Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
XX_Emeraldking_XX

Germany still makes bad ships

207 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

153
[WULUF]
Beta Testers
512 posts
8,699 battles
On ‎1‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 8:50 AM, Ie_Shima said:

 

To be fair, we don't know if the damage to the rudder in the picture was caused by the Swordfish's torpedo, of from the Bismarck impacting with the ocean floor.  Sunken ships, especially ones as large as the Bismarck, can hit the bottom with a force greater than a train locomotive hitting the side of a mountain at full speed.  The rudder and prop in the picture might have been wrenched to that location by the torpedo, or by impacting the seabed. 

 

As to Germany making bad ships, practically every modern Navy has had screw-ups with their newer Destroyers and Frigates, this is just the latest flop.  If I'm not mistaken, Britain's new Destroyers don't like working in warm water.  The reason given was that the firm that designed and built them wasn't aware that they had to operate in warm water. 

As for Germany making bad ships in WWII, it wasn't their ship designs that were faulty, it was their doctrine and plans, a fault that seems to shared by Italy and Japan during the war.  Each nation knew that they couldn't match the Allies for shipbuilding capabilities, so they went for quality of quantity.  Similarly, they planned their doctrines around a "fleet in being", meaning large, conventional capital ships, like BBs and CAs, instead of CVs.  Only Japan managed to amend their doctrine, but by the time that they did, it was far to late. 

to be fairer, we do know that the rudder was jammed into the ship screw because Bismarck stopped and divers went down to attempt repair to the rudder and it was to badly damaged for them to repair it. This was logged into the ships log, which was picked up by submarine and taken back to Germany. The divers seen it. It wasn't the ocean floor, and as for the arguments that the ships could hold a course, then why didn't they make it to France. They couldn't steer the ship. It Prinze Eugan wound have stayed with them they could have hooked lined from Prinze to the nose of Bismarck and gotten to France. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,741
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles
2 hours ago, LL_JuneBug said:

Read Warships of Plan Z if you get a chance. 

 

MyBookCover.jpg

 

How detailed/precise is this book? Do you have all 3 P projects? D class version with 4x2 15cm AND the version with 8x1 15cm? M class series 1, 2, and 3?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
153
[WULUF]
Beta Testers
512 posts
8,699 battles
On ‎1‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 2:21 AM, Sventex said:

I don't think the Bismarcks were built to take on the Richelieu as the Richelieu class were built to counter the Littorio-class in the Mediterranean.

Also, Richelieu achieved 32kts during speed trials, and Bismarck only managed 30.01kts in her trials, and the Richelieu class had more armor.  The problem with the Richelieu was that she wasn't finished when France fell, and would not have been able to compete during that short time frame.  The only real advantage Bismarck seems to have is rate of fire and a better radar set against pre-refit Richelieu.

 

Yes, Bismarck's were built to counter the French. The French were considering the Italians, and Germans, The Germans were watching the French, and the Italians slightly. Germany didn't think England would go to war with them until they were close to contemplating Poland. it was a circular arms race. Germany also didn't foresee how fast they were going to overtake France. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,513
[REVY]
Members
6,245 posts
5,164 battles
Just now, LL_JuneBug said:

Yes, Bismarck's were built to counter the French. The French were considering the Italians, and Germans, The Germans were watching the French, and the Italians slightly. Germany didn't think England would go to war with them until they were close to contemplating Poland. it was a circular arms race. Germany also didn't foresee how fast they were going to overtake France. 

Yes, I already admitted that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
153
[WULUF]
Beta Testers
512 posts
8,699 battles
On ‎1‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 6:32 AM, Lawyer2015 said:

Hood, the mighty Hood, Royal Navy's pride... This is a fair example of a bad ship... Just like the first generation of british BCs... less than a handful of AP hits and they simply blew up... Unlike the German ones... who always took a thunderous beating and generally limped it home... To say that Germany is still building bad ships is not a fair quote... completely biased!!!!

The Hood wasn't called the pride of the Royal Navy until it was underwater. I'm sure if the Bismarck would have sunk POW instead of Hood, and Hood ran away then the Prince of Wales would have been the Pride of the Royal Navy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,741
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles
9 minutes ago, LL_JuneBug said:

The Hood wasn't called the pride of the Royal Navy until it was underwater. I'm sure if the Bismarck would have sunk POW instead of Hood, and Hood ran away then the Prince of Wales would have been the Pride of the Royal Navy. 

 

This is not true. The British flaunted Hood every chance they got while she was still above water. She was a household name in England even before she was sunk. Hood was arguably the best know warship in the world by 1939.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
153
[WULUF]
Beta Testers
512 posts
8,699 battles
On ‎1‎/‎30‎/‎2018 at 12:24 AM, TornadoADV said:

Wow, thanks for the complete non-answer. Quite impressive really. The fact is, they had abysmal propulsion steering and poor design was the cause of it. So indulge me, why do you think that is? An ineffectual turtleback holdover design from the Great War or just general terrible machinery spaces?

Because the Treaties basically made it to where Germany learned little in between the wars and had less ship design experience than the rest of the world due to what they were allowed to build, IE Emden, K class, Pocket Battleships. I think they did well with improving WW1 designs, but you are right that the Machinery spaces could have been way better. They were just set in the thinking that the 3 screw/engine room was a good deal, and it wasn't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,183
[SYN]
Members
8,126 posts
12,762 battles
14 minutes ago, dseehafer said:

 

This is not true. The British flaunted Hood every chance they got while she was still above water. She was a household name in England even before she was sunk. Hood was arguably the best know warship in the world by 1939.

Dseehafer is quite correct, I happened to visit Victoria, BC recently and the immigration office had a wall-sized image of the time Hood visited the city all the way back in 1924. She may have been old, but she was significant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
153
[WULUF]
Beta Testers
512 posts
8,699 battles
48 minutes ago, dseehafer said:

 

I don't know If I can trust a book written by someone who spells Tirpitz with an "S" and who says "I wasn't their" instead of "I wasn't there". I don't expect everyone on these forums to have impeccable spelling and English skills... but if you're going to write a book...

 

How detailed/precise is this book? Do you have all 3 P projects? D class version with 4x2 15cm AND the version with 8x1 15cm? M class series 1, 2, and 3?

Touchette. Do you really think that everyone who writes a book doesn't use spell check, and or Gramerly, and or have it edited, and is a total expert on the English language. You don't need to trust it, and or if you do read it, please feel free to pick it apart with constructive criticism. I would be happy to correct anything that is wrong in it. But attacking what I'm writing on a blog to assert that I am untrustworthy, and of low intelligence, well i think that makes you the short sided one good sir. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
153
[WULUF]
Beta Testers
512 posts
8,699 battles
50 minutes ago, Sventex said:

Yes, I already admitted that.

sorry i jumped the gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
153
[WULUF]
Beta Testers
512 posts
8,699 battles
1 hour ago, dseehafer said:

 

I don't know If I can trust a book written by someone who spells Tirpitz with an "S" and who says "I wasn't their" instead of "I wasn't there". I don't expect everyone on these forums to have impeccable spelling and English skills... but if you're going to write a book...

 

How detailed/precise is this book? Do you have all 3 P projects? D class version with 4x2 15cm AND the version with 8x1 15cm? M class series 1, 2, and 3?

I am scratch building a 1/72 scale model of the first M class cruiser. There were 20 designs submitted for the P class Armored cruiser design with one being picked. Anything else like the line drawings that some one fabricated with the P class having 3 or 4 turrets, and or carrying 8 inch guns is made up non sense. their were only 2 designs for the M class light cruiser of which the first 4 ships would have been the M class at 186 meters, with Q and R being 10 meters longer, and a tad wider. If you have source worthy documentation that there was a 3rd design, i would love to see it, because I don't believe it. I scoured the Kriegsmarine Archives while I was in Germany and I think you are trying to sound like you know what you are talking about, but you don't. 

 

Prove me wrong good sir.

oh and here's your D class cruiser that I 3D modeled and mapped for my book, and the Wikipedia article I wrote about it. 

DclassHullTest4-c.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,201
[SALT]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
3,660 posts
2,992 battles
On 2/1/2018 at 1:44 PM, Phoenix_jz said:

No problem, it happens :Smile_teethhappy:

People tend to overlook the Mk.6 because of the 'last is best' syndrome and the fact the Mk.7 was such a great gun - if not the best battleship gun ever put to sea outright, then it's in the top 3, never mind 5.

I always liked the guns as even though they had such a low MV (something a lot in the USN were not pleased with) this allowed them to get more bang out of the Mk.8 SHS than the Mk.7 - when it comes to plunging fire, there tends to be a 'tipover' point where the angle of descent causes the deck penetration to spike up in a way that (short of decapping) no deck armor can ever hope to counter with a reasonable thickness. For the Mk.7, this starts to happen around the 32-34 kyd range - which is pretty long range, and the likelihood of hits has dropped drastically. For the Mk.6, this range is more is the 28-30 kyd range - which is a much more reasonable range for engaging enemy ships where the likelihood of hits doesn't take such a sharp drop-off.

Of course, this comes at a cost of belt penetration compared to the Mk.7, but if you want belt penetration that's calling for a different kind of gun, and for the armor protection of the USN fast BBs, fighting at longer ranges was a much better decision than getting in close - their thin belts were just too vulnerable, they needed distance to start letting that incline really work for them, at which point their deck armor starts to shine. When you get to heavily armored designs like the Montana, that's where the Mk.7's start to make a lot more sense, as they favor closer-ranged fighting that would emphasis belt penetration.

 

But that's just my opinion I guess.

Man I missed a lot of good stuff due to working long shifts lately.

Actually Phoenix, depends on which Mark 8 AP shell. The Mod 6+'s had differential Hardening on the shell body up to 630 Brinell rating on the nose and was made far more blunt compared to the older mods to dramatically improve deck penetration as well as post penetration after passing through FHA of a belt. It's one of the main reasons why the Penetration power of the Mark 8 was able to close in on the Japanese 46cm guns was due to the Mod 6+ advancements made in 1944.

Basically, decapped, the Mark 8 Mod 6 16'' shell maintained around 90% of it's penetration power into deck plating vs it's remaining mass. It was such an improvement the US Navy OrdBu recalled ALL older mod versions to immediately replace them with the newer Mod-6 out of the entire stockpile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,741
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles
1 hour ago, LL_JuneBug said:

I am scratch building a 1/72 scale model of the first M class cruiser. There were 20 designs submitted for the P class Armored cruiser design with one being picked. Anything else like the line drawings that some one fabricated with the P class having 3 or 4 turrets, and or carrying 8 inch guns is made up non sense. their were only 2 designs for the M class light cruiser of which the first 4 ships would have been the M class at 186 meters, with Q and R being 10 meters longer, and a tad wider. If you have source worthy documentation that there was a 3rd design, i would love to see it, because I don't believe it. I scoured the Kriegsmarine Archives while I was in Germany and I think you are trying to sound like you know what you are talking about, but you don't. 

 

Prove me wrong good sir.

oh and here's your D class cruiser that I 3D modeled and mapped for my book, and the Wikipedia article I wrote about it. 

DclassHullTest4-c.jpg

 

There were indeed 20 designs submitted by only 3 finalists (that I'm aware of). There was a 1939 consideration for a 3x2 11" P class cruiser. And none of the P designs were picked (or at least none that were ordered) because the project itself evolved into the O class battlecruisers when it was decided that 11" guns were too small and that 15" guns should be used. Source - http://seawarpeace.ru/deutsch/schlachtschiff/01_main/32_p.html

 

Concerning the 3 designs for the M class cruisers, there was M,N, and O which were the first design and identical, these were the 3 that were laid down, then there was P (not to be confused with the P-class) which was identical to the previous 3 but which featured the 70 atm @ 465 degrees powerplant that would be used on the remaining Q, R, S, etc.... which of course were longer and wider (as you mentioned) and also had the 10.5cm battery rearranged. Source - http://seawarpeace.ru/deutsch/kreuzer/01_main/08_m.html

 

Concerning the D class with 8x1 15cm (in case you doubted me)...

28_d.h2.gif

source - http://seawarpeace.ru/deutsch/schlachtschiff/01_main/28_d.html

 

 

I should hope I know what I'm talking about. I am the forum's long-time resident Kriegsmarine aficionado, after all. ;)

(Though I have not been so lucky as to have scoured the archives in Germany. So you got me there.)

 

However, I should not have come off as rude as I did concerning your book, its not like me to be so abrassive. My sincerest apologies. I mean it. Concerning your book, I may give it a whirl, that is if my computer can support the format (or is it possible to get it in paper?).

 

PS - Neat about your M-class model. 1/72 is pretty big!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
626 posts
1,630 battles
1 hour ago, dseehafer said:

 

This is not true. The British flaunted Hood every chance they got while she was still above water. She was a household name in England even before she was sunk. Hood was arguably the best know warship in the world by 1939.

Due to the Naval arms control effort of the interwar period, Hood spent a good 20 years as the largest warship in the world, whereas in war time that title usually swapped out every few months. Her coming out at a time when she was incredibly large and advanced followed immediately by countries ceasing the construction of ships that could compete with her, gave her the sort of fame large ocean liners could enjoy without the fear of being replaced right away. She was still the largest warship ever built twenty years later when she sank, and by an even larger margin in the RN which had followed the law. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
514
[REVY]
Members
1,662 posts
10,552 battles
6 hours ago, LL_JuneBug said:

If Prinz Eugen would have stayed with them, they could have hooked lined from Prinz to the bow of Bismarck and returned to France. 

The problem is the size difference and engine power. Yes, the Prinz Eugen could have taken the Bismarck in tow, but it would be very slow, likely in the 5-8 knot range. Not to mention the Bismarck is going to be fighting her due to the rudder.

 

4 hours ago, Aristotle83 said:

Due to the Naval arms control effort of the interwar period, Hood spent a good 20 years as the largest warship in the world, whereas in war time that title usually swapped out every few months. Her coming out at a time when she was incredibly large and advanced followed immediately by countries ceasing the construction of ships that could compete with her, gave her the sort of fame large ocean liners could enjoy without the fear of being replaced right away. She was still the largest warship ever built twenty years later when she sank, and by an even larger margin in the RN which had followed the law. 

Hood was doomed by her own 'reputation'. With her being in demand everywhere, she began to materially deteriorate quickly. She was badly in need of an overhaul even before the war began. And after the war started, they simply couldn't remove her from service for any length of time. She was unable to make her top speed due to plant problems. By 1940 she could only make 26 knots. Had she gotten the overhaul, she would have received more armor on her decks. Now, that may not have prevented her destruction, but perhaps with this piece of mind and better fire control, the Hood's Admiral might have made different decisions.

Edited by Lord_Slayer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
626 posts
1,630 battles
3 hours ago, Lord_Slayer said:

The problem is the size difference and engine power. Yes, the Prinz Eugen could have taken the Bismarck in tow, but it would be very slow, likely in the 5-8 knot range. Not to mention the Bismarck is going to be fighting her due to the rudder.

 

Hood was doomed by her own 'reputation'. With her being in demand everywhere, she began to materially deteriorate quickly. She was badly in need of an overhaul even before the war began. And after the war started, they simply couldn't remove her from service for any length of time. She was unable to make her top speed due to plant problems. By 1940 she could only make 26 knots. Had she gotten the overhaul, she would have received more armor on her decks. Now, that may not have prevented her destruction, but perhaps with this piece of mind and better fire control, the Hood's Admiral might have made different decisions.

To be fair most other British BB's weren't put in a situation where this mattered, Rodney was similarly old and could have been a explosion waiting to happen but the Bismarck didn't hit it so no one cares. If Hood didn't sink none of this(except perhaps the reduced speed) would be of note. I do think the Hood sinking might have been preventable but I think Bismarck and Prinz Eugene were probably winning that fight without the lucky hit. Honestly given the rest of the battle, POW probably sinks and Hood retreats without that shot. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
626 posts
1,630 battles
10 hours ago, LL_JuneBug said:

Because the Treaties basically made it to where Germany learned little in between the wars and had less ship design experience than the rest of the world due to what they were allowed to build, IE Emden, K class, Pocket Battleships. I think they did well with improving WW1 designs, but you are right that the Machinery spaces could have been way better. They were just set in the thinking that the 3 screw/engine room was a good deal, and it wasn't. 

WWI designs worked really well though. Also everyone's new battleship building experience was limited due to the nature of the Washington Treaty, in terms of battleships sure the WWI Allies were allowed a lot more and not just pre dreadnoughts but in terms of technological advancements 35,000 tons and a limited amount of 16 inch gun ships(even these were barred in the 1930s) isn't a huge advantage. The experience countries had was dictated to when they gave up following the international regulations(with the outcome being Japan making the best BB's). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
230
[70]
Members
1,194 posts
6,230 battles

I swear most of us, with 3-4 decent specialists to hammer out the details (one guy on hydrodynamics and hull stresses/calcs, one guy on kludging in weapons and sensors, etc.), could probably design a passable, reliable and reasonably modular multi-role corvette/frigate sized ship within a single year at the absolute outside (probably a week to produce a draft design). Add a few more guys to program the missiles for multi-role capability and you can chop that down to a fraction of a year.

The problem is that the pork-barrel is more interesting than actual military considerations and thus they want an ideal system instead of a passable one that also gives much less pork-barrel and is infinitely more practical.

Edited by Guardian54

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
514
[REVY]
Members
1,662 posts
10,552 battles
40 minutes ago, Aristotle83 said:

To be fair most other British BB's weren't put in a situation where this mattered, Rodney was similarly old and could have been a explosion waiting to happen but the Bismarck didn't hit it so no one cares. 

But Rodney was designed as a battleship from the keel up. Age had nothing to do with it. It was the design and ship type.

Hood was designed as a battlecruiser. She had battleship guns, but lighter armor. She was designed to kill other cruisers and run from anything that might hurt her. In that sense, she was being sent out to catch Bismarck, a role she was never designed for. Had she gotten that overhaul and the armor that went with it, she might have had a better chance.

 

29 minutes ago, Aristotle83 said:

WWI designs worked really well though. Also everyone's new battleship building experience was limited due to the nature of the Washington Treaty, in terms of battleships sure the WWI Allies were allowed a lot more and not just pre dreadnoughts but in terms of technological advancements 35,000 tons and a limited amount of 16 inch gun ships(even these were barred in the 1930s) isn't a huge advantage. The experience countries had was dictated to when they gave up following the international regulations(with the outcome being Japan making the best BB's). 

uh, no.

Washington treaty put in place a 10 year building holiday on capital ships, and reduced fleet levels amoung the British, US, Japanese, French and Italian navies by a ratio of like 5:5:3 or along those lines. Battleships could have the max of 16in guns. It also limited cruisers to 10,000 tons and 8in weaponry. The treaty also limited what kinds of reconstruction could be done to the battleships.

The London treaty of 1936 is the one that tried to limit battleship guns to 14in, with an escalator clause that should one of the parties not adhere to the treaty, the gun would be allowed to escalate to 16in. It was the same in regards to tonnage, 35,000 tons allowed with a possible escalation to 45,000.

The thing is Japan had already said it was going to drop the Washington treaty, and wasn't even at the meeting in London. That eventually led to both escalator clauses to go into effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
153
[WULUF]
Beta Testers
512 posts
8,699 battles
8 hours ago, dseehafer said:

 

There were indeed 20 designs submitted by only 3 finalists (that I'm aware of). There was a 1939 consideration for a 3x2 11" P class cruiser. And none of the P designs were picked (or at least none that were ordered) because the project itself evolved into the O class battlecruisers when it was decided that 11" guns were too small and that 15" guns should be used. Source - http://seawarpeace.ru/deutsch/schlachtschiff/01_main/32_p.html

 

Concerning the 3 designs for the M class cruisers, there was M,N, and O which were the first design and identical, these were the 3 that were laid down, then there was P (not to be confused with the P-class) which was identical to the previous 3 but which featured the 70 atm @ 465 degrees powerplant that would be used on the remaining Q, R, S, etc.... which of course were longer and wider (as you mentioned) and also had the 10.5cm battery rearranged. Source - http://seawarpeace.ru/deutsch/kreuzer/01_main/08_m.html

 

Concerning the D class with 8x1 15cm (in case you doubted me)...

28_d.h2.gif

source - http://seawarpeace.ru/deutsch/schlachtschiff/01_main/28_d.html

 

 

I should hope I know what I'm talking about. I am the forum's long-time resident Kriegsmarine aficionado, after all. ;)

(Though I have not been so lucky as to have scoured the archives in Germany. So you got me there.)

 

However, I should not have come off as rude as I did concerning your book, its not like me to be so abrassive. My sincerest apologies. I mean it. Concerning your book, I may give it a whirl, that is if my computer can support the format (or is it possible to get it in paper?).

 

PS - Neat about your M-class model. 1/72 is pretty big!

Good Sir, I can come off as an [edited]myself, and I dont know everything there is to know about all of this. Blogs and You Tube chat can get like the English Parliament with debates being arguments instead of debates. I accept your apology if you accept mine. As for the book, I'm excited because i have worked on it for a little over six years off and on and the part I published is really only the first half. It covers the history of the Germanic (Prussian/Brandenburg) navies from 1500 up though the Kriegsmarine. It is a large summary in the history area though and doesn't cover every sortie of every ship. The ship chapters describe the ships, and anyone who is looking for statistics wouldn't be impressed as they are also on other sites. I was consolidating the information together into one source since it hasn't seemed like anyone else wanted to do so. There is one other book written about Plan Z by Mr. David Wragg who resides in Scotland. It goes over the politics and Finances of Plan Z and doesn't comment on the design of the ships. The Russian site you show me that shows the alternate designs for the P class and M class I have never seen. I have also never seen those line drawings before. Being objective I will not say that they are in error, especially because I cant read Russian. I personally think that they and the information there in is partially fabricated though, and will endeavor to cross source it.  To my Ship Model. Yes it is 8 foot, 8 and a quarter inches long. I will link the main model forum its on if you would be interested in viewing it. Ill see if it will post a pic on here. Come to think of it, i think i have a post on here about it. Try looking in my profile. Anyway its good to be challenged as if we are not we will never discover we might be in error. Oh, the book is on Amazon. Its ten dollars US. If you really don't like it you can get the ten dollars back i think within 60 days. I didn't use foot notes or illustrations in the book except 1 apiece. I hyperlink all foot notes, and illustrations to Wikipedia, and GermanNavy.de If you read it and find statements or information that you believe is in error I would be more than happy to consider that, and revise the book if i find it is in error. It is a history book after all, but it does have some hypothesized conjecture in it. Let me know what you think and keep on sailing. Haratio Fales

M class hull (Munich1940) Deck pattern 3rd picture is a 1/350 scratch Spahkruezer model idea i have been tinkering with. 

 

Munich Hull.JPG

100_0993.JPG

100_1241.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
626 posts
1,630 battles
22 minutes ago, Lord_Slayer said:

But Rodney was designed as a battleship from the keel up. Age had nothing to do with it. It was the design and ship type.

Hood was designed as a battlecruiser. She had battleship guns, but lighter armor. She was designed to kill other cruisers and run from anything that might hurt her. In that sense, she was being sent out to catch Bismarck, a role she was never designed for. Had she gotten that overhaul and the armor that went with it, she might have had a better chance.

 

uh, no.

Washington treaty put in place a 10 year building holiday on capital ships, and reduced fleet levels amoung the British, US, Japanese, French and Italian navies by a ratio of like 5:5:3 or along those lines. Battleships could have the max of 16in guns. It also limited cruisers to 10,000 tons and 8in weaponry. The treaty also limited what kinds of reconstruction could be done to the battleships.

The London treaty of 1936 is the one that tried to limit battleship guns to 14in, with an escalator clause that should one of the parties not adhere to the treaty, the gun would be allowed to escalate to 16in. It was the same in regards to tonnage, 35,000 tons allowed with a possible escalation to 45,000.

The thing is Japan had already said it was going to drop the Washington treaty, and wasn't even at the meeting in London. That eventually led to both escalator clauses to go into effect.

Battlcruisers are essentially larger battleships that can go considerably faster(the lesser armour is a means to that end not the end itself) than the BB's when they are built(this definition encompasses all BC's). Hood was also larger than Rodney by a large margin but yes, armor weakness was bound to be worse on Hood. 

Germany's 11 and 12 inch ships with the faster ROF and more armor put up a really good account of themselves against heavily armed Brits at Jutland(Bayern and Baden weren't even there). When Baden was captured after the attempted scuttling the crew that examined her admitted she was considerably more advanced than QE(then sunk her as a target ship) which in turn was considerably better than Royal Sovereigns. So German BB's/BC's in WWI were state of the art at least in Europe. 

In terms of the treaties you're mostly admitting that it limited BB and BC construction. In terms of 16 inch guns could have sworn there was a limit there? 8 total 16 inch gun battleships built, why weren't the 14 and 15 inchers scrapped and replaced with 16 inchers then? Could have sworn I read there was a 16 inch gun quantity limit somewhere. 

Another weird thing with the Japanese is even when they were breaking the rules to make their BB's OP their limited capacity allowed them to complete a grand total of 10 battleships in 30 years and one class of 4 battlecruisers(two cancelled classes of these), same amount of BB's as France, one more than Italy. Germany third amongst the great powers built 23 during the dreadnought era with  far more experience making the things. 

 

Another question I have is why was Bismarck, Roma and Richelieu's were all given 15 inchers and 16 inchers? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
650
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,050 posts
11 minutes ago, Aristotle83 said:

Another question I have is why was Bismarck, Roma and Richelieu's were all given 15 inchers and 16 inchers? 

They didn't believe that the benefits of a 16 inch shell outweighed the dis-advantages of higher weight (the turret assembly, not the round itself) and slower rate of fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
514
[REVY]
Members
1,662 posts
10,552 battles
1 hour ago, Aristotle83 said:

Germany's 11 and 12 inch ships with the faster ROF and more armor put up a really good account of themselves against heavily armed Brits at Jutland(Bayern and Baden weren't even there). When Baden was captured after the attempted scuttling the crew that examined her admitted she was considerably more advanced than QE(then sunk her as a target ship) which in turn was considerably better than Royal Sovereigns. So German BB's/BC's in WWI were state of the art at least in Europe. 

While the British had the larger gun calibers, the German's had a superior shell. I don't have the exact specifics on hand, but the quality of the German shell made it the British's 14in equal.

1 hour ago, Aristotle83 said:

In terms of the treaties you're mostly admitting that it limited BB and BC construction. In terms of 16 inch guns could have sworn there was a limit there? 8 total 16 inch gun battleships built, why weren't the 14 and 15 inchers scrapped and replaced with 16 inchers then? Could have sworn I read there was a 16 inch gun quantity limit somewhere. 

again, there was a BB/BC building holiday of 10 years. Most of the older ships were scrapped out. Again, there was the 16in gun size limit, which is why the Colorado class and Nelson class were able to be completed. It wasn't until 1936 that a 14in gun limit was discussed. KGV class and North Carolina (as originally designed) would have met this limit. NC-class got the 16in escalation when the Japanese wouldn't participate in the treaty, but the NCs were too far along to provide armor to protect them from the 16in gun.

It's also difficult to re-gun a ship. For the most part, each ship was designed to be protected from it's own guns, it was considered 'balanced'. NC was considered an 'un-balanced' design. Also as I stated, the treaty put limits on what a country could do to reconstruct their ships. Mostly, it was torpedo and anti-aircraft protection.

 

1 hour ago, Aristotle83 said:

Another weird thing with the Japanese is even when they were breaking the rules to make their BB's OP their limited capacity allowed them to complete a grand total of 10 battleships in 30 years and one class of 4 battlecruisers(two cancelled classes of these), same amount of BB's as France, one more than Italy. Germany third amongst the great powers built 23 during the dreadnought era with  far more experience making the things. 

I think your dates are off.

Nagato and Mutsu were the only 2 Japanese BBs finished post world war 1.

 

Amagi, Akagi, Tosa, and Kaga were all canceled as BB/BCs and not completed. Two ended up as CVs. The Japanese pushed to be allowed to scrap the Settsu, a Kawachii-class, in exchange for keeping Mutsu. The other nations agreed, otherwise Nagato would have been a single ship class.

 

Remember also Kongo was completed in the UK, and the British actually considered taking her into the Grand Fleet.

 

Most of the Japanese BB fleet that served in WW2 was built between 1912 and 1921, a 9 year period. Yamato and Musashi were built between 1937 and 1942 and were the last built. During the 30s, the IJN bent the treaties quite a bit to reconstruct their BBs and CAs, usually reporting one thing on paper, but in reality having them be entirely different.

Edited by Lord_Slayer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,741
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles
2 hours ago, LL_JuneBug said:

Good Sir, I can come off as an [edited]myself, and I dont know everything there is to know about all of this. Blogs and You Tube chat can get like the English Parliament with debates being arguments instead of debates. I accept your apology if you accept mine. As for the book, I'm excited because i have worked on it for a little over six years off and on and the part I published is really only the first half. It covers the history of the Germanic (Prussian/Brandenburg) navies from 1500 up though the Kriegsmarine. It is a large summary in the history area though and doesn't cover every sortie of every ship. The ship chapters describe the ships, and anyone who is looking for statistics wouldn't be impressed as they are also on other sites. I was consolidating the information together into one source since it hasn't seemed like anyone else wanted to do so. There is one other book written about Plan Z by Mr. David Wragg who resides in Scotland. It goes over the politics and Finances of Plan Z and doesn't comment on the design of the ships. The Russian site you show me that shows the alternate designs for the P class and M class I have never seen. I have also never seen those line drawings before. Being objective I will not say that they are in error, especially because I cant read Russian. I personally think that they and the information there in is partially fabricated though, and will endeavor to cross source it.  To my Ship Model. Yes it is 8 foot, 8 and a quarter inches long. I will link the main model forum its on if you would be interested in viewing it. Ill see if it will post a pic on here. Come to think of it, i think i have a post on here about it. Try looking in my profile. Anyway its good to be challenged as if we are not we will never discover we might be in error. Oh, the book is on Amazon. Its ten dollars US. If you really don't like it you can get the ten dollars back i think within 60 days. I didn't use foot notes or illustrations in the book except 1 apiece. I hyperlink all foot notes, and illustrations to Wikipedia, and GermanNavy.de If you read it and find statements or information that you believe is in error I would be more than happy to consider that, and revise the book if i find it is in error. It is a history book after all, but it does have some hypothesized conjecture in it. Let me know what you think and keep on sailing. Haratio Fales

M class hull (Munich1940) Deck pattern 3rd picture is a 1/350 scratch Spahkruezer model idea i have been tinkering with. 

 

Munich Hull.JPG

100_0993.JPG

100_1241.JPG

 

Neat models! 1/350 is more my scale... I don't know where I'd put an 8-foot model, nevermind where my wife would let me put it! :Smile-_tongue:

 

As for the Russian site, you should see a button in the upper right-hand corner that will use google translate to translate it into English. In either event, they do a very good job of listing their sources at the bottom of the page. So it should be pretty easy for you to cross-reference and whatnot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×