RE: Naval War Day-by-Day

RE: Naval War Day-by-Day (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion

Message

warspite1 -> RE: Naval War Day-by-Day (6/12/2015 10:33:50 AM)
Good questions. I do not believe that there was any radar defence. Radar was early in its infancy and not available for this purpose. Yes the RN had patrols out but - amazingly - they were unaware that German destroyers had laid these minefields. It was assumed it was the work of subs/aircraft etc. Credit has to be given to the Germans for such bold operations and making use of moonless nights and poor weather conditions. The operations stopped in February 1940 but I am not sure why at this stage. Further details of subsequent operations will follow in due course - but they would prove painful for the British as we shall see.

warspite1 -> RE: Naval War Day-by-Day (6/12/2015 10:47:25 AM)
Royal Navy. Armed Merchant Cruisers (AMC’s). Before the outbreak of World War II the Admiralty thought the biggest threat to the sea lanes, that brought food and other vital supplies to the United Kingdom, would come from surface raiders – rather than submarines. It was decided that in the event of war the Royal Navy’s cruiser fleet would be augmented by a fleet of merchant ships converted for the purposes of escort and patrol work. As usual, sources vary, but I think the most reliable figure for the number of AMC’s employed was 56 (including 3 for the Royal Canadian Navy, 2 for the Royal Australian Navy and 1 for what became the Royal New Zealand Navy). The ships were crewed by a mixture of Royal Navy and their peacetime Merchant Navy crew. Given the heritage of these ships, they proved to be generally excellent sea boats, and much better suited to the worst that the North Atlantic could offer, than the small, elderly light cruisers of the Northern Patrol for example. Note: around half of the AMC’s were earmarked for Northern Patrol work. The ships were mostly of between 10-20,000 tons (although there were a few smaller) and could do at least 15 knots. Typically the ships were fitted with up to eight 6-inch guns and two 3-inch guns, however these were not new weapons, and as a result they typically did not have sufficient elevation to allow a range of more than 15,000 yards. Overtime some newer weapons were fitted and anti-aircraft defence was improved, but this was the exception rather than the rule. The ships suffered from a number of drawbacks and these would contribute to the loss of 15 ships before they finally began being withdrawn in late 1941. As ocean liners, the profile of the ships were not conducive to fighting gun battles – large, slab sided superstructures invited being struck by enemy naval shells. Their lack of armour and antiquated weaponry meant that they were vulnerable even in fights with naval vessels armed with similar weapons. They were particularly vulnerable to U-boat attack as they had no better protection from torpedoes than the ships they were escorting. As more escort vessels were completed, combined with the volume of enemy ships trying to reach Germany naturally lessening, the ships started to be withdrawn. The majority of the surviving vessels were employed as troopships after 1941, although other specialist roles awaited a small number of vessels e.g. landing ships and repair ships. Fate of the AMC’s Lost to U-boat – 10: Andania, Carinthia, Dunvegan Castle, Forfar, Laurentic, Patrolcus, Rajputana, Salopian, Scotstoun and Transylvania. Lost to Auxiliary Raiders – 1: Voltaire Air Attack – 1: Hector Fire – 1: Comorin Kriegsmarine surface ships – 2: Jervis Bay and Rawalpindi The ships may have been limited in their usefulness – but they did provide a much needed boost to the Northern Patrol and were responsible for a number of successful intercepts of enemy vessels. The shortcomings of the ships themselves was no reflection on the bravery of the officers and men who put to sea in them. Indeed the loss of two of the ships – at the hands of units of the Kriegsmarine, would go down in the annals of Royal Naval history. We shall come across the first of these later this month. HMS Laconia (19,695 tons). A typical AMC – although it is her life after conversion to a troopship that proved far more interesting as we shall see in due course…… She was originally built as an ocean liner for the renowned Cunard Line in 1921, and operated between the UK and America. She was requisitioned by the Admiralty almost as soon as war broke out. She was fitted with eight, ageing 6-inch guns and two 3-inch AA weapons. [image]local://upfiles/28156/07A808336E3D4F8FB8AAC57D113C1183.jpg[/image]

rodney727 -> RE: Naval War Day-by-Day (6/12/2015 4:46:44 PM)
This is Great! Thank you W1! I think after this you should do a WW1 day by day.

warspite1 -> RE: Naval War Day-by-Day (6/13/2015 3:53:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rogo727 This is Great! Thank you W1! I think after this you should do a WW1 day by day. warspite1 I'll pass the mantle on to someone else if that's okay [;)]

warspite1 -> RE: Naval War Day-by-Day (6/13/2015 5:52:18 AM)
Kriegsmarine. Scharnhorst-class battlecruisers* Scharnhorst – Completed January 1939 Gneisenau – Completed May 1938 The two ships of this class are invariably described as either battleships or battlecruisers. They were essentially the very opposite of what a battlecruiser was supposed to be; they were weakly armed but heavily armoured. However, for the purposes of this thread I am going to continue to call them battlecruisers for the simple reason that this is what I “knew” them to be as a kid growing up! Equally this class is known by the name of each ship depending on the source. I will stick with Scharnhorst-class. As detailed in the section on the panzerschiffe (see post 88) under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles the German Navy was allowed to replace each of the eight “battleships” it was allowed to retain after WWI once they had reached 20-years old. The replacement ships could not exceed 10,000 tons. The first three replacement ships were the Deutschland-class panzerschiffe. When the French announced the Dunkerque-class fast battleships, the panzerschiffe program was stopped as the French would now have a faster AND better armed ship. The Germans needed to re-think the design for the next two replacements vessels – Ersatz Elsass (Scharnhorst) and Ersatz Hessen (Gneisenau). So began a long process of design and re-design (outside the scope of this post), during which, two major events took place; one was Hitler’s repudiation of Versailles and the other was the signing of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement. Germany was now able to build a navy that was limited to 35% of the Royal Navy. The 10,000 ton restriction on individual ships was removed and the Washington limitations on individual ship types came into being. The two ships ultimately came in at just under 35,000 tons standard displacement. The original design for the Scharnhorsts essentially allowed for a better armoured, faster version of the panzerschiffe. This would result in a hopelessly weak main armament given the size of the ship and, upon the insistence of Admiral Raeder, a third turret was added. The next problem was the calibre of gun to be used. It was ultimately decided to stick with the 11-inch gun as a move to a 12 or 15-inch weapon would mean unacceptable delays while the new guns were designed, tested and built. The Scharnhorsts were thus equipped with three triple 11-inch turrets. The plan was for these to be replaced with 15-inch guns in due course - but this never happened. Secondary armament was also beefed up during the design phase. The secondary armament consisted of twelve 5.9-inch guns in four twin and four single mounts. Anti-aircraft defence was provided by seven twin 4.1-inch guns. Light AA consisted of sixteen 37mm and eight 20mm guns. Two triple torpedo tubes were mounted. Up to three aircraft could be carried for which one catapult was fitted. Defensive armour was provided by a main belt with a maximum of 13.75-inches and the main turrets and conning tower were 14-inches maximum. Upper deck armour was 2-inches thick and further protection was provided by the main armoured deck with a maximum of 2/4-inches above the vital ammunition and machinery spaces (note: sources vary on the maximum thickness of this deck). After much debate, the powerplant was agreed. Diesels (the original choice) were discarded due to the need to reduce weight and in order to achieve the required level of top speed. The three-shaft geared steam turbines produced 165,000 shp giving a top speed of 32 knots. Range was 8,400 miles at 15 knots. These were fine looking ships – particularly so once the “Atlantic” bow and funnel caps were fitted just prior to the war starting. They had a successful start to the war, usually operating together, but this ended in 1942 following Operation Cerberus (The Channel Dash). Gneisenau was badly damaged shortly after in an air raid and was never again operational. Without her sister, Scharnhorst ploughed a lonely furrow in the waters in and around Norway. It was there in the icy, unforgiving waters of the Barents Sea that she was to meet her doom on Boxing Day in 1943. Operating together the "Ugly Sisters" had a successful wartime career up to 1941, playing a key role in the conquest of Norway (Weserubung), the destruction of the aircraft carrier Glorious (Operation Juno) and also a sortie into the Atlantic (Operation Berlin). Thereafter things turned sour. Holed up in France and subject to air attack, the ships were ordered back to Germany, following which their war's were to take very different turns. [image]local://upfiles/28156/E3902CCBAB9F4F8790659D6247CAAFF6.jpg[/image] The dramatic difference made by the adoption of the "Atlantic" bow and the funnel cap can be clearly seen by the before and after shots below.* Before: [image]local://upfiles/28156/EAF476BB84C74E50AFEE6B3EDF8E1D74.jpg[/image] After: [image]local://upfiles/28156/CF236F54981E40258ECC46C63D9F8DCE.jpg[/image] Sources: Conways All The Worlds Fighting Ships 1922-1946 German Capital Ships of the Second World War (Breyer and Skwiot) German Battleships 1939-45 (Osprey Publishing)

Pvt_Grunt -> RE: Naval War Day-by-Day (6/13/2015 8:53:19 AM)
They would have been a real force to be reckoned with had they been up-gunned to 15" as planned. As long as they didnt lose too much speed from extra weight.

warspite1 -> RE: Naval War Day-by-Day (6/13/2015 9:29:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pvt_Grunt They would have been a real force to be reckoned with had they been up-gunned to 15" as planned. As long as they didnt lose too much speed from extra weight. warspite1 They would have been similarly armed, slightly faster, but less well armoured ship in comparison to the Bismarcks. Having four 15-inch capital ships opposing them would have been a worry for the British - but as was proved during the war - their real threat came as a fleet in being (tieing down more ships to the Home Fleet than could ideally be spared) rather than as surface raiders themselves. Surface raiding returns from the Kriegsmarine units were woeful.

Aurelian -> RE: Naval War Day-by-Day (6/13/2015 4:25:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Pvt_Grunt They would have been a real force to be reckoned with had they been up-gunned to 15" as planned. As long as they didnt lose too much speed from extra weight. warspite1 They would have been similarly armed, slightly faster, but less well armoured ship in comparison to the Bismarcks. Having four 15-inch capital ships opposing them would have been a worry for the British - but as was proved during the war - their real threat came as a fleet in being (tieing down more ships to the Home Fleet than could ideally be spared) rather than as surface raiders themselves. Surface raiding returns from the Kriegsmarine units were woeful. They may of been a worry, but they could not go toe to toe with the RN and expect to be on top. Love this thread!!

warspite1 -> RE: Naval War Day-by-Day (6/13/2015 9:41:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aurelian quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Pvt_Grunt They would have been a real force to be reckoned with had they been up-gunned to 15" as planned. As long as they didnt lose too much speed from extra weight. warspite1 They would have been similarly armed, slightly faster, but less well armoured ship in comparison to the Bismarcks. Having four 15-inch capital ships opposing them would have been a worry for the British - but as was proved during the war - their real threat came as a fleet in being (tieing down more ships to the Home Fleet than could ideally be spared) rather than as surface raiders themselves. Surface raiding returns from the Kriegsmarine units were woeful. They may of been a worry, but they could not go toe to toe with the RN and expect to be on top. Love this thread!! warspite1 Thank-you sir! [:)] Only problem is I have made a bit of a faux pas on one of the posts - and will have to go back and amend before continuing [:@] Oh well - my fault for rushing. I will try and sort tomorrow.

Capt. Harlock -> RE: Naval War Day-by-Day (6/14/2015 2:49:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Pvt_Grunt They would have been a real force to be reckoned with had they been up-gunned to 15" as planned. As long as they didnt lose too much speed from extra weight. warspite1 They would have been similarly armed, slightly faster, but less well armoured ship in comparison to the Bismarcks. Having four 15-inch capital ships opposing them would have been a worry for the British - but as was proved during the war - their real threat came as a fleet in being (tieing down more ships to the Home Fleet than could ideally be spared) rather than as surface raiders themselves. For whatever my opinion is worth, up-gunning the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau would have accomplished very little. Their guns had more than adequate range, scoring one of the two longest-distance naval gunnery hits on record. And I'm not aware that they ever hit anything that 15" guns could have penetrated while 11" guns could not.

warspite1 -> RE: Naval War Day-by-Day (6/14/2015 6:42:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Pvt_Grunt They would have been a real force to be reckoned with had they been up-gunned to 15" as planned. As long as they didnt lose too much speed from extra weight. warspite1 They would have been similarly armed, slightly faster, but less well armoured ship in comparison to the Bismarcks. Having four 15-inch capital ships opposing them would have been a worry for the British - but as was proved during the war - their real threat came as a fleet in being (tieing down more ships to the Home Fleet than could ideally be spared) rather than as surface raiders themselves. For whatever my opinion is worth, up-gunning the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau would have accomplished very little. Their guns had more than adequate range, scoring one of the two longest-distance naval gunnery hits on record. And I'm not aware that they ever hit anything that 15" guns could have penetrated while 11" guns could not. warspite1 Not my specialist subject. I was surprised to see the elevation of the 11-inch guns was 40 degrees - and only 30 degrees for the 15-inch, thus giving the smaller gun a 3-mile increase in range. However, I am not sure that this extreme range is that important (gut feel only). More important I would have thought is the sheer weight of shell that each ship could deliver. 15-inch = 1,764lbs x 8 guns = Broadside of 12,112lbs 11-inch = 6,547lbs x 9 guns = Broadside of 6,547lbs That is a big difference (although the rate of fire was higher for the smaller gun). I am sure there are some people on this forum who are better placed than me to relate all this to typical battle scenarios and the defences that enemy ships could put up. Really interesting topic.

warspite1 -> RE: Naval War Day-by-Day (6/14/2015 8:49:33 AM)
17th - 19th November 1939 (North Sea) With two highly lucrative operations behind them (see Posts 119 and 147) the Germans were keen to try and exploit their success. Two further operations were carried out on the 17th / 18th (Thames Estuary) and the 18th / 19th (Humber Estuary). For each operation the Kriegsmarine employed three destroyers: Thames: Hermann Kunne, Bernd von Arnim and Wilhelm Heidkamp commanded by FregattenKapitan Hans Hartmann. Humber: Erich Steinbrinck, Hans Lody and Friedrich Eckoldt commanded by FregattenKapitan Erich Bey In the Thames Estuary the mines claimed victims almost immediately; two ships were sunk on the 18th, including a Dutch liner with many women and children aboard. Three days later a destroyer flotilla left Harwich to start a patrol of the area. One of the destroyers, HMS Gypsy (Lt.Cdr Nigel Crossley), struck one of the mines and she broke in two. 30 men were lost including the captain. Further losses were taken in the coming days. The destroyer minelaying operations off the East Coast would continue until February and we shall be re-visiting this topic over the next three months. The destroyers would not return to the Humber however. The two operations in this important waterway caused the loss of fourteen merchant ships. Erich Bey. Bey was another German Admiral that would rise through the ranks to command one of the capital ships of the Kriegsmarine later in the war. He was killed while commanding the battlecruiser Scharnhorst during the Battle of the North Cape. [image]local://upfiles/28156/814DDC6BF78F4EBCA69702C0617CFFCF.jpg[/image] Source: The Gathering Storm (Geirr H Haarr)

warspite1 -> RE: Naval War Day-by-Day (6/14/2015 8:54:23 AM)
I spotted an error in one of the previous posts so have re-worked the following: Post 119 - Completely new Post 147 - Amended part of the previous wording to take into account the new detail in 119

Zorch -> RE: Naval War Day-by-Day (6/14/2015 10:18:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Pvt_Grunt They would have been a real force to be reckoned with had they been up-gunned to 15" as planned. As long as they didnt lose too much speed from extra weight. warspite1 They would have been similarly armed, slightly faster, but less well armoured ship in comparison to the Bismarcks. Having four 15-inch capital ships opposing them would have been a worry for the British - but as was proved during the war - their real threat came as a fleet in being (tieing down more ships to the Home Fleet than could ideally be spared) rather than as surface raiders themselves. For whatever my opinion is worth, up-gunning the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau would have accomplished very little. Their guns had more than adequate range, scoring one of the two longest-distance naval gunnery hits on record. And I'm not aware that they ever hit anything that 15" guns could have penetrated while 11" guns could not. warspite1 Not my specialist subject. I was surprised to see the elevation of the 11-inch guns was 40 degrees - and only 30 degrees for the 15-inch, thus giving the smaller gun a 3-mile increase in range. However, I am not sure that this extreme range is that important (gut feel only). More important I would have thought is the sheer weight of shell that each ship could deliver. 15-inch = 1,764lbs x 8 guns = Broadside of 12,112lbs 11-inch = 6,547lbs x 9 guns = Broadside of 6,547lbs That is a big difference (although the rate of fire was higher for the smaller gun). I am sure there are some people on this forum who are better placed than me to relate all this to typical battle scenarios and the defences that enemy ships could put up. Really interesting topic. I think the up gunning would have been of little importance. The limiting factor for the use of these ships was that a damaged (or low on fuel or ammo) ship would have limited options, as the Bismarck and Graf Spee showed. This forced the Germans to be cautious and avoid engagements unless close to home waters.

warspite1 -> RE: Naval War Day-by-Day (6/14/2015 12:13:19 PM)
Up to 21st November 1939 (The Atlantic and North Sea – The Northern Patrol) Post 152 gave a brief introduction to the Armed Merchant Cruiser (AMC) fleet that started to come into service in October 1939. During November, these ships played their part, alongside regular naval vessels, in trying to enforce the blockade of German ports and the interception of enemy ships trying to reach Germany. One can only imagine what life must have been like in those northern waters (in a rough line Scotland – Iceland – Greenland) during the winter months. The patrol work was incredibly tedious – often with no ships sighted for days on end, but with the need to be constantly vigilant in case of the appearance of U-boats or enemy surface ships, in addition to finding the ships that were specifically being targeted by the patrol. At the same time the weather was often atrocious, with ship damaging seas whipped up by hurricane force winds, driving rain or snow and the intense cold making life thoroughly miserable for those aboard. And as for the poor gunners - the 6-inch guns mounted on the AMC’s were open, often without even shields for protection. Just grim. But the job needed doing and during November neutral vessels continued being intercepted – at which point a decision had to be made as to whether a ship was allowed to proceed or was to be taken to a UK port. Enemy vessels were more likely to be scuttled than captured – examples in November were the Panama (intercepted by HMS Newcastle) and Mecklenburg (intercepted by HMS Delhi) but as we have seen there were some exceptions – including the German freighter Borkum, which was captured by the AMC California only to be torpedoed and sunk in turn by U-31. The position on the 21st November was as follows: - Guarding the Denmark Strait (between Iceland and Greenland) were the heavy cruisers Norfolk and Suffolk along with the AMC’s Aurania, California and Transylvania. - In a rough line from Iceland travelling southeast to the Faroes, and operating about 40 miles apart, were the light cruisers Newcastle, Delhi, Calypso and Ceres (with the AMC Rawalpindi north and east of the D-class cruiser). - Between the Faroes and Scotland were the light cruisers Caledon, Colombo, Diomede, Dunedin and Cardiff. - Other AMC's would have been at sea on the Northern Patrol at this time e.g. Laurentic and Chitral, but I cannot get a fix on their position. - The Home Fleet was back in the Clyde (Scapa was still not considered safe at this time) having recently escorted an important Iron Ore convoy from Norway. ……..meanwhile, departing Wilhelmshaven on the 21st were the battlecruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisenau (Flagship of Admiral Wilhelm Marschall) along with an escort from the Reconnaissance Force consisting of the light cruisers Koln and Leipzig and three destroyers…… HMS Newcastle. One of the Type I Town-class cruisers. Newcastle’s career was largely unheralded, but she was involved almost from start to finish, survived torpedo damage incurred in the Mediterranean and featured in almost all theatres of World War II [image]local://upfiles/28156/AF6DC0C64B834CFDA28222DD6A37D1E2.jpg[/image] HMS Delhi. The elderly cruiser was, like her D-class sisters and those of the C-class, long overdue for the scrapheap, but saved by the threat of war in the mid-thirties. The Admiralty had plans to convert the C and D-class to anti-aircraft cruisers but there was little money for such a project, too little dockyard space and altogether too many other pressing concerns. As a result few conversions had taken place by September 1939 – and HMS Delhi was one of those that remained pretty much in her World War I guise. Before: [image]local://upfiles/28156/A409C262DC5F4137997EB4A70848F7E2.jpg[/image] However, in 1941, under lend-lease, she was sent to the US for a refit (the USN were curious to see how their 5-inch gun would perform in combat) and she was given USN 5-inch destroyer weaponry. She was to be unique amongst RN ships as by the end of the year the US were in the war and they had better things to be doing than providing ageing British cruisers with extensive refits that used weapons that could more usefully be employed in their own ships. HMS Delhi had her 6-inch guns replaced with five single 5-inch guns and, unlike US destroyers, was given a second director, making her a “two-target” ship. Further anti-aircraft defence was provided by two quadruple 2-pdr pompoms each with directors and ten 20mm guns. After: [image]local://upfiles/28156/3A9D8C875C574DB88BF393A9FC38314C.jpg[/image] Sources: Conways All The Worlds Fighting Ships 1922-1946 British Cruisers (Norman Friedman) The War at Sea 1939-45 Volume I (Stephen Roskill) The Gathering Storm (Geirr H Haarr)

Capt. Harlock -> RE: Naval War Day-by-Day (6/14/2015 2:19:34 PM)
quote: Not my specialist subject. I was surprised to see the elevation of the 11-inch guns was 40 degrees - and only 30 degrees for the 15-inch, thus giving the smaller gun a 3-mile increase in range. However, I am not sure that this extreme range is that important (gut feel only). More important I would have thought is the sheer weight of shell that each ship could deliver. 15-inch = 1,764lbs x 8 guns = Broadside of 12,112lbs 11-inch = 6,547lbs x 9 guns = Broadside of 6,547lbs That is a big difference (although the rate of fire was higher for the smaller gun). Not to hijack this exceeding interesting and well-researched thread, but the survivors of the HMS Glorious would likely believe that long-range accuracy could be important. Scharnhorst scored a hit on her while she was trying to escape which may have fatally slowed her, and that hit may have been the longest-range ship-to-ship gun hit in history. (You'll be interested to know that the other possibility was scored by HMS Warspite.) My calculations for broadside weight come to: 15-inch = 1,764lbs x 8 guns = Broadside of 14,112lbs 11-inch = 741 lbs x 9 guns = Broadside of 6,669lbs I believe that the up-gunning plan was to equip Scharnhorst and Gneisenau with three double 15-inch turrets rather than four. I don't see how a fourth turret could have been fitted without extraordinary rework. This would have given them: 1,764 lbs X 6 guns = Broadside of 10,584 lbs Definitely an improvement on the 11-inch, but not the more than doubling of eight guns.

warspite1 -> RE: Naval War Day-by-Day (6/14/2015 2:33:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock quote: Not my specialist subject. I was surprised to see the elevation of the 11-inch guns was 40 degrees - and only 30 degrees for the 15-inch, thus giving the smaller gun a 3-mile increase in range. However, I am not sure that this extreme range is that important (gut feel only). More important I would have thought is the sheer weight of shell that each ship could deliver. 15-inch = 1,764lbs x 8 guns = Broadside of 12,112lbs 11-inch = 6,547lbs x 9 guns = Broadside of 6,547lbs That is a big difference (although the rate of fire was higher for the smaller gun). Not to hijack this exceeding interesting and well-researched thread, but the survivors of the HMS Glorious would likely believe that long-range accuracy could be important. Scharnhorst scored a hit on her while she was trying to escape which may have fatally slowed her, and that hit may have been the longest-range ship-to-ship gun hit in history. (You'll be interested to know that the other possibility was scored by HMS Warspite.) My calculations for broadside weight come to: 15-inch = 1,764lbs x 8 guns = Broadside of 14,112lbs 11-inch = 741 lbs x 9 guns = Broadside of 6,669lbs I believe that the up-gunning plan was to equip Scharnhorst and Gneisenau with three double 15-inch turrets rather than four. I don't see how a fourth turret could have been fitted without extraordinary rework. This would have given them: 1,764 lbs X 6 guns = Broadside of 10,584 lbs Definitely an improvement on the 11-inch, but not the more than doubling of eight guns. warspite1 A few things in response Capt. 1. I did not say range was unimportant, what I was putting out there (because I simply do not know enough about this) is to what extent extreme range (so a 3-mile difference quoted previously) is more/less/equally as important as rate of fire and weight of broadside when considering optimal choice. I do not know enough about the ranges many individual battles were fought at, but presumably most would have been at considerably less than maximum range? 2. Let's not muck about HMS Warspite holds that record. FACT. And I'm not even biased [;)] Will cover off this engagement and look specifically at this. 3. You are quite right - it would have been three turrets not four.

Aurelian -> RE: Naval War Day-by-Day (6/14/2015 2:56:06 PM)
Scharnhorst beat Warspite by @465 yards http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-006.htm Though in the grand scheme of things, it's a tie.

warspite1 -> RE: Naval War Day-by-Day (6/14/2015 3:19:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aurelian Scharnhorst beat Warspite by @465 yards http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-006.htm Though in the grand scheme of things, it's a tie. warspite1 I think, as a mature adult, it is important to maintain one's composure at times like this. Even in the face of quite hideous provocation, I believe one should act with decorum, with civility, and remembering to keep one's dignity at all times. Ergo and theretofore, re the question of Scharnhorst hitting Glorious at longer range than The Old Lady hit the Guilio Ceesre, I say this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Luyw5mWV5is

Aurelian -> RE: Naval War Day-by-Day (6/14/2015 3:50:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Aurelian Scharnhorst beat Warspite by @465 yards http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-006.htm Though in the grand scheme of things, it's a tie. warspite1 I think, as a mature adult, it is important to maintain one's composure at times like this. Even in the face of quite hideous provocation, I believe one should act with decorum, with civility, and remembering to keep one's dignity at all times. Ergo and theretofore, re the question of Scharnhorst hitting Glorious at longer range than The Old Lady hit the Guilio Ceesre, I say this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Luyw5mWV5is [:D][:D][:D]

Zorch -> RE: Naval War Day-by-Day (6/14/2015 3:59:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aurelian quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Aurelian Scharnhorst beat Warspite by @465 yards http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-006.htm Though in the grand scheme of things, it's a tie. warspite1 I think, as a mature adult, it is important to maintain one's composure at times like this. Even in the face of quite hideous provocation, I believe one should act with decorum, with civility, and remembering to keep one's dignity at all times. Ergo and theretofore, re the question of Scharnhorst hitting Glorious at longer range than The Old Lady hit the Guilio Ceesre, I say this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Luyw5mWV5is [:D][:D][:D] There is no truth to the rumor that Warspite and Aurelian will engage in a steel cage death match to determine who holds the record. [&o][&o][&o] Did Warspite and Scharnhorst ever get within shooting distance of each other?

Aurelian -> RE: Naval War Day-by-Day (6/14/2015 5:21:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zorch quote: ORIGINAL: Aurelian quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Aurelian Scharnhorst beat Warspite by @465 yards http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-006.htm Though in the grand scheme of things, it's a tie. warspite1 I think, as a mature adult, it is important to maintain one's composure at times like this. Even in the face of quite hideous provocation, I believe one should act with decorum, with civility, and remembering to keep one's dignity at all times. Ergo and theretofore, re the question of Scharnhorst hitting Glorious at longer range than The Old Lady hit the Guilio Ceesre, I say this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Luyw5mWV5is [:D][:D][:D] There is no truth to the rumor that Warspite and Aurelian will engage in a steel cage death match to determine who holds the record. [&o][&o][&o] Did Warspite and Scharnhorst ever get within shooting distance of each other? Nope. The only battleship Scharnhorst ever engaged was HMS Duke of York. And got sunk for her trouble. (Warspite1 will eventually get to that spat.) She and her sister did engage the HMS Renown for a brief time. Gneisenau took two hits. The sisters ended up running away.

CarnageINC -> RE: Naval War Day-by-Day (6/14/2015 7:44:02 PM)
Oh, I better set the table with some plates soon.... [image]http://www.morethings.com/fan/monty_python/nudge-nudge-monty-python-105.jpg[/image] [:D][;)][:'(]

warspite1 -> RE: Naval War Day-by-Day (6/21/2015 6:46:31 AM)
Following on from Post 165. 21st – 27th November 1939 (North Atlantic and North Sea – Surface fleet action) The sortie by Scharnhorst and Gneisenau was ordered in order to assist the Graf Spee - still in the South Atlantic at this time but preparing for her voyage home. To this end, and as mentioned in Post 146, in addition to the battlecruisers, Donitz had been ordered to place some U-boats in the North Sea ready to intercept any Royal Navy vessels that sought to intercept Vice-Admiral Marschall’s ships should they be found. However the U-boats were to play no further part in this story. The battlecruisers mission was not designed to be a breakout into the Atlantic; merely a feint in order to tie up Allied forces that could otherwise be deployed elsewhere. In addition, and subject to the usual rules not to engage more powerful enemy forces, Vice-Admiral Marschall’s ships would hopefully sink whatever targets presented themselves during the course of the operation. Shortly after leaving port the escorting light cruisers and destroyers detached from the battlecruisers in order to conduct patrol work in the Skaggerak. Not for the first time, British reconnaissance (aided by poor weather conditions) was lacking, and Scharnhorst and her sister were completely undetected as they made their way toward the Faroes Gap between Iceland and the Faroes Islands. Two days into the voyage, just before 1600hrs on the 23rd, the Scharnhorst’s lookouts spotted a ship about 15 miles away on their starboard bow. Gneisenau was over 10 miles further back at this point and Scharnhorst set course to intercept the ship alone while Marschall’s flagship steamed northwest to assist. Scharnhorst’s commander, Kapt. Kurt Hoffman, ordered that the unidentified vessel be signalled to ask “What ship?” and also to order radio silence. Meanwhile, aboard the Armed Merchant Cruiser Captain Edward Kennedy’s options were limited to say the very least. With guns that could easily be outranged, a top speed nothing like enemy she was about to face, and no support close to hand, Kennedy must have known all too well how this would play out. Upon hearing of the outbreak of war, Admiral Erich Raeder wrote in his memoirs that the best the men of the Kriegsmarine could do was to “go down fighting” and to “show that we know how to die gallantly”. Swap HMS Rawalpindi for Kriegsmarine and I suspect Captain Kennedy was feeling exactly the same….. The sender of the signal was erroneously identified as being a Deutschland-class panzerschiff by those aboard Rawalpindi, but that made no difference to the situation faced by the British ship. Kennedy ordered that the signal be simply acknowledged and, in line with orders turned away from the enemy whilst giving time to report the encounter to the Home Fleet. Having done so, nothing would be heard from HMS Rawalpindi again. Upon receipt of the communication, Admiral Forbes ordered the Home Fleet to sail. At just after 1600hrs and with the range at 8,000 yards the battle began. Having seen that the enemy ship would not surrender, Hoffman ordered fire to commence and Scharnhorst’s very first salvo found the target. In so doing both the bridge and the radio room were destroyed. The second salvo was equally devastating, smashing into the engine room. The Rawalpindi fought back as best she could but with all power gone, shells had to be manually brought to the guns. Soon Gneisenau too opened fire on the already burning and doomed vessel and, in less than fifteen minutes from the first shell landing, it was all over. Rawalpindi, ablaze from stem to stern, would soon disappear beneath the waves, taking 238 men with her. There were just 38 survivors – most of whom were rescued by the German ships. Meanwhile Royal Navy ships close by that had picked up Rawalpindi’s radio message had headed straight for her reported position. The first to arrive was the light cruiser HMS Newcastle. The arrival of the cruiser ended any further rescue efforts and the German ships withdrew. It appears strange that Marschall did not seem to consider attacking the Newcastle. Both she and the approaching HMS Delhi would have been unlikely to survive an encounter with the two battlecruisers. The operations staff back in Berlin would later be asking the same question too…. The weather made Marschall’s escape easier as Newcastle, lacking radar, was unable to maintain contact in the gathering darkness and deteriorating conditions. Admiral Forbes ordered his ships into position to intercept the German vessels should they seek to return home or indeed to continue on to the Atlantic. To cover the latter the aircraft carrier Furious, the battleship Warspite and the battlecruiser Repulse were ordered to the Denmark Strait and the battlecruiser Hood and the French fast battleship Dunkerque were assigned to cover any breakout further east. Off the Norwegian Coast a line of cruisers – Southampton, Edinburgh and Aurora - was placed to intercept should Marschall head home. The cruisers were covered by the battleships Nelson and Rodney and the heavy cruiser Devonshire. But to the intense frustration of all concerned, Marschall was able to evade the pursuers. After sailing into the Norwegian Sea, where the two battlecruisers spent two days waiting for the weather to worsen, they then managed to sneak through the patrol line and were able to return to Germany by the 27th. It was another disappointing episode for the Royal Navy. The loss of the carrier Courageous – and the patrol capability she would have given - was being felt already. To make matters worse, while returning to port, HMS Nelson struck a mine and was sidelined for months to come…. Back in Germany, there was mixed emotions amongst the staff officers of the OKM and the performance of Vice-Admiral Marschall - and specifically his perceived lack of aggression in response to the arrival of a 6-inch cruiser - was debated. Ultimately though, Raeder let the matter drop. Having been previously identified as one of the ships destined for use as an Armed Merchant Cruiser in the event of war, SS Rawalpindi was requisitioned by the government in August 1939. Before being drafted into service as the AMC HMS Rawalpindi she was a 16,700 ton, 17-knot passenger liner, built in 1925, and operated by the P&O line between the UK and India. Reflecting her proposed use, she was named after a town in India (modern day Pakistan). In more peaceful times she could carry almost 600 passengers. As an AMC she was given eight 6-inch guns and two 3-inch anti-aircraft weapons. She was crewed by 286 officers and men (sixty of which were from her peacetime crew) and captained by Edward Kennedy RNVR, a 60-year old Royal Navy veteran brought out of retirement upon the outbreak of war. The end of the valiant Rawalpindi. [image]local://upfiles/28156/A92BB194CF234AE8B2B074942E72A582.jpg[/image] Sources: The War at Sea 1939-45 Volume I (Stephen Roskill) The Gathering Storm (Geirr H Haarr) www.naval-history.net

tripwireCCS -> RE: Naval War Day-by-Day (6/22/2015 8:14:25 PM)
Warspite1, excellent work you are doing on the WWII Naval War Day-by-Day articles. Keep 'em coming! (I created an account here just to be able to reply to this topic)

warspite1 -> RE: Naval War Day-by-Day (6/23/2015 6:21:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tripwireCCS Warspite1, excellent work you are doing on the WWII Naval War Day-by-Day articles. Keep 'em coming! (I created an account here just to be able to reply to this topic) warspite1 Thank-you for your support [:)]

warspite1 -> RE: Naval War Day-by-Day (7/5/2015 7:01:07 AM)
30th November 1939 (Baltic Sea) On this day the war, begun almost three months earlier with the German invasion of Poland, started to expand its grisly reach; the latest victim was the small Scandinavian republic of Finland. Free to act in its “sphere of influence” thanks to the secret protocols of the Nazi-Soviet Pact, no sooner had the Soviets claimed their half of Poland, than Stalin began to put pressure on the Baltic States and Finland. The Baltic States had little choice but to comply (see Posts 59 and 133) but the Finns had other ideas. The Soviets requested from Finland various parts of key Finnish territory (including moving the Finnish-Soviet border back north of Leningrad) and certain islands in the Gulf of Finland for which the small state would receive areas of Karelia in return. Despite the disparity in size, the Finns continued to resist even when, in early November, the tone of the requests became less polite and more of the menacing variety. On the 30th November the Soviets patience ran out…. The naval war was, for reasons that will become obvious, a case of much ado about nothing. There is not much to say on this because: - The navies employed were relatively small - The area being fought over was largely ice-bound for most of the war - There is little detailed information I can find on the little action that did take place, however, there were two or three engagements of note that took place before the Gulf froze over, and these will be mentioned during the course of December. In the meantime, in Post 133 we looked at the Soviet Baltic Fleet, and we shall now take a brief look at the small Finnish navy. As said, the information available is scant in terms of what units were where in November 1939, but it appears that there were no units of any size on the Arctic Ocean in and around Petsamo. The navy maintained its main assets on the Baltic Coast, as one would expect given that this was the main centre of population and contained the ports that carried much of the trade to and from Finland. Finnish Navy in November 1939 The Finnish Navy was very much behind the army when it came to military spending as the threat from the Soviet Union hung over the country throughout the inter-war years. The country had only gained its independence from Russia at the end of World War I and, apart from a few ships and boats left behind by the Russians, the Finns had to pretty much build their naval forces from scratch. The Finnish Navy numbered around 33,000 men. It was commanded by Major-General Vaino Valve, who had been Commander of Naval Forces since 1933. I cannot ascertain why he did not hold naval rank. This may have been because of the importance of the coastal artillery batteries. Note: coastal batteries and some small boats were deployed on the shoreline of Lake Ladoga. One of the Finnish submarines – Saukko – was designed to operate in this lake – although she never did. The majority of the navy’s personnel was deployed in manning these coastal guns. Valve’s chief of staff was Ragnar Hakola. Below him was a Commander of the Navy and Commander of the Coastal Fleet – Commodore Eero Rahola. The main ships, boats and submarines Two coastal defence “battleships” – Ilmarinen and Vainamoinen Five submarines – Vetehinen, Vesihiisi, Iku-Turso, Vesikko and Saukko Four gunboats – Uusimaa, Hameenmaa, Karjala and Turunmaa Minelayer – Louhi Six minesweepers – Ahven, Kiiski, Kuore, Lahna, Muikko and Sarki. Note Conways indicate there were, in addition, two old Russian mineweepers – Rautu and Vilppula Seven motor torpedo boats – Nuoli, Syoksy, Raju, Vinha, Sisu, Hurja and Isku Built in the 1930’s, the largest ships in the Finnish Navy were the two coastal “battleships” of the Ilmarinen-class. These vessels (displacing just 3,900 tons standard) were not designed as ocean-going vessels, but were instead intended to provide protection for the vulnerable coastline of Finland from attack from the sea. As such their top speed (16-knots) and range were limited (only 93 tons of oil could be carried). Defensive armour was relatively light with a main belt of just over 2-inches and deck armour of just over 0.5 inches. For their size, the main armament of four 10-inch guns (mounted in two twin turrets) was out of proportion and made the ships top-heavy. As a result they were not good sea boats and prone to rolling. Secondary armament consisted of eight dual-purpose 4.1 inch guns mounted in twin turrets, and light anti-aircraft weaponry of both 20mm and 40mm. Ilmarinen (pictured) was sunk later in the war, but her sister Vainamoinen, survived the war and was ceded to the Soviets in 1947. [image]local://upfiles/28156/AAA71D6F62654FB69C0F1A4E9A0694E9.jpg[/image] Source: Conways: All The World’s Fighting Ships 1922-1946 www.winterwar.com

Zorch -> RE: Naval War Day-by-Day (7/5/2015 10:06:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tripwireCCS Warspite1, excellent work you are doing on the WWII Naval War Day-by-Day articles. Keep 'em coming! (I created an account here just to be able to reply to this topic) +1

warspite1 -> RE: Naval War Day-by-Day (7/18/2015 2:47:24 PM)
Okay I need a couple of things to round off November but research is proving difficult. In order not to delay things I will finish off November tomorrow - albeit with limited info - and will edit in due course as I hope to be able to get more info in the next few months. Plenty to write about in December! [:)]

cpdeyoung -> RE: Naval War Day-by-Day (7/18/2015 2:51:31 PM)
Very much looking forward to your posts, and I look every day I can. Chuck

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.484375