Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 54

Thread: Super Dreadnoughts

  1. #16
    Member Jacknola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New Orleans, LA, USA
    Age
    70
    Posts
    918

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Violet Fashion by Mindy View Post
    You missed the point of what I was saying.

    Naval combat has been throughout history all about luck. Yes ship the technology improvements are important. But if you look at the major naval battles throughout history, the deciding factor in a lot of battles has been you guessed it luck. Not ship design.

    I'm also highly sckepitcal that a bunch of WW1 US Battleships which are given a new superstructure to make them look modern were better then any other WW1 battleship that served in WW2. And when they did see front line service the situation in the Pacific had changed so dramatically that anything other then a US victory was impossible. The Japanese sent carriers into battle without any planes man.

    .... Again LUCK!
    [*******#3e3e3e][FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]Now I understand …you are just opinionated. If what you say had any validity, no navy would have spent money to develop new and better platforms … yet that was what the naval arms race was all about wasn’t it?
    [/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]
    [*******#3e3e3e][FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]And that offhand comment about “old battleships with cosmetic new superstructures” puts the exclamation point on your rather cavalier posts doesn’t it? Thing is, these days it takes about five minutes to find the facts, which means someone who posts nonsense is not just ill informed, he is ... careless.
    [/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]
    [*******#3e3e3e][FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]Example of US "old" battleship rebuild – Taken directly from wikipedia[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][*******#3e3e3e][FONT=Tahoma]

    “On 25 March 1942, California was refloated and dry-docked at PearlHarbor for repairs. On 7 June, she departed under her own power for [*******#417394]Puget Sound NavyYard[/COLOR] where a major reconstruction job was accomplished, including[note: I’ll bullet these points for ease of reading]:[/FONT][/COLOR]
    [FONT=Symbol][*******#000000][SIZE=3][/SIZE] [/COLOR][/FONT][*******#3e3e3e][FONT=Tahoma]improved protection, [/FONT][/COLOR]
    [FONT=Symbol][*******#000000][SIZE=3][/SIZE] [/COLOR][/FONT][*******#3e3e3e][FONT=Tahoma]watertight compartmenting, [/FONT][/COLOR]
    [FONT=Symbol][*******#000000][SIZE=3][/SIZE] [/COLOR][/FONT][*******#3e3e3e][FONT=Tahoma]stability, [/FONT][/COLOR]
    [FONT=Symbol][*******#000000][SIZE=3][/SIZE] [/COLOR][/FONT][*******#3e3e3e][FONT=Tahoma]antiaircraft battery, and [/FONT][/COLOR]
    [FONT=Symbol][*******#000000][SIZE=3][/SIZE] [/COLOR][/FONT][*******#3e3e3e][FONT=Tahoma]fire control system. [/FONT][/COLOR]
    [FONT=Symbol][*******#000000][SIZE=3][/SIZE] [/COLOR][/FONT][*******#3e3e3e][FONT=Tahoma]Her original twin funnels were combined into a single funnel faired intothe superstructure tower as with the newer South Dakota class. [/FONT][/COLOR]
    [FONT=Symbol][*******#000000][SIZE=3][/SIZE] [/COLOR][/FONT][*******#3e3e3e][FONT=Tahoma]The original [*******#417394]5 in (130 mm)/51cal guns[/COLOR] of the secondary battery and the 5 in (130 mm)/25 cal gunsof the [*******#417394]anti-aircraft[/COLOR] battery were replaced by 16 [*******#417394]5 in (130 mm)/38cal guns[/COLOR] in new twin mountings.[*******#417394][5][/COLOR] [/FONT][/COLOR]
    [FONT=Symbol][*******#000000][SIZE=3][/SIZE] [/COLOR][/FONT][*******#3e3e3e][FONT=Tahoma]Her appearance was nearly identical to that of [*******#417394]Tennessee[/COLOR]and [*******#417394]West Virginia[/COLOR], which were rebuilt after the Pearl HarborAttack to resemble [*******#417394]South Dakota[/COLOR][*******#417394]-class battleships[/COLOR]. [/FONT][/COLOR]
    [*******#3e3e3e][FONT=Tahoma]Like hersisters, she was a virtually new ship built on the bones of the old.[*******#417394][11][/COLOR]
    [/FONT][/COLOR]
    [*******#3e3e3e][FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]I could go through an amazingly detailed description of the rebuilds of the Pearl Harbor battleships, complete with blue prints and full technical details of every upgrade from water-tight compartmenting, armor additions,fire control systems, new armament, etc. But it is all on the net and it would be good for you to learn to look for that type information. [/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]

    [*******#3e3e3e][FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]In the meantime … have a good day[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][*******#3e3e3e][FONT=Arial].

    [*******#222222]I'm also highly sckepitcal that a bunch of WW1 US Battleships which are given a new superstructure to make them look modern were better then any other WW1 battleship that served in WW2.[/COLOR]
    [*******#222222]
    [SIZE=3]Have you even bothered to read the facts I've posted?[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]
    Last edited by Jacknola; 05-02-2012 at 12:08 PM.

  2. #17
    Member Jacknola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New Orleans, LA, USA
    Age
    70
    Posts
    918

    Default

    [SIZE=3][*******#3e3e3e][FONT=Arial]Below: California and Tennessee as rebuilt – these ships with their twelve, 14”-gun main battery could take any IJN battleship in the fleet with the possible exception of Yamato, and maybe the Nagato- that would be a closer match. They were vastly superior to the 14" armed Kongo class IJN battle cruisers and Fuso class BBs[/FONT][/COLOR][*******#3e3e3e][FONT=Arial].
    [/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]

    [*******#3e3e3e][FONT=Arial][SIZE=3][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]



    [*******#3e3e3e][FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]Below: West Virginia with its main battery of 8 16”guns was superior to all the IJN BBs, even the Nagato, and would have an even chance against the Yamato.
    [/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]

    [*******#3e3e3e][FONT=Arial][SIZE=3][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]
    [*******#3e3e3e][FONT=Arial][SIZE=3][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]

    [*******#3e3e3e][FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]Here are some details of the rebuild of the West Virginia[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]

    [*******#3e3e3e][FONT=Arial][SIZE=3][*******#0000ff]http://www.worldnavalships.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10471[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]

    [*******black][FONT=Verdana]“…West Virginia's reconstruction followed the same pattern as that for the Tennessee and California. The ship wascompletely *****ped of superstructure down to the second deck, leaving only the four turrets and their barbettes in place. Her side armor was repaired and huge two-section bulges were added to the hull, increasing her beam from 97 feet to 114 feet and providing not only increased stability and torpedo protection but also a solid under structure for mounting eight twin 5” dual purpose mountswell-spaced for good anti-aircraft coverage. The armor around the original uptakes was removed and the second deck armor was increased to 7” and 5” over the magazine and engine room spaces. The turret tops received new 7.5” armored plates originally built for the USS Iowa class ships which brought the turretweight up to 958 tons. New longitudinal and transverse watertight bulkheads were added to both the main and second decks.

    The superstructure of the ship was completely rebuilt into an all-welded compact and narrow structure resembling that built into the South Dakota classbattleships with close attention paid to ensuring the best possible arcs offire for the 5” and other anti-aircraft weapons. The main difference from the South Dakota's superstructure was the inclusion of the primary control bridge within the forward fire control tower just below the forward fire controldirector for the 16” guns rather than as a separate bridge forward of thetower. This provided excellent all-around aerial visibility and also solved some wave-guide problems with the new SG surface search radar sets. The flag bridge and forward lookout stations were mounted just below the primary con.The original armored conning tower was removed and replaced with a smaller 9 foot diameter structure removed from Brooklyn class cruisers that had been refitted. This conning tower only had 5” armor and was located just behindturret 2, and beneath the forward center line quad 40 mm mount. As with the South Dakota's, the funnels were faired into a single structure on the aft sideof the forward fire control tower and the mainmast was rebuilt as a second smaller fire control tower aft of the stack.

    West Virginia's old main battery fire control directors were removed and replaced with Mark 34 units revamped for 16” guns that had been made available by the conversion of Cleveland class cruisers into light aircraft carriers.These directors were coupled with the standard Mark 8 radar and associated equipment including remote power controls for the main battery turrets.

    For the secondary battery, four Mark 37 fire control towers were fitted with their associated Mark 12/22 fire control radars. (These radars were excellent,and could actually be used as fire controls for the main battery in an emergency.) Air search capability was provided by the SK-2 system. The 10 new quad 40 mm batteries were served by the Mark 57 gun fire control system. West Virginia also carried some 58 20 mm singles and one twin 20 mm, even being equipped witha navalized version of the Army's “Thunderbolt” quad .50 cal. mount, which was apparently being evaluated at the time.

    While the reconstruction had taken advantage of every opportunity to reduce weight, it was felt necessary to reduce the main battery rounds for the 16” MkII Mod 5 guns to 90 rounds per gun in order to ensure a reserve of stability.

    This refit cost around $20 million and produced an excellent almost new ship, ideally suited for the role she would fulfill in the Pacific. West Virginia emerged from her refit weighing in at 40,950 tons full load, some 7000 tons heavier than she had been at Pearl Harbor. West Virginia returned to combat in October of 1944, providing shore bombardment for the invasion of Leyte, flying the same flag she had flown on December 7, 1941. She was flagship of Battleship Division 4 under Rear Admiral Theodore Ruddock and captained by Captain Herbert V. Wiley and joined the ships of Battleship Divisions 2 and 3 for the night action at Surigao Strait.”[/FONT][/COLOR]
    Last edited by Jacknola; 05-02-2012 at 10:58 AM.

  3. #18
    Senior Member KB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,306

    Default

    Very interesting

  4. #19
    Bush Lawyer, that's me! TheKiwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    DoublePlusUngood
    Age
    45
    Posts
    15,502

    Default

    Kirishima didn't even come close to destroying South Dakota.

  5. #20
    Member Jacknola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New Orleans, LA, USA
    Age
    70
    Posts
    918

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Violet Fashion by Mindy View Post
    Kirishima nearly destroyed the USS South Dakota at Gaudancanal in a 2v1 fight and the USS South Dakota was a modern ship with all the bells and whistles.

    Just saying.
    [*******#3e3e3e][FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]Baloney,com’on people, do just a little research before posting such things – SD main armor was not penetrated despite being hit by at least 2 14”, and lots of smaller shells… even then the damage to the SD superstructure was mostly superficial. The SD was disabled by an electrical failure caused by a faulty safety breaker that shorted the entire system, BEFORE the action began. [/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]

    [*******#3e3e3e][FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]TheSouth Dakota was not hulled, took on no water, did not list, and was never in danger. Indeed sitting there virtually defenseless, being shelled by two heavy heavy 8” cruisers and the Kurishima, she was basically invulnerable.[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]

    [*******#3e3e3e][FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]The Kurishima on the other hand quickly succumbed to the fire of the Washington. [/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]
    Last edited by Jacknola; 05-02-2012 at 12:12 PM.

  6. #21
    Member Jacknola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New Orleans, LA, USA
    Age
    70
    Posts
    918

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Violet Fashion by Mindy View Post
    Kirishima nearly destroyed the USS South Dakota at Gaudancanal in a 2v1 fight and the USS South Dakota was a modern ship with all the bells and whistles.

    Just saying.
    [*******#3e3e3e][FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]My friend, you and your “arguments” are taking a pounding, listing 18 degrees to port, down by the bows, fire control gone, on fire and speed reduced to bare steerage way. Your rudder is jammed and only one boiler is still puffing. Men are abandoning your ship. Yet you sail on trying to reinforce a feeble argument based on a wild opinion, not backed by fact.[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]

    [*******#3e3e3e][FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]I suggest you just scuttle your ship and save your assets for another day. You are reaching the point of trolling, and I am getting weary of lecturing about things that are instantly available on many of the links I’ve provided.[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]

    [*******#3e3e3e][FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]You might want to read the line about Leyte Gulf (now second page) where it is avowed that Kurita’s center force had zero chance of getting at the transports in Leyte… his entire force, including the Yamato, would have been quickly sunk by the 7[/SIZE][SIZE=2]th[/SIZE][SIZE=3] fleet had he continued on to the entrance to the Gulf... And the heart of the 7[/SIZE][SIZE=2]th[/SIZE][SIZE=3] fleet was … six “Standard” US BBs, the West Virginia, Tennessee, California, Mississippi, Maryland and Pennsylvania… [/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]

  7. #22
    Bush Lawyer, that's me! TheKiwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    DoublePlusUngood
    Age
    45
    Posts
    15,502

    Default

    As Jacknola said, no penetration of the belt armour, so no possibility of setting off magazines, or damaging/destroying engines/boilers/steering. "Nearly" is the saying the same thing and you know it.

    Luck is largely just another word for skill. The more skillfull I get, the luckier I seem to be. Most of the Japanese successes early in their war were done by the pre-war Navy which was superbly trained. When those crews were lost, the replacements were rubbish and it showed.

  8. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Violet Fashion by Mindy View Post
    Yep and no matter how good a ship is. If the crew doesn't have the training, experience, discipline and leadership it will be easier to sink.
    I do agree a bit with you on that. Look at the Admiral Graf Spee (not a battelship). It was was quite damaged by 3 cruisers. Had Langtsdorf not been agressive and kept his ship at range the outcome of the battle might have been different.

  9. #24
    Bush Lawyer, that's me! TheKiwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    DoublePlusUngood
    Age
    45
    Posts
    15,502

    Default

    Which kind of proves Min's point really. If Langdorf had used his head instead he might have gotten away for a while longer. Lack of training, lack of experience and lack of a (for want of better words) "culture of winning" all played their part.

  10. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheKiwi View Post
    Which kind of proves Min's point really. If Langdorf had used his head instead he might have gotten away for a while longer. Lack of training, lack of experience and lack of a (for want of better words) "culture of winning" all played their part.
    Yes im sorry, i didnt mean to disagree with him. Only agree with the point the i repplied to

  11. #26
    Member Jacknola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New Orleans, LA, USA
    Age
    70
    Posts
    918

    Default

    Well, the River Platte battle proved the theoreticians right ... that given reasonably close weapon pariety, rate of accurate fire was more important than the weight of the shell. This was shown up actually in WW-I studies, and a war game that earlier proved three cruisers would win was not believed by British commanders.

    But I also disagree with the emphasis on "crew" and "experience" as being the key to early IJN sucess. WW II was about technology and machinery, and the proper COMMAND use of that machinery. I can think of no instance where a loss occured because of the failure to use technology at the crew-operational level ... except for aircraft piloting ... and that had as much to do with the machinery (planes becoming obsolesecnt) as pilots.

    The early IJN success was because they had superior machines and used them in a superior command way. The three key IJN machines were (1) the aircraft carrier (and the planes on them); (2) the type 93 long lance torpedo; (3) superior night-fighting fire control system (FCS) including optics and sound-detectors.

    It could also be argued that the IJN heavy cruisers were a superior weapon... (as they should be, because they were all treaty-breaking 14-16 K ton ships, 50 percent bigger and stronger than the Allied heavy cruisers.) But their superiority could have been related to their being armed with the long lance torpedo. In gun battles, they did not prove to be better machines than the US 10 K tonners.

    Interestingly, later in the war those torpedo mounts on the IJN heavies proved to be their achaielles heel... four were sunk during Leyte campaign partly because the oxygen-supply for the deck mounted torpedos, or the torpedos themselves, were hit and then exploded. Again, this is a DESIGN and MACHINERY issue, not a crew, experience, or "luck" issue.

    IJN main battle naval philosophy was built around the torpedo, and it was a terrific weapon. The US greatly helped the early performance of the IJN by (1) stubbornly refusing to admit to having inferior, defective machinery (especially torpedos... at least we recognized early on that the US planes were inferior) similar to the refusal to believe the Sherman tank was overmatched in Europe; (2) having virtually incompetent commanders - crew experience had little to do with any of the problems at Savo Island, etc.


    Back to "super dreadnaughts" ... the original question was what nation had the superior "super dreadnaughts." I think the question is answered ... the US "Standards" were from the start ahead of the world-curve, remained ahead, proved to be more flexible platforms for upgrade, and ... kicked the crud out of the IJN battleships whenever they faced them. Other nation's "super dreadnaughts," British, French, Italian, were all shown by performance to be a lessor weapon than the US "Standards."

    The original quesition has been answered and that answer has been backed up by data, fact, anadote, and attempts at refutation in this line have been lightweight, and shown to be opinion-based, not fact based. Case closed.
    Last edited by Jacknola; 05-02-2012 at 11:59 AM.

  12. #27
    Bush Lawyer, that's me! TheKiwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    DoublePlusUngood
    Age
    45
    Posts
    15,502

    Default

    I'm not particularly convinced that the IJN carriers were in any way superior to the USN ones. Pretty much every carrier that was based on WW1 battlecruiser hulls had the same weaknesses against torpedoes in particular. Their carrier borne aircraft were largely with much the same (or inferior) performance to the contemporary USN ones too with the exception of the Zero and once its characteristics were better known (which they should have been pre-December 1941 had anyone paid attention to the reports out of China from Chennault) it was countered with the "boom and zoom" single pass attacks. I do agree that the IJN did practice a lot of night fighting and were well prepared for it unlike the USN.

    In short, the pre-December 1941 IJN was smaller than the USN, but it was well prepared for the type of combat that they expected to fight.

    It would have been interested to see how the Standards would have performed in (say) the Mediterrainean during 1940/41 when the situation there was messy with lots of air and submarine attacks as a constant threat.

  13. #28
    Member Jacknola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New Orleans, LA, USA
    Age
    70
    Posts
    918

    Default

    [SIZE=3][*******#000000][FONT=Calibri]In the Med, the 21 kn speed of the Standards might be an interesting problem. That “lake” is speed boat paradise, hit run, in out … and the primary Med powers, France and Italy, seemed to emphasize speed over protection. [/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]

    [SIZE=3][*******#000000][FONT=Calibri]But a BB doesn’t operate by itself. I assume if the Standards were put into the Med early in WWII, it would be in the context of a total military and fleet effort. If they fought a standup BB fight against …say … the Italian BBs, they would probably win, but not be able to prevent the faster ships from retiring. [/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]

    [SIZE=3][*******#000000][FONT=Calibri]GB operated a lot of slow BBs in that lake, including the Malaya, etc., with some success. The Mediterranean early in the WW II is a special circumstance. I just don’t know.[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]

  14. #29
    Bush Lawyer, that's me! TheKiwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    DoublePlusUngood
    Age
    45
    Posts
    15,502

    Default

    Yeah me neither. I guess an important part of the speed issue is that (much like with fighters) it lets you choose when and if to engage or not - assuming that neither or both have working radar.

    You'd have to wonder what kind of alt history would have USN BB's in the Med in 1940 - be interesting though that is for sure.

  15. #30
    Bush Lawyer, that's me! TheKiwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    DoublePlusUngood
    Age
    45
    Posts
    15,502

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Violet Fashion by Mindy View Post
    The Queen Elizabeths had a top speed of 25 knots. Not exactly fast but not slow either.

    Italians had air superiority.

    The Italian battleships were TEN knots faster and their cruisers and destroyers were all generally in the 40+ knots range the fasted in the world......................
    That's not exactly true. The Italian navy had a weird habit (shared by France) of paying out a bonus to the shipmaker for each knot their ships exceeded the designated speed. This resulted in many test runs being done with machinery overpowered (and subsequently made less reliable) and with less than a full load (in some cases with no guns fitted) to gain that bonus. In actual combat conditions, the Italian destroyers and cruisers were no faster than others that had sacrificed protection for speed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Violet Fashion by Mindy View Post
    If it wasn't for two important factors, the Regia Marina would have come even closer in removing the Royal Navy from the Med. These factors being a lack of oil and Hitlers decision to return Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and Prinz Eugen to Germany thus freeing up additional ships for the Royal Navy as they no longer had to defend both the North Sea and Mid Atlantic from German capital ships. This decision allowed them to send more ships fleet into the Indian Ocean to counter any Japanese moves towards India.
    When Germany occupied Italy in 1943 they found over 1.5 million tons of fuel oil in the Italian Navy bunkers. The Italians were never so short of fuel that they couldn't have chosen to come out and compete - they just chose not to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Violet Fashion by Mindy View Post
    If we are to take British shipbuilding capacity and the size of their dockyards in 1906 which is the year that HMS Dreadnaught was built, the British were already building ocean liners that were on average 10-20,000 tonnes heavier then HMS Dreadnought and in excess of 100 metres longer. The Olympic Class liners (Olympic, Titanic and Britannic) weighed in at 45,000-50,000 tonnes and were 79 metres longer then a "Standard"
    The author is incorrect in this assumption about the size of British dockyards limiting their ships.
    The Olympics weren't built in Naval dockyards which did have the size restrictions mentioned. You'll note that through the pre WW1 history of British BB construction, the beams are restricted to no greater than 90ft in beam. It was only post war that larger beams were possible (103 ft in the case of the KCV's for example).

    Quote Originally Posted by Violet Fashion by Mindy View Post
    With regards to the naval arms race. Germany could not out build the British. The Germans new this. Therefore they took an approach of building ships that were qualitative superior to the British. The British in turn would build a class that was believed to be better and back and forth it went until the end of WW1.
    Same as Japan and the Yamato class BB's - an attempt to outclass if you couldn't outnumber.



    Quote Originally Posted by Violet Fashion by Mindy View Post
    The Battlecruiser actually when used in it's intended role was not flawed. Being of high speed with massive firepower they sunk Graf Spee's fleet at the Falkland Islands and one Battlecruiser (HMAS Australia) acted as a major deterrent to Graf Spee from spending more time in the Pacific Ocean or bombarding an Australian city. He actually wrote about this in a letter that the Australian battlecruiser was his biggest worry.

    And up until Jutland when they were used in the battle line the Germans used their battlecruisers to their intended use to great effect. They drew out the British fleet by bombarding British towns then used their high speed to bring the enemy to the battle line that lay in wait. Yeah sure no traps were sprung, but the concept/doctrine could be considered a success and it was only ever due to factors outside German control that prevented a trap from being laid. Jutland worked, the trap had been sprung, but the Brits sent their ENTIRE fleet in response.

    But the facts speak for themselves. When used for their intended role. The battlecruiser concept worked. Scouting/laying traps and high speed dashes to protect overseas colonies.
    Agree that when used in their correct roles, the BC ideal worked. The problem was that they cost as much (if not more) than a BB, were crewed as heavily as a BB and were armed as heavily as a BB. It's kind of hard to resist using them as suplimentary BB's under those conditions.



    Quote Originally Posted by Violet Fashion by Mindy View Post
    The British Revenge Class, Whats the deal with American's shortening names btw? were not refitted during in the 1930's. It was already decided to replace them long before WW2 broke out with the Lion Class. The only reason the Queen Elizabeth class were modernised was due to increasing tensions with Italy.
    I don't think British dockyard construction was up to the replacement of that many BB's from the time re-armament began unfortunately.

    Quote Originally Posted by Violet Fashion by Mindy View Post
    Unlike the "standards" no British capital ship of WW1 era or the Nelson/Rodney received extensive upgrades/refits during the war. Put simply by the end of WW2 they were worn out due to non-stop service from 1939-1945. Furthermore 6 of the 8 battleships also battled the High Seas Fleet at Jutland and the damage to HMS Warspite caused many problems with her machinery throughout her career.
    Nelson got refitted in 1944 in the US and was good for another couple of years of service if needed. Rodney was only fit for the scrap yard. Much like most of the QE's. Many years of loyal and rough service had worn them out. Still, 30 years of service including 9 of wartime is pretty good going.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •