Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

A Quiz for You! - Became Battleships vs Battlecruisers

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> A Quiz for You! - Became Battleships vs Battlecruisers Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
A Quiz for You! - Became Battleships vs Battlecruisers - 11/6/2004 4:53:19 AM   
fbastos


Posts: 827
Joined: 8/7/2004
Status: offline
I was a project with:

(a) 3 dual turrets with 20-inch guns
(b) 53,000 tons displacement
(c) 35 knots speed
(d) 10 inches belt armor

Who am I?

A hint: I would have been built, shouldn't a very serious battle take place.

F.

< Message edited by fbastos -- 11/7/2004 5:47:12 AM >


_____________________________

I'm running out of jokes...

Post #: 1
RE: A Quiz for You! :-D - 11/6/2004 5:06:01 AM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6399
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline
Hmm.... the "Super Yamato" (Yamato Kai I believe) called for 6 20 inch guns, but on more of a 70,000 ton displacement, and certainly much more armor than 10 inches. That's not it.

The 1934 Fujimoto design was closer in the displacement range, but would have carried 12 20 inch guns... So that's not it.

But, the winner is,

The 1914 Fisher design.

Based on lessons learned from Courageous, Furious, and Renown, the so called "Incomparable" design mounted 6 20 inch guns, had a speed of 35 knots, and weighed in at 53,000 tons. In effect, they looked like Renowns, but with a large, single stack reminiscent of the Outrageous classes (Courageous and Furious).

< Message edited by Tankerace -- 11/5/2004 9:06:31 PM >


_____________________________


Designer of War Plan Orange
Producer of Carrier Force
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition

Avatar is of me with my 1918/1967 FTR Ishapore Sht LE Mk III*.

(in reply to fbastos)
Post #: 2
RE: A Quiz for You! :-D - 11/6/2004 8:50:32 AM   
fbastos


Posts: 827
Joined: 8/7/2004
Status: offline
Yay! A cookie for Tankerace!! Well done! :^)

F.

_____________________________

I'm running out of jokes...


(in reply to Tankerace)
Post #: 3
RE: A Quiz for You! :-D - 11/6/2004 10:07:23 AM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 8983
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline
sorry, but isn't six turrets at two guns each twelve?

(in reply to fbastos)
Post #: 4
RE: A Quiz for You! :-D - 11/6/2004 11:13:04 AM   
Tiornu

 

Posts: 1126
Joined: 4/1/2004
Status: offline
Yes, it should have said "six 20in guns with dual turrets."
Fisher's specs actually called for belt 16in armor, though he was willing to reduce this and the 6in secondary battery to secure a 30-knot speed. But then, he also started out with 16in guns.
Perhaps strangest of all was his proposal for secondary guns in disappearing mounts. You can't say this guy never thought outside the box.

(in reply to freeboy)
Post #: 5
RE: A Quiz for You! :-D - 11/6/2004 6:38:58 PM   
fbastos


Posts: 827
Joined: 8/7/2004
Status: offline
Ops... who said 6 dual turrets?? Hang him!! :-D

Sorry for that.. :)

F.

_____________________________

I'm running out of jokes...


(in reply to Tiornu)
Post #: 6
RE: A Quiz for You! :-D - 11/6/2004 8:47:59 PM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6399
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

Yes, it should have said "six 20in guns with dual turrets."
Fisher's specs actually called for belt 16in armor, though he was willing to reduce this and the 6in secondary battery to secure a 30-knot speed. But then, he also started out with 16in guns.
Perhaps strangest of all was his proposal for secondary guns in disappearing mounts. You can't say this guy never thought outside the box.


Fisher thought outside the box alright.... but how many men had to die to prove the impossibility of "speed equals armor".

On another note, why the heck would you need disappearing guns on a warship? If the thing is about 800ft long, and looks like a warship, you know it has big guns on it.

_____________________________


Designer of War Plan Orange
Producer of Carrier Force
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition

Avatar is of me with my 1918/1967 FTR Ishapore Sht LE Mk III*.

(in reply to Tiornu)
Post #: 7
RE: A Quiz for You! :-D - 11/6/2004 9:36:47 PM   
Tiornu

 

Posts: 1126
Joined: 4/1/2004
Status: offline
I've often see the "speed is armor" quote ascribed to Fisher, but I've never seen any documentation on its context. If he was referring to the use of large cruisers against the enemy's battle line, then I'd have to say the historical precedents tend to support his idea. I don't know of any disproportionate losses we can pin on him for it.
As far as I can tell, the only reason for proposing the disappearing mounts would be to indulge the appetite for newfangled whatevers.

(in reply to Tankerace)
Post #: 8
RE: A Quiz for You! :-D - 11/6/2004 9:44:30 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

I've often see the "speed is armor" quote ascribed to Fisher, but I've never seen any documentation on its context. If he was referring to the use of large cruisers against the enemy's battle line, then I'd have to say the historical precedents tend to support his idea. I don't know of any disproportionate losses we can pin on him for it.
As far as I can tell, the only reason for proposing the disappearing mounts would be to indulge the appetite for newfangled whatevers.


The losses in BCs can't be pinned on Fischer (stupid freak designs like Furious, Courageous and Glorious which wasted resources could be), but on the Admirals commanding and deploying them. As cruisers got bigger and faster, so too did BCs, as the need for speed increased size and cost passed that of BBs. Because of this, many felt them a waste unless used in the battleline. Kaboom!

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Tiornu)
Post #: 9
RE: A Quiz for You! :-D - 11/6/2004 9:54:18 PM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6399
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline
True. Even Fisher himself said the role of the Battlecruiser was to hunt down and destroy cruisers. But, they were rarely used that way. The Admirals saw them as the "New playtoys that had to be tried out". The Outrageous class on the other hand, those are a different story....

_____________________________


Designer of War Plan Orange
Producer of Carrier Force
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition

Avatar is of me with my 1918/1967 FTR Ishapore Sht LE Mk III*.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 10
RE: A Quiz for You! :-D - 11/7/2004 12:30:06 AM   
Tiornu

 

Posts: 1126
Joined: 4/1/2004
Status: offline
Une moment, messieurs! No battlecruisers were destroyed while operating as part of a battle line. Unless you want to consider Hood a BC and Denmark Strait a battle-line action.
It's also interesting to keep in mind that the number of BC destroyed by BB is about the same as the number of BB destroyed by BC.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 11
RE: A Quiz for You! :-D - 11/7/2004 5:45:41 AM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22707
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

Une moment, messieurs! No battlecruisers were destroyed while operating as part of a battle line. Unless you want to consider Hood a BC and Denmark Strait a battle-line action.
It's also interesting to keep in mind that the number of BC destroyed by BB is about the same as the number of BB destroyed by BC.


Depends what you call a BC, and what you call a battle line. At Jutland, the BC were arranged in lines, and employed against enemy battleships that were arranged in lines. I would call this a battleline action. BCs got sunk from this. Even if you exclude the British BCs, Lutzow certainly got hammered (and sank) as a result of trying to stand up to the British battle line.

Some ships are referred to as BCs in some places, while other sources call them fast battleships. Heck, the same navy calls them one thing at one time in their career, and another thing later (i.e. Kongo class BC mutating into fast BBs).

I am drawing a blank as to what battleships got sunk by battle cruisers. Which ones did what sinkings?

_____________________________


(in reply to Tiornu)
Post #: 12
RE: A Quiz for You! :-D - 11/7/2004 5:49:49 AM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6399
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline
I'm drawing a blank too. I can think of several armored cruisers sunk by battlecruisers, maybe even other battlecruisers sunk by battle cruisers, but no battleship sunk by a battlecruiser.

Still, the role of the battlecuiser, as described by Fisher, was to hunt down armored cruisers, and withdraw from larger or like ships. Not too unlike the theory of the panzerschiffe.

_____________________________


Designer of War Plan Orange
Producer of Carrier Force
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition

Avatar is of me with my 1918/1967 FTR Ishapore Sht LE Mk III*.

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 13
RE: A Quiz for You! :-D - 11/7/2004 7:24:15 AM   
Tiornu

 

Posts: 1126
Joined: 4/1/2004
Status: offline
"Depends what you call a BC, and what you call a battle line."
That's an important point. A lot of this hangs on points of nomenclature, and a lot of misconceptions have evolved from their into ossified hindsight.
It bears repeating that battlecruisers were simply outgrowth of the armored cruiser, whose role included engaging enemy battleships from postions of tactical superiority. I'm guessing this is what is meant by "speed is armor," and in this very limited sense, it is a valid statement.
Not one BC sunk at Jutland owes its loss to a BB; the fatal blows were all struck by other BC.
If we adhere strictly to official nomenclature, only one battlecruiser was ever sunk by a battleship, and that was Hood sunk by Bismarck. Also, only one battleship was sunk by a battlecruiser, and that was Bretagne sunk by Hood. Deviating from official nomenclature, we can also say the BC Kirishima was sunk by Washington (and SoDak). BUt with each of these examples, we can see that the precise labels did not matter. Hood was sunk, not because she was a battlecruiser, but because she was an unmodernized ship fighting a newer, larger opponent. Bretagne was hardly in a fair fight, just a fish in a barrel. And poor Kirishima was up against two ships that were newer, larger, and more powerful.
In fact, Fisher's vision for the battlecruiser was that it would eclipse the battleship or, perhaps more precisely, not "beat" the BB but "join" it. The modern dreadnoughts of post-1930 can all be seen as "fast battleships" or "armored battlecruisers," a BB-BC hybrid.
You know, it's hard to focus on Fisher's intentions and edicts; he made so many disparate statements at various times, I wouldn't be surprised if he once predicted the trawler would make the submarine obsolete. Dinghies are armor!

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 14
RE: A Quiz for You! :-D - 11/7/2004 7:42:38 AM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6399
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline
YOu mean Fisher acknowledged the submarine as a weapon? I thought that was back when the submarine "was not a gentleman's weapon, as it did not fight in plain view." Gotta love the British.

_____________________________


Designer of War Plan Orange
Producer of Carrier Force
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition

Avatar is of me with my 1918/1967 FTR Ishapore Sht LE Mk III*.

(in reply to Tiornu)
Post #: 15
RE: A Quiz for You! :-D - 11/7/2004 7:58:29 AM   
Tiornu

 

Posts: 1126
Joined: 4/1/2004
Status: offline
I recently picked up a copy of Damned Un-English Machines. Haven't read it yet, but I can't help liking the title.

(in reply to Tankerace)
Post #: 16
RE: A Quiz for You! :-D - 11/7/2004 6:18:31 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22707
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

"Depends what you call a BC, and what you call a battle line."
That's an important point. A lot of this hangs on points of nomenclature, and a lot of misconceptions have evolved from their into ossified hindsight.
It bears repeating that battlecruisers were simply outgrowth of the armored cruiser, whose role included engaging enemy battleships from postions of tactical superiority. I'm guessing this is what is meant by "speed is armor," and in this very limited sense, it is a valid statement.
Not one BC sunk at Jutland owes its loss to a BB; the fatal blows were all struck by other BC.
If we adhere strictly to official nomenclature, only one battlecruiser was ever sunk by a battleship, and that was Hood sunk by Bismarck. Also, only one battleship was sunk by a battlecruiser, and that was Bretagne sunk by Hood.


Um - again, this is certainly arguable. According to the accounts I have read of Mers-el-Kebir, Hood was shooting at (and hitting) the Dunkerque at the beginning of the battle, which is when the Bretagne was sunk. Afterwards the Hood was shooting at the Strasbourg but the French BC escaped. I might have to find a book about this though to find out who hit what, or even if it is determinable.

Still arguable is the death ride of the battlecruisers at Jutland. Since no single ship sank the Lutzow, we can't say who did the fatal damage, but I had been under the impression that it was the BB line that did her in.

So by carefully choosing our definitions, we can make some interesting and provocative statements. I don't know think we can ever settle the subject on this forum, but it is sure fun trying!

_____________________________


(in reply to Tiornu)
Post #: 17
RE: A Quiz for You! :-D - 11/7/2004 7:38:49 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25388
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
The most damaging hits were caused by HMS Invincible (along with Inflexible) So much so that Lutzow was out of action by 1837. The Death ride of the Battlecruisers was ordered by Scheer at 1913. Lutzow did not participate in this action as she was mortally wounded and disabled.

_____________________________


(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 18
RE: A Quiz for You! :-D - 11/7/2004 8:59:01 PM   
Tiornu

 

Posts: 1126
Joined: 4/1/2004
Status: offline
One achievement credited to Hood is striking two different battleships with a single shell. The 15in shell that scored the famous hit on Dunkerque's turret broke apart and sent a big chunk into one of the oldies--don't remember which one.

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 19
RE: A Quiz for You! :-D - 11/7/2004 9:50:51 PM   
Arsaces

 

Posts: 39
Joined: 7/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

"Depends what you call a BC, and what you call a battle line."
That's an important point. A lot of this hangs on points of nomenclature, and a lot of misconceptions have evolved from their into ossified hindsight.
It bears repeating that battlecruisers were simply outgrowth of the armored cruiser, whose role included engaging enemy battleships from postions of tactical superiority. I'm guessing this is what is meant by "speed is armor," and in this very limited sense, it is a valid statement.
Not one BC sunk at Jutland owes its loss to a BB; the fatal blows were all struck by other BC.
If we adhere strictly to official nomenclature, only one battlecruiser was ever sunk by a battleship, and that was Hood sunk by Bismarck. Also, only one battleship was sunk by a battlecruiser, and that was Bretagne sunk by Hood. Deviating from official nomenclature, we can also say the BC Kirishima was sunk by Washington (and SoDak). BUt with each of these examples, we can see that the precise labels did not matter. Hood was sunk, not because she was a battlecruiser, but because she was an unmodernized ship fighting a newer, larger opponent. Bretagne was hardly in a fair fight, just a fish in a barrel. And poor Kirishima was up against two ships that were newer, larger, and more powerful.
In fact, Fisher's vision for the battlecruiser was that it would eclipse the battleship or, perhaps more precisely, not "beat" the BB but "join" it. The modern dreadnoughts of post-1930 can all be seen as "fast battleships" or "armored battlecruisers," a BB-BC hybrid.
You know, it's hard to focus on Fisher's intentions and edicts; he made so many disparate statements at various times, I wouldn't be surprised if he once predicted the trawler would make the submarine obsolete. Dinghies are armor!


But I thought the Hood was sunk by a lucky shot from the Prinz Eugen ? In that case, if we consider the Kongo class to be "fast battleships", no battlecruiser ever was sunk by a battleship...

At Mers El Kébir, the French battleships managed to straddle the Hood twice before being knocked out of action. A hit on this highly vulnerable ship might have had momentous consequences. This daring and desperate action was a triumph for Churchill - it could easily have turned into a disaster. The destiny of nations sometimes hangs by a thread...

(in reply to Tiornu)
Post #: 20
RE: A Quiz for You! :-D - 11/7/2004 10:02:08 PM   
madmickey

 

Posts: 1336
Joined: 2/11/2004
From: Calgary, Alberta
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

YOu mean Fisher acknowledged the submarine as a weapon? I thought that was back when the submarine "was not a gentleman's weapon, as it did not fight in plain view." Gotta love the British.


Not quite as goods as Beatty saying "There is something wrong with our ships" at Jutland or the British officer complaining that the German use of the 88-mm flak gun against tanks was not very sporting.

(in reply to Tankerace)
Post #: 21
RE: A Quiz for You! :-D - 11/7/2004 10:06:58 PM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6399
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline
Very true. Don't know about you, but if I just saw 3 of my battlecruisers explode with a very heavy loss of life, I wouldn't be remarking "Oh, there is something wron with out bloody ships today."

_____________________________


Designer of War Plan Orange
Producer of Carrier Force
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition

Avatar is of me with my 1918/1967 FTR Ishapore Sht LE Mk III*.

(in reply to madmickey)
Post #: 22
RE: A Quiz for You! :-D - 11/7/2004 10:10:53 PM   
madmickey

 

Posts: 1336
Joined: 2/11/2004
From: Calgary, Alberta
Status: offline
I am a Canadian and I have seen the British blame Arnhem failure on the Americans.

(in reply to Tankerace)
Post #: 23
RE: A Quiz for You! :-D - 11/7/2004 10:18:18 PM   
madmickey

 

Posts: 1336
Joined: 2/11/2004
From: Calgary, Alberta
Status: offline
I also forgot Doug Haig great comment that The German will run out of ammo before we run out of Troop at the Battle of the Somme. It does help your military career when you wife is a lady in waiting to the Queen.

< Message edited by madmickey -- 11/7/2004 8:18:59 PM >

(in reply to Tankerace)
Post #: 24
RE: A Quiz for You! :-D - 11/7/2004 10:21:43 PM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6399
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: madmickey

I also forgot Doug Haig great comment that The German will run out of ammo before we run out of Troop at the Battle of the Somme. It does help your military career when you wife is a lady in waiting to the Queen.


hahaha, yeah. You can get away with anyting.

_____________________________


Designer of War Plan Orange
Producer of Carrier Force
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition

Avatar is of me with my 1918/1967 FTR Ishapore Sht LE Mk III*.

(in reply to madmickey)
Post #: 25
RE: A Quiz for You! :-D - 11/7/2004 10:45:03 PM   
fbastos


Posts: 827
Joined: 8/7/2004
Status: offline
quote:

One achievement credited to Hood is striking two different battleships with a single shell.


GAH... if I knew about this it would have made a perfect quiz!! :)

F.

_____________________________

I'm running out of jokes...


(in reply to Tiornu)
Post #: 26
RE: A Quiz for You! :-D - 11/7/2004 10:59:31 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25388
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
Fisher was actually very enthusiastic about the submarine. Its not well known but at the start of WWI, the navy with the largest sub fleet was......Britian

_____________________________


(in reply to madmickey)
Post #: 27
RE: A Quiz for You! :-D - 11/7/2004 11:02:33 PM   
fbastos


Posts: 827
Joined: 8/7/2004
Status: offline
quote:

the navy with the largest sub fleet was......Britian


The Navy with the largest number of everything was British...

In this case it proves that the navy with most underutilized submarines was the Royal Navy..

F.

_____________________________

I'm running out of jokes...


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 28
RE: A Quiz for You! :-D - 11/7/2004 11:03:04 PM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6399
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline
But, they didn't know how to use it. To them, the submarine was a scout for the battleline.

_____________________________


Designer of War Plan Orange
Producer of Carrier Force
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition

Avatar is of me with my 1918/1967 FTR Ishapore Sht LE Mk III*.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 29
RE: A Quiz for You! :-D - 11/7/2004 11:24:43 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25388
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
Not true. First off you have to remember that for all navies, UK included, a substantial portion of these submarines were coastal types only and were not suited for offensive ops away from shore. 2ndly, the UK was aggressive with their submarines, using them both in the North Sea and in the Baltic for offensive ops against ships and even enemy Uboats.

They didn't need to fight a commerce war by prize rules because they had their navy and geography to help control the seas and institute a complete blockade of Germany. Germany on the other hand had little other option but to insitute Kleinkrieg as well as try to use their Uboats as scouts and interceptors of RN warships.

_____________________________


(in reply to fbastos)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> A Quiz for You! - Became Battleships vs Battlecruisers Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.132