Minotaur Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 The cruiser near Manchester is named "Hood"... But the Hood was a battleship!... The biggest UK had... It was sunk in 4 minutes by the Bismarck in may 24, 1941 (I did my homework )... I can't believe I didn't saw this before!!!... The Bismarck hunt is one of my favorite topic of WW2... I even saw the film 'Sink The Bismarck!' made in 1943!... [ February 23, 2003, 11:21 PM: Message edited by: Minotaur ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les the Sarge 9-1b Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 The Hood was indeed a fine ship, it was also not a battleship not a pocket battleship, but was in fact a battlecruiser. I hope your homework's marks improve dude heheh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minotaur Posted February 24, 2003 Author Share Posted February 24, 2003 Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1b: The Hood was indeed a fine ship,... Not good enough, since it sank so easily (cut in half!...)... Bad luck?... Yes... But also lack of armored plating at some strategic locations... Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1b: ... it was also not a battleship not a pocket battleship, but was in fact a battlecruiser. HMS Hood... UK... done in 1920... 41200 tons... 8 15' cannons... 14 4' cannons... 41200 tons!... Definitely a Battleship class... Bismarck = 41000 tons... Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1b: I hope your homework's marks improve dude heheh I have the book right by my side... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 Minotaur Nice research, we posted pretty closely so there's a little repition of info as I didn't get to read your posting before writing mine. The Hood is an odd case. It had eight fifteen inch guns, exactly like the Bismarck and Tirpitz, displaced 42,000 tons and did 30 knots, also like Bismark and Tirpitz, but as Les stated, she was a Battlecruiser and completed in 1920. She was supposed to have sister ships but the admiralty, leary of their vulnerability to arching fire, decided against additional Battlecruisers. The last three were sister ships Renown and Repulse and the Hood, which was slightly faster than the other two though all were similarly armed. Throughout the 20s and Thirties Hood was altered several times and it's believed these changes actually made her unstable and were largely to blame for her exploding and breaking in half, though there are many different theories including one of her own torpedoes detonating and igniting a main powder magazine. Agreed she isn't a cruiser. In game terms the unit probably represents the Hood paired with a heavy cruiser. It's hard to figure exactly what naval units represent. In Germany's case for 1939 we have two cruiser units, Sharnhorst and Gneisenau; battlecruisers underarmed with 11" guns that were supposed to be replaced with 15" but never were. The Germans also had two "pocket battleships" at sea and one in the Baltic --(11,000 tons, six 11" guns, 26 knots performance with a very good range, also called armored cruisers) -- with three heavy 8" cruisers nearing completion and at least one obsolete battleship. As Hubert said in an earlier Forum, each counter represents more than one ship, presumably named for the largest in the group. [ February 24, 2003, 12:07 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les the Sarge 9-1b Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 Well I didn't want to go overboard on my first post (I didn't have the sp[ecs that JJ obviously had handy That the hood was a "fine ship" was a reflection on the opinion of the sailors of the time though. I don't really think it has anything special to it's look personally. But as JJ reeeeeeeeally pointed out (did a fine job JJ), you have to open the book too heheh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 Les, You're right, I had the book nearby and couldn't resist putting it up. Glad you enjoyed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minotaur Posted February 24, 2003 Author Share Posted February 24, 2003 Originally posted by JerseyJohn: ...but as Les stated, she was a Battlecruiser...Mmmm... - Battleships - Battlecruisers - Pocket battleships - Heavy cruisers - Cruisers No wonder it's so complicated to understand... And I assume it's not only tonnage that put a ship in one category or an other... Originally posted by JerseyJohn: The last three were sister ships Renown and Repulse and the Hood... ...As Hubert said in an earlier Forum, each counter represents more than one ship, presumably named for the largest in the group. So I assume Rodney and Renown are the battleship unit 'Rodney'... and the Hood alone is the cruiser unit 'Hood' (both near Manchester)?... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minotaur Posted February 24, 2003 Author Share Posted February 24, 2003 Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1b: But as JJ reeeeeeeeally pointed out (did a fine job JJ), you have to open the book too heheh. And the book must be good enough... It class everything over 20000 tons as a battleship... From the 'Andrea Doria' (Italy, 25200 tons) to the 'Yamato/Mushashi' (Japan, 72800 tons)... [ February 24, 2003, 01:02 AM: Message edited by: Minotaur ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 Minotaur I've come to the conclusion you're one of those guys who comes along and forces everyone to think! Rodney and Nelson were sister ships and probably over gunned with 9x16" in three forward turrets and most of their smaller guns (including 6") aft. They were also fairly old, early 20s, and slow by WW II standards at around 20-22 knots. After one confrontation Rodney, having used her main guns with great enthusiasm, was sent to Boston for repairs; not because she'd been hit, but because her own broadsides had loosened so many of her fittings! Scharnhorst and Gneisnau were something like 35,000 tons, did 32 knots and, as mentioned earlier, should have carried 15" instead of 11" guns (six forward, 3 aft). The pocket battleships only came into existence because of the Versailles treaty. They were supposed to be 10,000 tons but were actually a bit heavier and carried larger than cruiser guns with faster than battleship speeds. As Erich Raeder said at his War Crimes trials, without them Weimar would have had no fleet at all. He was sent to prison, I believe for ten years, because he sanctioned the violating 1,000 ton displacement -- 11,000 instead of 10,000 in all three ships -- probably the least justified of all the war crime convictions. The British had a lot of different ship types and made it even more confusing by making changes to certain ships and different changes to other ships in the same class. Renown and Repulse, for example, were considerably different ships by '39 despite being sisters; Renown was made heavier and slowed to 25 knots while Renown maintained it's 28 knot speed, which was why it was paired with Prince of Wales for the Malaya mission in '41. The long and the short of it is that there are few hard and fast rules for these ships at that particular time. Britain's Barham class BBs made in the early 20s (includes Queen Elizabeth, Malaya, Warspite) would have had little in common with the Lion class made late in the war. In an ambitious mood and to avoid this issue, I renamed all the naval units in one of my homemade scenarios -- BB Div 1..2..3 AC Force 1 ...2...3 and had no arguments at all with myself about ships being misclassed. I suspect the Yamato/Musasshi might have ushered in an entirely new era of super battleships . Hitler had super-super insanities on the drawing boards that would have carried 20" guns and been around 100,000 tons. What an incredible waste of resources those babies would have been! Of course, by 1945 the Japanese were at a huge disadvantage not just in the sky but even in surface to surface actions because they lacked gunnery radar. The U. S., Britain and Germany all developed it prior to the war. The United States' fast 16" BBs might well have held their own against those much heavier Japanese monsters. At least untill a few 18" shells found their mark, in which case the odds, assuming the battle was still in progress, would have needed adjusting. (-- different gun types adds a whole new range of complications; the U. S. 16" had enhanced penetrating power, making them comparable to Japan's 18", but that's a different topic and for some future forum) Pretty much exhausting all I know or hope to ever look up on the subject. [ February 24, 2003, 02:09 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuniworth Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 Hood was definately a battlecruiser. If you compare Hood to Bismarck you will see that the Hood is longer but neither has as high overstructure nor as broad as Bismarck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 Kuniworth Nobody's questioning whether the vessel H. M. S. Hood was a Battlecruiser , no cruiser ever built carried fifteen inch guns! Plus, it was approximately five times the tonnage of a typical heavy cruiser (with 6" or 8" guns) -- at 41,000 tons with eight 15" guns it would have made one awsome cruiser! The question Minotaur was asking is, why is it depicted as one. Along the same lines, neither Scharnhorst nor Gneisnau (35,000 tons, 9x11" guns) were cruisers, so they pose the identical question. [ February 24, 2003, 08:00 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer39 Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 Personally, I think the Scharnhorst class and the Hood should be represented by under strength BB units. In the modified games I play I change them to BB's but start them off at 8 instead of 10. I than force myself not to repair them past 8. Yes I know that the unit does not represent just one ship although it is my opinion they should, but than we would need naval stacking and we all know how debatable stacking is. This Naval unit system is weird though because with research you can make your BB's upgrade to 15 strength units. Where does the extra 5 units come from? Are they new ships added to the counter? If so why do you need research to add them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer39 Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 Also, if they represent more than one ship why are they not named as such? Why not have a English Home Fleet etc. instead of individual names? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThorKhan Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 The problem with those classifications is that they came into use after the "Dreadnought", which was the first modern battleship, was built by the British around 1904 (?). Early in WWI the first battlecruisers were built. The idea was to build a ship that could sink cruisers, so it had to have heavier artillery than a cruiser. On the other hand it should be able to escape stronger adversaries like battleships. So basically a battlecruiser is a faster than a battleship but has weaker armor. The new battleships like Bismarck, King George V and Missouri, that were built in the 1940ies were fast battleships, so the older battlecruisers like Hood were more or less obsolete (not even taking air force into account) as their advantage was gone. Battlecruisers were never intended to fight battleships and when they did they had a very hard time as already the Skagerrak/Jutland-battle in WWI has proven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John DiFool Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 The key is how they perform in combat. I don't have time to check, but how much of an edge do the BB units have over the cruisers in SC? He can chime in whenever he wants, but I think Hubert intended "cruisers" to represent pocket battleships and "mini" BBs such as the Hood and the Scharnhorst... John DiFool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer39 Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 Well that causes problems as well. I took the crusier fleets to represent Heavy and Light crusiers. Surely everyone has to agree that the Scharnhorst and Hood class are more like BB's than they are like heavy crusiers. The German Pocket BB's can fall into the crusier catagory due to their small size and low armor. Also, it is apparent that the fighting ability does not play a part in the decesion. The French Bertange class is given BB status even though IRL both the Hood and Scharnhorst class would have had an easy time sinking them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 ThorKhan, John Difool and Panzer39 Everything you guys have said is correct. Battlecruisers were originally intended as the recon line of the battleship fleet. That's the way they were used on both sides at Jutland, though inevitably they came under fire from their heavier cousins and were no match. The motto applied to them was "They can ougun anything they can't outrun and outrun anything they can't outgun!" PocketBattleships are just large cruisers with very heavy guns. When first built they were four or five knots faster than most battleships and only vulnerable to the much heavier battlecruisers. By the time of the second world war many heavy battleships, such as the King George the V class, were actually faster than they were and they had already become obsolete. Their armor was too weak to withstand 13-16" inch shells and no individual cruiser would wait around to duke it out with them, so after Graf Spee the remaining two remained only as a "Fleet in Being" to tie British ships down in watching them. I believe Hubert's overall aim was to lay the fleets out in a manner representing their relative stregnths. To me he succeeded in this and the fact various units are inappropriately named is only cosmetic. As I said earlier, I've long since ceased paying attention to what they're called and think of them as being Divisions within the fleet. To clear up a minor point, earlier three British Battlecruisers, Hood, Renown, and Repulse, were accidentally lumped together as sister ships. They aren't. Hood was the largest of the three and the only one of it's class, her intended sisters having been cancelled in the keel stage. Renown and Repulse, slightly smaller and considerably slower, were built as sister ships though altered along different lines in succeeding years. All three ships were armed with fifteen inch guns and were the last of the British Battlecruisers. The United States built only one Battle Cruiser, it was very fast, something like 34 knots and had fifteen inch guns. No others were built because ships like the Missouri and her sisters were much heavier, carried 16" guns and only a couple of knots slower. The earlier Iowa class also had 16" with a top speed of 28 knots. [ February 24, 2003, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer39 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 The American BC class was the Alaska class. They made 32 knots and had 9 12 inch guns. Basically a mini Missouri. The Japanese had Battlecrusiers as well in WWII the Kongo class. Basically the German's were the only ones who could have benefited with BC's in WWII since they could as Jersey John pointed out they could defeat anything smaller and outrun anything bigger. A dozen Scharnhorst class ships with larger operational ranges could have played hell with the British in the early stage of the war. I agree that Hubert did a good job balancing the Naval powers; however,I hope more depth is added to naval power in SC2. Surface raiders would be nice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Panzer Thanks for clarifying the Alaska Battlecruiser. I thought it was both harder hitting and faster -- glad you added the note. Sounds similar to Scharnhorst, only a little faster and a little harder hitting. After the past few days I reached my saturation point for looking up ships! I don't know what Germany's plans were with the Scharnhorst class. If they wanted surface raiders I'd imagine 6" or 8" guns would have done a fine job against merchant ships. 11" is overkill and 15" is ridiculous. Probably they were supposed to move in and use their secondary guns on freighters. 10 or 12 Scharnhorsts and Gneisnaus wandering the convoy lanes would surely have created havoc for Britain. They could have battered escorts from long range, locating and scattering convoys for the wolfpacks and Luftwaffe. They'd have been more effective still in this role if each were accompanied by a few light cruisers/heavy destroyers as protection against enemy cruisers and also to sink merchant men. I think Germany got too caught up with the idea of big ships like Bismarck and Tirpitz; speed and numbers might have worked better for them. Which ties in with what you said about SC2; "surface raiders would be nice" Amen and second the motion! [ February 24, 2003, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer39 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 The reason why they needed larger ships as commerce radiers was due to the lack of Oversea ports. DD's and CA's have a much shorter range than BB's and BC's. The Pocket BB's were great because they had a range of 17000 miles. The Scharnhorst class only had a range of 8000 (these are off the top of my head, might be a little off). Part of Plan Z called for the creation of the P class crusier, a cross between the Pocket BB's and the Scharnhorst class. It would have had 6 11 inch guns, light armor, but a top speed of 34 knots with a range 23000 miles :eek: The reason why Germany's fleet seems lopsided towards a confrontation doctrine is due to the fact that war came 4 years prior to when Hitler promised Raeder. The smaller ships, P-class were not laid down before the war started because they would have been laid down in 1940 and another batch in 1942 in order to be ready for 1944. Had Plan Z been completed there would have been 2 Bismarck class 6 H class - upsized Bismarcks 3 O class - suped up Scharnhorsts 12 P class 2 carriers 12 M class light crusiers The original Pocket BB's would most likely been retired or regulated to escourt duty (their false original purpose. A very balanced fleet with the Big boys forcing England to keep a large force at home which would allow the commerce Raiders to do there jobs. The need for crusiers and DD's to chase the commerce raiders around would in turn free up the subs to really have a field day. Of course the UK would have built up its fleet as well but to what extent is questionable. Even with a Plan Z completed they would still have over twice the size of a fleet which is what they wanted before WWI. I think I've gone far enough off topic here so I'll call it an end. BTW in SC2 I would also like to see delayed deployment of capital ship fleets. Maybe make it so they deploy at level 1 and you can only build them up 2 points every turn. This would simulate the long time it took to build ships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Panzer It's making more and more sense now. Good input on the Z-Plan. --- --- --- 2 Bismarck class 6 H class - upsized Bismarcks 3 O class - suped up Scharnhorsts 12 P class 2 carriers 12 M class light crusiers --- --- --- In the Z-plan I knew about the six Hindenburg Class BBs with 16" guns which, as you say, would have been larger Bismarcks (around 50,000 tons). I didn't know about the O Class Scharnhorsts but they sound excellent. When I was mentioning commerce raiding with smaller ships I meant after the fall of France, even so, your point about the range makes sense. I assume the M Class Light Cruisers would have been the 34 knot jobs with extended range 5.9" guns. Pretty sure you're right regarding the Scharnhorst range. Bismark and Tirpitz had very good range and, as you mentioned, the Pocket Battleships had the greatest range of all. Interesting to speculate what Britain's response to the Z-plan would have been. If Germany had kept a low profile after absorbing the remainder of Czhechoslovakia and allowed Chamberlain and Baldwin to look good, I think the UK war readiness would have petered out before the end of 1940, and the same for France. Both countries were extremely concerned about the cost of armaments and might well have grasped any straw to back off a bit. Germany might even have been able to build most of that fleet with a minumum of publicity. But what would it have cost in terms of diverted resources from the Luftwaffe and army? You shouldn't consider any of what you've written to be off topic; we've already satisfied the original issue, indeed, Hood was not a cruiser -- now it's our topic to explore at will. You're adding great material. As an alternative, why not take your last entry and begin a new forum on Germany's Z-Plan! . I don't think we've ever had one on that subject and you know more about it than I do, so I yield the floor. [ February 24, 2003, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minotaur Posted February 25, 2003 Author Share Posted February 25, 2003 Well... Seem I created a Monster... Originally posted by JerseyJohn: I've come to the conclusion you're one of those guys who comes along and forces everyone to think! And I was unaware that it exists so much classification for ships... The more I read your topic, the more I saw ships building philosophy of that time was a 'rock-paper-scissor' cross with 'the-faster-the-more-bigger-gun-the-better'... Originally posted by John DiFool: The key is how they perform in combat... how much of an edge do the BB units have over the cruisers in SC? Good question... Seem to have no differences against land or air units... The only difference I saw was ships vs ships... Originally posted by Panzer39: BTW in SC2 I would also like to see delayed deployment of capital ship fleets. Maybe make it so they deploy at level 1 and you can only build them up 2 points every turn. This would simulate the long time it took to build ships. True... annoying, but true... Originally posted by JerseyJohn: I suspect the Yamato/Musasshi might have ushered in an entirely new era of super battleships . Hitler had super-super insanities on the drawing boards that would have carried 20" guns and been around 100,000 tons. What an incredible waste of resources those babies would have been! As is "Maus" tank... a 100+ tons behemoth with a 120mm AND a 88mm gun on it's turret... Only 2 existed at the end of the war... Both unfinished... Can you imagine that thing in the Russian mud?... Originally posted by JerseyJohn: In an ambitious mood and to avoid this issue, I renamed all the naval units in one of my homemade scenarios -- BB Div 1..2..3 AC Force 1 ...2...3 and had no arguments at all with myself about ships being misclassed. Good idea... Perhaps Hubert should have done this... But we wouldn't have such a interesting Forum... Originally posted by JerseyJohn: I believe Hubert's overall aim was to lay the fleets out in a manner representing their relative stregnths. To me he succeeded in this and the fact various units are inappropriately named is only cosmetic. As I said earlier, I've long since ceased paying attention to what they're called and think of them as being Divisions within the fleet. In the end... Yes... Nothing we say here will change gameplay... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Minotaur You did indeed create a monster, but I'm glad you did. Excellent idea on starting ships as L=2s and having to build them up! The bad part is, without stacking it would be awkward as there could only be a single unit built per port per turn. The original idea, posted in several Forums long submerged in our back pages, was to have a construction table, like the one in COS. It would be for all units, not just naval, but naturally the naval units would require the most time in production. As for you, Mr. M. Next time you start a Forum you might want to consider first whether it won't turn out to be self-perpetuating. This one reminds me of The Sorcerror's Apprentice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valadictum Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 IIRC - In the Royal Navy BC's were intended to scout for the BB's, patrol commerce routes and hunt down enemy merchant cruisers raiding trade routes. This meant they needed to be fast and powerfully armed, at the cost of armour. In WW1 the Battle of Falklands was a classic BC action and exactly what BC's were intended for. The problem with such large well armed ships was the temptation to use them to supplement BB's. The result was Jutland and the losses sustained in that action. Why did BC's need to be so big? in the period that BC's as conceived of in WW1 were being built, they had no high pressure boilers. Thus to get more speed out of a ship when working at the limits of available boilers meant having more boilers (+engines?). The more boilers stuffed into a hull, meant a bigger hull Thus Hood, at 42,000 tons was a BC even in WW2 and even after the attempts to improve her. She was powerfully armed and fast but weakly armoured. Rodney and Nelson were, thanks to the Washington Treaty, an apalling example of muddled design, but also highly innovative. Yet they also came with "pre high pressure" boiler technology, thus they were slow. It was only in the 1930's that high pressure boiler tech arrived, along with other modern construction like the all welded hulls in America. This allowed the concept of fast battleships to be built, the combination of speed, armour and the big guns. This rendered all ships with older type boilers as obsolete, though some very interesting re-constructions were attempted, notably in Britain and Japan, before WW2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Valadictum Great post, learned a lot from it. I think the three German pocket Battleships may have been the first all welded warships, part of the reason they were able to cut some tonnage off and add a little speed. In the American Liberty Ships the all welding technique led to weaknesses in the hull. Was there a similar defect in warships, or did the greater mass negate this? I know the all welded Graf Spee took a good pounding in the River Platte and, without significant repair, was considered very sea worthy at the time she was scuttled. BB Yamato, along with sister Musassashi, the Largest BBs EVER! [ February 24, 2003, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts