Warships of the World

Kraut · Post by **Kraut** » Mon Nov 25, 2002 1:32 am

Originally posted by sven

You misunderstand my intent, and Kraut read me loud and clear.

I am very much a "what happened" kind of guy.

You are right, let's talk about what happened. I won't try to apply my hindsight.

I want to speculate for a moment though (no politics):

Can anybody think of clear disadvantages of battle cruisers?

Maybe logistics? I can imagine that a battle cruiser wouldn't use much less fuel than a battleship; so relatively large number of battle cruisers would mean a proportionate increase in the number of tender-ships.

And if you forego building a large number of battle cruisers you would be better off building battleships instead.

Kraut · Post by **Kraut** » Mon Nov 25, 2002 1:33 am

Originally posted by Sgt.Striker
Sorry Svend.it just seems to be that every post seems to become a left wing vs Right wing battlegroud,lol all bout deep issues like morality and justification. And of course hindsight is ..................

I'm not leftwing, thank you very much. I'm a compassionate conservative.

Sgt.Striker · Post by **Sgt.Striker** » Mon Nov 25, 2002 1:36 am

Me TOO

Conservative Party of Canada,which of course makes me a Democrat in American Standards and fascist in Canadian ones lol. And yes battlecruisers would take away vaublabe resources from buidling cap ships but if they had been better designed they might have had a longer life in diffrent conflicts,serving into the 60s as fire support ships,like the American Iowas

sven · Post by **sven** » Mon Nov 25, 2002 1:38 am

Originally posted by Sgt.Striker
Sorry Svend.it just seems to be that every post seems to become a left wing vs Right wing battlegroud,lol all bout deep issues like morality and justification. And of course hindsight is ..................

It may seem that way now. I was once one of the Tiger Team that did the OOB scrub. I am a bit of a hobbyist historian.

Politics is politics and history is history...sometimes they are involved with one another but not always.

I didn't notice a similar critique of Mr KG Erwin.

Sgt.Striker · Post by **Sgt.Striker** » Mon Nov 25, 2002 1:42 am

I didn't notice a similar critique of Mr KG Erwin. [/B][/QUOTE]

come again?

Kraut · Post by **Kraut** » Mon Nov 25, 2002 1:43 am

Originally posted by Sgt.Striker
Me TOO

Conservative Party of Canada,which of course makes me a Democrat in American Standards and fascist in Canadian ones lol. And yes battlecruisers would take away vaublabe resources from buidling cap ships but if they had been better designed they might have had a longer life in diffrent conflicts,serving into the 60s as fire support ships,like the American Iowas

The Arizona even served into the 80s.

I'm not sure if the admiralty back then (we are talking about WW I era ships, like the Hood originally was) thought about such long life-spans. I read somewhere that the British saw the dreadnoughts, let alone smaller ships like battle cruisers, as assets to be used and spent.

Sgt.Striker · Post by **Sgt.Striker** » Mon Nov 25, 2002 1:46 am

thats true and i guess Britian didn't even keep any of its modern battleships for fire support like the Americans had until recently

sven · Post by **sven** » Mon Nov 25, 2002 1:48 am

Originally posted by Sgt.Striker

come again?

You accuse me of turning EVERYTHING into left/right and yet I see no post of that type to a gentleman who is guilty of bleeding AoW forum business here-something I have never initiated.

This is not a flame, just an observation.

I am hardly alone in my flaws, and I at least make the attempt to not pollute other forums with the insanity of the "Art of Wargaming". If you would like me to recuse myself from participation in this discussion merely say so and I will correspond with Kraut through alternative means. I by no means wish to diminish your experience here at Matrix forums.

regards,
sven

Sgt.Striker · Post by **Sgt.Striker** » Mon Nov 25, 2002 2:00 am

Its alright,i was not singling you out in my critisicms of left and right. and no,i want you to continue talking on the forum. lol, i will stick to discussing battlecrusiers from now on.

Another question for you gentlemen,do any navies still have gun/missle crusiers in service?

Kraut · Post by **Kraut** » Mon Nov 25, 2002 2:08 am

Originally posted by Sgt.Striker
Its alright,i was not singling you out in my critisicms of left and right. and no,i want you to continue talking on the forum. lol, i will stick to discussing battlecrusiers from now on.

Another question for you gentlemen,do any navies still have gun/missle crusiers in service?

Gun/missile cruisers? Not the modern navies.

Aegis is in size between a destroyer and a cruiser, a weapons plattform with very advanced sensor arrays.

Some cruisers are cruise missile capable:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1997/iraq/m ... isers.html

Kraut · Post by **Kraut** » Mon Nov 25, 2002 2:12 am

I just found a nice resource:

NAVAL, AVIATION AND MILITARY HISTORY
http://www.chuckhawks.com/index3.naval_ ... istory.htm

Kraut · Post by **Kraut** » Mon Nov 25, 2002 2:14 am

And another one:

http://www.periscope1.com/demo/weapons/ships/cruisers/

CCB · Post by **CCB** » Mon Nov 25, 2002 2:45 am

Originally posted by Kraut
The Arizona even served into the 80s.

I think you meant another ship didn't you? Although the Arizona is still listed on the books as an active ship, it hasn't been anywhere since Dec. 7, 1941.

The Argentinian battleship you keep making reference to (Belgrado ?) was built by the US and served in the US Navy during WW2 as a heavy cruiser, named the USS Phoenix (as in the city of Phoenix, Arizona).

The USS Arizona's two aft turrets were removed during the salvage operation and rebuilt as shore batteries in Hawii. They were test fired the last day of the Pacific war.

Kraut · Post by **Kraut** » Mon Nov 25, 2002 2:53 am

Originally posted by CCB

I think you meant another ship didn't you? Although the Arizona is still listed on the books as an active ship, it hasn't been anywhere since Dec. 7, 1941.

The Argentinian battleship you keep making reference to (Belgrado ?) was built by the US and served in the US Navy during WW2 as a heavy cruiser, named the USS Phoenix (as in the city of Phoenix, Arizona).

The USS Arizona's two aft turrets were removed during the salvage operation and rebuilt as shore batteries in Hawii. They were test fired the last day of the Pacific war.

Alright then, which ship fired on the positions of Islamic terrorísts in Lebanon in the 80s?

Kraut · Post by **Kraut** » Mon Nov 25, 2002 2:55 am

Thanks for the info, btw.

Kraut · Post by **Kraut** » Mon Nov 25, 2002 2:57 am

Found it:

A mist swirled close to the wet, warped deck of the battleship USS New Jersey as the sun evaporated a cool morning rain.

http://www.southjerseynews.com/battleship/m043001d.htm

Splinterhead · Post by **Splinterhead** » Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:53 am

British battlecruisers destroyed Admiral von Spee's squadron near the Falkland Islands in 1914, perhaps the only time they were used as intended. They were as fast enough to chase down and destroy the German cruisers. Battleships were too slow.

Also, only British batttlecruisers tended to blow up. The German battlecruisers saw as much fighting and, although damaged, they all survived Jutland.

Splinterhead · Post by **Splinterhead** » Mon Nov 25, 2002 4:11 am

Originally posted by CCB

....The Argentinian battleship you keep making reference to (Belgrado ?) was built by the US and served in the US Navy during WW2 as a heavy cruiser, named the USS Phoenix (as in the city of Phoenix, Arizona). ....

Phoenix was a Brooklyn class light cruiser (6-inch guns), not a heavy cruiser (8-inch guns).

rockymtndoc · Post by **rockymtndoc** » Mon Nov 25, 2002 9:45 pm

The reason for the bad designs was the nature of naval warfare itself. All ship-to-ship exchanges had previously been relatively flat tajectory broadsides, and the ships were extremely well armored to withstand that. Even in WWII, the powerful primary batteries of capital ships, coupled with optical range finding and fire control, meant relatively flat trajectories hitting mainly the side armor. Long distance gunnery, involving high-arc fire, was relatively new on the scene and the naval designers had failed to take that factor well enough into account when designing.

There is also the matter of a ship's center of gravity. To prevent a battleship or cruiser from being too top heavy, and there is already an enormous weight of guns and armor above decks, you have to keep the weight down. One way was to reduce the overhead armor, which made sense in light of not appreciating what plunging fire would do.

This lack of understanding became critical during WWII with the advent of dive-bombers. The USS Arizona, heavily armored as she was, was sunk by a single relatively small bomb that penetrated her deck armor and detonated her forward magazine. Does this sound familar?

CCB · Post by **CCB** » Tue Nov 26, 2002 1:23 am

Originally posted by Waylander
Regardless of who did the dirty deed, both got there come-uppance, Bismark shortly after, and Eugen in Atom bomb tests after the war.

Prinz Eugen survived two atomic bomb tests - one airburst, the other an underwater denotation. Since Eugen was a target ship, it didn't have anything like a crew aboard. Slight damage received from the tests, damage that would have been quickly repaired by a crew, lead to the ship capsizing in a shallow lagoon. Eugen is still there to this day, the ship's underside of the stern above water, much like the Oklahoma's after Dec. 7. The US Navy cut off one of the propellers and sent it to the West German government in Bonn.

Warships of the World

Re: Hood