When did the RN's tenure as world's most powerful navy end?
pigdos
dominant naval power through WWI.
--
Doug
Keith W
"pigdos" <N...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:G3khg.39704$4L1....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
With the first Washington treaty when the UK accepted
parity with the USN
> And more importantly why?
Money. Post WW1 Britain was bankrupt and couldnt afford
to keep the ships it had much less get involved in a
new naval arms race.
Keith
ib011...@blueyonder.co.uk
wanted peace and hoped it could be agreed,then that Austrian guy
started causing trouble.
I am tempted to say 7th December 1941 but that would be glib.
Certainly the German and French navies were not equal to the RN prior
to World War 11 and the USN was growing in this period.
Is it fair to say that the RN did not suffer the cutbacks that the Army
and RAF saw during the 1920s and 1930s?
Do you agree that the role of the RN in wining the Battle Of Britain is
less well known than it should be?
Weatherlawyer
Actually the German Navy eclipsed the British Navy in the Atlantic,
things were so bad that the US Navy was patrolling part of the ocean on
the UK's behalf and lost at least one ship to submarines -before Pearl
Harbour.
In the Pacific and Indian ocean in WW II the RN was virtually
nonexistant. (Not counting all the troop ships that Churchill sent to
reinforce the Japanese POWs of course.)
It was only when the US entered the war that the war in the Atlantic
began to turn. As for the RN's role int the Battle of Britain, they
were unable to keep the Channel ports open despite the idiocy of
Churchill in attempting to do so.
In fact come to that, there was at least one aerodrome that the RAF
itself couldn't keep open. Needless to say a certain magalomaniac
insisted that it remain staffed. They must have been wrecks by the end.
Convoys to Russia were regularly abandoned by the RN.
After WW II there was a sensless race to produce nuclear powered
submarines with safety of the crew and infact the necessary research
into hull integrity, given a very low priority. So it is very much a
matter of personal opinion which navy was better armed in that respect.
The US definitely had the edge with Aircraft Carriers but in the day of
the air supplied jet it is a moot point that they would have withstood
a concerted onslaught. These days there is a real fear that determined
attackers in rowing boats will do them damage.
The thing is that at it's height, the RN could pacify a region by
sending a military vessel. Either the threat of it's guns or it's men
would do the trick. During the second world war subversive warfare
began to take shape and Britain pulled out all the stops setting up
gurrila schools a tactic copied by the US and eventually all the major
powers.
Andre Lieven
> ib011...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
>> Keith W wrote:
>> > "pigdos" <N...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> > news:G3khg.39704$4L1....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>> >
>> > With the first Washington treaty when the UK accepted
>> > parity with the USN
>> >
>> > > And more importantly why?
>> >
>> > Money. Post WW1 Britain was bankrupt and couldnt afford
>> > to keep the ships it had much less get involved in a
>> > new naval arms race.
>> >
>> > Keith
>>
>> The treaty prevented an arms race,even if the UK had wanted one,people
>> wanted peace and hoped it could be agreed,then that Austrian guy
>> started causing trouble.
>>
>> I am tempted to say 7th December 1941 but that would be glib.
Well, the Treaty period is about the best indicator, as the USN swiftly
built up it's permited tonnages of aircraft carriers and heavy cruisers,
while the RN, under fiscal prodding, kept putting off much new construction
( Witness the lack of new carriers between the completion of the
Coureagous class conversions and the arrival of Ark Royal; and the
cancelling of the last planned 10,000 8 inch gunned heavy cruisers,
the Surrey class, in favour of cheaper B type 8 inch ships- York &
Exeter, and the succeeding smaller and cheaper 6 inch Ajax types ),
and thus continued to decline, albeit slowly, during the 20s and
30s.
Its only that the nearest naval foes for the RN were even smaller,
the Italian and German navies, that this slow decline was not very
noticable. Had there been some visible calculations and comparisons
between the USN and the RN during that time period, this would have
been somewhat less subtle.
>> Certainly the German and French navies were not equal to the RN prior
>> to World War 11 and the USN was growing in this period.
Indeed. Another point is that during this period, neither navy was
allowed any new capital ships, so those who looked primarily to such
vessels saw no change, thus noticed no change.
>> Is it fair to say that the RN did not suffer the cutbacks that the Army
>> and RAF saw during the 1920s and 1930s?
Oh, the budget cuts of the very early 30s, that saw first the cancellation
of the planned pair of Surreys, and then, the cancellation of the planned
second Exeter class cruiser, were noticable. And, the pay cuts to the
sailors in the fleet found some modest expression in the Invergordon
Mutiny...
>> Do you agree that the role of the RN in wining the Battle Of Britain is
>> less well known than it should be?
>
> Actually the German Navy eclipsed the British Navy in the Atlantic,
> things were so bad that the US Navy was patrolling part of the ocean on
> the UK's behalf and lost at least one ship to submarines -before Pearl
> Harbour.
Utter clueless tripe. Since pretty much every German surface ship that
sallied into the Atlantic was, among other things, bent on *avoiding*
contact with RN naval forces, this claim is exactly wrong.
> In the Pacific and Indian ocean in WW II the RN was virtually
> nonexistant.
You mean, just as the USN in the Med was " vrtually nonexistant " ?
> (Not counting all the troop ships that Churchill sent to
> reinforce the Japanese POWs of course.)
Yes, why Churchill even sent more equipment to the Japanese forces,
so bent was he to be the traitor that you yearn for him to be...
> It was only when the US entered the war that the war in the Atlantic
> began to turn.
ROTFLMAO ! So, the U Boat campaign that their captains called " The
Second Happy Time " off of the undefended US East Coast was a dream ?
> As for the RN's role int the Battle of Britain, they
> were unable to keep the Channel ports open despite the idiocy of
> Churchill in attempting to do so.
False, twice. <yawn>
> In fact come to that, there was at least one aerodrome that the RAF
> itself couldn't keep open. Needless to say a certain magalomaniac
> insisted that it remain staffed. They must have been wrecks by the end.
No proof or name offered ? Loon claim fails.
> Convoys to Russia were regularly abandoned by the RN.
" regularly " defined by the loon as " once ". See PQ-17.
> After WW II there was a sensless race to produce nuclear powered
> submarines with safety of the crew and infact the necessary research
> into hull integrity, given a very low priority. So it is very much a
> matter of personal opinion which navy was better armed in that respect.
No, its a matter of historical fact. But, as you know NO history, naval
or otherwise, we can understand this latest loon fiction claim.
> The US definitely had the edge with Aircraft Carriers but in the day of
> the air supplied jet it is a moot point that they would have withstood
> a concerted onslaught. These days there is a real fear that determined
> attackers in rowing boats will do them damage.
Up your meds.
> The thing is that at it's height, the RN could pacify a region by
> sending a military vessel. Either the threat of it's guns or it's men
> would do the trick. During the second world war subversive warfare
> began to take shape and Britain pulled out all the stops setting up
> gurrila schools a tactic copied by the US and eventually all the major
> powers.
By a LOT...
Andre
Keith W
<ib011...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1149626837....@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Keith W wrote:
>> "pigdos" <N...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:G3khg.39704$4L1....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> With the first Washington treaty when the UK accepted
>> parity with the USN
>>
>> > And more importantly why?
>>
>> Money. Post WW1 Britain was bankrupt and couldnt afford
>> to keep the ships it had much less get involved in a
>> new naval arms race.
>>
>> Keith
> The treaty prevented an arms race,even if the UK had wanted one,people
> wanted peace and hoped it could be agreed,then that Austrian guy
> started causing trouble.
>
The lack of money prevented the arms race, the AUstrian guy arrived a
decade later and was largely irrelevant as he never gave the
Kriegsmarine his full backing
> I am tempted to say 7th December 1941 but that would be glib.
And a couple of decades late
> Certainly the German and French navies were not equal to the RN prior
> to World War 11 and the USN was growing in this period.
Do yourself a favour and look at the terms of the Washington treaty
> Is it fair to say that the RN did not suffer the cutbacks that the Army
> and RAF saw during the 1920s and 1930s?
No, the RN had to scrap large numbers of modern capital ships.
> Do you agree that the role of the RN in wining the Battle Of Britain is
> less well known than it should be?
>
No
Keith
Keith W
"Weatherlawyer" <Weathe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149631083....@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Actually the German Navy eclipsed the British Navy in the Atlantic,
Erm no it didnt. The RN went where it wished and when the
Kriegsmarine sortied they either ran for home or sank.
> things were so bad that the US Navy was patrolling part of the ocean on
> the UK's behalf and lost at least one ship to submarines -before Pearl
> Harbour.
>
W
> In the Pacific and Indian ocean in WW II the RN was virtually
> nonexistant. (Not counting all the troop ships that Churchill sent to
> reinforce the Japanese POWs of course.)
>
That'd come as news to the sailors in the British Pacific Fleet
and Indian Ocean
> It was only when the US entered the war that the war in the Atlantic
> began to turn.
100% wrong, the U-Boat captains called that period the second
happy time and the situation was only rescued by the RN supplying
escorts to the USN under reverse lend lease !
> As for the RN's role int the Battle of Britain, they
> were unable to keep the Channel ports open despite the idiocy of
> Churchill in attempting to do so.
>
That'll come as news to the dock workers at the channel ports.
> In fact come to that, there was at least one aerodrome that the RAF
> itself couldn't keep open. Needless to say a certain magalomaniac
> insisted that it remain staffed. They must have been wrecks by the end.
>
> Convoys to Russia were regularly abandoned by the RN.
>
That'll come as news to those who served on them
> After WW II there was a sensless race to produce nuclear powered
> submarines with safety of the crew and infact the necessary research
> into hull integrity, given a very low priority. So it is very much a
> matter of personal opinion which navy was better armed in that respect.
>
Number of RN nuclear submarines lost at sea - 0
You are as full of shit as a Xmas Turkey
Keith
Weatherlawyer
> > Actually the German Navy eclipsed the British Navy in the Atlantic,
> > things were so bad that the US Navy was patrolling part of the ocean on
> > the UK's behalf and lost at least one ship to submarines -before Pearl
> > Harbour.
>
> Utter clueless tripe. Since pretty much every German surface ship that
> sallied into the Atlantic was, among other things, bent on *avoiding*
> contact with RN naval forces, this claim is exactly wrong.
You painfully silly boy.
The reason they avoided the RN was that they were after merchantmen.
Have you no idea at all about tactics?
And the poster following you saying that I am wrong because this proved
to be an happy time for the U Boat.
They were after merchantmen and they were getting them. When the USA
entered the war they too had no idea about tactics. It is a tendency of
the USA to have lots of guns and no idea.
But geting back to the OP. Is it a fact that the RN ships had a hard
time of it even with Gernan surface craft. They couldn't do with
submarines to the Tirpitz what the Germans could do with U Boats to the
Royal Oak for example.
However the Tirpitz and her sister the Bizmarck did fall to a
combination of RN ships and aircraft eventually. Had the Germans a
fleet at their disposal including a carrier, I think things might well
have been different.
Imagine the course of the Battle of the Atlantic had they a few
Aircraft carriers and a few smaller ships operating as a seaborne
defence for their U Boats. As it was, they had a better idea how to use
their long range aircraft in it than the RAF did.
Had the RAF used its bombers to patrol the Atlantic instead of
squandering them and their crews uselessly over Europe...
Ah well; so much for what might have been.... Another one down to that
fat drunk.
Is it an heredetary trait?
Mark Andrew Spence
>
>
> Actually the German Navy eclipsed the British Navy in the Atlantic,
>
I must concur with the better-informed members of the groups; this
sounds like utter nonsense.
The BISMARCK was left to fend for herself, while her sister spent the
most of her days penned up somewhere in a Norwegian fjord.
M.S.
Andre Lieven
> Andre Lieven wrote:
>> "Weatherlawyer" (Spectacu...@hotmail.com) ozzes ignorant fiction:
>
>> > Actually the German Navy eclipsed the British Navy in the Atlantic,
>> > things were so bad that the US Navy was patrolling part of the ocean on
>> > the UK's behalf and lost at least one ship to submarines -before Pearl
>> > Harbour.
>>
>> Utter clueless tripe. Since pretty much every German surface ship that
>> sallied into the Atlantic was, among other things, bent on *avoiding*
>> contact with RN naval forces, this claim is exactly wrong.
>
> You painfully silly boy.
<Massive Clueless Projection>
> The reason they avoided the RN was that they were after merchantmen.
No proof offered ? Cowshit claim fails. Witness the S&G in early '41,
running away from Nelson...
> Have you no idea at all about tactics?
<Massive Clueless Projection>
> And the poster following you saying that I am wrong because this proved
> to be an happy time for the U Boat.
And, hes quite right, while you are quite wrong. HTH.
> They were after merchantmen and they were getting them. When the USA
> entered the war they too had no idea about tactics. It is a tendency of
> the USA to have lots of guns and no idea.
Yeah, thats why they won... After all, building B-29s and A-Bombs
is so easy in 1945... <dumbass>
> But geting back to the OP. Is it a fact that the RN ships had a hard
> time of it even with Gernan surface craft. They couldn't do with
> submarines to the Tirpitz what the Germans could do with U Boats to the
> Royal Oak for example.
As has already been explained to you, the start of the war in 1939
found Scapa practically undefended, due to Treasury pre war penury.
None of this could be said about AltaFjord in 1942-44.
> However the Tirpitz and her sister the Bizmarck did fall to a
> combination of RN ships and aircraft eventually.
Wrong. Torpitz was destroyed by RAF aircraft. When you make such
basic howlers, its clear that you have AbZero knowledge of the topic.
> Had the Germans a
> fleet at their disposal including a carrier, I think things might well
> have been different.
<yawn> No proof offered ? Clueless infantile prat fails.
> Imagine the course of the Battle of the Atlantic had they a few
> Aircraft carriers and a few smaller ships operating as a seaborne
> defence for their U Boats.
<laughs> Please define this " seaborne defense "...
> As it was, they had a better idea how to use
> their long range aircraft in it than the RAF did.
Total up the U Boats sunk by Coastal Command, V/ RN subs sunk by
German aircraft...
> Had the RAF used its bombers to patrol the Atlantic instead of
> squandering them and their crews uselessly over Europe...
Yes, more ASW planes would have been useful, but the effectiveness
of such planes only became more than potential when modern centrimetric
radar and other mid war equipment got developed.
> Ah well; so much for what might have been.... Another one down to that
> fat drunk.
That explains your ignorance, then.
> Is it an heredetary trait?
<Massive Clueless Fact Free Projection>
Gee, did the kindergartens let out this early ?
Andre
Andre Lieven
Indeed. The operative issue here is which navy had freedom of the
seas in fleet sizes. The closest thing to a German fleet that sailed
farther away from the Fatherland than Norway was 3 ships, with light
escorts, in the Channel *Dash*, and the abortive sortie against PQ-17.
Hardly comparable to routine RN fleet ops all over the world's oceans.
" The jailed has assaulted it's jailer, but remains in jail " sums
it up for the German surface forces in both world wars.
Andre
William Hamblen
wrote:
>Well, the Treaty period is about the best indicator, as the USN swiftly
>built up it's permited tonnages of aircraft carriers and heavy cruisers,
>while the RN, under fiscal prodding, kept putting off much new construction
Hardly swiftly. The US Congress didn't authorize enough new
construction to meet the treaty limits until 1934, and the
appropriations came still more slowly.
William Hamblen
>And more importantly why? From what I've read it seemed like the RN was the
>dominant naval power through WWI.
An important reason was they couldn't afford it any more and,
eventually, didn't need the same kind of forces any more. The First
World War nearly did in the UK financially and the Second World War
finished the job. The end of Empire and the destruction of Germany
and Japan as naval powers reduced the defense burden considerably.
William Black
"Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:e65jna$sqm$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
> "Weatherlawyer" (Wease...@hotmail.com) cowshits:
> <Massive Clueless Fact Free Projection>
>
> Gee, did the kindergartens let out this early ?
I'm starting to think it's a regular poster trolling, but posting through
Google.
Alternatively it's Evan or another of the well known 'plastic paddies'.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Eugene Griessel
>
>"Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>news:e65jna$sqm$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
>> "Weatherlawyer" (Wease...@hotmail.com) cowshits:
>
>> <Massive Clueless Fact Free Projection>
>>
>> Gee, did the kindergartens let out this early ?
>
>I'm starting to think it's a regular poster trolling, but posting through
>Google.
>
>Alternatively it's Evan or another of the well known 'plastic paddies'.
Nah - weatherlawyer (weasel and moron are apt descriptions don't you
think) has been befouling usenet for years. Bigotted, smallminded and
clueless he thrives on the abuse he manages to generate.
Eugene L Griessel
Blessed is the end user who expects nothing, for he/she will not be
disappointed.
BernardZ
says...
> > Had the RAF used its bombers to patrol the Atlantic instead of
> > squandering them and their crews uselessly over Europe...
>
> Yes, more ASW planes would have been useful, but the effectiveness
> of such planes only became more than potential when modern centrimetric
> radar and other mid war equipment got developed.
>
Actually a plane or a blimp flighting around a convoy was extremely
useful even before the modern centrimetric radar as it would frighten
and keep the U-boats down as they were very reluctant to attack
a convoy if such a thing was present!
--
Self control is what keeps us from being rapist.
Observations of Bernard - No 100
Peter McLelland
"BernardZ" <bern...@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ef13e84532782959899f0@news...
> In article <e65jna$sqm$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca>, dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
> says...
> > > Had the RAF used its bombers to patrol the Atlantic instead of
> > > squandering them and their crews uselessly over Europe...
> >
> > Yes, more ASW planes would have been useful, but the effectiveness
> > of such planes only became more than potential when modern centrimetric
> > radar and other mid war equipment got developed.
> >
>
> Actually a plane or a blimp flighting around a convoy was extremely
> useful even before the modern centrimetric radar as it would frighten
> and keep the U-boats down as they were very reluctant to attack
> a convoy if such a thing was present!
>
>
was the U Boat norm, what it did do though was stop daytime shadowing on the
surface and thus the formation of the attacking pack.
Peter
William Black
"BernardZ" <bern...@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ef13e84532782959899f0@news...
> says...
> > > Had the RAF used its bombers to patrol the Atlantic instead of
> > > squandering them and their crews uselessly over Europe...
> >
> > Yes, more ASW planes would have been useful, but the effectiveness
> > of such planes only became more than potential when modern centrimetric
> > radar and other mid war equipment got developed.
> >
>
> Actually a plane or a blimp flighting around a convoy was extremely
> useful even before the modern centrimetric radar as it would frighten
> and keep the U-boats down as they were very reluctant to attack
> a convoy if such a thing was present!
Even at night?
Most attacks on convoys were after dark.
Brad Meyer
>And more importantly why? From what I've read it seemed like the RN was the
>dominant naval power through WWI.
The "when" might be 1940 or so. The why was that the US was given an
excuse to build the sort of uber-navy they had been capable of
building for 50 years or so but didn't really want to buy. precise
moment might be the signing of the "two ocean navy" bill.
Keith W
"BernardZ" <bern...@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ef13e84532782959899f0@news...
> says...
>> > Had the RAF used its bombers to patrol the Atlantic instead of
>> > squandering them and their crews uselessly over Europe...
>>
>> Yes, more ASW planes would have been useful, but the effectiveness
>> of such planes only became more than potential when modern centrimetric
>> radar and other mid war equipment got developed.
>>
>
> Actually a plane or a blimp flighting around a convoy was extremely
> useful even before the modern centrimetric radar as it would frighten
> and keep the U-boats down as they were very reluctant to attack
> a convoy if such a thing was present!
>
In daytime yes but not at night.
Keith
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Andrew Robert Breen
pigdos <N...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>And more importantly why? From what I've read it seemed like the RN was the
>dominant naval power through WWI.
Time: 1930 would be about right.
Reason: Money! WW1 had come expensive, our industrial base was growing
(relatively) smaller compared with the US and we did /not/ want to
get into a building race with a nation that we had no clash of interests
with (the US) - hence a deal which enshrined parity in numbers of
large warships with the US. Economic mis-management during the 1920s
ensured that while the US economy boomed, that of Britain went into
recession, and this hit engineering hard. Thus, while the US developed
more advanced machinery and electrical systems, Britain didn't - so
ships from the early 30s onwards fell well behind US designs in
capability (and in cost, mind..), wheras in the 1920s British
designs were generally better than those of the US, ship for ship
(compare 1920s cruisers and 1930s cruisers to see what I mean).
The trend might therefore be:
Pre-1920: RN clearly dominant
1920s: parity in numbers with the USN, but generally better ships
1930s: clearly second to USN
--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)
Peter Skelton
<keit...@kwillshaw.nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"BernardZ" <bern...@Nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1ef13e84532782959899f0@news...
>> In article <e65jna$sqm$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca>, dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
>> says...
>>> > Had the RAF used its bombers to patrol the Atlantic instead of
>>> > squandering them and their crews uselessly over Europe...
>>>
>>> Yes, more ASW planes would have been useful, but the effectiveness
>>> of such planes only became more than potential when modern centrimetric
>>> radar and other mid war equipment got developed.
>>>
>>
>> Actually a plane or a blimp flighting around a convoy was extremely
>> useful even before the modern centrimetric radar as it would frighten
>> and keep the U-boats down as they were very reluctant to attack
>> a convoy if such a thing was present!
>>
>
>In daytime yes but not at night.
>
Shaddowing was bloody hard with a plane around. Aircraft stopped
pack formation and they stopped attacks by the same boat on
successive nights.
That being said, the contribution of surface radar, faster
convoys, HF/DF and so on cannot be ignored.
Peter Skelton
Andre Lieven
Well, " swiftly " relative to the RN not building up to the 1922 limits
at all...
And, the CAs and CVs were mostly products of the 30s, in terms of
completion dates.
Andre
Andre Lieven
> In article <e65jna$sqm$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca>, dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
> says...
>> > Had the RAF used its bombers to patrol the Atlantic instead of
>> > squandering them and their crews uselessly over Europe...
>>
>> Yes, more ASW planes would have been useful, but the effectiveness
>> of such planes only became more than potential when modern centrimetric
>> radar and other mid war equipment got developed.
>
> Actually a plane or a blimp flighting around a convoy was extremely
> useful even before the modern centrimetric radar as it would frighten
> and keep the U-boats down as they were very reluctant to attack
> a convoy if such a thing was present!
Well, blimps were not middle of ocean assets, and there weren't many
planes that could fly to the middle of the ocean, stay for a couple of
hours, and return safely to base early on in the war.
Andre
Michael P. Reed
wrote:
>In article <G3khg.39704$4L1....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>,
>pigdos <N...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>And more importantly why? From what I've read it seemed like the RN was the
>>dominant naval power through WWI.
>
>Time: 1930 would be about right.
I think I would agree.
>Reason: Money! WW1 had come expensive, our industrial base was growing
>(relatively) smaller compared with the US and we did /not/ want to
>get into a building race with a nation that we had no clash of interests
>with (the US) - hence a deal which enshrined parity in numbers of
>large warships with the US. Economic mis-management during the 1920s
>ensured that while the US economy boomed, that of Britain went into
>recession, and this hit engineering hard. Thus, while the US developed
>more advanced machinery and electrical systems, Britain didn't - so
>ships from the early 30s onwards fell well behind US designs in
>capability (and in cost, mind..), wheras in the 1920s British
>designs were generally better than those of the US, ship for ship
I'm not so familiar with British designs, but I think that the U.S.
had pretty much caught up by 1920 with the SOUTH DAKOTAs, LEXINGTON's,
and OMAHA's for their respective types, but you have a point with
regards to heavy cruisers and destroyers. The war put a crimp on U.S.
destroyer design which IMHO was somewhat more advanced until the
advent of the V&W's. The flush deckers, while needed for the war,
were a step backwards, and their sheer numbers hampered new
design/construction for a decade in a half.
>Pre-1920: RN clearly dominant
In quantity, but their was much variation in the quality of various
types.
>1920s: parity in numbers with the USN, but generally better ships
>1930s: clearly second to USN
This might have been different in the 20s had not the Washington
Treaty intervened. There was little desire in Congress to spend money
on the navy after 1920, but, unlike Britain, at least the potential
for money was there. . . for a while.
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
keith...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk (Keith W) wrote:
> No, the RN had to scrap large numbers of modern capital ships.
In fact the RN was the only navy who scrapped ships that had
larger than 12 inch guns.
As for other points. There were no limits on cruisers in the
Washington Treaty except individual size. Overall tonnage limits
were introduced under the 1930 London Treaty which also prevented
further UK heavy cruiser construction. As for construction speed
the British ordered 17 heavy cruisers prior to the London treaty
and completed 15. The USN ordered 8 or possibly 10 depending on
when the Portlands were ordered.
The London treaty was a major set back for the RN as overall
tonnage limits were far lower than the RN needed. The RN had a
long term aim of 70 trade protection cruisers plus fleet
cruisers. The heavy cruisers were far bigger than required for
fleet use. The combination of the factors resulted in small light
cruisers in an attempt to get numbers up.
Aircraft carrier production was limited by the number of
existing carriers that could easily be modernised plus a time
limit on when they could be replaced. By the way the Lexington
class absorbed an awful lot of the available US carrier tonnage.
RN destroyer production actually restarted well before the USN.
However I would say that the Washington Treaty was when the UK
government gave up the goal of having the predominant world navy.
Somewhere I have figures for the RN votes and IIRC they reached
bottom about 1930 and increased from there. The Ten Year rule
became a Five Year rule in IIRC 1932 and was abandoned completely
in 1936. Votes for the RN and RAF had increased greatly by then
and the army vote was increased from 1937 or possibly earlier.
Ken Young
Vince Brannigan
In article <e651nf$n3g$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk>, keith...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk (Keith W) wrote:No, the RN had to scrap large numbers of modern capital ships.In fact the RN was the only navy who scrapped ships that had larger than 12 inch guns.
So what?
Vince
Pete Granzeau
wrote:
>"Weatherlawyer" (Wease...@hotmail.com) cowshits:
>> However the Tirpitz and her sister the Bizmarck did fall to a
>> combination of RN ships and aircraft eventually.
>
>Wrong. Torpitz was destroyed by RAF aircraft. When you make such
>basic howlers, its clear that you have AbZero knowledge of the topic.
Here, I think you are hitting low. The original statement was
inexact, true, as it needs a serial comma following "ships" to clarify
the fact that "RN" does not modify "aircraft". I don't consider this
egregious enough to warrant an insult, however.
Pete Granzeau
wrote:
The British, until WW I, attempted to have a Navy equal in size to the
next two largest navies, combined. I am not sure if that was any
longer possible in 1914, with both Germany and the USA building ships
at an alarming pace. The outcome of the war remove the German navy
from the equation, but now the Japanese had entered the arms race--and
the UK no longer had the money to support the RN in the same manner as
had been done pre-war. The Washington treaty formalized the UK's
abdication from the theory of pre-eminence--and actually permitted the
UK to maintain parity, which may well have been lost, had the treaty
not been signed. As it was, the treaty acknowledged the end of an RN
as large as the next two in size, and settled for parity with the USA.
Andre Lieven
> On 7 Jun 2006 10:34:41 +0100, a...@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen)
> wrote:
>
>>In article <G3khg.39704$4L1....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>,
>>pigdos <N...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>And more importantly why? From what I've read it seemed like the RN was
>>>the dominant naval power through WWI.
>>
>>Time: 1930 would be about right.
>
> I think I would agree.
>
>>Reason: Money! WW1 had come expensive, our industrial base was growing
>>(relatively) smaller compared with the US and we did /not/ want to
>>get into a building race with a nation that we had no clash of interests
>>with (the US) - hence a deal which enshrined parity in numbers of
>>large warships with the US. Economic mis-management during the 1920s
>>ensured that while the US economy boomed, that of Britain went into
>>recession, and this hit engineering hard. Thus, while the US developed
>>more advanced machinery and electrical systems, Britain didn't - so
>>ships from the early 30s onwards fell well behind US designs in
>>capability (and in cost, mind..), wheras in the 1920s British
>>designs were generally better than those of the US, ship for ship
>
> I'm not so familiar with British designs, but I think that the U.S.
> had pretty much caught up by 1920 with the SOUTH DAKOTAs, LEXINGTON's,
> and OMAHA's for their respective types,
Oh, you have to be kidding ! Come on. The SoDaks, Ok, but the
Lexingtons ?
They were poorer, but bigger versions of the 1914 Repulse type
of battlescruiser. The 1922 RN Invincibles were far, far, FAR
superior, in that they had BB protection, and no casemates,
among other positive and forward looking qualities.
As for the abortions that were the Omahas, the less said about
those pieces of anachronistic junk, the batter. It was clear
that the 1910s fetish of BB and nothing else, construction
in the USN, had rendered them pretty much incapable of designing
light scout cruisers that weren't total pieces of attenuated
shite. An all casemate battery in the 1920s ? Please ! And, I
know they had *added* to their design a pair of thin twin
mounts, the poiunt is, you could not have sold the RN that
crappy design in 1905, never mind 1919...
> but you have a point with
> regards to heavy cruisers and destroyers. The war put a crimp on U.S.
> destroyer design which IMHO was somewhat more advanced until the
> advent of the V&W's. The flush deckers, while needed for the war,
> were a step backwards, and their sheer numbers hampered new
> design/construction for a decade in a half.
Sure, and the fact that the USN went for such a design, when better
foreign examples were in view, also shows the paucity of USN DD
design back then.
>>Pre-1920: RN clearly dominant
>
> In quantity, but their was much variation in the quality of various
> types.
Yeah, at least the RN *had* modern scouting cruisers...
>>1920s: parity in numbers with the USN, but generally better ships
>>1930s: clearly second to USN
>
> This might have been different in the 20s had not the Washington
> Treaty intervened. There was little desire in Congress to spend money
> on the navy after 1920, but, unlike Britain, at least the potential
> for money was there. . . for a while.
Yes, but in the UK, the money simply... wasn't there.
It would have been interesting, albeit badly exciting, to have
seen the alternate reality where the UK, US and Japan started
their 1920s naval race II. Which would have collapsed first
( Japen, with the UK close behind ), and what would that have
done to the emerging global economy ( Nothing good )...
Andre
Andre Lieven
Wrong. While no other navy had 15 inch gunned ships ( After the
pair of Badens were scuttled in Scapa Flow ), its simple fact that
the RN had NO 16 inch ships until the Treaty allowed them to
build Nelson & Rodney.
While the USN was allowed to keep three *existing* 16 inch ships,
and the IJN, 2.
> So what?
Other than " you're wrong " ? Nope, thats about it.
Andre
Vince Brannigan
"15 and 16"
not "15 or 16"
"and" creates a single category with the items counted together (conjunction)
"or" creates separate categories with the items counted separately. (disjunction)
Vince
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Vince Brannigan) wrote:
> read the sentence
>
> "15 and 16"
>
> not "15 or 16"
The RN had no 16 inch gun ships at the time of the Washington
Treaty, therefore they were not allowed to keep them. The treaty
allowed them to build two 16 inch ships provided they were in
treaty limits. You are wrong Vince.
They were of course allowed to keep more 15 inch ships than the
rest of the world put together because that calibre was not used
by anyone else. I am not sure how 8 15 inch would compare with 12
14 inch.
Ken Young
Peter Skelton
wrote:
8 - 15" is just over 10 - 14" in weight of broadside, IIRC. One
can argue that the first USN 3x14" tripples (the ones with the
single cradle) were inferior in rate of fire and accuracy, but
the later ones were clearly superior.
Peter Skelton
Andre Lieven
> On 7 Jun 2006 04:12:26 GMT, dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
> wrote:
>
>>"Weatherlawyer" (Wease...@hotmail.com) cowshits:
>
>>> However the Tirpitz and her sister the Bizmarck did fall to a
>>> combination of RN ships and aircraft eventually.
>>
>>Wrong. Torpitz was destroyed by RAF aircraft. When you make such
>>basic howlers, its clear that you have AbZero knowledge of the topic.
>
> Here, I think you are hitting low. The original statement was
> inexact, true, as it needs a serial comma following "ships" to clarify
> the fact that "RN" does not modify "aircraft".
I address what was writtien, not what a crystal ball reader may
wish to claim would have been written.
> I don't consider this egregious enough to warrant an insult, however.
Fine, then your posts don't need to include such. As I do consider it
enough of a howler to display Weatherloon's ignorance, what he got, *I*
deem reasonable.
My call to make. Alone.
Andre
Andre Lieven
>
> Andre Lieven wrote:
>
>>Vince Brannigan (fir...@umd.edu) writes:
>>
>>>ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <e651nf$n3g$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk>,
>>>>keith...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk (Keith W) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>No, the RN had to scrap large numbers of modern capital ships.
>>>>>
>>>>In fact the RN was the only navy who scrapped ships that had
>>>>larger than 12 inch guns.
>>>>
>>>They also were allowed to keep more 15 and 16 inch gunned ships than
>>>the rest of the world put together
>>
>>Wrong. While no other navy had 15 inch gunned ships ( After the
>>pair of Badens were scuttled in Scapa Flow ), its simple fact that
>>the RN had NO 16 inch ships until the Treaty allowed them to
>>build Nelson & Rodney.
>>
>>While the USN was allowed to keep three *existing* 16 inch ships,
>>and the IJN, 2.
>>
>>>So what?
>>
>>Other than " you're wrong " ? Nope, thats about it.
>>
>>Andre
>>
> read the sentence
>
> "15 and 16"
>
> not "15 or 16"
So ? Read the OP's statement, that your claim was *irrelevent* to.
So, you're still wrong. Deal with it.
> "and" creates a single category with the items counted together
> (conjunction)
> "or" creates separate categories with the items counted separately.
> (disjunction)
<yawn> All distractions from the fact that your claim was wrong, and
was irrelevent to the OP's correct statement.
And, turn off your faulty html crap.
Andre
Andre Lieven
> In article <e67c5r$35v$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu>, fir...@umd.edu
> (Vince Brannigan) wrote:
>
>> read the sentence
>>
>> "15 and 16"
>>
>> not "15 or 16"
>
> The RN had no 16 inch gun ships at the time of the Washington
> Treaty, therefore they were not allowed to keep them. The treaty
> allowed them to build two 16 inch ships provided they were in
> treaty limits. You are wrong Vince.
Indeed.
> They were of course allowed to keep more 15 inch ships than the
> rest of the world put together because that calibre was not used
> by anyone else.
Well, other than the two scuttled Bayern class ships, and the
second pair, incomplete and scrapped post WW1. All off the
boards by the time of the Versailles Treaty, never mind the
Washington one.
> I am not sure how 8 15 inch would compare with 12 14 inch.
It would be hard to work out. One could do the easy stuff, like
comparing throw weights, and ranges, then multiply by gun tube
counts, but tactics and circumstances play a large part in any
fight.
Like, does the RN battle line engage the USN line near to the
US or the UK ? Day, evening, or night ? Etc.
Andre
dott.Piergiorgio
> And, turn off your faulty html crap.
I'll second this motion.
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
bradley...@hotmail.com
By the RN's rule of thumb at the time, gun effectiveness varied roughly
with the fourth power of caliber, so eight guns of 381 mm would be as
good as 10 or 11 guns of 356 mm. (Moretz; The Royal Navy and the
Capital Ship in the Interwar Period: An Operational Perspective; Frank
Cass, 2002.)
The rule of thumb clearly ignores many other factors, such as those
mentioned by Mr Skelton. But design policy seems to bear it out, as
when the USN, for example, reckoned it could get better battleships by
altering the California main battery for the Marylands.
On the wider point about the RN's strength versus the USN: the US Naval
War College told the General Board in 1922 that the British fleet had
1.4 times the USN's fighting power below 18 km and 2.5 times it at
above that range. (Bell: The Royal Navy, Seapower and Strategy between
the Wars, Stanford University Press, 2000.)
I don't have the detailed analysis behind that, and I only assume that
the figures count ships that were later scrapped under the treaty. One
could combine the RN's rule of thumb with the General Board's ratios to
work out the relationship after treaty scrappings. I guess that that
would still leave the RN ahead.
In 1930 the USN thought it and the Royal Navy had about equal fighting
strength but that the RN was better balanced. (Bell.)
So I think the USN passed the RN sometime in the 1930s, or maybe early
in the war. If they were still about equal in 1940, British losses
would have settled the issue in 1941. Regards,
Brad Perrett.
Brad Meyer
wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 02:36:12 -0700, Brad Meyer <brad...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 18:45:58 GMT, "pigdos" <N...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>And more importantly why? From what I've read it seemed like the RN was the
>>>dominant naval power through WWI.
>>
>>The "when" might be 1940 or so. The why was that the US was given an
>>excuse to build the sort of uber-navy they had been capable of
>>building for 50 years or so but didn't really want to buy. precise
>>moment might be the signing of the "two ocean navy" bill.
>
>The British, until WW I, attempted to have a Navy equal in size to the
>next two largest navies, combined. I am not sure if that was any
>longer possible in 1914, with both Germany and the USA building ships
>at an alarming pace.
This is exactly why the British were so interested in a "Naval
holiday" prior to WW I and the post-war Naval treaties. In the former
they hoped to freeze their advantage. In the latter they hoped to
freeze their relative postion vis-a-vis the rest of the world. In both
instances, it was na attempt to hold Naval estimates in some sort of
check.
>The outcome of the war remove the German navy
>from the equation, but now the Japanese had entered the arms race--and
>the UK no longer had the money to support the RN in the same manner as
>had been done pre-war. The Washington treaty formalized the UK's
>abdication from the theory of pre-eminence--and actually permitted the
>UK to maintain parity, which may well have been lost, had the treaty
>not been signed. As it was, the treaty acknowledged the end of an RN
>as large as the next two in size, and settled for parity with the USA.
Not necessarily. The US had no intention to build up to treaty
strength so long as they could keep their old hulls going. As far as
_theoretical_ preemenance, that had been gone by at least the Great
White Fleet and perhaps as far back as the ACW.
bradley...@hotmail.com
> The British, until WW I, attempted to have a Navy equal in size to the
> next two largest navies, combined. I am not sure if that was any
> longer possible in 1914, with both Germany and the USA building ships
> at an alarming pace.
The two-power standard died some years before World War I, essentially
because the USA became one of the two powers that would have had to be
matched, which was neither affordable nor politically realistic. The
standard changed to 1.6 times the German fleet and government told the
RN not even to consider war with the United States. Regards,
Brad Perrett.
BernardZ
peter.m...@selexnospam-sas.com says...
That too!
But German U-boats tended in this period to attack on the surface so the
planes did not need a modern centrimetric radar.
Even if it drives some of the U-boats under the water, it would have
been a help.
--
Self control is what keeps us from being rapist.
Observations of Bernard - No 100
BernardZ
says...
> BernardZ (bern...@Nospam.com) writes:
> > In article <e65jna$sqm$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca>, dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
> > says...
> >> > Had the RAF used its bombers to patrol the Atlantic instead of
> >> > squandering them and their crews uselessly over Europe...
> >>
> >> Yes, more ASW planes would have been useful, but the effectiveness
> >> of such planes only became more than potential when modern centrimetric
> >> radar and other mid war equipment got developed.
> >
> > Actually a plane or a blimp flighting around a convoy was extremely
> > useful even before the modern centrimetric radar as it would frighten
> > and keep the U-boats down as they were very reluctant to attack
> > a convoy if such a thing was present!
>
> Well, blimps were not middle of ocean assets,
In any case, early in the war there were no blimps to deal with the u-
boats.
> and there weren't many
> planes that could fly to the middle of the ocean, stay for a couple of
> hours, and return safely to base early on in the war.
>
> Andre
>
>
A plane could be striped down with min bomb load. Say a flight time of
about 6 hours and say it makes it a third of the way, that is still
better then nothing.
Keith W
"BernardZ" <bern...@Nospam.com> wrote in message
>
> That too!
>
> But German U-boats tended in this period to attack on the surface so the
> planes did not need a modern centrimetric radar.
>
Thats precisely why they did need it and why it was adopted
for ASW work. The metre band radar simply wasnt accurate
enough which is why ASW aircraft were equipped with searchlights.
> Even if it drives some of the U-boats under the water, it would have
> been a help.
>
But not enough of a help, sinking the boat is better than making it dive.
Jack Linthicum
ib011...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
> Keith W wrote:
> > "pigdos" <N...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > news:G3khg.39704$4L1....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > With the first Washington treaty when the UK accepted
> > parity with the USN
> >
> > > And more importantly why?
> >
> > Money. Post WW1 Britain was bankrupt and couldnt afford
> > to keep the ships it had much less get involved in a
> > new naval arms race.
> >
> > Keith
> The treaty prevented an arms race,even if the UK had wanted one,people
> wanted peace and hoped it could be agreed,then that Austrian guy
> started causing trouble.
>
> I am tempted to say 7th December 1941 but that would be glib.
> Certainly the German and French navies were not equal to the RN prior
> to World War 11 and the USN was growing in this period.
> Is it fair to say that the RN did not suffer the cutbacks that the Army
> and RAF saw during the 1920s and 1930s?
> Do you agree that the role of the RN in wining the Battle Of Britain is
> less well known than it should be?
I would say a precise moment might be when Churchill asked for the
destroyers.
In July 1940 newly elected Prime Minister Churchill requested help from
FDR, after Britain had sustained the loss of 11 destroyers to the
German Navy over a 10-day period. Roosevelt responded by exchanging 50
destroyers for 99-year leases on British bases in the Caribbean and
Newfoundland.
Andre Lieven
> In article <44869421$1...@glkas0286.greenlnk.net>,
> peter.m...@selexnospam-sas.com says...
>>
>> "BernardZ" <bern...@Nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1ef13e84532782959899f0@news...
>> > In article <e65jna$sqm$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca>, dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
>> > says...
>> > > > Had the RAF used its bombers to patrol the Atlantic instead of
>> > > > squandering them and their crews uselessly over Europe...
>> > >
>> > > Yes, more ASW planes would have been useful, but the effectiveness
>> > > of such planes only became more than potential when modern centrimetric
>> > > radar and other mid war equipment got developed.
>> >
>> > Actually a plane or a blimp flighting around a convoy was extremely
>> > useful even before the modern centrimetric radar as it would frighten
>> > and keep the U-boats down as they were very reluctant to attack
>> > a convoy if such a thing was present!
>> >
>> Not quite, air cover without radar did little to stop night attacks, which
>> was the U Boat norm, what it did do though was stop daytime shadowing on the
>> surface and thus the formation of the attacking pack.
>>
>> Peter
>
> That too!
>
> But German U-boats tended in this period to attack on the surface so the
> planes did not need a modern centrimetric radar.
However, as has been already point out correctly, most such attacks
by U Boats were done *at night*, and, as no then existing maritime
aircraft had night operating capabilities, your claim is voided.
> Even if it drives some of the U-boats under the water, it would have
> been a help.
Ibid.
> Self control is what keeps us from being rapist.
Then, it appears that many female teachers lack this self control.
Plus, self control is what keep " us " from making false claims of
rape, and since rape is the crime with the by far highest rate of
provably false claims, your " point " is MS-taken.
Andre
Andre Lieven
You just don't know a damned thing about the early war time aircraft
available to the RAF and Coastal Command, do you ?
<shakes head at ignorance>
Andre
Andrew Robert Breen
Andre Lieven <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>
>You just don't know a damned thing about the early war time aircraft
>available to the RAF and Coastal Command, do you ?
Stripping an Anson down to minimum offensive and defensive load
would pretty well imply leaving the aeroplane behind :)
--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)
Andre Lieven
> In article <e69hhu$aot$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca>,
> Andre Lieven <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>>
>>You just don't know a damned thing about the early war time aircraft
>>available to the RAF and Coastal Command, do you ?
>
> Stripping an Anson down to minimum offensive and defensive load
> would pretty well imply leaving the aeroplane behind :)
Indeed. This clueless nimnull might as well be suggesting that
the RN should have fitted sailors with flying packs.
Its become quite clear that the only books WeatherFool has read
all involved colouring them.
Andre
David E. Powell
Weatherlawyer wrote:
> ib011...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
> > Keith W wrote:
> > > "pigdos" <N...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > > news:G3khg.39704$4L1....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> > >
> > > With the first Washington treaty when the UK accepted
> > > parity with the USN
> > >
> > > > And more importantly why?
> > >
> > > Money. Post WW1 Britain was bankrupt and couldnt afford
> > > to keep the ships it had much less get involved in a
> > > new naval arms race.
> > >
> > > Keith
> > The treaty prevented an arms race,even if the UK had wanted one,people
> > wanted peace and hoped it could be agreed,then that Austrian guy
> > started causing trouble.
> >
> > I am tempted to say 7th December 1941 but that would be glib.
> > Certainly the German and French navies were not equal to the RN prior
> > to World War 11 and the USN was growing in this period.
> > Is it fair to say that the RN did not suffer the cutbacks that the Army
> > and RAF saw during the 1920s and 1930s?
> > Do you agree that the role of the RN in wining the Battle Of Britain is
> > less well known than it should be?
>
> things were so bad that the US Navy was patrolling part of the ocean on
> the UK's behalf and lost at least one ship to submarines -before Pearl
> Harbour.
How was the RN eclipsed? In capital ships and destroyers they were
superior in number. They also had a fine Submarine arm. They needed
(and got) an assist in convoy escort, but the bugbear of subs was (and
is) the amount of assets they can tie down. After all, one can't just
scout and defend where they are known to be, one has to defend anywhere
they might possibly be. RN subs took advantage of this as well but
Britian had longer supply lines.
> In the Pacific and Indian ocean in WW II the RN was virtually
> nonexistant. (Not counting all the troop ships that Churchill sent to
> reinforce the Japanese POWs of course.)
Prince of Wales, Repulse, etc.... it wasn't just the stripping of
assets to gain superiority over the Italian Navy in the Med as well as
stand off the Germans in the Atlantic (Remember, Japan was in the
Pacific, Germany was mostly Atlantic, with some Med and a few eventual
long range Pacific missions, and Italy was almost exclusively in the
Med.) The RN had to face all three.... they managed to hold off the
Germans in the Atlantic, gain advantages in the Mediterranean against
Italy with German reinforcements, and were hurt by lack of supply in
the Pacific. Along with some issues with tactics or somesuch, but given
priorities Britain was fighting most hard closest to home in 1939-1941
(and long thereafter.)
> It was only when the US entered the war that the war in the Atlantic
> began to turn.
Well, the Brits did sink the Bismarck, win an engagement up in Norway,
and gain superiority in the Mediterranean. All of which helped keep
Britain standing. In the Atlantic the Convoy battles were tough - one
of the reasons that tonnage lost went up in 1942, when the Germans
shifted to areas like the US Eastern Seaboard, Gulf of Mexico, and
South Atlantic. A lot of U-Boats were actually lost in late 1941,
before December 7.
As for the RN's role int the Battle of Britain, they
> were unable to keep the Channel ports open despite the idiocy of
> Churchill in attempting to do so.
You mean getting the Germans to divert resources which otherwise would
have hit convoys or cities into a more even battle?
> In fact come to that, there was at least one aerodrome that the RAF
> itself couldn't keep open. Needless to say a certain magalomaniac
> insisted that it remain staffed. They must have been wrecks by the end.
You mean in the early part of the battle when the Luftwaffe knocked out
several bases and radar stations before the shift to city bombing? Also
it is fascinating how someone in 1940/1941 would have known all you
know now. Guess they had all the same history books and all they had to
do was read 'em eh wot?
> Convoys to Russia were regularly abandoned by the RN.
Only PQ17, which came a long time after the US entered the war.
> After WW II there was a sensless race to produce nuclear powered
> submarines with safety of the crew and infact the necessary research
> into hull integrity, given a very low priority. So it is very much a
> matter of personal opinion which navy was better armed in that respect.
Which has what in the living heck to do with WW2, which is when you
postulated the date? The RN of course had the advantage of codesign
with the USN. Recall a guy named Rickover starting the program and the
UK having a stake in it thanks to the cooperation on the Manhattan
project.
> The US definitely had the edge with Aircraft Carriers but in the day of
> the air supplied jet it is a moot point that they would have withstood
> a concerted onslaught.
Actually, the RN carriers' armored flight decks were a real plus in
WW2, especially in the Pacific. And RN carriers were handled very well
during the Falklands War.
These days there is a real fear that determined
> attackers in rowing boats will do them damage.
CONCRETE FOISTS~!!!!!!!! ARRRR MATEYS MAN THE STARBOARD BALLISTAS, AND
BRING ABOUT YE JACKHAMMERS! DROP THE CORVUS AND HOIST THE ENSIGN! YOU
MAY TAKE MY LIFE BUT YOU'LL NEVER TAKE MY MERKIN! FIRE AT WILL - I
NEVER LIKED HIM ANYWAY! AHAHAHAHA!
> The thing is that at it's height, the RN could pacify a region by
> sending a military vessel.
Such was the theory of most of the major powers. Since then, things
have changed for most navies. Of course, there was also a time when
Chile had the most powerful ship in the Western Hemisphere, so.....
Either the threat of it's guns or it's men
> would do the trick. During the second world war subversive warfare
> began to take shape
Boer War
Zulu Wars
American Indian Wars
Boxer Rebellion
Afghanistan (19th. C)
And.. the Black Hole of Calcutta...
and Britain pulled out all the stops setting up
> gurrila schools a tactic copied by the US and eventually all the major
> powers.
The lessons had been learned but sadly it seemed they had to be
relearned many times.... see US vs Apaches, etc....
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:
> Well, " swiftly " relative to the RN not building up to the
> 1922 limits at all...
Well cruiser construction was not effected by any limits except
the size and gun limits. However the first US cruiser was not
laid down October 1926 by which time the RN had 9 under
construction with more ordered. As for aircraft carriers the RN
had more available in 1922 than the rest of the world put
together. New construction was hardly as essential as it was for
other navies.
Prior to 1930 the RN laid down 15 CA compare that to the US 8.
The RN was not able to build any more heavy cruisers after 1930
due to treaty limitations.
> And, the CAs and CVs were mostly products of the 30s, in terms
> of completion dates.
Comparing dates of laying down probably makes for a better
comparison given variations in building times.
One other point in 1922 the closest to modern cruisers the US
had were the Chesters and Omahas for a total of 13 of dubious
use.
Ken Young
Andre Lieven
> In article <e66r71$jb5$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca>,
> dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:
>
>> Well, " swiftly " relative to the RN not building up to the
>> 1922 limits at all...
>
> Well cruiser construction was not effected by any limits except
> the size and gun limits. However the first US cruiser was not
> laid down October 1926 by which time the RN had 9 under
> construction with more ordered.
Sure, but one must recall that the RN had, at that time, little
remaining WW1 period cruiser construction remaining, while the
USN's Omaha class was under construction during the Treaty
signing period.
So, the RN had excess capacity, the USN somewhat less so.
> As for aircraft carriers the RN
> had more available in 1922 than the rest of the world put
> together.
Pretty much all makeshift conversion jobs, and a pioneering,
albeit far too small built from the keel up job. None of which
were really suitable fast task force ops. Which in a navy with
three near 30 knot capital ships is a significant issue.
> New construction was hardly as essential as it was for
> other navies.
Quite the contrary, the need to replace obsolete ships like
Eagle, Hermes and Argus was significant, as well that the RN,
unlike the USN and IJN, built no new and thus, experience
based, new carriers for well over a decade. More like a decade
and a half, really.
> Prior to 1930 the RN laid down 15 CA compare that to the US 8.
Two of which were RAN. See also my point about the process of the
Omahas.
> The RN was not able to build any more heavy cruisers after 1930
> due to treaty limitations.
Well, by their choice to use the now limited tonnage to get the
numbers the RN believed it needed.
>> And, the CAs and CVs were mostly products of the 30s, in terms
>> of completion dates.
>
> Comparing dates of laying down probably makes for a better
> comparison given variations in building times.
Well, since by then there wasn't much variation, when comparing
like type, this isn't really relevent.
> One other point in 1922 the closest to modern cruisers the US
> had were the Chesters and Omahas for a total of 13 of dubious
> use.
Of course. But, while many of the RN's cruiser force were
chronologically young, many were war weary, and pretty much
all were too small for anything outside of North Sea ops.
Andre
Andrew Chaplin
news:1149767399.7...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>
> I would say a precise moment might be when Churchill asked for the
> destroyers.
>
> In July 1940 newly elected Prime Minister Churchill requested help
from
> FDR, after Britain had sustained the loss of 11 destroyers to the
> German Navy over a 10-day period. Roosevelt responded by exchanging
50
> destroyers for 99-year leases on British bases in the Caribbean and
> Newfoundland.
A fine point, but an important one none the less: Churchill was not a
"newly elected Prime Minister" in 1940. He was newly appointed; by
convention, the monarch, kept politically weak, names whoever commands
a majority in the House of Commons, and at that point it was obvious
it was WLSC. In truth (but not in practice) there is no constitutional
requirement for the PM even to hold a seat in the House.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
bernardz
<sigh>
The RCAF Anti-Submarine Squadrons did use such striped down bombers for
convoy duty in such a manner . As they were pulled out of European
bombing missions we see Blenheim and Hudson light bombers and Vickers
Wellingtons.
The USAAF started off using a few obsolete observation aircraft, medium
bombers, and B-17's, all without radar, to B-24's, B-25's, B-17's, and
B34.
At first without the necessary equipment they were no particularly
brilliant at the task but they were better then nothing.
bernardz
Keith W wrote:
> "BernardZ" <bern...@Nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1ef2a638c125990e9899f4@news...
> > In article <44869421$1...@glkas0286.greenlnk.net>,
> > peter.m...@selexnospam-sas.com says...
>
> >
> > That too!
> >
> > But German U-boats tended in this period to attack on the surface so the
> > planes did not need a modern centrimetric radar.
> >
>
> Thats precisely why they did need it and why it was adopted
> for ASW work. The metre band radar simply wasnt accurate
> enough which is why ASW aircraft were equipped with searchlights.
>
The searchlights were needed as when the planes got close the radar cut
out.
Actually early in the war, the USAF used bombers withour radar at all,
as they did not have them.
> > Even if it drives some of the U-boats under the water, it would have
> > been a help.
> >
>
> But not enough of a help, sinking the boat is better than making it dive.
Sinking is better but driving it away is better then the U-boat sinking
a merchant ship.
William Hamblen
<ab.ch...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote:
>A fine point, but an important one none the less: Churchill was not a
>"newly elected Prime Minister" in 1940. He was newly appointed; by
>convention, the monarch, kept politically weak, names whoever commands
>a majority in the House of Commons, and at that point it was obvious
>it was WLSC. In truth (but not in practice) there is no constitutional
>requirement for the PM even to hold a seat in the House.
Benjamin d'Israeli was Prime Minister while in the House of Lords,
making that much 19th century practice, anyway. Without looking it up
to be sure, I am sure he was the last to be Prime Minister while in
the House of Lords. Churchill didn't win an election as leader of his
party until the Conservatives got back in power in 1951.
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:
> Well, by their choice to use the now limited tonnage to get the
> numbers the RN believed it needed.
Read the London Treaty, it banned the RN from building 8 inch
gunned cruisers along with Japan. The RN was prepared to build
large six inch cruisers.
Ken Young
Keith W
"bernardz" <bern...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1149823455....@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Keith W wrote:
>> "BernardZ" <bern...@Nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1ef2a638c125990e9899f4@news...
>> > In article <44869421$1...@glkas0286.greenlnk.net>,
>> > peter.m...@selexnospam-sas.com says...
>>
>> >
>> > That too!
>> >
>> > But German U-boats tended in this period to attack on the surface so
>> > the
>> > planes did not need a modern centrimetric radar.
>> >
>>
>> Thats precisely why they did need it and why it was adopted
>> for ASW work. The metre band radar simply wasnt accurate
>> enough which is why ASW aircraft were equipped with searchlights.
>>
>
> The searchlights were needed as when the planes got close the radar cut
> out.
>
Because the Germans were using Metox to detect ASV Mk II and
due to its long minimum range
> Actually early in the war, the USAF used bombers withour radar at all,
> as they did not have them.
>
>
To little effect
>
>> > Even if it drives some of the U-boats under the water, it would have
>> > been a help.
>> >
>>
>> But not enough of a help, sinking the boat is better than making it dive.
>
>
> Sinking is better but driving it away is better then the U-boat sinking
> a merchant ship.
>
Indeed but at night an aircraft without radar has little chance
of finding the convoy let alone a U-boat
Keith
David Loewe, Jr.
<ab.ch...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote:
>"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:1149767399.7...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> I would say a precise moment might be when Churchill asked for the
>> destroyers.
>>
>> In July 1940 newly elected Prime Minister Churchill requested help
>from
>> FDR, after Britain had sustained the loss of 11 destroyers to the
>> German Navy over a 10-day period. Roosevelt responded by exchanging
>50
>> destroyers for 99-year leases on British bases in the Caribbean and
>> Newfoundland.
>
>A fine point, but an important one none the less: Churchill was not a
>"newly elected Prime Minister" in 1940. He was newly appointed; by
>convention, the monarch, kept politically weak, names whoever commands
>a majority in the House of Commons, and at that point it was obvious
>it was WLSC. In truth (but not in practice) there is no constitutional
>requirement for the PM even to hold a seat in the House.
Alec Douglas-Home says "Hi!" from beyond the grave.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alec_Douglas-Home
--
"Chances are you're playing with fire
I thought by now you'd learned
You're gonna get your fingers burned."
Alan Parsons & Eric Woolfson
Andre Lieven
WeatherLoon was demanding that such EARLY war a/c ( IOW, NOT B-17s,
B-24s, but Ansons and Hudsons ) be used in MID ocean.
Tell us that a stripped down Anson will make it to the *middle*
of the Atlantic convoy routes...
HTH.
Andre
Andre Lieven
Northumberland and Surrey. Thats 2. Exeter number 2, thats 3...
Andre
Andrew Chaplin
news:o5ti8250r2oqggtti...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 8 Jun 2006 22:25:50 -0400, "Andrew Chaplin"
> <ab.ch...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote:
>
>>"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>news:1149767399.7...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> I would say a precise moment might be when Churchill asked for the
>>> destroyers.
>>>
>>> In July 1940 newly elected Prime Minister Churchill requested help
>>from
>>> FDR, after Britain had sustained the loss of 11 destroyers to the
>>> German Navy over a 10-day period. Roosevelt responded by exchanging
>>50
>>> destroyers for 99-year leases on British bases in the Caribbean and
>>> Newfoundland.
>>
>>A fine point, but an important one none the less: Churchill was not a
>>"newly elected Prime Minister" in 1940. He was newly appointed; by
>>convention, the monarch, kept politically weak, names whoever commands
>>a majority in the House of Commons, and at that point it was obvious
>>it was WLSC. In truth (but not in practice) there is no constitutional
>>requirement for the PM even to hold a seat in the House.
>
> Alec Douglas-Home says "Hi!" from beyond the grave.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alec_Douglas-Home
Douglas-Home is the best example of how it is no longer practical for anyone
other than an M.P. to be PM.
I realize my language is not quite spot on. It's not that a PM "commands a
majority in the House of Commons", it's that his ministry has the confidence
of a majority in the House.
Justin
William Hamblen wrote:
> Benjamin d'Israeli was Prime Minister while in the House of Lords,
> making that much 19th century practice, anyway. Without looking it up
> to be sure, I am sure he was the last to be Prime Minister while in
> the House of Lords.
Marquess of Salisbury, last government 1895-1902.
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:
> Northumberland and Surrey. Thats 2. Exeter number 2, thats
> 3...
The Surrey class was cancelled and in the 28-29 program anyway,
Exeter was laid down in 1928 prior to the treaty. See British
Cruisers of WW2 for details. That's why I prefer using laying
down dates rather than completion dates.
Ken Young
Andre Lieven
> In article <e6c4rl$qj$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca>,
> dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:
>
>> Northumberland and Surrey. Thats 2. Exeter number 2, thats
>> 3...
>
> The Surrey class was cancelled and in the 28-29 program anyway,
> Exeter was laid down in 1928 prior to the treaty. See British
> Cruisers of WW2 for details.
I've had that book since 1991...
> That's why I prefer using laying
> down dates rather than completion dates.
Yes, however I was responding to your claim of 6 cancelled
by the London Treaty RN CAs.
Andre
BernardZ
says...
<sigh>
You are making it up. I never said Anson nor did I say the middle of the
Atlantic.
But now you mentioned it even an Anson which was hopelessly outclassed
in September 1939 was then able to attack a German U-boat.
--
Self control is what keeps us from being rapist.
Observations of Bernard - No 100
BernardZ
keith...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk says...
>
> "bernardz" <bern...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:1149823455....@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Keith W wrote:
> >> "BernardZ" <bern...@Nospam.com> wrote in message
> >> news:MPG.1ef2a638c125990e9899f4@news...
> >> > In article <44869421$1...@glkas0286.greenlnk.net>,
> >> > peter.m...@selexnospam-sas.com says...
> >>
> >> >
> >> > That too!
> >> >
> >> > But German U-boats tended in this period to attack on the surface so
> >> > the
> >> > planes did not need a modern centrimetric radar.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Thats precisely why they did need it and why it was adopted
> >> for ASW work. The metre band radar simply wasnt accurate
> >> enough which is why ASW aircraft were equipped with searchlights.
> >>
> >
> > The searchlights were needed as when the planes got close the radar cut
> > out.
> >
>
> Because the Germans were using Metox to detect ASV Mk II and
> due to its long minimum range
The detectors could detect the radar before the radar had a fix.
Later on the German detectors failed as the British went to a shorter
wavelength so the Germans came up with new detectors.
>
> > Actually early in the war, the USAF used bombers withour radar at all,
> > as they did not have them.
> >
> >
>
> To little effect
>
The only plane without a radar, that had a major impact was the
the Grumman Wildcat/Martlet.
> >
> >> > Even if it drives some of the U-boats under the water, it would have
> >> > been a help.
> >> >
> >>
> >> But not enough of a help, sinking the boat is better than making it dive.
> >
> >
> > Sinking is better but driving it away is better then the U-boat sinking
> > a merchant ship.
> >
>
> Indeed but at night an aircraft without radar has little chance
> of finding the convoy let alone a U-boat
I can believe this.
Anyway almost immediately, the British were putting radar on planes.
>
> Keith
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:
> Yes, however I was responding to your claim of 6 cancelled
> by the London Treaty RN CAs.
Ah a misunderstanding when I wrote
> The RN was prepared to build
> large six inch cruisers.
I meant the RN was prepared to build large light cruisers, with
Belfast being the obvious example.
Ken Young
Andre Lieven
<Projection>
> I never said Anson nor did I say the middle of the Atlantic.
Sure, because either was a specific claim that was *beyond* your
level of competance.
But, as the issue was the mid ocean air gap, then its clear that
ONLY aircraft that could reach that *mid ocean* area mattered on
this matter.
> But now you mentioned it even an Anson which was hopelessly outclassed
> in September 1939 was then able to attack a German U-boat.
Note that the waters most frequented by U Boats in 9/39 were NOT the
ones where most of te 1941 and 1942 sinkings were...
IOW: Buy a clue, you know nothing.
Andre
Andre Lieven
Well, by coupling that with the London Treaty, given that the
Southampton class came well later, you created that confusion.
As, the RN did build, pre war, all the large 12 X 6 inch ships
that it planned to.
Andre
Nik Simpson
>
> Tell us that a stripped down Anson will make it to the *middle*
> of the Atlantic convoy routes...
>
No problem at all, getting back might be dicey though
> HTH.
HTH
--
Nik Simpson
Andre Lieven
> Andre Lieven wrote:
>>
>> Tell us that a stripped down Anson will make it to the *middle*
>> of the Atlantic convoy routes...
>
> No problem at all, getting back might be dicey though
Well then, thats not a useful notion, then. How long does Coastal Command
last in the war, sending it's planes and crews out on kamikaze flights ?
>> HTH.
>
> HTH
Not really, no.
Andre
BernardZ
says...
Honesty.
You know you are wrong.
>
> > I never said Anson nor did I say the middle of the Atlantic.
>
> Sure, because either was a specific claim that was *beyond* your
> level of competance.
>
> But, as the issue was the mid ocean air gap, then its clear that
> ONLY aircraft that could reach that *mid ocean* area mattered on
> this matter.
Your own statement shows that the gap is important. Anything that
reduces the gap has an impact even if it does not take it to zero.
By the way many u-boats were sunk by planes before the gap was closed.
I am going to end this discussion by listing some boats sunk by
converted bombers before the gap was closed.
eg U-31 by a British Bristol Blenheim aircraft (RAF Bomber Command)
U-502 and U-412 by a British Wellington
U-751 by a a British Whitley and Lancaster aircraft
U-654 and U-512 by a US B-18
U-611,U-599,U-597 and U-216 by a British Liberator
U-627 by a British Fortress aircraft
>
> > But now you mentioned it even an Anson which was hopelessly outclassed
> > in September 1939 was then able to attack a German U-boat.
>
> Note that the waters most frequented by U Boats in 9/39 were NOT the
> ones where most of te 1941 and 1942 sinkings were...
>
> IOW: Buy a clue, you know nothing.
>
> Andre
>
>
Unless you have something intelligent to respond. Cheers.
Andre Lieven
Yes, another thing you lack.
> You know you are wrong.
<Projection>
>> > I never said Anson nor did I say the middle of the Atlantic.
>>
>> Sure, because either was a specific claim that was *beyond* your
>> level of competance.
>>
>> But, as the issue was the mid ocean air gap, then its clear that
>> ONLY aircraft that could reach that *mid ocean* area mattered on
>> this matter.
>
> Your own statement shows that the gap is important. Anything that
You left out " ... USEFULLY... "
> reduces the gap has an impact even if it does not take it to zero.
Handwaving.
> By the way many u-boats were sunk by planes before the gap was closed.
Not in the gap, thus this " point " is irrelevent.
> I am going to end this discussion by listing some boats sunk by
> converted bombers before the gap was closed.
>
> eg U-31 by a British Bristol Blenheim aircraft (RAF Bomber Command)
> U-502 and U-412 by a British Wellington
> U-751 by a a British Whitley and Lancaster aircraft
> U-654 and U-512 by a US B-18
> U-611,U-599,U-597 and U-216 by a British Liberator
> U-627 by a British Fortress aircraft
Now post WHERE they were sunk.
NOT in the gap...
>> > But now you mentioned it even an Anson which was hopelessly outclassed
>> > in September 1939 was then able to attack a German U-boat.
>>
>> Note that the waters most frequented by U Boats in 9/39 were NOT the
>> ones where most of te 1941 and 1942 sinkings were...
>>
>> IOW: Buy a clue, you know nothing.
>>
>> Andre
>
> Unless you have something intelligent to respond. Cheers.
Ah, the flounce of the ignorant scoundrel. Go back to your Tonkas.
> Self control is what keeps us from being rapist.
>
> Observations of A Sexist Retard - No 100
Andre
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:
> Quite the contrary, the need to replace obsolete ships like
> Eagle, Hermes and Argus
All of which were so obsolete they saw active service during
WW2.
Ken Young
John P. Mullen
Gees,
When I was in the service, most of what we had was obsolete.
John Mullen
Andre Lieven
There is ample precedent for obsolete ships being used in wartime,
either because there is nothing better available, or because their
obsolescence makes their possible losses of minimal harms.
Examples abound in both World Wars, from the Abokirs in 1914,
where 3 got scuppered by one tiny U Boat, to ocean service
of ships like HMAS Adelaide and Caradoc.
But, on a comparative basis with any other carriers, looking at
metrics such as overall sizes, and aircraft per ton, one would
be hard pressed to find any less efficient carriers in WW2
than the trio I named.
Certainly, the RN would have been far less sad had that trio
been the list of the first three carriers lost by the RN,
rather than the pair of Gloriouses and the Ark Royal. Even
leaving aside that that trio was all 30 knot capable, the
plane capacity count for that trip would be around 150, rather
than the obsolete trios total capacity of 54.
Granted, the obsolete trio totalled only some 49,000 tons,
V/ the total of about 67,000 tons for the better trio.
But, a 25% smaller total tonnage doesn't account for
the capacity being no less than 64% smaller.
Andre
Gernot Hassenpflug
Andre> (ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk) writes:
>> In article <e6a64i$la9$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca>,
>> dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:
>>
>>> Quite the contrary, the need to replace obsolete ships like
>>> Eagle, Hermes and Argus
>> All of which were so obsolete they saw active service during
>> WW2.
Andre> There is ample precedent for obsolete ships being used in
Andre> wartime, either because there is nothing better available,
Andre> or because their obsolescence makes their possible losses
Andre> of minimal harms. /../
It is amazing to me that admirals (and public opinion, whatever that
is) value the existence of a ship more than its use even when said
existence cannot be justified by future use: viz. battleships in
WW2. About the only thing mitigating against the use of obsolte
warships is the value placed on the crew -- any in the case of
countries like Japan, this should not have been any barrier lol.
Andre> But, on a comparative basis with any other carriers,
Andre> looking at metrics such as overall sizes, and aircraft per
Andre> ton, one would be hard pressed to find any less efficient
Andre> carriers in WW2 than the trio I named.
Hehe, I see your point, but they were still effective weren't
they. Usually efficiency definitions leave out time to exitence as a
resource :-)
Andre> Certainly, the RN would have been far less sad had that
Andre> trio been the list of the first three carriers lost by the
Andre> RN, rather than the pair of Gloriouses and the Ark
Andre> Royal. Even leaving aside that that trio was all 30 knot
Andre> capable, the plane capacity count for that trip would be
Andre> around 150, rather than the obsolete trios total capacity
Andre> of 54.
True that, but 20/20 hindsight and all that...
Andre> Granted, the obsolete trio totalled only some 49,000 tons,
Andre> V/ the total of about 67,000 tons for the better trio.
Andre> But, a 25% smaller total tonnage doesn't account for the
Andre> capacity being no less than 64% smaller.
What's built is built, no point wasting more manpower and other
resources on it, jsut use it to what it's capable of while waiting to
field something better. The only trade-off would be with regard to the
crew (assumed well-trained): is their use suicidal or even with
obsolete equipment considered valuable to the war effort while they
cannot be employed elsewhere more profitably.
Besides, it's cool to discuss the use of obsolete ships!
--
G Hassenpflug
William Black
"Gernot Hassenpflug" <ger...@mb3.seikyou.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:873be6s...@rish.kyoto-u.ac.jp...
> It is amazing to me that admirals (and public opinion, whatever that
> is) value the existence of a ship more than its use even when said
> existence cannot be justified by future use: viz. battleships in
> WW2.
Was anyone laying down battleships after December 1941?
Those who feel battleships did no useful service in WWII should read about
HMS Warspite...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
mike
> Those who feel battleships did no useful service in WWII should read about
> HMS Warspite...
Seems to be a point that somewhat modernized WWI era BBs did better
at actually shooting holes in the enemy than the '30s newbuilds.
Compare the number of holes Rodney put in the pride of the Nazi
Navy vs KGV
**
mike
**
Andrew Robert Breen
You'd be very hard-pressed to describe Rodnol as "WW1 era" or
"modernised".
--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)
William Black
"Andrew Robert Breen" <a...@aber.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:e6rl4u$deci$1...@central.aber.ac.uk...
> In article <1150374983.5...@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> mike <mara...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >William Black wrote:
> >> Those who feel battleships did no useful service in WWII should read
about
> >> HMS Warspite...
> >
> >Seems to be a point that somewhat modernized WWI era BBs did better
> >at actually shooting holes in the enemy than the '30s newbuilds.
> >
> >Compare the number of holes Rodney put in the pride of the Nazi
> >Navy vs KGV
>
> You'd be very hard-pressed to describe Rodnol as "WW1 era" or
> "modernised".
That's before we get to talking about the compromises and the various
technical issues that plagued the KGV class in the early years of their
service.
Eugene Griessel
>In article <1150374983.5...@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>mike <mara...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>William Black wrote:
>>> Those who feel battleships did no useful service in WWII should read about
>>> HMS Warspite...
>>
>>Seems to be a point that somewhat modernized WWI era BBs did better
>>at actually shooting holes in the enemy than the '30s newbuilds.
>>
>>Compare the number of holes Rodney put in the pride of the Nazi
>>Navy vs KGV
>
>You'd be very hard-pressed to describe Rodnol as "WW1 era" or
>"modernised".
I've always had a sneaking liking for that pair - based on nothing
more than they were fugly as hell, slower than a London bus looking
for parking and as controllable in pilotage waters as a tom-cat on
steroids. Speaking of the "ol" - have you ever seen a drawing of what
the M2 class would have looked like? There's a real battletanker
design!
Eugene L Griessel
Don't flagellate yourself over an honest mistake. Correct it as best
you can then forget it and don't loose any sleep over it.
Andrew Robert Breen
Eugene Griessel <eugene@dynagen..co..za> wrote:
>a...@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:
>
>>In article <1150374983.5...@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>mike <mara...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>William Black wrote:
>>>> Those who feel battleships did no useful service in WWII should read about
>>>> HMS Warspite...
>>>
>>>Seems to be a point that somewhat modernized WWI era BBs did better
>>>at actually shooting holes in the enemy than the '30s newbuilds.
>>>
>>>Compare the number of holes Rodney put in the pride of the Nazi
>>>Navy vs KGV
>>
>>You'd be very hard-pressed to describe Rodnol as "WW1 era" or
>>"modernised".
>
>I've always had a sneaking liking for that pair - based on nothing
>more than they were fugly as hell, slower than a London bus looking
>for parking and as controllable in pilotage waters as a tom-cat on
There's a very large model of one of the pair at the museum in Portsmouth
Dockyard. It's impressive. It catches the air of menace that I'm told the
real ships had.
>steroids. Speaking of the "ol" - have you ever seen a drawing of what
>the M2 class would have looked like? There's a real battletanker
>design!
Oh yes. The M-group. Not pretty. Neither were the N-designs, of course:
http://www.geocities.com/alt_naval/n3.htm
the look of the thing was the /other/ reason you didn't want to see it
on the horizon..
Pete Granzeau
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Gernot Hassenpflug" <ger...@mb3.seikyou.ne.jp> wrote in message
>news:873be6s...@rish.kyoto-u.ac.jp...
>
>> It is amazing to me that admirals (and public opinion, whatever that
>> is) value the existence of a ship more than its use even when said
>> existence cannot be justified by future use: viz. battleships in
>> WW2.
>
>Was anyone laying down battleships after December 1941?
The USN had laid down all the battleships that were to be built by the
end of January, 1941, but Illinois and Kentucky were laid down in
June, 1942 (neither, of course, completed), and laid down Large
Cruiser Guam in February, 1942 (completed in September, 1944), and
Hawaii in December, 1943 (evidently on the ways from which either
Alaska or Guam had been launched earlier that year).
>Those who feel battleships did no useful service in WWII should read about
>HMS Warspite...
On the other hand, the "Wobbly Rs" did very little (and were probably
it too poor shape to be used extensively, anyway).
Pete Granzeau
<ger...@mb3.seikyou.ne.jp> wrote:
>>>>>> "Andre" == Andre Lieven <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> writes:
>
> Andre> (ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk) writes:
> >> In article <e6a64i$la9$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca>,
> >> dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:
> >>
> >>> Quite the contrary, the need to replace obsolete ships like
> >>> Eagle, Hermes and Argus
> >> All of which were so obsolete they saw active service during
> >> WW2.
>
> Andre> There is ample precedent for obsolete ships being used in
> Andre> wartime, either because there is nothing better available,
> Andre> or because their obsolescence makes their possible losses
> Andre> of minimal harms. /../
>
>It is amazing to me that admirals (and public opinion, whatever that
>is) value the existence of a ship more than its use even when said
>existence cannot be justified by future use: viz. battleships in
>WW2. About the only thing mitigating against the use of obsolte
>warships is the value placed on the crew -- any in the case of
>countries like Japan, this should not have been any barrier lol.
I believe that during WW I, the RN in fact crewed some new ships by
retiring obsolete older ships.
But the predereanought battleships were never expected to fight
battleship actions; instead, they did things like shore bombardment
(and several were lost in the Gallipoli campaign, I believe), harbor
guardship, and the like.
Pete Granzeau
Griessel) wrote:
>a...@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:
>
>>In article <1150374983.5...@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>mike <mara...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>William Black wrote:
>>>> Those who feel battleships did no useful service in WWII should read about
>>>> HMS Warspite...
>>>
>>>Seems to be a point that somewhat modernized WWI era BBs did better
>>>at actually shooting holes in the enemy than the '30s newbuilds.
>>>
>>>Compare the number of holes Rodney put in the pride of the Nazi
>>>Navy vs KGV
>>
>>You'd be very hard-pressed to describe Rodnol as "WW1 era" or
>>"modernised".
>
>I've always had a sneaking liking for that pair - based on nothing
>more than they were fugly as hell, slower than a London bus looking
>for parking and as controllable in pilotage waters as a tom-cat on
>steroids. Speaking of the "ol" - have you ever seen a drawing of what
>the M2 class would have looked like? There's a real battletanker
>design!
I always liked the signal Rodney had to send to Tovey after joining up
with KGV en route to the Bismarck--she had signaled her maximum speed
was 22 knots, so Tovey set that as the formation speed; but Rodney
couldn't keep up, and finally sent something like "It seems our 22
knots is slower than your 22 knots".
mike
> > "modernised".
Well, I did have that qualifier of 'somewhat' in there. My mistake
in posting early before the brain was fully online
I'll just say that was close to those WWI era 'M2' plans chopped
and squeezed to fit that new 35k limit[1] and Nelson was modified,
later on... Just not Rodney, whoops.
> That's before we get to talking about the compromises and the various
> technical issues that plagued the KGV class in the early years of their
> service.
Like Rodney and Nelson led trouble free careers at first.Think the RN
would have learned from those two. IMO they'd been better off doing
post ACW USN style 'Great Rebuilds' of the Rolling Rs and done massive
work,as the Japanese and Italians did with their older units,
or just the post Pearl refits where the USN nearly sawed all the
upperworks off on some , making California look like North Carolina
over a year and a half
[1] Not that the Nazis did any better, ignoring the treaty limits
and only coming up those WWI based White Elephants they built, squint
and you see SMS Ersatz Yorck staring back at you
**
mike
**
Peter Skelton
>William Black wrote:
>> "Andrew Robert Breen" <a...@aber.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> > You'd be very hard-pressed to describe Rodnol as "WW1 era" or
>> > "modernised".
>
>Well, I did have that qualifier of 'somewhat' in there. My mistake
>in posting early before the brain was fully online
>
>I'll just say that was close to those WWI era 'M2' plans chopped
>and squeezed to fit that new 35k limit[1] and Nelson was modified,
>later on... Just not Rodney, whoops.
>
>
>> That's before we get to talking about the compromises and the various
>> technical issues that plagued the KGV class in the early years of their
>> service.
>
>Like Rodney and Nelson led trouble free careers at first.Think the RN
>would have learned from those two. IMO they'd been better off doing
>post ACW USN style 'Great Rebuilds' of the Rolling Rs and done massive
>work,as the Japanese and Italians did with their older units,
>or just the post Pearl refits where the USN nearly sawed all the
>upperworks off on some , making California look like North Carolina
>over a year and a half
>
The R's lacked the metacentric reserve to allow major
reconstruction. (The reconstructions used weight savings low to
allow weight gains high.)
>
>[1] Not that the Nazis did any better, ignoring the treaty limits
>and only coming up those WWI based White Elephants they built, squint
>and you see SMS Ersatz Yorck staring back at you
>
>**
>mike
>**
Peter Skelton
dott.Piergiorgio
> [1] Not that the Nazis did any better, ignoring the treaty limits
> and only coming up those WWI based White Elephants they built, squint
> and you see SMS Ersatz Yorck staring back at you
AFAIK the B&T was derived from Bayerns, not E.Yorcks (if IIRC, E. Yorcks
has a much saner 4-shaft machinery)
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
mike
>
> AFAIK the B&T was derived from Bayerns, not E.Yorcks (if IIRC, E. Yorcks
> has a much saner 4-shaft machinery)
But those were laid down before the start of that war, ignoring what
happened during the war. The followon to Bayerns were hardly changed,
except for the cruising engine on that centershaft
All the High Seas Fleet BCs went with 4 shafts, as with the last paper
BB design, but for whatever reason, reverted back to triples for near
all
their surface Navy, except DDs and some of the light cruisers
**
mike
**
mike
> The R's lacked the metacentric reserve to allow major
> reconstruction. (The reconstructions used weight savings low to
> allow weight gains high.)
But weren't gutted like the Fusos, being lengthened, reboilered
and new machinery fitted. Some new guts aft(like was done to the
QEs) redone armordecks, dumping the casemate guns for DP in turrets,
and there would been some decent faster ships, cheaper than
the KGVs as well.
**
mike
**
Peter Skelton
Nonsense.
The QE rebuilds depended on saving weight in engineering and
redeploying it in armoured deck. They were built with enough
reserve stability that moving 5,000 tons up ten feet (approximate
numbers) could be countenanced. Even so, reconstruction resulted
in marginal battleships by WWII standards.
The R's were emergency construction built to beat the HIgh Seas
Fleet. They were not designed for upgrading, it could not be done
economically.
Peter Skelton
Eugene Griessel
>I always liked the signal Rodney had to send to Tovey after joining up
>with KGV en route to the Bismarck--she had signaled her maximum speed
>was 22 knots, so Tovey set that as the formation speed; but Rodney
>couldn't keep up, and finally sent something like "It seems our 22
>knots is slower than your 22 knots".
Another little quote I liked was one made by Andrew Cunningham when he
was the captain of Rodney. He said something like "she showed a
majestic dilatoriness in answering her helm and propellors".
I can feel for that sentiment - I often had occasion to mess about in
a Norwegian 30 foot clinker-built runabout with a peculiarly small
single rudder, well out of the way of the props, powered by two very
weird single cylinder paraffin engines driving both props in the same
direction. It looked a bit like a short longship that somebody had
bent up forrad and aft. It rejoiced in the name of "Snecca" - a
title I have never bothered to find out the meaning of.
This thing had ended up at a local Norwegian manned whaling station
and finally been bought by a friend of our family after its demise.
It must have been a goodly age when I knew it - probably being built
in the 1920s or 30s.
In waters beset by strong currents it was nightmare. Throttle
movements seemed to be obeyed, sluggishly, after a very lengthy lapse,
with much protest from the two cylinders, and the rudder seemed to
have no effect whatsoever at slow speed. It had little effect at
speed. (Which at full throttle was all of about 6 knots I
guestimate). One could cheerfully put the helm over 5 degrees with no
discernable perturbation to the course being steered.
I recall a nightmarish incident in which I foolishly took the thing
out on my own - which was not unusual at that place and time.
Bringing it alongside a jetty with a five knot current flowing
underneath was not fun. The trick was to leap off with the stern rope
and make that fast and then get back aboard and try and bring the bows
in. On this occasion everything went wrong and despite trying all the
tricks I knew I ended up, after a half hour's sweaty struggle with the
nose firmly pointed 90 degrees away from the jetty - and seemingly
destined to remain that way. Needless to say some of my guttersnipe
pals had by then noted my difficulties but instead of lending a hand
were having an uproarious laugh at me from the beach. It took some
dedicated swearing and threats to finally get them to help - but we
ended up physically pulling the bows in with a rope.
I have subsequently seen photographs of the Faroes with similarly
shaped vessels in evidence. One can only sincerely hope they had
solved the rudder/engine problems on these "sisters"!
Eugene L Griessel
.egassem neddih rof sdrawkcab daer - enilgat cinataS
Andre Lieven
>>>>>> "Andre" == Andre Lieven <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> writes:
>
> Andre> (ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk) writes:
> >> In article <e6a64i$la9$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca>,
> >> dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:
> >>
> >>> Quite the contrary, the need to replace obsolete ships like
> >>> Eagle, Hermes and Argus
> >> All of which were so obsolete they saw active service during
> >> WW2.
>
> Andre> There is ample precedent for obsolete ships being used in
> Andre> wartime, either because there is nothing better available,
> Andre> or because their obsolescence makes their possible losses
> Andre> of minimal harms. /../
>
> It is amazing to me that admirals (and public opinion, whatever that
> is) value the existence of a ship more than its use even when said
> existence cannot be justified by future use: viz. battleships in
> WW2.
Prior to WW2, the notion of carrier air sinking BBs was conjecture.
Further, radar is what made carrier interceptors effective.
> About the only thing mitigating against the use of obsolte
> warships is the value placed on the crew -- any in the case of
> countries like Japan, this should not have been any barrier lol.
Pretty much the same as in the Western Front in WW1, the
pre dreadnoughts at the Dardannelles, etc...
> Andre> But, on a comparative basis with any other carriers,
> Andre> looking at metrics such as overall sizes, and aircraft per
> Andre> ton, one would be hard pressed to find any less efficient
> Andre> carriers in WW2 than the trio I named.
>
> Hehe, I see your point, but they were still effective weren't they.
Well, Hermes pretty much accomplished... nothing. Eagle and Argus,
well fighter launches to Malta is most of it, and they were so
" effective " that, of course, there was no need for the USS Wasp
to... sting twice.
IOW, the Wasp was needed, twice, *because* Eagle and Argus were NOT
" effective ".
> Usually efficiency definitions leave out time to exitence as a
> resource :-)
Well, they were more " effective " than driftwood. So ?
> Andre> Certainly, the RN would have been far less sad had that
> Andre> trio been the list of the first three carriers lost by the
> Andre> RN, rather than the pair of Gloriouses and the Ark
> Andre> Royal. Even leaving aside that that trio was all 30 knot
> Andre> capable, the plane capacity count for that trip would be
> Andre> around 150, rather than the obsolete trios total capacity
> Andre> of 54.
>
> True that, but 20/20 hindsight and all that...
WTF ? This was easily understandable with any copy of a late 30s
Janes.
> Andre> Granted, the obsolete trio totalled only some 49,000 tons,
> Andre> V/ the total of about 67,000 tons for the better trio.
>
> Andre> But, a 25% smaller total tonnage doesn't account for the
> Andre> capacity being no less than 64% smaller.
>
> What's built is built, no point wasting more manpower and other
> resources on it, jsut use it to what it's capable of while waiting to
> field something better.
Yeah, who cares if Tiger tanks are killing ten Shermans ( and, 50
tank crewmen ) before they get killed ? People are expendable.
<sarcasm mode off>
> The only trade-off would be with regard to the
> crew (assumed well-trained): is their use suicidal or even with
> obsolete equipment considered valuable to the war effort while they
> cannot be employed elsewhere more profitably.
Or, can we learn from the parsimony of the past, and make sure that,
next time, we get sufficiently capable gear.
> Besides, it's cool to discuss the use of obsolete ships!
See " USS Oriskany, sunk as reef "...
Andre
William Black
"mike" <mara...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150414537.1...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> [1] Not that the Nazis did any better, ignoring the treaty limits
> and only coming up those WWI based White Elephants they built, squint
> and you see SMS Ersatz Yorck staring back at you
I was always of the opinion that you didn't have to squint terribly hard.
Looking once more at the drawings I've got of the Ersatz Yorck class she
looks somehow even more horibly familiar...
dott.Piergiorgio
> The R's were emergency construction built to beat the HIgh Seas
> Fleet. They were not designed for upgrading, it could not be done
> economically.
Sure ?
AFAICT, the (2nd) R Class was ordered in 1913 or 1914 estimates to
replace in a 1:1 ratio the old (1st) R class (1890s predreadnoughts,
pre-majestic type), in fact the (2nd) Rs was to be a 8-ship class, as
the previous (1st) R class, but Fisher (Renown & Repulse) and war
economy (Resistence) reduces the class to five ship. I wonder, if
Sarajevo hasn't happened, the RN (and Britsh Empire economy) can sustain
the same replacement policy and ratios for the next batch of
Predreadnoughts, the nine Majestics....
dott.Piergiorgio
> I was always of the opinion that you didn't have to squint terribly hard.
>
> Looking once more at the drawings I've got of the Ersatz Yorck class she
> looks somehow even more horibly familiar...
Hm ? I have here the Groner, and looking the drawing on the relevant
pages, I found B more like Bayerns than Yorcks (especially shafts, the
machinery between the aft mountings, and also the funnel, whose B has
more forward than that of the Yorcks, whose was exactly amidships)
For Mike: I can't parse your reply. You can streamline a bit what you
said in your reply, please ?
Andrew Robert Breen
mike <mara...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>William Black wrote:
>> "Andrew Robert Breen" <a...@aber.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> > You'd be very hard-pressed to describe Rodnol as "WW1 era" or
>> > "modernised".
>
>Well, I did have that qualifier of 'somewhat' in there. My mistake
>in posting early before the brain was fully online
>
>I'll just say that was close to those WWI era 'M2' plans chopped
>and squeezed to fit that new 35k limit[1] and Nelson was modified,
>later on... Just not Rodney, whoops.
None of the designs which led to Nelson and Rodney were WW1 either.
There were successive post-Jutland battleship and battlecruiser
designs, but the engines-aft design sequence which led to the G3s
and M3s (and thence, via Washington, to Nelson and Rodney) didn't
start until Stanley Goodall got back from liason with the USN
(telling the USN how to build aircraft carriers, 'tis said) in,
IIRC, early 1919.
Nelson got some slight tweaks to herself early-war, but neither ship
was ever modernised to any real extent. They /were/ intended to get
new engines and boilers once Hood and Repluse had been modernised,
but the war intervenced for all of them. There were thoughts of a
more extensive modernisation programme once the war was over, but by
then they were old, worn and done.
>Like Rodney and Nelson led trouble free careers at first.Think the RN
>would have learned from those two. IMO they'd been better off doing
Oh, they'd learned from them all right. Modern ships are a better thing
than rebuilds.
--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales....
Nieveler's law: "Any USENET thread, if sufficiently prolonged and not
Godwinated, will eventually turn into a discussion about
alcoholic drinks."
Andrew Robert Breen
Eugene Griessel <eugene@dynagen..co..za> wrote:
>
>I can feel for that sentiment - I often had occasion to mess about in
>a Norwegian 30 foot clinker-built runabout with a peculiarly small
>single rudder, well out of the way of the props, powered by two very
>weird single cylinder paraffin engines driving both props in the same
>direction. It looked a bit like a short longship that somebody had
>bent up forrad and aft. It rejoiced in the name of "Snecca" - a
>title I have never bothered to find out the meaning of.
Snecca = Snake.
It was, long ago, the generic name for small longship-type warships.
Sometimes written "Esnecca"
--