Zarro
Member
Very interesting, all about the Dreadnaughts in the First World War but rather surprising to hear an historian saying that Hitler's ships were better at gunnery! I had never realised he was in charge during that war!!
The War at Sea tonight
- Thread starter Zarro
- Start date
sarabande
Well-known member
Admiral Hipper 
Zarro
Member
I think that is what he should have said but it sounded like Hitler. A Freudian slip?
Seajet
...
If one reads about the battle of Jutland neither side comes out too well but on balance it might just have been a win for the Germans.
In WWII Hitler's cruisers and the 2 battleships were said to have more accurate radar guided gunnery, - see HMS Hood - but it didn't help Bismark much against the RN's response of plastering with 15" shells from battleships and 6" from cruisers all around, with air dominance and torpedos.
Air power sorted out the Tirpitz and many other things in other theatres but we still have berks on here saying we don't need aircraft carriers...
In WWII Hitler's cruisers and the 2 battleships were said to have more accurate radar guided gunnery, - see HMS Hood - but it didn't help Bismark much against the RN's response of plastering with 15" shells from battleships and 6" from cruisers all around, with air dominance and torpedos.
Air power sorted out the Tirpitz and many other things in other theatres but we still have berks on here saying we don't need aircraft carriers...
alant
Active member
Scottish accent?
alant
Active member
If one reads about the battle of Jutland neither side comes out too well but on balance it might just have been a win for the Germans.
In WWII Hitler's cruisers and the 2 battleships were said to have more accurate radar guided gunnery, - see HMS Hood - but it didn't help Bismark much against the RN's response of plastering with 15" shells from battleships and 6" from cruisers all around, with air dominance and torpedos.
Air power sorted out the Tirpitz and many other things in other theatres but we still have berks on here saying we don't need aircraft carriers...
Think Hood's demise, was due to 'ready' ammunition aft exploding, as well as design deficiencies particularly armour.
PS, what Battleships, are we going to fight with our new carriers?
Last edited:
tat27
Member
hi all, when was this broadcast and on what channel ?
TiggerToo
Well-known member
last night (Monday) on BBC4
Seajet
...
The Hood's demise is thought to have been via ' plunging shot ' dropping vertically through the thinly armoured deck straight onto a magazine, a known problem even in Nelson's day.
Seeing as a battleship's guns have a range of around 15 miles, and a carrier's aircraft with bombs and anti-ship missiles have a range of aound 400 miles +, my money would be on the carrier which anyway has escorts with missiles good for 40 miles +.
Nobody anywhere operates battleships any more, but carriers are increasingly popular, for example Russia, China and India are building big ones as fast as they can...
jac
Well-known member
And realistically a fleet on fleet action involving us is very unlikely. Russia and China would be the most likely candidates and I can't see them ( or us) wanting to risk that. Most likely it will be a case of using the aircraft to strike land based targets or to enforce no fly zones or embargoes. Far safer than having a permanent air base in a neighbouring country where there is every chance of sympathisers being around who could take action either against the airbase of against the personnel when they were vulnerable. Harder for sympathisers to strike a ship 100 miles out to sea.
Seajet
...
Agreed 100%.
But we can't rule out some nut-job like Putin or whoever is top bod in China for the moment thinking a fleet on fleet action would be a good idea, which is when our Astute class subs would be an important factor, as long as somebody like the skipper has personally funded a good toolkit !
China is already being very aggressive over the Spratly islands establishing airstrips, has one big carrier and is now building a second...
Last edited:
jac
Well-known member
Not only gunnery but they learnt the lessons better than we did. IIRC it was the Seydlitz that was hit by a shell at Dogger Bank that didn't explode but it led the Germans to tighten up the processes re ready use ammo and blast prevention. We had the same opportunity but didn't and lost many ships at Jutland because of it. We didn't even learn then - witness the Hood.
Also have to say huge admiration to the German builders and crews of the Battlecruisers, especially the Derfflinger that led the charge against the British line as the Germans escaped. It was always described as a suicidal attack to cover the withdrawal and to commit Battlecruisers as well as the torpedo boats certainly protected the torpedo boats but every single British ship must have been firing at the battle cruisers.
Seajet
...
Jac,
I presume you have read ' The fleet that had to die ' about the pre- WW1 Russians trundling halfway around the world, shooting up the British fishing fleet at Dogger Bank, then being virtually instantly anhialated for their troubles by the Japanese ?...
I presume you have read ' The fleet that had to die ' about the pre- WW1 Russians trundling halfway around the world, shooting up the British fishing fleet at Dogger Bank, then being virtually instantly anhialated for their troubles by the Japanese ?...
jac
Well-known member
Not that book but have read other accounts of the debacle. Shows the step change that Dreadnoughts brought to naval power.
Seajet
...
jac,
it's a long time since I read that book, but I have the impression the Russians had Dreadnought class ships, they simply cocked up support - ie coal - and every level of command !
it's a long time since I read that book, but I have the impression the Russians had Dreadnought class ships, they simply cocked up support - ie coal - and every level of command !
Woodlouse
New member
The only way Jutland can be seen as a win for the Germans is they sank more ships than we did. However, the German fleet ran away from the action as soon as they realised they were up against the whole Grand Fleet and not just the battlecruiser squadron.
After both fleets arrived back in their respective ports the Germans required several months before enough of their ships were fit enough for the fleet to put to sea again. The British Grand Fleet got back to port and told the admiralty that after coaling they'd be ready to sail again at four hours notice.
Much of the idea that the Germans won at Jutland comes from the fact that news of the battle actually reached the British public from German reports before the admiralty had released any statement on it and you can guess what the German press was saying I'm sure.
jac
Well-known member
No - they had one of the most impressive logistic efforts ever. They were unable to refuel on the whole journey so BOUGHT a fleet of colliers to keep the ships going. When they got to the Region, Port Arthur had fallen anyway and they had to go to Vladivostok. They had the fuel to do it but took the short route through the straights of Tsushima where the Japanese found them. Russian ships were slower after months at sea and had some equipment failures but shouldn't have been enough.
The difference really was that the Japs had more modern Battleships ( although technically pre Dreadnought) there longer range and heavier guns could destroy the Russians before they even got in range. IIRC the Japs lost a couple of torpedo boats compared to the Russians loosing the entire fleet. The impact of Tsushima led to HMS Dreadnought - the lesson being that a small number of Big guns is better than a large number of small guns
Twister_Ken
Well-known member
...they're very popular with submariners too. They like high value targets.
Woodlouse
New member
As already mentioned above both the Japanese and Russian fleets consisted of pre-dreadnoughts at the battle of Tsushima. It was because of this battle that the Royal Navy became convinced that all big guns was the way to go and so lead to HMS Dreadnought being launched as such the following year.
Russia's main problem during that war was very poor training at all levels and almost zero experience to back it up. The Japanese on the other hand had a Navy that had been built and trained by the British. A good account of that particular naval catastrophe can be found here:
http://www.hullwebs.co.uk/content/l-20c/disaster/dogger-bank/voyage-of-dammed.htm
Seajet
...
I bow to the collective knowledge here, will have to find ' The Fleet That Had To Die ' again.
As for carriers being targets for submarines, the rest of the world seems to realise this and have decemt attack subs of their own, while there are big question marks over the UK sub fleet.
It's not just media hype, I know someone involved who mentions dramatic drops in manpower, ever lengthier patrols to make up for this, leading to more people leaving....
Until the RN starts treating people reasonably for the 21st Century, and recruiting a better calibre of rating, this will continue.
As for carriers being targets for submarines, the rest of the world seems to realise this and have decemt attack subs of their own, while there are big question marks over the UK sub fleet.
It's not just media hype, I know someone involved who mentions dramatic drops in manpower, ever lengthier patrols to make up for this, leading to more people leaving....
Until the RN starts treating people reasonably for the 21st Century, and recruiting a better calibre of rating, this will continue.