Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

ORIGINAL: terje439



A total of 55 torpedoes and 2,195 shells had been fired at Scharnhorst.

Say what you want about the German Navy, but they sure could build them! Darn shame they never deployed the Graf Zeppelin.

Warspite1

Why is that a shame exactly?

The Navy (or I guess I should, more specificly say, Submariners) refer to carriers as "bomb magnets" or, alternitively as "targets."
The Germans have always built their ships with a great deal more compartmentalization and survivability than other navies, esp. your namesakes (no offense meant.) There are many examples of this, most particularly shown in the destruction by internal explosion of the three British battlecruisers at Jutland versus what it took to sink the battlecruiser Lutzow (at least 24 heavy-calibre shell hits -- which still weren't enough to sink her. She had to be scutlled after her bow-down list brought her props and rudders out of the water.) Interestingly, Lutzow was the only modern capital ship lost by the Germans during WWI. Then there is Audacious, Irresistable and King Edward VII (each sunk by a single mine,) and of course we all know what happened to Hood. (I could go on and on.)
This was due to a philisophical difference in the goal of ship design dating back to Fischer and Tripitz. Fischer believed in speed and striking power, while Tripitz decreed that the most important quality of a warship was its ability to float. This design philosiphy continued into WWII.
I was just thinking that it would have been interesting to see what would have happened to a GERMAN bomb magnet.[:'(]

ORIGINAL: Empire101

Correct, but what was the name of the vessel??

Didn't see that Micheljq (or anyone else) had answered the second part of this question, so if not Gunther Prien's uboat was the U-47 (I think!)

And, just to keep things going, can anyone identify this? And what on earth is in that turret?

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

ORIGINAL: Empire101

Correct, but what was the name of the vessel??

Didn't see that Micheljq (or anyone else) had answered the second part of this question, so if not Gunther Prien's uboat was the U-47 (I think!)

And, just to keep things going, can anyone identify this? And what on earth is in that turret?

Warspite1

Looks like a monitor, Erebus, Roberts, Abercrombie or Terror? If so, the turret contains a couple of 15-inchers.

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole




Say what you want about the German Navy, but they sure could build them! Darn shame they never deployed the Graf Zeppelin.

Warspite1

Why is that a shame exactly?

The Navy (or I guess I should, more specificly say, Submariners) refer to carriers as "bomb magnets" or, alternitively as "targets."
The Germans have always built their ships with a great deal more compartmentalization and survivability than other navies, esp. your namesakes (no offense meant.) There are many examples of this, most particularly shown in the destruction by internal explosion of the three British battlecruisers at Jutland versus what it took to sink the battlecruiser Lutzow (at least 24 heavy-calibre shell hits -- which still weren't enough to sink her. She had to be scutlled after her bow-down list brought her props and rudders out of the water.) Interestingly, Lutzow was the only modern capital ship lost by the Germans during WWI. Then there is Audacious, Irresistable and King Edward VII (each sunk by a single mine,) and of course we all know what happened to Hood. (I could go on and on.)
This was due to a philisophical difference in the goal of ship design dating back to Fischer and Tripitz. Fischer believed in speed and striking power, while Tripitz decreed that the most important quality of a warship was its ability to float. This design philosiphy continued into WWII.
I was just thinking that it would have been interesting to see what would have happened to a GERMAN bomb magnet.[:'(]

Warspite1

I suspect she would have gone the way of Scharnhorst, Bismarck, Graf Spee et al, all courtesy of Britains senior service.
As for the Lutzow, Warspite was hit 29 times at Jutland during her death ride - which weren`t enough to sink her either.

Warspite,
Outstanding, I believe she is the Roberts, and you're right again, they are 15 inchers. Had never seen that picture before -- well done![&o]
quote from Warspite:
"I suspect she would have gone the way of Scharnhorst, Bismarck, Graf Spee et al, all courtesy of Britains senior service.
As for the Lutzow, Warspite was hit 29 times at Jutland during her death ride - which weren`t enough to sink her either."

Do I detect a little irritation? There isn't much question that Graf Zeppelin would have been sunk, the question in my mind was how difficult she would have been to sink.
As to Lutzow let's not try to scam the public by comparing apples to oranges! Lutzow was a battle cruiser and Warspite was a Queen Elizabeth class super-battleship. The British battlecruisers were blowing up like party favors![8|]

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

Warspite,
Outstanding, I believe she is the Roberts, and you're right again, they are 15 inchers. Had never seen that picture before -- well done![&o]
quote from Warspite:
"I suspect she would have gone the way of Scharnhorst, Bismarck, Graf Spee et al, all courtesy of Britains senior service.
As for the Lutzow, Warspite was hit 29 times at Jutland during her death ride - which weren`t enough to sink her either."

Do I detect a little irritation? There isn't much question that Graf Zeppelin would have been sunk, the question in my mind was how difficult she would have been to sink.
As to Lutzow let's not try to scam the public by comparing apples to oranges! Lutzow was a battle cruiser and Warspite was a Queen Elizabeth class super-battleship. The British battlecruisers were blowing up like party favors![8|]

Warspite1

Irritation - no, just mock indignation [;)].

OK Warspite, (or anyone else!) what is this?

And here's another one. What was the "battleship with her great aunt's teeth?" Why was she called that?

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

OK Warspite, (or anyone else!) what is this?

Warspite1

Is it the 14-inch gun turret from the King George V-class?

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

And here's another one. What was the "battleship with her great aunt's teeth?" Why was she called that?

Warspite 1

HMS Vanguard - because she supposedly used the guns from the old battlecruisers Courageous and Glorious, although in fact it was their turrets - NOT their guns (which came from a pool of 15-inchers).

Great job on the Vangaurd! [&o]
But the turret is not British!

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

Great job on the Vangaurd! [&o]
But the turret is not British!

Warspite1

Oh bum!! [&:] In which case I will go for the French Richelieu (15-inch) or Dunkerque (12 or 13-inchers)

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

Great job on the Vangaurd! [&o]
But the turret is not British!

Warspite1

Oh bum!! [&:] In which case I will go for the French Richelieu (15-inch) or Dunkerque (12 or 13-inchers)

Beautiful! Richelieu's 15 inchers! I'm going to have to give up trying to stump you -- you're too good![&o]
Only the French could design a ship with 2 quad turrets forward and none aft. This of course is to insure that there would be no confusing interruptions to running away such as firing back![X(]

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

Great job on the Vangaurd! [&o]
But the turret is not British!

Warspite1

Oh bum!! [&:] In which case I will go for the French Richelieu (15-inch) or Dunkerque (12 or 13-inchers)

Beautiful! Richelieu's 15 inchers! I'm going to have to give up trying to stump you -- you're too good![&o]
Only the French could design a ship with 2 quad turrets forward and none aft. This of course is to insure that there would be no confusing interruptions to running away such as firing back![X(]

Warspite1

After 6-7 months of naval write up research its obviously starting to sink in [X(]

Re the French comment, don`t let Patrice see that [;)] Our Nelson-class had a similar idea, but of course that had nothing to do with running away from battle - to the RN (in the days when we actually had a Navy) this was an unheard of concept.

The "all turrets forward" idea was an attempt at weight saving.
 
The ship's main armor belt has to cover the magazines and engineering spaces, which are vital in insuring that a ship can still move and fight. Other spaces, like berthing, mess decks, and supply storage are not as critical, and can be considered secondary in importance.
 
One of the things that increased a ship's length is trying to arrange the magazines and engineering spaces below decks. The Japanese Fuso/Ise types, and the British battlecruisers, had issues in trying to accomodate the steam lines from the boiler rooms (which will generally be located underneath the stacks), heading aft to the turbines, and routing them around the magazines. [That itself brings up another issue. Propellent charges need to be maintained in a cool, dry place (high temps make the powder a little unstable), and steam lines routed through (or even around) a magazine complicates the issue.]
 
So, for example, you could have the magazine for A & B turrets, boiler room, magazine (C turret), boiler room, magazine (X & Y turret), turbine/generator room.
 
By clustering all the main guns forward, the French Richelieus and British Nelsons were hoping to save waterline length, hence reducing the amount of waterline length that needed to be armored, and thus weight. Weight saving is important in meeting treaty obligations, and potentially reducing the amount of power a ship requires to move and a desired speed, and overall cost in steel and money.

The Nelson/Rodneys battleships also had a particular type of protection under the belt. Being ballasts full of marine water that would diminish the impact of torpedoes by distributing the force of the impact thourough the hull. Probably at the cost of some speed.

I will post a question and at the same time see if i can get a little research done.

The finnish army during the winter war did have a number of tanks. What manufacturer(s) equipped the finnish army with tanks. And what else is known about the OOB of the finnish armoured unit(s)?

I do know part of the answer to this question, but would like to know more.

ORIGINAL: Grymme

I will post a question and at the same time see if i can get a little research done.

The finnish army during the winter war did have a number of tanks. What manufacturer(s) equipped the finnish army with tanks. And what else is known about the OOB of the finnish armoured unit(s)?

I do know part of the answer to this question, but would like to know more.

If I remember correctly, the Finn's had a TOE of thirty Vickers Mark E's (or "6 ton tank" -- perhaps Warspite could enlighten us about the weird English prediliction of naming their weapons systems by how much they, or their shells, weigh!)

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

ORIGINAL: Grymme

I will post a question and at the same time see if i can get a little research done.

The finnish army during the winter war did have a number of tanks. What manufacturer(s) equipped the finnish army with tanks. And what else is known about the OOB of the finnish armoured unit(s)?

I do know part of the answer to this question, but would like to know more.

If I remember correctly, the Finn's had a TOE of thirty Vickers Mark E's (or "6 ton tank" -- perhaps Warspite could enlighten us about the weird English prediliction of naming their weapons systems by how much they, or their shells, weigh!)

Warspite1

Ugh?

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

ORIGINAL: Grymme

I will post a question and at the same time see if i can get a little research done.

The finnish army during the winter war did have a number of tanks. What manufacturer(s) equipped the finnish army with tanks. And what else is known about the OOB of the finnish armoured unit(s)?

I do know part of the answer to this question, but would like to know more.

If I remember correctly, the Finn's had a TOE of thirty Vickers Mark E's (or "6 ton tank" -- perhaps Warspite could enlighten us about the weird English prediliction of naming their weapons systems by how much they, or their shells, weigh!)

Perhaps if you ship everything overseas to fight, knowing how much it weighs is one of the most important things to know about the weapon?