|
|
Post by dorn on Jan 18, 2018 1:29:54 GMT -6
I think reduction of capital ships construction program during Great War was not only economic point of view but that Admiralty did not thing battleship would be constructed in time during war. For that reason Fisher came with his white elephants their possibility usage in Baltic. There was always somebody who want RN in Baltic. And it was not only in Great War, the same thinking which was quite a ridiculous was before WW2.
Just note for R class. Their armor scheme was simpler not using so much tapered armor which was quite costly, but overall armor scheme of R class was superior of QE class. This overall strategy of building different type of ships, some of them with enough displacement for further refit, some of them just cramped was quite efficient way. You do not need all ships be top class.
For example I have read a lot "bad" evaluation of Illustrious class as bad design as it was difficult to rebuilt them after war however I try to look at it different view. They do the job well in the war and was cost effective. And after 4-5 years of war constantly under fire from superior force and hits by heavy bombs it is quite normal that they will be in bad shape compare to US carriers after 1-2 years of fight with half of it with superior force advantage. I think we should not compare US design which can with their economic might can build that no one can (and US Navy constructed them between wars). Germany try to do similar with their raiders (Bismarck class, Deutschland class, Hipper class), but if I compare Bismarck with British ships (even the problematic KGV with her 4 guns turret problems), Bismarck was quite ineffective design as battleship related to tonnage spent.
At it was very similar of some cruisers and destroyers designs.
Quite interesting note is even for recognizing air power by RN. On one hand its prove the fact - Baltic mission consideration, Churchill preferring KGV in advance to carriers. But on other hand even before Italy joining the Axis, Taranto raid was prepared so RN know quite well potential of aircraft.
But there is one thing I have never read (it could be because I have not read enough :-)) but my opinion is that US and Japan did not need battleships however it was not case for UK. The Arctic convoys need battleship cover as the weather could not allow total replacement by aircraft carriers. Even in Mediterranean it has some sense as the only battleship sunk outside the port was Barham sunk by submarine. Even Fliegerkorps X. and Regia Aeronautica were unable to sink any battleship and any armored carrier against usually dozen of fighters.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 18, 2018 18:17:02 GMT -6
The answer to many questions about why lies in the fact that the North Sea, was essentially a stalemate between two fleets. The British could not risk their battle fleet near the German border due to mines and submarines. The loss of Audacious, and Aboukir,Cressy and Hogue along with a few others seems to have illustrated that point. For the Germans, they could not really challenge the British fleet, they tried and it was a failure. They could not reduce the superiority of the Grand Fleet, at least not with their battle fleet.
This fact about the stalemate means that the British capital ships already built and new ones under construction were useless and finally after Jutland, it dawned on them. So, they focused their budgets on destroyers and light cruisers which were more useful in protecting their convoying of badly needed supplies. A German Vice Admiral seems to have understood that after Jutland. He stated ".... the days of the super-dreadnoughts are numbered. It is senseless to build 30,000-ton ships which cannot defend themselves against a torpedo shot". Apparently, some in the British Naval Ministry thought the same.
Economically, the Liberals had taken power early the Twentieth Century and immediately wanted to change the budget priorities to include more social welfare programs. We have also understand that during the war, with the carnage in the trenches and the real possibility of losing control of Northwestern Europe, the British Army got a greater share of the defense budget, since the Navy could not win or lose Northwest Europe.
When your requirements for ships change due to changing military conditions and budgets are decreasing, then you start by cancelling projects then retiring the older less effective ships. This is normal in Navies.
In 1917 one British Pound Sterling was equivalent to 2664 US dollars.
HMS Dreadnought cost 1,730,000 pounds or 87 pounds per ton
Queen Elisabeth Cost about 2.5 million pounds
Lion cost about 73.5 pounds per ton or about 2.087 million pounds
Renown and Repulse cost about 3-4 million pounds each.
Light Cruiser Boadicea cost about 330,000 pounds
Acheron class destroyer cost about 88,000 pounds
D Class sub cost about 89,000 pounds
Flower class minesweeper cost 60,000 pounds.
So, with this data and the fact that you have lost well over six armored cruisers by 1916, and a host of other ships to mines and submarines, which do you build: Destroyers, minesweepers and light cruisers or battleships.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 10, 2018 11:30:50 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Aug 10, 2018 12:50:46 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 10, 2018 13:33:53 GMT -6
Excellent and thanks for the links to these documents. I have downloaded them into my reading folder for later. I enjoy this subject, immensely. |
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Aug 10, 2018 13:55:36 GMT -6
Excellent and thanks for the links to these documents. I have downloaded them into my reading folder for later. I enjoy this subject, immensely. However I think we will never known why HMS Hood sunk. There are theories however there are based on unlikely events. So one of them is probably true but which one. Previous weeks I read about battleships built from 30s. Quite interesting as you find out completely different evaluation on some topics. If I have time I will try to summarize them. I will post them as difference ideas as I have no access to materials or knowledge to find which ones are correct and which ones are not. The questions which I gave myself are: 1. Bismarck class - he has fame however there are analysis pointing out that her armor scheme was not efficient and absolute. Is it this so simple? 2. KGV class - The ships are considered as one of weakest from battleships constructed from 30s. Is it really true? 3. US class battleships - there are usually considered as best. Is it really true? There is most know article on battleships comparison.Is this article really basis and good for battleship comparison. At least on KGV I know that they deck armor mentioned here does not included her weather deck which increase her protection quite a lot as even small increase of armor on limit penetration value could have major effect on immunity zone. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 10, 2018 14:13:12 GMT -6
Excellent and thanks for the links to these documents. I have downloaded them into my reading folder for later. I enjoy this subject, immensely. However I think we will never known why HMS Hood sunk. There are theories however there are based on unlikely events. So one of them is probably true but which one. Previous weeks I read about battleships built from 30s. Quite interesting as you find out completely different evaluation on some topics. If I have time I will try to summarize them. I will post them as difference ideas as I have no access to materials or knowledge to find which ones are correct and which ones are not. The questions which I gave myself are: 1. Bismarck class - he has fame however there are analysis pointing out that her armor scheme was not efficient and absolute. Is it this so simple? 2. KGV class - The ships are considered as one of weakest from battleships constructed from 30s. Is it really true? 3. US class battleships - there are usually considered as best. Is it really true? There is most know article on battleships comparison.Is this article really basis and good for battleship comparison. At least on KGV I know that they deck armor mentioned here does not included her weather deck which increase her protection quite a lot as even small increase of armor on limit penetration value could have major effect on immunity zone. Have you seen this aricle? www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_Hood.php - The author of this analysis is William Jurens and acknowledged expert in the field of Marine history and Archeology. He has been on many expeditions and in TV documentaries as the associated expert. As to your question, the historians who prepared this article have good knowledge and experience so tend to trust their judgment. Nathan Okun has a great reputation and they all used good sources. Sources are the most important item in this and many times the best documents are no long available which impedes the accuracy. I would trust it as far as it goes. |
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Aug 13, 2018 1:35:46 GMT -6
Have you seen this aricle? www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_Hood.php - The author of this analysis is William Jurens and acknowledged expert in the field of Marine history and Archeology. He has been on many expeditions and in TV documentaries as the associated expert. As to your question, the historians who prepared this article have good knowledge and experience so tend to trust their judgment. Nathan Okun has a great reputation and they all used good sources. Sources are the most important item in this and many times the best documents are no long available which impedes the accuracy. I would trust it as far as it goes. Yes, I know the article. However even author writes that it is not certain. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 13, 2018 8:24:08 GMT -6
Have you seen this aricle? www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_Hood.php - The author of this analysis is William Jurens and acknowledged expert in the field of Marine history and Archeology. He has been on many expeditions and in TV documentaries as the associated expert. As to your question, the historians who prepared this article have good knowledge and experience so tend to trust their judgment. Nathan Okun has a great reputation and they all used good sources. Sources are the most important item in this and many times the best documents are no long available which impedes the accuracy. I would trust it as far as it goes. Yes, I know the article. However even author writes that it is not certain. I think Jurens article is about the best we are ever going to do, with the available information. We know that Hood should have been updated when she was scheduled, she should not have been leading the two ships with her thinner deck armor, and Holland should not have closed the range, which was in accord with British naval doctrine. We can see a series of connected dots which led to the golden BB which destroyed the ship. It's really that simple. |
|
