Channel 4: How the Bismark sunk HMS Hood
Discussion
dr_gn said:
Thanks for that - it is still a bit confusing though. For example Frigate vs Destroyer?
Simply put frigates are generally smaller (size or displacement wise) than destroyers. Their isnt much in it though.The lines are hazy but tradtionally frigates had a single fleet role and destroyers 2 roles. As technology advances on its more likely that ships will become multi-role.
IanMorewood said:
Whats a thousand tons when your talking about a battleship? Weight is ex fuel/ammo/water etc anyway as we had an empire to look after and negotiated to that point.
Actually my point was the gun size, 14" vs 16"; quite easy for any international inspector to check with a tape measure 
Simpo Two said:
You can't both be right http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Trea...
'Capital ships (battleships and battlecruisers) were limited to 35,000 tons standard displacement and guns of no larger than 16-inch calibre. (Articles V and VI)'
Nelson and Rodney, which were shortened specifically to meet the Washington Treaty, had 9x16" guns.
And what a beast they were (would have loved to see a non treaty one):http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Trea...'Capital ships (battleships and battlecruisers) were limited to 35,000 tons standard displacement and guns of no larger than 16-inch calibre. (Articles V and VI)'
Nelson and Rodney, which were shortened specifically to meet the Washington Treaty, had 9x16" guns.
Edited by Simpo Two on Thursday 27th December 21:54
In the UK we love to make a big fuss about the German battleships and the Iowa class but in reality ours were just as mean .
disco1 said:
In the UK we love to make a big fuss about the German battleships and the Iowa class but in reality ours were just as mean .
They weren't, they were hopelessly slow (23knts) and had major reliability issues with the guns. Outside from the obvious shortcomings of having the main guns arranged like that, they could only fire one round per minute compared to rivals two a minute. Then there was the blast damage from X turret when fired, A & B turret could fire as normal but X was limited (obviously) to 40-150 degrees with any angle beyond 90 prone to causing damage to the ship. So all any rival had to do was out-manoeuvre to a position behind using superior speed (Iowas could top 33knts, Bismark 30knts) and hit it from behind without any return of fire.But don't think the full size G3 Battlecruiser/N3 Battleship of which the Nelson class was a cut down version was any better.
This is a model of the G3, similar restricted WWI style turret layout. (N3 Battleship similar layout, slightly shorter and single funnel).
Rodney was in action against the Bismark but that was a very controlled action on a crippled ship. So it was able to fire on it's own terms. Full broadside, not having to counter the Bismark's manoeuvres. It was even able to hit the Bismark with a torpedo.
Simpo Two said:
Actually my point was the gun size, 14" vs 16"; quite easy for any international inspector to check with a tape measure
Italians and the Japs never signed the 1936 London Treaty that would have limited gun size to 14inches so those that had signed it had an exclusion clause that allowed guns of 16 inches, of course the Japanese went on to make the Yamato (build started in 1937) and Mushashi which would completely dwarf any treaty battleships being roughly twice the displacement and having 18inch main guns.Simpo Two said:
Battlecruisers were a 1910-1920 idea that didn't work out. There are three basic parameters: speed, firepower and armour - and like tanks you can't have all three. Battlecruisers had battleship armament but traded armour for speed, the idea being it could outrun anything it couldn't outfight, and outfight anything it couldn't outrun. Good on paper, but in practice, against a first class opponent such as Harry Hun, it didn't work.
If you look at things from a 1905 point of view though, you can see why Battlecruisers were thought to be part of the way forward. Gunnery actions were expected to take place at relatively short range, gunnery science was relatively primitive and speed would be a good defence. We also had an Empire to police, and most countries in the world had nothing to compare with the sheer firepower that the original Invincible Class battlecruisers, launched from 1908 on, could bring to bear. Roll on to the 1914-18 war though, and things had moved on quite a lot. Gun battles could take place at ranges undreamt of in the early 1900's, and mechanical gunnery computers had been invented, meaning that speed was less of a defence than it had been when the battlecruiser concept was thought up. Where the Battlecruisers were deployed to suit their strengths, like the battle of the Falklands, they were successful against the German navy. Where they weren't, they came off second best, like at Jutland. I suppose what I'm saying is that advances in technology made the Battlecruiser concept obsolete, but it would have been difficult to envisage those advances when Jacky Fisher originally pushed forward with the programme.
ClaphamGT3 said:
If you want to get a sense of the sheer scale of battleships, google the images of HMS Vanguard running aground in Portsmouth in the early 60s as she is being towed for scrap.
Doing that brings up pics from this thread on here http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
If you need big ships with big guns do a search on the British M2 battleship, it was a huge 18 inch gunned monster ! or the super battleship that was on paper for Germany at 150,000 tons with 20 inch guns 
WW2 stopped these behemoths from existing, but I bet they would have been awesome. The M2 was based on the Rodney/Nelson class of ship, 8x18 inchers the main armament. The German ships were without doubt, the most awesome ships that didn`t make it to the slipway.
WW2 stopped these behemoths from existing, but I bet they would have been awesome. The M2 was based on the Rodney/Nelson class of ship, 8x18 inchers the main armament. The German ships were without doubt, the most awesome ships that didn`t make it to the slipway. 
ClaphamGT3 said:
If you want to get a sense of the sheer scale of battleships, google the images of HMS Vanguard running aground in Portsmouth in the early 60s as she is being towed for scrap.
Or inded the Yamato-class which were monsters.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamato_class_battlesh...
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff