Bad ideas in war

[Andy_Ross]

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.

The Germans used them badly. They didn't really know what they were building them for, apart from Major Powers had fleets.
I don't think they were thinking of challenging the RN. They were aimed more at the French thsn anyone else.
Like the French navy was aimed at the Germans and Italians and the Italian navy at the French.

RN thinking until well in to the 30s was that Japan was going to be the big naval threat.

 

[theprestige]

The Germans used them badly. They didn't really know what they were building them for, apart from Major Powers had fleets.
I don't think they were thinking of challenging the RN. They were aimed more at the French thsn anyone else.
Like the French navy was aimed at the Germans and Italians and the Italian navy at the French.

RN thinking until well in to the 30s was that Japan was going to be the big naval threat.

And they weren't wrong.

 

[jeremyp]

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.

That's not the problem I am talking about. Bismarck, for example, was a good ship, but what was it going to do if it hadn't been sunk on its first voyage? It had to run the gauntlet of the Denmark Strait on its way out and on its way back, it would have to do the same in reverse or go to somewhere like Brest, where Bomber Command would have pummelled it for the rest of the war. There was no safe haven for it outside of Germany and the Kriegsmarine never had the numbers to make it problem free to go from Germany to the Atlantic.

Prinz Eugen broke out with Bismarck but had to turn back because of engine troubles.

Case in point: Prinz Eugen ran back to Brest where she was later struck by a bomb that put her out of action for six months. After the Channel Dash she was struck by a British torpedo that put her out of action until October 1942. Then she became e a training ship. Then she became a gun battery in defence against the Russians. Complete waste of time.

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.

These are mere technical issues. Never mind Bismarck's technical failings (although she did manage to sing HMS Hood), she was up against six capital ships, two aircraft carriers and thirteen cruisers. What did the Germans think was going to happen with those odds?

Scharnhorst had some success and sank a few ships including, notably, HMS Glorious. However, for quite a lot of the war she was in dry dock being repaired following British attacks of various kinds and also bad luck. Compare the tonnage Scharnhorst sunk compared to say U-47. How many U-boats could have been built for the cost of Scharnhorst?

Pretty much every large German surface unit was sunk quickly, damaged constantly or hiding out in the Fjords until it was sunk. Any serious strategist on the German side should have realised this would be the case given the strength of the Royal Navy.

 

[jeremyp]

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.

The Royal Navy started the war with fifteen capital ships and seven aircraft carriers. They didn't need the German ships.

 

[jimbob]

The Royal Navy started the war with fifteen capital ships and seven aircraft carriers. They didn't need the German ships.

Agreed. My point was that they were individually Okay. Possibly better in some respects than some of the British capital ships. But that was a bit of a moot point. Because the British ships were part of a fleet.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The Germans used them badly. They didn't really know what they were building them for, apart from Major Powers had fleets.
I don't think they were thinking of challenging the RN. They were aimed more at the French thsn anyone else.
Like the French navy was aimed at the Germans and Italians and the Italian navy at the French.

RN thinking until well in to the 30s was that Japan was going to be the big naval threat.

Thanks to the Washington Naval Arms Limitation Talks.

 

[Andy_Ross]

If it hadn't been for Washing, the RN had plans to build 18 inch and even 20 inch armed Battleships. These were to follow after the 16 inch armed G3 class which was redeveloped as the Lion Class and construction started on after the treaty expired.
When the war started construction of the Lions was suspended in favour ot Carriers and Cruisers. The ones under construction were eventually broken up on the slipways to make way for other ships.
The KGVs were reworked G3s to comply with treaty restrictions on weight and gun size, instead of three triple 16 inch turrets they got ten 14 inch guns.

 

[dudalb]

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.

You can only rearm so fast; conversion of industry takes time.
The slowest items to construct were Capitial warships.Ships that were ordered in 1939 did not become available until 1942.

 

[dudalb]

Deadline Gallipoli

The attempt by Britain and France (with the blessing of Russia) to colonize the Turkiye remnant of the Ottoman Empire. The ANZACS were expendable.
.

Uh, late to the party but the Ottoman Empire started it by declaring war on Russia. The Otttomans had ambitions to take over the Caucasus mountians.

 

[jimbob]

You can only rearm so fast; conversion of industry takes time.
The slowest items to construct were Capitial warships.Ships that were ordered in 1939 did not become available until 1942.

True, but the US was not rearming as fast in November 1941 as in January 1942 because of perfectly reasonable political reasons, as the US was not at war in November 1941.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Anti Submarine Escorts were the main deficiency they had none at all.(Along with carriers, they borrowed HMS Victorious from the RN for a while, renamed to USS Robin)
As they had lots of destroyers the plan was to use them as escorts. They quickly found out that they are not good anti submarine escorts. They can't turn tight and have relatively poor anti submarine weapons fit and lack the endurance for escort work
Improving the AS fit meant removing the torpedo fit which took away their main offensive weapon.
Old classes of destroyer were converted to escorts by the RN, they removed the torpedo tubes, reduced the gun mounts and removed boilers to increase fuel capacity and endurance, the reduction in speed wasn't important for an escort. They weren't ideal though and were soon replaced by dedicated escorts.

Luckily the RN had placed big orders for a design of Frigate (Destroyer Escort in US parlance) with US yards. Over a hundred were built for the RN as the Captain Class.
The US Navy decided it eas ideal for their needs and most of the first batch was taken by the US Navy and subsequently hundreds were built.
They were like the Sherman tanks in that there were several sub classes designed to take advantage of different propulsion systems.
There were diesel, diesel electric, steam turbine and turbo electric versions.
The RN influence is obvious in the large anti submarine weapons fit and raised bridge superstructure with an open compass platform bridge above the closed bridge and wheelhouse.
US ships carried torpedoes to give them a limited capability against surface ships. RN ships fitted extra depth charges instead.


US service


RN service

 

[catsmate]

Deadline Gallipoli

The attempt by Britain and France (with the blessing of Russia) to colonize the Turkiye remnant of the Ottoman Empire. The ANZACS were expendable.
.

No-one remembers the Toughs and the Toffs.....

 

[dellarte]

Important role because the Nazi party made it a scapegoat, along with the stab in the back myth.

Please read thru the following article:

No, the 1919 Treaty of Versailles Was Not Responsible for World War II

What "everyone knows" about the infamous treaty ending World War I is wrong. Stop blaming the Treaty of Versailles for the rise of Adolf Hitler.

www.historynet.com

And I even kinda don't think that article goes far enough. With the "Germany was at fault" section. Germany was at fault for WW1. They goaded the Austrian Empire into declaring war despite Serbia agreeing to almost all their demands. And it was for their own expansionist goals. Germany was 100% to blame for the war.

and watch
and realize that Foch's quote "This is not a peace treaty, this is an armistice for 20 years". Is often misinterpreted. He didn't think it was too harsh, he wanted an occupation.

-- USA General Smith Patton, "We defeated the wrong enemy."

 

[dellarte]

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.

-- USA Donald Trump "Using My Religion" in 2026

 

[dellarte]

Perry Expedition
(1852–1853 and 1854–1855)

"The expedition was commanded by Commodore Matthew Calbraith Perry, under orders from President Millard Fillmore. Perry's primary goal was to force an end to Japan's 220-year-old policy of isolation and to open Japanese ports to American trade, through the use of gunboat diplomacy if necessary."

 

[theprestige]

Perry Expedition
(1852–1853 and 1854–1855)

"The expedition was commanded by Commodore Matthew Calbraith Perry, under orders from President Millard Fillmore. Perry's primary goal was to force an end to Japan's 220-year-old policy of isolation and to open Japanese ports to American trade, through the use of gunboat diplomacy if necessary."

Not war, and not a bad idea.

 

[dellarte]

Not war, and not a bad idea.

Indeed, it was imperialism by the USA.

 

[theprestige]

Indeed, it was imperialism by the USA.

De-isolating a potential trading partner? Yes, yes, very imperialist. /s

But still not war, and still not a bad idea.

 

[dellarte]

De-isolating a potential trading partner? Yes, yes, very imperialist. /s

But still not war, and still not a bad idea.

WW2 Hollywood movie scene. Your thoughts?

 

[theprestige]

View attachment 71545
WW2 Hollywood movie scene. Your thoughts?

Is that the movie about the time the IJN interrupted an American love triangle?

My thoughts are that if you have an argument to make, that the Perry Expedition was a bad idea in war, despite it not being a war thing, then please please please just make the argument already. Preferably without appealing to Hollywood depictions of things.