|
|
Post by archelaos on Aug 17, 2018 6:47:08 GMT -6
One thing that I noticed while reading ship histories is how repair time is incomparable during Ist and IInd World War.
In the first, damage seem to be repaired fast (for ex Seydlitz was back in service within 4 months, after she was almost sunk at Jutland, Lion needed 3 months after Dogger)
On the other hand, in WWII it all seemed much longer for ex HMS Manxman - 2 years of repairs after torpedo damage, Exter - more than a year after La Plata, Ajax 6 months after same battle etc.
What was the reason for this? Repairs having low priority compared to new builds? General lack of materials or personnel? Complication by use of much more electric/electronic equipment?
|
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Aug 17, 2018 7:43:20 GMT -6
Do remember that Yorktown was patched up to suitable condition for combat in 2 days in preparation for the battle of Midway. But yeah, overall ships seemed to get fixed quicker in WWI than in WW2.
|
|
|
|
Post by director on Aug 17, 2018 8:19:10 GMT -6
USS North Carolina took a submarine torpedo that opened a 36' hole forward of the armored belt and had to return to Pearl Harbor for repairs. These apparently took about a month - fast work since the damage left diagonal cracks in her armored belt. ibiblio.org/hyperwar/NHC/WarDamageReports/WarDamageReportBB55/WarDamageReportBB55.htmlThis damage study is recommended not only for its detail but for its comparisons to damage to other ships. The photos at the end are helpful. Since the torpedo explosion caused flame in Turret 1 handling room, there are extensive notes on what caused magazine explosions in other ships and why North Carolina was spared. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 17, 2018 9:40:34 GMT -6
When you examine the issue of repair times, you must examine the geographical location of the nation and its access to the sea. You must examine the number of shipyards and their capacity, closeness of raw materials and their availability, foundry’s and manpower. In peacetime, the priority is building new ships and upgrading. In war priorities change to repair of damaged ships and updating. Construction will take a backseat to those previous priorities, unless it is a type of ship like a corvette, DE or destroyer that is very necessary for trade protection if that is vital to your nations survival. Another very important factor in a comparison is the complexity of the ships. Ship built before and during WW1 were no where near as complex as the ships built during the interwar period and during WW2. This factor alone will change the repair times. In many cases, the number of shipyards will decrease after a war and not return to its pre-war levels.
The British Admiralty priorities for ships were repair of ships already in service along with destroyers. The latter were prioritized in building in place of capital ships. The British Admiralty correctly determined that the Kriegsmarine was no threat to the British and that their current warships and aircraft could handle the German Fleet. However, the problem arose in the Mediterranean where the British had counted on the French fleet to handle the Italian fleet. The Battle of France changed that geostrategic situation and now the British had to handle the trade protection with their own ships through the Med. This created more issues for the building and repair of destroyers, cruisers and carriers.
The Japanese problem was lack of natural resources like iron ore etc. and lack of available shipyards to perform either repairs or build new ships. Many damaged Japanese ships staying the harbor waiting for dry dock to open after the launch of a new ship.
You could go down the list, Italy, Germany and Russia along with France.
I believe that ship complexity, lack of available shipyards probably ranks the highest along with priorities.
Addendum: Another factor to consider is the increased effectiveness of ordnance such as torpedoes, mines and bombs. The aircraft had better bomb sights, the ordnance fuses were more effective and the explosives were much more powerful. This totality increased the damaging effects, and therefore increased the extensiveness of the repairs and times.
|
|
|
|
Post by netWilk on Aug 17, 2018 12:35:52 GMT -6
I wonder if RtW2 will simulate the effect of limited number of shipyards/slips, in addition to the tonnage limit.
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Aug 17, 2018 12:51:29 GMT -6
I wonder if RtW2 will simulate the effect of limited number of shipyards/slips, in addition to the tonnage limit. RTW simulates it during construction. It is limited however simplification is good and has effects both ways, longer and shorter time of construction. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 17, 2018 18:02:12 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Aug 18, 2018 17:32:00 GMT -6
If I had to guess in general, there was more of everything on a WW2 vintage ship compared to a WW1 vintage ship of the same class. Ships were larger, they had more complicated torpedo protection systems and armor belts, more subdivision, more electrical generators and wiring/cabling, more fragile communications and electronics. Just more of everything. Also, shipyards and repair facilities were more vulnerable to air attack which was probably most significant for Germany and to a lesser extent the Soviet Union and Great Britain. Japan's were safe until the end of the war but as oldpop2000 pointed out, difficult to get materials and supplies to. For the US, the problem was the distance from the op areas to Pearl Harbor and the US West Coast. The Fleet Train and being able to forward deploy a bunch of large floating dry docks was a game changer for the USN. Also, technological progress seemed to be faster in WW2, so many times they were upgrading ships at the same time they were repairing them. Installing new radars and anti-aircraft guns, sometimes the larger secondary guns and in the case of the Pearl Harbor survivors, sometimes effectively new superstructures. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 18, 2018 21:00:42 GMT -6
I’ve been doing some thinking about this idea of repair times and why they were longer in the WW2. Here is a factor or maybe we should call it concept of why they took more time. Let’s define repair time as the time from the beginning of temporary repairs done on the ship by the Engineering officer and his men. They will take immediate action on hull damage and engine repairs, but other damage, unless it reduces combat capability, will be assessed but cleaned up, and left alone. Now, once the Engineering officer has completed a detailed estimate of repairs and necessary action, this will be transmitted to the fleet headquarters and they will begin the process of preparing a shipyard or naval base to complete the necessary repairs to bring the ship to full combat capability. The fleet commander will make the decision to keep the ship in the force or based on the captain’s recommendations, release the ship to head back to the main base. At the main base, the ship maybe repaired, or stores removed, and the ship sent back to the country of origin where it will enter the shipyard detailed to complete the repairs. The time frame for repairs is dependent on the severity of the damage, materials needed and available, available shipyard personnel and the needs of the fleet for that specific ship. All these variables and more, will determine how long it will stay in the shipyard. It maybe, that the ship cannot be repair immediately because of lack of slips due to other repaired ships or new ships.
Now the core of the matter. If the above is true, then a factor that needs to be considered is where the battle took place or action that got the ship damaged. We need to compare WW1 ship repairs times to WW2 ship repair times for any country that fought in both wars at sea. Great Britain of course; Germany, in limited way in WW2; US, WW2 but not much in WW1, Japan, WW2 and she sent some destroyers to the Med. Austria-Hungary, well it disappeared after WW1; France was knocked out of the war early in WW2. Looks like our only real candidate is the British Royal Navy.
In WW1, the bulk of the naval engagements for the British Fleet were in the North Sea. All were near the main shipyards. We have main shipyards on the Clyde which is near Glasgow in Scotland. The River Tyne in North East England near Newcastle upon Tyne. There are many more, but all were either in the east coast of England, the Channel or Scotland. All were very close to the main battle areas like Jutland, Dogger Bank etc. Now, WW2 on the other hand, the main naval battle area was the Mediterranean. This is now a whole different story. Italy is not an ally and controls the straits of Messina. The only two major naval bases for the British are Gibraltar and Alexandria, and to get to either one, you have pass through Italian controlled seas. You might have to make emergency repairs and then sail home through the Straits of Gibraltar northward, by occupied France to England to be repaired. If you have hull damage and make temporary repairs, your speed will be reduced so this will contribute to the lengthen repair times. On the other hand, you could just sail to the US or Canada, and effect repair there. In the Far East, you would have Hong Kong, Singapore and Australia, before the Japanese took at least two of those.
It seems to me, in summary, that one of the key components of extended repair times, besides the increased complexity of the ships, is the principal location of naval operations for a country. For England, WW2 could be a night mare to get ships repaired. I don’t have detailed information on either Gibraltar or Alexandria although Gibraltar did come under air attacks and submarine attacks which would complicate repairs. Alexandria had the same issues besides having Rommel at their door step. I will try to find more information, if available about British ship repairs.
For the US, we had Pearl Harbor, Bremerton, Norfolk, Brooklyn Navy Yard, Mare Island, San Pedro and San Diego, just to name a few. We were able to develop temporary ship repair at New Caledonia and did have access to Sydney for other repair but generally our ships were returned to Pearl and then back to the West Coast.
Japan had some real problems. Truk was not a well develop naval base and Singapore was probably the only one that she could count on. In most cases, ships had to be sent back to Japan. Once there, they might have to wait for other ships or new ships being built.
Anyway, I will pursue this line and would appreciate any thoughts about this idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 18, 2018 22:45:08 GMT -6
As I've begun my search for more data, I ran across this document dating from 1949 entitled "Structural Repairs in Forward Areas during World War II. Here is the first paragraph which I feel is important.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 19, 2018 11:32:01 GMT -6
This link is to the After Action Report from the CO of the USS Yorktown. In this report, which was sent to Nimitz, he details the damage and what steps partially would be taken to get the ship to Pearl. I am still looking for the Engineering officers report on damage. www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ships/logs/CV/cv5-Coral.htmlMy point is to show the procedures for getting ships repaired. In WW2, even though ships were more complex and this increased the repair times, radio communications and teletypes could speed up the process by providing the main base with detailed information as to what the damage was, its effects and maybe what was needed to repair. Addendum: Here is a link to a series of pictures about large dry docks that the Navy used in World War 2 to repair battleships and carriers. I hope we can build these or at least field these in RTW2 www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/dry-docks.html |
|
|
|
Post by sittingduck on Aug 19, 2018 12:55:05 GMT -6
I have a question - my father-in-law was on the USS Mayo (DD-422) and she took severe damage off Salerno. Almost broke the keel. He said that the British wouldn't take her in their facilites and they had to do the cross Atlantic tow. Did the US use allied repair facilities? I've seen where the French and British used US yards.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 19, 2018 13:27:13 GMT -6
I have a question - my father-in-law was on the USS Mayo (DD-422) and she took severe damage off Salerno. Almost broke the keel. He said that the British wouldn't take her in their facilites and they had to do the cross Atlantic tow. Did the US use allied repair facilities? I've seen where the French and British used US yards. Interesting question and the answer is yes, the US Navy used RAN yards on Cockatoo Island and Williamstown. Over 500 US Navy ships were repaired in those yards. As to the question of the USS Mayo, a Benson class tin can, she was towed to Naples for a temporary patch, then was towed to the New York Navy Yard on 5 April. She required four months of repairs. Hope this is the answer you were seeking. Keep in mind that the US had many repair ships, floating drydocks to use anywhere in the world. Once a port was taken, we could send a repair ship and a drydock to that port with a supply ship, and repair almost anything including battleships and carriers. I believe one of my posts in this thread has a link to a large drydock for such large ships. We had the best logistics management of any naval power in the world, bar none.
Addendum: The Italians had shipyards for repairs at La Spezia and Trieste, Genoa, Leghorn, Spalato, Ancona, Taranto, just to name a few. Each one had its own capability and once captured, provided Allied bombers hadn't wrecked the docks, which they did, they might have been used. The Allies could have used repair ships and floating drydocks in these ports if they choosed. Malta had good docking and repair facilities but constant air attacks by the Italians and Germans took it out of the game, but not forever. Gibraltar had good repair facilities. Port Said which is at the northern entrance to the Suez Canal had repair capability. FYI - destroyerhistory.org/benson-gleavesclass/ussmayo/ |
|
|
|
Post by jeb94 on Aug 20, 2018 13:06:05 GMT -6
That also brings up the USS O'Brien DD-415. Yes she was sunk by the same torpedo spread that sank the USS Wasp but she didn't sink until over a month later. After a few port stops and temporary repairs from the seaplane tender USS Curtiss and the sub tender USS Argonne she left New Caledonia for San Francisco for permanent repairs. Unfortunately her over stressed hull structure split open along the way. It gives a bit of an idea of how the repair process worked for the USN during the Solomons campaign.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 20, 2018 13:45:32 GMT -6
That also brings up the USS O'Brien DD-415. Yes she was sunk by the same torpedo spread that sank the USS Wasp but she didn't sink until over a month later. After a few port stops and temporary repairs from the seaplane tender USS Curtiss and the sub tender USS Argonne she left New Caledonia for San Francisco for permanent repairs. Unfortunately her over stressed hull structure split open along the way. It gives a bit of an idea of how the repair process worked for the USN during the Solomons campaign. Here is a link to some interesting pictures of the O'Brien, here history and diagrams of the torpedo damage. ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/WarDamageReports/WarDamageReportDD415/WarDamageReportDD415.htmlAs this document states, the problem of adequate docking facilities was already being solved and was remedied after the loss of the O'Brien. |
|
