It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Battlecruisers. Brilliant concept or flawed design?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 06:59 AM
link   
German Twins, at least around here commonly refer to the Gneiseau Class ships... so yes i'm talking about WW2




posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 07:01 AM
link   
If I remember the history correctly, the newer battleships were kept in the Atlantic Fleet earlier in the war, with the older ones stationed in San Diego because they were simply too slow to operate with the Pacific Fleet carriers.

Late '42, I think, was when the first of the "fast" battleships made their appearance (North Carolina, Washington, and South Dakota) during the Guadalcanal campaign.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by northwolf
German Twins, at least around here commonly refer to the Gneiseau Class ships... so yes i'm talking about WW2


Oh sorry Im new here but where I come from we commonly refer to which war or at the least armoured cruiser or battlecruiser.

Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were sister ships catagerized as armoured cruisers in WW1

Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were sister ships catagerized as battlecruisers in WW2

Completely different ships, different wars, SAME NAMES.

I guessed WW2 because you mentioned the Atlantic and since thats the case I respectfully disagree, considering there capabilitys they performed poorly at commerce raiding or though this was more to do with the way the ships were utilized than a knock at the ships themselves.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 07:35 AM
link   
I apologize, the term twins is not commonly used here to describe the ww1 pair of ships.
And yes i agree that the Battlecruisers and the kriegsmarine as an entiety was used rather poorly and even over cautiously during WW2, but that was mainly due to certain Corporals orders and inability to listen to those that knew the business...



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Ok next question!

Favorite Battleship???????


Mine would have to be Warspite followed by Vittorio Veneto, the Italians didnt deserve that boat.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 09:02 AM
link   
U.S.S. Arizona. I've talked with navy veterans from that era, there may not have been a more popular vessel in the navy. Some ships are happy ships, some seem destined for greatness or tragedy. "Arizona" was by all accounts both. A happy ship, destined for tragedy.

Plus it was such a pretty ship.

I've also been kinda partial to the U.S.S. Washington. In basically a one on one battle with IJN Kirishima, it kicked ass. What's not to love...



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 09:46 AM
link   
I stand corrected re: Lee's battle line. The old gray matter isn't what it used to be, particularly since my wife slipped me DECAFF! BLARGH! DECAFFINATED COFFEE = GROUNDS FOR DIVORCE!!

*ahem* Where was I again? Oh, yeah.

Graf Spee was being hunted by battlecruisers, but he got hammered by three of the more conventional type...Exeter w/ 6x8", Achilles, and Ajax w/8x6"...so I'm not sure we can count River Plate as a good use of battlecruisers either.

Favorite Battleship...wow...there are so many.
I like the look of the Italian Vittorio Vinetto, but those guns just tore themselves up shooting, and the sky arcs for the AA make me cry. I'll also have to admit to having a soft spot in my heart for Fuso, even if she was uglier than sin, simply because she was THE most challenging scratch-build I ever did...I could ramble on, but I'll just grit my teeth a bit and say USS Massachusetts (BB59). A handsome ship, with a fine combat record that covers both naval theaters of World War II, and also includes the first (and possibly the last) use of 16" guns against the Axis. 11 battle stars don't hurt, either.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
U.S.S. Arizona. I've talked with navy veterans from that era, there may not have been a more popular vessel in the navy. Some ships are happy ships, some seem destined for greatness or tragedy. "Arizona" was by all accounts both. A happy ship, destined for tragedy.

Plus it was such a pretty ship.



Heres some trivia for ya, did you know that as a mark of respect Arizona was never stricken from the naval register? As of this day she is still technically a commisioned unit of the American fleet!



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tonka

Heres some trivia for ya, did you know that as a mark of respect Arizona was never stricken from the naval register? As of this day she is still technically a commisioned unit of the American fleet!


Actually, the USS Arizona was placed "In Ordinary" on 29 December, 1941, and stricken from the Naval Register on 1 December, 1942. (Source: Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, Vol 1A, P.381. Reproduced online here , and further supported by the History and Culture Page of the USS Arizona National Memorial website.)



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
Graf Spee was being hunted by battlecruisers, but he got hammered by three of the more conventional type...Exeter w/ 6x8", Achilles, and Ajax w/8x6"...so I'm not sure we can count River Plate as a good use of battlecruisers either.


I would not call what that cruiser squadron did a 'battering' but i think they did manage to drive their message home.


As i remember the Exeter were done with and quite ready to get consigned to a watery grave and the other two were running low on ammo and were failing to get anything done with the torpedoes that could have changed things in their favour. If the Graf Spee refused to give ground and kept on fighting i think it had a reasonable chance of putting out of action the other two before heading to a port where it could make the repairs required to make good a long term escape. Since Langsdorff ( i think ?) apparently believed that the whole British navy was about to fall on him he at first ran ( when he should have fought using his far superior radar sighted guns) and then decided to scuttle the ship because of picking the wrong harbour when the ship could have made the next port.

The fact that he shot himself ( after running for port and deciding that he was outnumbered) proves that he had the best interest of his men at heart but frankly i don't want my ships commanded by humanitarians! The story of German cruisers in the second world war is as 'disappointing as the story of the Japanese cruisers and i am not altogether sure what we should be learning from that....

Enjoyed reading your posts so feel free to respond in full and don't hold back !

Stellar



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Brother Stormhammer
 


I should have been more precise...sorry.

The events I was refering to wasn't the River Platte, though that also involved a Graf Spee oddly enough.

This event took place off the Falklands during the first world war, a group of German ships, their East Indies unit (?), was ambushed by two British Battlecruisers. Which proved emphatically that used against obsolete ships, such as the two German armoured cruisers, Scharnhorst and Gneisnau (OMG, I spelled those names correctly. Sometimes I amaze myself.). I think this convinced the Royal Navy that battle cruisers were indeed viable units against anysort of opponant. Jutland, of course, proved them wrong.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 07:08 PM
link   
I'm amused...that's how many times in this thread we've confused one set of ships for their namesakes in the other war? S & G once, and now Graff...I'd better be careful, or I'll have Nelson at Trafalgar...which would REALLY be a bad day for the Armada



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
I'm amused...that's how many times in this thread we've confused one set of ships for their namesakes in the other war? S & G once, and now Graff...I'd better be careful, or I'll have Nelson at Trafalgar...which would REALLY be a bad day for the Armada


I am holding you responsible! I knew there was something wrong but i am not one to stick to a topic when i have a disagreement in mind.


Stellar



[edit on 14-9-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer

Originally posted by Tonka

Actually, the USS Arizona was placed "In Ordinary" on 29 December, 1941, and stricken from the Naval Register on 1 December, 1942. (Source: Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, Vol 1A, P.381. Reproduced online here , and further supported by the History and Culture Page of the USS Arizona National Memorial website.)



Well I'll be damned, I stand corrected and thanks for the link.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by Brother Stormhammer
 


Scharnhorst and Gneisnau (OMG, I spelled those names correctly. Sometimes I amaze myself.).


Umm no u didnt, its spelt Gneisenau

en.wikipedia.org...">Gneisenau

Sorry to burst your bubble!!!



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Tonka
 



Isn't that "e" silent? If it is, doesn't count. So there
.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by Tonka
 



Isn't that "e" silent? If it is, doesn't count. So there
.


I did post with a link to prove your bubble is busted!!!
But I f!@#d it up somehow try this linkGneisenau



Your bubble is busted!! Your goose is cooked!! And Canadians are evil!!!!



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 08:59 AM
link   
OK favorite battlecruiser???

Im goin with Scharnhorst (WW2). Side on she had beautiful lines.





posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Tonka
 


Canadiens are evil? Ordinarily, I'd maybe agree with ya. But Canadiens are amongst my favorite folks. I'm from the US, bit further south
.

Favorite Battlecruiser. Without a doubt the USS Alaska, and her sister ship USS Guam. Though why they used 12 inch guns on them remains a mystery to this day.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 


The Alaska class used 12" guns because they were (essentially) next-generation heavy cruisers, not battle cruisers (there's a reason the Navy typed them as "CB", rather than resurrecting the "CC" designation planned for the battlecruisers of the Lexington class).

The USN had very specific standards (no pun intended) for levels of system redundancy and types of equipment that different ship types would be required to have. In just about every category, the Alaskas conformed to the standards and practices consistent with heavy cruisers, rather than battleships. The 12" guns weren't an attempt to mount battleship-sized guns on a lighter, faster hull (the defining characteristic of battlecruisers), as that would've required 14" guns (or better yet, 16"). Rather, the 12" main battery was an attempt to 'one up' the current generation of 8" gunned 'heavy' cruisers. There's a fairly extensive discussion of the Alaska class in chapter 10 of Norman Friedman's "U.S. Cruisers - An Illustrated Design History". The fact that a professional like Dr. Friedman includes them in his book about U.S. Cruisers, rather than his work on U.S. Battleships (where the Lexington and Saratoga are discussed) is another fairly good indicator that they weren't battlecruisers.

That said (and said at more length than it probably needed!), the Alaska and the Guam were, indeed, handsome ships.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join