Post by zederfflinger on Jun 1, 2022 22:53:17 GMT -6
I know that this is an old thread, but I found it to be an interesting one, and I thought that I might as well throw my two cents in on some of the topics discussed here.
I'm not really a huge fan of the Lexington's as battlecruisers. It may be one of the very rare instances where the conversion is better than the original design.
Against any likely opponents, that armor likely wouldn't hold up in any meaningful way. They could probably beat unmodernized Renown's fairly easily, barring any lucky hits by the British ship.
I think that Hood has the upper hand in any potential fight, and the G3's should roll over a Lexington unless it runs away in time.
The Kongo's shouldn't be much of a concern, but again, with 7in of belt and paper deck armor at long ranges, even a 14in shell could cause major damage. Nonetheless, Lexington should win that fight fairly easily.
Amagi doesn't have much more in the way of horizontal protection, but does have 3.7in deck, which is respectable.
Amagi's slight edge in firepower could be decisive, but I think a fight between the two could go either way, with maybe a 60/40 edge to the Japanese ship
Since Kii is mostly just a better Amagi, Lexington would be unlikely to win that fight.
Most of these matchups end up with Lexington losing, which just makes me wonder what the point of the ship is? At 44,000 tons, it's a bit overkill for scouting or if you just want to kill cruisers.
It doesn't have the armor to fight battleships or other battlecruisers, just leaving it as a fast wing for the battlefleet, which, to be fair, it would likely excel at as long as you're not getting shot at.
As to the discussions on page four about a British-US war, I agree that I don't see a war ever happening in the 20's or 30's unless something goes terribly wrong.
The interest for me in comparing them is that many of their capital ships are of similar vintage and size, and thus, worthy competitors.
This really caught my eye on page five from oldpop2000.
On the first paragraph.
I do agree that the failures at Jutland can likely be laid at the feet of officers(mostly Beatty) that were too eager to score another great victory. I don't view Jutland as a defeat for the Royal Navy, mostly just a costly skirmish that banished the High Seas Fleet from the North Sea for the rest of the war.
On the second paragraph.
I find this to be a, shall we say, interesting statement? It is stated that the USN was not as bound by tradition and that they plan and act differently from the British. Fair enough. However, I don't understand why the USN was more adaptable to new tactics and technologies. Is this referring to the later stages of WW2? Because I would argue that the RN was far more innovative and adaptable from 1900 to 1942ish. To my understanding it seems that technologically, the USN was mostly just playing catchup for the majority of that period, with some notable exceptions. If you believe that the RN was stuck in their ways, how so?
Anyways, if anyone cares reopen this thread to speak to my somewhat combative questions, I would great appreciate a deeper explanation on some of the things talked about above.
I'm not really a huge fan of the Lexington's as battlecruisers. It may be one of the very rare instances where the conversion is better than the original design.
Against any likely opponents, that armor likely wouldn't hold up in any meaningful way. They could probably beat unmodernized Renown's fairly easily, barring any lucky hits by the British ship.
I think that Hood has the upper hand in any potential fight, and the G3's should roll over a Lexington unless it runs away in time.
The Kongo's shouldn't be much of a concern, but again, with 7in of belt and paper deck armor at long ranges, even a 14in shell could cause major damage. Nonetheless, Lexington should win that fight fairly easily.
Amagi doesn't have much more in the way of horizontal protection, but does have 3.7in deck, which is respectable.
Amagi's slight edge in firepower could be decisive, but I think a fight between the two could go either way, with maybe a 60/40 edge to the Japanese ship
Since Kii is mostly just a better Amagi, Lexington would be unlikely to win that fight.
Most of these matchups end up with Lexington losing, which just makes me wonder what the point of the ship is? At 44,000 tons, it's a bit overkill for scouting or if you just want to kill cruisers.
It doesn't have the armor to fight battleships or other battlecruisers, just leaving it as a fast wing for the battlefleet, which, to be fair, it would likely excel at as long as you're not getting shot at.
As to the discussions on page four about a British-US war, I agree that I don't see a war ever happening in the 20's or 30's unless something goes terribly wrong.
The interest for me in comparing them is that many of their capital ships are of similar vintage and size, and thus, worthy competitors.
This really caught my eye on page five from oldpop2000.
Here's another issue that I want to bring up. All nations have histories and in the case of the British, a long and distinguished military history. The Royal Navy had had a tremendous victory, one hundred years earlier at Trafalgar, but since that time, in fact, the rest of the world was catching up. The actions or failures at Jutland were more a reflection of the English desire for another great victory, than good sense. This is another human factor that has to be accounted for. The same factor is prevalent in the Hood disaster.
For the US, our last victory was at Santiago Bay against the Spanish and Manila Bay. Both occurred in 1898. We didn't have that long naval history acting like a harness around our neck. Also, our field of battle was not the enclosed North Sea, but the largest ocean in the world, the Pacific. One difference between the US Navy and British Navy is that we are not bound by traditions as much, we tend to plan and act in a different way than the British. We made some mistakes at the beginning of the war, but considering what happened at Pearl Harbor, we did very well. We essentially defeated the IJN with our pre-war fleet in four carrier battles, then build another fleet and destroyed theirs. Our Navy was and is more adaptable to new tactics, and technologies. We tend to think outside the box. I don't believe that we would have made the mistakes at Jutland and with Hood that the British made, we would have attacked the problems with a different view.
For the US, our last victory was at Santiago Bay against the Spanish and Manila Bay. Both occurred in 1898. We didn't have that long naval history acting like a harness around our neck. Also, our field of battle was not the enclosed North Sea, but the largest ocean in the world, the Pacific. One difference between the US Navy and British Navy is that we are not bound by traditions as much, we tend to plan and act in a different way than the British. We made some mistakes at the beginning of the war, but considering what happened at Pearl Harbor, we did very well. We essentially defeated the IJN with our pre-war fleet in four carrier battles, then build another fleet and destroyed theirs. Our Navy was and is more adaptable to new tactics, and technologies. We tend to think outside the box. I don't believe that we would have made the mistakes at Jutland and with Hood that the British made, we would have attacked the problems with a different view.
On the first paragraph.
I do agree that the failures at Jutland can likely be laid at the feet of officers(mostly Beatty) that were too eager to score another great victory. I don't view Jutland as a defeat for the Royal Navy, mostly just a costly skirmish that banished the High Seas Fleet from the North Sea for the rest of the war.
On the second paragraph.
I find this to be a, shall we say, interesting statement? It is stated that the USN was not as bound by tradition and that they plan and act differently from the British. Fair enough. However, I don't understand why the USN was more adaptable to new tactics and technologies. Is this referring to the later stages of WW2? Because I would argue that the RN was far more innovative and adaptable from 1900 to 1942ish. To my understanding it seems that technologically, the USN was mostly just playing catchup for the majority of that period, with some notable exceptions. If you believe that the RN was stuck in their ways, how so?
Anyways, if anyone cares reopen this thread to speak to my somewhat combative questions, I would great appreciate a deeper explanation on some of the things talked about above.