WW2 Royal Navy Ship Discussion - Are the King George V class of battleships overlooked in terms of WW2 BBs in spite of their service record?

[jjb1970]

14 hours ago, 30851 said:

 

And even when you find a book on the topic that is supposed to be in laymen's terms https://www.amazon.com/Naval-Firepower-Battleship-Gunnery-Dreadnought-ebook/dp/B00KTI0T0E/ref=sr_1_24?crid=39R0EBLGK976G&keywords=norman+friedman&qid=1675622444&s=books&sprefix=norman+fre%2Cstripbooks%2C637&sr=1-24  by an author you normally understand (Norman Friedman) then this stuff still leaves me scratching my head!

 

Rob

 

There really are very few books that even attempt it outside of professional text books. 

 

If you look at the other aspects of warship design, such as the hull, engines and guns, they are also highly technical subjects but it is possible to explain them without a lot of dry math and a layperson can easily visualize concepts and understand what an engine is and how it works for example. With those aspects there is enough in the physical domain (big lumps of metal, often with a lot of presence and fascination) to grab attention.

 

With gunnery control it is an analytical process and unless people are comfortable with basic math and logic it's extremely difficult to visualize. The clocks and tables were very impressive mechanical computers but looking at an argo clock doesn't really explain gunnery.

 

Hence why so many naval books will provide a lot of talk on the Dreyer - Pollen systems of fire control (for example) almost none of them make any effort to explain why the Pollen system was better despite that being almost universally accepted wisdom (despite more technical books actually saying the issue was not really in selecting an inferior system and that the Dreyer table was quite adequate if properly used).

[62613]

18 hours ago, The White Rabbit said:

 

Of the German heavy units, many were tied to their bases due to a fuel shortage. U-boat fuel was given priority as they were seen as producing more 'cost' effective results. So ships such as the Tirpitz were not usually fueled to allow them to have free rein in the open sea, either to act as offensive weapons or to evade RAF attacks. Limiting a ship's mobility and opportunity to create a threat to an enemy is the fastest way I know to turn an asset into a liability (or target as our friends in the silent service would say). 

The German navy was operated as a "Fleet in being"; as long as the likes of Tirpitz, Gneisnau, Lutzow, etc., were swinging round their anchors in Norwegian fjords, the RN had to retain enough capital ships of their own in European waters to counter them. This is one reason for the need to sink Tirpitz as quickly as possible in 1944; to release the fast battleships (KG5, Duke of York, etc.) for the forming Far East Fleet.

[62613]

17 hours ago, ERIC ALLTORQUE said:

The Japanese had a third battleship of the Yamato class what was stopped and the hull used for Shinano a huge carrier,i think they got the message when they sunk PoW AND Repulse.

POW and Repulse were sunk by land - based planes, though.

[62613]

11 hours ago, Ozexpatriate said:

The USN converted hulls of the planned Lexington Class battlecruisers to be the USS Lexington and USS Saratoga. Their scrapping as battlecruisers on the ways in 1922 was related to the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 rather than a prediction of the obsolescence of battleships.

 

It turned out well for the USN, despite their disdain for the abrasive gadfly Billy Mitchell whose assertion:

Was ultimately proven correct in essence even if only 132 or so B-29s were around the cost of an Iowa Class battleship.

The British did the same with the large light cruisers Glorious and Courageous, only they were complete rebuilds. Weren' the Japanese Akagi and Kaga the same?

[The White Rabbit]

1 hour ago, 62613 said:

The German navy was operated as a "Fleet in being"; as long as the likes of Tirpitz, Gneisnau, Lutzow, etc., were swinging round their anchors in Norwegian fjords, the RN had to retain enough capital ships of their own in European waters to counter them. This is one reason for the need to sink Tirpitz as quickly as possible in 1944; to release the fast battleships (KG5, Duke of York, etc.) for the forming Far East Fleet.

 

I'd generally agree with this, though would suggest that to offer a credible threat (and therefore act as a fleet in being) the units needed to be capable of sortieing for an extended period - even if for strategic reasons they did not. Certainly Tirpitz did give the Admiralty a lot of headaches and tied up a lot of resources. Convoy PQ17 is perhaps the best known example of the damage caused by the Arctic fleet in being strategy. And as you say, the RN heavy units were wanted for other theatres. 

[ERIC ALLTORQUE]

2 hours ago, 62613 said:

POW and Repulse were sunk by land - based planes, though.

Yes but still planes destroyed two capital ships much to Churchills dismay,thats when the battleship lost the edge as being the death star of naval warfare.If the Germans had got Graff Zeplin sorted the war could have been very different in Europe,all just if only though. All the big capital battleships met their end by airpower and an aircraft is peanuts compared to the cost of a capital ship.

[jjb1970]

3 hours ago, 62613 said:

The British did the same with the large light cruisers Glorious and Courageous, only they were complete rebuilds. Weren' the Japanese Akagi and Kaga the same?

 

Also Furious.

[62613]

35 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

 

Also Furious.

The case of the Furious was quite curious, as she'd already been converted by 1918 to fly aircraft to and from her foredeck.

 

[62613]

To get back onto capital ships; what would the R.N. have looked like in 1939 if all four planned Hood - class battlecruisers had been completed? The other three were all laid down, work suspended 8.1917, and cancelled 10.1918. Almost starting an "Imaginary navies" topic!

[OnTheBranchline]

3 hours ago, ERIC ALLTORQUE said:

Yes but still planes destroyed two capital ships much to Churchills dismay,thats when the battleship lost the edge as being the death star of naval warfare.If the Germans had got Graff Zeplin sorted the war could have been very different in Europe,all just if only though. All the big capital battleships met their end by airpower and an aircraft is peanuts compared to the cost of a capital ship.

Very questionable given the number of issues including the navalising of the bf 109 and Stuka and the fact Goering didn’t want to give up planes. Plus with all the delays, by the time GP was ready, it would have been of no much use. 

[billy_anorak59]

I can't contribute to interesting discussion here, but as a slight distraction, here's a photograph my Dad took (in 1953, I think) of HMS Duke of York laid up on the Gareloch (enlargement from a very small negative, hence the grain):

 

Edited February 6, 2023 by billy_anorak59

[OnTheBranchline]

4 hours ago, The White Rabbit said:

 

I'd generally agree with this, though would suggest that to offer a credible threat (and therefore act as a fleet in being) the units needed to be capable of sortieing for an extended period - even if for strategic reasons they did not. Certainly Tirpitz did give the Admiralty a lot of headaches and tied up a lot of resources. Convoy PQ17 is perhaps the best known example of the damage caused by the Arctic fleet in being strategy. And as you say, the RN heavy units were wanted for other theatres. 

Tirpitz tied up a rounding error amount of the Allies resources.  Her only claim to fame was PQ17 and maybe delaying the British Pacific Fleet (questionable) and that was it. 

Edited February 6, 2023 by OnTheBranchline

[Tumut]

2 hours ago, 62613 said:

To get back onto capital ships; what would the R.N. have looked like in 1939 if all four planned Hood - class battlecruisers had been completed? The other three were all laid down, work suspended 8.1917, and cancelled 10.1918. Almost starting an "Imaginary navies" topic!

Dear 62613 and others, 1 / they may have made an interesting Aircraft Carrier (CV) conversions. The USS Lexington and USS Saratoga conversions enabled the USN to have, like the IJN, large CVs, which in turn allowed for more aircraft on board, and could accomodate the next generation of larger and heavier monoplane designs. Both the USN and the IJN had the advantage over the RN in CVs for this reason, though it is equally true that aircraft design and engineering between the wars was so rapid that some new designs were obsolete by service entry. 2/ as an aside, apparently Admiral Yamamoto witnessed the RN FAA Swordfish attack on Taranto, and this raid is credited with inspiring the East Wind Rain attack on Pearl Harbour. However, in 1931-32, the US Army and the USN, conducted joint manoeuvres in which two USN carriers' aircraft made a sneak attack on Pearl Harbour , and the umpires ruled that all facilities were put out of commission. These manoeuvres were witnessed by a Japanese Naval Attache, who later became a Staff Officer to the Commander of the IJN Carrier force that attacked Pearl, and he stated in a post war article that the idea and pattern of the attack was based on his observations of these manoeuvres ( "East Wind Rain" Stan Cohen / Pictorial Histories Publishing Co / Montana, USA 1981/1992 isbn 0-933126-15-8 ) page 10.  3 / Many years ago I read an article that claimed that the British Army in the early 1930s did manoeuvres in Malaya that included a possible land attack to seize Singapore from the rear, if this is correct, then it appears that Japan had both of their attacks pre demonstrated by their adversaries ! 4 / there has been criticisms of both General Short, and Admiral Kimmel, in relation to their failures to adequately defend Hawaii, yet the long winded, and garbled instructions from Washington indicated that sabotage was the greatest threat they need to prepare for, and they did. There is also criticism levelled at Admiral Kimmel for not having sufficient air patrols, which may have some validity, but there were only three reconnaissance planes available on standby, and the area to be observed was ( and is ) enormous, so it is a bit like finding a needle in a haystack, and lacking a magnet. In the Pacific Theatre, despite many reconnaissance flights by all participants, spotting the enemy in a vast ocean was, realistically, hope over experience, and there are a number of recorded instances when successful spotting was the result of errant navigation ! Regards from Australia.

[2750Papyrus]

4 hours ago, ERIC ALLTORQUE said:

 All the big capital battleships met their end by airpower and an aircraft is peanuts compared to the cost of a capital ship.

Not true.  Royal Oak and Barham were sunk by U boats, Hood, Scharnhorst and Bismarck by other battleships (though the latter had been incapacitated by aircraft).  Queen Elizabeth and Valiant were fortunate to be moored in shallow water when subjected to underwater attack.

 

Aircraft carriers were - and are - just as vulnerable to air attack as surface ships.  Battleships became obsolete because the range of their main armament (guns) was a fraction of that of the aircraft carrier (aircraft).

[ERIC ALLTORQUE]

3 hours ago, OnTheBranchline said:

Very questionable given the number of issues including the navalising of the bf 109 and Stuka and the fact Goering didn’t want to give up planes. Plus with all the delays, by the time GP was ready, it would have been of no much use. 

Needed the steam catapult as it was a bit ahead of things with the planes they wanted to use.

[62613]

2 hours ago, 2750Papyrus said:

Not true.  Royal Oak and Barham were sunk by U boats, Hood, Scharnhorst and Bismarck by other battleships (though the latter had been incapacitated by aircraft).  Queen Elizabeth and Valiant were fortunate to be moored in shallow water when subjected to underwater attack.

 

Aircraft carriers were - and are - just as vulnerable to air attack as surface ships.  Battleships became obsolete because the range of their main armament (guns) was a fraction of that of the aircraft carrier (aircraft).

There's also the battle of Surigao Straight; probably the last action ever between battleships

[OnTheBranchline]

18 minutes ago, 62613 said:

There's also the battle of Surigao Straight; probably the last action ever between battleships

It was - the battle of the north cape was the month before (Dec 1943).

 

of course, Adm Halsey denied us the chance of one final bb battle at the battle of Samar. 

[62613]

22 minutes ago, OnTheBranchline said:

It was - the battle of the north cape was the month before (Dec 1943).

 

of course, Adm Halsey denied us the chance of one final bb battle at the battle of Samar. 

Thought Surigao Strait was part of The Batlle of Leyte as well, so October 1944, no?

[OnTheBranchline]

23 minutes ago, 62613 said:

Thought Surigao Strait was part of The Batlle of Leyte as well, so October 1944, no?

Oops - got my dates mixed. 

[Ozexpatriate]

3 hours ago, 2750Papyrus said:

Aircraft carriers were - and are - just as vulnerable to air attack as surface ships.

Yes - and generally had fewer anti-aircraft guns than battleships, but they did make up for this in having their own aircraft - the best defense often being a good offence.

 

One often overlooked carrier conversion was the USS Langley CV-1. Converted from a fleet collier (USS Jupiter) in 1920 it served in the second world war - which surprised me since I had never heard that until reading it recently.

 

It didn't last long. Ferrying P40s from Fremantle it was redirected, from heading to Colombo, to Java in the Dutch East Indies when it was attacked and damaged by IJN Mitsubishi GM4 (Betty) bombers*  from Bali in late February 1942.

 

* Betty (and other) bombers were used against Force Z in December 1941.

 

The linked account is interesting on how the bombers experimented - their first efforts being avoided by course changes until they changed their tactics to bracketing the target. The Langley was not sunk by bombing, but being disabled and dead in the water was scuttled.

 

Edited February 6, 2023 by Ozexpatriate

[62613]

1 hour ago, Ozexpatriate said:

Yes - and generally had fewer anti-aircraft guns than battleships, but they did make up for this in having their own aircraft - the best defense often being a good offence.

 

One often overlooked carrier conversion was the USS Langley CV-1. Converted from a fleet collier (USS Jupiter) in 1920 it served in the second world war - which surprised me since I had never heard that until reading it recently.

 

It didn't last long. Ferrying P40s from Fremantle it was redirected, from heading to Colombo, to Java in the Dutch East Indies when it was attacked and damaged by IJN Mitsubishi GM4 (Betty) bombers*  from Bali in late February 1942.

 

* Betty (and other) bombers were used against Force Z in December 1941.

 

The linked account is interesting on how the bombers experimented - their first efforts being avoided by course changes until they changed their tactics to bracketing the target. The Langley was not sunk by bombing, but being disabled and dead in the water was scuttled.

 

Didn't the same or similar happen to Yorktown and one of the Japanese carriers after Midway? Yorktown was scuttled on the 5th June, and the Japanese was spotted drifting and burned out on the 6th, and sunk by a US submarine?

[Ozexpatriate]

1 minute ago, 62613 said:

Didn't the same or similar happen to Yorktown and one of the Japanese carriers after Midway? Yorktown was scuttled on the 5th June, and the Japanese was spotted drifting and burned out on the 6th, and sunk by a US submarine?

Sort of. USS Yorktown CV-5 was damaged at the Battle of the Coral Sea* (having a direct bomb hit that penetrated four decks) on May 8. USS Lexington, also damaged in the Coral Sea, was abandoned and sunk by torpedo from USS Phelps.

 

* During which, some IJN pilots mistook it for their own ship, and attempted to land.

 

CV-5 returned to Pearl Harbor for drydock repairs, arriving on May 27.  While seaworthy, her damaged superheaters were not repaired (limiting top speed) and was sent to sea in anticipation of the Battle of Midway, sailing on May 30.

 

The full story of CV-5 at Midway is harrowing. Direct bomb hits, avoiding torpedoes and still maintaining 20 knots despite damage - ultimately listing 26° forcing abandonment. It was likely ultimately sunk by torpedo from an IJN submarine (I-168) rolling over and sinking on June 7.

 

[mow]

6 hours ago, OnTheBranchline said:

Tirpitz tied up a rounding error amount of the Allies resources.  Her only claim to fame was PQ17 and maybe delaying the British Pacific Fleet (questionable) and that was it. 

 

Tirpitz and Bismarck took up quite a large proportion of time, men and material all of which could have been better employed in building U boats. 

[Kickstart]

23 hours ago, ERIC ALLTORQUE said:

Yes but still planes destroyed two capital ships much to Churchills dismay,thats when the battleship lost the edge as being the death star of naval warfare.If the Germans had got Graff Zeplin sorted the war could have been very different in Europe,all just if only though. All the big capital battleships met their end by airpower and an aircraft is peanuts compared to the cost of a capital ship.

 

I am not sure on Graf Zeppelin. In theory yes it could have been a major thorn, but it would also have had the problem all the large German surface fleet had, getting out to the Atlantic. Added to that a single aircraft carrier without a group to protect it would likely not survive long

Further, given the BF109s rather pilot unfriendly behavior on take off and landing, not sure it would have been a good choice for an aircraft carrier.

 

One extra issue is that Germany had pretty much zero experience of operating an aircraft carrier. It would likely have taken them time to build up the experience to use it effectively.

 

All the best

 

Katy

[ERIC ALLTORQUE]

15 minutes ago, Kickstart said:

 

I am not sure on Graf Zeppelin. In theory yes it could have been a major thorn, but it would also have had the problem all the large German surface fleet had, getting out to the Atlantic. Added to that a single aircraft carrier without a group to protect it would likely not survive long

Further, given the BF109s rather pilot unfriendly behavior on take off and landing, not sure it would have been a good choice for an aircraft carrier.

 

One extra issue is that Germany had pretty much zero experience of operating an aircraft carrier. It would likely have taken them time to build up the experience to use it effectively.

 

All the best

 

Katy

Used as support for the batteship it would have been a different kettle of fish,on the Bismarck operation it would have made the swordfish attacks a no go and the stuka at sea a pain for our capital ships,again all hindsight and what if though.