, and Italy. The RN was stretched to the limit. The fleet was being smashed off Crete, and now evey dreadnought was needed to search the wide seas for the German squadron. Thus, two inadequately prepared ships met BISMARCK. Still, PRINCE hit her three times, and made the hit which forced her to break off the sortie. PRINCE fought a hell of a fight. HOOD was shooting at the wrong ship, EUGEN, and shooting poorly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I concur. From memory though, Hood recognised that she was firing at the Prinz Eugen early in the engagement and shifted to suit. Whether that small delay was pivotal or not is debateable as the entire action was over fairly quickly.

Nice to find such like minded people on this forum. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I have a 4 foot long scratch built model of the Hood that I have been um...building for ten years, I really should finish it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

leitmotiv
11-07-2007, 07:08 PM
How about a photo of the model? I have a superb Halinski card model of KGV in 1:200 which I have been thinking of building as PRINCE.

Snow_Wolf_
11-07-2007, 08:13 PM
http://www.voodoo.cz/battleships/pics/yamato1.jpg

http://www.warship.get.net.pl/Japonia/Battleships/1941_Yamato_class/Drawings/Yamato_4-1945.gif

.....

Ratsack
11-07-2007, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
I think it's true to say that the vulnerability of BCs is largely due to the poor ammo handling of RN BCs at Jutland, where 3 ships were lost in catastrophic magazine explosions.


..... Actually five ships if the armored cruisers are counted -

QUEEN MARY
INDEFATIGABLE
INVINCIBLE
DEFENCE
BLACK PRINCE </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

'There's something wrong with our ships, today!'

Ratsack

Sergio_101
11-08-2007, 01:02 AM
Got a question for Kurfie and the other goosesteppers.
When the Germans captured those RADAR proximity fuses,
did they anaylise them?
did they realise what they had captured?
I can find little about it other than they were captured.


"A move to develop countermeasures against proximity fuzes stemmed from the Germans, who during the "Battle of the Bulge," captured an Army munitions dump that contained a large number of the new radar proximity-fused shells. Concerned that the Germans might attempt to copy the proximity fuze"

As far as I know, no one other than the US developed
a RADAR proximity fuse until after WWII.
I am aware there was a German effort, but it never got to the point of being operational.

I was talking to a weapons engineer for a US manufacturer
about the type of fuses used in a small cannon.
I will not name the company or weapon, sorry.
He had never heard of the RADAR prox fuses
developed during WWII!
And he accused me of feeding him bovine excrement when I told him they used vacum tubes.

We marched over to a computer and hit the internet.
I won that argument, he got some good food for thought.
With todays electronics it would be imaginable to have a RADAR prox fuse in small arms.

Sergio

JtD
11-08-2007, 01:24 AM
The idea that neither the main belt nor the decks were pierced comes from ballistic performance of the 38cm gun vs. the used armor thickness of the Hood.

The Hood was steering a course towards the German ships, which were about 55? off her bows.
It was hit in the rear part were the hull is curved near 5? inward.
The main belt armor was inclined 12?.
The at that range the 38 cm shells would come in at about 12? off the horizontal (so much for "plunging" fire) and at about 550m/s.

Against the belt you'd end up with a total striking angle of about 45?. At that obliquity the 38cm shell manages to penetrate about 230mm of armor, insufficient to penetrate Hoods 305mm belt (plus 50mm turtleback plus 38mm torpedo bulkhead).

Same story for the deck, at that speed and obliquity it manages to penetrate about 60, maybe 70mm of armor. Insufficient to penetrate all three armor decks of Hood, the thickest of which was 76mm around the magazines.

The shell must have taken an odd route through a soft spot or hit below the belt.

Gog, I suggest you refrain from offending other posters. I don't post garbage and I've possibly read more than you.

leitmotiv, I'd be happy to read me through that article if you could provide a link or a (detailed) summary. I'm pretty certain it does not suggest that the shell entered via the 305mm belt.

KG66_Gog
11-08-2007, 02:32 AM
Do your mathematics take into account the angle of the deck and belt while Hood was in a hard turn.....which she was when the fatal blow was struck.

?????

The annals of naval history are full of ships that now lie on the bottom of the ocean due to bombs or shells that should not have penetrated thier armour.

joeap
11-08-2007, 02:53 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
leitmotiv, I'd be happy to read me through that article if you could provide a link or a (detailed) summary. I'm pretty certain it does not suggest that the shell entered via the 305mm belt.

I think this is the article, by Jurens not "Jentz."

Loss of HMS Hood: A Re-Examination, part one (http://www.warship.org/no21987.htm)

Part 2 (http://www.warship.org/new_page_1.htm)

Part 3 (http://www.warship.org/loss_of_hms_hood__part_3.htm)

and http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Part 4 (http://www.warship.org/new_page_2.htm)

BTW in part 3 (but read the whole thing)




The Loss of HMS Hood
A Re-Examination
by William J. Jurens
Part 3
Underwater Trajectories:
Perforation of the belt would have become much more probable as Hood passed further and further into the turn. Had the final 20? turn been completed, the target angle would have been about 73?, and the consequent resolved obliquity only about 29?. A close inspection of the armor penetration diagrams and the application of modern armor penetration theory shows that even Hood's 305mm belt could have penetrated if she had completed more than half of her planned final turn of 20 degrees to port. Unless the turn had been virtually completed however, it is not considered likely that a projectile which penetrated the main belt would have maintained sufficient velocity and integrity to make a magazine penetration probable. A comprehensive table of probable penetration conditions at both the beginning and the end of the turn is reproduced below in Table III.

JtD
11-08-2007, 03:03 AM
Originally posted by KG66_Gog:
Do your mathematics take into account the angle of the deck and belt while Hood was in a hard turn.....which she was when the fatal blow was struck.

No, it doesn't. But to give you an impression, starboard list could have been around 15?-20? before making deck penetration likely, while at the same time it would help the belt to resist penetration. While Hoods metacentric height was quite low, helping it to remain stable even in bad weather, lists that big did not develop in hard turns.

JtD
11-08-2007, 03:19 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
I think this is the article, by Jurens not "Jentz."

It doesn't really contradict my opinion, does it?

Reading through this, I'd like to point out three things:

1st) The author does not take into account the shape of the hull, which at the position of the 4" magazines still gives an extra angle of 3?. (My 5? further up were referring to main magazines.)

2nd) Inspection of the wreck of the Hood has confirmed that the Hood was indeed turning, the rudders being stuck in a hard port position. This also proves that the Hood did not complete or near complete the turn before the shell hit her.

3rd) The author does not explicitly mention the turtleback armor or the torpedo bulkhead that had to be penetrated in addition to the main belt if a magazine was to be reached.

To sum it up, even in his worst case scenario it still remains doubtful if a shell could have managed to penetrate the main belt and end up in a magazine. He totally excludes a deck penetration as a probable cause.

KG66_Gog
11-08-2007, 04:08 AM
and Hood only had one rudder....but that's just being picky. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

joeap
11-08-2007, 04:57 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
I think this is the article, by Jurens not "Jentz."

It doesn't really contradict my opinion, does it?

Reading through this, I'd like to point out three things:

1st) The author does not take into account the shape of the hull, which at the position of the 4" magazines still gives an extra angle of 3?. (My 5? further up were referring to main magazines.)

2nd) Inspection of the wreck of the Hood has confirmed that the Hood was indeed turning, the rudders being stuck in a hard port position. This also proves that the Hood did not complete or near complete the turn before the shell hit her.

3rd) The author does not explicitly mention the turtleback armor or the torpedo bulkhead that had to be penetrated in addition to the main belt if a magazine was to be reached.

To sum it up, even in his worst case scenario it still remains doubtful if a shell could have managed to penetrate the main belt and end up in a magazine. He totally excludes a deck penetration as a probable cause. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never said it did, but where do you think the shell went? I mean it's pretty clear the propellent is what went up, judging by the type of explosion. One of those things we'll never know for sure.

Xiolablu3
11-08-2007, 05:15 AM
A study I saw into what happened on the Hood vs Bismark encounter found that the Hood had all her safety doors open to the magazine rooms, it may have been an oversight, it may have been deliberate to allow crew to escape in an emergency (in theory).

As such one direct hit by the Bismark set off her Ammunition stores.

SHows the danger of trying to save everybody in war. If it was done deliberately in an act of 'compassion' then it backfired horribly....

Dunno if its true, it was far from an officaial report, just being on one of the History channels on Sky, but interesting nonetheless.

Its quite possible, because apparantly the Hoods side armour should have been able to withstand a lot of Hits from the Bismark. The deck armour was weaker, but the Hood had intentionally closed the distance so that plunging fire could not hit her deck.

Its all conjecture I know, but interesting.

I have read that although the Hood was much bigger than the Bismark, the Bismark was far more modern, and in general the superior warship.

JtD
11-08-2007, 05:19 AM
I consider an underwater hit and a hit penetrating the upper belt most likely.

In part one of the article you linked you can find a sketch that shows how a shell goes through the upper belt and then through the turtleback armor and the other deck, exploding in the magazine. The sketch next to it shows that this weakness was corrected by the extension of the 3" deck. However, the coverage with this deck was not complete, I have read somewhere, (can't remember where) that for instance a small section was missing around the 4" magazines, for whatever reason. So the shell did exactly what is illustrated in that sketch and blew up the magazines.

It's also possible that a shell hit below the belt and just went into the magazines pretty much uncontested. The lower edge of the belt was not deep into the water and the oceans waves may even have completely exposed the lower edge. It is, however, somewhat unlikely because of the list the hard turning Hood must have had. This would make the belt go deeper into the water.

Or maybe there was an open hatch on the main armor deck and the shell hit that spot...while things like that are unlikely they happen all the time.

Handling errors with the ammunition that allowed an explosion from above the deck to effect the magazines are another possibility.

There are more ways into the magazines than through the armored deck or through the main belt.

ploughman
11-08-2007, 05:22 AM
That'd do it. Not heard that one before though.

An interesting aside is the fate of the Britannic, sister ship of the Titanic. Britannic struck a mine just as her stokers were coming off shift, as such the bunker and bulkhead doors were open, the resulting coal dust explosion, that would have been localised at any other time, was catastrophic.

Xiolablu3
11-08-2007, 05:49 AM
I have just been reading about the Hood Vs Bismark battle, and it seems the safety doors were in fact shut.

One thing I didnt realise was that the Bismark was sunk only 3 days after the loss of the Hood.

BSS_CUDA
11-08-2007, 06:36 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KG66_Gog:
Do your mathematics take into account the angle of the deck and belt while Hood was in a hard turn.....which she was when the fatal blow was struck.

No, it doesn't. But to give you an impression, starboard list could have been around 15?-20? before making deck penetration likely, while at the same time it would help the belt to resist penetration. While Hoods metacentric height was quite low, helping it to remain stable even in bad weather, lists that big did not develop in hard turns. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>JTD have you ever served on a Naval ship??? lists of 8-12 degree are common place on normal seas, 15-20 are nothing in hard turns. hell when I served (quartermaster 2nd class USS Belleau wood LHA-3 1979-1982) we took a 33 degree list during normal seas on a sunny day. during hard turn combat maneuvers is was not uncommon to heal over 30dgree or more

ploughman
11-08-2007, 06:43 AM
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/mctomney/ReaganTurn.jpg

USS Ron Reagan moments after tipping its entire air-wing into the sea during a hard turn.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

luftluuver
11-08-2007, 08:06 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
An interesting aside is the fate of the Britannic, sister ship of the Titanic. Britannic struck a mine just as her stokers were coming off shift, as such the bunker and bulkhead doors were open, the resulting coal dust explosion, that would have been localised at any other time, was catastrophic. No mention of any coal dust explosion that I could see.
http://www.hospitalshipbritannic.com/menu.htm

JtD
11-08-2007, 08:12 AM
I'm not saying that lists of 15-20? are impossible for the Hood, I'm saying that they didn't occur in that moment.

The picture Ploughman posted shows a list of about 10?, just for reference. This is something within the designed stability characteristics for Hood and one would expect when she turned.

ploughman
11-08-2007, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
No mention of any coal dust explosion that I could see.
http://www.hospitalshipbritannic.com/menu.htm

There is a discussion in the 'Enigma' section.

I was going on Ballard's explanation of the sinking from his 1995 survery. It seems that in 1999 divers found the forward reserve coal bunker to be intact which sort of blows that hypothesis out of the water. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

woofiedog
11-08-2007, 08:48 AM
Ploughman... Great photo of the USS Reagan at speed with maneuvers! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BSS_CUDA... The old USS Biddle DLG-34 that I was on was taking 40-46 degree rolls off from Cape Hatteras. While doing some Heavy Sea maneuvers for our Helo we had onboard.

One of the old Tin Can's left over from WWII was off our stern... and would just about disapper and come back up with white water across the bridge area.

We were having fun! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

luftluuver
11-08-2007, 08:52 AM
The Germans torpedoed several hospital ships during WW1.

Gloucster Castle torpedoed 1915
HMHS Drina torpedoed 1917
HMHS Dover Castle torpedoed 1917
HMHS Rewa torpedoed January 1918
HMHS Glenart Castle torpedoed 1918
Llandovery Castle torpedoed 1918

JZG_Thiem
11-08-2007, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
.....

I have read that although the Hood was much bigger than the Bismark, the Bismark was far more modern, and in general the superior warship.

Maybe you are referring to BMs "official" size of 35000ts.

Hood wasnt "much bigger" than Bismarck. It was in fact smaller by all means but overall lenght
......................Hood...........BM
lenght(m).............262,2..........251
width(m)...............31,7...........36,0
draught(m)..............8,7...........10,2
max displacement(ts)..48360.........50900

Hood was clearly more "sleek", more narrow, yet longer.
It did 31kn with 151000HP, BM did 30,1kn with 150000HP (yet Hood wasnt able to do max speed anymore after 20years of frequent use. World trip, no repair of machinery and all that). 1000HP wouldnt make up for +1kn top speed alone, but her dimensions helped.
Hood as after being refitted before 1940, which added some 4000ts. So originally Hood was built with ca. 44000ts in 1920. The refit made her somewhat stern-heavy (and wet) afaik.
Data from Siegried Breyer

Yet, size doesnt matter Xio. Ask your wife http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

JZG_Thiem
11-08-2007, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
The Germans torpedoed several hospital ships during WW1.

Gloucster Castle torpedoed 1915
HMHS Drina torpedoed 1917
HMHS Dover Castle torpedoed 1917
HMHS Rewa torpedoed January 1918
HMHS Glenart Castle torpedoed 1918
Llandovery Castle torpedoed 1918

so what?
On 3rd of May 1945, the RAF sank the "Kap Arcona" and "Thielbeck" off Neustadt. 7000-8000 poor souls that were brought there from KZs (by the infamous SS of course) drowned or were burnt to death.

Im Pretty sure, trying to sink (immobilized!) ships full of ppl at this stage of the war in europe made a friggen load of sense. at least as much as attacking hospital ships, right?

JtD
11-08-2007, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by JZG_Thiem:

... It was in fact smaller by all means but overall lenght...

Standard displacement of the Hood was also somewhat larger than the Bismarck. The latter just carried a lot more fuel than the former, resulting in a larger full load.

These two ships were very much the same size, the main difference is that Bismarck was 20 years younger.

p.s. 8.7m is draught for the light Hood, while 10.2m is for loaded Bismarck.

JZG_Thiem
11-08-2007, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JZG_Thiem:

... It was in fact smaller by all means but overall lenght...

Standard displacement of the Hood was also somewhat larger than the Bismarck. The latter just carried a lot more fuel than the former, resulting in a larger full load.

These two ships were very much the same size, the main difference is that Bismarck was 20 years younger.

p.s. 8.7m is draught for the light Hood, while 10.2m is for loaded Bismarck. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Standard dosplacement were different per definitionem for different countries, so they are hardly comparable.
Hood 41200
BM 41700
both values excluding fuel.

draught: both values were at max displacement according to Breyer.

Fuel load:
Hood: 4000ts
BM: 7700ts
subtract that from the max displacement, and both end up within 1000ts of each other. At 50000ts absolute, its a difference of ca. 2%. I still dont think Hood was *much bigger* as Xio suggested.

P.S.: U.S. Naval Technical Mission in Europe calculated BM with max. 10,8m draught and 53500ts displacement

joeap
11-08-2007, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by JZG_Thiem:
r<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
The Gemans torpedoed several hospital ships during WW1.

Gloucster Castle torpedoed 1915
HMHS Drina torpedoed 1917
HMHS Dover Castle torpedoed 1917
HMHS Rewa torpedoed January 1918
HMHS Glenart Castle torpedoed 1918
Llandovery Castle torpedoed 1918

so what?
On 3rd of May 1945, the RAF sank the "Kap Arcona" and "Thielbeck" off Neustadt. 7000-8000 poor souls that were brought there from KZs (by the infamous SS of course) drowned or were burnt to death.

Im Pretty sure, trying to sink (immobilized!) ships full of ppl at this stage of the war in europe made a friggen load of sense. at least as much as attacking hospital ships, right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well yea. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif Seems the logic was, if it floats, sink it. If it's moving on a road, strafe it. If it looks like something, bomb it.

War.

HuninMunin
11-08-2007, 05:32 PM
Difference is that when the KM torpedoes hospital ships it's an act of teutonic barbarism but when the RAF shoots down medivac planes it's justified because ze Germanz startet the bloody war, ey?

leitmotiv
11-08-2007, 05:54 PM
I just love it when people who have never been on ships, nor worked on ships, nor would be able to read a real ship plan, nor lack the smallest understanding of naval architecture start to get dogmatic about what sank the HOOD, or whatever. The fact is, we'll never know since she was, literally, blown to pieces. We are still finding amazing new clues to the TITANIC sinking, which everybody thought was obvious until Ballard got to the wreck. The speculation can be endless about the HOOD because the possibilities are endless. Some in the Royal Navy even suspected a possible error in ramming cordite into a barrel in Y turret because some claimed to see smoke pouring from the turret before the ship exploded, and that the explosion started there. I wouldn't speculate.

Von_Rat
11-08-2007, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Difference is that when the KM torpedoes hospital ships it's an act of teutonic barbarism but when the RAF shoots down medivac planes it's justified because ze Germanz startet the bloody war, ey?

i like most people, at least outside of germany, are willing to forgive the western allies of many things, while they'll condemn the germans for similar acts


theres a good reason for this hypocritcal view. the western allies werent out to enslave or exterminate a large part of europe. since the western allies were fighting to save europe from this fate, most people are willing to forgive their more questionable acts.

leitmotiv
11-08-2007, 06:39 PM
There were plenty of rotten things done by each side at sea in WWI. The Germans tried to be good sportsmen with their subs at the start, but Winston ordered merchants to ram subs hailing them, then armed the merchants, and then sent out warships disguised as merchantmen to blast subs trying to hail them. So, the Germans sank on sight for self-protection. There were errors when liners were sunk because they were mistaken for armed merchant cruisers or troopships (LUSITANIA was torped because she was zigzagging and the German sub captain figured her for a naval auxiliary---he was also stunned when she sank immediately after one torp hit).

HuninMunin
11-08-2007, 06:53 PM
Hypocricy has no good reason.
1. The western allies did not fight the war to free Europe in the beginning.
It happened at the end of the war that the true scape of crimes commited by the Nazis were seen by the world.
It was about dominance.
France and England did not declare war because of moral values but because Hitler had pushed it a little too far on the imperialistic side.

2. The moment you start to willingly light circumstances in the way you want to see them you loose all means of really understanding the big picture.
If someone is not up to the brain work needed to look at a thing from both sides to find objectivity...well to be honest I can't connect with that point of view; I just can't possibly comprehend how to..

Your post leaves me wondering.
How can someone readily decide to believe in the version of the truth that best fits their.... well Weltanschauung.
It can't be stupidity because you wrote that you gladly take the hypocrite role.
I just don't get it.

EDIT
Please spare me the "at least outside of Germany" ****.
Ever seen a german movie depicting english, russian or american soldiers as dump and/or sociopatic, twisted killing machines?

Von_Rat
11-08-2007, 07:14 PM
1. i think you underestimate the wests understanding of the true nature of the hitler regime from the very beginning. you may say it was about dominance, they saw it as survival. and hindsight says they were right.


2. my view is colored by hindsight. the nazis were out to enslave and extermate millions. this is a historical fact, that you cant change. the western allies, whether they knew the true extent of these crimes or not, were fighting against the nazis.

because they were fighting the nazis, im willing to forgive them their more questionable acts. and im not alone in this. nothing they did holds a candle to the unmitigated evil that the nazis were.

you can insult as much as you wish. you'll never convince me that taking the nazis side or justifying their acts is being objective. its defending criminals imo.



__________________________________________________ ____________
Please spare me the "at least outside of Germany" ****.
Ever seen a german movie depicting english, russian or american soldiers as dump and/or sociopatic, twisted killing machines?
__________________________________________________ _________________________________________


oh come on you cant pretend you dont know what i meant.

HuninMunin
11-08-2007, 07:33 PM
I'm not trying to convince you of taking the Nazis side - to be honest I probably have much more personal and intimate cause to hate the Nazis then you do ( just guessing here ).
What I want to convince you of is to differentiate between Nazi barbarism and acts of war crimes commited by the armed forces of Germany between 1936 and 1945.
I refuse to make a difference between Allied and German warcrimes - they were commited by both sides and for both sides they were not the deciding factor or of any strategic value; this makes them futile in my point of view.
That goes for the bombardment of civilian targets by both sides, to name an example.

I didn't call you names ( at least I didn't intend to ) so honestly no personal offense meant.

And yes; in fact I don't understand what you meant by "at least outside of Germany".
Certaintly a language barrier thing.
Could you explain in more detail?

Von_Rat
11-08-2007, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
I'm not trying to convince you of taking the Nazis side - to be honest I probably have much more personal and intimate cause to hate the Nazis then you do ( just guessing here ).
What I want to convince you of is to differentiate between Nazi barbarism and acts of war crimes commited by the armed forces of Germany between 1936 and 1945.
I refuse to make a difference between Allied and German warcrimes - they were commited by both sides and for both sides they were not the deciding factor or of any strategic value; this makes them futile in my point of view.
That goes for the bombardment of civilian targets by both sides, to name an example.

I didn't call you names ( at least I didn't intend to ) so honestly no personal offense meant.

And yes; in fact I don't understand what you meant by "at least outside of Germany".
Certaintly a language barrier thing.
Could you explain in more detail?

i think i now understand where your coming from. you wish to separate the actions of armed forces, that can be considered warcrimes, from the larger picture.

i find myself unwilling to do that. sure the allies committed war crimes, but i, and many others forgive them. why you may ask. well its simple really. with the benifet of hindsight i know that the german armed forces were defending a regime that was killing millions. the allies were fighting to defeat this regime. thats why im more forgiving of allied forces warcrimes than german forces warcrimes.

we can argue all day long, about who knew what when. but in the end it changes nothing. thats why i say with hindsight.



i said "at least outside of Germany" because people inside germany are less likly to see things my way, as far as allied warcrimes go. they were the victim of these crimes afterall.

HuninMunin
11-08-2007, 08:06 PM
So you are making an ethical statement and leave out the mental circumstances in wich the questioned actions took place back then...
I don't really get your point besides you find yourself unwilling to even try to discuss the ethical problem because you allready make judgement dependant on a desicion you made beforehand.
I simply couldn't relate to that standpoint but thought that there was more to it; but as unfolds you are right.
Futile to depate it in this context.

i said "at least outside of Germany" because people inside germany are more likly to not see things my way, as far as allied warcrimes go. they were the victim of these crimes afterall.

So I understood you allright and repeat my point witout the movie metaphor:
You are wrong, the german public doesn't blame the allied for commiting warcrimes at all.
Most hardly know about them.

Von_Rat
11-08-2007, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
So you are making an ethical statement and leave out the mental circumstances in wich the questioned actions took place back then...
I don't really get your point besides you find yourself unwilling to even try to discuss the ethical problem because you allready make judgement dependant on a desicion you made beforehand.
I simply couldn't relate to that standpoint but thought that there was more to it; but as unfolds you are right.
Futile to depate it in this context.

i said "at least outside of Germany" because people inside germany are more likly to not see things my way, as far as allied warcrimes go. they were the victim of these crimes afterall.

So I understood you allright and repeat my point witout the movie metaphor:
You are wrong, the german public doesn't blame the allied for commiting warcrimes at all.
Most hardly know about them.


i leave out the mental circumstances because i dont wish to get in a many page debate about who knew what when.

hindsight proves me right, thats enough for me.


as for the german public knowing about allied warcrimes, thats immaterial. most americans arent aware of any german forces warcrimes either. heck most probaly are only vaguely aware of the holocoust.

whats important, is what would the german publics attitudes be if they were aware of the allied warcrimes, would they be as forgiving as i am. i sorta doubt it.

luftluuver
11-08-2007, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by JZG_Thiem:
so what?
On 3rd of May 1945, the RAF sank the "Kap Arcona" and "Thielbeck" off Neustadt. 7000-8000 poor souls that were brought there from KZs (by the infamous SS of course) drowned or were burnt to death.

Im Pretty sure, trying to sink (immobilized!) ships full of ppl at this stage of the war in europe made a friggen load of sense. at least as much as attacking hospital ships, right? Unlike the British ships that were clearly marked as hospital ships, white with green stripe and red crosses, I see no such markings on the Cap Arcona

http://www.abc.se/~pa/pic/mar/cap_arcona.jpg

and Thielbek.

Von_Rat
11-08-2007, 08:31 PM
time for bed.

HuninMunin
11-08-2007, 08:50 PM
Hindsight proves you right?
As if you could even have a standpoint without hindsight.
In your last post you say that hindsight is the cause for your judgement - know it is judge and witness?
You avoid any discussion about the real problem and deliberatly free yourself of all own thinking by following the comfortable way of established mindset...

Of course the german public knows about the terror bombings for example.
About Dresden.
And they still don't blame the former Allies for commiting this warcrime.
When I wrote "most hardly even know" I meant incidents like the shot down medivac planes during the Battle Of Britain.
You simply "kinda doubt it" because you have no means to form a opinion other then the one based on your feeling.
Maybe there will be a study made on this in 20 years and maybe then hindsight will come and prove you right.

HerrGraf
11-08-2007, 08:51 PM
Would someone please tell me what this last page has to do with Battleships?
Nada!

HuninMunin
11-08-2007, 08:55 PM
You have 7 other pages with lots of battleships - grant us 2 for our discussion, yeah?

Ratsack
11-08-2007, 11:55 PM
Dowding did a couple of things during the Battle of Britain that some might find distasteful. The one mentioned above is the shooting down of German air sea rescue aircraft. These planes were painted white, and were marked with civilian markings and the Red Cross. They also picked Allied airmen out of the drink. Dowding still authorised attacks on them, on the grounds that an enemy airman pulled out of the water may well end up back in the cockpit of a German plane. He was therefore fair game, in Dowding's view. It was harsh, but justifiable. He also (privately) admitted the Germans were within their rights to shoot his pilots in their parachutes. The reasoning was the same.

On the other side of the coin, it was something of an unusual spectacle among the war crimes trials at the end of WWII to see senior Allied seamen willingly testify in defence of Doenitz. Sinking civilian ships at sea is harsh, but justifiable as an act of war, as they pointed out.

Cheers,
Ratsack

PS - German Seenotdienst aircraft rescued more than 100 airmen, at a cost of 22 planes. They also shot down a Hurricane.

PPS - Very interesting thread so far. Best general read on this board in ages.

leitmotiv
11-09-2007, 12:00 AM
Comparative nastiness is asinine. Leave this thread for interesting matters.

JtD
11-09-2007, 01:10 AM
Originally posted by JZG_Thiem:

Standard dosplacement were different per definitionem for different countries, so they are hardly comparable.

No, that would be the design displacement. Standard displacement is the same everywhere, an artificial definition given in the Washington treaty. Full ship, minus the fuel, minus reserve feed water.


Hood 41200
BM 41700
both values excluding fuel.

41200ts is for the standard displacement of the Hood, "as designed". When it was finished, the standard displacement actually was 42670ts.


draught: both values were at max displacement according to Breyer.

No, Breyer gives the draught at standard displacement (Initial design of the Hood: 7.8/8.9.). Draught for max displacement is below the line, which Breyer doesn't give for the Hood as finished. Draught for the fully loaden Hood was 9.8 meters.

And you are right in that Xio was wrong.

JtD
11-09-2007, 01:17 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I just love it when people who have never been on ships, nor worked on ships, nor would be able to read a real ship plan, nor lack the smallest understanding of naval architecture start to get dogmatic about what sank the HOOD, or whatever...

I don't know if that was aimed at me, but all I said is that neither belt nor deck armor would be penetrated by the 38cm guns of the Bismarck under the given circumstances. You asked me to elaborate. So I find a reply like that a bit odd.

JtD
11-09-2007, 01:27 AM
If anyone needs to have a visual impression of lists as large as Cuda experienced first hand, you may want to watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVoMtPFtEg0). Make sure you get to watch the last seconds, too.

Kurfurst__
11-09-2007, 03:02 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
There were errors when liners were sunk because they were mistaken for armed merchant cruisers or troopships (LUSITANIA was torped because she was zigzagging and the German sub captain figured her for a naval auxiliary---he was also stunned when she sank immediately after one torp hit).

And with a good reason - the building Lusitania was co-founded by the Royal Navy which in turn could requisite Lusitania from the civillian ship line in times of war, and employ it as an auxilarry cruiser. And it was listed as such in German recognition manuals. So, on one fine day a U-boot commander saw a big ship zig-zagging through his periscope, which he identified as the RN`s auxilarry cruiser Lusitania, and torped it. It turned out afterwards that Lusitania was carrying a lot of passengers, and a many years later, that in secrecy she also carried wagonloads of ammunition, inbound for Britain. Such double play occured in cases with British hospital ships, that were also utilised as troop carriers (which would cause them loosing their status, and the Red Cross was complaining about this custom for this reason) while moving the wounded and sick. It must have been tempting for any army officer to make use of the free capacity of a big ship leaving the port, not to mention the propagandist to make use of the sinking of 'liners' and 'hospital ships' in order to portray the enemy`s barbarity, and ideologize a 'just war'.

Kurfurst__
11-09-2007, 03:09 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
Well yea. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif Seems the logic was, if it floats, sink it. If it's moving on a road, strafe it. If it looks like something, bomb it.

War.

Anyone who runs, is a VC.
Anyone who stands still - is a very disciplined VC!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S06nIz4scvI

Refugees or evacuees?

gdfo
11-09-2007, 03:52 AM
Thank you for stopping the off topic 'warcrimes' posts.

The Public Broadcasting event that I saw and have on a VHS tape about the underwater investigation of the Hood, discussed the causes of her rapid sinking. In the Documentary, Ted Briggs tell of his survival. He was one of 3 crew who survived. Other witnesses from both sides describe what seems to be evidence that the Hood was hit by a plunging shell and the aft magazine blew up, then vented fire traveled though the ship and blew up a forward magazine as well.

Von_Rat
11-09-2007, 04:01 AM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Hindsight proves you right?
As if you could even have a standpoint without hindsight.
In your last post you say that hindsight is the cause for your judgement - know it is judge and witness?
You avoid any discussion about the real problem and deliberatly free yourself of all own thinking by following the comfortable way of established mindset...

Of course the german public knows about the terror bombings for example.
About Dresden.
And they still don't blame the former Allies for commiting this warcrime.
When I wrote "most hardly even know" I meant incidents like the shot down medivac planes during the Battle Of Britain.
You simply "kinda doubt it" because you have no means to form a opinion other then the one based on your feeling.
Maybe there will be a study made on this in 20 years and maybe then hindsight will come and prove you right.

im sorry if my use of hindsight upsets you.

you conviently wish to divorce the actions of the german armed forces (using the excuse that no one knew what was really going on at the time) from the actions of the regime they were defending.

knowing what i know , i cannot do this.

of course i realize the bulk of the german armed forces were made up of decent honorable men who were just defending their country. but as decent as they were, all their actions are still tainted by the fact they were defending one of the most evil regimes in history. because of this fact they get little sympathy from me, as victims of allied warcrimes.

you say the german people dont blame the allies for the warcrimes (those they are aware of) that the allies commited.

ok ill accept that. you are obviously better informed on this than i am. can you tell me the main reasons they dont blame the allies for those crimes? because on the surface it sounds like they are forgiving the allies much like i am.

i'll stop this off topic now, its upsetting people. i'll respond to your next post by pm.

JtD
11-09-2007, 04:22 AM
Originally posted by gdfo:
... then vented fire traveled though the ship and blew up a forward magazine as well.

This has been found to be a wrong assumption. While the Hood's forward section has broken off, the section actually contains the entire intact forward magazines. The rear magazines, that definitely blew up, are completely missing together with a 250 feet part of the ship. This part is scattered as debris around the wreck.

Blutarski2004
11-09-2007, 05:56 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gdfo:
... then vented fire traveled though the ship and blew up a forward magazine as well.

This has been found to be a wrong assumption. While the Hood's forward section has broken off, the section actually contains the entire intact forward magazines. The rear magazines, that definitely blew up, are completely missing together with a 250 feet part of the ship. This part is scattered as debris around the wreck. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... I agree that HOOD's forward magazines did not explode, but venting of explosion gasses from the after magazine through the machinery spaces may well have occurred. DK Brown made a convincing argument in support of such a phenomenon in his article on the 1916 loss of INVINCIBLE.

Incidentally, if anyone is interested, the text of the official RN Board of Inquiry hearings on the loss of HOOD can be found at the HMS HOOD Association website. The testimony includes descriptions of several possible routes by which the fatal projectile could have reached HOOD's magazine spaces. One such path involved a hit beneath the main belt. A ship at high speed [> V/sqrtL] produces wave fronts at bow and stern and a corresponding trough amidships - much like a sine wave on an oscilloscope. This could expose side area of the hull normally beneath the waterline.

Blutarski2004
11-09-2007, 06:05 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
There were errors when liners were sunk because they were mistaken for armed merchant cruisers or troopships (LUSITANIA was torped because she was zigzagging and the German sub captain figured her for a naval auxiliary---he was also stunned when she sank immediately after one torp hit).

And with a good reason - the building Lusitania was co-founded by the Royal Navy which in turn could requisite Lusitania from the civillian ship line in times of war, and employ it as an auxilarry cruiser. And it was listed as such in German recognition manuals. So, on one fine day a U-boot commander saw a big ship zig-zagging through his periscope, which he identified as the RN`s auxilarry cruiser Lusitania, and torped it. It turned out afterwards that Lusitania was carrying a lot of passengers, and a many years later, that in secrecy she also carried wagonloads of ammunition, inbound for Britain. Such double play occured in cases with British hospital ships, that were also utilised as troop carriers (which would cause them loosing their status, and the Red Cross was complaining about this custom for this reason) while moving the wounded and sick. It must have been tempting for any army officer to make use of the free capacity of a big ship leaving the port, not to mention the propagandist to make use of the sinking of 'liners' and 'hospital ships' in order to portray the enemy`s barbarity, and ideologize a 'just war'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... The German embassy placed prominent advertisements in principal US newspapers explicitly warning the public that taking passage on LUSITANIA would place them at risk in the war zone. I really don't know what else Germany could have done.

The circumstantial evidence is strong that LUSITANIA was carrying war materiel. IIRC, the British government prohibits underwater exploration on the wrecksite.

ploughman
11-09-2007, 07:03 AM
Does the wreck of the Lusitania not lay within the jurisdiction of the Republic of Ireland?

Kurfurst__
11-09-2007, 07:40 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
The circumstantial evidence is strong that LUSITANIA was carrying war materiel. IIRC, the British government prohibits underwater exploration on the wrecksite.

The details of the shipment were no secret, nor back then, nor nowadays. President Wilson already knew the truth about Lusitania`s actual shipment : 400 tons of ammunition and war material was carried, including 69 tons of cordite contained into 3813 powder bags. The Germans may have learned it via intelligence (I am not sure if it was WW1 or WW2, but they had some information on shipment details via Swiss insurance companies operating in the US). Wilson needed a war pretext, and US citizens used as human shields for Entente war shipments would hardly bend public opinion towards it; he deposited the papers in Treasury`s archives, with the note that only the president of the United States may see their contents; Roosevelt requested and read it in January 1940. They were found by a researcher in 1962 and were published in 1973.

Bewolf
11-09-2007, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:

whats important, is what would the german publics attitudes be if they were aware of the allied warcrimes, would they be as forgiving as i am. i sorta doubt it.

The german public is well aware of the onslought on german civilians in the east, and has no gripes with it anymore but the urge to remember what happend to their own ppl withhout getting blamed as relationists. So I hardly doubt some in comparison to that minor western war crimes would make a huge difference or cause any sort of uproar. Ex Allied hypocrysis towards certain topics is well known, but rarely covered and generally ignored in light of this people's own shame.

Abbout the rest of your post, I notice you are sitting on a very high horse in here, Ratsack. For the sake of the original thread I won't go into any further detail.

hop2002
11-09-2007, 08:52 AM
Almost certainly the Lusitania was carrying ammunition as well as passengers.

The rules of naval warfare, though, allowed warships to stop and board vessels they suspected of carrying contraband (military supplies). If contraband was found, the ship could be sunk, after the crew and passengers were made safe.

What the Germans did is ignore those rules, and institute unrestricted submarine warfare, where civilian ships would be attacked with no warning.


The German embassy placed prominent advertisements in principal US newspapers explicitly warning the public that taking passage on LUSITANIA would place them at risk in the war zone. I really don't know what else Germany could have done.

Not sunk the ship? Sent a warship to stop it and inspect it, and sink it after the passengers and crew were put in to the boats?

The problem for the Germans, of course, is that their navy was too weak to do that. You could argue the fact that they were too weak to compete militarily meant they had a right to attack civilians, but this was a major step in the barbarisation of warfare in the 20th century, after the efforts of the previous hundreds of years to make war less barbarous.


Difference is that when the KM torpedoes hospital ships it's an act of teutonic barbarism but when the RAF shoots down medivac planes it's justified because ze Germanz startet the bloody war, ey?

No, the difference is hospital ships were protected by the Red Cross, search and rescue aircraft weren't.


On 3rd of May 1945, the RAF sank the "Kap Arcona" and "Thielbeck" off Neustadt. 7000-8000 poor souls that were brought there from KZs (by the infamous SS of course) drowned or were burnt to death.

Im Pretty sure, trying to sink (immobilized!) ships full of ppl at this stage of the war in europe made a friggen load of sense. at least as much as attacking hospital ships, right?

Well, attacking immobilized ships full of concentration camp inmates doesn't make much sense, but of course telling them apart from a ship full of German soldiers preparing to sail to Norway is rather difficult from an aircraft.

A hospital ship, on the other hand, is painted white and carries easily recognisable markings.

Bewolf
11-09-2007, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
Almost certainly the Lusitania was carrying ammunition as well as passengers.

The rules of naval warfare, though, allowed warships to stop and board vessels they suspected of carrying contraband (military supplies). If contraband was found, the ship could be sunk, after the crew and passengers were made safe.

What the Germans did is ignore those rules, and institute unrestricted submarine warfare, where civilian ships would be attacked with no warning.


You obviously did not read this thread, nor did you read up on the historic development of the naval warfare in WWI. I suggest you do that before posting.

HuninMunin
11-09-2007, 09:08 AM
@ Von Rat
You got mail.

Blutarski2004
11-09-2007, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Does the wreck of the Lusitania not lay within the jurisdiction of the Republic of Ireland?


..... It has been some time since I investigated the Lusitania affair, but IIRC Great Britain claims the wreck as a war grave site.

hop2002
11-09-2007, 09:15 AM
You obviously did not read this thread, nor did you read up on the historic development of the naval warfare in WWI. I suggest you do that before posting.

No, I read it. German reasons for violating the rules do not alter the fact that they did violate the rules.

Blutarski2004
11-09-2007, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
Well, attacking immobilized ships full of concentration camp inmates doesn't make much sense, but of course telling them apart from a ship full of German soldiers preparing to sail to Norway is rather difficult from an aircraft.


..... To put things in a little better perspective, American submarines late in the war unwittingly killed many thousands of allied prisoners of war in the course of sinking Japanese merchant ships that were transporting them from Java to Japan.

Kurfurst__
11-09-2007, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
Almost certainly the Lusitania was carrying ammunition as well as passengers.

The rules of naval warfare, though, allowed warships to stop and board vessels they suspected of carrying contraband (military supplies). If contraband was found, the ship could be sunk, after the crew and passengers were made safe.

And German U-boots adhered these rules.


What the Germans did is ignore those rules, and institute unrestricted submarine warfare, where civilian ships would be attacked with no warning.

They ignored the rules after the British started to abuse these rules.

And the reason for them doing so was that the Admirality ordered 'civillian' ship`s captains to intentionally ram and sink every U boot when it submerged and approached the ship for inspection. 500 pounds, a hefty sum was offered as reward. Merchantmen were told to deny the PoW status for captured survivors of the U-boots, and treat them 'as criminals'. They had also created fake 'civillian', or Q-ships, with concealed armament, manned by British marines in civillian clothing, flying the flag of neutral countries(!!) to deceive the enemy, that opened fire on U-boots that that approached to inspect themor others.

On 19 August 1915, the German submarine U-27, honouring the international and German Prize Rules stopped the British merchantmen NICOSIAN for inspection for contraband and boarded it. During the progress, undoubtedly driven by the mission of civilizing the warfare on the seas after so many hundreds of years of barbarity, the British Q-Ship BARALONG, hosting a US flag to conceal it`s true identity, approached U-27 and sank it with gunfire from it`s concealed guns. The surviving 12 German sailors were messacred in the water by small arms fire. Caring little for the protest from the United States, the Q-ships British captain was even awarded.

On 24 September 1915, the Q-ship WYANDRA sank the U-41 under similiar conditions, again violating all possible rules of the war while sailing under US flag again. 3 hours later it returned to the scene and deliberately run down the lifeboat of the surviving submariners, leaving just two survivors. WYANDRA was of course the ex-BARALONG, it just painted a new name on the ship`s side after every incident.

The very idea by the was to abuse the rules of war by these means to gain advantage and break the blockade Britain was under. As usual, the British only cared about the rules until they saw it fitting. Of course by issueing orders of military nature to 'civillian' ships and arming them with guns, those ships were no longer 'civillian', and were no longer enjoyed the protection provided them by the rules of war.

After all, no warship ever needed to warn and search another warship for contraband before sinking it.

luftluuver
11-09-2007, 09:52 AM
The German Q-Boats, Möwe and Wolf, had no success in destroying enemy submarines.

The German Q-boats did have success against British merchant ships.

When the U-boats were at their worst in World War I, the British Admiralty approved and authorized the conversion of merchant vessels to heavily armed raiders which would have her guns disguised or concealed in such a way that the merchant vessels might serve as decoys which would encourage U-boats to <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">attack</span> them with their deck guns so as not to waste expensive and of limited supply torpedoes on easy targets.

These ships were developed because of the large loss of shipping caused by German U-boats in the opening months of the war. It did not go unnoticed that the submarines preferred to attack unescorted, older and smaller vessels by using surface gunfire thus preserving their torpedoes for larger vessels or warships and extending their sea cruise durations. Thus it was conceived that a vessel, such as a coaster, if provided with a concealed armament, could meet a surfaced submarine on fairly equal terms.

Blutarski2004
11-09-2007, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The German embassy placed prominent advertisements in principal US newspapers explicitly warning the public that taking passage on LUSITANIA would place them at risk in the war zone. I really don't know what else Germany could have done.

Not sunk the ship? Sent a warship to stop it and inspect it, and sink it after the passengers and crew were put in to the boats?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Germany's submarine campaign was at first conducted with scrupulous regard for the rules of war. Great Britain took advantage of the cumbersome and time-consuming nature of those rules to attack her U-boats. After losing a number of submarines to such attacks, Germany progressively modified its submarine tactics, starting with declared sea zones of hostility and ultimately progressing to unrestricted submarine warfare. I honestly cannot accept that a nation ought to be criticized for abandoning observance of any rules of warfare when its opponent chooses to take advantage of the fact. Great Britain chose to make observance of those rules of maritime warfare a potentially suicidal practice for German submarines. It must IMO consequently share responsibility for the perfectly foreseeable consequences of that policy.

As to LUSITANIA, if Britain rally wanted to guarantee the safety of her passengers, it could have invited a representative of the local German embassy to inspect the ship's cargo manifest or obseve the cargo loading process. But they didn't. They chose to carry munitions aboard and take their chances. LUSITANIA was a very fast ship and therefore unlikely to be attacked by submarine. An 18 knot target ship such as LUSITANIA, once actually sighted by a WW1 era submarine, statistically had less than ten percent risk of being successfully intercepted and attacked. Her loss was very much a matter of sheer bad luck. The Britih made what they considered a safe bet, but lost the wager.

There is a school of opinion that an explosion of munitions carried in her cargo materially contributed to the unusually rapid sinking of LUSITANIA, which in turn caused the unusually large loss of life. All in all, I consider it cynical to carry muntions aboard a passenger ship and then complain about the loss of innocent passengers when the ship is sunk.

JZG_Thiem
11-09-2007, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JZG_Thiem:

Standard dosplacement were different per definitionem for different countries, so they are hardly comparable.

No, that would be the design displacement. Standard displacement is the same everywhere, an artificial definition given in the Washington treaty. Full ship, minus the fuel, minus reserve feed water.


Hood 41200
BM 41700
both values excluding fuel.

41200ts is for the standard displacement of the Hood, "as designed". When it was finished, the standard displacement actually was 42670ts.


draught: both values were at max displacement according to Breyer.

No, Breyer gives the draught at standard displacement (Initial design of the Hood: 7.8/8.9.). Draught for max displacement is below the line, which Breyer doesn't give for the Hood as finished. Draught for the fully loaden Hood was 9.8 meters.

And you are right in that Xio was wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i checked, and you are right about definition of standard displacement.
i rechecked Breyer, and Hoods displacement was given as 41200 until 1940. If the real (not calced) displacement was 42600, why is a lower value given for 1940 still? Hood was already 20 afloat, and you say they knew that she exceeded the calcs by 1400!?

draught: you are right, 8,7m were given at standard displacemet. Design values (7,8-> 8,9) point towards an increase of +1m at full displacement. So i take your 9,8m (tho Breyer dont seem to have em).

luftluuver
11-09-2007, 10:19 AM
Does anyone else think it strange that Kurfurst, and a few others, whine continually about the British terror bombing in WW2 of German civilians supporting the German war machine in some sort of way or other, yet find it acceptable to sink unarmed merchant ships manned by civilian?

ploughman
11-09-2007, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
Does the wreck of the Lusitania not lay within the jurisdiction of the Republic of Ireland?


..... It has been some time since I investigated the Lusitania affair, but IIRC Great Britain claims the wreck as a war grave site. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't find anything on the wreck being a war grave although many of those who perished remained within the wreck.

It was designated a National Monument by the Irish Government in 1995 but this was disputed by the wreck's owner.

Kurfurst__
11-09-2007, 10:40 AM
Well if you mean German auxilarry cruisers of WW1, or the 'Raiders', unfortunately for you (and very fortunately for their Prizes), they were quite unlike the British Q-ships in their operations.

They were manned by the personnel of the Imperial Navy, and did not attack without warning like Q-ships. Quite the contrary, they hosted the Imperial Navy Battle Banners upon approaching an enemy merchantmen, and requested it to stop immidiately, then it was boarded and searched for war contraband, as was prescribed by the international conventions at the time. Captured passengers and crew was saved and interned and kept well, and generally bloodshed was avoided.

Despite avoiding the kind of barbarous behaviour shown by the BARALONG and other Q-ships, these auxilarry cruisers, dubbed the 'Kaiser`s pirates' proved to be extremely successfull while honouring the rules of war and operated in a civilized and rather gentlemanly manner.

The following is the account of their operation by Frederic George Trayes, who spent five months in captivity after his ship disobeyed the orders of a Raider to stop :

The chart at noon on the 26th marked 508 miles from Colombo, 2,912 to Delagoa Bay, and 190 to the Equator; only position, not the course, being marked after the ship left Colombo. Most of the passengers had, as usual, either dozed on deck or in their cabins after tiffin, my wife and I being in deck chairs on the port side. When I woke up at 1.45 I saw far off on the horizon, on the port bow, smoke from a steamer. I was the only person awake on the deck at the time, and I believe no other passenger had seen the smoke, which was so far away that it was impossible to tell whether we were meeting or overtaking the ship.

Immediately thoughts of a raider sprang to my mind, though I did not know one was out. But from what one could gather at Colombo, no ship was due at that port on that track in about two days. The streets of Colombo were certainly darkened at night, and the lighthouse was not in use when we were there, but there was no mention of the presence of any suspicious craft in the adjacent waters.

It is generally understood that instructions to Captains in these times are to suspect every vessel seen at sea, and to run away from all signs of smoke (and some of us knew that on a previous occasion, some months before, a vessel of the same line had seen smoke in this neighbourhood, and had at once turned tail and made tracks for Colombo, resuming her voyage when the smoke disappeared). The officer on the bridge with his glass must have seen the smoke long before I did, so my suspicions of a raider were gradually disarmed as we did not alter our course a single point, but proceeded to meet the stranger, whose course towards us formed a diagonal one with ours. If nothing had happened she would have crossed our track slightly astern of us.

But something did happen. More passengers were now awake, discussing the nationality of the ship bearing down on us. Still no alteration was made in our course, and we and she had made no sign of recognition.

Surely everything was all right and there was nothing to fear. Even the Japanese commander of the gun crew betrayed no anxiety on the matter, but stood with the passengers on the deck watching the oncoming stranger. Five bells had just gone when the vessel, then about seven hundred yards away from us, took a sudden turn to port and ran up signals and the German Imperial Navy flag. There was no longer any doubt"”the worst had happened. We had walked blindly into the open arms of the enemy. The signals were to tell us to stop. We did not stop. The raider fired two shots across our bows, and they fell into the sea quite close to where most of the passengers were standing. Still we did not stop. It was wicked to ignore these orders and warnings, as there was no possible chance of escape from an armed vessel of any kind. The attempt to escape had been left too late; it should have been made immediately the smoke of the raider was seen. Most of the passengers went to their cabins for life-belts and life-saving waistcoats, and at once returned to the deck to watch the raider. As we were still steaming and had not even yet obeyed the order to stop, the raider opened fire on us in dead earnest, firing a broadside.

While the firing was going on, a seaplane appeared above the raider; some assert that she dropped bombs in front of us, but personally I did not see this.

The greatest alarm now prevailed on our ship, and passengers did not know where to go to avoid the shells which we could hear and feel striking the ship. My wife and I returned to our cabin to fetch an extra pair of spectacles, our passports, and my pocketbook, and at the same time picked up her jewel-case. The alley-way between the companion-way and our cabin was by this time strewn with splinters of wood and glass and wreckage; pieces of shell had been embedded in the panelling and a large hole made in the funnel. This damage had been done by a single shot aimed at the wireless room near the bridge.

We returned once more to the port deck, where most of the first-class passengers had assembled waiting for orders"”which never came. No instructions came from the Captain or officers or crew; in fact, we never saw any of the ship's officers until long after all the lifeboats were afloat on the sea.

The ship had now stopped, and the firing had apparently ceased, but we did not know whether it would recommence, and of course imagined the Germans were firing to sink the ship. It was useless trying to escape the shots, as we did not then know at what part of the ship the Germans were firing, so there was only one thing for the passengers to do"”to leave the ship as rapidly as possible, as we all thought she was sinking. Some of the passengers attempted to go on the bridge to get to the boat deck and help lower the boats, as it seemed nothing was being done, but we were ordered back by the Second Steward, who, apparently alone among the ship's officers, kept his head throughout.

No. 1 boat was now being lowered on the port side; it was full of Japanese and Asiatics. When it was flush with the deck the falls broke, the boat capsized, and with all its occupants it was thrown into the sea. One or two, we afterwards heard, were drowned. The passengers now went over to the starboard side, as apparently no more boats were being lowered from the port side, and we did not know whether the raider would start firing again. The No. 1 starboard boat was being lowered; still there was no one to give orders. The passengers themselves saw to it that the women got into this boat first, and helped them in, only the Second Steward standing by to help. The women had to climb the rail and gangway which was lashed thereto, and the boat was so full of gear and tackle that at first it was quite impossible for any one to find a seat in the boat. It was a difficult task for any woman to get into this boat, and everybody was in a great hurry, expecting the firing to recommence, or the ship to sink beneath us, or both; my wife fell in, and in so doing dropped her jewel-case out of her handbag into the bottom of the boat, and it was seen no more that day. The husbands followed their wives into the boat, and several other men among the first-class passengers also clambered in.

Directly after the order to lower away was given, and before any one could settle in the boat, the stern falls broke, and for a second the boat hung from the bow falls vertically, the occupants hanging on to anything they could"”a dreadful moment, especially in view of what we had seen happen to the No. 1 port boat a few moments before. Then, immediately afterwards, the bow falls broke, or were cut, the boat dropped into the water with a loud thud and a great splash, and righted itself. We were still alongside the ship when another boat was being swung out and lowered immediately on to our heads. We managed to push off just in time before the other boat, the falls of which also broke, reached the water.

Thus, there was no preparation made for accidents"”we might have been living in the times of profoundest peace for all the trouble that had been taken to see that everything was ready in case of accident. Instead of which, nothing was ready"”not a very creditable state of affairs for a great steamship company in times such as these, when, thanks to the Huns' ideas of sea chivalry, any ship may have to be abandoned at a moment's notice. Some passengers had asked for boat drill when the ship left Singapore, but were told there was no need for it, or for any similar preparations till after Cape Town, which, alas, never was reached. Accordingly passengers had no places given to them in the boats; the boats were not ready, and confusion, instead of order, prevailed. It was nothing short of a miracle that more people were not drowned.

If the ship had only stopped when ordered by signals to do so, there would have been no firing at all. Even if she had stopped after the warning shots had been fired, no more firing would have taken place and nobody need have left the ship at all. What a vast amount of trouble, fear, anxiety, and damage to life and property might have been saved if only the raider's orders had been obeyed! It seemed too, at the time, that if only the Hitachi had turned tail and bolted directly the raider's smoke was seen on the horizon by the officer on watch on the bridge"”at the latest this must have been about 1.30"”she might have escaped altogether, as she was a much quicker boat than the German. At any rate, she might have tried. Her fate would have been no worse if she had failed to escape, for surely even the Germans could not deny any ship the right to escape if she could effect it. Certainly the seaplane might have taken up the chase, and ordered the Hitachi to stop. We heard afterwards that one ship"”the Wairuna, from New Zealand to San Francisco"”had been caught in this way. The seaplane had hovered over her, dropped messages on her deck ordering her to follow the plane to a concealed harbour near, failing which bombs would be dropped to explode the ship. Needless to say, the ship followed these instructions.

"There was no panic, and the women were splendid." How often one has read that in these days of atrocity at sea! We were to realize it now; the women were indeed splendid. There was no crying or screaming or hysteria, or wild inquiries. They were perfectly calm and collected: none of them showed the least fear, even under fire. The women took the matter as coolly as if being shelled and leaving a ship in lifeboats were nothing much out of the ordinary. Their sang-froid was marvellous.

As we thought the ship was slowly sinking, we pushed off from her side as quickly as possible. There were now four lifeboats in the water at some distance from each other. The one in which we were contained about twenty-four persons. There was no officer or member of the crew with us, while another boat contained officers and sailors only. No one in our boat knew where we were to go or what we were to do. One passenger wildly suggested that we should hoist a sail and set sail for Colombo, two days' steaming away! Search was made for provisions and water in our boat, but she was so full of people and impedimenta that nothing could be found. It was found, however, that water was rapidly coming into the boat, and before long it reached to our knees. The hole which should have been plugged could not be discovered, so for more than an hour some of the men took turns at pulling, and baling the water out with their sun-helmets. This was very hot work, as it must be remembered we were not far from the Equator. Ultimately, however, the hole was found and more or less satisfactorily plugged. Water, however, continued to come in, so baling had still to be proceeded with. An Irish Tommy, going home from Singapore to join up, was in our boat. He was most cheerful and in every way helpful, working hard and pulling all the time. It was he who plugged the hole, and as he was almost the only one among us who seemed to have any useful knowledge about the management of lifeboats, we were very glad to reckon him among our company.

The four boats were now drifting aimlessly about over the sea, when an order was shouted to us, apparently from a Japanese officer in one of the other boats, to tie up with the other three boats. After some time this was accomplished, and the four boats in line drifted on the water. The two steamers had stopped; we did not know what was happening on board either of them, but saw the raider's motor launch going between the raider and her prize, picking up some of the men who had fallen into the sea when the boat capsized. Luckily, the sharks with which these waters are infested had been scared off by the gunfire. We realized, when we were in the lifeboats, what a heavy swell there was on the sea, as both steamers were occasionally hidden from us when we were in the trough of the waves. We were, however, not inconvenienced in any way by the swell, and the lifeboats shipped no water. There was no one in command of any of the boats, and we simply waited to see what was going to happen.

What a sudden, what a dramatic change in our fortunes! One that easily might have been, might even yet be, tragic. At half-past one, less than two hours before, we were comfortably on board a fine ship, absolutely unsuspicious of the least danger. If any of us had thought of the matter at all, we probably imagined we were in the safest part of the ocean. But, at three o'clock, here we were, having undergone the trying ordeal of shell-fire in the interval, drifting helplessly in lifeboats in mid-ocean, all our personal belongings left behind in what we imagined to be a sinking ship, not knowing what fate was in store for us, but naturally, remembering what we had heard of German sea outrages, dreading the very worst.

Escape in any way was obviously out of the question. At last the raider got under way and began to bear down on us. Things began to look more ugly than ever, and most of us thought that the end had come, and that we were up against an apostle of the "sink the ships and leave no trace" theory"”which we had read about in Colombo only a couple of days before"”the latest development of "frightfulness." Our minds were not made easier by the seaplane circling above us, ready, as we thought, to administer the final blow to any who might survive being fired on by the raider's guns. It was a most anxious moment for us all, and opinions were very divided as to what was going to happen. One of the ladies remarked that she had no fear, and reminded us that we were all in God's hands, which cheered up some of the drooping hearts and anxious minds. Certainly most of us thought we were soon to look our last upon the world; what other thoughts were in our minds, as we imagined our last moments were so near, will remain unrecorded.

However, to our intense relief, nothing of what we had feared happened, and as the raider came slowly nearer to us"”up till now we had not even seen one of the enemy"”an officer on the bridge megaphoned us to come alongside. This we did; three boats went astern, and the one in which we were remained near the raider's bows. An officer appeared at the bulwarks and told us to come aboard; women first, then their husbands, then the single men. There was no choice but to obey, but we all felt uneasy in our minds as to what kind of treatment our women were to receive at the hands of the Germans on board.

The ship was rolling considerably, and it is never a pleasant or easy task for a landsman, much less a landswoman, to clamber by a rope-ladder some twenty feet up the side of a rolling ship. However, all the ladies acquitted themselves nobly, some even going up without a rope round their waists. The little Japanese stewardess, terrified, but showing a brave front to the enemy, was the last woman to go up before the men's ascent began. Two German sailors stood at the bulwarks to help us off the rope-ladder into the well deck forward, and by 5.20 we were all aboard, after having spent a very anxious two hours, possibly the most anxious in the lives of most of us. We were all wet, dirty, and dishevelled, and looked sorry objects. One of the passengers, a tall, stout man, was somewhat handicapped by his nether garments slipping down and finally getting in a ruck round his ankles when he was climbing up the ladder on to the raider. A German sailor, to ease his passage, went down the ladder and relieved him of them altogether. He landed on the raider's deck minus this important part of his wardrobe, amid shrieks of laughter from captives and captors.

It was at once evident, directly we got on board, that we were in for kindly treatment. The ship's doctor at once came forward, saluted, and asked who was wounded and required his attention. Most of the passengers"”there were only twenty first and about a dozen second class"”were in our boat, and among the second-class passengers with us were a few Portuguese soldiers going from Macao to Delagoa Bay.

Some of us were slightly bruised, and all were shaken, but luckily none required medical treatment. Chairs were quickly found for the ladies, the men seated themselves on the hatch, and the German sailors busied themselves bringing tea and cigarettes to their latest captives. We were then left to ourselves for a short time on deck, and just before dark a spruce young Lieutenant came up to me, saluted, and asked me to tell all the passengers that we were to follow him and go aft. We followed him along the ship, which seemed to be very crowded, to the well deck aft, where we met the remaining few passengers and some of the crew of the Hitachi. We had evidently come across a new type of Hun. The young Lieutenant was most polite, and courteous and attentive.

hop2002
11-09-2007, 10:42 AM
They ignored the rules after the British started to abuse these rules.

And the reason for them doing so was that the Admirality ordered 'civillian' ship`s captains to intentionally ram and sink every U boot when it submerged and approached the ship for inspection.

Ah. The problem is, the British first issued orders for merchant ships to attempt to ram submarines on the 10th February 1915.

The Germans ordered submarines to sink merchant ships without warning on the 4th February 1915. They did so publicly, in a "warning" to merchants. The British ramming orders were a response to that.


They had also created fake 'civillian', or Q-ships, with concealed armament, manned by British marines in civillian clothing, flying the flag of neutral countries(!!) to deceive the enemy, that opened fire on U-boots that that approached to inspect themor others.

There's a problem with using that as a justification, too. For a start, flying false colours and concealing your military nature prior to combat was common, and fully accepted in the rules of war. The Germans, after all, used the exact same tactics to disguise some of their merchant raiders.

The other problem is the first submarine sunk by a Q ship was in July 1915. The Germans sank the Lusitania months earlier.


Germany's submarine campaign was at first conducted with scrupulous regard for the rules of war. Great Britain took advantage of the cumbersome and time-consuming nature of those rules to attack her U-boats. After losing a number of submarines to such attacks, Germany progressively modified its submarine tactics, starting with declared sea zones of hostility and ultimately progressing to unrestricted submarine warfare.

It's simply not true.

The Germans lost 4 U boats in 1914. 2 were rammed by British warships, 2 were lost to unknown causes.

They lost 3 in Jan 1915. The first was mined, the second lost to an unknown cause, the third torpedoed by another U boat in error.

They lost no U boats in Feb. On the 5th Feb they announced they would sink allied merchant ships without warning.

At that stage, not a single U boat had been lost to a merchant ship

The first U boat lost to a merchant ship was in July 1915, and that was purely an accident, as the submarine came to periscope depth in front of a coaster, who reported they had hit an unknown underwater obstruction.

There were 2 further U boats rammed and sunk by merchant ships in 1917, 3 in 1918.

So the first deliberate ramming and sinking of a U boat by a merchant ship was in June 1917.


I honestly cannot accept that a nation ought to be criticized for abandoning observance of any rules of warfare when its opponent chooses to take advantage of the fact. Great Britain chose to make observance of those rules of maritime warfare a potentially suicidal practice for German submarines. It must IMO consequently share responsibility for the perfectly foreseeable consequences of that policy.

The British instruction for merchant ships to ram U boats was issued 5 days after the Germans announced they would sink allied merchant ships on sight.


As to LUSITANIA, if Britain rally wanted to guarantee the safety of her passengers, it could have invited a representative of the local German embassy to inspect the ship's cargo manifest or obseve the cargo loading process. But they didn't. They chose to carry munitions aboard and take their chances.

It's worth pointing out that the laws of war should have protected Lusitania whatever it was carrying. The point is, though, that the Germans had announced they would sink on sight, whatever the cargo.

The captain who sank the Lusitania had torpedoed the hospital ship Asturias in Jan 1915, despite the ship being illuminated and carrying clear red cross markings. 31 people were killed.

The same month, before the German announcement of the plan to sink on sight, he had torpedoed and sunk 3 merchant vessels in the Channel with no warning.

JtD
11-09-2007, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by JZG_Thiem:

i rechecked Breyer, and Hoods displacement was given as 41200 until 1940. If the real (not calced) displacement was 42600, why is a lower value given for 1940 still? Hood was already 20 afloat, and you say they knew that she exceeded the calcs by 1400!?

It's one of the mistakes in Breyer's book. He actually tried to document all dreadnoughts ever afloat and planned in a single book, a giant task. I think in his research he found the official calculated design displacement and was happy with it. If you were to dig a lot deeper, you'd need more than a lifetime to finish a book like that.

A good and more detailed book about the British battleships of WW2 is Raven/Roberts "Die Britischen Schlachtschiffe des WK2". You can get it for 15€ (!) at Amazon. English original costs you a couple of hundred. Contains little of the ships history, but a load of data and background information.

luftluuver
11-09-2007, 10:55 AM
Thanks Hop. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
I knew Kurfurst would put his aryan spin to the true facts. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif Another case of his intellectual dishonesty. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

JZG_Thiem
11-09-2007, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Does anyone else think it strange that Kurfurst, and a few others, whine continually about the British terror bombing in WW2 of German civilians supporting the German war machine in some sort of way or other, yet find it acceptable to sink unarmed merchant ships manned by civilian?

Are you talking about Würzburg and the attack on March 16th 1945? Würzburg at that time had 110000 ppl plus 10000 in hospitals plus 20000 evacuated form other cities, totalling ca. 140000. I bet at that time those ppl in hospital and evacuees were ardent supporters of Hitler still (although in March 1945 there wasnt much left of any german citiy with more than 100000 pre-war inhabitants), and contribbuting a lot to the german war effort, just as much as the 35 destroyed churches, since by March of 1945 Churches played a major role in german efforts to turn the tide.
Ohh, wait, maybe your not talking about Würzburg, but Pforzheim, right? No interesing industry at all. Yet on Feb. 23rd 1945 i bet this town was also full of ardent Nazi supporters working frantically for the "endsieg", at least thats how you picture the germans from your "Hogans Heroes" education, right? Yes, good reason to wipe out more than 30% of its population with a single attack.

Its interesting to see that you find it acceptable to kill innnocent civilians in cities, yet find it unacceptable to sink merchant ships supporting the allied war machine.
If you ask me, both are unacceptable in some way, judging from my humanist education. Yet to you some people seem to be *more equal* than others, a mindset you are (funny or ironic) accusing others of.

JZG_Thiem
11-09-2007, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JZG_Thiem:

i rechecked Breyer, and Hoods displacement was given as 41200 until 1940. If the real (not calced) displacement was 42600, why is a lower value given for 1940 still? Hood was already 20 afloat, and you say they knew that she exceeded the calcs by 1400!?

It's one of the mistakes in Breyer's book. He actually tried to document all dreadnoughts ever afloat and planned in a single book, a giant task. I think in his research he found the official calculated design displacement and was happy with it. If you were to dig a lot deeper, you'd need more than a lifetime to finish a book like that.

A good and more detailed book about the British battleships of WW2 is Raven/Roberts "Die Britischen Schlachtschiffe des WK2". You can get it for 15€ (!) at Amazon. English original costs you a couple of hundred. Contains little of the ships history, but a load of data and background information. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

thx, i already figured that maybe the 42500 figure was missing to Breyer. I am always looking for decent (and valid) sources.

luftluuver
11-09-2007, 11:28 AM
JZG_Thiem you do have a very bad case of reading comprehension. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

I don't think I said it was unacceptable to sink merchant ships supporting the Allied war machine.

I can't help it if you are simple minded.

Kurfurst__
11-09-2007, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:

Ah. The problem is, the British first issued orders for merchant ships to attempt to ram submarines on the 10th February 1915.


The British instruction for merchant ships to ram U boats was issued 5 days after the Germans announced they would sink allied merchant ships on sight.

The trouble with it is that it`s just not true (no surprise here, it`s from you).

The first recorded ramming of a U-boat by a merchant ship came on 28 February 1915, when the steamer THORDIS rammed and damaged a submarine off the south coast of England.

On 17 March 1914 Winston Churchill told the Commons that forty merchant ships had each been armed with two 4.7-inch guns. Admiral Fisher, perceiving this, wrote to Prime Minister Asquith on 14 May 1914 that "the recent arming of our British merchant ships is unfortunate, for it gives the hostile submarine an excellent excuse (if she needs one) for sinking them."

In November 1914, the British begun to arm merchentmen as Q-ships with hidden guns and sent them out with orders - and flying neutral flags - to seek out and destroy U-boots. The British first issued orders in the end of 1914 that merchantmen should ram U-boots and receive 500 pounds reward for it; at the same time, merchantmen were armed and were instructed to take no prisoners. No comment on the latter, it was simply a war crime and ignoring all internation treaties. But Churchill approved it.

It was not until 4 February 1915 Germany declared the seas around the British Isles a war zone. Effective 18 February, Allied ships in the area would be sunk without warning (the British already declared a similiar blockade zone around Germany). British ships hiding behind neutral flags would not be spared, though some effort would be made to avoid sinking clearly neutral vessels.


Originally posted by hop2002:
The Germans ordered submarines to sink merchant ships without warning on the 4th February 1915. They did so publicly, in a "warning" to merchants. The British ramming orders were a response to that.

The problem again is, that it`s not true again. Again, no surprise, it`s from you. After the Admiralities instruction to merchantmen to ram U-boots, and arming them, the Germans begun to fit 8.8cm guns to the U-boots and on 4th February 1915 they ordered submarines to handle armed merchant ships as what they really were, aux. warships.

Of course, the 'armed part somehow went missing in your version.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">They had also created fake 'civillian', or Q-ships, with concealed armament, manned by British marines in civillian clothing, flying the flag of neutral countries(!!) to deceive the enemy, that opened fire on U-boots that that approached to inspect themor others.

There's a problem with using that as a justification, too. For a start, flying false colours and concealing your military nature prior to combat was common, and fully accepted in the rules of war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Utter bullsh!t, even from you. Care to give a source as to which treaty considers using neutral country`s flag and disguise as civillians and messacring happless survivors 'fully accepted'?

International law at the time :

- Forbidden the use of false colours
- Forbidden entering into combat without colours
- Prescribed the evacuation of the survivors
- Protected PoWs and the wounded

Q-Ships respected none of these prescriptions.


The Germans, after all, used the exact same tactics to disguise some of their merchant raiders.

The problem is of course trying to justify Q-ships and their operations by referring to German aux. cruisers is that :

- Q-ships came into existance before German raiders

- German raiders were auxillarry cruisers, which hosted their Battle flags prior combat, warned enemy merchant vessels for a proper search to be conducted, took PoWs and protected the wounded etc., ie. they followed the rules of war like a normal warship.

Q-ships in contrast sailed under neutral colours, disguised their nature, they did not gave warning, and refused to follow the rules of war, and messacred the hapless enemy instead of picking them up (as they were obliged to) and making them PoWs. They violated the rules of war in every possible way. Little more than criminals, really, but they were the brainchild of Churchill, so what to expect..?

Even the His Majesty the King openly expressed his disgust with them and their ways.


The other problem is the first submarine sunk by a Q ship was in July 1915. The Germans sank the Lusitania months earlier.

Lusitania was the Royal Navy`s auxilarry cruiser carrying arms, ammunition and war material to Britain.
A perfectly legit target regardless of the shameless lies of yours on Q-ships with which you bring up to muddy the water.


On the 5th Feb they announced they would sink allied merchant ships without warning.

Armed allied merchant ships, instructed some months to attack and ram submarines attempting the search them, ie. not merchant ships at all.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As to LUSITANIA, if Britain rally wanted to guarantee the safety of her passengers, it could have invited a representative of the local German embassy to inspect the ship's cargo manifest or obseve the cargo loading process. But they didn't. They chose to carry munitions aboard and take their chances.

It's worth pointing out that the laws of war should have protected Lusitania whatever it was carrying. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

... what laws protects a British auxilarry cruiser carrying war supplies and troops on British waters from being sunk...?


The point is, though, that the Germans had announced they would sink on sight, whatever the cargo.

Of course. She was a warship, after all, even with the disgusting part of Americans being used as human shields by the British. And the Germans had announced they would sink on sight in case if it enters in a well-defined area around Britain - which was under blockade of course.


The captain who sank the Lusitania had torpedoed the hospital ship Asturias in Jan 1915, despite the ship being illuminated and carrying clear red cross markings. 31 people were killed.

At midnight. Like the 'armed' part, some information usually gets lost in Hop`s post. Thing like that the British were using hospital ships both to transport troops and wounded, abusing the Geneve Convention. Asturias did not sink either.

Just like in the case of the Lusitania, your arguements are hypocrite and cynical.


The same month, before the German announcement of the plan to sink on sight, he had torpedoed and sunk 3 merchant vessels in the Channel with no warning.

Which 'merchant' ships were these...? Were they armed and ordered to attack German submarines that attempt to search them?

Sergio_101
11-09-2007, 12:03 PM
I read Kurfie's last post and sneezed loudly
as I am allergic to B.S. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kurfurst/Isegrim/Barbi is on a campaign, taking on the impossible
task of proving the NAZI's "ain't so bad".
You sunk a hospital ship, we bombed a city....
Look at Rotterdam, fewer died there than when you bombed Dresden, so "we ain't so bad"....

War is at best a nasty game, "there ain't no rules in a knifefight".
When it comes down to it, fighting by the rules is for fools.

Where O'l Turdfist really misses the point is that
his beloved NAZI's started this whole thing, then he whines because
they get blamed for all those atrocities.

Germany started a world wide confligration that resulted in the deaths
of in excess of 55,000,000 people.

That there were bombing raids by the Allies or sinkings
more henious does not impress me.
In a manner that would make Dr. Gobbels proud Kurfie
spins that into propaganda.

Everyone seems to beat up on the US for the Nuclear attacks on Hiroshima
and Nagasaki. Very strange to me that the fire bombings of Japanese cities
never seems to come up. Far more were killed in those attacks.
While on the subject of the Japanese I'll bring up Naking....
At least 500,000 died in that horrible bloodbath. More than the Nagasaki, Hiroshima
and Tokyo fire raids combined.
The primary difference with Naking?
Most of the deaths were caused by Japanese troops shooting civilians for sport and because they are Chinese.

Back to the Germans, bring up the death camps and the Kurfieites bring up Stalin's purges.
The old lesser of two evils argument. (not really lesser, over 10,000,000 died in the NAZI
death camps, 6,000,000 of which were Jews).

War is hell. Hospital ships carry warriors destined to come back and fight again.
Legitimate targets in my book.

Air sea rescue planes? Same thing. Shoot them down.

As to the Hood question........
Evidence is overwhelming that a hit from the Bismarck's 15" guns sunk her in a lucky hit.
The actual destructive force was likely the ignited powder bags in the magazines.

Ignited nitrocellous does not explode, it burns rapidly.
That explains the eye witness description of the smoke from the turret
and the "roman candle like flames"
shooting from the deck.
Hood was as much burned in half as blown up.

Sergio

joeap
11-09-2007, 12:13 PM
Way to ruin a good thread guys. IBTL. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/353.gif

JZG_Thiem
11-09-2007, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
JZG_Thiem you do have a very bad case of reading comprehension. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

I don't think I said it was unacceptable to sink merchant ships supporting the Allied war machine.

I can't help it if you are simple minded.

So you think its acceptable to sink merchants manned by civilians just as destroying cities filled with civilians?

Blutarski2004
11-09-2007, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Germany's submarine campaign was at first conducted with scrupulous regard for the rules of war. Great Britain took advantage of the cumbersome and time-consuming nature of those rules to attack her U-boats. After losing a number of submarines to such attacks, Germany progressively modified its submarine tactics, starting with declared sea zones of hostility and ultimately progressing to unrestricted submarine warfare.

It's simply not true.

The Germans lost 4 U boats in 1914. 2 were rammed by British warships, 2 were lost to unknown causes.

They lost 3 in Jan 1915. The first was mined, the second lost to an unknown cause, the third torpedoed by another U boat in error.

They lost no U boats in Feb. On the 5th Feb they announced they would sink allied merchant ships without warning.

At that stage, not a single U boat had been lost to a merchant ship

The first U boat lost to a merchant ship was in July 1915, and that was purely an accident, as the submarine came to periscope depth in front of a coaster, who reported they had hit an unknown underwater obstruction.

There were 2 further U boats rammed and sunk by merchant ships in 1917, 3 in 1918.

So the first deliberate ramming and sinking of a U boat by a merchant ship was in June 1917.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... Hop, if you have a copy of volume II of "From the Dreadnought to Scapa Flow", see Chapter XIV. Marder sums up the early aspects of the German submarine campaign in a very even-handed fashion.

The first British merchant ship sunk by German U-boat was the GLITRA in October of 1914, with no loss of life. Her entire ship's company was permitted to take to the lifeboats before the Germans boarded the vessel and scuttled her. From Aug 1914 through Jan 1915, German Submarines sank exactly 10 British merchant ships. Seven German subs were lost over the same time period.

Germany officially declared British home waters to be a "War Zone" in Feb 1915. In late Aug 1915, after the sinkings of LUSITANIA and ARABIC, Germany instructed its U-boats not to attack passenger steamers unless they could guarantee the safety of crew and passengers. In Sep 1915, Germany withdrew her U-boats from the English Channel and the Western Approaches which more or less suspended the U-boat offensive for the remainder of 1915.

In Mar 1916, Germany announced new rules of engagement for the upcoming campaign season -

1. Any merchant ships encountered within the declared war zone were to be sunk without prior warning.

2. Unarmed merchant ships encountered outside the war zone are were to be given prior warning.

3. Armed merchant ships werre to be sunk without warning regardless of where enciuntered.

4. Enemy passenger steamers, whether armed or not, were not to be attacked by a submerged submarine anywhere.

American protests after the accidental torpedoing of SUSSEX resulted in german once again suspending attack without warning in Apr 1916, when U-boat captains were instructed to strictly observe prize regulations when attacking merchant shipping UNLESS they attempted to flee or offered resistance. Thisd lasted through the better part of 1916.


Doesn't sound terribly barbaric to me .....

flyingloon
11-09-2007, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JZG_Thiem:
so what?
On 3rd of May 1945, the RAF sank the "Kap Arcona" and "Thielbeck" off Neustadt. 7000-8000 poor souls that were brought there from KZs (by the infamous SS of course) drowned or were burnt to death.

Im Pretty sure, trying to sink (immobilized!) ships full of ppl at this stage of the war in europe made a friggen load of sense. at least as much as attacking hospital ships, right? Unlike the British ships that were clearly marked as hospital ships, white with green stripe and red crosses, I see no such markings on the Cap Arcona

http://www.abc.se/~pa/pic/mar/cap_arcona.jpg

and Thielbek. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

just found out that my girlfriends grand father was quite likely one of the pilots involved in the sinking of the theilbeck, cap arcona and deutschland. flew with 263 squadron, and he never spoke of what he had done during the war to his family, although it was known that he was a pilot of course. apparently the guilt of finding out what had been hit was such that he never spoke of his medals, where he had been or anything, and hid everything in a box that was only recently passed on to my girlfriend. it was only in the past couple of days that we had even found out which squadron he had been in because of a clipping from pilot magazine in 74 referring to him by name, squadron and this incident.
also from the reading i've managed to dig out there were some survivors from the air attack, but they were mostly killed on reaching shore by the SS. a truly terrible episode, and disturbing to discover.

gdfo
11-09-2007, 03:04 PM
ENOUGH with the warcrimes **** already!

What are you guys gonna do??? start another war over it??

Got news!!! This just in!!

THE WAR IS OVER!!! Oh!! and the Axis LOST!

Have a drink and settle down and try to stay on topic.

hop2002
11-09-2007, 03:58 PM
The trouble with it is that it`s just not true (no surprise here, it`s from you). The 10th February order was about Q-ships, but all merchantmen were instructed to ram U-boots prior to that anyway.

The British first issued orders in the end of 1914 that merchantmen should ram U-boots and receive 500 pounds reward for it; at the same time, merchantmen were armed and were instructed to take no prisoners.

Churchill approved it.


Source for the claim that there were prior orders about ramming U boats.

Source for the "no prisoners" claim (as opposed to one instructing not to stop, even to pick up prisoners)

As to the dates I provided, see for example a Google books search:
http://books.google.com/books?tab=sp&sa=N&q=10+february...8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N (http://books.google.com/books?tab=sp&sa=N&q=10+february+1915+orders+ram+submarines&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GBhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.giffficial&hs=oHE&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N)

For the German order of 4th Feb:

http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/1915/admiral.html (http://net.lib.byu.edu/%7Erdh7/wwi/1915/admiral.html)


The first recorded ramming of a U-boat by a merchant ship came on 28 February 1915, when the steamer THORDIS rammed and damaged a submarine off the south coast of England.

OK, I only have details of sinkings. But note this is 24 days after the German adoption of sink on sight, so cannot be the reason for the German decision to abandon the laws of maritime warfare.


In November 1914, the British begun to arm merchentmen as Q-ships with hidden guns and sent them out with orders - and flying neutral flags - to seek out and destroy U-boots. The British first issued orders in the end of 1914 that merchantmen should ram U-boots and receive 500 pounds reward for it; at the same time, merchantmen were armed and were instructed to take no prisoners. No comment on the latter, it was simply a war crime and ignoring all internation treaties. But Churchill approved it.

Source?


Effective 18 February, Allied ships in the area would be sunk without warning (the British already declared a similiar blockade zone around Germany).

Source for the British declaring they would sink German merchant vessels without warning.


The problem again is, that it`s not true again. Again, no surprise, it`s from you. After the Admiralities instruction to merchantmen to ram U-boots, and arming them, the Germans begun to fit 8.8cm guns to the U-boots and on 4th February 1915 they ordered submarines to handle armed merchant ships as what they really were, aux. warships.

It wasn't in the original orders. I don't know what fantasy sites you take your information from, but the 4th February announcement was that merchant ships (no mention of weapons) would be sunk without regard for the safety of crews.

See for example:
http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/1915/admiral.html (http://net.lib.byu.edu/%7Erdh7/wwi/1915/admiral.html)

or

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/pohl_uboatwar1915.htm


Of course, the 'armed part somehow went missing in your version.

Please, show me the version that has it. Please.


Utter bullsh!t, even from you. Care to give a source as to which treaty considers using neutral country`s flag and disguise as civillians and messacring happless survivors 'fully accepted'?

I made no mention of "massacring hapless survivors", that's your fantasy.

As for flying false colours, are you serious? It was part of naval warfare for hundreds of years.

See for example International Law: A treatise by Oppenheimer and Roxborough:

"Ruses are customarily allowed in sea warfare within the same limits as land warfare, perfidy being excluded. As regards the use of a false flag, it is by most publicists considered perfectly lawful for a man-of-war to use a neutral or enemy flag (1) when chasing an enemy vessel, (2) when trying to escape, and (3) for the purpose of drawing an enemy vessel into action. On the other hand, it is universally agreed that, immediately before an attack, a vessel must fly her national flag"

The following from the New York Times, Feb 1916, regarding the Lusitania:


From a high official, who reflects the views of the President, it was learned today that the Administration view of the incident involved in the hoisting of the American flag by the Cunarder Lusitania is as follows: First -- The use of flags of other by ships of belligerents is such a customary practice that it plainly could not be protested. Second -- There is no provision of International law against the use of tile neutral flag to enable a belligerent merchant steamer to escape destruction, and. therefore, no protest could be made to England based on such use of the American flag. Third -- It might be proper for neutral nations to send a friendly note to Great Britain, pointing out the embarrassing features of such a use of the flag, but it las .not yet.been decided that the United States Government is to such a note.

There's also the fact that the Germans adopted the exact same practice, in both world wars.


- Q-ships came into existance before German raiders

Nope. Take for example the Prinz Eitel Friedrich, a converted merchant ship that began raiding on the 5th August 1914, and entered US waters to be interned in early March 1915. From The Kaiser's Merchant Ships in World War I by Putnam:


Meanwhile, many or Eitel's captures were almost routine "” deceive by flying false colours, hail, stop, inspect, offload some coal and finally sink.


German raiders were auxillarry cruisers, which hosted their Battle flags prior combat, warned enemy merchant vessels for a proper search to be conducted, took PoWs and protected the wounded etc., ie. they followed the rules of war like a normal warship.

You are getting a bit confused here. The rules of war required merchant ships be stopped, and the crew made safe. They did not of course require that military ships be treated the same way.

So Q ships had every right to trick a German submarine in to coming close, then hoist their true colours and attack. That's following the rules of war.

German raiders followed the same rules, although of course if they were attacking merchant ships, rather than war ships, they had to board, rather than attack.

But the laws weren't flouted by German raiders, they were flouted by German submarines, which took to sinking merchant ships without warning.


Q-ships in contrast sailed under neutral colours, disguised their nature, they did not gave warning, and refused to follow the rules of war,

No, they followed the rules of war. Pretending to be a helpless merchant, then revealing your guns when the enemy came alongside, is a long standing naval tradition.


and messacred the hapless enemy instead of picking them up

Source?



Lusitania was the Royal Navy`s auxilarry cruiser carrying arms, ammunition and war material to Britain.

No, Lusitania was a merchant ship carrying passengers, arms and ammunition. You aren't going to start on the claims of hidden 6 inch guns, are you? The same guns that were never spotted by any passengers, or even the dock workers in the US.


A perfectly legit target

It was perfectly legitimate for the Germans to stop her, search her, and after ensuring the safety of the passengers and crew, sink her if contraband was found.


Armed allied merchant ships,

No, "armed" was not mentioned by the Germans.


what laws protects a British auxilarry cruiser carrying war supplies and troops on British waters from being sunk

None, but the existing laws protected merchant vessels, whatever they were carrying.


Of course. She was a warship, after all,

An unarmed merchant vessel, sailing on a passenger route, carrying passengers, under the command of a shipping company.

Can you tell me which armed merchant cruisers were used as liners, whilst they were serving as AMCs? Can you tell us the point of arming a ship, taking it in to navy use, not telling anyone, and then using it as a passenger liner on a route away from enemy warships?


And the Germans had announced they would sink on sight in case if it enters in a well-defined area around Britain

Announcing you are going to attack civilians isn't much of a defence in a court of law.


At midnight. Like the 'armed' part, some information usually gets lost in Hop`s post.

The "illuminated" part sort of suggested night time. The Asturias was painted white, with large red crosses, and powerfull external lights illuminating the hull and markings.

hop2002
11-09-2007, 04:16 PM
The first British merchant ship sunk by German U-boat was the GLITRA in October of 1914, with no loss of life. Her entire ship's company was permitted to take to the lifeboats before the Germans boarded the vessel and scuttled her. From Aug 1914 through Jan 1915, German Submarines sank exactly 10 British merchant ships. Seven German subs were lost over the same time period.

That's certainly the reason the Germans began sinking merchants on sight. They were proving unsuccessful sticking to the rules of board, inspect and sink. Not surprising as the early submarines were not that capable.


Doesn't sound terribly barbaric to me

Well, the rules were designed to protect merchant seamen and passengers. The Germans found following the rules too difficult. How many thousands of civilians died as a result?

I suspect if you had been a civilian on a torpedoed ship, you would have thought it pretty barbaric.

BSS_CUDA
11-09-2007, 05:18 PM
while I am not defending Kurfy's post because the facts mostly speak for themselves, it does have some minor merit. Admiral Karl Donitz had such a hate for Hitler and the Nazi movement that he absolutly refused to salute Hitler or anyone else in any other way but traditional military, and he passed down this same attitude on the Keigsmarine

ploughman
11-09-2007, 05:46 PM
That's French levels of resistance that, similar to withholding a hearty 'bonjour' whilst serving the invaders their coffee in the morning.

Blutarski2004
11-09-2007, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:
Well, the rules were designed to protect merchant seamen and passengers. The Germans found following the rules too difficult.



..... An alternative interpretation is that the British made observance of these particular rules of war impossible for the Germans. What this boils down to in its ultimate essence is one side establishing a stringent blockade, but protesting a reciprocation by its opponent on the grounds that its means of blockade is unable to abide by rules of warfare that were written at a time when both the capabilities and the limitations of the ocean going submarine were completely unknown.

My opinion.

leitmotiv
11-10-2007, 12:17 AM
This is sooooooooooooooooo fekking tedious. All of us know that, in the event of war, we all hope, indeed, pray, our leaders will show requisite bloody-mindedness to the other side. Arguing moral supremacy about war is like arguing for chastity among *****s. The best way to keep things clean is to never fire a shot. Once you do, don't whine when a fusillade comes back at you.

Sergio_101
11-10-2007, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
This is sooooooooooooooooo fekking tedious. All of us know that, in the event of war, we all hope, indeed, pray, our leaders will show requisite bloody-mindedness to the other side. Arguing moral supremacy about war is like arguing for chastity among *****s. The best way to keep things clean is to never fire a shot. Once you do, don't whine when a fusillade comes back at you.

Well written, excellent post.
But do keep in mind that Ploand invaded Germany. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif
Oh, and Japan was forced into agressive war by US policies. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Italy invaded Ethiopia because they threatend their security http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

Sergio

leitmotiv
11-10-2007, 12:59 AM
Bugger it all. What is wanted here? Another round like was recently performed by all the aggrieved principals in the former Yugoslovia? For auld lang syne lets have another go at it to settle once and for all who had the most rectitude, who was most aggrieved, who was most provoked, who suffered the most? This is the jabber of teenage nincompoops or savage old men.

Sergio_101
11-10-2007, 01:54 AM
Back to Battleships.

All things concidered it appears that we all have reached a consensus.

Battleships were obsolete in their original roles
before the invasion of Poland.
While still a threat they were better used as mobile atillery
after modern aircraft carriers and aircraft
appeared in the mid 1930s.

Bismarck better than ...... matters not.
"Iowa the ultimate BB class" means nothing.
(all experts agree that the Iowa class is top Dinosaur)

We may be disagreeing on the ultimate Battleship, but the case is
mostly settled.
Battleships were Dinosaurs by 1939, usefull Dinosaurs, but obsolete none the less.
No one in their right mind would ever build a new Battleship after 1941, Why the
Iowa class ships were completed is a mystery. (some were scrapped before being completed).

Sergio

JtD
11-10-2007, 03:08 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
This is sooooooooooooooooo fekking tedious. All of us know that, in the event of war, we all hope, indeed, pray, our leaders will show requisite bloody-mindedness to the other side. Arguing moral supremacy about war is like arguing for chastity among *****s. The best way to keep things clean is to never fire a shot. Once you do, don't whine when a fusillade comes back at you.

Totally agree. Does that settle the matter for everyone?

JtD
11-10-2007, 03:19 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Back to Battleships.

All things concidered it appears that we all have reached a consensus.

Battleships were obsolete in their original roles before the invasion of Poland.

No, I totally disagree with that. Had the UK not had the battleships it had, including the newly built KGV class, at least the first two ships, the war may have taken another course.

There is no way a carrier or any other type of ship could have achieved what the battleships achieved. Up to 1941, the battleship was an essential part for the Italian, British and even the German fleet. It remained a deciding factor for a few surface to surface engagements even thereafter and that not only in the ETO.

For a considerable period, the best way to stop an enemy battleship still was a bigger battleship.

Ratsack
11-10-2007, 05:39 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
That's French levels of resistance that, similar to withholding a hearty 'bonjour' whilst serving the invaders their coffee in the morning.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Ratsack

Sergio_101
11-10-2007, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Back to Battleships.

All things concidered it appears that we all have reached a consensus.

Battleships were obsolete in their original roles before the invasion of Poland.

No, I totally disagree with that. Had the UK not had the battleships it had, including the newly built KGV class, at least the first two ships, the war may have taken another course.

There is no way a carrier or any other type of ship could have achieved what the battleships achieved. Up to 1941, the battleship was an essential part for the Italian, British and even the German fleet. It remained a deciding factor for a few surface to surface engagements even thereafter and that not only in the ETO.

For a considerable period, the best way to stop an enemy battleship still was a bigger battleship. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What did they achieve that money spent on carriers and aiecraft could not hve done better?

Nothing is the answer.

Sergio

Sergio_101
11-10-2007, 07:59 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Back to Battleships.

All things concidered it appears that we all have reached a consensus.

Battleships were obsolete in their original roles before the invasion of Poland.

No, I totally disagree with that. Had the UK not had the battleships it had, including the newly built KGV class, at least the first two ships, the war may have taken another course.

There is no way a carrier or any other type of ship could have achieved what the battleships achieved. Up to 1941, the battleship was an essential part for the Italian, British and even the German fleet. It remained a deciding factor for a few surface to surface engagements even thereafter and that not only in the ETO.

For a considerable period, the best way to stop an enemy battleship still was a bigger battleship. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What did they achieve that money spent on carriers and aircraft could not have done better?

Nothing is the answer.

But then, why argue, I suggested a consensus had been reached. Not a unanamous opinion.

After all Dinosaurs are not extinct. Birds are dinosaurs.


Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

JtD
11-10-2007, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:

What did they achieve that money spent on carriers and aircraft could not have done better?

Nothing is the answer.

Dude, this topic has brought up numerous occasions where the battleship proved it's value. I don't get why you didn't get it. Just check leitmotivs posts at page 1 and 2.

Or to save you the time:
- Kirishima was sunk by a battleship, while aircraft and carrier proved ineffective.
- Scharnhorst was sunk by a battleship und conditions that made aircraft operation impossible.
- A whole lot of naval operations around the North Cape done by bb, both Britsh and German, could not have done by carriers. Not at all.
- Renown drove Scharnhorst and Gneisenau off Narvik, a task that could not have been done by a carrier.
- Glorious was sunk by Scharnhorst and Gneisenau off Norway, which would not have happened to a BB.
- PoW put a few shells into Bismarck, had she not done this Bismarck could have very well escaped into the Atlantic. Unlikely that a British carrier of the time had done a better job.
- While naval bombardment wasn't always very effective, a single battleship could deliver a higher payload faster than a few carriers wings.
- The war in the Mediterrainian and as a direct result the war in North Africa was decided by battleships. Carriers alone could not provide sufficient protection for convoys.


But then, why argue, I suggested a consensus had been reached. Not a unanamous opinion.

No, it hasn't been reached. In particular your statement that battleships were obsolete as early as 1939 is ridiculous.

ultraHun
11-10-2007, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:

What did they achieve that money spent on carriers and aircraft could not have done better?

Nothing is the answer.

Dude, this topic has brought up numerous occasions where the battleship proved it's value. I don't get why you didn't get it. Just check leitmotivs posts at page 1 and 2.

Or to save you the time:
- Kirishima was sunk by a battleship, while aircraft and carrier proved ineffective.
- Scharnhorst was sunk by a battleship und conditions that made aircraft operation impossible.
- A whole lot of naval operations around the North Cape done by bb, both Britsh and German, could not have done by carriers. Not at all.
- Renown drove Scharnhorst and Gneisenau off Narvik, a task that could not have been done by a carrier.
- Glorious was sunk by Scharnhorst and Gneisenau off Norway, which would not have happened to a BB.
- PoW put a few shells into Bismarck, had she not done this Bismarck could have very well escaped into the Atlantic. Unlikely that a British carrier of the time had done a better job.
- While naval bombardment wasn't always very effective, a single battleship could deliver a higher payload faster than a few carriers wings.
- The war in the Mediterrainian and as a direct result the war in North Africa was decided by battleships. Carriers alone could not provide sufficient protection for convoys.


But then, why argue, I suggested a consensus had been reached. Not a unanamous opinion.

No, it hasn't been reached. In particular your statement that battleships were obsolete as early as 1939 is ridiculous. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Big bump.

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/i02000/i02530.jpg

Sergio_101
11-10-2007, 04:57 PM
No, it hasn't been reached. In particular your statement that battleships were obsolete as early as 1939 is ridiculous.

OK, Lets set up a contempoary 1940 battle between the Bismarck and Tirpitz VS USS Saratoga.

All are war ready, with full compliment of weapons and aircraft but no escorts.

Saratoga has Brewster F2A-3, Douglas SBD and TBD aircraft.

Start it 1,000 miles away, clear weather and all are steaming towards each other, initally oblivious to
each other's presence.

Carriers will have scout planes out, so might the German battleships.

When will contact be made?

Who wins?

Saratoga is 12% faster and has longer range so if running is required it kicks butt.

Carrier planes have about a 300 mile combat radius fully loaded.
A running fight for the German BBs would be suicide.

I say Saratoga leaves them both as artifical reefs in under 12 hours after contact is made.

Saratoga was commisioned in 1927, but aircraft
that made it a real capital ship were in it's future.

Battleships were still viable weapons, but were
worth more by the pound (as iron ore) than as
a effective weapon by the mid 1930's.

As war broke out there was still much use for them.
But note that the US in particular did not sent another Battleship
into combat without air cover after Pearl Harbor.

Generally ineffective? YES, in the original intended role!

Usless as a weapon? NO.

But if all those Battleships had their gun decks removed and flight decks installed
before the invasion of Poland they would have
been far better weapons.

It took Taranto and Pearl harbor to drive the point home.

By the way, Saratoga was to have been a heavy cruiser.
I doubt the name would be remembered if it were completed as such.
As it was Saratoga was a VERY effective weapon
and a critical one early in the Pacific war.

Sergio

gdfo
11-10-2007, 06:54 PM
"Generally ineffective? YES, in the original intended role!

Usless as a weapon? NO."

Pretty much my point. But the bombardmant of the islands in the pacific war was not particularly effective as the IJA were deeply entrenched.

OK. If the ac from the Ark Royal had not hit the rudders of the Bismark, she probaly would have made the port of Brest.

If Olendorf had carriers instead of Battleships during the battle of Leyte it would have been over as soon as the IJN hit the sun came up.

JtD
11-11-2007, 01:35 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:

OK, Lets set up a contempoary 1940 battle between the Bismarck and Tirpitz VS USS Saratoga.

Are you kidding me???

1st, 1940 is not before Germany invaded Poland.
2nd, the Saratoga was not participating in the war in 1940 and most certainly not operating in the ETO.
3rd, Bismarck and Tirpitz weren't even built then.
4th, in 1939 the planes used on US carriers mostly consisted of slow biplanes with a low payload, not the rather modern types you listed.
5th, your weather conditions are totally favoring airplane operation.
6th, you then go back to the mid 30's, where the carrier planes were still terrible. A plane like the Fairey Swordfish had hardly been introduced and was setting new standards.
7th, what the heck have US ships in Pacific carrier battles to do with British convoy escorts/Axis convoy attacks in the Med or around the North Cape?


But if all those Battleships had their gun decks removed and flight decks installed
before the invasion of Poland they would have
been far better weapons.

Except for that neither Germany nor Italy really had a clue about carrier operations. The Graf Zeppelin, the only German carrier built, was far more useless than any of the battleships the Germans had.


It took Taranto and Pearl harbor to drive the point home.

And you realize these ships were anchored in harbour? Had there been a couple of carriers instead, they would have gone down even faster. Silly.


As it was Saratoga was a VERY effective weapon and a critical one early in the Pacific war.

Yes, 1942 in the Pacific. This is not everywhere, anytime, under all conditions.

You said there was nothing a BB could do a CV could not have done better. Wrong. Don't try to steer away from that statement by setting up silly hypothetical battles.
Battleships were a crucial part for some Navies for some time and in some areas and could not have been replaced by any other ship type without significantly effecting the course of the war.

JtD
11-11-2007, 01:45 AM
Originally posted by gdfo:

Pretty much my point. But the bombardmant of the islands in the pacific war was not particularly effective as the IJA were deeply entrenched.

But the air attacks flown as supplemental were? Or, seeing that the bombardment was meant to supplement the air strikes, it would have been better to cause that little effect by launching 1000 planes instead of having a single BB fire for two hours?



OK. If the ac from the Ark Royal had not hit the rudders of the Bismark, she probaly would have made the port of Brest.

Had the PoW not hit the Bismarck Ark Royal would never have had the opportunity to hit Bismarcks rudders.


If Olendorf had carriers instead of Battleships during the battle of Leyte it would have been over as soon as the IJN hit the sun came up.

Of the five battleships Yamato, Musashi, Kongo, Haruna and Nagato exposed to heavy air attacks for two days without own air cover, ONE was sunk in the battle of Leyte.

joe.08
11-11-2007, 02:09 AM
i don't understand any of these claims.

we (the US) dont use battleships today because we have mind boggling technology to compensate for ridiculous amounts of semi-accurate fire power.

imho D.Day could have been a different story (from what I understand, the waters were too shallow to allow battleships their range), but it was fronts like or similar to that where the Battleships power shined.


negating battle ships roles in WW2 is nonsensical to me; mobile off shore artillery was a very important part of war(even in the early 90's).

I just dont understand, maybe the destroyers and dreadnoughts were just as effective.

Sergio_101
11-11-2007, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:

OK, Lets set up a contempoary 1940 battle between the Bismarck and Tirpitz VS USS Saratoga.

Are you kidding me???

1st, 1940 is not before Germany invaded Poland.
2nd, the Saratoga was not participating in the war in 1940 and most certainly not operating in the ETO.
3rd, Bismarck and Tirpitz weren't even built then.
4th, in 1939 the planes used on US carriers mostly consisted of slow biplanes with a low payload, not the rather modern types you listed.
5th, your weather conditions are totally favoring airplane operation.
6th, you then go back to the mid 30's, where the carrier planes were still terrible. A plane like the Fairey Swordfish had hardly been introduced and was setting new standards.
7th, what the heck have US ships in Pacific carrier battles to do with British convoy escorts/Axis convoy attacks in the Med or around the North Cape?


But if all those Battleships had their gun decks removed and flight decks installed
before the invasion of Poland they would have
been far better weapons.

Except for that neither Germany nor Italy really had a clue about carrier operations. The Graf Zeppelin, the only German carrier built, was far more useless than any of the battleships the Germans had.


It took Taranto and Pearl harbor to drive the point home.

And you realize these ships were anchored in harbour? Had there been a couple of carriers instead, they would have gone down even faster. Silly.


As it was Saratoga was a VERY effective weapon and a critical one early in the Pacific war.

Yes, 1942 in the Pacific. This is not everywhere, anytime, under all conditions.

You said there was nothing a BB could do a CV could not have done better. Wrong. Don't try to steer away from that statement by setting up silly hypothetical battles.
Battleships were a crucial part for some Navies for some time and in some areas and could not have been replaced by any other ship type without significantly effecting the course of the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Had to be 1940 to put the best German battleships in the fight..... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Good weather favored the German battleships as the US RADAR was better.

No matter, bad weather, day or night, the fight
would have been one sided.

"There is nothing a Battleship can do better than a Carrier".
I did not say that, but now I will.

Battleships were a horrible waste of resources by the mid 1930's
but no Admiral would admit it.

Big gun junkies, like the mid 1930's Admirals
will never get go of battleship fantasies.
500 years of the big gun dominating the sea is hard to let go of.

Oh yes, in the hypothetical fight with Saratoga
the worst case for Saratoga is a major
machinery failure.
If all is well, the worst hit saratoga takes is
a few more barnicles.
Best offense for the German battleships is to send their
spotter planes out at night with a few small bombs. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Oh yes, a blinding snow storm could have given Tirpitz and Bismarck a chance to run for it.

Best they could hope for in the hypothetical fight is escape.

Sergio

JtD
11-11-2007, 11:09 AM
Though I consider it a waste of time to argue with you, I'd still like to point out scenarios that are historically accurate and mattered. I guess the silent public might be interested and not an as hopeless case as you are.

One of the major convoy routes led from the UK to Murmansk, via the North Cape. Merchant ships on this route were endangered by U-Boats, land based Luftwaffe planes and surface vessels stationed in Northern Norway.

The threat by air attack led to decision to cancel convoys in the summer, as there was no adequate cover possible. In fact, any carrier trying to provide cover would have put itself at tremendous danger.
The convoys were resumed in the winter, which means 24 hours of darkness a day and mostly awful weather. This absolutely prohibited carrier operations, however, the threat by Axis battleships remained. The only reasonable protection against battleships attacking the convoys were battleships. They were, in fact, not directly attached to the convoy as this would not only betray their presence, but also put them at risk for U-boat attacks. They acted as a distant cover force.

Fact is, that in December 1943 the Scharnhorst attacked one of these convoys and was sunk by the Duke of York, out to protect the convoy and to sink the Scharnhorst. No number of carriers could have achieved the same as a single battleship did.

Sergio_101
11-11-2007, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Though I consider it a waste of time to argue with you, I'd still like to point out scenarios that are historically accurate and mattered. I guess the silent public might be interested and not an as hopeless case as you are.

One of the major convoy routes led from the UK to Murmansk, via the North Cape. Merchant ships on this route were endangered by U-Boats, land based Luftwaffe planes and surface vessels stationed in Northern Norway.

The threat by air attack led to decision to cancel convoys in the summer, as there was no adequate cover possible. In fact, any carrier trying to provide cover would have put itself at tremendous danger.
The convoys were resumed in the winter, which means 24 hours of darkness a day and mostly awful weather. This absolutely prohibited carrier operations, however, the threat by Axis battleships remained. The only reasonable protection against battleships attacking the convoys were battleships. They were, in fact, not directly attached to the convoy as this would not only betray their presence, but also put them at risk for U-boat attacks. They acted as a distant cover force.

Fact is, that in December 1943 the Scharnhorst attacked one of these convoys and was sunk by the Duke of York, out to protect the convoy and to sink the Scharnhorst. No number of carriers could have achieved the same as a single battleship did.

True perhaps, Scharnhorst would never have got within gunnery range with the Lexington or Saratoga as an escort http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Sergio

JtD
11-11-2007, 02:18 PM
Sure, they would have been in port, maybe listening to the merchantmen die.

Sergio_101
11-11-2007, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Sure, they would have been in port, maybe listening to the merchantmen die.

With that post you have betrayed your true identity, as a FOOL.
Fools are best not argued with.

Sergio

JtD
11-11-2007, 03:18 PM
Out of arguments, back to offenses. Predictable. It's your usual game.

Doesn't change the fact that WW2 aviation was incapable of launching effective night attacks against battleships in the open sea from ice covered flight decks in heavy seas, though.

Sergio_101
11-11-2007, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Out of arguments, back to offenses. Predictable. It's your usual game.

Doesn't change the fact that WW2 aviation was incapable of launching effective night attacks against battleships in the open sea from ice covered flight decks in heavy seas, though.

To the contrary, you threw out that barb to be insulting and condecending.

I do not speak or understand moronese well enough to continue arguing with you.

Anyone else want to continue, I'll be happy to oblige.

JtD is now being blocked, ignore filter is on.

I got to admit, the ignore filter works as good as Hyper Lobby's ignore!

Sergio

Vipez-
11-11-2007, 11:08 PM
I have to agree with JtD here.. Scharnhorst was sunk in December in weather conditions that planes from carriers could not operate (atleast effectivily). So battleships certainly were not useless in WW2. Using carriers with arctic convoys would have put them in great danger.

gdfo
11-12-2007, 03:58 AM
There is a difference between 'useless' and 'ineffective'.

The premise of the topic is, of course, tinged with hindsight. If I had to choose between duty in 1944 on a Battleship or a Cruiser, I would choose the Battleship. Obviously it would be safer. As for protecting Carrier groups with triple A, a country could have built a Cruiser and a Destroyer or 2 with heavy Triple A for the price of 1 Battleship.

JtD
11-12-2007, 05:01 AM
It has to be said, though, that AAA of BB usually were more effective than AAA on smaller ships or carriers, since the size of the BB would guarantee a more stable gun platform.

The smaller ships would certainly mount more AAA guns per tonnage, but not necessarily per pair of hands.

Considering that the key element of the BB, the big guns, were of no use in the AAA role, it would still leave the BB an ineffective weapon.

Did you know that, when the British operated against the Japanese in 1945, their carrier forces were usually accompanied by battleships. The carriers were launching attacks against Japanese airfields and, of course, providing air cover for the task force. The BB's role was mostly as a floating AAA platform, and they did well. No British ship was being damaged.
The British air attacks against one enemy airfield were ineffective, due to the massive AAA thrown up. So the British detached the BB's to shell the field at night. They did so, and when the air attacks resumed the next day, it was found that most of the AAA had been silenced.
In the meantime, the Japanese had attacked the British carrier task force, managing to damage two carriers.
When the BB's got back for the remainder of the campaign, all enemy air attacks were fought off again.

"Ineffective" is a very broad term. There were tasks in WW2, where the BB was the most effective weapon system in existence. There were incidents, where it proved invaluable. And there were tasks, were the BB wasn't even worth the fuel it burned. So by what do you want to judge it?

Blutarski2004
11-12-2007, 05:37 AM
Originally posted by gdfo:
There is a difference between 'useless' and 'ineffective'.

The premise of the topic is, of course, tinged with hindsight. If I had to choose between duty in 1944 on a Battleship or a Cruiser, I would choose the Battleship. Obviously it would be safer. As for protecting Carrier groups with triple A, a country could have built a Cruiser and a Destroyer or 2 with heavy Triple A for the price of 1 Battleship.


..... Speaking in terms of fast battleships in the role of escort for fast carriers, I disagree with your argument in favor of substituting cruisers and DD's for several reasons:

1. A BB carried vastly more AAA than a wartime US cruiser, by 2x to 3x.

2. There were only so many positions in the 2,000 yard close escort circle around a carrier. The concentration of AAA on a BB meant a greater degree of effective protection to the carrier than the use of a larger number of less powerful AAA platforms.

3. A BB could shrug off bomb or torpedo damage that would cripple a cruiser or DD.

4. A BB could keep up with a CV in heavy weather - something impossible for DD's.

5. A BB had fuel capacity and range to keep company with a carrier, and in fact often acted as an ersatz fuel source for the perpetually short-legged DD's.

6. A BB was cheaper to operate than two or three cruisers.

Von_Rat
11-12-2007, 05:39 AM
jtd and sergio both had a nice discussion going. very informative and good points by you both.

im sorry it ended like it did.

Ratsack
11-13-2007, 06:08 AM
While I agree with the general thrust of JtD's argument, I wonder how effective the British battleships would have been if the Luftwaffe had been more serious about its maritime role. On the handful of occasions the Germans put significant resources into the anti-shipping role, they were quite successful. To my mind, it's one of the great 'what ifs' of WWII if Goering had been less haphazard or Raeder more forceful in demanding that the Luftwaffe get seriously into the maritime role. Would it have placed a greater emphasis on carriers, or would battleships have provided the muscle to get through swarms of Ju-188s? Would little escort carriers have been overwhelmed?


cheers,
Ratsack

HerrGraf
11-13-2007, 10:10 PM
While a late war carrier was more effective in offensive opperations than a BB, there were few carriers in any navy early war. Also their functions were not fully understood early in the war. Late war, the BBs were usefull in a defensive manner. Hardly obsolete, but not king of the oceans anymore.