Alien space bat Jutland.
Paul Cassidy
I was talking to a friend about the Battle of Jutland the other day, and it
came up how the QE class were a major advancement over the previous
generation Dreadnoughts. The debate meandered over how the battle might have
been fought if other (later) more advanced ships and technologies had been
present. As conversations like this have a tendency to go, we found
ourselves at the logical extreme, discussing whether the four Iowa class
ships from WW2 could alone have defeated the entire British fleet present at
Jutland? A short discussion on this led quickly to the major advantage that
radar and better communications would give the Iowas. We then asked what
would happen if you took those two pieces of equipment away? We ended up
somewhat unsure. I thought the Iowa's would still win because even without
radar and radio, they still have a large speed, armour and gun advantage
over the British capital ships. My friend countered with the swarms of
British destroyers and cruisers armed with torpedo tubes. The British have a
lot more ships, but will their guns and torpedoes actually penetrate the
Iowa's armour? I know this is a bit of an alien space bat question, but what
are peoples thoughts?
Eugene Griessel
Skill and luck play a large part in any battle - quite often these two
factors negate technology. It's easy to say "on paper this should
win" but when it comes down to reality its often vastly different.
One thing the Iowas did have was the capibility to run away and thus
survive. Without radar and comms they would have been plagued by the
smoke and confusion which bedevilled much of the contact and the extra
range of their guns would have largely been meaningless as they would
not have been able to target any better than the other combatants. In
the confusion of battle it is possible that even the Iowas could have
been badly mauled, if not sunk, if they were badly handled. Their
greatest advantage - if facing the Brits - is the lousy shells the
limey's were saddled with at the time. Radar certainly was an
incredible force multiplier. You could stand off outside of the
engagement capability of the enemy and shoot when it was to your
advantage.
Eugene L Griessel www.dynagen.co.za/eugene
SAAF Crashboat History www.dynagen.co.za/eugene/guybook.html
"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because
they almost always turn out to be - or to be indistinguishable from - self-righteous
sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."
Neil Stephenson, Cryptonomicon
Keith Willshaw
"Paul Cassidy" <paul.c...@wxs.nl> wrote in message
news:ab86in$8es$1...@reader11.wxs.nl...
Hell yes they'd penetrate the armour, the 15" Guns on the QE's were pretty
dammed good, the 13.5's of the Iron Duke's weren't too bad either.
Much of the Iowa class isnt armored at all and so would be vulnerable
to even the cruiser guns and the torpedoes on the DD's would make a
real mess.
They were fine ships but faced with a fleet consisting of 2 dozen BB's,
the 4 QE's , 10 or so BC's , 20 or more cruisers and several dozen
destroyers the best thing they could do is use their speed to bug
out while discouraging pursuit.
Keith
Paul Cassidy
I agree the 15" guns were excellent for their day, but remember, this would
be the unmodified weapon that had not been refitted to have their elevation
increased. This limited their range to just under 24,000 yards. The Iowas
16" guns could have fired out to something like 40,000 yards, although
without radar, whether they could have hit at that distance is VERY
debatable. However, with their speed advantage, they certainly have the
ability to sit outside the QE effective range. In addition the weight of
shot is notable ((9*2,700lb) 24,300lb vrs (8*1920lb) 15,360lb), with the
Iowa having something like a 50% weight advantage per salvo. This does not
even mention the problem that the British had with the armour piercing
shells breaking up on contact.
For the Iron Dukes, the situation is rather worse because although the range
is similar to the QE class, the throw weight is just (10*1,260lb) 12,600lb.
So an Iowa has something like twice the throw weight of an Iowa. In other
words, in throw weight alone the Iowas are worth 8 Iron Duke.
> Much of the Iowa class isnt armored at all and so would be vulnerable
> to even the cruiser guns and the torpedoes on the DD's would make a
> real mess.
>
True enough, but isn't that also the case for the older British battleships
(actually worse since the bits that are armoured are much thinner)? Also, I
would guess that the 80 5" guns on the four Iowas would make even British
cruisers and destroyers (famous for going against the odds) think twice
before closing (even if they could match the speed).
> They were fine ships but faced with a fleet consisting of 2 dozen BB's,
> the 4 QE's , 10 or so BC's , 20 or more cruisers and several dozen
> destroyers the best thing they could do is use their speed to bug
> out while discouraging pursuit.
>
I'm still not convinced. It would take a pretty poor Admiral to put his four
ships in a situation where that entire fleet could fire on him at the same
time. In all likelihood the Iowas would meet Beatty's battlecruisers first,
since they would be doing their job scouting out ahead of the grand fleet.
Even with the four QEs, I can't see the battlecruisers lasting long. They
can't fight, they can't run. Going by weight of shot alone, the Iowas are
worth at least 6 QEs.
The Iowas should destroy the battlecruiser fleet first (along with the QEs),
and then use their speed and range to pound the main fleet, withdrawing if a
mass torpedo attack is made. The biggest problem that I see would be that
the Iowas probably don't carry enough shells to sink the entire British
fleet.
Peter Skelton
The Iowas were not going to defeat the GF, they'd run out of
ammunition far too soon if nothing else. On the day in question,
much of the time the ships could shoot farther than they could
see, so engaging a large fleet would be a bad idea. The GF had a
lot of cruisers and destroyers too - small craft would be
necessary to keep them off. ISTR that the Iowas had four
directors for their 5", they could target a maximum of three
ships with their secondaries in any given direction. That would
be a serious limitation if they had to get through a
cruiser/destroyer screen.
Now give them four WWII light cruisers and a dozen destroyers,
and the HSF's mission (to find and smash a part of the GF) they
might do rather better than the Germans did. A group like this
might make quite a mess of Beatty. (Although it would already
have hammered him at Dogger Bank or earlier.)
____
Peter Skelton
Keith Willshaw
> The Iowas should destroy the battlecruiser fleet first (along with the
QEs),
> and then use their speed and range to pound the main fleet, withdrawing if
a
> mass torpedo attack is made. The biggest problem that I see would be that
> the Iowas probably don't carry enough shells to sink the entire British
> fleet.
>
>
The problem is that hitting ships at long range was historically
difficult to achieve. To ensure hits the Iowa's would have to close
to ranges that leave them vulnerable to lucky hits too and they'd
have a LOT of guns firing at them.
Given the hit probability in the prevailing conditions of the
North Sea with coal smoke obscuring visibility the Iowa's
could shoot their magazines empty just dealing with the
battlecruiser fleet.
In the historical BC action Lutzow and Seydlitz took 10 hits
each with Von der Tann, Derflinger and Moltkeall taking
multiple hits. This level of damage could seriously impair
the efficiency of the Iowa's
As for destroyers catching the Iowa's the Tribals
were good for 32 knots , the Acasta's could hit 29
as could the L class
Keith
Paul Cassidy
> QEs),
> > and then use their speed and range to pound the main fleet, withdrawing
if
> a
> > mass torpedo attack is made. The biggest problem that I see would be
that
> > the Iowas probably don't carry enough shells to sink the entire British
> > fleet.
>
> The problem is that hitting ships at long range was historically
> difficult to achieve. To ensure hits the Iowa's would have to close
> to ranges that leave them vulnerable to lucky hits too and they'd
> have a LOT of guns firing at them.
>
True, but then the optics and gunnery control on the Iowas would better than
anything the British had. Also, the Iowas are a lot beamier than anything in
the British fleet which would make them much better gunnery platforms. I
don't think its being unreasonable to assume that the Iowas would get in
more hits that the British can. Given the difference in shell size
(especially taking into consideration armour), a hit from an Iowa is
potentially a lot more dangerous than a hit from a battlecruiser.
> Given the hit probability in the prevailing conditions of the
> North Sea with coal smoke obscuring visibility the Iowa's
> could shoot their magazines empty just dealing with the
> battlecruiser fleet.
>
The coal smoke would be a problem, but potentially a bigger one for the
British. IIRC, the coal smoke from ships in your own fleet was often more of
a problem than the coal smoke from the enemy. If this is true, then the
Iowas definitely have the advantage here. As for ammo running short, I said
as much before. Of course, "winning" a battle rarely involves (or requires)
sinking every ship in the enemy fleet. I would guess that if the Iowas sink
the entire battlecrusier fleet (with the QEs), that would count as a pretty
big win.
> In the historical BC action Lutzow and Seydlitz took 10 hits
> each with Von der Tann, Derflinger and Moltkeall taking
> multiple hits. This level of damage could seriously impair
> the efficiency of the Iowa's
>
Possibly, but then that was fighting BCs firing much smaller shells back
than in this scenario (German battlecruisers only mounted 11 or 12" guns). A
single 16" AP brick landing on Lion is potentially going to ruin Beatty's
whole day. Also, IIRC, the gunnery of the battlecruisers was rather
substandard at the time.
> As for destroyers catching the Iowa's the Tribals
> were good for 32 knots , the Acasta's could hit 29
> as could the L class
>
True, but then the listed speed for the Iowas is 33 knots. I believe there
are stories that they actually achieved a couple more whilst in service, but
I cannot confirm that.
Keith Willshaw
> > > The Iowas should destroy the battlecruiser fleet first (along with the
> > QEs),
> > > and then use their speed and range to pound the main fleet,
withdrawing
> if
> > a
> > > mass torpedo attack is made. The biggest problem that I see would be
> that
> > > the Iowas probably don't carry enough shells to sink the entire
British
> > > fleet.
> >
> > The problem is that hitting ships at long range was historically
> > difficult to achieve. To ensure hits the Iowa's would have to close
> > to ranges that leave them vulnerable to lucky hits too and they'd
> > have a LOT of guns firing at them.
> >
>
> True, but then the optics and gunnery control on the Iowas would better
than
> anything the British had. Also, the Iowas are a lot beamier than anything
in
> the British fleet which would make them much better gunnery platforms. I
> don't think its being unreasonable to assume that the Iowas would get in
> more hits that the British can. Given the difference in shell size
> (especially taking into consideration armour), a hit from an Iowa is
> potentially a lot more dangerous than a hit from a battlecruiser.
>
The Germans also had better optics and gunnery control
but the poor visibility that prevailed for much of the battle tended
to negate that to a large degree.
During the initial battle cruiser engagement there was
a torpedo attack on the German line by 12 of Beatty's
destroyers. They had to fight their way through a screen
of 15 German destroyers and one light cruiser.
With no light ships of their won that threat
alone would give the commander of the Iowa task group
a serious problem
> > Given the hit probability in the prevailing conditions of the
> > North Sea with coal smoke obscuring visibility the Iowa's
> > could shoot their magazines empty just dealing with the
> > battlecruiser fleet.
> >
>
> The coal smoke would be a problem, but potentially a bigger one for the
> British. IIRC, the coal smoke from ships in your own fleet was often more
of
> a problem than the coal smoke from the enemy. If this is true, then the
> Iowas definitely have the advantage here. As for ammo running short, I
said
> as much before. Of course, "winning" a battle rarely involves (or
requires)
> sinking every ship in the enemy fleet. I would guess that if the Iowas
sink
> the entire battlecrusier fleet (with the QEs), that would count as a
pretty
> big win.
>
Give that the Battlecruiser fleet consisted of
Battlecruisers
Lion, Princess Royal, Queen Mary,Tiger, New Zealand, Indefatigable
Battleships
Barham, Valiant,Warspite,Malaya
Cruisers
Galatea, Phaeton, Inconstant, Cordelia,Southampton (Birmingham,
Nottingham, Dublin, Falmouth,Yarmouth, Birkenhead, Gloucester
Destroyers- 30
This seems more than improbablr
> > In the historical BC action Lutzow and Seydlitz took 10 hits
> > each with Von der Tann, Derflinger and Moltkeall taking
> > multiple hits. This level of damage could seriously impair
> > the efficiency of the Iowa's
> >
>
> Possibly, but then that was fighting BCs firing much smaller shells back
> than in this scenario (German battlecruisers only mounted 11 or 12" guns).
A
> single 16" AP brick landing on Lion is potentially going to ruin Beatty's
> whole day. Also, IIRC, the gunnery of the battlecruisers was rather
> substandard at the time.
>
Half of those hits were from the 15" Guns of the QE's
which werent that much less effective than the Iowa's
> > As for destroyers catching the Iowa's the Tribals
> > were good for 32 knots , the Acasta's could hit 29
> > as could the L class
> >
>
> True, but then the listed speed for the Iowas is 33 knots. I believe there
> are stories that they actually achieved a couple more whilst in service,
but
> I cannot confirm that.
>
>
After taking the half a dozen heavy calibre shell hits that would
have been the inevitable result of a prolonged engagement with
Beatty's forces I seriously doubt that 33 knots would be a
possibility.
Keith
Paul Cassidy
And look at the result of that engagement. It's not just a matter of maximum
range, its much more important for accuracy of rangefinding. The Germans
used precise steroscopic rangefinders which were much less hampered by smoke
than the British. Then consider that the Iowa optics are at least a
generation better again than anything the Germans had. In the first 12
minutes of battle, the Germans hit the British 15 times, getting only 4 in
return. In the first hour, the Germans hit the British 44 times, to only 11
in return. Consider the damage those 44 shells would have done if those hits
had been 16" shells!
> During the initial battle cruiser engagement there was
> a torpedo attack on the German line by 12 of Beatty's
> destroyers. They had to fight their way through a screen
> of 15 German destroyers and one light cruiser.
A torpedo attack would be very difficult against the Iowas because of their
speed (not to mention 80 5" guns!). Also how effective would WW1 torpedoes
be against the Iowa design is debatable. At Jutland, single torpedo hits
were rarely fatal for battleships/cruisers.
> With no light ships of their won that threat
> alone would give the commander of the Iowa task group
> a serious problem
>
Not really, he would just pull back, raining fire down on them from his
secondary armament. If they break off, he returns to the attack. If they
don't he just holds the range and carries on pummeling them from far outside
their torpedo range. Yes that would give the big ships a break and a chance
to run, but I don't see it as a battle winner.
> > > Given the hit probability in the prevailing conditions of the
> > > North Sea with coal smoke obscuring visibility the Iowa's
> > > could shoot their magazines empty just dealing with the
> > > battlecruiser fleet.
> > >
> >
> > The coal smoke would be a problem, but potentially a bigger one for the
> > British. IIRC, the coal smoke from ships in your own fleet was often
more
> of
> > a problem than the coal smoke from the enemy. If this is true, then the
> > Iowas definitely have the advantage here. As for ammo running short, I
> said
> > as much before. Of course, "winning" a battle rarely involves (or
> requires)
> > sinking every ship in the enemy fleet. I would guess that if the Iowas
> sink
> > the entire battlecrusier fleet (with the QEs), that would count as a
> pretty
> > big win.
>
> Give that the Battlecruiser fleet consisted of
>
> Battlecruisers
> Lion, Princess Royal, Queen Mary,Tiger, New Zealand, Indefatigable
>
> Battleships
> Barham, Valiant,Warspite,Malaya
Obviously these are your heavy hitters, but they give away a lot of speed,
armour and firepower to the Iowas. Also remember that just prior to the
battle, they were something like 5 miles WNW of Lion. As soon as the enemy
were spotted, Beatty went to max speed, which resulted in them being left
even further astern (some reports say 10 miles). The effect was that the
battlecruisers fought alone for at least 1/2 hour before the 5th BS got into
the battle. Do you think the battlecruisers would last that long against the
Iowas? At Jutland (at 4:00pm) Lion took a hit on Q turret that nearly
destroyed her. There is a good possibility she would have been lost if the
shell had been a 16" rather than a much smaller 12". Similarly, Tiger's hit
on Q turret at 3:55pm may have caused major damage had the shell been 16"
instead of 11". Indefatigable blew up at 4:02 (-ish!). All this happened
before the 5BS squadron could get into the battle. Therefore, even if you
could bring your entire force into contact (not guarrenteed given the Iowas
speed advantage), you will probably be at least two (maybe three) big ships
down by then anyway.
>
> Cruisers
> Galatea, Phaeton, Inconstant, Cordelia,Southampton (Birmingham,
> Nottingham, Dublin, Falmouth,Yarmouth, Birkenhead, Gloucester
>
The cruisers were generally armed with 5.5 or 6" guns, which "might" have
done damage. However, generally they were slower than the Iowas, and
obviously much easier to damage and destroy. Also, the guns were probably
less effective than the 5" guns on the Iowas.
> Destroyers- 30
>
Armed with (on average) 3 or 4 4" guns. The destroyers would have to be very
lucky to do any serious damage with 4" guns. As for torpedoes, they have to
approach to something like 2000 yards to be truely effective. They could
fire at 10,000yards but the chance of a hit is very low.
> This seems more than improbablr
>
It seems very improbable that the entire fleet would be in range and engaged
at the same time. But how much did the destroyers and cruisers conmtribute
at this time? For most of the battlecruiser duel they were spectators. When
they finally did attack I believe they only scored a single hit on the
larger ships with torpedoes (the damaged ship survived the battle!) and
another on a German destroyer leader.
> > > In the historical BC action Lutzow and Seydlitz took 10 hits
> > > each with Von der Tann, Derflinger and Moltkeall taking
> > > multiple hits. This level of damage could seriously impair
> > > the efficiency of the Iowa's
> > >
> >
> > Possibly, but then that was fighting BCs firing much smaller shells back
> > than in this scenario (German battlecruisers only mounted 11 or 12"
guns).
> A
> > single 16" AP brick landing on Lion is potentially going to ruin
Beatty's
> > whole day. Also, IIRC, the gunnery of the battlecruisers was rather
> > substandard at the time.
> >
>
> Half of those hits were from the 15" Guns of the QE's
> which werent that much less effective than the Iowa's
>
Okay, but in main armament shell weight alone the Iowas are worth 6 QE
class. As I showed above, the 5BS wouldn't even be in the battle for the
first 1/2 hour, and by that time you have probably lost 2-3 battlecruisers.
> > > As for destroyers catching the Iowa's the Tribals
> > > were good for 32 knots , the Acasta's could hit 29
> > > as could the L class
> > >
> >
> > True, but then the listed speed for the Iowas is 33 knots. I believe
there
> > are stories that they actually achieved a couple more whilst in service,
> but
> > I cannot confirm that.
> >
> >
>
> After taking the half a dozen heavy calibre shell hits that would
> have been the inevitable result of a prolonged engagement with
> Beatty's forces I seriously doubt that 33 knots would be a
> possibility.
>
Well the QE class were only good for 24 knots (max!). Unless you want the
battlecruisers to leave them behind (which considering they are your big
hitters is not a good idea) that is the speed of the "battlecruiser fleet".
That means the Iowas have a good 9-10 knot advantage. That means they can
dictate the terms of the battle, and I would guess that means they can
absorb some damage before their speed will drop below that of the British
fleet. Also I doubt the destroyers would be making 30+ knots for long after
taking a 5" shell or two.
Ogden Johnson III
In all fairness, once you'd taken their radar and radio away, you
should have at least given the Iowas back their typical lot of task
group escorts.
OJ III
[And, did the Iowas get to keep their Kingfishers, or did you strip
them also?]
Richard Bell
You seem to have ignored the reason *WHY* neither the RN, nor the Kreigs-
marine, bothered with high elevation on their guns-- typical visibility
conditions preclude being able to fire at greater ranges. Without radar,
the Iowas are not about to achieve hits beyond the range of the british
guns without healthy dollops of pure, blind luck. What will save the
Iowas from a world of hurt, should they choose not to run, is the level
of coordination required for the RN to figure out who owns which splash.
However, the RN's problems of overconcentration are mitigated by the
luxury of having most of their platforms unengaged.
des Kaisers Haarpracht
<paul.c...@wxs.nl> wrote:
[snip Iowan-Jutland lunacy]
>And look at the result of that engagement. It's not just a matter of maximum
>range, its much more important for accuracy of rangefinding. The Germans
>used precise steroscopic rangefinders which were much less hampered by smoke
>than the British. Then consider that the Iowa optics are at least a
>generation better again than anything the Germans had. In the first 12
>minutes of battle, the Germans hit the British 15 times, getting only 4 in
>return. In the first hour, the Germans hit the British 44 times, to only 11
>in return. Consider the damage those 44 shells would have done if those hits
>had been 16" shells!
I see. So this isn't 4 Iowas versus the GF, it's "what if all the
German main gun shell hits at Jutland were US 16in."
>A torpedo attack would be very difficult against the Iowas because of their
>speed (not to mention 80 5" guns!).
Yet they still manage to get as many or more hits on the British
battle-line than the Germans did, despite having to evade such
attacks.
>Obviously these are your heavy hitters, but they give away a lot of speed,
>armour and firepower to the Iowas.
No shit. Perhaps that might be due to the fact that they predated the
Iowas by more than a quarter of a century.
[torpedos]
>It seems very improbable that the entire fleet would be in range and engaged
>at the same time. But how much did the destroyers and cruisers conmtribute
>at this time? For most of the battlecruiser duel they were spectators. When
>they finally did attack I believe they only scored a single hit on the
>larger ships with torpedoes (the damaged ship survived the battle!)
Given the relative distance between Jutland and New York or Boston
Navy yard, I suspect damage which was insufficient to sink certain
German battlecruisers before they could limp into the Jade estuary
might prove more significant during an Atlantic crossing.
>Okay, but in main armament shell weight alone the Iowas are worth 6 QE
>class. As I showed above, the 5BS wouldn't even be in the battle for the
>first 1/2 hour, and by that time you have probably lost 2-3 battlecruisers.
It's all a question of rolling the dice. The GF is still rolling them
more often than the Iowa.
[snip more lunacy]
Gavin Bailey
Keith Willshaw
> > > > > The Iowas should destroy the battlecruiser fleet first (along with
>
> And look at the result of that engagement. It's not just a matter of
maximum
> range, its much more important for accuracy of rangefinding. The Germans
> used precise steroscopic rangefinders which were much less hampered by
smoke
> than the British. Then consider that the Iowa optics are at least a
> generation better again than anything the Germans had. In the first 12
> minutes of battle, the Germans hit the British 15 times, getting only 4 in
> return. In the first hour, the Germans hit the British 44 times, to only
11
> in return. Consider the damage those 44 shells would have done if those
hits
> had been 16" shells!
>
> > During the initial battle cruiser engagement there was
> > a torpedo attack on the German line by 12 of Beatty's
> > destroyers. They had to fight their way through a screen
> > of 15 German destroyers and one light cruiser.
>
> A torpedo attack would be very difficult against the Iowas because of
their
> speed (not to mention 80 5" guns!). Also how effective would WW1 torpedoes
> be against the Iowa design is debatable. At Jutland, single torpedo hits
> were rarely fatal for battleships/cruisers.
If the ship is doging torpedoes its shooting will definitely
suffer, 2 dozen small fast moving destroyers in conditions
of poor visibility are a less than easy target and you cant fire
on them all at the same time. Even in WW2 DD's were hard
to hit at any sort of range. Consider the results of Bismark's shooting
at her tormentors.
Trying to deal with them while a dozen BC's and BB's are shooting
at you is not a nice prospect.
>
> > With no light ships of their won that threat
> > alone would give the commander of the Iowa task group
> > a serious problem
> >
>
> Not really, he would just pull back, raining fire down on them from his
> secondary armament. If they break off, he returns to the attack. If they
> don't he just holds the range and carries on pummeling them from far
outside
> their torpedo range. Yes that would give the big ships a break and a
chance
> to run, but I don't see it as a battle winner.
>
How much of his seconday armament can even bear if he's running ?
Yes they can always cut and run but thats not how you win battles
>
<snip>
> >
>
> It seems very improbable that the entire fleet would be in range and
engaged
> at the same time. But how much did the destroyers and cruisers conmtribute
> at this time? For most of the battlecruiser duel they were spectators.
When
> they finally did attack I believe they only scored a single hit on the
> larger ships with torpedoes (the damaged ship survived the battle!) and
> another on a German destroyer leader.
>
At Jutland the Cruisers and destoyers were held back to beat
off any German torpedo attack which was the biggest fear
the RN had at the time. In the absence of such a threat they'd undoubtedly
attempt to close the range
At which point you'd be as worried about those 24 destroyers
steaming at you as the remaining BC's and BB's throwing
varying size bricks
<snip>
>
> Well the QE class were only good for 24 knots (max!). Unless you want the
> battlecruisers to leave them behind (which considering they are your big
> hitters is not a good idea) that is the speed of the "battlecruiser
fleet".
> That means the Iowas have a good 9-10 knot advantage. That means they can
> dictate the terms of the battle, and I would guess that means they can
> absorb some damage before their speed will drop below that of the British
> fleet. Also I doubt the destroyers would be making 30+ knots for long
after
> taking a 5" shell or two.
>
>
How well can you cope with 30+ manouvering targets ?
The reslity is you cant simulataneously engage the whole
enemy force. They CAN simulataneously engage you.
If yot steam a nice parallel line you can engage with guns to
advantage but closing at 30 knots the destroyers will be in
torpedo firing range unpleasantly quickly
Keith
Keith
Derek Lyons
>A short discussion on this led quickly to the major advantage that
>radar and better communications would give the Iowas.
Even those would not necessarily have helped with two of the major
failures at Jutland: Poor intelligence, and poor performance by the
scouting forces. You can't defeat an enemy force that you can't run
to ground.
D.
Paul Cassidy
Great way to start your debating.
>
> >And look at the result of that engagement. It's not just a matter of
maximum
> >range, its much more important for accuracy of rangefinding. The Germans
> >used precise steroscopic rangefinders which were much less hampered by
smoke
> >than the British. Then consider that the Iowa optics are at least a
> >generation better again than anything the Germans had. In the first 12
> >minutes of battle, the Germans hit the British 15 times, getting only 4
in
> >return. In the first hour, the Germans hit the British 44 times, to only
11
> >in return. Consider the damage those 44 shells would have done if those
hits
> >had been 16" shells!
>
> I see. So this isn't 4 Iowas versus the GF, it's "what if all the
> German main gun shell hits at Jutland were US 16in."
>
No, perhaps if you went back and read how this thread evolved you would see
where that statement came from instead of jumping in the middle of a debate
and jumping to conclusions.
> >A torpedo attack would be very difficult against the Iowas because of
their
> >speed (not to mention 80 5" guns!).
>
> Yet they still manage to get as many or more hits on the British
> battle-line than the Germans did, despite having to evade such
> attacks.
>
If you read the history of the battle, the German line also came under
destroyer torpedo attacks. Yes the German destroyer tried to blunt the
attack, but they were not very successful, and did not prevent the attack
from being carried through. However, the German line turned away, and only
one hit was obtained. Yes there are definite reasons why the Iowas are more
vulnerable to a mass destroyer attack (mainly lack of escorts and number of
directors), but then they also have advantages of speed and protection over
the Germans. Trying to torpedo a battleship that is as faster or faster than
the torpedo firing ship is not an easy task.
> >Obviously these are your heavy hitters, but they give away a lot of
speed,
> >armour and firepower to the Iowas.
>
> No shit. Perhaps that might be due to the fact that they predated the
> Iowas by more than a quarter of a century.
>
No shit Sherlock! Perhaps if you read the rest of the thread you would see
that we are all quite aware of that fact.
> [torpedos]
>
> >It seems very improbable that the entire fleet would be in range and
engaged
> >at the same time. But how much did the destroyers and cruisers
conmtribute
> >at this time? For most of the battlecruiser duel they were spectators.
When
> >they finally did attack I believe they only scored a single hit on the
> >larger ships with torpedoes (the damaged ship survived the battle!)
>
> Given the relative distance between Jutland and New York or Boston
> Navy yard, I suspect damage which was insufficient to sink certain
> German battlecruisers before they could limp into the Jade estuary
> might prove more significant during an Atlantic crossing.
>
Go and read the history of the Battle. Seydlitz took far more damage later
in the battle from the guns than she did not that single torpedo hit. Of
course, you don't even consider that an Iowa has torpedo protection and
damage control that is streets ahead of the German dreadnought. As for the
distance to New York, what does that have to do with anything if the German
fleet was replaced by the Iowas? In that case they would be operating from
Germany. It really would help if you read the thread before posting.
> >Okay, but in main armament shell weight alone the Iowas are worth 6 QE
> >class. As I showed above, the 5BS wouldn't even be in the battle for the
> >first 1/2 hour, and by that time you have probably lost 2-3
battlecruisers.
>
> It's all a question of rolling the dice. The GF is still rolling them
> more often than the Iowa.
At last, a sensible comment. Yes they do have more guns, but they are all
much lighter. Also given the much higher speed of the Iowas, how many
capitial ships are going to get range and fire at the same time? Not that
many I suspect.
Paul Cassidy
That is probably true.
> OJ III
> [And, did the Iowas get to keep their Kingfishers, or did you strip
> them also?]
I guess they get to keep them.
Peter H. Granzeau
<keith_w...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>In the historical BC action Lutzow and Seydlitz took 10 hits
>each with Von der Tann, Derflinger and Moltkeall taking
>multiple hits. This level of damage could seriously impair
>the efficiency of the Iowa's
My information on Jutland says Seydlitz took 21 heavy (12" and up)
hits plus two medium calibre hits and a 21-in torpedo, and made it
back to the Jade with 5,000 tons of water aboard before being grounded
to keep from sinking and blocking the channel. Lutzow took 24 heavy
hits plus a torpedo, had 7,500 tons of water aboard and 116 dead when
Hipper gave to order to abandon her. If not driven so hard, she might
have made it back. Derfflinger took 17 heavy hits and could still
steam. Von der Tann and Moltke each took 4 heavy hits.
Keith Willshaw
"Peter H. Granzeau" <pgra...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:5tUB8.85$1a4....@news2.east.cox.net...
I'm sure you are correct but I was referring to the hits they
took during the initial encounter with Beatty's force rather
than the totality of damage in the battle
The the Seydlitz's captain's (Kaptain zur See von Egidy)
refers to the damage inflicted by Beattys force as being
Number 6 casemate destroyed , "D" Turret knocked out
and a numbr of less damaging hits before the torpedo attack
The single torpedo strained the torpedo bulkhead but it held
although there numerous leaks, more seriously the forward
generator room was flooded and the steering gear temmporarily
disabled.
It was some time after this when the Grand Fleet came up
that she took the real pounding. Its clear that the German damage control
was
superb with the men apparently been trained to work in complete darkness.
One interesting statement he makes is
" Our ship received hit after hit but our guns remained silent because we
could not make out any targets."
http://www.ku.edu/~kansite/ww_one/naval/jut01.htm
Keith
Nik Simpson
> I agree the 15" guns were excellent for their day, but remember, this
would
> be the unmodified weapon that had not been refitted to have their
elevation
> increased. This limited their range to just under 24,000 yards. The Iowas
> 16" guns could have fired out to something like 40,000 yards, although
> without radar, whether they could have hit at that distance is VERY
> debatable.
>However, with their speed advantage, they certainly have the
> ability to sit outside the QE effective range.
Without RADAR, they can't sit outside the range of the 15:" gun because
visibility was never that good at Jutland.
> For the Iron Dukes, the situation is rather worse because although the
range
> is similar to the QE class, the throw weight is just (10*1,260lb)
12,600lb.
Nitpick but the 14" on the Iron Duke fired a 1400LB shell.
--
Nik Simpson
Peter Skelton
Nitpick but the Iron Duke had 13.5's. The only 14" at Jutland
were on HMS Canada.
____
Peter Skelton
Nik Simpson
"Peter Skelton" <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:3cd873ad.41438569@news...
According to Anthony Preston's Battleships of WW1, Janes Fighting Ships 1914
Edition, & DK Brown's The Grand Fleet, the 13.5" fitted to the KGV and
later classes fired a 1400LB shell. Only the Orion class fired the 1250LB
shell. So it's:
Orion Class 1250LB
KGV Class 1400LB
Iron Duke Class 1400LB
For the 13.5BC, I think the armament change occured at the same time, so
its:
Lion Class 1250LB
Tiger & Queen Mary 1400LB
Given that Erin was a contemporary (in terms of when it was laid down) with
KGV I'd expect she also carried the 1400LB gun, but I don't have any
detailed information.
Do you have a source that disagrees?
--
Nik Simpson
Paul J. Adam
writes
>Nitpick but the Iron Duke had 13.5's. The only 14" at Jutland
>were on HMS Canada.
And on the Agincourt?
(Or was that 14 x 12" rather than 12 x 14"?)
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill
Paul J. Adam ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Nik Simpson
"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:JVCYR4EK...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
> In article <3cd873ad.41438569@news>, Peter Skelton <skel...@cogeco.ca>
> writes
> >Nitpick but the Iron Duke had 13.5's. The only 14" at Jutland
> >were on HMS Canada.
>
> And on the Agincourt?
>
> (Or was that 14 x 12" rather than 12 x 14"?)
14x12"
--
Nik Simpson
Peter Skelton
<ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <3cd873ad.41438569@news>, Peter Skelton <skel...@cogeco.ca>
>writes
>>Nitpick but the Iron Duke had 13.5's. The only 14" at Jutland
>>were on HMS Canada.
>
>And on the Agincourt?
>
>(Or was that 14 x 12" rather than 12 x 14"?)
>
14 x 12, Monday, Tuesday. . .
There were several six turret BB's, including the American
WYOMINGs
____
Peter Skelton
Peter Skelton
<n_si...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
No (and I'd not argue with Preston unless God sent me a stone
tablet.) I picked the only nit I had.
____
Peter Skelton
Derek Lyons
>A torpedo attack would be very difficult against the Iowas because of their
>speed (not to mention 80 5" guns!). Also how effective would WW1 torpedoes
>be against the Iowa design is debatable. At Jutland, single torpedo hits
>were rarely fatal for battleships/cruisers.
The purpose of a torpedo attack is not just to sink the target vessel.
It's also to disrupt his battle line, impair manuevering, and
otherwise increase the 'fog of war'.
D.
Jack Love
wrote:
>
>The Iowas were not going to defeat the GF, they'd run out of
>ammunition far too soon if nothing else. On the day in question,
>much of the time the ships could shoot farther than they could
>see, so engaging a large fleet would be a bad idea. The GF had a
>lot of cruisers and destroyers too - small craft would be
>necessary to keep them off. ISTR that the Iowas had four
>directors for their 5", they could target a maximum of three
>ships with their secondaries in any given direction. That would
>be a serious limitation if they had to get through a
>cruiser/destroyer screen.
I agree that the 4 would certainly be insufficient to handle the whole
fleet. But, one might up their performance estimate if one were to
factor in all of the secondaries: the 40mm and 20mm as well might
well be sufficient to handle many of the smaller screening ships
including destroyers. Ammunition would be one serious problem
but (hmm, google is down for some reason, ahh back up, 2000 rounds
per gun according to one source) if one were using the 40s
and 20s to plane off the upper works IIRC most destroyers had open gun
positions...one might get quick mission kills on them as proximity
fuzes would give a very nice spray (if they'll work at that low an
angle without premature detonation).
http://www.warships1.com/Weapons/WNUS_4cm-56_mk12.htm
And, of course, there's the other interesting tradeoff of penetration
vs WWI armo(u)r as opposed to WWII. There would be some differential
to benefit the 40mm if one wanted to try AP, but probably not, I would
think.
Also: re earlier comments elsewhere the fire control systems on the
Iowas was vastly superior to anything in WWI. Given time to think
about I'm sure the commanders would come up with an idea for a
formation something like 'dispersed line ahead while randomly
zigzagging on the baseline course' which would essentially disable the
British fire control systems entirely. If the range doesn't close to
point blank the Brits would be scoring hits by only by volume of fire
and random luck, which would be sufficient for some hits but barring
the usual golden BB proviso wouldn't get mission kills.
And, of course, the Iowas wouldn't randomly explode.
>Now give them four WWII light cruisers and a dozen destroyers,
>and the HSF's mission (to find and smash a part of the GF) they
>might do rather better than the Germans did. A group like this
>might make quite a mess of Beatty. (Although it would already
>have hammered him at Dogger Bank or earlier.)
>
And with those additions it would certainly be a fair fight.
>
>Peter Skelton
Peter Skelton
WWI torpedos had an effective range longer than that of 40 mm
WWII Bofors. (I assume your 2000 rounds/gun is for the small
stuff.)
Proximity fuses were available for the 5", but not the smaller
guns. Yes, they should work at the crucial range (say around 5000
yards.) You have an evil mind, I think I'll be polite if we meet.
<s>
>
>>Now give them four WWII light cruisers and a dozen destroyers,
>>and the HSF's mission (to find and smash a part of the GF) they
>>might do rather better than the Germans did. A group like this
>>might make quite a mess of Beatty. (Although it would already
>>have hammered him at Dogger Bank or earlier.)
>>
>
>And with those additions it would certainly be a fair fight.
Or lop-sided the other way.
A group like this would not change the war by beating the GF in a
single engagement but it opens up strategic and tactical
possibilities that somebody bright might assemble into a winning
campaign.
____
Peter Skelton
Andy Spark
Keith Willshaw <keith@kwillshaw_NoSpam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> It was some time after this when the Grand Fleet came up
> that she took the real pounding. Its clear that the German damage control
> was
> superb with the men apparently been trained to work in complete darkness.
Actually, what *is* clear is that german ships had smaller watertight
compartments and more of them than the British ones, -ISTR this also
included having transverse bulkheads which not pierced below the water
line. -This was a design consideration, the HSF being designed to
fight in the North Sea, whereas the GF had to be capable of extended
blue water operations. Indeed the practice in the HSF was that the
crews did not normally live aboard.
Peter H. Granzeau
<paul.c...@wxs.nl> wrote:
>A torpedo attack would be very difficult against the Iowas because of their
>speed (not to mention 80 5" guns!). Also how effective would WW1 torpedoes
>be against the Iowa design is debatable. At Jutland, single torpedo hits
>were rarely fatal for battleships/cruisers.
As built, the Iowas had only 20 5"/38 DP guns, in 10 dual mounts (5 to
a side). They had 80 40mm guns, but those were intended for AA use
only.
The 5" ammo load out would have to be adjusted for WW I conditions, as
virtually all of the AA common would need to be replaced by HE or AP.
The Iowas alone might be outnumbered by the Grand Fleet. Sonce we're
imagining a battle line, let's include the North Carolinas and the
South Dakotas. They only had 27 knots, but that was still sufficient
to stay ahead of any battle cruiser at Jutland except the Tiger.
The USN never had a chance to put together a battle line of the
post-1937 ships. It's interesting to speculate on just what they
might have been capable of. A shame Halsey didn't leave them behind
when he went after the toothless Japanese carriers during Leyte Gulf.
Peter H. Granzeau
<n_si...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> For the Iron Dukes, the situation is rather worse because although the range
>> is similar to the QE class, the throw weight is just (10*1,260lb) 12,600lb.
>
>Nitpick but the 14" on the Iron Duke fired a 1400LB shell.
Possible, but it was a 13.5" shell. I believe the only ship with 14"
guns at Jutland was HMS Canada, which had been built for sale to
Chile.
Peter Skelton
The HSF ships had a dynamic anti-roll system that used pumps and
tanks. The ships' pumping capacity was roughly ten times that of
their peers in the Grand Fleet.
____
Peter Skelton
Nik Simpson
As my illustrious relative might say "Doh" Now I see what Peter Skelton was
getting at, I did of course mean 13.5".
--
Nik Simpson
des Kaisers Haarpracht
<paul.c...@wxs.nl> wrote:
>> [snip Iowan-Jutland lunacy]
>
>Great way to start your debating.
Fairly effective, I must admit.
>>>In the first hour, the Germans hit the British 44 times, to only
>>>11 in return. Consider the damage those 44 shells would have done if those
>>>hits had been 16" shells!
>>
>> I see. So this isn't 4 Iowas versus the GF, it's "what if all the
>> German main gun shell hits at Jutland were US 16in."
>
>No, perhaps if you went back and read how this thread evolved you would see
>where that statement came from instead of jumping in the middle of a debate
>and jumping to conclusions.
I did read the evolution of the thread:
"...whether the four Iowa class ships from WW2 could alone have
defeated the entire British fleet present at Jutland?"
This has now mutated into "whether the Iowas have defeated the entire
British fleet present at Jutland if they managed by some fluke to get
the same precise hits on the British ships as the Germans did."
>> >A torpedo attack would be very difficult against the Iowas because of
>their
>> >speed (not to mention 80 5" guns!).
>>
>> Yet they still manage to get as many or more hits on the British
>> battle-line than the Germans did, despite having to evade such
>> attacks.
>
>If you read the history of the battle,
I have read Tarrants' account.
>the German line also came under
>destroyer torpedo attacks.
It did. But not all of it at the same time. Consider the number of
ships in HSF and then think of four Iowas.
>Yes the German destroyer tried to blunt the
>attack, but they were not very successful, and did not prevent the attack
>from being carried through. However, the German line turned away, and only
>one hit was obtained. Yes there are definite reasons why the Iowas are more
>vulnerable to a mass destroyer attack (mainly lack of escorts and number of
>directors), but then they also have advantages of speed and protection over
>the Germans. Trying to torpedo a battleship that is as faster or faster than
>the torpedo firing ship is not an easy task.
I'm not saying it is. I am saying that four battleships, even if
comparitively very fast and very powerfully armed, are now the subject
of an attack which was originally dispersed amongst more than four
times that number of ships. The same factor needs to be accounted for
shell-fire as well. I have no doubt that the GF would have been
disadvantaged in terms of accuracy and fire-control, as well as
excessive shell splashing, but this would have also had an effect on
the Iowas in regard to the shell splashes. The weight of fire
involved would still be far divorced from your comparison of
individual QE class battleships against individual Iowas. You're
postulating putting 4 ships, albeit exceptionally fast and powerful
ones, against an entire fleet.
>Go and read the history of the Battle.
I have, which is why I have brought up the issue of the distances to
the bases concerned.
> Seydlitz took far more damage later
>in the battle from the guns than she did not that single torpedo hit.
So, to return to the point, do you think he would have made it back to
Boston for repair?
> Of
>course, you don't even consider that an Iowa has torpedo protection and
>damage control that is streets ahead of the German dreadnought.
I'm convinced it was better. I'm still convinced that a mass topedo
attack was still a major threat to them, as other battleships
demonstrated in WW2: the Iowas may have been more resistant to
topredo attack, but they were not invulnerable. I'm also convinced
that the Iowas, when faced with the enitire GF, would rapidly
accumulate damage that would debilitate their advantages of speed,
armament, fire-control and damage-control.
>As for the
>distance to New York, what does that have to do with anything if the German
>fleet was replaced by the Iowas?
How many variables do you want to change? If so, at least admit them
to start with.
> In that case they would be operating from
>Germany. It really would help if you read the thread before posting.
Where did you state that? I apologise for I missing it.
>> >Okay, but in main armament shell weight alone the Iowas are worth 6 QE
>> >class. As I showed above, the 5BS wouldn't even be in the battle for the
>> >first 1/2 hour, and by that time you have probably lost 2-3
>battlecruisers.
>>
>> It's all a question of rolling the dice. The GF is still rolling them
>> more often than the Iowa.
>
>At last, a sensible comment. Yes they do have more guns, but they are all
>much lighter. Also given the much higher speed of the Iowas, how many
>capitial ships are going to get range and fire at the same time? Not that
>many I suspect.
You seem to suffer from the delusion that everything boils down to the
maximal individual figures: greatest weight of broadside, greater
immune zone, etc. In reality random chance tends to favour the most
consistent application of the lowest common denominator, which in this
case includes a major advantage in numbers and supporting vessels to
the GF. Unless the Iowas run for it, and selectively engage detatched
ships or sections of the GF, they would quickly lose their qualitative
advantage due to accumulated non-critical damage. I don't doubt they
could have inflicted disproportionate damage while they could do so,
but that would be a window of finite duration, determined by how long
they chose (or were forced by damage) to remain in range of the GF.
Gavin Bailey
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Skelton) wrote:
> The ships' pumping capacity was roughly ten times that of
> their peers in the Grand Fleet.
On the other hand the submerged torpedo flats were a major weakness.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion
Peter Skelton
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>In article <3cd994be.29034990@news>, skel...@cogeco.ca (Peter
>Skelton) wrote:
>
>> The ships' pumping capacity was roughly ten times that of
>> their peers in the Grand Fleet.
>
> On the other hand the submerged torpedo flats were a major weakness.
These gave water a way to move around that proved a nuisance but
I've always put the major weakness idea in with thin British
armour, superior <British, German : pick one> gunnery, and a few
others in the "needs more contemplation" bin.
The ships that this fault hurt were pretty heavily shelled. The
two it hurt badly had also been torpedoed, IIRC. They were robust
for their day.
Breaking up the flats would have resulted in larger ships, or
compromises in other areas. What would have been better? There is
not much doubt that the Fleet would have been better if the ships
had not been quite so well subdivied, easier coal-handling would
have been useful, for example.
Doing without the tubes would have been better, but it would have
taken real genius to see it. TT were standard for capital ships
until 1925 or so.
____
Peter Skelton
Jack Love
wrote:
http://www.warships1.com/W-Tech/tech-047.htm
Thinking about torpedos, the water will certainly be filled with them
unless their launch can be dissuaded by tactics like those suggested.
However the article above suggests that the WWII style protection
might be quite effective against the WWI torpedo. Certainly the Iowas
wouldn't be invulnerable, but might, when combined with their
phenomenal maneuvarability be very tough targets. Especially since
they are NOT constrained to sail in straight lines to maintain firing
solutions on targets. Here making the assumption that the torpedo
wakes will be quite visible and that, of course, there is only contact
fusing.
TJ
<ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <3cd873ad.41438569@news>, Peter Skelton <skel...@cogeco.ca>
>writes
>>Nitpick but the Iron Duke had 13.5's. The only 14" at Jutland
>>were on HMS Canada.
>
>And on the Agincourt?
>
>(Or was that 14 x 12" rather than 12 x 14"?)
14 x 12". Seven twin turrets. A feat never duplicated. ;-)
TJ
David Henderson
>For the Iron Dukes, the situation is rather worse because although the range
>is similar to the QE class, the throw weight is just (10*1,260lb) 12,600lb.
>words, in throw weight alone the Iowas are worth 8 Iron Duke.
Why is throw-weight always brought up in these discussions? It's mentioned
as if you actually expect to hit something with all this weight! Surely
accuracy of direction is by far the overwhelming factor in evaluating such
what-ifs? Six 13.5" hits versus four 15" hits must be more dangerous.[1]
--
David.
[1] At no point am I saying which side will win such a contest, I'm just
arguing that throw weight is a quite ridiculous way of measuring such
things. Four Iowas worth 8 Iron Dukes, for goodness sake!
Andy Spark
<jack...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> And, of course, the Iowas wouldn't randomly explode.
Well, that rather depends on your powder doesn't it? -Do you have state
of the art WW2 powder, or the stuff that was being used in the early
90s which was well past it's sell by date, and did indeed do just
that.....
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> which in this
> case includes a major advantage in numbers and supporting vessels to
> the GF.
I assume you are familiar with Lanchester's theorem. Between forces
of comparable quality the relative fighting power is equivalent to the
squares of the numbers on each side. In other words with 4 ships on
one side and three on the other relative combat power is 16:9. The
increased combat power of the Iowa class compared with the British
fleet would make a difference.
Some facts the standard British WW1 ship torpedo was the Mk IV with a
515lb TNT warhead. Range was 8,000 yds at 35 knots or 10,000 yds at
29. The torpedo protection on the South Dakota and Iowa classes was a
new design that had not been tested when the ships were laid down. It
turned out to inferior to that on the North Carolina class. I do not
know how that compared to WW1 German torpedo protection.
Finally given that even during WW2 average hit probability at long
range was about 2-5% and the Iowas have no way of getting more
ammunition the battle is likely to end when the Iowas have shot off
all their ammo anyway.
des Kaisers Haarpracht
wrote:
[Iowas vs GF]
> I assume you are familiar with Lanchester's theorem.
No, but I have no problem accepting it in theory.
>Between forces
>of comparable quality the relative fighting power is equivalent to the
>squares of the numbers on each side. In other words with 4 ships on
>one side and three on the other relative combat power is 16:9. The
>increased combat power of the Iowa class compared with the British
>fleet would make a difference.
I'm sure it would; but my opinion is that the quantitative weight
against them would be greater than the margin of relative superiority
they possessed, providing they did not avoid substantive contact. One
of the factors I believe is not being given sufficient attention is
how the Iowa's technical superiority and speed advantages would be
erroded by the cumulative effects of superstructure and hull damage.
The longer an egagement persisted, the higher risk of substantive cost
for the Iowas, while the GF would start from a worse relative position
which would proportionately deteriorate at a slower rate, as systems
and ships were lost out of a more substantive whole.
> Finally given that even during WW2 average hit probability at long
>range was about 2-5% and the Iowas have no way of getting more
>ammunition the battle is likely to end when the Iowas have shot off
>all their ammo anyway.
Very possibly. Another likely ending is the surviving Iowas running
for it at that stage, leaving a cripple or two behind to be finished
off by the GF after sinking several battleships and supporting vessels
and damaging many more.
This still less valid than wondering what would have happened if
Beatty, Jellico or Scheer had done something different, where
[something different] was historically explicable and credible in the
contemporary historical context.
Gavin Bailey
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> was historically explicable and credible in the
> contemporary historical context.
The person who started this thread seems to have come from
soc.history.what-if. Various time travel ideas are fairly common
there. So are Alien Space Bats, who are invoked to explain the more
extreme variants.
David P Benjamin
: On Fri, 10 May 2002 11:32:44 +0000 (UTC), ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
: wrote:
: [Iowas vs GF]
[snip]
: > Finally given that even during WW2 average hit probability at long
: >range was about 2-5% and the Iowas have no way of getting more
: >ammunition the battle is likely to end when the Iowas have shot off
: >all their ammo anyway.
: Very possibly. Another likely ending is the surviving Iowas running
: for it at that stage, leaving a cripple or two behind to be finished
: off by the GF after sinking several battleships and supporting vessels
: and damaging many more.
I would think that the battle would end as soon as six miles
worth of GF opened up on the lead Iowa. (Unless Scheer is still
in command, in which case it will end shortly after the second time.)
I don't see any American admiral trying to press home an attack
against overwhelming numbers unless Guadalcanal is at stake.
Come to think of it, this is sort of like 1st Guadalcanal with
the US playing the Japanese role. Kind of sucks to be Jellicoe
and Beatty in that case, though.
: This still less valid than wondering what would have happened if
: Beatty, Jellico or Scheer had done something different, where
: [something different] was historically explicable and credible in the
: contemporary historical context.
Yeah! Like why did Beatty put his strongest but slowest ships
as far from the potential threat axis as possible and then run
away from them faster than they can go?
--
David Benjamin
Andy Spark
In article <3cda6643...@nntphost.dur.ac.uk>, des Kaisers
Haarpracht <g.j.b...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
> "...whether the four Iowa class ships from WW2 could alone have
> defeated the entire British fleet present at Jutland?"
>
> This has now mutated into "whether the Iowas have defeated the entire
> British fleet present at Jutland if they managed by some fluke to get
> the same precise hits on the British ships as the Germans did."
Ah yes, but you are missing the most fundamental tenet of a
considerable proportion of smn, which is that the best warship design
ever was the Iowa, and an Iowa will win any single ship engagement you
care to mention. (Obviously no one mentions the words "aircraft
carrier" at this point because then the facts start to get in the way.)
Therefore the Iowas should be resuscitated again, and quickly.
As It has been "demonstrated" on this group that an Iowa will beat a
Kirov every time, I hardly see the GF as a target worthy of
discussion.....
Ogden Johnson III
>Ah yes, but you are missing the most fundamental tenet of a
>considerable proportion of smn, which is that the best warship design
>ever was the Iowa, and an Iowa will win any single ship engagement you
>care to mention. (Obviously no one mentions the words "aircraft
>carrier" at this point because then the facts start to get in the way.)
Pray tell, Andy; since when did less than 2% constitute "a
considerable proportion of smn"?
>Therefore the Iowas should be resuscitated again, and quickly.
>
>As It has been "demonstrated" on this group that an Iowa will beat a
>Kirov every time, I hardly see the GF as a target worthy of
>discussion.....
Only by that less than 2%, most of whom are drive-by posters from the
"Revive the BB" crowd that usually hang out elsewhere in more
favorable surroundings.
Discussion of and/or speculation concerning historical BB events by
smn regulars in no way constitutes the straw men that you have set up,
in the two sentences quoted above, to boldly demolish.
OJ III
Iain Rae
> Andy Spark <andy_...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:100520021025393893%andy_...@hotmail.com:
>
>
>>Ah yes, but you are missing the most fundamental tenet of a
>>considerable proportion of smn, which is that the best warship design
>>ever was the Iowa, and an Iowa will win any single ship engagement you
>>care to mention.
>
>
>
> Iowa vs. a German WW2 submarine (any type you like) :-)
>
>
can I have Conqueror please?
--
Iain Rae Tel:01316505202
Computing Officer JCMB:2148
Division of Informatics
The University of Edinburgh
redc1c4
>
> Andy Spark <andy_...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:100520021025393893%andy_...@hotmail.com:
>
> > considerable proportion of smn, which is that the best warship design
> > ever was the Iowa, and an Iowa will win any single ship engagement you
> > care to mention.
>
>
> Iowa vs. a German WW2 submarine (any type you like) :-)
he said "ship", not boat.......... %-)
redc1c4,
smart assed ground pounder
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."
Army Officer's Guide
Ken & Laura Chaddock
> "Paul Cassidy" <paul.c...@wxs.nl> wrote in message
> news:ab8j99$b1o$1...@reader08.wxs.nl...
> > > > The Iowas should destroy the battlecruiser fleet first (along with the
> > > QEs),
> > > > and then use their speed and range to pound the main fleet,
> withdrawing
> > if
> > > a
> > > > mass torpedo attack is made. The biggest problem that I see would be
> > that
> > > > the Iowas probably don't carry enough shells to sink the entire
> British
> > > > fleet.
> > >
> > > The problem is that hitting ships at long range was historically
> > > difficult to achieve. To ensure hits the Iowa's would have to close
> > > to ranges that leave them vulnerable to lucky hits too and they'd
> > > have a LOT of guns firing at them.
> > >
> >
> > True, but then the optics and gunnery control on the Iowas would better
> than
> > anything the British had. Also, the Iowas are a lot beamier than anything
> in
> > the British fleet which would make them much better gunnery platforms. I
> > don't think its being unreasonable to assume that the Iowas would get in
> > more hits that the British can. Given the difference in shell size
> > (especially taking into consideration armour), a hit from an Iowa is
> > potentially a lot more dangerous than a hit from a battlecruiser.
> >
>
> The Germans also had better optics and gunnery control
> but the poor visibility that prevailed for much of the battle tended
> to negate that to a large degree.
>
> During the initial battle cruiser engagement there was
> a torpedo attack on the German line by 12 of Beatty's
> destroyers. They had to fight their way through a screen
> of 15 German destroyers and one light cruiser.
>
> With no light ships of their won that threat
> alone would give the commander of the Iowa task group
> a serious problem
>
> > > Given the hit probability in the prevailing conditions of the
> > > North Sea with coal smoke obscuring visibility the Iowa's
> > > could shoot their magazines empty just dealing with the
> > > battlecruiser fleet.
> > >
> >
> > The coal smoke would be a problem, but potentially a bigger one for the
> > British. IIRC, the coal smoke from ships in your own fleet was often more
> of
> > a problem than the coal smoke from the enemy. If this is true, then the
> > Iowas definitely have the advantage here. As for ammo running short, I
> said
> > as much before. Of course, "winning" a battle rarely involves (or
> requires)
> > sinking every ship in the enemy fleet. I would guess that if the Iowas
> sink
> > the entire battlecrusier fleet (with the QEs), that would count as a
> pretty
> > big win.
> >
>
> Give that the Battlecruiser fleet consisted of
>
> Battlecruisers
> Lion, Princess Royal, Queen Mary,Tiger, New Zealand, Indefatigable
>
> Battleships
> Barham, Valiant,Warspite,Malaya
>
> Cruisers
> Galatea, Phaeton, Inconstant, Cordelia,Southampton (Birmingham,
> Nottingham, Dublin, Falmouth,Yarmouth, Birkenhead, Gloucester
>
> Destroyers- 30
>
> This seems more than improbablr
>
> > > In the historical BC action Lutzow and Seydlitz took 10 hits
> > > each with Von der Tann, Derflinger and Moltkeall taking
> > > multiple hits. This level of damage could seriously impair
> > > the efficiency of the Iowa's
> > >
> >
> > Possibly, but then that was fighting BCs firing much smaller shells back
> > than in this scenario (German battlecruisers only mounted 11 or 12" guns).
> A
> > single 16" AP brick landing on Lion is potentially going to ruin Beatty's
> > whole day. Also, IIRC, the gunnery of the battlecruisers was rather
> > substandard at the time.
> >
>
> Half of those hits were from the 15" Guns of the QE's
> which werent that much less effective than the Iowa's
>
> > > As for destroyers catching the Iowa's the Tribals
> > > were good for 32 knots , the Acasta's could hit 29
> > > as could the L class
> > >
> >
> > True, but then the listed speed for the Iowas is 33 knots. I believe there
> > are stories that they actually achieved a couple more whilst in service,
> but
> > I cannot confirm that.
> >
> >
>
> After taking the half a dozen heavy calibre shell hits that would
> have been the inevitable result of a prolonged engagement with
> Beatty's forces I seriously doubt that 33 knots would be a
> possibility.
Exactly, even a 12" or 13.5" round on a Iowa forecastle would probably have
dramatically reduced, perhaps even reversed the speed advantage. A 15 knot
Iowa would have been a sitting duck for a torpedo attack...Further, if the
British
Admiral were even half competent, combining the artillery duel with mass torpedo
attacks would have given the Iowa's a real problem...
I'm with Keith, the best advice to the US admiral would be to bug out since
while in a stand up fight the RN would have undoubtedly suffered a two (maybe
even three) to one loss ratio, in the end all four Iowa's would be gone and the
Brits
would still have had 12 to 20 Battleships and BattleCrusiers....and God only
knows
how many destroyers and cruisers left...
...Ken
Ken & Laura Chaddock
> On Tue, 7 May 2002 13:17:06 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> <keith_w...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> >In the historical BC action Lutzow and Seydlitz took 10 hits
> >each with Von der Tann, Derflinger and Moltkeall taking
> >multiple hits. This level of damage could seriously impair
> >the efficiency of the Iowa's
>
> My information on Jutland says Seydlitz took 21 heavy (12" and up)
> hits plus two medium calibre hits and a 21-in torpedo, and made it
> back to the Jade with 5,000 tons of water aboard before being grounded
> to keep from sinking and blocking the channel. Lutzow took 24 heavy
> hits plus a torpedo, had 7,500 tons of water aboard and 116 dead when
> Hipper gave to order to abandon her. If not driven so hard, she might
> have made it back. Derfflinger took 17 heavy hits and could still
> steam. Von der Tann and Moltke each took 4 heavy hits.
There's no doubt the Germans could build battle cruisers. I sure would
have like to have seen a completed MacKensen...
...Ken
Ken & Laura Chaddock
> In article <3cd873ad.41438569@news>, Peter Skelton <skel...@cogeco.ca>
> writes
> >Nitpick but the Iron Duke had 13.5's. The only 14" at Jutland
> >were on HMS Canada.
>
> And on the Agincourt?
>
> (Or was that 14 x 12" rather than 12 x 14"?)
14 X 12"s...remember, she was the one which supposedly resembled a
battleship
exploding when she fired full 14 gun salvos, which she did repeatedly at
Jutland...
...Ken
Ken & Laura Chaddock
> On Tue, 7 May 2002 21:21:04 -0400, "Nik Simpson"
> <n_si...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
> >Given that Erin was a contemporary (in terms of when it was laid down) with
> >KGV I'd expect she also carried the 1400LB gun, but I don't have any
> >detailed information.
> >
> >Do you have a source that disagrees?
> >
>
> No (and I'd not argue with Preston unless God sent me a stone
> tablet.) I picked the only nit I had.
I was of the impression that Erin was a modified Iron Duke and probably
carried the same armament...
...Ken
Nik Simpson
"Ken & Laura Chaddock" <chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote in message
news:3CE082F1...@hfx.eastlink.ca...
My sources have KGV laid down 16th Jan 1911, Erin laid down 1st August 1911,
Iron Duke 12th Jan 1912. So Erin is really someone between them, which is
right as she influenced some of the design features that showed up in Iron
Duke.
--
Nik Simpson
des Kaisers Haarpracht
<andy_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Ah yes, but you are missing the most fundamental tenet of a
>considerable proportion of smn, which is that the best warship design
>ever was the Iowa, and an Iowa will win any single ship engagement you
>care to mention. (Obviously no one mentions the words "aircraft
>carrier" at this point because then the facts start to get in the way.)
Ah, the battlewagons. Actually, if you look at the experience of
battleship building between the wars and their use in WW2, it becomes
clear that they played an important role in securing the final
victory, but not quite in the manner anticipated. Instead of
attempting to limit battleship tonnage in the interests of peace from
the Washington conference onwards, the aim of preventing and hindering
war could have been much more effectively attained by letting
egotistical national leaders build anything they wanted without
restriction.
Furthermore, they should have been actively encouraged to build bigger
and more expensive behemoths than ever before as a matter of rational
policy. Letting Hitler & the Japanese indulge their feverish
obsessions and build 100,000 ton monsters with 20-inch guns would have
done much to shorten the course of WW2.
These demented plans to produce ineffective leviathans would have
absorbed their respective national steel outputs and crippled the
building programs for things like Japanese naval aircraft and German
U-boats and tanks which might have actually have been useful after the
outbreak of war.
Following the "Bailey Theory of Fascist Containment via Insane
Battleship Building Programs" we would have seen the Tripartite powers
enter WW2 with 50% less aircraft, submarines and tanks, but with
enormously expensive symbols of national pride that Adolf, Mussolini
and Tojo would have been too scared of loosing to commit to battle,
and which would have consumed 90% of Japanese national fuel oil
reserves just to sail out of port, thus crippling all other naval and
miltiary forces as well as most of their national economies. Thus by
letting Adolf's battleship fantasies run riot, the Axis would have
been effectively neutralised, and the history of the world would have
been different.
>Therefore the Iowas should be resuscitated again, and quickly.
Yes, just think how effectively they could bombard Bin Laden and his
cronies as they cruised around the plains of Afghanistan.
Gavin Bailey
Eugene Griessel
>>Therefore the Iowas should be resuscitated again, and quickly.
>
>Yes, just think how effectively they could bombard Bin Laden and his
>cronies as they cruised around the plains of Afghanistan.
Aha! I see you are acquainted with the Griessel Bolt-On Wheels For
Battleship kit. Now priced very reasonably at a mere $149.99 million
(excluding hand pump for inflating wheels) but including one spare
wheel per battleship. Jacks are optional extras at a giveaway price
of $12 million. Order now while stocks last - these babies are selling
fast!
Eugene L Griessel www.dynagen.co.za/eugene
SAAF Crashboat History www.dynagen.co.za/eugene/guybook.html
"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because
they almost always turn out to be - or to be indistinguishable from - self-righteous
sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."
Neil Stephenson, Cryptonomicon
howitzer
>
> >Therefore the Iowas should be resuscitated again, and quickly.
>
> Yes, just think how effectively they could bombard Bin Laden and his
> cronies as they cruised around the plains of Afghanistan.
>
> Gavin Bailey
That's no problem! Just put wheels on them and we have invented the
ultimate Main Battle Tank.
Keith Willshaw
"des Kaisers Haarpracht" <g.j.b...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3ce0fcf0...@nntphost.dur.ac.uk...
> On Fri, 10 May 2002 10:25:39 +0100, Andy Spark
> <andy_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Ah yes, but you are missing the most fundamental tenet of a
> >considerable proportion of smn, which is that the best warship design
> >ever was the Iowa, and an Iowa will win any single ship engagement you
> >care to mention. (Obviously no one mentions the words "aircraft
> >carrier" at this point because then the facts start to get in the way.)
>
> Ah, the battlewagons. Actually, if you look at the experience of
> battleship building between the wars and their use in WW2, it becomes
> clear that they played an important role in securing the final
> victory, but not quite in the manner anticipated. Instead of
> attempting to limit battleship tonnage in the interests of peace from
> the Washington conference onwards, the aim of preventing and hindering
> war could have been much more effectively attained by letting
> egotistical national leaders build anything they wanted without
> restriction.
>
One of the interesting points in the biography of Yamamoto
(The Reluctant Admiral) is that he held the opinion that
the Washington Treaty Limitations were beneficial for
Japan since they could never hope to outbuild the US
and/or Britain. Fortunately he was overuled and the Japanese
spent vast sums of money on Yamato and Musashi instead of
building escorts.
Keith
Keith
des Kaisers Haarpracht
Griessel) wrote:
[Iowas]
>>Yes, just think how effectively they could bombard Bin Laden and his
>>cronies as they cruised around the plains of Afghanistan.
>
>Aha! I see you are acquainted with the Griessel Bolt-On Wheels For
>Battleship kit. Now priced very reasonably at a mere $149.99 million
>(excluding hand pump for inflating wheels) but including one spare
>wheel per battleship. Jacks are optional extras at a giveaway price
>of $12 million. Order now while stocks last - these babies are selling
>fast!
Aha, but these have been rendered obselete with outcome of
super-secret PROJECT PORK BARREL - the specification of the
72-inch/600 main gun mounted in four quad turrets in the new BEHEMOTH
class BBs which are being offered at the competitive price of $250,000
bn per unit by my project team at Illuminatii Steel & Shipbuilding
Inc. Those babies will have the range to hit Bin Laden* from the
Persian Gulf.
Furthermore, after the completion of risk analysis exercise UNDER
SIEGE, by Stephen Seagal & Plank of Wood Consulting Associates, the
BEHEMOTHS will be sufficiently well-armoured to resist hits from their
own weapons in case on of them is taken over by a gang of hostile
mercenary terrorists.
Current projections of the class requirement include BEHEMOTH,
LEVIATHAN, GODZILLA and INCREDIBLE (COLOSSUS and STUPENDOUS
representing further options on completion of initial contract).
Building requirements will include major new drydock construction (the
whole of the Californian coastline) and resulting contracts for
construction firms**. Logistial support and specifically oil
bunkerage requirements will demand a 4-million GRT tanker lift*** and
twelve-month refit schedule****. All ships come with a 2 year
warranty [exceeding manufacturer's recommendations or opening hatches
may invalidate warranty].
Gavin Bailey
* Legal disclaimer. MPI Plus or minus 256 n. miles on designated
target according to manufacturer's development testing reports.
Operational use may vary by contractally-specified percentage
[+/-250%]
** Preferred bidder: cartel headed by Bailey Real Estate Development
Inc.
*** Preferred bidder: BP (Bailey Petroleum) Inc.
**** Only if Gold End-User Support specified. Platinum Support
[additional monthly cost] will ensure all operating manuals are
translated out of Uzbekistani into the language of choice for the
customer.
Martin Rapier
> des Kaisers Haarpracht wrote:
> >
> > >Therefore the Iowas should be resuscitated again, and quickly.
> >
> > Yes, just think how effectively they could bombard Bin Laden and his
> > cronies as they cruised around the plains of Afghanistan.
> That's no problem! Just put wheels on them and we have invented the
> ultimate Main Battle Tank.
And no worries about river crossing ability either.
Not sure how they'd cope with hills and mountains though! Perhaps the
addition of wings as well?
Cheers
Martin
Rich Trouton
ObRASFW: So that's where the idea for the Bolo came from.
Rich
--
"The Engineer Battalion 47 of VII Army Corps was designated as having
responsibility for the "construction of seaworthy ferries out of
auxiliary equipment, local supply and bridging equipment". What was
unusual in this was that this task, requiring a good knowledge of
matters maritime, was tasked to this particular battalion, which had its
home base in Bavaria."
Jack Love
Which were then too expensive (in terms of GNP expended) to risk in
combat, until national suicide was the order of the day, that is.
>Keith
>
>Keith
>
Alan Minyard
No no! You mean that you have not heard of the BB/SHAR conversion kit?
You simply bolt on a (classified) number of "enhanced capability"
Harrier propulsion systems and you have an "air capable" BB, with the
advantage of "hovering fire".
Al Minyard
Justin Broderick
> > > >KGV I'd expect she also carried the 1400LB gun, but I don't have any
> > > >detailed information.
> > > >
> > > >Do you have a source that disagrees?
> > > >
> > > No (and I'd not argue with Preston unless God sent me a stone
> > > tablet.) I picked the only nit I had.
> >
> > I was of the impression that Erin was a modified Iron Duke and
> probably
> > carried the same armament...
>
> My sources have KGV laid down 16th Jan 1911, Erin laid down 1st August
1911,
> Iron Duke 12th Jan 1912. So Erin is really someone between them, which
is
> right as she influenced some of the design features that showed up in
Iron
> Duke.
>
According to Campbell, ERIN was the only unit armed with the 13.5-inch Mark
VI. Her KGV-class division-mates, the Iron Dukes and the Orions all had
the Mark V. All used the 1400lb shell but the Orions, which fired the
1250lb.
Funny to be talking of the armament of the one BB that didn't fire her main
battery at Jutland!
--Justin
Byron Audler
wrote:
Don't forget the BB-SSN mod...comes complete with two whacking big
snorkels......
Byron Audler...who figured he'd toss his two cents into the insanity
fund...
Andy Spark
III <o...@cpcug.org> wrote:
> Pray tell, Andy; since when did less than 2% constitute "a
> considerable proportion of smn"?
Sorry, it's just my twisted brit sarcasm coming out here. I would be
interested to hear exactly where you get your 2% figure from, though,
as 1) It certainly seems a lot higher 2) They are a vociferous minority
3) 2% of a usenet newsgroup being in agreement is a pretty high
proportion...
> >Therefore the Iowas should be resuscitated again, and quickly.
> >
> >As It has been "demonstrated" on this group that an Iowa will beat a
> >Kirov every time, I hardly see the GF as a target worthy of
> >discussion.....
>
> Only by that less than 2%, most of whom are drive-by posters from the
> "Revive the BB" crowd that usually hang out elsewhere in more
> favorable surroundings.
> Discussion of and/or speculation concerning historical BB events by
> smn regulars in no way constitutes the straw men that you have set up,
> in the two sentences quoted above, to boldly demolish.
It's a joke, I'm sorry that you don't see it that way. Granted the
revive the Iowa caucus has diminished recently, but this thread has
definitely got something of the "invincible Iowas" about it.
And I don't think you can desribe this as a "historical event"
Andy Spark
<red...@drunkenbastards.org.ies> wrote:
> > > Ah yes, but you are missing the most fundamental tenet of a
> > > considerable proportion of smn, which is that the best warship design
> > > ever was the Iowa, and an Iowa will win any single ship engagement you
> > > care to mention.
> >
> > Ok, I'll bite.
> >
> > Iowa vs. a German WW2 submarine (any type you like) :-)
>
> he said "ship", not boat.......... %-)
Hmmm.... well, I suppose that you could have a submarine which whilst
being a boat rather than a ship is most definitely a warship.
I think the answer to the question would be that if the Iowa were
unlucky enough to get in range of the submarine then it would probably
be 1-0 to Germany....
Mighty big if though...
Ogden Johnson III
>Ogden Johnson III <o...@cpcug.org> wrote:
>> Pray tell, Andy; since when did less than 2% constitute "a
>> considerable proportion of smn"?
>Sorry, it's just my twisted brit sarcasm coming out here. I would be
>interested to hear exactly where you get your 2% figure from, though,
>as 1) It certainly seems a lot higher 2) They are a vociferous minority
>3) 2% of a usenet newsgroup being in agreement is a pretty high
>proportion...
HeeHee. The same place you got the "considerable" - out of the air.
;-> I started out at 10%, then figured that some here might not
recognize the hoary military adage about "the 10% that never get the
word", and made a command decision to cut it back to 2%. I *do*
agree with 1), 2), and 3), though. ;->
>It's a joke, I'm sorry that you don't see it that way. Granted the
>revive the Iowa caucus has diminished recently,
Indeed. Where *have* they gone? Granted, the "Chessum Family" is
making a valiant effort, but somehow it just *isn't* the same.
As I sail grandly into my dotage, and in addition to everything *else*
that is going away, I find my capacity to recognize subtle humor on
the Usenet, sans something obvious - like a smilie, slowly
diminishing. Gomenasai, boy-san.
>And I don't think you can desribe this as a "historical event"
Were you trying for describe or deride? ;->
OJ III
Andy Spark
III <o...@cpcug.org> wrote:
> >> Pray tell, Andy; since when did less than 2% constitute "a
> >> considerable proportion of smn"?
>
> >Sorry, it's just my twisted brit sarcasm coming out here. I would be
> >interested to hear exactly where you get your 2% figure from, though,
> >as 1) It certainly seems a lot higher 2) They are a vociferous minority
> >3) 2% of a usenet newsgroup being in agreement is a pretty high
> >proportion...
>
> HeeHee. The same place you got the "considerable" - out of the air.
> ;-> I started out at 10%, then figured that some here might not
> recognize the hoary military adage about "the 10% that never get the
> word", and made a command decision to cut it back to 2%. I *do*
> agree with 1), 2), and 3), though. ;->
Perhaps they should be described as a "Vociferous minority"
> >It's a joke, I'm sorry that you don't see it that way. Granted the
> >revive the Iowa caucus has diminished recently,
>
> Indeed. Where *have* they gone? Granted, the "Chessum Family" is
> making a valiant effort, but somehow it just *isn't* the same.
>
> As I sail grandly into my dotage, and in addition to everything *else*
> that is going away, I find my capacity to recognize subtle humor on
> the Usenet, sans something obvious - like a smilie, slowly
> diminishing. Gomenasai, boy-san.
--Well, I should have known by now that humour is often misinterpreted
on usenet.....
> >And I don't think you can desribe this as a "historical event"
>
> Were you trying for describe or deride? ;->
... Well, it didn't happen, did it?
Speaking of things that did happen, a friend who has recently developed
an interest in Naval History, told me of his absolute shock and horror
at reading a book on the Hood, and finding out what happened to her....