Matrix Games Forums

Did I miss something somewhere?

I was reading an article on HMS Warspite in the Fall 2024 issue of WWII History magazine and from some reason the author of the article states Warspite was at Pearl Harbor on the morning of Dec 7th and that she was struck by a torpedo during the attack! He also said her experienced AAA crews could have contributed to the defense of the harbor but all her gun breaches been disabled and her ammo removed from the ship and stored ashore.

Don't think so. By all historical records HMS Warspite was at the Bremerton Navy Yard in Washington State on December 7th '41 and had been there since August. She had put into Pearl Harbor briefly while in transit across the Pacific the previous summer. She was in the States to repair battle damage sustained at Crete.

Possibly the author is conflating the August 4th stopover at Pearl Harbor with the later events of December 7th and her stood down status at Bremerton at that time. But that's a stretch. An "F" for history all the same.

That still doesn't account for his claiming she took a torpedo while in Pearl on Dec 7th.

afspret wrote: Wed Aug 21, 2024 7:47 pm Did I miss something somewhere?

I was reading an article on HMS Warspite in the Fall 2024 issue of WWII History magazine and from some reason the author of the article states Warspite was at Pearl Harbor on the morning of Dec 7th and that she was struck by a torpedo during the attack! He also said her experienced AAA crews could have contributed to the defense of the harbor but all her gun breaches been disabled and her ammo removed from the ship and stored ashore.

It's a very interesting article but you misinterpreted the author. He wrote, "Warspite arrived in Puget Sound on August 11 and would still be there when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor." She was in Puget Sound on December 7.
http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/articl ... -a-wallop/

Warspite was in Washington having an overhaul. She couldn't have returned to service or left Washington since she was having her 15" guns replaced. The US offered to install 16" guns but the RN refused. Britian had to ship new guns to the US. Because of this Warspite had a delay returning to service.

Marauder11 wrote: Thu Aug 22, 2024 3:34 am Warspite was in Washington having an overhaul. She couldn't have returned to service or left Washington since she was having her 15" guns replaced. The US offered to install 16" guns but the RN refused. Britian had to ship new guns to the US. Because of this Warspite had a delay returning to service.

Do you mean just new gun barrels or relining the existing barrels?

This is too funny. I reread the article and all the way at the bottom is this:
"An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that HMS Warspite was at Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1944, the day of the Japanese attack."

You were correct, there's no misinterpreting what the author originally wrote!

homer82 wrote: Thu Aug 22, 2024 8:46 pm This is too funny. I reread the article and all the way at the bottom is this:
"An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that HMS Warspite was at Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1944, the day of the Japanese attack."

You were correct, there's no misinterpreting what the author originally wrote!

So then they got the year wrong as well?!

RangerJoe wrote: Thu Aug 22, 2024 10:39 pm

homer82 wrote: Thu Aug 22, 2024 8:46 pm This is too funny. I reread the article and all the way at the bottom is this:
"An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that HMS Warspite was at Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1944, the day of the Japanese attack."

You were correct, there's no misinterpreting what the author originally wrote!

So then they got the year wrong as well?!

Have you or anyone read the statistics on how accurate the internet is? Internet news is horrible. I am just happy they got the century correct.

RangerJoe wrote: Thu Aug 22, 2024 3:29 pm

Marauder11 wrote: Thu Aug 22, 2024 3:34 am Warspite was in Washington having an overhaul. She couldn't have returned to service or left Washington since she was having her 15" guns replaced. The US offered to install 16" guns but the RN refused. Britian had to ship new guns to the US. Because of this Warspite had a delay returning to service.

Do you mean just new gun barrels or relining the existing barrels?

Her barrels were the originals and they needed to be replaced. "Warspite: Warships of the Royal Navy" by Ian Ballantyne is a good read if you're interested.

Marauder11 wrote: Thu Aug 22, 2024 3:34 am Warspite was in Washington having an overhaul. She couldn't have returned to service or left Washington since she was having her 15" guns replaced. The US offered to install 16" guns but the RN refused.

warspite1

I'd be interested to know more about this offer of 16-inch guns. I've never heard this before, and it does surprise me for a number of reasons. Does this mean the fitting of USN turrets? The RN had no twin 16-inch turrets as far as I know (the Lion's were to have been triple turrets). Surely if this is true, then this would have lengthened Warspite's refit considerably?

warspite1 wrote: Sat Aug 24, 2024 3:24 pm

Marauder11 wrote: Thu Aug 22, 2024 3:34 am Warspite was in Washington having an overhaul. She couldn't have returned to service or left Washington since she was having her 15" guns replaced. The US offered to install 16" guns but the RN refused.

warspite1

I'd be interested to know more about this offer of 16-inch guns. I've never heard this before, and it does surprise me for a number of reasons. Does this mean the fitting of USN turrets? The RN had no twin 16-inch turrets as far as I know (the Lion's were to have been triple turrets). Surely if this is true, then this would have lengthened Warspite's refit considerably?

warspite1

I've read the article. Nothing about the USN offer. I would be interested to know the source - was it in the Ballantyne book you mentioned? I'm really curious to know more about this. Thank-you.

Yes it was mentioned the book but it didn't go into the engineering that would be required since the British rejected the offer.

Marauder11 wrote: Mon Aug 26, 2024 2:05 pm Yes it was mentioned the book but it didn't go into the engineering that would be required since the British rejected the offer.

warspite1

Thank-you.

Marauder11 wrote: Thu Aug 22, 2024 3:34 am Warspite was in Washington having an overhaul. She couldn't have returned to service or left Washington since she was having her 15" guns replaced. The US offered to install 16" guns but the RN refused. Britian had to ship new guns to the US. Because of this Warspite had a delay returning to service.

Let's say in RL CL Boise has one of its main turret damaged (in red). In RL, the turret refit would have to be done in PH? Did the USN create any forward bases in in South Pacific or Australia in WW2 where such refits could have been performed closer to the frontlines?

Yaab wrote: Fri Aug 30, 2024 10:51 am

Marauder11 wrote: Thu Aug 22, 2024 3:34 am Warspite was in Washington having an overhaul. She couldn't have returned to service or left Washington since she was having her 15" guns replaced. The US offered to install 16" guns but the RN refused. Britian had to ship new guns to the US. Because of this Warspite had a delay returning to service.

Let's say in RL CL Boise has one of its main turret damaged (in red). In RL, the turret refit would have to be done in PH? Did the USN create any forward bases in in South Pacific or Australia in WW2 where such refits could have been performed closer to the frontlines?

Not to my knowledge. But it also depends upon the extent of the damage as well. Most of the refits were done on the West Coast of CONUS.

In real life I imagine a lot depends on the extent of damage to the gun turret. A jammed turret is one thing. A shattered turret probably means a trip back to the homeland while a new turret is being cast/manufactured. The size and complexity of the turret is also another consideration.