British BB's & British built Japanese BC's
Mike Campbell
From Mike Campbell <mi...@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>
>
> >their ships were not much more (or less) flawed than ours. After all,
> >their BCs did survive contact with the enemy, which puts them one notch
> >up on the Royal Navy. :-)
>
> Hehehe, now your going to drag the British into this. But the
> British did build the Japanese Battlecruisers.
Only the Kongo - by Vickers. All other Japanese BB's & BC's in use in
WWII were built in Japan - by Kawasaki, Mitubisi (sic), Kure, or
Yokosuka (Jane's)
Doesn't say who designed them tho'!
> From nt...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
>
> In article <CAxq5...@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erud...@pica.army.mil> writes:
>
> >Actually the IOWAs were fast battleships, a type pioneered by the British
> >with the QUEEN ELIZABETH class, and falling between true battle cruisers
> >and true battleships in terms of protection. The USN accepts this
> >distinction, as the recent official history of the IOWAs was entiltled
> >"Employment of Fast Battleships..."
>
> Wasn't the battleship squadron attached to Beatty's Battlecruiser
> Fleet at Jutland composed of "Fast Battleships"? The names Barham,
> Malaya and Warspite come to mind. They probably weren't nearly as fast
> as later battleships but for the time they were almost as fast as
> battlecruisers, giving perhaps a knot to Beatty's battlecruisers but
> being as well armed and armored as the best dreadnoughts at the time.
>
The Queen Elizabeth, Warspite, Valiant, Barham and Malaya formed the
"Fast Division". The designed speed was 25 kts. These were the first
oil-only capital ships for the RN.
The "R" class, built a year or 2 later (Soverign, Royal Oak,
Resolution, Ramilies, Revenge) were designed to burn coal for 21 kts
(like the rest of the dreadnought fleet), but "all oil" was adopted
while building and got them up to 23 kts, or 21.5 - 22 with torpedo
bulges.
Displacement was about the same (up to 33,000 tons full), QE drew
more, was wider, shorter and developed 35,000 more hp (75,000 vs
40,000). Most other RN dreadnoughts were a lot lighter and took 25-
28,000 hp to get their 21kts.
The BC built about the same time was Tiger, nominally 28 kts, could
actually make 30. It was longer & heavier (full load 35,000) than
both the BB classes -carried a total of 6,800 tons of oil & coal
(roughly 50/50), but burnt it @ 1200 tons/day @ 60,000 hp (vs max
designed of 85,000 & max attained of 108,000).
--
Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mi...@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz
phas@brspva
From phas@brspva
In article <CBI2D...@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Mike Campbell <mi...@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz> writes:
>
> The "R" class, built a year or 2 later (Soverign, Royal Oak,
> Resolution, Ramilies, Revenge) were designed to burn coal for 21 kts
> (like the rest of the dreadnought fleet), but "all oil" was adopted
> while building and got them up to 23 kts, or 21.5 - 22 with torpedo
> bulges.
Wassn't Revenge a Battle Cruiser, twin to Repulse? with 3*twin15" turrets?
I seem to recall that Adm Beatty was so horriffied about her lack of armour
that he sent her straight back into drydock to have it improved.
As far as battleworthiness of British BBs goes, surely the only *modern* BB we
lost was The Prince of Wales, due to lack of air cover?
Nelson & Rodney though slow were excellent designs, certainly the best of the
post Washington treaty bunch.
And what of Vanguard?
Andy
Scott Olson
From Scott Olson <s...@planet8.sp.paramax.com>
From: s...@grimm.sp.paramax.com (Scott Olson)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: British BB's
Date: 10 Aug 1993 12:52:10 -0500
Lines: 33
Message-Id: <248n8a$1...@grimm.sp.paramax.com>
References: <CBI2D...@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> <CBJxo...@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL0]
phas@brspva wrote:
: From phas@brspva
: Wassn't Revenge a Battle Cruiser, twin to Repulse? with 3*twin15" turrets?
: I seem to recall that Adm Beatty was so horrified about her lack of armour
: that he sent her straight back into drydock to have it improved.
No, that was Renown. She was the one of the BC's that got a
real update between the wars, put in a 4.5" DP secondary battery, etc.
: As far as battleworthiness of British BBs goes, surely the only *modern* BB we
: lost was The Prince of Wales, due to lack of air cover?
Well, considering that only about three modern British BB's
(KGV, PoW, DoY) saw much action, one out of three isn't real good.
: Nelson & Rodney though slow were excellent designs, certainly the best of the
: post Washington treaty bunch.
???? If by this you mean the best of the ships constructed between
1920 and 1934 or so, I'll buy it. Of course, they were also about the
_only_ ones designed and built in this period, so.....
: And what of Vanguard?
Good hull and armor, bad main armament and somewhat questionable
AA capability. The 15" lacked range, by WWII standards, and it's
penetration was lower than most WWII guns of similar size, due to lower
muzzle velocity. The 5.25" was a killer for shooting up destroyers,
but it's ability to elevate and traverse wasn't up to the requirements
for dealing with late-war aircraft.
Scott
david.r.wells
From "david.r.wells" <d...@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
In article <CBI2D...@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Mike Campbell <mi...@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz> writes:
>
>>
>> >their ships were not much more (or less) flawed than ours. After all,
>> >their BCs did survive contact with the enemy, which puts them one notch
>> >up on the Royal Navy. :-)
>>
>> Hehehe, now your going to drag the British into this. But the
>> British did build the Japanese Battlecruisers.
>
>Only the Kongo - by Vickers. All other Japanese BB's & BC's in use in
>WWII were built in Japan - by Kawasaki, Mitubisi (sic), Kure, or
>Yokosuka (Jane's)
>
>Doesn't say who designed them tho'!
>
I believe that the Kongos were based on the British Lion class, however the
Japanese made some important modifications. The re-arranged the engines and
the middle turret, which radically improved the arc of fire. I seem to recall
that the British liked the idea so much that they adopted it for HMS Tiger.
David R. Wells
"There seems to be something wrong | David R. Wells
with our bloody ships today" | AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ
Adm. D. Beatty, May 31, 1916 | Email: drw...@houxa.att.com
DISCLAIMER: I don't speak for AT&T, and they don't speak for me.
Iskandar Taib
From nt...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
In article <CBJxo...@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> phas@brspva writes:
>Nelson & Rodney though slow were excellent designs, certainly the best of the
>post Washington treaty bunch.
I read that they looked really strange (I think the superstructure was
moved towards the rear of the ships) so the British sailors called
them "Nelsol" and "Rodnol" - oil tankers had names ending in "ol".
Were they ever involved in any major action?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NT...@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU | Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet: NTAIB@IUBACS !
Tchie Tao
From Tchie Tao <tt...@muddnext3.cc.columbia.edu>
In article <CBJxo...@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> phas@brspva writes:
>
> From phas@brspva
> Wassn't Revenge a Battle Cruiser, twin to Repulse? with 3*twin15"
turrets?
> I seem to recall that Adm Beatty was so horriffied about her lack of
armour
> that he sent her straight back into drydock to have it improved.
>
> Nelson & Rodney though slow were excellent designs, certainly the best
of the
> post Washington treaty bunch.
>
> And what of Vanguard?
From Tchie Tao <tt...@columbia.edu>
Repulse's sister ship was the Renown.
What do you mean post Washington Treaty bunch? The British King
George V, and the US North Carolina and South Dakota classes were all
designed to Washington Treaty specifications although they were designed
after the London Treaty.
-Tchie
Frank Kastenholz
From Frank Kastenholz <kas...@lard.ftp.com>
>From nt...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
>
> In article <CBJxo...@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> phas@brspva writes:
>
> >Nelson & Rodney though slow were excellent designs, certainly the best of the
> >post Washington treaty bunch.
>
> I read that they looked really strange (I think the superstructure was
> moved towards the rear of the ships) so the British sailors called
> them "Nelsol" and "Rodnol" - oil tankers had names ending in "ol".
Yup. They had their superstructure and secondary armament AA armament
clustered at the stern and the three main-battery turrets all forward.
They were built to the Washington Treaty limitations and their designers
felt that by concentrating their main-battery all close together, they
would reduce the amount of heavy armor for the magazines that was needed.
There were also some efficiencies gained in arranging the machinery
spaces, again with respect to the amount of heavy armor needed to
protect those spaces.
> Were they ever involved in any major action?
One or both were involved in sinking the Bismarck.
phas@brspva
From phas@brspva
In article <CBLry...@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, nt...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
>>Nelson & Rodney though slow were excellent designs, certainly the best of the
>>post Washington treaty bunch.
>
> I read that they looked really strange (I think the superstructure was
> moved towards the rear of the ships) so the British sailors called
> them "Nelsol" and "Rodnol" - oil tankers had names ending in "ol".
>
> Were they ever involved in any major action?
Thats right they had three triple 16" turrets forward and all superstructure
aft. they were the first BBs to have what was called the Queen Anne Mansion
bridge/director/you name it, combined superstucture. You are correct about the
-ol naming as well.
______________
/
| _________
| _________ |________|""""" _________
| |________|"""""" | | |________|""""""
______________|______|_______|________|______|________|______|_______
Main Armament BB Nelson & Rodney
One of them was involved in the action against Bismarck. Unfortunately I can't
remember which, but apart from that I can't remember much!
They were nicknamed the 'Cherry tree' class because they had been 'cut down by
Washington'
However British negotiators convinced the conference to discount 'reserve feed
water' from the permitted tonnage, arguing that as RN ships had the world to
defend, they needed more than other navies. Thus we were able to build in 3000
tons of torpedo protection over and above the treaty limit.
By arguing to be allowed to build two new hulls incorporating all of our own
and german WW1 experience, whereas other countries argued to complete hulls
already under construction, we ended up with the best inter war BBs built
Andy
david.r.wells
From "david.r.wells" <d...@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
In article <CBJxo...@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> phas@brspva writes:
>
>In article <CBI2D...@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Mike Campbell <mi...@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz> writes:
>>
>> The "R" class, built a year or 2 later (Soverign, Royal Oak,
>> Resolution, Ramilies, Revenge) were designed to burn coal for 21 kts
>> (like the rest of the dreadnought fleet), but "all oil" was adopted
>> while building and got them up to 23 kts, or 21.5 - 22 with torpedo
>> bulges.
>
>Wassn't Revenge a Battle Cruiser, twin to Repulse? with 3*twin15" turrets?
>I seem to recall that Adm Beatty was so horriffied about her lack of armour
>that he sent her straight back into drydock to have it improved.
>
No, Mike Campbell got it right the first time. Revenge was an R class BB.
Repulse's sister ship was Renown. Interestingly enough, at one point,
the two battlecruisers were going to be an additional 2 R class battleships,
but the British changed their minds before construction began.
>As far as battleworthiness of British BBs goes, surely the only *modern* BB we
>lost was The Prince of Wales, due to lack of air cover?
Lack of air cover, plus poor damage control, plus some just plain bad luck.
>
>Nelson & Rodney though slow were excellent designs, certainly the best of the
>post Washington treaty bunch.
Only because they had the advantage of being completed last, after they knew
what everyone else had! Actually though, I don't take issue with their
speed, which was fairly good for their day. Their big problems were the big
blind arc astern, their poor handling characteristics, their lack of
superstructure armor, and their 2 shafts (as opposed to 4). Of course, all
the ships of that era had to make some compromises. Everything is a
tradeoff. Since the Nelson and Rodney did fairly well in WWII, they couldn't
have been too bad.
>And what of Vanguard?
>
What of her?
Stephen Harker
From Stephen Harker <phs...@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>
In article <CBLry...@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, nt...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
>
> From nt...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
>
> In article <CBJxo...@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> phas@brspva writes:
>
>>Nelson & Rodney though slow were excellent designs, certainly the best of the
>>post Washington treaty bunch.
>
> I read that they looked really strange (I think the superstructure was
> moved towards the rear of the ships) so the British sailors called
> them "Nelsol" and "Rodnol" - oil tankers had names ending in "ol".
Yes, the three 16" turrets were in the front followed by the
bridge and the rest of the superstructure. They were also known as
"Cherry Trees" because they were cut down by Washington. The design
was produced by shortening the G3 battlecruiser design, plus other
appropriate reductions to get the ships under the 35,000 ton
displacement limit. They even had less armour than the G3
battlecruiser design.
> Were they ever involved in any major action?
The major action against other battleships was against
Bismarck: Rodney and KGV were the two battleships that caught up with
Bismarck when her steering was crippled by torpedoes. There were a
number of other less important battles they were involved in. See the
reference listed below for more information.
Battleships Rodney and Nelson, Man O'War 3, Alan Raven & John Roberts
RSV Publications / Arms & Armour Press (1979)
ISBN 0-85368-263-1, 0-933514-03-4
--
Stephen Harker was phs...@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
ex Monash University now s...@phadfa.ph.adfa.edu.au
now ADFA (Canberra) Baloney baffles brains: Eric Frank Russell
Steven Vincent
From Steven Vincent <ste...@unipalm.co.uk>
nt...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
>From nt...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
>In article <CBJxo...@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> phas@brspva writes:
>>Nelson & Rodney though slow were excellent designs, certainly the best of the
>>post Washington treaty bunch.
>I read that they looked really strange (I think the superstructure was
>moved towards the rear of the ships) so the British sailors called
>them "Nelsol" and "Rodnol" - oil tankers had names ending in "ol".
They did look strange, they had 3 3 Gun turrets forward and nothing aft.
Originally there was to be a 4 turret and some other stuff at the back
but after the Washington Treaty was signed they got cut short so that
they would fit! As a consiquence of their curtailed hull shape they
were also rather slow (they possible lost some machinery space as well)
>Were they ever involved in any major action?
I never heard of one (apart from D day that is - they were involved in
a little coastal bombardment for that).
Steven Vincent, ste...@unipalm.co.uk
Unipalm Ltd. (44) 0223-250100
Cambridge,
England.
================================================
Mike Campbell
From Mike Campbell <mi...@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>
> From "david.r.wells" <d...@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
>
> In article <CBI2D...@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Mike Campbell <mi...@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz> writes:
> >Only the Kongo - by Vickers. All other Japanese BB's & BC's in use in
> >WWII were built in Japan - by Kawasaki, Mitubisi (sic), Kure, or
> >Yokosuka (Jane's)
> >
> I believe that the Kongos were based on the British Lion class, however the
> Japanese made some important modifications. The re-arranged the engines and
> the middle turret, which radically improved the arc of fire. I seem to recall
> that the British liked the idea so much that they adopted it for HMS Tiger.
The Brits compared Kongo to Lion, and found Lion severely wanting.
Tiger was to have been similar to Lion, but construction was delayed
so improvements a la Kongo could be incorporated (Jane's Fighting
Ships of WWI).
The Kongo's were laid down a year after Lion was launched, and no-one
else bothered with this class of BC, so I would guess there was more
than a hint of influence there.
Timothy J. Lee
From "Timothy J. Lee" <tim...@netcom.com>
nt...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
|In article <CBJxo...@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> phas@brspva writes:
|>Nelson & Rodney though slow were excellent designs, certainly the best of the
|>post Washington treaty bunch.
|
|I read that they looked really strange (I think the superstructure was
|moved towards the rear of the ships) so the British sailors called
|them "Nelsol" and "Rodnol" - oil tankers had names ending in "ol".
Rodney and Nelson had all three main turrets forward of the bridge,
with the bridge and other stuff more aft than other battleships.
|Were they ever involved in any major action?
Rodney (and King George V) engaged the Bismarck after the Bismarck's
rudders were damaged by an aerial torpedo dropped by a plane from
the Ark Royal. They did not sink the Bismarck, but left her a wreck
when they had to withdraw due to low fuel.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee tim...@netcom.com
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
Stimpson J. Cat
From "Stimpson J. Cat" <dav...@seattleu.edu>
In article <CBJxo...@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> phas@brspva writes:
>
>From phas@brspva
>
************** R class battleship stuff deleted ********************
>
>Wassn't Revenge a Battle Cruiser, twin to Repulse? with 3*twin15" turrets?
>I seem to recall that Adm Beatty was so horriffied about her lack of armour
>that he sent her straight back into drydock to have it improved.
That would be Renown, Revenge was indeed a WWI era battleship
modernized afterwards for WWII service. The Hood is now considered a
synonym for thin skin, but when she was designed, she was given armor protection
considered equal to that of the Queen Elizabeth class BB's. The problem was
Hood was never modernized as almost all other British WWI ships were, so
her armor, good for her time, became inferior by WWII. Many in the Admiralty
were aware of this. If ship protection had remained static, or the Hood
upgraded, perhaps the Hood would be considered the first "fast battleship."
>
>As far as battleworthiness of British BBs goes, surely the only *modern* BB we
>lost was The Prince of Wales, due to lack of air cover?
As I wrote extensively in other posts, some British authors like to
take potshots and criticize the BB designs of other nations, invoking the
aura of British battle experience. That they had, but if you look at the
KGV class you can find lots of flaws, which those selfsame authors rarely
point out.
#1. Inadequate electrical capacity - most British ships had very small
electrical generating capacity. Those "critics" I talk about disparage the
large machinery and auxiliary spaces of, say, the U.S. and German designs,
but this space was used to provide the enormous electrical generating capacity
and backup machinery these nations demanded. They had a large amount of
surplus power, which was a great boon to Bismarck when the Prince knocked
out one of her generating rooms - the Germans provided for 100% electrical
reserve power in their ships. Nitpicking? Well, the Prince of Wales basically
was lost when a single torpedo knocked out five of her eight dynamos - she could
not drive her pumps or power her weapons - she was olmost totally disabled
by a single torpedo. PoW had no diesel or backup generators to make up for the
loss of her main generators. She had only 2,800 KW of generating power, vs.
8,800 KW for North Carolina, 7,910 for Bismarck, mitigated somewhat by the
fact the Germans and U.S. used more electrical accessories. But the British
knew it was a problem, and increased the capacity greatly in Vanguard.
#2. Poor sea-keeping. The low bows of this design made them rather
poor rough-weather ships, compared to the "Atlantic Bow" equipped Bismarck.
Incredibly, Anthony Preston makes comments to the effect the Bismarck showed
traits of "her WWI origins" because of her "low freeboard", ignoring not only
the proven testimony of Bismarck's seaworthiness on the high seas (also
confirmed by Gartzke and Dulin in Axis Battleships of WWII), but somehow
overlooking the fact the Bismarck could still make 28 knots in North Atlantic
seas, with 1-2000 tons of seawater in her bow from British shell hits. The
British knew the KGV had these problems, and again rectified it by giving the
Vanguard a clipper bow, which helped make her a superb heavy seas ship. And
the British were the ones with a blue-water, world wide mission, and the Germans
the "landlocked" (relativley speaking), land-oriented nation!
#3. Short range. (See mission profiles above.) British ships had
very short ranges -the Germans and Americans, and the French, gave their
ships large fuel capacities for long range. Again, the Vanguard rectified
this. Even the Yamato had a longer range, and only the Italians, operating in
the small Mediterranean, had ships with less range. The German ships had
30% more endurance, the U.S. and French up to 120% more range. The interception
and destruction of the Bismarck was a close run thing not just because of
Bismarck's speed (and she had a good portion of her fuel cut off by the
earlier shell hits), but also because the KGV and RoDney were dangerously
low on fuel because of their limited endurance. They had to break off before
the Bismarck sank, in fact, because they were too low on fuel to risk staying
to finish the Bismarck off.
This is not to ridicule British ships, because I have written, and write
again, there's no battleship ever concieved that doesn't make compromises,
and the British ships are no different. They had them, as did all their
contemporaries, but sometimes you get the feeling nationalism comes into play,
and this notion is forgotten.
>
>
>And what of Vanguard?
The Vanguard was a great ship, IMHO. She rectified almost all the faults
of previous British designs. She was fast, had good range, was very seaworthy,
and manuverable, as well as well-armored. She was the equal or superior, IMHo,
to any opposing battleship of comaparable displacement, andn wouldn't be
humiliated by those bigger. At least the equal of the Bismarck. Some criticize
her old guns, but these weapons and mounts were very reliable, very accurate,
and with modern ammunition, pretty effective. Range was shorter (also due to
lesser elevation) but how many hits were ever scored by a BB at ranges
of 30,000 yards or more? And the KGV and Rodney proved you don't have to
sink the enemy ship with gunfire, or send plunging hits into a ships' vitals,
to ruin an enemy. On big ships, with 1+ ton shells, you're not going to
get any M-1 tank "all the shells bounced off with no harm" type effects.
Those shells, even if they don't penetrate, can still cause a lot of shock
damage, and can still wreck the vital upperworks of any BB, like the bridge,
gun directors, rangefinders, gun turrets, rudders, shafts, etc.
>
>Andy
--
David L. Yee
email to:dav...@sumax.seattleu.edu
Harry Erwin
From Harry Erwin <er...@trwacs.fp.trw.com>
In article <CBLry...@law7.daytonoh.ncr.com> nt...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
(Iskandar Taib) writes:
>From nt...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
>In article <CBJxo...@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> phas@brspva writes:
>>Nelson & Rodney though slow were excellent designs, certainly the best of the
>>post Washington treaty bunch.
I understand they had major problems with their turrets, especially
firing broadsides. Maintaining alignment was a problem. Fire control
was also fairly unusual at long range, since I understand most UK BBs
fired their large caliber guns 1/2/1/2/... until they had a straddle.
Here you had three tubes... Note that the KGV class went back to an
even number of tubes per turret.
>Were they ever involved in any major action?
Yes, the sinking of the Bismarck.
--
Harry Erwin
Internet: er...@trwacs.fp.trw.com
Working on Freeman nets....
david.r.wells
From "david.r.wells" <d...@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
In article <CBt5H...@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> "Stimpson J. Cat" <dav...@seattleu.edu> writes:
>
>From "Stimpson J. Cat" <dav...@seattleu.edu>
>
> As I wrote extensively in other posts, some British authors like to
>take potshots and criticize the BB designs of other nations, invoking the
>aura of British battle experience.
>
I fear that this is true.
> #3. Short range. (See mission profiles above.) British ships had
>very short ranges -the Germans and Americans, and the French, gave their
>ships large fuel capacities for long range. Again, the Vanguard rectified
>this. Even the Yamato had a longer range, and only the Italians, operating in
>the small Mediterranean, had ships with less range. The German ships had
>30% more endurance, the U.S. and French up to 120% more range. The interception
>and destruction of the Bismarck was a close run thing not just because of
>Bismarck's speed (and she had a good portion of her fuel cut off by the
>earlier shell hits), but also because the KGV and RoDney were dangerously
>low on fuel because of their limited endurance. They had to break off before
>the Bismarck sank, in fact, because they were too low on fuel to risk staying
>to finish the Bismarck off.
>
One point I think you're missing here is boiler pressure. The British used
low pressure boilers, which were pretty poor on fuel economy. The US used
higher pressure boilers, which is part of the reason that the US BBs had
much better cruising range. (some British authors go out of their way to
ignore this) The Germans used high pressure boilers, but these tended to
be a bit unreliable. (a fact that the British will never let you forget)
John Stoffel
From John Stoffel <jo...@sekrit.wpi.edu>
>>>>> On Wed, 18 Aug 1993 16:21:11 GMT, "david.r.wells"
>>>>> <d...@cbnewsg.cb.att.com> said:
drw> In article <CBt5H...@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> "Stimpson J. Cat"
drw> <dav...@seattleu.edu> writes:
> #3. Short range. (See mission profiles above.) British ships
>had very short ranges -the Germans and Americans, and the French,
>gave their ships large fuel capacities for long range. Again, the
>Vanguard rectified this. Even the Yamato had a longer range, and only
>the Italians, operating in the small Mediterranean, had ships with
>less range. The German ships had 30% more endurance, the U.S. and
>French up to 120% more range. The interception and destruction of the
>Bismarck was a close run thing not just because of Bismarck's speed
>(and she had a good portion of her fuel cut off by the earlier shell
>hits), but also because the KGV and RoDney were dangerously low on
>fuel because of their limited endurance. They had to break off before
>the Bismarck sank, in fact, because they were too low on fuel to risk
>staying to finish the Bismarck off.
drw> One point I think you're missing here is boiler pressure. The
drw> British used low pressure boilers, which were pretty poor on fuel
drw> economy. The US used higher pressure boilers, which is part of
drw> the reason that the US BBs had much better cruising range. (some
drw> British authors go out of their way to ignore this) The Germans
drw> used high pressure boilers, but these tended to be a bit
drw> unreliable. (a fact that the British will never let you forget)
According to Friedman's book on American Battleships, a big reason for
the long range of the American ship was their perceived need to be
able to cruise the Pacific, where the US didn't have many
coaling/oiling stations. The British on the other hand had a much
better world wide coaling/oiling station network, and could therefore
be less concered about the range of their ships.
Just from the top of my head, I seem to remember the British having
around a 5000-7000 mile range at 10-15 knots, while the US tried for
9,000-12,000 mile range at 15 knots as their standard. I am probably
off on these numbers, but it gets the idea across.
John
--
John Stoffel | We are all mortal until the first kiss or second glass
jo...@wpi.wpi.edu | of wine.
| -Eduardo Galean, The Book of Embraces
Stephen Harker
From Stephen Harker <phs...@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>
In article <CBt5H...@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, "Stimpson J. Cat" <dav...@seattleu.edu> writes:
>
> From "Stimpson J. Cat" <dav...@seattleu.edu>
>
> As I wrote extensively in other posts, some British authors like to
> take potshots and criticize the BB designs of other nations, invoking the
> aura of British battle experience. That they had, but if you look at the
> KGV class you can find lots of flaws, which those selfsame authors rarely
> point out.
Well most of the points you mention were made by British
authors, specifically by Raven and Roberts, so things are not quite as
bad as this suggests. Indeed there is a big problem with a lot of
literature from most participants. As an Australian I tend to notice
similar problems, particularly in the more popular books, from all
nations - we have less at stake having never designed or built a lot
of the equipment being discussed.
For some strange reason many writers tend to show the good
points of their own nations designs compared with those of other
nations :-). This is largely due to picking up a background in the
compromises behind design decisions made by their nation, and seeing
others decisions in this light. That being said there are also a lot
of popular British writers who seem to believe that anything the
British had was inferior to the equivalent German designs. Perhaps
one is a consequence of the other.
> #1. Inadequate electrical capacity - most British ships had very small
> electrical generating capacity. Those "critics" I talk about disparage the
> large machinery and auxiliary spaces of, say, the U.S. and German designs,
> but this space was used to provide the enormous electrical generating capacity
> and backup machinery these nations demanded. They had a large amount of
> surplus power, which was a great boon to Bismarck when the Prince knocked
> out one of her generating rooms - the Germans provided for 100% electrical
> reserve power in their ships. Nitpicking? Well, the Prince of Wales basically
> was lost when a single torpedo knocked out five of her eight dynamos - she could
> not drive her pumps or power her weapons - she was olmost totally disabled
> by a single torpedo. PoW had no diesel or backup generators to make up for the
> loss of her main generators. She had only 2,800 KW of generating power, vs.
> 8,800 KW for North Carolina, 7,910 for Bismarck, mitigated somewhat by the
> fact the Germans and U.S. used more electrical accessories. But the British
> knew it was a problem, and increased the capacity greatly in Vanguard.
Well the problem here was that six out of eight generators
were turbo-driven from the main engines. Only two were diesel
powered. The effect of the torpedoes led to the loss of generating
capacity, some engine rooms being flooded either directly or by
interflooding via the uptakes, while the list which was allowed led to
lubrication problems with other engines. The list was not
sufficiently corrected due to a admiralty policy which emphasised not
admitting more water to control the list. This policy became quite
controversial. The main design change for Vanguard was to change the
split of diesel and turbo driven generators. The increase in
generating capacity was due to the vast increase in electrical
equipment (such as radar) from the pre-war expectations. As you
remark the British who used a lot of hydraulic power where others used
electrical did not have the same need for electrical power.
> #2. Poor sea-keeping. The low bows of this design made them rather
> poor rough-weather ships, compared to the "Atlantic Bow" equipped Bismarck.
> Incredibly, Anthony Preston makes comments to the effect the Bismarck showed
> traits of "her WWI origins" because of her "low freeboard", ignoring not only
> the proven testimony of Bismarck's seaworthiness on the high seas (also
> confirmed by Gartzke and Dulin in Axis Battleships of WWII), but somehow
> overlooking the fact the Bismarck could still make 28 knots in North Atlantic
> seas, with 1-2000 tons of seawater in her bow from British shell hits. The
> British knew the KGV had these problems, and again rectified it by giving the
> Vanguard a clipper bow, which helped make her a superb heavy seas ship. And
> the British were the ones with a blue-water, world wide mission, and the Germans
> the "landlocked" (relativley speaking), land-oriented nation!
This was due to Admiralty policy which demanded 0 degree
elevation fire straight ahead from A turret. That limits the sheer
forward. It was only the realisation of the effect of the low sheer
in comparison with other navies, together with the final realisation
that the 0 degree elevation limit was not of great tactical value that
caused this to change. It was a peculiar idea, but they did have some
reason behind it.
> #3. Short range. (See mission profiles above.) British ships had
> very short ranges -the Germans and Americans, and the French, gave their
> ships large fuel capacities for long range. Again, the Vanguard rectified
> this. Even the Yamato had a longer range, and only the Italians, operating in
> the small Mediterranean, had ships with less range. The German ships had
> 30% more endurance, the U.S. and French up to 120% more range. The interception
> and destruction of the Bismarck was a close run thing not just because of
> Bismarck's speed (and she had a good portion of her fuel cut off by the
> earlier shell hits), but also because the KGV and RoDney were dangerously
> low on fuel because of their limited endurance. They had to break off before
> the Bismarck sank, in fact, because they were too low on fuel to risk staying
> to finish the Bismarck off.
The poor range was partly due to the tonnage limitation for
KGV, which affected the fuel capacity. The British were not prepared
to sacrifice armour protection, designing KGV to be proof against 16"
shells, and did not have enough displacement left to play around with.
However a more important factor, discussed by Peter C Smith in _The
Great Ships Pass_ was the decision not to adopt high pressure boilers.
The British had made early tests of such designs, but due to budget
constraints had not been able to develop them fully. So when they
designed the KGV class lower presssure units were used, rather than
take the risk of poor reliability with high pressure designs.
This was probably a sensible decision as German high pressure
engines were often quite unreliable, with many breakdowns causing
problems particularly in cruiser class ships. Since the British
relied more heavily on naval power the affect of this would have been
quite disastrous for them. However the results of this are shown in
the specific fuel consumption figures for different speeds. At about
10 knots the British ships are quite competitive, at around 20 knots
their consumption figures are dramatically worse. More than anything
else this caused the endurance problems.
phas@brspva
From phas@brspva
In article <CBt5H...@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> "Stimpson J. Cat" <dav...@seattleu.edu> writes:
>
>From "Stimpson J. Cat" <dav...@seattleu.edu>
>
> As I wrote extensively in other posts, some British authors like to
>take potshots and criticize the BB designs of other nations, invoking the
>aura of British battle experience.
>
Sorry if I gave that impression, but I just wanted to widen the disscussion to
include the RN which interests me as an ex officer.
The electrical capacity of the KGV class was something I was unaware of, I am
also intrigued to find out if there was a rationale behind the range of British
BBs, perhaps something to do with the RNs worlwide network of bases at the
time?
Back to the loss of Prince of Wales, even if as had originally been planned the
carrier Hermes had been part of the squadron, I doubt it would have made much
difference. As far as the loss of PoW herself goes I recall some disscussion of
her generators being damaged, and also that the failure of some fuses to blow
and redirect the power was a major cause of her loss of electrical power. Can
anyone enlighten me on this one?
Andy
Tchie Tao
From Tchie Tao <tt...@muddnext3.cc.columbia.edu>
In article <CByqr...@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> "david.r.wells"
<d...@cbnewsg.cb.att.com> writes:
>
> From "david.r.wells" <d...@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
>
> One point I think you're missing here is boiler pressure. The British
used
> low pressure boilers, which were pretty poor on fuel economy. The US
used
> higher pressure boilers, which is part of the reason that the US BBs had
> much better cruising range. (some British authors go out of their way to
> ignore this) The Germans used high pressure boilers, but these tended to
> be a bit unreliable. (a fact that the British will never let you forget)
>
>
> David R. Wells
From Tchie Tao <tt...@columbia.edu>
I thought the key was ball bearings. Just kidding (sorry. can't stand
those little smiley faces).
I did think that the key was high pressure turbines rather than boilers.
Its a reasonably simple task (no offense to those boiler designers out
there) to design a big metal cylinder (or a bundle of small cylinders
depending on what navy you are) to hold water and steam at pressure. The
hard part, at least in the '30s and the '40s, was to design and machine
turbines which can handle the pressures involved.
As I understand things, The United States was the only nation which had
the precision machining capability to make high-pressure turbines in any
sort of quantity. These, like modern jet engines, have extremely tight
tolerances. The blades on a high pressure turbine are tiny. They have to
be stronger (higher dynamic forces from the pressure) and more finely
shaped (deviations from the designed shape matter more).
Back then, only the Americans could make turbines with that level of
precision. Even the Germans had trouble. The high pressure turbine
plants of the Hipper class cruisers constantly gave trouble. The British
chose the more conservative method of lower steam conditions, accepting
the loss in efficiency and horsepower for the gain in reliability.
Too bad that to-day, America is losing (if its not lost already) its
lead in that field to both Japan and Europe.
-Tchie
david.r.wells
From "david.r.wells" <d...@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
In article <CBpDI...@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> phas@brspva writes:
>
>In article <CBLry...@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, nt...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
>>>Nelson & Rodney though slow were excellent designs, certainly the best of the
>>>post Washington treaty bunch.
>>
>> I read that they looked really strange (I think the superstructure was
>> moved towards the rear of the ships) so the British sailors called
>> them "Nelsol" and "Rodnol" - oil tankers had names ending in "ol".
>>
>> Were they ever involved in any major action?
>
>One of them was involved in the action against Bismarck. Unfortunately I can't
>remember which, but apart from that I can't remember much!
That was the Rodney. Worked reasonably well, as I recall.
Stimpson J. Cat
From "Stimpson J. Cat" <dav...@seattleu.edu>
In article <CC0Lx...@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Stephen Harker <phs...@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> writes:
> Well most of the points you mention were made by British
>authors, specifically by Raven and Roberts, so things are not quite as
>bad as this suggests. Indeed there is a big problem with a lot of
>literature from most participants. As an Australian I tend to notice
>similar problems, particularly in the more popular books, from all
>nations - we have less at stake having never designed or built a lot
>of the equipment being discussed.
>
> For some strange reason many writers tend to show the good
>points of their own nations designs compared with those of other
>nations :-). This is largely due to picking up a background in the
>compromises behind design decisions made by their nation, and seeing
>others decisions in this light. That being said there are also a lot
>of popular British writers who seem to believe that anything the
>British had was inferior to the equivalent German designs. Perhaps
>one is a consequence of the other.
>
I must agree. And, "British BBs of WWII" by Roberts and Raven is a
very fair book as you say, they have a few things to quibble about, but in
any book with thousands of statements of fact there are bound to be a few
errors, and even if I don't agree with every one of those statements, for the
most part they provide justification for whay they say, the Bismarck's
underwater protection comments the only one I just couldn't figure out.
*************** Other British BB flaws deleted ************************
> The poor range was partly due to the tonnage limitation for
>KGV, which affected the fuel capacity. The British were not prepared
>to sacrifice armour protection, designing KGV to be proof against 16"
>shells, and did not have enough displacement left to play around with.
And in defense of Britain's BB designers, they were probably the
most serious of all the nations in adhering to the treaty limitations
of 35,000 tons. Certainly the right wing dictatorships didn't pay much
heed to treaty conditions! So some of the weaknesses (in particular the fuel
limitations) are simply tradeoffs, and in view of Britain's well developed
support system for their ships, a proper one. It would have been silly for
Britain to give up firepower or armor for fuel. It's just that "British
battle experience" didn't let them compensate for a 5-10,000 ton displacement
disadvantage. Since the Axis powers didn't build 35,000 ton ships, the
best comparison is to look at the U.S. and British treaty designs. The Vanguard
shows what Britain could do without tonnage hindrances, and truly incorporated
the benefits of Britain's war experiences.
************* Other short range factors for British BB's deleted **********
Edward J. Rudnicki
From "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSS) <erud...@pica.army.mil>
Frank Kastenholz writes:
#As an aside -- reduction gear supplies were, from what I recall,
#one of the major bottlenecks in ship-production during WWII. So
#much so that some classes of ships were built with reciprocating
#engines rather than turbines.
The "Liberty" ships for one.
Was turbo-electric drive considered as a replacement? US BBs are not
my forte, but weren't some TE drive? There's also more possible
suppliers for the motors and generators that for reduction gears. The
downside is the need for copper for the conductors.
Ed Rudnicki erud...@pica.army.mil All Disclaimers Apply
"She won't answer the helm! We're locked into the moon's
gravitational pull! What do we do?" "We die."
Frank Kastenholz
From Frank Kastenholz <kas...@lard.ftp.com>
>From "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSS) <erud...@pica.army.mil>
> Frank Kastenholz writes:
> Was turbo-electric drive considered as a replacement? US BBs are not
> my forte, but weren't some TE drive? There's also more possible
> suppliers for the motors and generators that for reduction gears. The
> downside is the need for copper for the conductors.
For those who do not know, in regular steam powerplants, the steam from
the boilers turns a set of turbines. The turbines are coupled to the
propeller shaft (and therefore the propeller) via a one- or two- stage
reduction gear. The reduction gear steps down the speed -- turbines
operate best at relatively high RPMs, while the propeller operates
best at lower RPMs.
In turbo-electric drive, the turbines are directly coupled to
generators. Electricity from the generators then electric motors which
are directly coupled to the prop-shaft.
It was used in pre-war ships. Freidman's book on battleships (A Design
history of US Battleships or somthing like that -- I'm at work and the
book is at home) would give exactly which ones, and the reasons. I
believe that it was used in some of the ships built around WWI and in
the 20s.
I believe that it was dropped for battleships built under the
Naval treaties, I think that it was pretty bulky, requiring more
ship-structure, which added more weight to the ship, which was
a bad thing under the treaties. I also seem to recall that the extra
fuel required by regular drive (it was less efficient than TE)
was not counted under the treaties the same as the structural weight
(maybe it was something like "fuel required for X-miles steaming...")
so from a treaty point of view, it made sense to trade off structural
and machinery weight for fuel weight.
My recollections of the pluses and minuses of TE drive are:
Advantages:
1. It allowed for much better compartmenting of the machinery spaces
of the ship. The turbo-generators could be in one compartment.
The E-motors could be in another compartment -- closer to the
propellers. There would not need to be a mechanical between
the two.
2. The shaft has to pierce several water-tight bulkheads going
from the reduction gears to the propeller. Furthermore, it has
to be free to rotate in the glands. This makes for a tricky
mechanical arrangement. This is not required for TE.
3. Alignment of the whole mechanical system for regular drive
is tricky -- All the shaft-glands and bearings, the reduction gears,
and the turbines all have to be lined up just right. TE vastly
reduces this because there is no mechanical connection from the
shaft to the turbines.
4. The machinery is more flexible in that any turbo-generator set could
power any/all of the E-motors. If you lost a turbo-generator then
you only lost the electricity that it produced -- you didn't lose
the whole shaft, propeller, etc. Imagine a damage situation taking
a hit in the aft on one side, knocking out the props on that side,
and amidships on the other side, perhaps knocking out the turbines
on that side. With direct drive, you'd be fuk't. With TE, you could
switch the electricity from the good turbo-generators on the one side
to the E-motors and props on the other side.
5. TE was more fuel-efficient. Turbines operate most efficiently at
a very narrow, fairly high, speed range. So, the turbines could
be operated at their most efficient speed, and the propellers could
run at their most efficient.
Disadvantages.
1. It used lots of copper -- which is very critical in wartime (all
those brass cartridge cases).
2. I am pretty sure that it was more expensive at the time. Remember, in
the 20's and 30's electricity was not nearly as universal as it is
today.
3. Being radically different than the "normal" ships powerplants, it
placed unique burdens on the Navy's training, supply, and
damage-control systems.
4. Being electric, they were especially prone to corrosion and shorting
in the salty environment. This is especially important when the ship
is damaged -- turbines and reduction gears can immersed, with TE
there would be problems of the water shorting out the system (and if
the electricity starts electrolyzing the water and you get this big
concentration of H and O in one of the compartments -- kaboom)
5. There is more machinery to deal with, creating a somewhat bulkier
and heavier machinery set.
Sorry for the length.
--
Frank Kastenholz
FTP Software
2 High Street
North Andover, Mass. USA 01845
(508)685-4000
david.r.wells
From "david.r.wells" <d...@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
In article <CC804...@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSS) <erud...@pica.army.mil> writes:
>
>
>Was turbo-electric drive considered as a replacement? US BBs are not
>my forte, but weren't some TE drive? There's also more possible
>suppliers for the motors and generators that for reduction gears. The
>downside is the need for copper for the conductors.
>
Indeed some were! The New Mexico class, the Tennessee class and the
Colorado class were all initially powered by turbo-electric drive.
The Lexington class carriers were too. However, the turbo-electric
drive was considered excessively heavy. I don't know for sure off hand,
but this system may have been replaced when these ships were given
major upgrades. (i.e. reconstruction of the New Mexicos in the '30s,
reconstruction of the Colorados & Tennessees after Pearl Harbor)
I'll see if any of my books mention any such conversions.
Markus Stumptner
From Markus Stumptner <m...@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
In article E...@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM, Frank Kastenholz <kas...@lard.ftp.com> () writes:
>>From "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSS) <erud...@pica.army.mil>
> > Frank Kastenholz writes:
> > Was turbo-electric drive considered as a replacement?
>It was used in pre-war ships. Freidman's book on battleships (A Design
>history of US Battleships or somthing like that -- I'm at work and the
>book is at home) would give exactly which ones, and the reasons. I
>believe that it was used in some of the ships built around WWI and in
>the 20s.
I think Lexington and Saratoga were among them (not quite on topic, but
at least they had BC hulls).
>My recollections of the pluses and minuses of TE drive are:
>Advantages:
>3. Alignment of the whole mechanical system for regular drive
> is tricky -- All the shaft-glands and bearings, the reduction gears,
> and the turbines all have to be lined up just right. TE vastly
> reduces this because there is no mechanical connection from the
> shaft to the turbines.
[Very interesting discussion deleted]
Interestingly enough, I recall reading that the system which Lexington
and Saratoga were equipped with was supposedly *more* sensitive to damage,
on at least one occasion necessitating several months' return to the US
after a torpedo hit on Saratoga, mainly because of collateral damage to
the drive.
That may have been in Morison, but I'm not sure. Unfortunately, I don't
remember more about the incident. Perhaps there were special circumstances
involved.
(Second idea: The Lexington was destroyed by what is always referred to
as an explosion caused by "a spark from a generator". Anybody know
what kind of generator that was? Was it one of those for the TE drive?)
---
Markus Stumptner m...@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
University of Technology Vienna vexpert!m...@relay.eu.net
Paniglg. 16, A-1040 Vienna, Austria ...mcsun!vexpert!mst
James P. Dusek
From "James P. Dusek" <du...@rtsg.mot.com>
Frank Kastenholz <kas...@lard.ftp.com> writes:
>2. The shaft has to pierce several water-tight bulkheads going
> from the reduction gears to the propeller. Furthermore, it has
> to be free to rotate in the glands. This makes for a tricky
> mechanical arrangement. This is not required for TE.
I take it they use water tight bearings to keep water tight
places water tight? Do they need to be replaced often? Also, do they
tend to leak?
James Dusek
MR KR COMAN
From MR KR COMAN <ba...@giraffe.ru.ac.za>
On the PoW's electrical and general situation (details are a bit
foggy in my mind -- refs at home), the following is a "broad scenario" that
might be of passing interest....
1. Torpedo hit(s) did severe damage to the Ring Main (chief wiring
harness) -- including blowing fuses and tripping generators.
2. Power was thus lost to the heavy (5.2"?) AA batteries -- such guns were
fundamentally operated by electro-hydraulic servos. (The Repulse's main
AA were primarily manual).
3. PoW damage control focused on restoring electrical power -- esp to the
heavy ack-ack turrets. (One measure was to run free cables from the main
circuit to be spliced into the affected turrets systems.)
4. The PoW took on a list (to Port?) -- once the list progressed beyond a
fairly modest point (15-25 degrees?) the heavy ack-ack servos were not
powerful enough to traverse the turrents (elevation was okay). Attempts
were even made at this point to run block and tackles to the fore and aft
sides of the turrets in the hope of at least doing something to train the
guns.
5. PoW was equipped with 2 batteries of Vickers 8-barrel two pounder pom-poms
for close range ack-ack defense. From the outset, worrying episodes of
operating jams occurred -- due to shell-case separations in the
mechanisms: poor ammunition manufacture. (When they did work they
produced an inspiring display: great sheets of muzzle flash and a carpet
of shell bursts -- one torpedo bomber going across the bow caught a full
packet and was reported to have literally disintegrated.) Standing behind
a Vickers was regarded as the safest place to be in an air attack.....
Power disruptions may also have affected these guns service.
6. A single 40mm Bofors gun (manned by crew drawn from the ship's Royal
Marines) performed flawlessly thoughout.
Apologies for errors, omissions etc. Martin Middlebrook's (sp?) book
"Battleship" plus "Retreat in the East" by (an-Irish-surnamed-jounalist-who-
was-on-the-Repulse-at-the-time-whose-name-I-can't-remember-now-but-will-do-so
-two-seconds-after-sending-this-post) are recommended reading.....
Cheers,
Keith Coman
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If we pay dogfood salespeople more than we : Dept of Management
do teachers, we should not be surprised if : Rhodes University
our dogs eat like kids, and our kids end : Grahamstown, 6140
up reading like dogs." : Rep of South Africa
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Blair Haworth
From Blair Haworth <Blair....@lambada.oit.unc.edu>
In article <CCBpK...@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Markus Stumptner <m...@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> writes:
>Interestingly enough, I recall reading that the system which Lexington
>and Saratoga were equipped with was supposedly *more* sensitive to damage,
>on at least one occasion necessitating several months' return to the US
>after a torpedo hit on Saratoga, mainly because of collateral damage to
>the drive.
The _Lexington_ and _Saratoga's_ vulnerability was due to a rather
egregious design flaw rather than any inherent weakness in turbo-electric
drive. All the main powerplant switching was done from one installation,
thus introducing a single point of failure, which did, indeed, fail on more
than one occasion.
--
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
internet: laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Iskandar Taib
From nt...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
In article <CCFEv...@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> MR KR COMAN <ba...@giraffe.ru.ac.za> writes:
>6. A single 40mm Bofors gun (manned by crew drawn from the ship's Royal
> Marines) performed flawlessly thoughout.
What exactly do Royal Marines do? The account of Jutland I read last
year seemed to suggest that all gunners and personnel who manned the
turrets were Royal Marines. Is this true in general?
phas@brspva
From phas@brspva
In article <CCMtq...@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, nt...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
>
> What exactly do Royal Marines do? The account of Jutland I read last
> year seemed to suggest that all gunners and personnel who manned the
> turrets were Royal Marines. Is this true in general?
At the time of the battle of Jutland the Royal Marine Light Infantry would have
manned perhaps one of the main turrets on a BB. In WW2 the RM was reorganised
as The Royal Marine Commandos, and this is their role today.
The RM is part of the Royal Navy, in the cold war their task was to have been
the defence of Norway, for which purpose the RN retains assault ships and other
landing ships. They also serve in Northern Ireland. Unlike the USMC they have
no heavy weaponry and only light helicopters. RM rank is taken from the army
but is one rank higher. So Captain RM = Major (army).
Having served with the Marines of several countries, I can say that IMHO you
will not find a fitter, more professional Commando unit in existance.
Andy
Paul Bailes P.A.
From "Paul Bailes P.A." <pa...@cs.uq.oz.au>
In <CCMtq...@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> nt...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
>From nt...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
>In article <CCFEv...@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> MR KR COMAN <ba...@giraffe.ru.ac.za> writes:
>>6. A single 40mm Bofors gun (manned by crew drawn from the ship's Royal
>> Marines) performed flawlessly thoughout.
>What exactly do Royal Marines do? The account of Jutland I read last
>year seemed to suggest that all gunners and personnel who manned the
>turrets were Royal Marines. Is this true in general?
What account? I think it's just that the turrets you hear about (e.g. Lion's Q
turret) happened to be Marine-manned. My impression is that 1 out of the 4 or 5
main armament turrets on British BBs (and even Cruisers - my evidence for this
is a throwaway line in the film ``Battle of the River Plate'' don't you *all*
remember???) were so.
Paul Bailes
--
Paul A Bailes E-mail: pa...@cs.uq.oz.au
Department of Computer Science Phone: +61 7 365 2097
The University of Queensland QLD 4072 Fax: +61 7 365 1999
AUSTRALIA
--
Paul A Bailes E-mail: pa...@cs.uq.oz.au
Department of Computer Science Phone: +61 7 365 2097
The University of Queensland QLD 4072 Fax: +61 7 365 1999
AUSTRALIA
Steven Vincent
From Steven Vincent <ste...@unipalm.co.uk>
nt...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
>From nt...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
>In article <CCFEv...@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> MR KR COMAN <ba...@giraffe.ru.ac.za> writes:
>>6. A single 40mm Bofors gun (manned by crew drawn from the ship's Royal
>> Marines) performed flawlessly thoughout.
>What exactly do Royal Marines do? The account of Jutland I read last
>year seemed to suggest that all gunners and personnel who manned the
>turrets were Royal Marines. Is this true in general?
Since no one better qualified has spoken up I shall give a general answer.
The Royal Marine detachment on a RN warship had several roles.
Firstly they formed the ships Police and Security detatchment for maintaining
discipline etc. A role that is more relevant to the days of Nelson than this
Centry.
Secondly they formed a Military Raiding party. Usful for rescueing Missionaries
from the Natives etc in Peace time and also for cutting out etc. When things
went wrong it the Royal Marine parties in a Fleet could be grouped together
to form a battalion and used to form a beach landing party. A prime example
of this is The Marine Brigade that was formed during the Boer War in South Africa
which was backed up with Naval Guns mounted on locally made field mounts.
>From these roles the WWII Commando's evolved into today's Royal Marine Commando's
which form a Light Brigade of 3 Commando's (Independant Battalions).
Since the Navy could not afford to have all those strong backs sitting idle
and they were not trained in shipboard skills they often formed Gun Crews.
For Moral purposes this was done so that a gun was totally manned by the
Royal Marine Company. (Which Gun/turret was so manned depended on the
ship, it appeared to be normal for one of the Primary Turrets (X or Y) to be
RM manned.
Since Destroyer's and Frigates were to small to carry a Royal Marine Detachment
and Carriers don't have turrets only the "line" and "raiding" roles still exist
in the modern Navy. I think that there has been a revival of the RM detachment
in recent Years but it is still not normal for a RN escort to carry a RM
party.
PS. During World War II Royal Marine Officers served in the Fleet Air Arm and
Royal Marines seem to form part of the "Jungally" Sea King Squadrons.
>--
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Iskandar Taib | The only thing worse than Peach ala
>Internet: NT...@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU | Frog is Frog ala Peach
>Bitnet: NTAIB@IUBACS !
================================================
phas@brspva
From phas@brspva
In article <CCxuB...@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Steven Vincent <ste...@unipalm.co.uk> writes:
>
> Since Destroyer's and Frigates were to small to carry a Royal Marine Detachment
> and Carriers don't have turrets only the "line" and "raiding" roles still exist
> in the modern Navy. I think that there has been a revival of the RM detachment
> in recent Years but it is still not normal for a RN escort to carry a RM
> party.
RM detachments are carried on certain warships where they have a specific job
to do, for example on the Assualt Ships Fearless and Intrepid. They may be
carried on Escorts, and there is often a detachment on carriers.
>
> PS. During World War II Royal Marine Officers served in the Fleet Air Arm and
> Royal Marines seem to form part of the "Jungally" Sea King Squadrons.
Jungly squadrons fly the Seaking Mk4, pilots are RN officers, but they wear
military style combats rather than RN kit. There purpose is to provide the air
transport facilities required by the RM.
Andy
phas@brspva
From phas@brspva
In article <CCxuB...@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, "Paul Bailes P.A." <pa...@cs.uq.oz.au> writes:
>
> What account? I think it's just that the turrets you hear about (e.g. Lion's Q
> turret) happened to be Marine-manned. My impression is that 1 out of the 4 or 5
> main armament turrets on British BBs (and even Cruisers - my evidence for this
> is a throwaway line in the film ``Battle of the River Plate'' don't you *all*
> remember???) were so.
You are correct. Marine detachment were provided for various soldier like
activities, but whilst at sea they had to do something in a battle, and as
firing .303 rounds would probably not have been very effective.....
Andy
Paul Bailes P.A.
From "Paul Bailes P.A." <pa...@cs.uq.oz.au>
>From "Paul Bailes P.A." <pa...@cs.uq.oz.au>
In <CCMtq...@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> nt...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
>From nt...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
>In article <CCFEv...@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> MR KR COMAN <ba...@giraffe.ru.ac.za> writes:
>>6. A single 40mm Bofors gun (manned by crew drawn from the ship's Royal
>> Marines) performed flawlessly thoughout.
>What exactly do Royal Marines do? The account of Jutland I read last
>year seemed to suggest that all gunners and personnel who manned the
>turrets were Royal Marines. Is this true in general?
What account? I think it's just that the turrets you hear about (e.g. Lion's Q
turret) happened to be Marine-manned. My impression is that 1 out of the 4 or 5
main armament turrets on British BBs (and even Cruisers - my evidence for this
is a throwaway line in the film ``Battle of the River Plate'' don't you *all*
remember???) were so.
Paul Bailes
Steven Vincent
From Steven Vincent <ste...@unipalm.co.uk>
>From Steven Vincent <ste...@unipalm.co.uk>
nt...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
>From nt...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
>In article <CCFEv...@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> MR KR COMAN <ba...@giraffe.ru.ac.za> writes:
>>6. A single 40mm Bofors gun (manned by crew drawn from the ship's Royal
>> Marines) performed flawlessly thoughout.
>What exactly do Royal Marines do? The account of Jutland I read last
>year seemed to suggest that all gunners and personnel who manned the
>turrets were Royal Marines. Is this true in general?
Since no one better qualified has spoken up I shall give a general answer.
The Royal Marine detachment on a RN warship had several roles.
Firstly they formed the ships Police and Security detatchment for maintaining
discipline etc. A role that is more relevant to the days of Nelson than this
Centry.
Secondly they formed a Military Raiding party. Usful for rescueing Missionaries
from the Natives etc in Peace time and also for cutting out etc. When things
went wrong it the Royal Marine parties in a Fleet could be grouped together
to form a battalion and used to form a beach landing party. A prime example
of this is The Marine Brigade that was formed during the Boer War in South Africa
which was backed up with Naval Guns mounted on locally made field mounts.
>From these roles the WWII Commando's evolved into today's Royal Marine Commando's
which form a Light Brigade of 3 Commando's (Independant Battalions).
Since the Navy could not afford to have all those strong backs sitting idle
and they were not trained in shipboard skills they often formed Gun Crews.
For Moral purposes this was done so that a gun was totally manned by the
Royal Marine Company. (Which Gun/turret was so manned depended on the
ship, it appeared to be normal for one of the Primary Turrets (X or Y) to be
RM manned.
Since Destroyer's and Frigates were to small to carry a Royal Marine Detachment
and Carriers don't have turrets only the "line" and "raiding" roles still exist
in the modern Navy. I think that there has been a revival of the RM detachment
in recent Years but it is still not normal for a RN escort to carry a RM
party.
PS. During World War II Royal Marine Officers served in the Fleet Air Arm and
Royal Marines seem to form part of the "Jungally" Sea King Squadrons.