Re: Last survivor of Jutland set for scrap
Posted: 2011-08-08 11:05am
I didn't realize most museum ships were privately owned or part of the Park Service. Thanks for explaining that to me.Sea Skimmer wrote:<snip explanation>
Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/
I didn't realize most museum ships were privately owned or part of the Park Service. Thanks for explaining that to me.Sea Skimmer wrote:<snip explanation>
Actually the Bayern class was an effort to do just that, unfortunately for the HSF it was one generation to late as the British had gone with 15" guns for the QE & R classes.ComradeClaus wrote:[(Sadly the German Navy was so goddamned stupid, they never onceed tried to 'leapfrog' the British in ship performance. & actually understate their ships abilities.
Nobody used triple turrets when the Nassau & Helgoland classes were designed. Some good reasons also existed not to use the earlier designs ones too; but I’m sure you have no idea what those are.ComradeClaus wrote:A shame the triple turrets weren't selected in lieu of the twin turrets used on the earlier ships, so classes like the Nassau & Helgoland wouln't exist, the officers responsible, [which I referred to as stupid (which I apologize for), were Tirpitz & Ingenohl] According to the capital ships articles (of the Kaiser's navy) on wikipedia, those 2 constantly argued against increasing caliber for ships main guns, even as the Royal Navy became stronger.
It’s certainly evidence that you are bullshitting us about writing history books. You know, reasons existed behind decisions like this. You ever compare the armor on British and German ships?The wiki article for the Mackensen class states that Kaiser Bill wanted the class to have 38cm guns, Ingenohl argued for 30.5cm, finally compromising on 35cm. & in the Moltke Class article, it's stated that 12" guns were planned, but Tirpitz overruled & decided that they'd get 11.1" guns.
Isn't that evidence of bad decision making?
No actually that doesn’t support your nonsense about the Germans ‘missing’ an opportunity it all, it points precisely to the problem of how fucking expensive it would have been to go and build a ship superior to those of an enemy who already choose a larger and much more expensive main gun caliber. Of course the British wanted heavier guns to fire larger explosive charges with HE and CPC shells, a dubious means of attacking armored ships, while the Germans concentrated on developing proper APC ammunition which was in fact totally adequate at projected prewar battle ranges, and had far superior ammunition until 1917 when the RN introduced a new pattern of ammunition in reaction to Jutland, but none of that ever entered your thinking did it? Amazing that something other then counting inches of gun might be a factor right? Bayern
An example of the leapfroing issue is thus: In 1905, the HMS dreadnought was armed w/ 12" guns, followed a year later by the Battlecruiser HMS Invincible w/ 12" guns.
In 1907 the SMS Nassau Dreadnought carrying 11.1" guns was laid down, followed in 1908 by battlecruiser SMS Von der Tann. That's the 1st generation for each side; here's generation 2.
1909 saw the HMS Orion class superdreadnought & HMS Lion battlecruiser w/ 13.5" guns being Laid Down
Yes Furious, a completely worthless joke of a ship, clearly an example Germany should have emulated. In fact the Germans kept down gun caliber because they figured an 11-12in gun was just fine at 8000 yards and that firing at much long ranges was impossible without director control, which did not become common until right around the start of the war.. funny enough the exact same time German gun calibers made major steps upward. The British meanwhile were happy to oblige with incredibly dumb armoring practices all the way until HMS Hood, which despite her poor WW2 reputation was in fact very well protected for WW1 once redesigned after Jutland. She had the main belt actually cover her magazines... not true of any other dreadnought designed for the RN from Orion through the R class.While it took until 1912 for Derflinger to be laid down, carrying 12" guns. And until 1913, a full year after the HMS Queen Elizabeth was laid down, for SMS Baden to be laid down. While in 1915, the Royal Navy introduced the HMS Furious w/ 18" guns!
Yeah sure, clearly the top designers of the German fleet were much stupider then the top folks of a navy that thought a ship with two 18in guns and three inch thick armor made sense. Or could it be that Tripitz was as much a politician as a naval officer, as any chief of a military service branch must be when dealing with a legislature? He knew he could only get so much money a year for warships and fought hard for what he did get, he knew the RN had started larger and was building faster. He wanted numbers, not a very expensive superships that would be completely overwhelmed. I nfact the history before 1912 is one of Tirpitz picking away at the Naval Law to get it progressive amended until he could get his desired goal of three ships per year laid down. Any major increase in cost would have made this impossible and led to a large deficit in the size of the planned fleet.
Basically, every time the Navy Design Office tried to provide the Kaiser w/ ships that could equal the Royal Navy's, Tirpitz & Ingenohl got in the way.
It is far too simplistic to be meaningful. I might edit wikipedia if it wasn’t controlled by complete idiots who will endlessly sabotage efforts. But it is, so I sure wont waste time on this. At least when I make a decent post on SDN nobody can fuck with it.
Is this wrong? If the articles are wrong, they should be corrected so others aren't mislead. Wikipedia is full of contradicting information after all, but then so are many books.
Sure about that? I have never heard of a 4x3 30,5 arrangement being considered for the Bayern (6x2 30,5 was rejected). There were plans for 5x2 35 and 4x2 40 but that was cut down to 4x2 38 for marginal budgetary savings.Sea Skimmer wrote:The ships design started out as one with four triple 12in turrets as a way of gaining weight economy and firepower while reducing barbette count. The German fleet rejected the designer’s proposals for triples, and so adapting a heavier caliber main battery was the only way to make four barbettes effective. News of heavier British guns only helped the argument. It did lead to a major increase in weight of broadside; but the Bayern was herself only about two thousand tons heavier then Konig. Just another incremental increase in size and cost.
Pretty sure I have a line drawing of it stashed away somewhere actually, but I also have like 200 others so maybe I am imagining it; the Germans tended to study a very wide range of options for each new class of dreadnought. The Imperial Fleet was pretty idiotically run in any case so god only knows what they really forced the designers to do. Engineering officers on shore and land duty were very formally treated as inferiors. The wife of an engineering officer wasn’t even called a lady, she was addressed as women. This is of course a big snub for the prewar period.CJvR wrote:Sure about that? I have never heard of a 4x3 30,5 arrangement being considered for the Bayern (6x2 30,5 was rejected). There were plans for 5x2 35 and 4x2 40 but that was cut down to 4x2 38 for marginal budgetary savings.
Sorry, but this does not make sense. "Frau" (Woman) is the usual address in German for any female person, especially married ones. "Lady" is a honorific reserved directly for persons of noble heritage. So unless she herself was a noble (doubtful, considering engineering was dominated by non-nobles) she would not be addressed as lady, nor would expect to be addressed as such and depending where she grew up (like in one of the hanseatic cities) would even be offended to be addressed as a lady.Sea Skimmer wrote:Engineering officers on shore and land duty were very formally treated as inferiors. The wife of an engineering officer wasn’t even called a lady, she was addressed as women. This is of course a big snub for the prewar period.
No, not at all. In fact, it was incredibly uncommon for anybody below the rank of General or Admiral to even get offered a noble patent and even then it was not a given. See for example Hipper - despite being one of the best and most capable German Admirals he only received a noble patent after Jutland, and then only the lowest form of nobility as well. It was not a given for even war heroes to be offered patents even when their oders and medals would give the opportunity to do so - see for example Immelmann or Rommel.Sea Skimmer wrote:I’ve never read any of his books and my understand was that any Imperial German Executive Officer of significant rank was simply granted a title of nobility and then acted like he'd had it all along.
These examples would interest me as well.In any case, plenty of other examples exist of how screwed up and unreformed the German naval officer system was, and how incredibly dumb Tirpitz was about it.
Issues that come to mind in this, my last post from my current and soon to be former residence; he refused to allow expansion of cadet training from two years to four years as the USN and RN had done much earlier, refused to allow cadet selection to be based on skill tests as opposed to well connected persons being able to afford it, which as a related factor he insisted that the cadets must pay for the schooling. He also had the brilliant idea that the solution to conscripts in the navy was to keep them all together for the full three year period, meaning that at any given time 1/3rd of the fleet would have completely inexperienced poorly trained crews and 1/3rd would be very good. That last idea was scuttled by strong resistance from other more intelligence admirals. To make matters worse Tirpitz was essentially against NCOs, which were certainly not as important at the time as they are today, but many other fleets already saw the value of career enlisted men.Thanas wrote: These examples would interest me as well.
The latter.Simon_Jester wrote:I'm not aware of any British naval mutinies during the late Victorian or Edwardian period, up through World War One. I know there were a number of such mutinies after the war ended, but I'm not sure if that's what you're talking about.
Sea Skimmer wrote:Warspite was not a very realistic candidate for preservation; the ship had extensive structural damage that was never repaired. HMS Caroline is in any case almost certainly already doomed; the timeframe for disposal is just too short to organize anything. The only hope is someone who already has money simply appearing. Failing that I hope someone at least buys thirty tons of the scrap and sells it in small pieces to collectors. It’s fucking mad to just destroy this ship at a time when just THREE Great War veterans are left in the world but hey, it is an RN tradition. The way things are going tradition and two CV hulls are all they are going to have left soon.
Um, he meant human veterans, Swindle. And that would be the worldwide total. The last British WWI vet died last year.Swindle1984 wrote:Just three British WWI veterans, or total worldwide? If the latter, you're wrong; there are at least six ships surviving to have fought in both World Wars. I know the USS Texas is one, and Caroline is another, but don't know what the other four are.
An historic naval vessel that got a second life after combat duties as a base to train hundreds of part-time sailors is under threat.
Alliance Councillor Seán Neeson has called for action to be taken ensure that HMS Caroline remains in Belfast.
The ship has been lying idle since 2009, when the Royal Navy decided it would decommission it.
Mr Neeson has represented Northern Ireland on the UK National Historic Ships Committee as well as being a member of the Nomadic Charitable Trust and commented today: "HMS Caroline was decommissioned at the end of March and there is a great deal of uncertainty about her future.
"She is a major historic ship and is the last remaining survivor from the battle of Jutland. She has played a major role in the maritime heritage not only of Belfast but the whole of Northern Ireland," he said.
"HMS Caroline is a member of the core collection of national historic ships along with the Nomadic and the Result.
"Unless people in Northern Ireland make a major effort to keep Caroline in Belfast I believe that she could be moved somewhere else in the UK, and that would be a tragic loss as regards our maritime heritage and tourism industry," he said.
Earlier this year, Ulster Unionist Mark Finlay, also expressed his hopes that HMS Caroline, the naval ship and later Royal Naval Reserve training vessel over nearly a century of service, can be kept in Belfast.
"Caroline has had 96 years of faithful service and, since 1924, served as the headquarters of the Ulster Division of the Royal Naval Reserve and its training facility. It is the last surviving ship from the 1916 Battle of Jutland and the last physical embodiment of the bravery of the sailors who participated and I note with sadness that it is decommissioned now.
"I hope that a mechanism can be found to keep Caroline in Belfast," he concluded, in April.
In 1972 HMS Caroline's reservists received the Freedom of the City of Belfast and, with their RN compatriots, they also received the freedom of the Borough of Newtownabbey.
The connection to Northern Ireland is long and distinguished, dating back to the formation of the Ulster Division of the RNR in 1924.
For 85 years the training unit was based on HMS Caroline, a light cruiser built in 1914, a vessel that saw action at the Battle of Jutland in 1916 and served in the Far East before coming to Northern Ireland where she is still docked in the Titanic Quarter in Belfast.
The Royal Naval Reserve unit that operated from the permanently docked vessel at The Titanic Quarter has since moved to the Lisburn Army Barracks where it was reincarnated as the shore base, HMS Hibernia.
Located within Thiepval Barracks, HMS Hibernia is home to around 100 reservists.
It is the Royal Naval Reserve's newest unit, following the decommissioning of HMS Caroline in Belfast in December 2009.