Jutland campaign AAR

[Threviel]

Speaking of naval history forums. Anyone know any good ones concerned with the age of sail?

Oh, and Nelsol and Rodnol were the worlds most powerful battleships a longer time than any other battleship. I would say that they were quite good.

Not in the 1940s they weren't.  Their low speed was an impediment, even in the 1930s, but once the fast battleships started to show up in the late 30s, they were pushed into a niche.

They weren't built in the '40s, they were built in the very early '20s and they were the best battleships in the world until the late '30s. That's more than any other dreadnought battleship. To claim that they were mediocre ships because they weren't first class after 20 years is a bit tough on them.

[Neil]

Speaking of naval history forums. Anyone know any good ones concerned with the age of sail?

Oh, and Nelsol and Rodnol were the worlds most powerful battleships a longer time than any other battleship. I would say that they were quite good.

Not in the 1940s they weren't.  Their low speed was an impediment, even in the 1930s, but once the fast battleships started to show up in the late 30s, they were pushed into a niche.

They weren't built in the '40s, they were built in the very early '20s and they were the best battleships in the world until the late '30s. That's more than any other dreadnought battleship. To claim that they were mediocre ships because they weren't first class after 20 years is a bit tough on them.

That would very much depend on the criteria you are using to define 'the best'.

Moreover, your statement is inaccurate, as the Iowa class has remained the most powerful battleship ever built for almost 70 years now.

[Threviel]

Speaking of naval history forums. Anyone know any good ones concerned with the age of sail?

Oh, and Nelsol and Rodnol were the worlds most powerful battleships a longer time than any other battleship. I would say that they were quite good.

Not in the 1940s they weren't.  Their low speed was an impediment, even in the 1930s, but once the fast battleships started to show up in the late 30s, they were pushed into a niche.

They weren't built in the '40s, they were built in the very early '20s and they were the best battleships in the world until the late '30s. That's more than any other dreadnought battleship. To claim that they were mediocre ships because they weren't first class after 20 years is a bit tough on them.

That would very much depend on the criteria you are using to define 'the best'.

Moreover, your statement is inaccurate, as the Iowa class has remained the most powerful battleship ever built for almost 70 years now.

My criteria would be most useful perhaps. They may not have been the fastest, but they packed a hell of a punch and had decent armor.

Pfft, Vanguard would lick Iowas ass without breaking a sweat   

Or more seriously I meant the most powerful dreadnought battleship for the longest period of time whilst dreadnought battleships were considered the most important capital ship by significant portions of navy employees. Or 1905-1940ish.

[Ape]

Why not? Dead men tell no tales 

Now, seriously, I meant each one of those carriers could put in the air more than 50 attack aircraft between dive bombers and torpedo planes, all of them far better than the venerable Swordfish biplanes... Usually I have no use for Alt-His, but sometimes the method is useful.

The American Naval Aviators couldn't hit a barn from the inside in May -41. Now the torpedoe planes they had in May -41 would have been shot up by the flak quite badly. Now before you say that the Swordfish was worse, consider that the Swordfish had to take a direct hit to the engine or pilot to stop flying, quite hard with flak, while the TBD Devastators, slow and wallowing pigs, that the US Nave toted around in May -41 was easy to hit with flak.
The torpedoe hit on Bismarck IRL was a once in a lifetime hit and the only real damage to the ship was to it's rudders.

Japanese naval aviators though could very likely have sunk the Bismarck, good planes (Kates) and a high degree of experienced pilots.

And do anyone know if the American airborne torpedoes had the same problems as the Submarine or destroyer launced torpedoes?

[Neil]

My criteria would be most useful perhaps. They may not have been the fastest, but they packed a hell of a punch and had decent armor.

Useful depends on the situation.  Looking at their contemporaries, they were all similarily armed, although with 8 tubes instead of 9.  However, the Colorados had a better armour layout, while the Nagatos could run rings around them.  Speed is useful in that it allows one to control the terms of the engagement.

Pfft, Vanguard would lick Iowas ass without breaking a sweat   

Rather unlikely.  Even assuming that the British had fire control equal to that possessed by the Americans, the 16"/50 cal. was a much better weapon than the 15" Mk. I.

Or more seriously I meant the most powerful dreadnought battleship for the longest period of time whilst dreadnought battleships were considered the most important capital ship by significant portions of navy employees. Or 1905-1940ish.

I don't see how that's much of an achievement, considering the distorting nature of the Washington and London treaties.  I suppose you could call them the best by virtue of them being the last battleships built.

[Threviel]

I suppose you could call them the best by virtue of them being the last battleships built.

Precisely.

[Neil]

I suppose you could call them the best by virtue of them being the last battleships built.

Precisely.

But that's not necessarily true.  They were superb convoy escorts though.  Even better than the R-class.

[Drakken]

Lets talk about the relative merits of carrier design.

The design of Akagi and Hiryū carriers, with the command superstructure on port side, sucked Chinese Korean monkey balls.

Please discuss.

[PRC]

The design of Akagi and Hiryū carriers, with the command superstructure on port side, sucked Chinese Korean monkey balls.

Please discuss.

It's like Indians mounting a horse from the wrong side?

[Agelastus]

In summary of the below -

It appears that when they were being designed the Vanguard (and, I am surprised to discover, the KGVs as well) were referred to as "armoured battlecruisers", occasionally as "fully armoured battlecruisers". These are official admiralty documents from the Ship's covers, which are available for the majority of 1920s and 1930s British warships. However, in service they seem to have always been described as battleships. This could indicate that terminology changed in the 1940s, or, more likely, that the design teams used different terminologies to the Admirals commanding the fleets. Or possibly, different elements within the design teams used different terminologies.

However, you are wrong on one minor point, Grumbler - it is certainly a 40000+ ton Vanguard type ship that is being referred to as a "fully armoured battlecruiser", not some putative 30000 tonne vessel.

See Raven and Roberts British Battleships of World War Two, page 321. There they quote ADM1/10141, Design on of 15-inch gun battleship, 1939, Public Records Office. It's a long text, but contained therein is this paragraph:


A ship mounting 15-inch guns on a displacement of about 40,000 tons could probably be given a speed of about 30 knots without making any substantial sacrifice in protection and although not quite so powerful as our 16-inch gun ships when lying in the battleline, she would be of inestimable value as a fully armored battlecruiser:

(a) To detach in pursuit of Japanese 12-inch gun cruisers raiding our Eastern Trade routes.

(b) To counter Japanese 8-inch gun cruisers in battle.

(c) To operate in Indian and Australian waters before the arrival of our Fleet in the Far East, such a ship would be very appropriate for the Royal Australian Navy to take over.

The quote also notes this document was signed by the Director of Plans, 3/3/39.

The design studies for the ships that turned into the KGVs were occassionally referred to (especially early on) in official documents as "armoured battlecruisers" (also occurs in the Ships Covers) and Vanguard was also similarly referred to. "Fully" Armoured was much less often used, and both KGVs and Vanguard were normally referred to as "Battleships".

A Ship's Cover is a file that contains all the paperwork that is related to the design of a warship and to its subsequent modification, repairs, battle damage, modernizations etc. If a study is being made of a specific class of ship, consulting the Ship's Cover is the primary source of reference for how and why that ship ended up the way she did.

[Agelastus]

The design of Akagi and Hiryū carriers, with the command superstructure on port side, sucked Chinese Korean monkey balls.

Please discuss.

Since the only effect of the design change on the superstructure was probably to increase the number of crashes due to pilot error, then indeed this one part of these ships "sucked monkey balls". I wouldn't condemn the entire ship based on such a minor flaw, however. Akagi in particular as rebuilt was a fine carrier.

[Drakken]

The design of Akagi and Hiryū carriers, with the command superstructure on port side, sucked Chinese Korean monkey balls.

Please discuss.

Since the only effect of the design change on the superstructure was probably to increase the number of crashes due to pilot error, then indeed this one part of these ships "sucked monkey balls". I wouldn't condemn the entire ship based on such a minor flaw, however. Akagi in particular as rebuilt was a fine carrier.

I know, but it is one of the most ineffecient design change on a Carrier that I know of, only beaten by overall design of American "Combustibles, Vulnerables, and Expendables".

[Neil]

Carriers are morally wrong.

[Drakken]

Carriers are morally wrong.

OMGGCARRIERSROVERPWREDNERFDEMLOLOLOLOLLLLLLLL!!! 

[Agelastus]

Carriers are morally wrong.

Assuming that is related to killing a man from a distance where he cannot fight back, that would apply in most instances to battleships as well.

Admit it, you yearn for the period when fighting was up close and personal, when even spears were considered a bit "wishy-washy" and a true man used a sword or an axe...