Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

"Pocket Battleship" a misnomer?

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> "Pocket Battleship" a misnomer? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
"Pocket Battleship" a misnomer? - 2/20/2011 6:31:10 PM   
Joe D.


Posts: 4004
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline 		Just bought the inexpensive "Ultimate Illustrated History of World War II" and actually learned a thing or two that I never quite grapsed before.

For example, German Panzerschiffe (armored ships) that the Brits called "Pocket Battleships" were actually heavy cruisers that were built to out-gun or out-run any other capital ship. However, in practice these ships were slow to fire and their engines unreliable.

Apparently this all goes back to the "treaty" cruisers built under the Washington and other naval treaties that limited heavy crusiers to 8 in. guns and 10,000 tons of displacement, but the Axis powers always cheated on these specs, which may explain why IJN ships do so well against the Allies early in the war.

BTW, to avoid problems in pronunciation, the Allies gave Japanese planes "reporting names": boys' names for fighters (i.e., Oscar) and girls' names for bombers (Betty, Kate, Nell, etc).

< Message edited by Joe D. -- 2/20/2011 6:32:58 PM >

_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II
Post #: 1
RE: "Pocket Battleship" a misnomer? - 2/20/2011 7:52:39 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

Just bought the inexpensive "Ultimate Illustrated History of World War II" and actually learned a thing or two that I never quite grapsed before.

For example, German Panzerschiffe (armored ships) that the Brits called "Pocket Battleships" were actually heavy cruisers that were built to out-gun or out-run any other capital ship. However, in practice these ships were slow to fire and their engines unreliable.

Apparently this all goes back to the "treaty" cruisers built under the Washington and other naval treaties that limited heavy crusiers to 8 in. guns and 10,000 tons of displacement, but the Axis powers always cheated on these specs, which may explain why IJN ships do so well against the Allies early in the war.

BTW, to avoid problems in pronunciation, the Allies gave Japanese planes "reporting names": boys' names for fighters (i.e., Oscar) and girls' names for bombers (Betty, Kate, Nell, etc).

Warspite1

They were seen at the time, as an ingenious way of making use of the 10,000 ton restriction imposed on the German navy. From memory, this has nothing to do with "Treaty" cruisers, which were limited to 8-inch guns (Graf Spee and co had 11-inchers). By setting a 10,000 ton restriction on German ships, the Allies thought the Germans unlikely to build anything more than a coastal battleship type.

However, the "faster than any stronger ship and stronger than any faster ship" was soon rendered obsolete by the new fast battleships beginning with the Dunkerque-class.

The engines seemed to work perfectly well in Graf Spee and Admiral Scheer - but they did need regular overhauls and was the main reason that Graf Spee was heading back to Germany when Ludendorff disobeyed orders and went after the British cruiser squadron off the River Plate - whoops.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 2
RE: "Pocket Battleship" a misnomer? - 2/20/2011 10:45:46 PM   
Tiornu

 

Posts: 1126
Joined: 4/1/2004
Status: offline 		Warship International is planning an in-depth look at the Deutschlands in the near future.
My understanding about the diesels is that the navy disregarded input from MAN about the foundations they required. This caused some problems, though I think there's been some over-emphasis on the subject.
The best design history on the class is probably that in MJ Whitley's German Capital Ships of World War Two.
The Deutschlands (those still extant) were rerated as heavy cruisers in 1940. Their design gestated around a coherent mission and strategy, which cannot be said about any of Germany's larger warships completed after them.


(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 3
RE: "Pocket Battleship" a misnomer? - 2/21/2011 2:48:44 AM   
YankeeAirRat


Posts: 633
Joined: 6/22/2005
Status: offline 		It wasn't the Washington Treaty that limited the Germans to heavy ships no larger then 10k tons was the Versailles Treaty. It limited the Germans to 6 battleships at no more then 10k tons. So the Germans got very enterprising with trying to make the first set of thier newest surface ships try and fit with in the rules of the treaty. They tried to build something inbetween a Heavy Cruiser and a Battlecruiser. When these ships showed up, it lead to some panics in the fleets of France, US, and the UK. That in turn lead to discussions about the next series of cruisers/battleships to run against these ships. In the end though, when the war came they were totally outclassed by the ships that the rest of the world was building as the threat of war started to come in the later 1930s.

I would also note that in the Kreigsmarine there was a serious amount of infighting tween the U-boat guys and the Surface guys. So between the two sides the German's Plan Z never amounted to what they had planned to do. I would note that nearly all of the surface ships the German's built had serious issues. Things like nearly all of the Bismarck class of AA guns had seriously limited field of fire (some articles that I have read said a few spots really only had 15 degrees of fields), to the German Destroyers weren't fast enough to compete against even the WW1 four stackers that were leased to Brits during the war and they were extremely "wet" ships for ops in the North Atlantic, to even Adm Hipper class of CA's though speedy the guns power in plunging fire wasn't very good. On a whole the Kriegsmarine surface fleet wasn't ready for war according to a few artcles and books that I have read

_____________________________

Take my word for it. You never want to be involved in an “International Incident”.

(in reply to Tiornu)
Post #: 4
RE: "Pocket Battleship" a misnomer? - 2/21/2011 3:42:06 AM   
Tiornu

 

Posts: 1126
Joined: 4/1/2004
Status: offline 		One thing that has mystified about Bismarck, they put the fore and aft 10.5cm DP guns in different mounts, which meant one director could not coordinate fire from the fare and aft guns. Duh...?

(in reply to YankeeAirRat)
Post #: 5
RE: "Pocket Battleship" a misnomer? - 2/21/2011 8:58:49 AM   
fuelli

 

Posts: 233
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

One thing that has mystified about Bismarck, they put the fore and aft 10.5cm DP guns in different mounts, which meant one director could not coordinate fire from the fare and aft guns. Duh...?


That was not by design. By the time the Bismarck was outfitted with her 10,5cm DP gun the SK-C/37 mount was not available in sufficient numbers. Therefore the older SK-C/33 mount was used for the four forward mounts. It was planned to replace them later on. Somehow the Royal Navy interfered with that plans...

(in reply to Tiornu)
Post #: 6
RE: "Pocket Battleship" a misnomer? - 2/21/2011 9:10:59 AM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: fuelli

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

One thing that has mystified about Bismarck, they put the fore and aft 10.5cm DP guns in different mounts, which meant one director could not coordinate fire from the fare and aft guns. Duh...?


That was not by design. By the time the Bismarck was outfitted with her 10,5cm DP gun the SK-C/37 mount was not available in sufficient numbers. Therefore the older SK-C/33 mount was used for the four forward mounts. It was planned to replace them later on. Somehow the Royal Navy interfered with that plans...


IIRC this is how it went... it was necessity rather than design...


BTW, the big caliber AA guns Bismarck had were of almost no use against RN Swordfish biplanes...


Also the same could be said for almost any other navy (except USN) in those early war years - the AA guns, directors and fire control were not very useful...


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to fuelli)
Post #: 7
RE: "Pocket Battleship" a misnomer? - 2/21/2011 9:40:50 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: fuelli

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

One thing that has mystified about Bismarck, they put the fore and aft 10.5cm DP guns in different mounts, which meant one director could not coordinate fire from the fare and aft guns. Duh...?


That was not by design. By the time the Bismarck was outfitted with her 10,5cm DP gun the SK-C/37 mount was not available in sufficient numbers. Therefore the older SK-C/33 mount was used for the four forward mounts. It was planned to replace them later on. Somehow the Royal Navy interfered with that plans...


IIRC this is how it went... it was necessity rather than design...

Also the same could be said for almost any other navy (except USN) in those early war years - the AA guns, directors and fire control were not very useful...


Leo "Apollo11"

Warspite1

Exactly - it wasn't a "duh" moment. All ships designs are a compromise at the best of times. But in the thirties this was doubly so due to treaty restrictions (which some observed more than others) and/or industrial capacity etc. E.g. the British chose the 5.25-inch DP gun for the Dido-class AA cruisers. Two problems: this were the gun also chosen for the KGV secondary armament and there were not enough to go around due to industrial limitations. Some Didos received all five, some four and two had a completely different gun! The gun was not even the best AA gun available either, but the alternative was too small for a cruiser engaged in surface to surface action.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 8
RE: "Pocket Battleship" a misnomer? - 2/21/2011 3:56:36 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

However, the "faster than any stronger ship and stronger than any faster ship" was soon rendered obsolete by the new fast battleships beginning with the Dunkerque-class.



Even more fundementally.....the hysteria created by the "faster than any stronger ship" bugaboo ended up being burst by the simple logic that a more simple (and less expensive) solution to such a vessel was a superior number of 'inferior' ships. Ultimately Graf Spee was defeated not by any ship "designed" to defeat her....but by three weaker cruisers built for general purposes.

All in all though.....Deutchland was an innovative vessel which created a big political splash. The Germans themselves however were the first to realize the shelf life of the class had expired once the world recovered from it's shock....they canceled the remainder of the class in favor of building larger more capable ships.


_____________________________


(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 9
RE: "Pocket Battleship" a misnomer? - 2/21/2011 6:21:28 PM   
Tiornu

 

Posts: 1126
Joined: 4/1/2004
Status: offline 		I think we can all agree that the Bismarck design did not include incompatible gun mounts, but that doesn't change the Duh factor. The Germans could have fitted her entirely with the older mount, or they could have replaced the older mounts when new ones became available. They didn't. Compared with Bismarck, how did Tirpitz do when confronted with torpedo bombers? Of course, it's not possible to dissect the causes, as Tirpitz was better prepared for combat (in materiel and personnel) than Bismarck.
Deutschland was not really outdated, in my opinion, until someone got the brilliant idea of fighting a war against the world's largest navy. Facing only the French, Deutschland was a reasonable option even after Dunkerque appeared. France's cruiser fleet could not compare with Britain's, not to mention carrier aviation.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 10
RE: "Pocket Battleship" a misnomer? - 2/21/2011 6:25:33 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		what do you see as the "ideal" German built commerce raiding type cruiser?

_____________________________


(in reply to Tiornu)
Post #: 11
RE: "Pocket Battleship" a misnomer? - 2/21/2011 6:51:36 PM   
Tiornu

 

Posts: 1126
Joined: 4/1/2004
Status: offline 		I guess it depends on the date. The proliferation of radio and airplanes (not to mention potential enemy warships) would make genuine warships a lesser choice for raiding. Historically, this option was caput by mid-1941. That leaves AMC-expendables as the only option. Otherise, though, long-range super-cruisers are good. They could also serve as mini-battleships in a Baltic command of the sea scenario, which I continue to see as a promising line of KM development. Forget Atlantic battleships and concentrate on an ability to dominate the Baltic and move amphibs all the way into the Gulf of Finland.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 12
RE: "Pocket Battleship" a misnomer? - 2/21/2011 6:56:59 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		There was a guy who was arguing that between the Graf Spee's armor belt + it's torpedo bulkhead that it was assured of protecting the vitals even against 8 inch fire unless at very close range. I have to admit i was puzzled by this use of combination in order to forward a point of near invulnerability (to major damage at least as he put it)



_____________________________


(in reply to Tiornu)
Post #: 13
RE: "Pocket Battleship" a misnomer? - 2/21/2011 7:01:16 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

Facing only the French, Deutschland was a reasonable option even after Dunkerque appeared. France's cruiser fleet could not compare with Britain's, not to mention carrier aviation.

Warspite1

Yes but was a war against France that did not involve the UK remotely likely then? Even if there was a repeat of 1870 then its unlikely there would be the need for a naval war.

quote:

Deutschland was not really outdated, in my opinion, until someone got the brilliant idea of fighting a war against the world's largest navy.


I agree, none of the surface ships of the Kriegsmarine did much to write home about but Admiral Scheer was relatively successful and Graf Spee could have got home after her initial raiding operation had her captain not disobeyed orders and sought battle with Harwood's cruisers.


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Tiornu)
Post #: 14
RE: "Pocket Battleship" a misnomer? - 2/21/2011 8:21:44 PM   
PresterJohn001


Posts: 382
Joined: 8/11/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

what do you see as the "ideal" German built commerce raiding type cruiser?


u-boats.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 15
RE: "Pocket Battleship" a misnomer? - 2/21/2011 8:22:17 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		heh...not according to Clay Blair.

_____________________________


(in reply to PresterJohn001)
Post #: 16
RE: "Pocket Battleship" a misnomer? - 2/22/2011 2:41:39 AM   
Tiornu

 

Posts: 1126
Joined: 4/1/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Yes but was a war against France that did not involve the UK remotely likely then?

That's a question I was thinking of addressing, but I decided it's way too complex to deal with her in a forum. The German navy was quite embarrassed with its conduct during the FP War (basically it had to skulk about trying to avoid the French), and the leadership undoubtedly wanted a better option for the next time. The pocket battleships would have endangered French traffic and drawn the attention of French cruisers that otherwise would have been preying on German traffic. This was not a decisive front, but it was something worth pursuing.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 17
RE: "Pocket Battleship" a misnomer? - 2/22/2011 6:00:50 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline 		"Pocket Battleship"

Was this a press or politicians comment that stuck.


_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Tiornu)
Post #: 18
RE: "Pocket Battleship" a misnomer? - 2/22/2011 6:08:07 AM   
YankeeAirRat


Posts: 633
Joined: 6/22/2005
Status: offline 		Press designation that sort of stuck through out history. Sort of like "Flying Fortress" was the name some press reporter had given to the Boeing Model 299 when it showed up for the first time over at Boeing Field in the 1930's

_____________________________

Take my word for it. You never want to be involved in an “International Incident”.

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 19
RE: "Pocket Battleship" a misnomer? - 2/22/2011 6:59:16 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		At the time, Jane's had them listed as "Armoured Ships", while the Scharnhorst class was listed as Battleships. 

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to YankeeAirRat)
Post #: 20
RE: "Pocket Battleship" a misnomer? - 2/22/2011 2:42:18 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		The germans themselves however never classified them as battleships and it would have been ridiculous for them to do so given the small displacement and light cruiser armor scheme. First the somewhat generic "Panzerscheiff" (armored ship), then after the war started, a more specific title of Heavy Cruiser ("Schwere Kreuzer")



_____________________________


(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 21
RE: "Pocket Battleship" a misnomer? - 2/22/2011 3:14:25 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

heh...not according to Clay Blair.



Ok, this then....




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 22
RE: "Pocket Battleship" a misnomer? - 2/22/2011 3:19:25 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		lol

Blair tore the Luftwaffe a new one for it's inefficiency at coordinating it's actions with the Kriegsmarine. It did get better as the war dragged on and a few notable successes were achieved. The problem was that there still were never enough of them and by the time their skill in navigation and tracking improved enough at sea....the Allies were deploying massive numbers of aircraft of their own, including the first CVE's which spelled doom for any FW-200's lurking around.

Mind you.....Blair is not god, but his comments did make for interesting reading. I'm still hoping someday to get some opposing viewpoints....i saw Gannon's Black May book in the store the other day....almost picked it up....but i am traveling light these days.



_____________________________


(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 23
RE: "Pocket Battleship" a misnomer? - 2/22/2011 4:56:57 PM   
Tiornu

 

Posts: 1126
Joined: 4/1/2004
Status: offline 		I don't know the origins of the "pocket battleship" term. I wouldn't assume it didn't start in the RN.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 24
RE: "Pocket Battleship" a misnomer? - 2/22/2011 5:01:04 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		I'd always heard the Press (British?) coined it.



_____________________________


(in reply to Tiornu)
Post #: 25
RE: "Pocket Battleship" a misnomer? - 2/22/2011 7:17:14 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

I'd always heard the Press (British?) coined it.



Wikipedia agrees with you.

BTW, i've always been confused about the claim that "these ships could outgun anything that could catch them" claim... the British had the Hoood, Repulse, and Renown that could catch and kill them. So what was the basis of the claim?

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 26
RE: "Pocket Battleship" a misnomer? - 2/22/2011 7:33:05 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		more complete accounts would list the three surviving British battlecruisers as "exceptions" i.e. "the ships could outrun anything they couldn't outfight....with the exception of the three surviving British battlecruisers."

_____________________________


(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 27
RE: "Pocket Battleship" a misnomer? - 2/22/2011 7:40:26 PM   
Tiornu

 

Posts: 1126
Joined: 4/1/2004
Status: offline 		The Kongos deserve a mention.
Can Deutschland outgun a carrier air group?

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 28
RE: "Pocket Battleship" a misnomer? - 2/22/2011 7:55:50 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		if there's an Atlantic storm brewin.......

_____________________________


(in reply to Tiornu)
Post #: 29
RE: "Pocket Battleship" a misnomer? - 2/23/2011 4:00:24 PM   
Iridium


Posts: 932
Joined: 4/1/2005
From: Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

if there's an Atlantic storm brewin.......


You suppose this would have happened had Duetchland ran into Glorious instead of Scharnhost?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QrW8H1pyoQ

_____________________________

Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.

"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> "Pocket Battleship" a misnomer? Page: [1] 2   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

2.008