ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 31st December 2017, 05:04 PM   #81
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 14,710
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
Neither did the SMS Szent Istvan or the Roma (Regia Marina).
There's also a famous film of the former.


Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
With Barham it was speculated that a fire and explosion in a 4" magazine just outside a main magazine caused the the final explosion.

By the time a Battleship is capsizing like that the abandon ship will long have been piped so there wouldn't be anyone to fight any fires.
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
Or maybe a fire? Gets into where the explosives are.
Yeah, it's hard to say. Fire in a 4" magazine is probably what did Hood in as well.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2017, 05:17 PM   #82
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 14,088
I thought the accepted theory for Hood was that a main magazine was directly penetrated.

There are flooding valves to pre-emptively stop magazines burning butt hey need to be operated quickly. There are plenty of examples of ships being saved by the flood valves.
We drilled for flooding the Seacat, 4.5 inch and Limbo Magazines on the Leanders and Tribals.
Captain_Swoop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2017, 05:29 PM   #83
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 14,710
We'll never know for sure, of course, but this series appears very good and concludes 4" magazine fire setting off the 15".
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2017, 07:29 PM   #84
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 14,088
I don't buy it, it blew up very suddenly, not enough time for a fire to spread. Penetration of a 15" magazine seems more likely.
Captain_Swoop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2018, 09:11 AM   #85
Henri McPhee
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,086
There is quite a comprehensive explanation about sunken battleships at :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...en_battleships

It seems that air power became more and more important in naval warfare. There was a TV documentary yesterday about the sinking of the German battleship Tirpitz in Norway by Lancaster bombers and Barnes Wallis super bombs, which I think was a German battleship and seemed to be very important to Churchill. They implied that a German radar man helped the British by not warning the German fighter protection in time, but I don't know if that is true or not.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2018, 10:31 AM   #86
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 14,710
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
I don't buy it, it blew up very suddenly, not enough time for a fire to spread. Penetration of a 15" magazine seems more likely.
Not spreading, deflagration. Deflagration of cordite in the 4" magazine is thought to have broken into the 15". All happening very fast. Here is part four of that link with the conclusion. Note that the author doesn't say definitely in the 4", just thinks it most likely. Note the illustrations.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2018, 01:15 PM   #87
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 14,088
It's the propellant that is the problem in magazine fires. It's all in bags and fire spreads very quickly in the magazine, I suppose it could have breached the main mags. it's fire in the 4" penetrating the main magazine they think did for Barham.
But with Hood I still think a direct penetration of a main magazine was more likely

Last edited by Captain_Swoop; 1st January 2018 at 01:17 PM.
Captain_Swoop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2018, 07:06 AM   #88
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,289
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
Or maybe a fire? Gets into where the explosives are.
As with most things the nature of the damage to the ship certainly has a lot to do with it. Not all ships suffer the same damage and sink in the same way.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 10:15 AM   #89
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 16,163
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is quite a comprehensive explanation about sunken battleships at :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...en_battleships

It seems that air power became more and more important in naval warfare. There was a TV documentary yesterday about the sinking of the German battleship Tirpitz in Norway by Lancaster bombers and Barnes Wallis super bombs, which I think was a German battleship and seemed to be very important to Churchill. They implied that a German radar man helped the British by not warning the German fighter protection in time, but I don't know if that is true or not.
I'm not meaning to be rude, but although you are mostly generally correct in this post, it seems a bit silly to not check that, yes the Tirpitz was indeed a battleship, and yes it was considered to be a threat simply by existing.


Also, I don't think anyone disputes that since Pearl Harbour (or at least Midway) battleships were obsolete for their intended role of destroying other capital ships, and that aircraft carriers replaced them in that role - there is scope for discussion about whether this is still the case in the 21st Century, but that is an aside).
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 11:15 AM   #90
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,289
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
Also, I don't think anyone disputes that since Pearl Harbour (or at least Midway) battleships were obsolete for their intended role of destroying other capital ships, and that aircraft carriers replaced them in that role - there is scope for discussion about whether this is still the case in the 21st Century, but that is an aside).
The intended role of battleships was never to destroy the other guys battleships. They were always very much an exercise in whipping it out to see whose was bigger - a show of force, symbols of power. I would argue the battleship was already past its prime before HMS Dreadnought was even commissioned.

Battleships were a lot like nuclear weapons are today. Very expensive (almost bankrupting) symbols of power with little practical application.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 11:40 AM   #91
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 14,088
Battleships were on the road to obsolescence as soon as the reliable torpedo was developed and fitted to reliable submarines.
Captain_Swoop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 11:44 AM   #92
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,289
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Battleships were on the road to obsolescence as soon as the reliable torpedo was developed and fitted to reliable submarines.
And torpedo boats/destroyers.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 12:44 PM   #93
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 14,088
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
And torpedo boats/destroyers.
Destroyers are an interesting case.

They were designed as boats to destroy torpedo boats.

Someone had the idea that if they had their own torpedo tubes they could destroy the opposing torpedo boats then go on to torpedo the enemy Battlefleet.
That meant there was no need for torpedo boats, just build the Torpedo Boat Destroyers and shorten the name to Destroyers.

Wait a couple of decades then re-invent Torpedo Boats.
Captain_Swoop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 12:51 PM   #94
lobosrul5
Thinker
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Destroyers are an interesting case.

They were designed as boats to destroy torpedo boats.

Someone had the idea that if they had their own torpedo tubes they could destroy the opposing torpedo boats then go on to torpedo the enemy Battlefleet.
That meant there was no need for torpedo boats, just build the Torpedo Boat Destroyers and shorten the name to Destroyers.

Wait a couple of decades then re-invent Torpedo Boats.
It was efficient diesel engines that made small MTB's (or PT's) feasible. So they found a new role for TB's. And both steam powered and diesel powered TB's served in WW1.

And, maybe what could be considered steam powered TB's were still in use in WW2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ...f_World_War_II
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 12:52 PM   #95
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 14,710
Any nominations for the best-looking battleship? I'm partial to the Italian Littorio Class myself.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 01:12 PM   #96
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 16,163
I like the Yamato and Hood
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 01:15 PM   #97
lobosrul5
Thinker
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 232
Yamato is definitely the most badass looking BB class of all time IMO. N Carolina class with their graceful Hurricane bow's are nice to look at.
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 01:26 PM   #98
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 14,088
I like the solid towers of the KGVs and the Clipper Bow and sheer of the Scharnhorst.

I like the old Majestic Class and similar late 19th century ships as well.

Last edited by Captain_Swoop; 3rd January 2018 at 01:30 PM.
Captain_Swoop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 01:33 PM   #99
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,839
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Destroyers are an interesting case.

They were designed as boats to destroy torpedo boats.

Someone had the idea that if they had their own torpedo tubes they could destroy the opposing torpedo boats then go on to torpedo the enemy Battlefleet.
That meant there was no need for torpedo boats, just build the Torpedo Boat Destroyers and shorten the name to Destroyers.

Wait a couple of decades then re-invent Torpedo Boats.
That etymology seems... Off.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 01:44 PM   #100
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,289
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
It was efficient diesel engines that made small MTB's (or PT's) feasible. So they found a new role for TB's. And both steam powered and diesel powered TB's served in WW1.

And, maybe what could be considered steam powered TB's were still in use in WW2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ...f_World_War_II
Not diesel, petrol aero engines. Except for the German's in WWII it was aircraft petrol engines that allowed the motor torpedo boat to become a thing in both world wars.

The traditional torpedo boats that served in WWII (mostly with the French and German's) were treaty aberrations as vessels under 600 tons were not regulated in tonnage limits. They basically ended up as mini destroyers that were not very effective.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 01:48 PM   #101
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 14,088
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
That etymology seems... Off.
Why?

Destroyers were originaly called 'Torpedo Boat Destroyers'
They were bigger and faster than the original Torpedo Boats and armed with quick firing guns to shoot up enemy Torpedo Boats attacking the fleet.

This name was later shortened to just Destroyers when they took over the roll of the original Torpedo Boat.
Captain_Swoop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 01:50 PM   #102
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 14,088
Vosper Motor Torpedo Boats and their gun boat sisters had three Merlins as power.
Captain_Swoop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 01:55 PM   #103
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 16,163
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
Any nominations for the best-looking battleship? I'm partial to the Italian Littorio Class myself.
I think that HMS Belfast is a nice looking ship.




Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The battleship HMS Belfast is moored as a museum piece in London. One of my brothers held his wedding reception on it for some reason. I remember it had some big guns. I don't know the Second World War history of HMS Belfast but it seems to have come out of it unscathed, unlike several other British battleships which lost about 1000 sailors drowned every time they were sunk including I think the Prince of Wales in then Japanese waters.


I do actually think that, and I suppose she does look like a battleship apart from size
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 03:03 PM   #104
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,289
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
Any nominations for the best-looking battleship? I'm partial to the Italian Littorio Class myself.
People are going to think this is weird but I was always rather fond of the last French battleship - Jean Bart.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French...ean_Bart_(1940)
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 03:07 PM   #105
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 3,847
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
The carrier air arm of the Royal Navy, and (for understandable reasons) the Far East Fleet was just put on the back burner. Had the UK wanted to, they could've pretty easily had a fleet of 4 Illustrious class carriers with a complement of Supermarine Seafires and Fairey Barracudas ready to defend Singapore.

Even assuming that development of the Seafire had been accelerated enough to allow for this (which would have necessitated significantly curtailing Spitfire production during the Battle of Britain), and that the Barracuda hadn't suffered significant development delays, such a force would have been wiped out by the Japanese fleet carriers, which for all the British knew at the time were poised to support the invasion of Malaya. If you want to throw in Ark Royal, the RN might have a chance.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 03:42 PM   #106
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 3,847
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
And we seemed to have only budgeted for about 1 squadron of B-17's in the entire Pacific Theater before the war.

Actually, there were four squadrons in the Philippines on December 7, 1941, constituting the 19th Bombardment Group. Two more understrength squadrons were at Pearl Harbor, and a third, on its way to the Philippines, arrived during the attack. More squadrons had been earmarked for the Philippines, but had been delayed by bad weather and logistical problems.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 03:45 PM   #107
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 14,088
Sea Fires were just a stopgap, they were too fragile for carrier use and the narrow undercarriage made them difficult to land.

Corsairs were the aircraft that made the difference. They were designed as a carrier-based aircraft but its difficult landing characteristics made it unusable on carriers until the Fleet Air Arm came up with a method of getting them on to the deck. They were still tricky to land though but as we know became a mainstay of both the FAA and USN and Marines right through WW2 and Korea.

"Carrier Pilot" by Norman Hanson is the book to read on the FAA in the Pacific and the problems with getting the Corsair in to service.
Captain_Swoop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 03:46 PM   #108
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 3,847
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
AA was adequate for conventional bombing, as already mentioned it was hard to hit a moving ship. Dive bombing on the other hand is hard to protect against.
Look at the weight of light AA added to US ships in the Pacific by the end of the war.

Additionally, many 20mm guns were being replaced by 40mm mounts, which were far more effective against kamikazes.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 03:51 PM   #109
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 3,847
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
The American Atlanta's were spawned from a similar requirement, to replace the Omaha's and intended to support destroyers.

Some of the early ships even had torpedoes and depth charges.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 03:59 PM   #110
lobosrul5
Thinker
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
People are going to think this is weird but I was always rather fond of the last French battleship - Jean Bart.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French...ean_Bart_(1940)
From a certain angle the Richelieu class looks good. Like a quartering angle from the front. But the all main armament at the front just looks goofy from a profile view. Not as bad as a certain RN battleship though.

Although its not a bad idea, more room for engine at the back I suppose is the reason.
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 04:02 PM   #111
lobosrul5
Thinker
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
Even assuming that development of the Seafire had been accelerated enough to allow for this (which would have necessitated significantly curtailing Spitfire production during the Battle of Britain), and that the Barracuda hadn't suffered significant development delays, such a force would have been wiped out by the Japanese fleet carriers, which for all the British knew at the time were poised to support the invasion of Malaya. If you want to throw in Ark Royal, the RN might have a chance.
I'm not so sure about that. However you have to be rather alt history about it. IF the UK hadn't postponed the 4 Illustrious class CV's they would've had a potent carrier force. And had they worked out the significant kinks of the Seafire earlier, and started production on the Barracuda... its a lot of if's.

Sure the Corsair was a better carrier fighter but they were a long ways from being ready by Dec 1941.
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 04:18 PM   #112
lobosrul5
Thinker
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
Not diesel, petrol aero engines. Except for the German's in WWII it was aircraft petrol engines that allowed the motor torpedo boat to become a thing in both world wars.

The traditional torpedo boats that served in WWII (mostly with the French and German's) were treaty aberrations as vessels under 600 tons were not regulated in tonnage limits. They basically ended up as mini destroyers that were not very effective.
I always thought they were marine diesels, you learn something new every day.
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 04:21 PM   #113
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 3,847
Originally Posted by kookbreaker View Post
Fun fact: The original treaty signing by the Japanese representatives giving unconditional surrender was originally supposed to take place on board the long-fighting USS New Jersey. But a certain Missouri politician was now in the Oval Office and people thought the more newly minted and twice-used USS Missouri

I've read that the Navy actually wanted to use the Enterprise (20 battle stars, as mentioned downthread), but she was stateside having kamikaze damage repaired. I'm not sure that plan would have been approved anyway; the battleships were sent in to Tokyo Bay while the carriers stayed at sea, in case the surrender turned out to be a ruse.

Additional fun fact: According to Norman Schwarzkopf's autobiography, he wanted to make Iraq surrender aboard the Missouri, so Saddam Hussein couldn't claim he hadn't really surrendered, but the arrangements couldn't be made in time.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 04:35 PM   #114
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 3,847
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Sea Fires were just a stopgap, they were too fragile for carrier use and the narrow undercarriage made them difficult to land.

Corsairs were the aircraft that made the difference. They were designed as a carrier-based aircraft but its difficult landing characteristics made it unusable on carriers until the Fleet Air Arm came up with a method of getting them on to the deck. They were still tricky to land though but as we know became a mainstay of both the FAA and USN and Marines right through WW2 and Korea.

Agreed. Sadly, Implacable and Indefatigable had hangar decks with overheads that were too low to accommodate Corsairs, and not enough Lend-Lease Hellcats were available to equip their squadrons, so they had to make do with Seafires.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 05:15 PM   #115
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,289
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
From a certain angle the Richelieu class looks good. Like a quartering angle from the front. But the all main armament at the front just looks goofy from a profile view. Not as bad as a certain RN battleship though.

Although its not a bad idea, more room for engine at the back I suppose is the reason.
The primary threat perceived by the French was fast Italian cruisers and fast battleships raiding her commerce. The French battleships had all armament forward as they would be pursuing the Italians and could thus bring all guns to bear. There was the added advantage of shortening of the armor citadel compared to a more conventional layout of say 4 twin turrets arranged in the usual fore and aft positions. This allowed for thicker protection for a given weight.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 11:35 PM   #116
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,839
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Why?

Destroyers were originaly called 'Torpedo Boat Destroyers'
They were bigger and faster than the original Torpedo Boats and armed with quick firing guns to shoot up enemy Torpedo Boats attacking the fleet.

This name was later shortened to just Destroyers when they took over the roll of the original Torpedo Boat.
Thanks, that etymology makes more sense than the first one you went with.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 01:43 AM   #117
Hubert Cumberdale
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 907
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
And torpedo boats/destroyers.
Number of dreadnoughts sunk by TBD/DD's?
Hubert Cumberdale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 02:36 AM   #118
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 14,088
Maybe not actually sunk but it certainly changed the tactics and outcome of battles.
A destroyer screen laying smoke then turning to launch a spread of torpedoes would cause any battle line to turn away.
Even the threat of destroyers was an influence and a Battleship would be reluctant to sail without a destroyer screen.
It decided the outcome of a number of naval encounters and while not accounting for any battleships directly destroyers inflicted damage and certainly sank cruisers. In WW2 the last destroyer action of the war saw the sinking of the Haguro.
Captain_Swoop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 03:13 AM   #119
erwinl
Graduate Poster
 
erwinl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,660
Originally Posted by Hubert Cumberdale View Post
Number of dreadnoughts sunk by TBD/DD's?
As far as I know, only one.
The IJN Fuso in Surigao strait (Could be the Yamashiro. There seems to be some confusion which one was in which place during the battle. But most likely it was the Fuso).

Then there are the Lutzow in 1916 and Hiei in 1942. In both cases though these were scutllings of already sinking ships, so don't really count.

Finally there is the Pommern in 1916, but that was a pre-dreadnought.
__________________
Bow before your king
Member of the "Zombie Misheard Lyrics Support Group"
erwinl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 03:29 AM   #120
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 21,769
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Battleships were on the road to obsolescence as soon as the reliable torpedo was developed and fitted to reliable submarines.
I think the ironclad battleship in general, let alone the dreadnought in particular, was born with a fatal flaw from which it never recovered.

The solution to the problem proposed by the ironclad was found in the very year ironclad warships first engaged in fleet action, at Lissa in the Adriatic in 1866. (Austria vs Italy: Austria won the battle, but lost the war)
in 1866, While the battleship had evolved primarily around engagements between armoured ships with large-caliber guns, the torpedoWP allowed torpedo boats and other lighter surface ships, submersibles, even ordinary fishing boats or frogmen, and later, aircraft, to destroy large armoured ships without the need of large guns, though sometimes at the risk of being hit by longer-range shellfire.
Armoured ships were from the very beginning vulnerable to the attentions of insignificant enemy craft, and in some circumstances behaved with timorous trepidation where their predecessors would have proceeded without fear or restraint.

The Russian Fleet famously panicked and reacted violently though with ineffective incompetence - at the very sight of herring boats in the North Sea in 1905, on the other side of the world from the main Japanese enemy fleet bases. One understands why. Herring boats were a potential danger in 1905, but of course they weren't a hundred years earlier at Trafalgar. The mighty ironclad was too delicate a flower to survive in the very world into which it was untimely born.

Ah, I see I was ninja'd in #91, but I'll post this anyway, because they were on the road to obsolescence even before submarines I believe. They were born obsolete.

Last edited by Craig B; 4th January 2018 at 03:32 AM.
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:08 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.