Bad ideas in war

[jimbob]

A rant about the Ajax IFV


I knew it was bad but not everything here

 

[theprestige]

I guess we can add to the list, starting a war without having adequate anti drone air defenses in place.

On the other hand, the US often starts a war with less than what it needs, and ends it with more than anyone else. Two fleet carriers in the Pacific in early 1942. Twenty eight by the end of the war.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Today is the anniversary of the first major warship sunk by air attack in war and the first sunk by dive bombing.

1940, British Fleet Air Arm, Blackburn Skua Dive Bombers launched from RNAS Hatston, Orkney, attacked German cruiser Königsberg at Bergen, Norway. Three hours later the ship hit by at least five 500-pound bombs capsized and sank.

 

[theprestige]

Today is the anniversary of the first major warship sunk by air attack in war and the first sunk by dive bombing.

1940, British Fleet Air Arm, Blackburn Skua Dive Bombers launched from RNAS Hatston, Orkney, attacked German cruiser Königsberg at Bergen, Norway. Three hours later the ship hit by at least five 500-pound bombs capsized and sank.


View attachment 70288

What's the bad idea, though?

 

[jimbob]

I guess we can add to the list, starting a war without having adequate anti drone air defenses in place.

On the other hand, the US often starts a war with less than what it needs, and ends it with more than anyone else. Two fleet carriers in the Pacific in early 1942. Twenty eight by the end of the war.

The US was rearming in 1941. Just not fast enough, and that wasn't a war of choice for the US.

But 2026, there really was no excuse.

 

[Andy_Ross]

What's the bad idea, though?

Nothing really. Just one of those things that's overlooked. Everyone remembers the Swordfish torpedo attack on Taranto but the Skuas get overlooked.

Also it shows its a bad idea to not provide air cover for moored ships while in range of enemy bombers.

Konigsberg had already been badly damaged by the coastal battery at the Kvarven Fort two days before.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

What's the bad idea, though?

Trying the same thing again on the Scharnhorst two months later.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Of course it's an attack which has been celebrated ever since by their namesakes, actual skuas, with a now-traditional performance of dive-bombing the ◊◊◊◊ out of any poor sap who gets too close to their nests.

 

[jeremyp]

What's the bad idea, though?

German naval strategy. They clung on to the idea of a large surface fleet despite having poor access to international waters and very few foreign outposts where surface raiders could refuel and rearm. Given the relative strength of the German and British navies, what happened to the surface elements of the Kriegsmarine was inevitable and the U-Boat arm was hamstrung by senior admirals' fixation with surface ships, at least for the first three years of the war.

 

[jimbob]

German naval strategy. They clung on to the idea of a large surface fleet despite having poor access to international waters and very few foreign outposts where surface raiders could refuel and rearm. Given the relative strength of the German and British navies, what happened to the surface elements of the Kriegsmarine was inevitable and the U-Boat arm was hamstrung by senior admirals' fixation with surface ships, at least for the first three years of the war.

Also the RN had the attitude that "it takes the Navy 3 years to build a warship, but 3 centuries to build a tradition."

Yes they lost ships but that was because they were doing things with them. The Kriegsmarine were trying to preserve their large ships and tried to only fight when they were certain of winning.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Just like the Italians who also has an impressive "fleet in being" built to deter the French. Against a much larger opponent, if it didn't work as a deterrent, it didn't work at all because attrition was on the other guy's side. So they had some really good kit but couldn't risk using it.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Just like the Italians who also has an impressive "fleet in being" built to deter the French. Against a much larger opponent, if it didn't work as a deterrent, it didn't work at all because attrition was on the other guy's side. So they had some really good kit but couldn't risk using it.

Not strictly true
There's a very skewed view of the Regia Marina especially in British thinking.
Italy surrendered so everything Italian was bad is the conventional wisdom.

Drachinifel has tried to address this in his individual ship videos and several in depth looks at different aspects.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Also the RN had the attitude that "it takes the Navy 3 years to build a warship, but 3 centuries to build a tradition."

Yes they lost ships but that was because they were doing things with them. The Kriegsmarine were trying to preserve their large ships and tried to only fight when they were certain of winning.

The Germans didn't have the resources or shipbuilding capacity to build a large navy.
The Kriegsmarine surface fleet never really recovered from losing Cruisers and Destroyers in the Norwegian campaign.
Also, because they couldn't match the RN in number of ships, number of new builds ir even replacements for ships lost they tried to cram as much as possible on to their Destroyers. This caused problems with seakeeping and reliability.
They could fight hard and well, look in to the various actions in the Channel between German and British Destroyer forces.

 

[jimbob]

Also, because they couldn't match the RN in number of ships, number of new builds ir even replacements for ships lost they tried to cram as much as possible on to their Destroyers. This caused problems with seakeeping and reliability.
They could fight hard and well, look in to the various actions in the Channel between German and British Destroyer forces.

Yup, that's why I mentioned large ships. And E boats were pretty handy.

 

[jeremyp]

Not strictly true
There's a very skewed view of the Regia Marina especially in British thinking.
Italy surrendered so everything Italian was bad is the conventional wisdom.

Drachinifel has tried to address this in his individual ship videos and several in depth looks at different aspects.

The Italians had very good ships. They were the only real threat to the Royal Navy in the Mediterranean. I don't think anybody who knows anything about the Italian navy believes otherwise, not even British naval historians.

 

[jeremyp]

The Germans didn't have the resources or shipbuilding capacity to build a large navy.
The Kriegsmarine surface fleet never really recovered from losing Cruisers and Destroyers in the Norwegian campaign.
Also, because they couldn't match the RN in number of ships, number of new builds ir even replacements for ships lost they tried to cram as much as possible on to their Destroyers. This caused problems with seakeeping and reliability.
They could fight hard and well, look in to the various actions in the Channel between German and British Destroyer forces.

But their capital ships and heavy cruisers were abysmal failures. They might as well not have bothered.

 

[Andy_Ross]

But their capital ships and heavy cruisers were abysmal failures. They might as well not have bothered.

Their Capital ships were decent, if somewhat inefficient in design, but that's because they hadn't built any for a long time. The Cruisers were problematic, trying to get too much out of each hull, a problem shared with the Japanese to an extent. A problem shared by most German ships was over complicated boilers and turbines.
They required highly trained specialists to keep running and were constantly having problems.
Prinz Eugen broke out with Bismarck but had to turn back because of engine troubles.
After the war the Americans examined the ship but couldn't get the boilers to run and it was sunk in the Bikini Atoll bomb test.
Another drawback was the ammunition system used by Krupp on their guns.
Horizontally sliding breech blocks with ammunition hoists alongside the guns, coupled with using a brass case for the last part of the propellant bags (to gas seal the sliding breech).
Together they resulted in a slower rate of fire and over large turrets compared to every other navy. Compare Bismarck's turrets with those of a US or RN turret.
Plus, they never went ahead with the plan to replace triple 11 inch turrets on Scharnhorst and Gneisenau with twin 15 inch.
That's why they both ran away from HMS Renown off Norway and Scharnhorst was destroyed by HMS Duke of York at North Cape.

 

[jimbob]

But their capital ships and heavy cruisers were abysmal failures. They might as well not have bothered.

I think the RN would have found them useful. Maybe after altering their secondary batteries and AA guns. For example Tirpitz or Bismarck would probably have been more useful than HMS Revenge. But the Royal Navy would have known how to use the ships.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I think the RN would have found them useful. Maybe after altering their secondary batteries and AA guns. For example Tirpitz or Bismarck would probably have been more useful than HMS Revenge. But the Royal Navy would have known how to use the ships.

All thr guns would need changing if they wanted to continue using them after the barrels wore out or ammunition was expended.
The machinery would need to be replaced when the boilers reached the end of their life as would the turbines.
All the radio and radar sets would need to be replaced.
Why would they be needed at all when they were the main targets for the RN battleships?
After they were sunk the only job the RN battleships had was shore bombardment, and in the Pacific acting as AA defence for the carriers and towards the end shore bombardment of Japan itself.
Shore bombardment wears out main guns at an alarming rate Several of those involved in D-Day and the weeks after had to return for new barrels half way through their mission.
If Bismarck or Tirpitz had been used their guns would have been shot out in just a few weeks.
with no replacement barrels available.
They would have needed their entire turrets rebuilt along with the handling rooms, hoists and magazines. to take British weapons.

 

[jimbob]

All thr guns would need changing if they wanted to continue using them after the barrels wore out or ammunition was expended.
The machinery would need to be replaced when the boilers reached the end of their life as would the turbines.
All the radio and radar sets would need to be replaced.
Why would they be needed at all when they were the main targets for the RN battleships?
After they were sunk the only job the RN battleships had was shore bombardment, and in the Pacific acting as AA defence for the carriers and towards the end shore bombardment of Japan itself.
Shore bombardment wears out main guns at an alarming rate Several of those involved in D-Day and the weeks after had to return for new barrels half way through their mission.
If Bismarck or Tirpitz had been used their guns would have been shot out in just a few weeks.
with no replacement barrels available.
They would have needed their entire turrets rebuilt along with the handling rooms, hoists and magazines. to take British weapons.

Yes but a lot of those are because they were not British ships. I think they would have been pretty handy for the RN in, say the Mediterranean, if they and their support infrastructure magically appeared in British service before Italy's surrender - my point was that on top of everything, they were also used badly.