|
Post by rimbecano on Sept 22, 2020 22:56:06 GMT -6
Ha. absolutely. Its especially odd to me given how this is almost always done right when discussing the American Revolution and Napoleonic Wars - the enemy is, (almost always), correcty identified as the "British", but go on a century or two and we're all England again for some unfathomable reason, Well you have to bear in mind that in the Revolutionary War era, Americans had, until quite recently, been British subjects, and they had backgrounds from across Britain. As Britain got to be more and more alien to Americans, they forgot how angry a Scot will get if you call him an "Englishman". But that, of course, is *why* calling all citizens of the UK "English" makes people angry: it's seen as putting the English above the Scots and the Welsh and the (Northern) Irish, and whether or not the it is the case now (which, not being conversant with British politics, I am neither qualified to comment on nor inclined to touch with a ten foot pole), there were certainly times in the past when the English treated the other peoples of Britain more as underlings than as fellow citizens, and such things often leave sore spots for centuries.
|
|
spacenerd4
Full Member
Appreciating our feline friends
Posts: 164
|
Post by spacenerd4 on Sept 23, 2020 6:10:05 GMT -6
Well, the Kongos were reclassified as battleships, and they only had an armor thickness of 8 in on the belts.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 23, 2020 7:43:04 GMT -6
Well, the Kongos were reclassified as battleships, and they only had an armor thickness of 8 in on the belts. The Kongo's were rebuilt in around 1936-1937. They were lengthened to increase length to beam and new steam turbines were installed. They also upgraded the torpedo bulge and the middle deck armor. However, their 8 inch belt was not designed to protect her machinery but to provide buoyancy at the waterline. The belt is far too narrow to protect her machinery and is actually there to keep the middle deck dry. If they had increased the belt thickness and width, it would been counter to their desire to increase her speed. At Guadalcanal, her and her sisters were the only battleships that could steam at full speed into the Slot and bombard Guadalcanal, then steam back to Truk. No other battleships could do that including the Yamato's. The Kongo's were always the escorts for the Japanese carriers since they had the speed to stay with the carriers.
|
|
spacenerd4
Full Member
Appreciating our feline friends
Posts: 164
|
Post by spacenerd4 on Sept 23, 2020 7:47:44 GMT -6
But they're still BBs, though, so the Iowas are too, despite their belt armour
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 23, 2020 7:57:31 GMT -6
But they're still BBs, though, so the Iowas are too, despite their belt armour Well, that's a stretch. They were actually fast battleships. I don't know if there was any real dividing line between fast battleships, battle cruisers and battleships. The term battle cruisers was a misnomer because in fact, they were referred to as armored cruisers by the UK's Board of Admiralty. The Nevada's armor was 8- 13.5 inches and they were built about the same time as the Kongo was built in England.
|
|
spacenerd4
Full Member
Appreciating our feline friends
Posts: 164
|
Post by spacenerd4 on Sept 23, 2020 8:33:41 GMT -6
FBBs are still BBs, though.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 23, 2020 9:48:16 GMT -6
FBBs are still BBs, though. My answer is simple "What's in a name". FBB, BB, battle Cruiser, fast Armored Cruiser, who knows. It's the specifications that are critical, not the name.
|
|
|
Post by director on Sept 24, 2020 0:15:32 GMT -6
There are no battlecruisers post-1918. Everything is a capital ship or fast capital ship. If you try to fit post-WW1 ships like Hood, Scharnhorst, Alaska and Dunkerque into a battlecruiser definition you wind up with a meaningless definition.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 24, 2020 8:28:48 GMT -6
Here is a quote from one of my books: Thunder in its Course: Essays on the Battlecruiser
The quote above came from an article in "Transactions of the Institute of Naval Architects " by Samuel Long in 1893. A report in the US Congress surveyed foreign armored ships and several received a description as "Line-of-battle cruiser".
As you can see, the concept of the "battle-cruiser" came at least a decade before the actual attempt to design and build the type of warship. In the US William Hovgaard decided to find a term suitable for congress so that they would not realize that they were buying battleships of the Tennessee class so he named them cruisers. My point here is that the name was used to get funding and to deceive any possible opponent. They were basically armored cruisers with battleship guns, high speed and reduced armor as we all know. Eventually, the advancements in engineering allowed the new armor to be used and the ships then became fast battleships.
Worth, Richard. Thunder in Its Courses: Essays on the Battlecruiser . Nimble Books LLC. Kindle Edition.
|
|
|
Post by director on Sept 24, 2020 9:03:08 GMT -6
You can make a battlecruiser in three ways: reduce the number or caliber of the main battery, reduce the armor, or increase the displacement. If a battlecruiser type is a capital ship of superior speed with either a reduction in number or caliber of the main battery, reduced armor or increased displacement...
Then by the time of Hood's construction, all new capital ships are battlecruisers - including North Carolina, Missouri, King George V, rebuilt Renown, Hood, Yamato, Nagato, Littorio, rebuilt Giulio Cesare, Bismarck and Scharnhorst under the above definition - or none of them are. The sole exception to this rule would be the Nelson class, which remain classic battleships in a world of fast battleships.
The advantages of high formation speed and uniform formation speed simply intersected with the Naval Treaties to produce capital ships that were all fast.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 24, 2020 9:21:59 GMT -6
You can make a battlecruiser in three ways: reduce the number or caliber of the main battery, reduce the armor, or increase the displacement. If a battlecruiser type is a capital ship of superior speed with either a reduction in number or caliber of the main battery, reduced armor or increased displacement... Then by the time of Hood's construction, all new capital ships are battlecruisers - including North Carolina, Missouri, King George V, rebuilt Renown, Hood, Yamato, Nagato, Littorio, rebuilt Giulio Cesare, Bismarck and Scharnhorst under the above definition - or none of them are. The sole exception to this rule would be the Nelson class, which remain classic battleships in a world of fast battleships. The advantages of high formation speed and uniform formation speed simply intersected with the Naval Treaties to produce capital ships that were all fast. Depending on who's definition, a battle-cruiser was an armored cruiser, with a single caliber main gun of at least 12 inches(possibly less than a current battleship), steam turbines, geared (maybe) and reduced armor. Speed had to be at least 3-5 Knots faster. She was long to increase length to beam and gain the extra speed. With the improvements in the armor design and propulsion along with oil, the armor increased as did the gun caliber. This gave birth to the fast battleship concept. You could dispense with the term battle-cruiser by 1930.
|
|
f105d
Junior Member
Posts: 62
|
Post by f105d on Sept 24, 2020 10:36:59 GMT -6
Well I would wager more onto a number of different ships for greatest Battleships as everyone has different measures of such.
As for Surviving the most damage its probably a race between Nevada and Warspite.
For most heavily armed actually built: Yamato : but if including the ones not constructed well: Tillman, Yamato, H-Class, British Projects.
For longest service life probably the Iowa's.
Most successful line of development is likely a race between Dreadnaught and South Carolina.
And the list goes on. But since there seems to be a discussion within this thread about Battlecruisers and Battleships. I would say a Battlecruiser is defined by the Battleship as a ship that has has less Firepower or Armor in exchange for being a bit more speed orientated and more centered around cruiser operations. Now that doesn't mean smaller guns but rather just less battleship grade weapons comparatively like say from Lion (WW1) to King george V(WW1) or any other comparison of that era. But there are some ships that are Large cruisers like Alaska where they don't have battleship grade armament in their era but are still substantially larger than a normal cruiser. Now of course a Battleship can be as fast as a Battlecruiser like a Fast Battleship however that still has the most armor and firepower in its era of design just in general so North Carolina is a battleship while Dunkerque is a Battlecruiser the former has some of the heaviest guns of its era (like interwar, WWII, post war, etc) on board with battleship grade armor while the latter is equipped with 13 inch weapons which are still relevant due things like the Scharnhorst's and some of the earlier French dreadnaughts still lingering around and it has slightly more armor than a Kongo from what 1913. Of course there are weird ships that sort of blur the line like Hood and the Scharnhorst's since the Kongos are just Battlecruisers that wanted to feel better about themselves. Hood is still a Battlecruiser because it places a great emphasis at least in its era comparatively on speed while the Scharnhorst's despite havening well 11 inch guns are still battleships due to their absurd armor protection and the idea you could switch out the 11 inch guns for 15 inch guns off of Bismarck if you felt like it. Let's be honest here naval definitions are more of a relative thing when classifying ships since technology can advance in any field and well then have all sorts of fun discussions.
Also what is a "Classic Battleship" its like saying a "Classic Fighter" or "Classic Bomber"?
|
|
Warspite
Full Member
Sky of blue/And sea of green
Posts: 230
|
Post by Warspite on Sept 24, 2020 18:43:22 GMT -6
Ha. absolutely. Its especially odd to me given how this is almost always done right when discussing the American Revolution and Napoleonic Wars - the enemy is, (almost always), correcty identified as the "British", but go on a century or two and we're all England again for some unfathomable reason, its roughly equivalent to always referring to the US as "California" after its most Populous part, but I don't believe any offence is meant. EDIT - actually I believe this was also frequently done by the English themselves, especially during the period covered by this game, which doesn't help.
Cofiwch Dryweryn!
I have been studying ancient, medieval and renaissance history extensively. In those time periods, they don't refer to the British Isles as UK, it is England, Scotland and Wales. It wasn't until 1706 that the political union of England and Scotland became Great Britain. You sort of get into habits. Actually, in 1927 the UK changed its formal title to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island which was eventually shortened to Britain and after 1945 it did become the UK. Sort of interesting. It's the UK: Currently and has been for several generations. Let's maintain that. Should we refer to the US as the New World? I feel we are getting off topic. Let's keep this thread to The Greatest Historical Battleships please. www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=pedantry&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 24, 2020 19:23:17 GMT -6
As I've been reading my book with essays on Battle-cruisers. The author, Richard Worth, does explain many of the names that were applied to such ships. The US Navy gave the Scharnhorst a designation as a cruiser which is kind of amazing but they justified it by noting the gun caliber. He supports our view about what is in a name because all the countries had different nomenclatures for ships what were configured just a little different from the standard battle-cruiser. Fascinating.
|
|
Warspite
Full Member
Sky of blue/And sea of green
Posts: 230
|
Post by Warspite on Sept 24, 2020 21:40:12 GMT -6
As I've been reading my book with essays on Battle-cruisers. The author, Richard Worth, does explain many of the names that were applied to such ships. The US Navy gave the Scharnhorst a designation as a cruiser which is kind of amazing but they justified it by noting the gun caliber. He supports our view about what is in a name because all the countries had different nomenclatures for ships what were configured just a little different from the standard battle-cruiser. Fascinating. stay on topic.
|
|