The Ships Of The Line thread!

[klr]

What the?

And yes, I was too polite to mention Mikasa.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

What the?

And yes, I was too polite to mention Mikasa.

HMS Cerebrus

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[klr]

HMS Vanguard:



... the phrase "a complete waste of time and money" comes to mind.

[klr]

Why did the USN insist that the Alaska class were just large cruisers? With 9x12-inch guns and 34,000 ton full load? Even the naming convention implies battle cruisers FFS.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Why did the USN insist that the Alaska class were just large cruisers? With 9x12-inch guns and 34,000 ton full load? Even the naming convention implies battle cruisers FFS.

Alask, Gaum, and Hawaii weren't states at the time, so the BB convention didn't apply.

[klr]

...

Why did the USN insist that the Alaska class were just large cruisers? With 9x12-inch guns and 34,000 ton full load? Even the naming convention implies battle cruisers FFS.

Alask, Gaum, and Hawaii weren't states at the time, so the BB convention didn't apply.

That's my point. Cruisers = cities. Battleships = states. If they were just big cruisers, why not just call them after cities? Territories are much closer to states than they are cities, implying that they were "almost, but not quite battleships". Battle cruisers in other words. Their intended original role was very close to that envisaged by Jacky Fisher himself when he devised the battle cruiser concept in the first place. So why the official reluctance to call them what they really were? A rose by any other name and all that ... You gotta love military bureaucracy.

... Early in their development, the class used the designation CC, signifying battlecruisers in the tradition of the Lexingtons;[A 9] the designation was changed to CB to reflect their new name of "large cruiser", and the practice of referring to them as "battlecruisers" was officially discouraged.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

...

Why did the USN insist that the Alaska class were just large cruisers? With 9x12-inch guns and 34,000 ton full load? Even the naming convention implies battle cruisers FFS.

Alask, Gaum, and Hawaii weren't states at the time, so the BB convention didn't apply.

That's my point. Cruisers = cities. Battleships = states. If they were just big cruisers, why not just call them after cities? Territories are much closer to states than they are cities, implying that they were "almost, but not quite battleships". Battle cruisers in other words. Their intended original role was very close to that envisaged by Jacky Fisher himself when he devised the battle cruiser concept in the first place. So why the official reluctance to call them what they really were? A rose by any other name and all that ... You gotta love military bureaucracy.

... Early in their development, the class used the designation CC, signifying battlecruisers in the tradition of the Lexingtons;[A 9] the designation was changed to CB to reflect their new name of "large cruiser", and the practice of referring to them as "battlecruisers" was officially discouraged.

Territories are larger than citites, "smaller" than states (status wise, anyway). There was a fierce battle about building them at all, and the comprise people the territorial groups and the anti-BBs lobby as well.

[klr]

...

Why did the USN insist that the Alaska class were just large cruisers? With 9x12-inch guns and 34,000 ton full load? Even the naming convention implies battle cruisers FFS.

Alask, Gaum, and Hawaii weren't states at the time, so the BB convention didn't apply.

That's my point. Cruisers = cities. Battleships = states. If they were just big cruisers, why not just call them after cities? Territories are much closer to states than they are cities, implying that they were "almost, but not quite battleships". Battle cruisers in other words. Their intended original role was very close to that envisaged by Jacky Fisher himself when he devised the battle cruiser concept in the first place. So why the official reluctance to call them what they really were? A rose by any other name and all that ... You gotta love military bureaucracy.

... Early in their development, the class used the designation CC, signifying battlecruisers in the tradition of the Lexingtons;[A 9] the designation was changed to CB to reflect their new name of "large cruiser", and the practice of referring to them as "battlecruisers" was officially discouraged.

Territories are larger than citites, "smaller" than states (status wise, anyway). There was a fierce battle about building them at all, and the comprise people the territorial groups and the anti-BBs lobby as well.

My reading of their history is that by mid-1942, the penny should have well and truly dropped that the best way to kill a heavy cruiser (their intended role) was by aircraft or maybe submarine*. I'm still surprised that it got to the point where two were commissioned, and a third was over 80% complete - I've got an incredibly precise figure somewhere for Guam's state of completion when work stopped on her. These were very big and expensive warships, disproportionately so.

*Once the USN got around to fixing its torpedoes.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

My reading of their history is that by mid-1942, the penny should have well and truly dropped that the best way to kill a heavy cruiser (their intended role) was by aircraft or maybe submarine*. I'm still surprised that it got to the point where two were commissioned, and a third was over 80% complete - I've got an incredibly precise figure somewhere for Guam's state of completion when work stopped on her. These were very big and expensive warships, disproportionately so.

*Once the USN got around to fixing its torpedoes.

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/Airpl ... leship.pdf

[klr]

My reading of their history is that by mid-1942, the penny should have well and truly dropped that the best way to kill a heavy cruiser (their intended role) was by aircraft or maybe submarine*. I'm still surprised that it got to the point where two were commissioned, and a third was over 80% complete - I've got an incredibly precise figure somewhere for Guam's state of completion when work stopped on her. These were very big and expensive warships, disproportionately so.

*Once the USN got around to fixing its torpedoes.

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/Airpl ... leship.pdf

His analysis of the Bismarck episode is ... strangely skewed.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

My reading of their history is that by mid-1942, the penny should have well and truly dropped that the best way to kill a heavy cruiser (their intended role) was by aircraft or maybe submarine*. I'm still surprised that it got to the point where two were commissioned, and a third was over 80% complete - I've got an incredibly precise figure somewhere for Guam's state of completion when work stopped on her. These were very big and expensive warships, disproportionately so.

*Once the USN got around to fixing its torpedoes.

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/Airpl ... leship.pdf

His analysis of the Bismarck episode is ... strangely skewed.

The last few pages are by an admitted "brass hat". There's fun reading.

[klr]

[Clinton Huxley]

Soviet battleship, part of which went on to an illustrious career in radio astronomy......

[Gawdzilla Sama]

USS Arizona in her colors on Dec. 7th, 1941.