Page 5 of 5

RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers

Posted: Sun May 08, 2016 2:26 pm
by Capt. Harlock
As to the question of whether the Hood should have faced the Bismarck, then we come to another set of thinking entirely. The Hood was the largest warship in the world for so long, she was more than adequately armed, and we did not have a stunning range of other options.

How would it look if the Bismarck got out - an HMS Hood was found "cowering" at Scapa Flow?

Now that's an excellent point -- Hood was the most famous warship in the world for two decades. It would have been a major blow to the prestige of the H.M. navy. Besides, she had performed well against capital ships at Mers-el-Kebir. It might have been guessed that a German battleship was much more lethal than French ones, but it wouldn't do to say so publicly.

RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers

Posted: Mon May 09, 2016 9:43 am
by geofflambert
Prince Eugene was the greater threat to shipping. She had much more range and you don't need 15" guns to sink cargo ships. She failed to reach her potential because she wasn't wearing enough flair. If you don't know what that means see "Office Space". Anyways, despite the loss of Hood, this episode was a British victory similar to Jutland. The wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth should cease.

Image

RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers

Posted: Mon May 09, 2016 10:50 am
by casmithasl
Authoritative Redhead, give me more!

RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers

Posted: Mon May 09, 2016 11:35 am
by geofflambert
ORIGINAL: casmithasl

Authoritative Redhead, give me more!

Brad Pitt says "take all you want". [:'(]

RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers

Posted: Mon May 09, 2016 2:49 pm
by warspite1
ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Prince Eugene was the greater threat to shipping. She had much more range and you don't need 15" guns to sink cargo ships. She failed to reach her potential because she wasn't wearing enough flair. If you don't know what that means see "Office Space". Anyways, despite the loss of Hood, this episode was a British victory similar to Jutland. The wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth should cease.
warspite1

Sorry but no - and for the very same reason that she (Prinz Eugen that is, not Ms Aniston) had to pull out of Operation Rheinubung a few days after Bismarck was sunk. The engines of these heavy cruisers were notoriously temperamental.

As for range - the class did not make great commerce raiders due to their limited range - significantly less than the pocket-battleships for example - and less too than the Bismarcks.

Iirc Hipper had one successful commerce raiding foray - unlike Blucher (which was sunk during Weserubung) and Prinz Eugen (whose career was er.. undistinguished).

RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers

Posted: Mon May 09, 2016 5:14 pm
by geofflambert
ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Prince Eugene was the greater threat to shipping. She had much more range and you don't need 15" guns to sink cargo ships. She failed to reach her potential because she wasn't wearing enough flair. If you don't know what that means see "Office Space". Anyways, despite the loss of Hood, this episode was a British victory similar to Jutland. The wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth should cease.
warspite1

Sorry but no - and for the very same reason that she (Prinz Eugen that is, not Ms Aniston) had to pull out of Operation Rheinubung a few days after Bismarck was sunk. The engines of these heavy cruisers were notoriously temperamental.

As for range - the class did not make great commerce raiders due to their limited range - significantly less than the pocket-battleships for example - and less too than the Bismarcks.

Iirc Hipper had one successful commerce raiding foray - unlike Blucher (which was sunk during Weserubung) and Prinz Eugen (whose career was er.. undistinguished).

I remember now, you are right and I'm in my dotage apparently.

RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers

Posted: Mon May 09, 2016 5:18 pm
by geofflambert
ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: geofflambert


Prinz Eugen (whose career was er.. undistinguished).

I'm sorry, she was very distinguished in the sense of er... she wasn't wearing enough flair.

I messed that up somehow, you can figure it out as to who posted what.

RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers

Posted: Mon May 09, 2016 5:18 pm
by warspite1
ORIGINAL: geofflambert

ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Prince Eugene was the greater threat to shipping. She had much more range and you don't need 15" guns to sink cargo ships. She failed to reach her potential because she wasn't wearing enough flair. If you don't know what that means see "Office Space". Anyways, despite the loss of Hood, this episode was a British victory similar to Jutland. The wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth should cease.
warspite1

Sorry but no - and for the very same reason that she (Prinz Eugen that is, not Ms Aniston) had to pull out of Operation Rheinubung a few days after Bismarck was sunk. The engines of these heavy cruisers were notoriously temperamental.

As for range - the class did not make great commerce raiders due to their limited range - significantly less than the pocket-battleships for example - and less too than the Bismarcks.

Iirc Hipper had one successful commerce raiding foray - unlike Blucher (which was sunk during Weserubung) and Prinz Eugen (whose career was er.. undistinguished).

I remember now, you are right and I'm in my dotage apparently.
warspite1

IIRC, I think the majority of forumites on the forum are in their dotage - and some of us in our frail dotage. I must confess however, I had no idea Gorns had a dotage, frail or otherwise.

Well you learn something everyday - you about the Kriegsmarine and me about the Gornian ageing process [:)]

RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers

Posted: Mon May 09, 2016 5:22 pm
by geofflambert
I'm so glad you're not as an*l as bw58 or AtheGreat. Sorry guys.

RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers

Posted: Mon May 09, 2016 5:23 pm
by warspite1
ORIGINAL: geofflambert

ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: geofflambert


Prinz Eugen (whose career was er.. undistinguished).

I'm sorry, she was very distinguished in the sense of er... she wasn't wearing enough flair.
warspite1

Nope she was just one of those ships. Always suffering engine trouble or being bombed or being torpedoed or ramming her own sides ships!


Image

RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers

Posted: Mon May 09, 2016 5:24 pm
by warspite1
ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I'm so glad you're not as an*l as bw58 or AtheGreat. Sorry guys.
warspite1

Que?

RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers

Posted: Mon May 09, 2016 5:30 pm
by geofflambert
We have one of two propositions here. Either someone has a well developed sense of humor (even when dealing with hacks like me) or they don't. In your case I take door number one.

RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers

Posted: Mon May 09, 2016 5:33 pm
by warspite1
ORIGINAL: geofflambert

We have one of two propositions here. Either someone has a well developed sense of humor (even when dealing with hacks like me) or they don't. In your case I take door number one.
warspite1

Well I'm pleased to hear it [:)] - although less pleased to see that Gorns have adopted American English rather than English English. I suppose that's what happens when you don't have your own space program...

RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers

Posted: Mon May 09, 2016 6:34 pm
by Revthought
ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: geofflambert

This is a lot of blow about basic theory. Everyone is looking for something that makes the Dreadnought obsolete. As I have said, I believe the Queen Elizabeths to be exactly what everyone was looking for. Everything else was experiments and prototypes. The QEs were every bit as much a revolution as the Dreadnought]. Hood was superb in many ways but it couldn't take receiving shells lesser than the ones she was hurling herself. Once armoured sufficiently, while sacrificing speed, she would be the equal of most other WWII BBs, and shouldn't have feared any so much as to not engage. The POW was very well designed but undergunned. If handled correctly they should have defeated Bismark.

All that aside, how do simple threads like the one that was started here morph into what we see before us? The answer is, we do this because we can.
warspite1

That's a very sweeping statement. So what practically should Holland have done to avoid his ship being blown to smithereens? You know that PoW was suffering teething problems with her main guns (she still had dockyard workers aboard so quickly did she sail)?

And, as I recall she took a number of penetrating hits, and only withdrew after one of her quadruple turrets jammed.

At the end of the Battle of Denmark Strait PoW was left with a demoralized crew who had just watched, or at least heard about, the catastrophic loss of Hood and the Task Forces CO, was taking on water, and had a significant percentage of her armament no longer able to put shells on the enemy. There is no fault in withdrawing under those circumstances.

In fact, there is more fault to be had in Lutjens behavior that day. Not only did Lindermann have to disobey Lutjens orders not to fire so that his ship would "not be shot from under my ass", but Lutjens also refused to let Lindermann press PoW when she was trying to withdraw.

RE: Minor question about Battlecruisers

Posted: Tue May 10, 2016 3:47 pm
by warspite1
ORIGINAL: Revthought

ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: geofflambert

This is a lot of blow about basic theory. Everyone is looking for something that makes the Dreadnought obsolete. As I have said, I believe the Queen Elizabeths to be exactly what everyone was looking for. Everything else was experiments and prototypes. The QEs were every bit as much a revolution as the Dreadnought]. Hood was superb in many ways but it couldn't take receiving shells lesser than the ones she was hurling herself. Once armoured sufficiently, while sacrificing speed, she would be the equal of most other WWII BBs, and shouldn't have feared any so much as to not engage. The POW was very well designed but undergunned. If handled correctly they should have defeated Bismark.

All that aside, how do simple threads like the one that was started here morph into what we see before us? The answer is, we do this because we can.
warspite1

That's a very sweeping statement. So what practically should Holland have done to avoid his ship being blown to smithereens? You know that PoW was suffering teething problems with her main guns (she still had dockyard workers aboard so quickly did she sail)?

In fact, there is more fault to be had in Lutjens behavior that day. Not only did Lindermann have to disobey Lutjens orders not to fire so that his ship would "not be shot from under my ass", but Lutjens also refused to let Lindermann press PoW when she was trying to withdraw.
warspite1

That is a difficult one - but my sympathy goes with Lutjens on that one.

His task was not to defeat RN battleships - it was to destroy and disrupt the Atlantic convoys. He could not know how close/far supporting British battleships and carriers were - he could not know of PoW's firing problems and knew a lucky hit would make him a goner.

I think without hindsight he took the sensible course of action.