[QUOTE=Raguleader]
We could have ended up calling them “Michigans”, though that wouldn’t be as catchy a name as “Dreadnoughts”.
[/QUOTE]
“If you seek a pleasant peninsula, look about you” doesn’t have quite the ring of “Fear God, and dread naught.” 
[QUOTE=Raguleader]
You know, I tend to disagree with you here Otto. Unless you live with Der Trihs, I don’t think you are in a position of authority to dictate WHERE he came across a certain bit of info. 
[/QUOTE]
I think OttoDaFe wasn’t saying that Der Trihs didn’t hear it on the History Channel, but rather that Otto hadn’t heard it there. 
[QUOTE=Rocketeer]
But the Brit battlecruisers also had a serious design flaw: Insufficient isolation of the magazines. hits on turrets could result in the fire travelling back through the ammunition passages and igniting the magazines, in which case you were dead.
[/QUOTE]
Saw a Discovery programme recently on that very subject and it was not so much a design flaw but an operational flaw .
It was long a Royal Navy maxim to get the firing rate up as fast as possible(see even Master and Commander)so at Jutland Flash doors were left open and charges stockpiled along the supply route for the faster usage with the inevitable result .
An enquiry discovered this but was hushed up.
[QUOTE=Lust4Life]
Saw a Discovery programme recently on that very subject and it was not so much a design flaw but an operational flaw .
It was long a Royal Navy maxim to get the firing rate up as fast as possible(see even Master and Commander)so at Jutland Flash doors were left open and charges stockpiled along the supply route for the faster usage with the inevitable result .
An enquiry discovered this but was hushed up.
[/QUOTE]
So not only did they leave the fire doors open, but they also ran a fuse from the turret to the magazine. :smack:
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
I think OttoDaFe wasn’t saying that Der Trihs didn’t hear it on the History Channel, but rather that Otto hadn’t heard it there.
[/QUOTE]
Precisely (and thanks). I was referring to the (perceived) credibility of the History Channel, not that of Der Trihs.
[QUOTE=Lust4Life]
Saw a Discovery programme recently on that very subject and it was not so much a design flaw but an operational flaw .
It was long a Royal Navy maxim to get the firing rate up as fast as possible(see even Master and Commander)so at Jutland Flash doors were left open and charges stockpiled along the supply route for the faster usage with the inevitable result .
An enquiry discovered this but was hushed up.
[/QUOTE]
That’s probably the one where I got my information as well. Now that you mention it, I do recall mention of stockpiling charges, but it slipped my mind.
This may have been a matter of technology outstripping tactics. While it’s probably not a good idea to leave explosives vulnerable under any circumstances, I imagine that the consequences in a WWI turret/magazine structure (facing large calibre, armor piercing projectiles) are immeasurably greater than those in a gun deck (facing solid shot).
From the recapitulation page of the pages on Jutland from the link I provided earler:
[QUOTE=carnivorousplant]
“If you seek a pleasant peninsula, look about you” doesn’t have quite the ring of “Fear God, and dread naught.”
[/QUOTE]
There was also a tradition of British warships named “Dreadnought” going way back into the days of sail and cannon broadsides.
More trivia: Winston Churchill wanted one of the new dreadnoughts to be named “Oliver Cromwell”, but was overruled (too controversial).
I believe that Adm. “Jackie” Fisher’s ideas for the battlecruisers were sound. they were designed to stay OUT of the range of the enemy guns, and pound away at the enemy, while out of range of HIS guns. The speed was thus an asset. Unfortunately, Adm. Beattie got within range of the german battleships, and his battlecruisers took many hits. I also read that British optics were not as capable as German, in aiming the guns-which gave the Germans a big advantage, plus, the British shells had many defective fuses-large pieces of British 12’ shells were recovered on the decks of the german ships.Supposedly, the central fire control that the British ships had was superior to the German, but I haven’t seen anything about this.
[QUOTE=ralph124c]
Adm. Beattie got within range of the german battleships,
[/QUOTE]
“There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today.”
The version I read and have seen photographs off, was better German armor.
[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
Spezza, I think you’ll enjoy a couple of Robert Massie’s historical works on the subject.
Dreadnought is basically about the naval race between Britain and Germany leading up to the Great War and includes a lot of information about ship design, coal and oil fueling and reciprocating engines vs. turbines.
Castles of Steel is a followup that covers all the major naval actions of WWI.
Both are excellent.
[/QUOTE]
I’m halfway though Dreadnought:… right now. On the very part about HMS Dreadnought herself. She had five turrets for a total of ten 12-inchers. And she was turbine powered which gave her great speed.
And yes, IMHO the cruisers were a good idea as long as they were not misused. The Royal Navy fell victim to temptation and put the big guns of the cruisers into a contest they were not equipped to handle. Those cruisers should have been out and about chasing weaker ships and especially avoiding stronger ones. The whole reason they had been given speed was to get out of trouble.
Here’s a site you might like.
[QUOTE=Hypno-Toad]
And yes, IMHO the cruisers were a good idea as long as they were not misused.
[/QUOTE]
It would be my opinion that they were never a good idea because the admiralty could never be trusted to ignore their battleship-sized guns.
Look where they homed them. In the South Atlantic or Indian Ocean where they could have made shorter work of the Emden, Scharnhorst, Leipzig, Gneisenau, Dresden, (or, later) Graf Spee? Nope, pretty much in the home waters with an occasional trip to the Mediterranean and an even more rare excursion around India.
It was, frankly, criminal that Hood was employed to go after the Bismarck. The Hood should have been been swapped with a real battleship (or two) at some distant home port so that the Hood would never have faced the Bismarck.
The only way that Fisher’s concept could have worked would have been to keep Fisher in charge of his battlecruisers, (instead of letting him retire or giving him the Mediterranean fleet), to ensure their proper employment.
Regarding the OP, again, this page has extensive information on the ships of the time, (scroll down to the section labeled “The Basics” for information on colliers, coaling, and related info).
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
It was, frankly, criminal that Hood was employed to go after the Bismarck. The Hood should have been been swapped with a real battleship (or two) at some distant home port so that the Hood would never have faced the Bismarck.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not so sure that the problem is that the Hood was sent into the fray against the Bismark. Certainly the Germans felt that the Hood was the tiger of the British Home fleet. According to the HMS Hood site, there was more than a little trepidation aboard the Bismark when they realized they faced the Hood.
The problem I have is that the Hood was just a FUBARed ship all around. First off, her armor was so heavy for her hull that there are reports of the quarterdeck being awash when she was fully fueled! Secondly, her armor was designed only to face the worst possible threats of WWI gunnery - any advance in gunnery made after that point would render her armor inadequate.
The Hood was an excellent WWI Battlecruiser/battleship - and probably would have kicked ass and taken names. At Jutland.
Keeping her in the fleet post 1935 seems to have been a desperation move, simply because of England’s whole difficulties with rebuilding a war-fighting fleet in time for the coming conflict with Germany.
To distill things back down to your own comment - I tend to think that the Hood, in any rational Navy, shouldn’t have been a part of the fleet as a main combatant by 1940. Shuttling her off to distant duty stations in the Empire would have only meant that she’d have been sunk instead of, say, the Prince of Wales or the Repulse by the Japanese. Since the British felt they had to keep any ship they could hope was battleworthy, using her against the Bismark seems a continuation of a flawed Royal Navy position, rather than an egregious error in itself.
Of course, my thinking is affected by the conclusions from recent examinations of the Bismark’s wreck, that there’s reason to believe that even had she been faced by the Nelson or the Rodney in Denmark Sraight it might still have been a disaster for the Royal Navy - the examination of the damage to the ship shows relatively few penetrations in the main armor belt of the ship from the final gun battle. What damage there seems to have been done by gunfire seems to have been mostly secondary, not affecting the ship’s ability to fight off main combatants nor float.
The reason I say that about main combatants is that reducing the secondary and, more importantly, anti-aircraft armaments were a useful contribution to sinking the ship but more in the way of opening up the Bismark to further air attacks.
I’ve heard that, too. Especially that weathered coal could be especially poor burning.
[QUOTE=OtakuLoki]
Of course, my thinking is affected by the conclusions from recent examinations of the Bismark’s wreck, that there’s reason to believe that even had she been faced by the Nelson or the Rodney in Denmark Sraight it might still have been a disaster for the Royal Navy - the examination of the damage to the ship shows relatively few penetrations in the main armor belt of the ship from the final gun battle. What damage there seems to have been done by gunfire seems to have been mostly secondary, not affecting the ship’s ability to fight off main combatants nor float.
[/QUOTE]
Okay, here’s a link to support this, though I seem to have mixed some things up - it’s not that the gunfire was inadequate to sink the Bismark, rather the gunfire coming in at relatively shallow angles, due to the proximity of the combat, wasn’t sufficient to defeat the Bismark’s armoring. (Look under Expedition Findings) Which isn’t quite the same thing.
[QUOTE=OtakuLoki]
The problem I have is that the Hood was just a FUBARed ship all around. First off, her armor was so heavy for her hull that there are reports of the quarterdeck being awash when she was fully fueled! Secondly, her armor was designed only to face the worst possible threats of WWI gunnery - any advance in gunnery made after that point would render her armor inadequate.
Of course, my thinking is affected by the conclusions from recent examinations of the Bismark’s wreck, that there’s reason to believe that even had she been faced by the Nelson or the Rodney in Denmark Sraight it might still have been a disaster for the Royal Navy - the examination of the damage to the ship shows relatively few penetrations in the main armor belt of the ship from the final gun battle. What damage there seems to have been done by gunfire seems to have been mostly secondary, not affecting the ship’s ability to fight off main combatants nor float.
[/QUOTE]
It was plunging fire which doomed the Hood: the shots the Bismarck took
by contrast were all close-range.
The reason why the Hood was in the Denmark Straits battle in the first place
was because she-and Prince of Wales-were the only ships fast enough to
catch the Bismarck in the first place.
I recall reading that Adm. Sturdee’s battlecruisers had to fire about 1200 12’ shells, in order to sink the german cruisers in the Battle of the Falklands. Something less than a 15 hit rate was recorded; I don’t know what the stats for Jutland were. I seem to recall that the german fire was more accurate, and the german shells seemed to penetrate better-just wonder if the british were usuing the same low-quality, high suphur steel that was used on the TITANIC (which fractured easily)?
Adm. Beattie should have stayed out of rasnge, and tried to move behing rhe german fleet-then Jellicoe could have come a sunk the germans with his battleships.
One of Hoods problems was that she was due for a major refit but due to her alomst continuous service as flag waver, this was very difficult to schedule.
It was decided in the late 1930’s to refit her in 1939-41, but of course events overtook that.
The problems with her armour belt were widely appreciated, and would have been largely corrected, based upon the knowledge gained from refitting true battleships such as Warspite.
There is plenty of evidence that it was the 4" magazine that started off the reaction that led to the final and catastrophic secondary explosion.
I have seen theories that during her engagement with Bismarck, Hood was at almost exaclty the wrong range, further away and incoming shells would have struck the armour belt, nearer and incoming shells would also have been striking the armour belt, and her captain was trying to close this distance down for this reason.It would appear that someone was aware of these vulnerabilities.
[QUOTE=ralph124c]
I recall reading that Adm. Sturdee’s battlecruisers had to fire about 1200 12’ shells, in order to sink the german cruisers in the Battle of the Falklands. Something less than a 15 hit rate was recorded; I don’t know what the stats for Jutland were. I seem to recall that the german fire was more accurate, and the german shells seemed to penetrate better-just wonder if the british were usuing the same low-quality, high suphur steel that was used on the TITANIC (which fractured easily)?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, the Royal Navy strenuously resisted attempts by some concerned lower-level officers to improve marksmanship by scientific practice and better equipment. Sigh. One of the things Churchill tried to remedy when he took over at the Admiralty.
When the German ships approached the Falkland Isles the vast columns of smoke arising were thought at first to be the British destroying their coal stocks. Then it became apparent that it was ships firing up their boilers.
Coaling ship was a filthy job, which everyone had to participate in, even officers.
The ‘black gang’ who stoked the boilers were very much a law unto themselves; it was dirty, dangerous work and being taken off it would be more of a reward than a punishment.
[QUOTE=Mk VII]
When the German ships approached the Falkland Isles the vast columns of smoke arising were thought at first to be the British destroying their coal stocks. Then it became apparent that it was ships firing up their boilers.
Coaling ship was a filthy job, which everyone had to participate in, even officers.
The ‘black gang’ who stoked the boilers were very much a law unto themselves; it was dirty, dangerous work and being taken off it would be more of a reward than a punishment.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks for mentioning this-had the germans decided to attack the Falklands (instead of futily trying to flee Sturdee’s battleships), they might well have gotten in close enough to hurt the British with their 8" guns. By fleeing, they lost any chance they had-Sturdee’s ships were faster, better-armored, and had larger guns. So he chased them, and picked them off one by one. Had the Germans barrled in to Stanley (while the British were getting up steam pressure), they had at least a small chance-and their suvivors would have been rescued. 