Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'Battlecruisers'.
Found 1 result
Pillwalker posted a topic in Ships, Belles, & HistoryThe Battle of Jutland happened 100 years ago this week and some of the ships that took part in this battle will be Belles, including the much championed Queen Elizabeth - class. Let's hope these ships Belles have learned a thing or two to keep the young ones of '39 from making the same mistakes and hopefully we captain can also learn from this, the biggest clash of warships in modern history. This YouTube channel follows the events of the Great War week by week so you can go back and see all kinds of amazing videos, some of which are indeed ship related. So what went wrong? Why did the British Battlecruisers do so poorly? Was it just incompetence? Poor design? Well as I see it, the Battlecruisers were not used properly. At Jutland the BCs were being used in the same way as conventional battleships, "sailing" in a line instead of using their speed and maneuverability to avoid damage. Also Battecruisers as a concept are not designed for such a brawl. BCs were designed to hunt and kill cruisers as they did in the Battle of the Falkland Islands in December, 1914, using their speed to hunt down such prey and to run from things bigger than them, like Battleships. The way they were used at Jutland negated all of their advantages and the bad British habit of storing the powder charges high in the turret (technically against RN regs but not enforced) meant that every hit basically blew the ship up. So indeed, something was very wrong with their ships. So do you think the British fleet was lead incompetently or were they limited by their lack of established night-fighting procedures and protocols? Could the British ships even aim properly? Were the Germans just better gunners or were the German ships simply that much more durable. Something I've noticed about a lot of British ship designs is that they seem to lack durability compared to some of their contemporaries, mostly the German and American ships (I don't have a lot of knowledge of French warships or Italian ships from the same period). American and German ships were famous for taking a massive pounding and surviving. Or failing that, they took a lot of effort to sink. Look how much effort had to go into sinking Bismark and Tirpitz. Bismark took a huge number of shells from 2 British battleships, one on either side of her, and in addition to that she took a torpedo from HMS Rodney. She still didn`t sink, she was technically scuttled (but she would have eventually been sunk anyway). Tirpitz also took a massive pounding to bring down, requiring Lancasters to fly over and drop Grand Slam bombs, bombs designed to cause small earthquakes, to bring her down. For American ships you're spoiled for choice. USS Laffey, USS Franklin, USS Hornet (CV-8). so resilient were they that the Japanese often thought some of them were ghost ships because ships they thought sunk came back to fight them again. British ships by comparison seemed pretty flimsy. HMS Ark Royal was eventually sunk by a single torpedo, the Leander-class cruisers, while well built for certain, had all their propulsion machinery roughly in the same area. But at least with them they have the excuse that they had to fit within limitations set by the Washington Naval Treaty, something you'll see come up a lot in discussions of the Belles of '39. One thing the British did do that was good but few others did, was put armoured flight decks on their carriers. This would prove fortuitous during the Battle of the Mediterranean. Makes me curious as to why the other nations didn't. I can only assume for the earlier carriers that it was due to treaty limits but even later carriers seemed to continue using unarmored flight decks. So what do you think?