The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 25, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: ww2 Yamato vs Iowa class
capt soap    9/17/2005 12:55:11 PM
How would this fight turn out? the Iowa's 16 inch guns against the Yamato 18 guns? The iowa had radar,which one would sink the other 1 on 1.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22   NEXT
Herald12345       7/7/2009 3:41:49 PM
 
Quote    Reply

elclip1       7/7/2009 3:43:28 PM

HMS Glorius looks like she was cruiser converted to carrier.

She was a converted WW-1 "light" battle-cruiser or "Large light cruiser". There were three of them: Furious, Courageous and Glorious.  

They were odd ships with two 15" turrets. They did see some action in WW-1, but were not successful. Called the "outrageous" class, all three were converted to carriers after the war. 

 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       7/7/2009 3:48:28 PM
 
Incompetent basically is what the conversion was, after the overrated Jackie Fisher saddled the RN with these jokes..

 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Better but still not very good.   7/7/2009 3:50:16 PM
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Better but still not very good.   7/7/2009 3:52:52 PM
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Engineering exercise un brilliance.   7/7/2009 4:04:06 PM
 
 
 
 
Notice hanger placement and elevators?
 
Specifications
Standard Displacement 7,470 tons
Dimension

Length: 155.5m
Width: 14.7m
Depth: 6.2m
Main Engine 2-shaft Parsons turbines
8 Kampon boilers (4 oil-firing, 4 mixed-firing)
Coal 940 tons
Oil 2,700 tons
Horsepower 30,000 shp
Maximum Speed 25kts
Range 10,000 nautical miles at 14kts
Crew 550
Armament 4 5.5 inch (140mm)/50 guns
2 3.1 inch/40 AA
Aircraft 21 Aircraft:
10 bombers
7 fighters
4 reconnaisance
 
 For the first try by anyone as a purpose designed hull that's very impressive.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

elclip1    More "Outrageous Class"   7/7/2009 5:00:43 PM


 

Incompetent basically is what the conversion was, after the overrated Jackie Fisher saddled the RN with these jokes..


The Furious managed to survive the war and had a not-terrible operational career despite being technically obsolete. 
Glorious of course was lost to the German Battle Cruisers (speaking of incompetent - at one point did sailing a carrier in hostile waters with no CAP or armed aircraft on deck seem like a good idea?)  and the other one, the Courageous, was torpedoed and sunk while foolishly being used to - wait for it - Hunt submarines! 

Two pieces of "Outrageous" class trivia...

At least the Furious was originally supposed to have 18" main guns (two).  Not sure that it ever actually had them though. The ship went into service with two twin 15" turrets.

The turrets from HMS Glorious  and Courageous were fitted to HMS Vanguard.


 

 

 

 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY       7/7/2009 7:33:20 PM




 



 






 



The Furious managed to survive the war and had a not-terrible operational career despite being technically obsolete. 

Glorious of course was lost to the German Battle Cruisers (speaking of incompetent - at one point did sailing a carrier in hostile waters with no CAP or armed aircraft on deck seem like a good idea?)
 
That was British doctrine at the time.  And if you had heard of any of the FAA so-called fighters you'd ahve struck them below decks, too.  They weren't very good fighters.  Britain was to rely on the RAF for land-based cover and AAA...something that was absent in Norway and British AA was not that great, at least against dive bombers.  Any way that's why the fighters were below decks.
 
 and the other one, the Courageous, was torpedoed and sunk while foolishly being used to - wait for it - Hunt submarines! 
 
 
Just because you're "hunting" SS' doesn't mean they aren't hunting YOU!







.







 



 



 



 
 
Quote    Reply

Leech       7/8/2009 4:10:34 AM
These "large light cruisers" were complete mistake. Something which can be easily hit must have armor. Germans realised that and outfitted their ships with additional armor on ammunition chambers before battle of Jutland, where main victims were Fisher's "large light cruisers". And, by WWII, fast battleships almost completely outclassed them.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       7/8/2009 6:59:58 PM






This would have helped:
 
 
Incompetent basically is what the conversion was, after the overrated Jackie Fisher saddled the RN with these jokes..

That, as the planned post 1938 modernization, would have helped. 
 
 Basic changes would have been eight (4x20 4'/50s in 4 twin mount, 32 (8x4) 40mm/70, and up to 20-30 20mm/70 Oerlikons  
 
Aircraft complement would still be around 34 aircraft for type with the likely candidates being Fulmars and Albacores split evenly in 1940 had things gone right. .. 

The Furious managed to survive the war and had a not-terrible operational career despite being technically obsolete. 

Glorious of course was lost to the German Battle Cruisers (speaking of incompetent - at one point did sailing a carrier in hostile waters with no CAP or armed aircraft on deck seem like a good idea?)  and the other one, the Courageous, was torpedoed and sunk while foolishly being used to - wait for it - Hunt submarines!
 
There is no reason not to hunt submarines with aircraft carriers (its how the air gap was closed) provided that you do it the right way. There should be strong destroyer escort and you should keep your speed up as well as keep a good torpedo watch on your sound gear!. 
 
Two pieces of "Outrageous" class trivia...

At least the Furious was originally supposed to have 18" main guns (two).  Not sure that it ever actually had them though. The ship went into service with two twin 15" turrets.

The turrets from HMS Glorious  and Courageous were fitted to HMS Vanguard.
 
Don't know about that. What I do know is that the gun houses and the mounts went into the general spare parts pool, and that the gun barrels did likewise. Some of these were used on battleship- repairs (Warspite) and some was used in new construction (Vanguard). What went where, I don't know   

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Furious managed to survive the war and had a not-terrible operational career despite being technically obsolete. 

Glorious of course was lost to the German Battle Cruisers (speaking of incompetent - at one point did sailing a carrier in hostile waters with no CAP or armed aircraft on deck seem like a good idea?)
 
That was British doctrine at the time.  And if you had heard of any of the FAA so-called fighters you'd have struck them below decks, too.  They weren't very good fighters.  Britain was to rely on the RAF for land-based cover and AAA...something that was absent in Norway and British AA was not that great, at least against dive bombers.  Any way that's why the fighters were below decks.
 
The Gladiators should have been on deck and the Hurricanes parked out of the takeoff run, ready to be dumped at the forst sign of trouble.. More likely the Swordfish should have been spotted instead, as the one thing HMS Glorious needed was airborne eyes with torpedoes aloft to look around her environs.. With no radar she could not afford to be blind to a threat that could see her first
..  
 and the other one, the Courageous, was torpedoed and sunk while foolishly being used to - wait for it - Hunt submarines! 
 
Just because you're "hunting" SS' doesn't mean they aren't hunting YOU!

Nope. That was just wrong tactics. You don't send  aircraft carriers with just two to four destroyer bodyguards  out to hunt subs, nor do you chug along at 12 knots.sedately launching planes on a baseline course. You weave into and out of the wind as you launch.    

There was also no good reason to let incompetents like D'Orly Hughes (HMS Glorious) and that other imbecile, Makaig-Jones (HMS Courageous) command anything except the circular firing squads to shoot each other. For a Navy that was supposed to have weeded out all the Admiral Byngs, there seem to have been a lot of imbeciles in command in WW II!. 
 
Sir Arthur Lumley St George Lyster formerly commanded HMS Glorious and planned the Taranto Raid so I know the Royal Navy  had officers at least as good as Frederick Sherman when it came to carrier operations, so what was the RN's excuse?  We had Halsey and Mitscher, two incompetents,  but how do you explain the likes of Holland, Phillips and Somerville? They darn near lost the war at sea for the RN. .  

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Herald   7/8/2009 7:38:41 PM
1) I'm not going to argue it, but I'm not convinced Halsey was INCOMPETENT- He had victories to his credit, sorry and that simply can't be swept under the rug.  He may not ahve been great, but he was OK at a minimum; but
 
2) The RN was hampered by its policies, in regards to it's Adm.'s.  The FAA were PASSENGERS on the CV's.  Only Line Officers commanded aviation ships.  Unlike the USN where AVIATION OFFICERS were slated for CV command.  So Heck is it any wonder that RN Admirals really didn't grasp Naval Aviation?  OR aviation, in general?  They simply didn't have the experience in Aviation, because all the Aviation experience was in the FAA (Read RAF).  Again it's a wonder they didn't do WORSE, after all where was the senior leadership that understood aviation going to come from, if the only aviation experience was held by "those people" of the FAA, who merely rode the CV's?
 
3)  I'm not sure Glorious had Gladiators, much less Hurricanes?  In fact, from Wiki, no carrier Hurricanes were fielded until Oct 1941.  It does appear that HMS Glorious "deserved" her fate, though.  Just read a short précis of the action...no radar, only 2 DD's, no CAP, and then she didn't turn and run, as fast as possible...You don't have to Nelson or Halsey to realize that a CV with only 15 A/c...most likely String bags and some Fulmars or Gladiators...is best advised to flee, with all haste, or in the words of Sir Robin's Minstrels, "Turned and ran away." from multiple heavy surface vessels....OK you don't have to be a "Carrier Admiral" to know that Glorious can't win a surface action with much of anything more dangerous than a trawler?  So what was the ding-bat thinking?
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       7/8/2009 8:00:56 PM

1) I'm not going to argue it, but I'm not convinced Halsey was INCOMPETENT- He had victories to his credit, sorry and that simply can't be swept under the rug.  He may not ahve been great, but he was OK at a minimum; but

 

2) The RN was hampered by its policies, in regards to it's Adm.'s.  The FAA were PASSENGERS on the CV's.  Only Line Officers commanded aviation ships.  Unlike the USN where AVIATION OFFICERS were slated for CV command.  So Heck is it any wonder that RN Admirals really didn't grasp Naval Aviation?  OR aviation, in general?  They simply didn't have the experience in Aviation, because all the Aviation experience was in the FAA (Read RAF).  Again it's a wonder they didn't do WORSE, after all where was the senior leadership that understood aviation going to come from, if the only aviation experience was held by "those people" of the FAA, who merely rode the CV's?

 

3)  I'm not sure Glorious had Gladiators, much less Hurricanes?  In fact, from Wiki, no carrier Hurricanes were fielded until Oct 1941.  It does appear that HMS Glorious "deserved" her fate, though.  Just read a short précis of the action...no radar, only 2 DD's, no CAP, and then she didn't turn and run, as fast as possible...You don't have to Nelson or Halsey to realize that a CV with only 15 A/c...most likely String bags and some Fulmars or Gladiators...is best advised to flee, with all haste, or in the words of Sir Robin's Minstrels, "Turned and ran away." from multiple heavy surface vessels....OK you don't have to be a "Carrier Admiral" to know that Glorious can't win a surface action with much of anything more dangerous than a trawler?  So what was the ding-bat thinking?


 
" target="_blank">link
 
 
How many planes splash, sailors die, and ships sink needlessly, due to Mitchers and Halsey's collective stupidity, before you understand that the pair of them were/are morons? Victory by outdying the other guy at sea is stupid. Did Fletcher or Spruance ever screw up like those two did?
 
Herald
 
 
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

elclip1       7/8/2009 8:46:30 PM
FJKY Wrote:
3)  I'm not sure Glorious had Gladiators, much less Hurricanes?  In fact, from Wiki, no carrier Hurricanes were fielded until Oct 1941.  It does appear that HMS Glorious "deserved" her fate, though.  Just read a short précis of the action...no radar, only 2 DD's, no CAP, and then she didn't turn and run, as fast as possible...You don't have to Nelson or Halsey to realize that a CV with only 15 A/c...most likely String bags and some Fulmars or Gladiators...is best advised to flee, with all haste, or in the words of Sir Robin's Minstrels, "Turned and ran away." from multiple heavy surface vessels....OK you don't have to be a "Carrier Admiral" to know that Glorious can't win a surface action with much of anything more dangerous than a trawler?  So what was the ding-bat thinking?


Just to be clear Glorious did not have any Hurricanes assigned to her, but she had a group of RAF Hurricanes onboard which had been flown out of Norway rather than destroy them there when the English pulled out. The RAF pilots volunteered to fly out to the carrier and attempt the deck landing, which they all accomplished. 
Those fellas certainly deserved a much better fate than the one they received.

Following his major mistake have blinding and disarming himself by having no aircraft available, D'Oly Hughes did all he possibly could in the circumstance, which was to run and put his escorts between himself and the enemy.  For all the good it did him.

 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Herald & Eclip1   7/8/2009 9:29:52 PM
Herald, Halsey only had victories in the South Pacific...try as you might victory really counts for a lot.  Sorry, but whilst I acknowledge your many complaint about Halsey, I also acknowledge his many SUCCESSES...something you really need to try.
 
Eclip the précis I read gave Glorious two, literally, courses of action that would have let Glorious escape.  She couldn't have out distanced the Germans, but that isn't the same thing as saying the Germans could close the distance...instead Glorious chose a course of action that allowed the Germans to close to gun range.  It wasn't just a failure of aviation knowledge, it was a failure of NAVAL understanding...
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       7/8/2009 9:43:10 PM

FJKY Wrote:

3)  I'm not sure Glorious had Gladiators, much less Hurricanes?  In fact, from Wiki, no carrier Hurricanes were fielded until Oct 1941.  It does appear that HMS Glorious "deserved" her fate, though.  Just read a short précis of the action...no radar, only 2 DD's, no CAP, and then she didn't turn and run, as fast as possible...You don't have to Nelson or Halsey to realize that a CV with only 15 A/c...most likely String bags and some Fulmars or Gladiators...is best advised to flee, with all haste, or in the words of Sir Robin's Minstrels, "Turned and ran away." from multiple heavy surface vessels....OK you don't have to be a "Carrier Admiral" to know that Glorious can't win a surface action with much of anything more dangerous than a trawler?  So what was the ding-bat thinking?







Just to be clear Glorious did not have any Hurricanes assigned to her, but she had a group of RAF Hurricanes onboard which had been flown out of Norway rather than destroy them there when the English pulled out. The RAF pilots volunteered to fly out to the carrier and attempt the deck landing, which they all accomplished. 

Those fellas certainly deserved a much better fate than the one they received.




Following his major mistake have blinding and disarming himself by having no aircraft available, D'Oly Hughes did all he possibly could in the circumstance, which was to run and put his escorts between himself and the enemy.  For all the good it did him.




 

 

 

The gross errors are obvious.

1. No CAP.
2. Submariner (a prick as it turns out) in command.
3. Air group commander landed in Scapa Flow awaiting court martial and two amateurs left to run the air complement.
4. Boilers not lit off at standby for emergency battle conditions.
5. No radar. (How can you have radar and not fit it to your carriers? As soon as the US had CXAM; it was fitted to every carrier and bodyguard ship we could afford to fit it too. The RN sent carriers to sea, without this tool in 1940?)
6. Radio watch was apparently not kept properly so Home Fleet warnings of Germans at sea were either ignored or not followed.
7. Somebody at Admiralty House didn't check in at Bletchley for Kriegsmarine ship movements?

Editorial Comment: There isn't much to say. MoD defense records are properly sealed under the Official Secrets Act, because the idiocy that led to this disaster reflects poorly on the Royal Navy, then, and NOW.

USN viewpoint.

In the famous Fleet Problems XI-XVIII, the USN had to use heavy cruisers to pretend that they were Kongos. The result was not entirely satisfactory, but the object lesson driven home was that US carriers could not operate without a CAP and a strong screen force against submarines (HMS Courageous  and HMS Ark Royal, USS Wasp-[HALSEY decision for Wasp] ) and enemy surface raiders. The Saratoga was routinely "sunk" in exercises when she aggressively operated without such support (two times as a result of "battleship" gunfire).

a. Here we have the HMS Glorious used as a plane ferry to transport 20 Hurricane fighters. This interfered with her Gladiator and Swordfish airgroup operation as they were spotted ON DECK. USN practice on plane ferry missions was to use the carrier with the ferried planes in the hanger and to leave the flight deck clear for her own fighters which would rotate through the CAP. (USS Wasp, Malta)

b. Prior to her detachment to Scapa Flow for whatever reason (a court martial?), the HMS Glorious was in company with the HMS Ark Royal, and a task group screen which had two heavy cruisers and at least six destroyers in company. She went home with TWO destroyers in company (same set up that caused the loss of HMS Courageous to a U-Boat, not enough screen vessels.)

c. The USN for obvious reasons demanded that aircraft carriers have PILOTS as working staff officers and even as captains. Submariners can command fleets (Nimitz) and even cruiser admirals can command task forces and win incredible victories (Spruance) but you need somebody who knows airplanes to handle carriers (Sprague, Buckmaster and Murray). (Miles Browning did not KNOW airplanes, he was a fool who got his wings the Halsey way, by sitting in the back seat while somebody else flew him). So what was the HMS Glorious FAA air group commander doing in Scapa Flow after D'Orly-Hugh handed him over for court martial? He resisted a direct order to throw away his pilots and planes on a damn fool bombing stunt into the teeth of the German Norway fighter defense.

d. Speed is life. This was the days of the naval gun. 1000 seconds speed run can carry you almost 7,000 meters separation, if you lay smoke and, if you sacrifice your escorts. The HMS Glorious could have escaped even at 7 m/s. SAMAR lesson.

=========================

Comment on William Marschall.

He was undoubtedly the BEST of the German admirals. He planned a good operation in Juno and was surprised to see this gunfire gift. The main critique of his actions here; was that he tried to be conservative in his ammunition consumption. He wanted to save it for the troop convoys he was after. I understand this as there was not much ammunition on hand in his magazines as this operation was a hasty one he planned on the fly, based on hasty intelligence.

Still it is a valid criticism. By not laying down secondary gun suppressive fire on Acasta when she approached her torpedo launch position, Scharnhorst suffered what was possibly an unnecessary torpedo hit.

Shrug, if that was Marschall's major mistake and if Raeder canned him for it, then Raeder was a damned fool. But I've known this for years.

What I cannot understand, though, about Marschall, is why he did not protest Raeder's decision to the civil authority? He HAD seniority over everyone, except Raeder, and he had done nothing here worth his removal from command. (Halsey) His replacement, Lutjens, was a damned fool (Halsey) as incompetent as Raeder and about as incapable of making good measured judgments.

Fletcher made some bad mistakes (Coral Sea) but he continued in command until he was shot up because he kept trying (Midway) and showed improving skills (Eastern Solomons) Can't claim that for my favorite USN bonehead, Halsey.

I would argue that Marschall was a victim of Raeder's jealousy.

As for the British Lords of the Admiralty in this case..............

INCOMPETENCE is not too harsh a word .

Herald
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy