Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Convoy PQ17 - Wichita & Tuscaloosa versus Tirpitz & Admiral Hipper

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Freebird
    replied
    Originally posted by OttoHarkaman View Post
    Could the American Cruisers have done sufficient damage to the German surface warships to have prevented the PQ17 Convoy disaster?

    First Sea Lord Admiral Dudley Pound made a fateful decision to scatter the PQ17 convoy. I would have said "Nuts" and proceeded to prepare for battle with the American forces on hand against the Germans.
    The Tirpitz didn't sortie to engage PQ17, so yes, the US cruisers would have been sufficient.

    Originally posted by flash View Post

    You are committing the elementary error of transporting yourself back to the commanders seat armed with present day information.

    But no,Bismarcks primary radar was not working before she engaged.

    Yes, night fighting at sea was a confused affair back then but it affected both sides equally and as the Japanese showed you,radar was not infallible.
    Since PQ17 was north of lattitude 74', there would be no night and no night fighting.

    Leave a comment:


  • marktwain
    replied
    Originally posted by johns624 View Post
    Heavy cruisers, none the less. I'll take a Baltimore any day of the week. Besides, in the first post of flash's that I referenced, he mentioned 11 inch guns. He's just a little confused...
    PS- Yeah, Blucher was so bad-azzed that it was sunk by Norwegian shore batteries.

    actually

    Blucher was sunk by 'Command Hubris'. Plus horrible intelligence on what the Norwegians actually had in the Oslo forts...

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    An excellent four part article on the sinking of Hood.

    http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_Hood_p1.htm

    Leave a comment:


  • Marmat
    replied
    Apparently the designers ...

    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Personally, I think Hood was taken out by something the designers didn't really look at, and that flaw caused her destruction.

    That is, Hood got hit aft by a 15" shell at an oblique angle. The shell struck the armored deck in the area of the rear turrets above the magazines.
    As designed, the armored deck deflected the round. As not accounted for, the thin armor was also shattered by overmatch. The hot steel fragments sprayed into the powder magazines directly below the armored deck. Having these above the shell magazines was British practice, the reverse of US or German practice.
    The hull design of Hood aft precluded a deep magazine design in any case.
    But, because of the magazine arrangements and the relatively thin deck armor the overmatch by the 15" shell shattered it, the fragments ignited the magazine, and minutes later... Boom!
    The Prinz Eugen gets involved because of the delay between the offending it by Bismarck and the actual detonation.
    ... had that in mind when they considered Hood's armour arrangement. "Unlike many warships, Hood had extensive internal ('splinter') armour intended to contain the effect of armour-piercing shells penetrating her armour ... and thus protect vitals such as magazines", - Friedman, although most historians put this arrangement down as being somewhere between previous practice, and "all-or-nothing".

    Considering the above, Hood also fell in between the previous RN practice of main armament cordite magazine above shell room, and the coming, shell room above cordite magazine build, which is usually attributed to the Nelsons. The RN considered the latter for Hood, but she was too far along at the time, instead the 3 later sister BCs, Anson, Howe and Rodney would be built, shell room over cordite magazine; they were cancelled. But Hood wasn't too far along to so adapt the secondary armament shell room, cordite magazine arrangement; the cordite magazine for the 5.5" guns was below the 5.5" shell room. When the switch was made and the 5.5's were replaced, by 4" guns, handling was changed to accommodate the change in gun location, but the shell handling arrangement remained the same, with a ready ammo locker on deck. The second Board of Enquiry concluded " (1) That the sinking of Hood was due to a hit from Bismarck's 15" shell in or adjacent to Hood's 4" or 15" magazines, causing them all to explode and wreck the after part of the ship. The probability is that the 4" magazines exploded first..." There's little to refute this conclusion from the state of the wreck.

    The result of this, and practical experience, caused the RN to revisit the practice of shell/cordite storage, with a view to returning to cordite magazine over shell room for the next generation of RN battleships. So serious was their intent that there were plans to rebuild a battleship with both arrangements, one fore, the other aft, and subject the ship to test firings; the ship chosen was HMS Warspite. As we now know, the day of the battleship was past, Vanguard was the rearguard and there would be no further classes of RN battleship.

    I'm not going to say that your theory has no merit, but clearly history and the experts of the day aren't likely to agree with it.
    Last edited by Marmat; 06 Aug 16, 14:28. Reason: Account for fixed 4" ammo.

    Leave a comment:


  • johns624
    replied
    Originally posted by Tuck's Luck View Post
    Call me thick, unimaginative or stupid but I just don't get these kinds of threads.

    You aren't comparing like with like.

    It's like apples and pears.

    I get the whole 'what if' thing .. but the recent battleship comparisons I've seen on here leave me shaking my head in bemusement.

    Is it just a ship nerdy thing that I don't get?

    If anyone can shed any light, it would be much appreciated.
    That's why it's called Alternate Timelines. It's things that never did, or never could have, happened. Go do a search for Zulus in this forum...

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Tuck's Luck View Post
    Is it just a ship nerdy thing that I don't get?

    If anyone can shed any light, it would be much appreciated.
    Yes, it's a "nerdy thing" and if you're not careful he'll start replying to you...



    Leave a comment:


  • Tuck's Luck
    replied
    Call me thick, unimaginative or stupid but I just don't get these kinds of threads.

    You aren't comparing like with like.

    It's like apples and pears.

    I get the whole 'what if' thing .. but the recent battleship comparisons I've seen on here leave me shaking my head in bemusement.

    Is it just a ship nerdy thing that I don't get?

    If anyone can shed any light, it would be much appreciated.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Personally, I think Hood was taken out by something the designers didn't really look at, and that flaw caused her destruction.

    That is, Hood got hit aft by a 15" shell at an oblique angle. The shell struck the armored deck in the area of the rear turrets above the magazines.
    As designed, the armored deck deflected the round. As not accounted for, the thin armor was also shattered by overmatch. The hot steel fragments sprayed into the powder magazines directly below the armored deck. Having these above the shell magazines was British practice, the reverse of US or German practice.
    The hull design of Hood aft precluded a deep magazine design in any case.
    But, because of the magazine arrangements and the relatively thin deck armor the overmatch by the 15" shell shattered it, the fragments ignited the magazine, and minutes later... Boom!
    The Prinz Eugen gets involved because of the delay between the offending it by Bismarck and the actual detonation.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marmat
    replied
    Probably nothing ...

    Originally posted by Surrey View Post
    If PoW had been hit by a plunging 15" shell on the deck above one of the magazines what would have happened?
    PoW was struck by 7 shells in her battle with Bis. & PE:

    1) a 15" shell passed through the Compass Platform without detonating, shrapnel killing or wounding everyone except Capt. Leach and a Yeoman.

    2) an 8" or 15" shell struck the area of the forward HACS directors, without detonating.

    3) a 15" shell hit the base of the after funnel, partial detonation, splinter damage.

    4) an 8" shell penetrated the after superstructure without detonating, was tossed over the side.

    5) a 15" shell penetrated the ship's side below the armour belt amidships, failed to detonate, located in a starboard wing compartment and removed.

    6) an 8" shell struck the armour deck aft, mild detonation, no damage.

    7) an 8" shell struck the ship's starboard side aft, mild detonation above the armour deck.

    We're talking duds and or near-duds; given the performance of German shells, one could conclude that Hood actually suffering catastrophic damage and being sunk by one of these shells is certainly well against the odds. Apart from taking in some water aft, PoW's fighting efficiency wasn't impaired in the least.
    Last edited by Marmat; 05 Aug 16, 11:07.

    Leave a comment:


  • johns624
    replied
    Originally posted by Surrey View Post
    And PoW was supposed to have fairly good armour. If no ship was well enough protected to take such a hit then you can't really blame Hood's poor armour.
    I really don't know. I was just making a poor joke...I guess I should have used the Sarcasm emoticon.

    Leave a comment:


  • Surrey
    replied
    Originally posted by johns624 View Post
    The Japanese wouldn't have sunk her?
    And PoW was supposed to have fairly good armour. If no ship was well enough protected to take such a hit then you can't really blame Hood's poor armour.
    Last edited by Surrey; 05 Aug 16, 10:04.

    Leave a comment:


  • johns624
    replied
    Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
    I comprehend just fine, and what you are saying is that the German Navy fought like the Italian navy.
    Fine, however-
    After the Battle of the Barents Sea as mentioned above, Hilter wanted to scrap the surface fleet. But it wasn't because they got scratched, it is because they failed to miserably to achieve anything with the odds so much in their favor.
    Hitler was weird like that. He wanted a massive victory, but he also didn't want any losses. The German fleet was at its best as a fleet in being. As long as it just threatened, it could tie up RN heavy units. Any loss of a major unit though, shrunk the threat by a considerable amount. It started out with seven "heavy" units. The Bismarck and Graf Spee were sunk early, leaving only five. They could threaten, but the minute they attacked, if there was any viable opposition, it was down to four or three. That lessens the threat considerably. Only the Tirpitz could stand up to a modern Allied battleship. The Scharnhorst and Gniesnau had armour, but not the gun size to do it. The Scheer and Lutzow were little better than heavy cruisers and shouldn't have messed with them. The pockets and Hippers needed to go out with at least one of their "big brothers" to be effective.

    Leave a comment:


  • johns624
    replied
    Originally posted by Surrey View Post
    If PoW had been hit by a plunging 15" shell on the deck above one of the magazines what would have happened?
    The Japanese wouldn't have sunk her?

    Leave a comment:


  • Surrey
    replied
    If PoW had been hit by a plunging 15" shell on the deck above one of the magazines what would have happened?

    Leave a comment:


  • The Exorcist
    replied
    Originally posted by johns624 View Post
    If you read my entire post, you would have comprehended it. Hitler made the German gun shy of going into action under anything other than overwhelming odds. They were afraid of even getting a ship damaged, due to the lack of any repair facilities in northern Norway.
    I comprehend just fine, and what you are saying is that the German Navy fought like the Italian navy.
    Fine, however-
    After the Battle of the Barents Sea as mentioned above, Hilter wanted to scrap the surface fleet. But it wasn't because they got scratched, it is because they failed to miserably to achieve anything with the odds so much in their favor.

    Originally posted by johns624 View Post
    Would you care to elaborate on this for me? I would have favored the other duo. Although the KGV and PoW were of the same class, the KGV had been in service longer and had its kinks worked out and crew worked up as a team. The Rodney may have been slower and smaller than the Hood but it was better armed and armoured. Besides, I always liked her looks...
    Correct on that one. P,O,W, should never have even entered that battle, and when it comes to a slug-fest between Battlewagons then Bulldog Rodney was clearly better suited than a Geryhound like Hood. That is how they were built.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X