RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

Nikademus -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (5/2/2009 6:38:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

quote:

And has an unfortunate Dr. Phil fetish, it seems... Most disturbing...

Update: I'm told that the tattoo is not in fact Dr Phil but an ancient Toltec deity best remembered for inventing the Twinkee. Not only that, but it's not actually on the back of MY head, so clearly I have dodged a bullet.
On the subject of "best," it occurs to me that George Moore's Building for Victory offers an excellent account of how the RN decided which ships best fit its needs during WWII. I don't know any other book like it.


Dodging the Golden Twinkee hit aka from Warships1 days back in the 90's was always a desirable thing. [:)]
Moore huh? Adding that to the wish list. thx for the tip



mdiehl -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (5/2/2009 8:54:43 PM)

quote:

"Accuracy of the Gunfire of Main Batteries of United States Battleships" for the National Defense Research Committee. It dates to 1944 and uses Iowa as a benchmark for its comparisons of the different gunnery processes. The analysis is intense. One table summarizes hit percentages at four target angles (0, 30, 60, and 90 degrees) and projects the number of hits to be expected in each case at ranges listed in 2000-yard increments out to 34,000 yards. At that range and a target angle of 90deg, the radar ship would get 23.53% more hits; for 0deg, it's 10%. The greatest boost for radar appears to be at around 20,000 yards were the advantages are 26.83-32.38%.


Outstanding reply, thanks! I'll see if I can find that at the local U. It's the sort of thing they might have in the science and engineering library (where one can find all kinds of wondrous things... I once found a book there on how to construct a crude charcoal-fired smelter... the bees knees in the event of a zombie apocalypse).



Nikademus -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (5/2/2009 10:39:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu
On the subject of "best," it occurs to me that George Moore's Building for Victory offers an excellent account of how the RN decided which ships best fit its needs during WWII. I don't know any other book like it.


Yikes......$211.00 off amazon. pricey!



jwilkerson -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (5/2/2009 11:06:16 PM)

Yea despite my better judgment I toss around various factors of "best".

Such as "days at sea per hull" a piece of data that might be useful to compare like classes.

Or sorties per day per hull" a piece of data that might be useful to compare classes of carriers.

But are these indicators of "best design" or of "best implementation"? The question asks about "Best Design" ... which implies some kind of separation between the concept of "design" and "implementation". But it is tough to evaludate designs separate from their implementation. So there I go getting hung up on the word puzzle implied by the question. I still think it was a question designed by Zeno's ancestors to get our brains all twisted up!
[:D]




Nikademus -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (5/2/2009 11:12:54 PM)

I think you called it best earlier. [:D]



witpqs -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (5/3/2009 12:05:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Yea despite my better judgment ...



I knew you couldn't stay away from this topic. It has an attraction ... like when a shoe gets pulled off walking through deep mud!

[:D]



Tiornu -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (5/3/2009 2:59:52 AM)

quote:

I'll see if I can find that at the local U.

Don't forget to check WorldCat, or just enlist your librarian to attempt an ILL. Sometimes you can even have some luck with a web search. Places like hyperwar and researcher@large have some great stuff lying around.



Anthropoid -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (5/3/2009 3:34:45 AM)

For offensive stuff, I think the question needs to be: which ship sank the most per hour of combat engaged? For non-offensive stuff: which ship had the highest ratio of survivability divided by hours of operation?

There are a host of similar possible measures, but IMO, measures like these are the only coherent way to define "best design." Anything else is just a discussion in aesthetics and 'on paper' analyses and projections.

And at the end of the day, defining any of the vessels of the nation which was forced to surrender unconditionally as "best design" seems questionable to me. If they had the "best design(s)" then why did they lose?

A possible response to that rhetorical question: even if a particular vessel or class of vessel was brilliant in its design, that could be totally irrelevant if that design is not implemented as part of a larger national strategy in such a way that it cumulativey leads the nation to victory.

Despite having the "best" helicopters, medical servvices, aircraft carriers, tanks, artillery and countless other designs during the Vietnam War, the United States was nonetheless forced to withdraw from Southeast Asia, denied victory, demoralized and humiliated by the Communists.



Reg -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (5/3/2009 4:47:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu
On the subject of "best," it occurs to me that George Moore's Building for Victory offers an excellent account of how the RN decided which ships best fit its needs during WWII. I don't know any other book like it.


Yikes......$211.00 off amazon. pricey!



Whatcha talking about??? US$61.43 at Anchor Books, Grantham, United Kingdom. [;)]

Keep looking, IMHO Amazon is over rated.




Jaroen -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (5/3/2009 11:41:20 AM)

@Tiornu: Thank you for the commendation and later reference on the George Moore book.
I will stick to the DK Brown book for starters. Seems like a good follow-up on the book I just finished: "Churchill's Navy: the ships, men and organisation 1939-1945; by Brian Lavery". A nice introduction which covers a wide range of related subjects putting it all in perspective. One anecdote I found surprising: "A normal salvo in a ship with twin turrets was to fire one gun in each turret, while the other reloaded. The nine-gun Rodney normally fired her nine main guns in salvoes of five and four, but when she took part in the sinking of the Bismarck in 1941 she also fired one eight-gun salvo and there were seven-gun ones. According to an American observer on board: Damage sustained from contusion of broadsides very considerable, causing undue discomfort to personnel and much work to make compartments habitable. Tile decking in washrooms, water closets and heads were ruptured throughout the ship. Urinals were blown off bulkheads, water pipes broken, and heads flooded. Longitudinal beams were broken and cracked in many parts of the ship having to be shored. ... The overhead decking ruptured and many bad leaks were caused by bolts and rivets coming loose. All compartments on the main deck had water flodding the decks."

What surprised me was both the non-use of full broadsides (nine-gun salvoes) and the damage involved with firing it's own main guns. I presume both were common on all big gun ships and perhaps even on the smaller gunned ones. How much does "good design" help on this?



herwin -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (5/3/2009 12:01:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jaroen

@Tiornu: Thank you for the commendation and later reference on the George Moore book.
I will stick to the DK Brown book for starters. Seems like a good follow-up on the book I just finished: "Churchill's Navy: the ships, men and organisation 1939-1945; by Brian Lavery". A nice introduction which covers a wide range of related subjects putting it all in perspective. One anecdote I found surprising: "A normal salvo in a ship with twin turrets was to fire one gun in each turret, while the other reloaded. The nine-gun Rodney normally fired her nine main guns in salvoes of five and four, but when she took part in the sinking of the Bismarck in 1941 she also fired one eight-gun salvo and there were seven-gun ones. According to an American observer on board: Damage sustained from contusion of broadsides very considerable, causing undue discomfort to personnel and much work to make compartments habitable. Tile decking in washrooms, water closets and heads were ruptured throughout the ship. Urinals were blown off bulkheads, water pipes broken, and heads flooded. Longitudinal beams were broken and cracked in many parts of the ship having to be shored. ... The overhead decking ruptured and many bad leaks were caused by bolts and rivets coming loose. All compartments on the main deck had water flodding the decks."

What surprised me was both the non-use of full broadsides (nine-gun salvoes) and the damage involved with firing it's own main guns. I presume both were common on all big gun ships and perhaps even on the smaller gunned ones. How much does "good design" help on this?


I can confirm the alternating fire salvos. It meant that fire was sustained and could be adjusted more frequently. I can also confirm that the Rodney and Nelson were overstressed by 9-gun broadsides. Those ships were cut-down 48000-ton battlecruisers designed at a time when the lessons of Jutland were not fully understood.



Terminus -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (5/3/2009 12:08:24 PM)

The USN found out at Tarawa that battleships were not good landing force flagships for the same reason.



John Lansford -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (5/3/2009 12:23:45 PM)

Rodney inflicted so much damage on herself in the Bismarck engagement that the German ship's survivors swore she had been hit by Bismarck.  Rodney was on her way to NY for refitting and had several hundred WWI vets on board as well; they certainly had a ring side seat to a once in a lifetime event!



Anthropoid -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (5/3/2009 3:36:07 PM)

Just want to understand this point: you guys are saying that this ship HMS Rodney, damaged herself by firing her guns?

I realize that she was a compromise reduced version of herself because of the Washington Treaty, but still, isn't that absurd?

Indeed, I'm reminded of this bumper sticker I saw the other day. Had a [picture of a Hummer] = "Small Penis." The other bumper stick that I can't put out of my head is that one with the Calvin character taking a leak on some other item/character and with "FEAR _THIS_!!"

As a non-expert, I just can't help but ask: were battleships actually good for ANYTHING? In the sum total of the history of the big gun, how many were sunk by non-big gun attacks (DDs, Torpedo boats, aircraft, shore gun fire, smaller ships, sabotage, accidents)? Compared to how many were sunk by fellow BBs?

I'm getting a sense here for a fascinating theme, and it is reflected in the name of the first/classic example: "Dreadnought" i.e., "I'm not Afraid!" Were these things really just a big psychout game combined with an egotistical contest in "Mines BIGGER!?"



Terminus -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (5/3/2009 4:27:16 PM)

The damaging yourself with the blast from your own guns thing is not a myth, Anthropoid.



Anthropoid -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (5/3/2009 4:30:43 PM)

I don't doubt its true, i.e., not a myth.

But isn't it absurd for a weapon system to damage itself in being used offensively!? I mean the whole point of a weapon is to hurt the enemy, not oneself!



witpqs -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (5/3/2009 4:35:13 PM)

I think one of the factors is that if you lack the ability to deal with a BB, which often means having your own BB, then they would devastate you. Another is that they are so valuable and costly that you will be careful about how you use/risk them.

When you look only at the end result it seems crazy. To understand it you have to look at the stages and consequences to situations such as "my opponent has them and I don't".

It does seem bizarre that Rodney and Nelson would be subject to so much damage from doing their own thing. Maybe Harry's comment is the root of it. They sure ain't gonna win any WWII best-designed contest!



Anthropoid -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (5/3/2009 5:11:20 PM)

quote:

I think one of the factors is that if you lack the ability to deal with a BB, which often means having your own BB


I have a faint inkling that the whole big gun infatuation/arms race period of the early decades of the century was in part irrational or at best 'speculative.' Until bigger and 'better' was actually tested in war who could have easily dismissed the fact that a rival nation was building these things as being 'inconsequential?"

But then I seem to recall repeated instances during the early phases in which smaller, faster ships managed to do a whole lot of damage to the big beasties.

The Era of the Big Guns has certainly been eclipsed, arguably the final chapter was Dec 7, though certainly no later than the end of WWII?

This is what I'd like to know: was it really just a waste of time? Were DDs and torpedo boats, aircraft, mines, etc., just as good for 'countering' enemy BBs as building your own BBs would have been?

It just seems to me that about the only thing these things were 'good' at was (sporadically) sinking other big gun ships, and that in itself seems to be largely a result of luck or tactical brilliance, and not so much a manifestation of the 'design' or how big it was.

The battlecruisers were supposed to be largely immune by being fast. If I understand it correctly, this just did not work. The heaviest were supposed to be good at gunning down enemy ships or bombarding enemy shore batteries. Based on some of the stuff being quoted here, and in other threads linked in this one, this doesn't really seemed to have worked very well either?

Were these things really just a gigantic waste of human effort, perhaps one of the BIGGEST wastes of human endeavour in all of natural history?

Just stop and think for a second about all the tens, probably even hundreds of thousands of person hours that went into a vessel like Indefagitable or Queen Mary; the incredible quantums of natural resources; the reallocation of national resources from other areas; the intellectual effort; the money; the lives . . . then *KABOOM* a couple lucky shots combined with poor ammo handling and the whole thing is in Davey Jones locker along with 99% of their crews.

As an anthropologist, that to me seems just about as crazy as the ritual small-scale warfare that borders on 'gaming' albeit with life-and-death consequences among groups like the Dani of Western New Guinea.



Nikademus -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (5/3/2009 5:21:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Just want to understand this point: you guys are saying that this ship HMS Rodney, damaged herself by firing her guns?

I realize that she was a compromise reduced version of herself because of the Washington Treaty, but still, isn't that absurd?


She fired more than a few salvoes at close range which required the gun muzzles to be depressed low to the deck. This in part was responsible for the damage she suffered from her own guns. The force of a BB firing it's own guns is an awe inspiring event that a simple physics equation can never convey.



Nikademus -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (5/3/2009 5:38:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

I have a faint inkling that the whole big gun infatuation/arms race period of the early decades of the century was in part irrational or at best 'speculative.' Until bigger and 'better' was actually tested in war who could have easily dismissed the fact that a rival nation was building these things as being 'inconsequential?"


Dreadnoughts were irrevecably tied to National prestige back in the day. The more you had, the more prestige and influence you had. It was, however not all about spit and polish and political maneuvering. Great Britian lived litterally by the sea and needed a strong fleet to protect her world wide empire. Thus she was compelled to oblige any nation with an arms race should that nation or nations seek to challenge her position. I can recommend a great book that goes into detail about how the BB fit into the times prior to WWII. "Castles of Steel" by Robert Masse. He also wrote "Dreadnought" which focuses even more so on the complicated relationship between Great Britian and Imperial Germany from the time Bismarck federated the German states to the beginning of WWI. Easy and very interesting reads.

Back to the Battleship. While it is true that they could be menanced by smaller, cheaper ships.. (mainly the torpedo boat and submarine), in reality the latter two could never fully make up for a lack of Capital Ships. Wartime experience also proved that torpedoing these beasties, if properly defended and conned, proved far more difficult than theoried back in the days of the French Jeune Ecole Being such a valuable weapon however, the Battleship suffered somewhat from it's own reputation and the navies of the 20th century during WWI, Britian excepted, were very recluctant to risk their national investments. Fleet in being concepts became fashionable and IMO, ultimately futile.

Its really not all that different today. Only the ship types have changed. We now have the large Aircraft Carrier, and the nuclear toting submarine. Only the most powerful nations on earth can afford and maintain these beasts which over the years whittled down, in large scale at least, to the US and former USSR (before the fall). Mission is reletively the same too....force projection, showing the flag, poltical maneuvering. The submarine is limited more than the BB in this sense as to use it's weapons would mean possibly the end of the world as we know it. Carriers remain the most flexible because they can use risk their aircraft while keeping a distance. The only fobile there now is that aircraft have become so expensive now that to lose even one to an enemy usually makes for great press. HA HA we shot down your billion dollar machine Yankee dog!
[:D]






witpqs -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (5/3/2009 5:49:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

I have a faint inkling that the whole big gun infatuation/arms race period of the early decades of the century was in part irrational or at best 'speculative.' Until bigger and 'better' was actually tested in war who could have easily dismissed the fact that a rival nation was building these things as being 'inconsequential?"


There were plenty of engagements that proved the point. A major test in The Great War, of course.

I do see your point - until having some real knowledge that they are of little value, how many bullets to the head are you willing to risk? But it turns out they did have value.


quote:


This is what I'd like to know: was it really just a waste of time? Were DDs and torpedo boats, aircraft, mines, etc., just as good for 'countering' enemy BBs as building your own BBs would have been?


No. Clearly an appropriate balance of forces was best, though.



Tiornu -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (5/3/2009 5:56:42 PM)

Broadside = a firing of all guns that bear to one side.
Salvo = a firing of one or more guns.
The reason I'm saying this is because there is some confusion--salvo and broadside are not synonymous. The Americans had a doctrinal preference for full broadsides that seems to have been unusual. The Russian dreadnoughts were intended to fire their guns in three-gun groupings. The Germans liked half-salvos so much that they repented of putting nine guns aboard their cruisers and battleships and reverted to eight guns despite the extra cost in weight. The British generally preferred half-salvos. I recently ran into difficulties in examining Shropshire's performance at Surigao Strait because the participants were using the word broadside in a way that seemed synonymous with salvo. I was surprised to find they didn't intentionally fire a half-salvo at any time in the battle.
Blast damage to a battleship in WWII was a routine consequence of firing the main guns. Happened all the time. In Rodney's case, the situation was aggravated by the ultra-short range: guns at near 0deg elevation, as close to the decks as possible. There may also have been some exaggeration of the effects.
Battleships were of course good at something. There was nothing like a battleship to dominate the seas in its immediate vicinity. Not even an aircraft carrier could rival it.



Terminus -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (5/3/2009 6:07:47 PM)

Not in the 30's, certainly... Later, 'twas a different story.

I'd advance the opinion, however, that the last war-winning performance by the battleship was at Tsushima. After that, they didn't do much to justify their price-tags.



Anthropoid -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (5/3/2009 6:10:14 PM)

Thanks for the suggested readings!



Nikademus -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (5/3/2009 6:17:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Not in the 30's, certainly... Later, 'twas a different story.

I'd advance the opinion, however, that the last war-winning performance by the battleship was at Tsushima. After that, they didn't do much to justify their price-tags.


The Grand fleet may have been built on the idea of winning another Trafalgar....but ultimately it's actions helped ensure Germany's defeat in WWI by the preserving of the ruinous embargo on Germany. Elements of the fleet also preserved Britian's freedom of the seas elsewhere (Faulklands)



Tiornu -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (5/3/2009 6:40:25 PM)

The HSF was also built on the premise of a new Trafalgar. The difference is that the Grand Fleet was actually capable of winning it. It therefore never had to. The Grand Fleet was a monumental success, even if that success wasn't all that gratifying. The HSF, on the other hand, represents one of the greatest policy blunders of the century. The lesson: don't waste your money on a weapon that cannot win.



JWE -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (5/3/2009 7:07:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu
The HSF was also built on the premise of a new Trafalgar. The difference is that the Grand Fleet was actually capable of winning it. It therefore never had to. The Grand Fleet was a monumental success, even if that success wasn't all that gratifying. The HSF, on the other hand, represents one of the greatest policy blunders of the century. The lesson: don't waste your money on a weapon that cannot win.

I think Tiornu makes a good point. The larger the superiority, the fewer the opportunities to show that superiority. The fleet in being thing only works if you are able to pin or fixate an opposing (hopefully much larger) force onto your own, thereby opening up opportunities elsewhere.

But if you ain’t got no elsewhere, or the opponent is so superior they can confront the fleet in being as well as maintain superiority elsewhere, you be in a world of hurt, and just wasted a few billion dollars, pounds, marks, lire, francs, zlotys, whatever. So why poke your head out and die? Doesn’t leave much opportunity for the big boys to rack up a kill. HSF got marginalized rather quickly. But all that means is that the Grand Fleet BBs did their jobs, as an extension of policy.



BrucePowers -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (5/3/2009 7:10:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu
The HSF was also built on the premise of a new Trafalgar. The difference is that the Grand Fleet was actually capable of winning it. It therefore never had to. The Grand Fleet was a monumental success, even if that success wasn't all that gratifying. The HSF, on the other hand, represents one of the greatest policy blunders of the century. The lesson: don't waste your money on a weapon that cannot win.

I think Tiornu makes a good point. The larger the superiority, the fewer the opportunities to show that superiority. The fleet in being thing only works if you are able to pin or fixate an opposing (hopefully much larger) force onto your own, thereby opening up opportunities elsewhere.

But if you ain’t got no elsewhere, or the opponent is so superior they can confront the fleet in being as well as maintain superiority elsewhere, you be in a world of hurt, and just wasted a few billion dollars, pounds, marks, lire, francs, zlotys, whatever. So why poke your head out and die? Doesn’t leave much opportunity for the big boys to rack up a kill. HSF got marginalized rather quickly. But all that means is that the Grand Fleet BBs did their jobs, as an extension of policy.



I agree. I think the Grand Fleet met all of it's objectives during WWI.



witpqs -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (5/3/2009 7:15:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

The Grand Fleet was a monumental success, even if that success wasn't all that gratifying.


Indeed. While it did fight, it would have been a huge success even if it never fought. Like taking precautions against having a fire and never having one because of those precautions. In the case of the Grand Fleet, it was not tested more because it existed and it's superiority was known (or believed) by adversaries.



Nikademus -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (5/3/2009 7:24:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

The HSF was also built on the premise of a new Trafalgar. The difference is that the Grand Fleet was actually capable of winning it. It therefore never had to. The Grand Fleet was a monumental success, even if that success wasn't all that gratifying. The HSF, on the other hand, represents one of the greatest policy blunders of the century. The lesson: don't waste your money on a weapon that cannot win.


all the more so given that Britain tried via diplomancy to explain to Germany how it's naval program impacted them. I thought Author Belfour put it in simple eloquence when he wrote for German reader's sakes; "Without a superior fleet, Britain would no longer count as a power. With no fleet at all, Germany would remain the greatest power in Europe."

It fell on deaf ears. Tirpitz was determined to build his battlefeet and the Kaiser naively clung to his dream of two equally powerful battlefeets passing each other in mutual review and respect. He was a great admirer of the Royal Navy and wanted a similar navy for his own country....failing to understand how it would be viewed in GB. It pushed GB into the Entente.



Page: <<   < prev  15 16 [17] 18 19   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.079102