Military History/Weapons of War Thread

[CaptainCrunch]

Spoiler!

Spoiler!

Spoiler!

[peter12]

Originally Posted by edslunch

The Hood was even more vulnerable, being a WW1 era battlecruiser. The battlecruiser was a misguided attempt to mount large guns on more lightly armoured but faster ships, the thinking being they could use speed to their advantage. This design left them vulnerable to plunging fire that could penetrate their light deck and turret roof armour. Three such battlecruisers blew up from single shell hits in the WW1 battle of Jutland, yet they still built the Hood to the same philosophy.

If you look at the battle with the Bismarck, the Hood desperately tried to close the range between the ships so that its thicker side armour could take the punishment and was just starting to turn its broadside when it got hit with the fatal shell. So not only did the captain and crew know that with enough hits they could be done for, they knew a single hit could end them. They had to race into battle with half their guns unavailable. Awful....

Yet the Hood was the pride of the fleet, a beautiful, huge, fast ship. It must have been a huge blow to the navy and the population when she was lost.

Bismarck really turned out to be nothing when faced with the real warhorses of the Royal Navy. HMS King George IV and HMS Rodney turned her into Swiss cheese in a matter of hours.

[peter12]

Those Nelson-class battleships were just the most beautiful babies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson-class_battleship

[CaptainCrunch]

I'm still a fan of the Iowa class. But I will say in terms of ship building that the Russians make really pretty warships.


I think that the Kirov class is a very pretty world ender.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by peter12

Bismarck really turned out to be nothing when faced with the real warhorses of the Royal Navy. HMS King George IV and HMS Rodney turned her into Swiss cheese in a matter of hours.

Only cuz Bismarck couldn't run away and was overwhelmed by multiple ships. Her rudder was hit and destroyed by Royal Navy aircraft torpedoes and she was basically stuck going in circles. i.e. large stationary target. All Bismarck's hull armor protection was useless when the rudder was so poorly protected. A design flaw akin to the whole battlecruiser design philosophy and a perfect example of the decline of big gun warships in favor of aerial naval power.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

Only cuz Bismarck couldn't run away and was overwhelmed by multiple ships. Her rudder was hit and destroyed by Royal Navy aircraft torpedoes and she was basically stuck going in circles. i.e. large stationary target. All Bismarck's hull armor protection was useless when the rudder was so poorly protected. A design flaw akin to the whole battlecruiser design philosophy and a perfect example of the decline of big gun warships in favor of aerial naval power.

Rodney was punching holes through her superstructure near the end.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by peter12

Rodney was punching holes through her superstructure near the end.

9x16" guns firing horizontally at 2700M....good god

Re: your previous post on the beauty of the Rodney....while the main justification for putting all the guns forward of the bridge was to save weight for treaty compliance, I love the unofficial rationale, that the British Navy never retreats!

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

Only cuz Bismarck couldn't run away and was overwhelmed by multiple ships. Her rudder was hit and destroyed by Royal Navy aircraft torpedoes and she was basically stuck going in circles. i.e. large stationary target. All Bismarck's hull armor protection was useless when the rudder was so poorly protected. A design flaw akin to the whole battlecruiser design philosophy and a perfect example of the decline of big gun warships in favor of aerial naval power.

Yeah, talk about an Achilles heel...the ship absorbed over 400 shell hits and it still only sank after torpedoes and the crew scuttling it. Similar to the Japanese Yamato in terms of the unbelievable punishment it withstood.

[undercoverbrother]

####ing Sailors, who the hell would join the navy?

[CaptainCrunch]

When I joined, I debated between the Army, and the Navy and especially Submarines, honestly it took me a while to decide on that.



Naval History and submarines have always been something I'm interested in.



I eventually joined the army because my instinct at blowing things up was overpowering.

[btimbit]

My friends dad served on the HMCS Ojibwa and has the best stories.

I'd never want to do it, but subs are awesome

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by edslunch

The battlecruiser was a misguided attempt to mount large guns on more lightly armoured but faster ships, the thinking being they could use speed to their advantage.

There was nothing inherently misguided about the battlecruiser concept, it's just that the ships were foolishly used in roles for which they were never intended. The idea was that they would be the ultimate hunter-killer on the open seas: they had enough speed to catch any ship and enough firepower to destroy any ship. The trade-off was that they were more lightly armoured; they had enough protection to absorb fire from shells of 8 inches or less from cruisers and destroyers, but not the 14+ inch shells from battleships. So their mission profile was to chase and sink anything up to and including cruiser class but use their speed advantage to run away and avoid combat with enemy battleships.

The problem is the admirals who foolishly used battlecruisers as part of their fleets' main line of battle. That should have been exclusively the role of battleships and their escorts, never battlecruisers.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

When I joined, I debated between the Army, and the Navy and especially Submarines, honestly it took me a while to decide on that.



Naval History and submarines have always been something I'm interested in.



I eventually joined the army because my instinct at blowing things up was overpowering.

Nope, sitting on a big black void of darkness in a leaky ship..........hells no.

Give me a hole in the ground any day.

I mean who doesn't love camping.

[CaptainCrunch]

Honestly, I don't think I ever went Camping again after I left, I mean what's the fun without artillary?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by captaincrunch

honestly, i don't think i ever went camping again after i left, i mean what's the fun without artillary?

what?

[CaptainCrunch]

Just really didn't have an interest in it anymore. I think the extreme cold winter training stuff burned it out of me

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Just really didn't have an interest in it anymore. I think the extreme cold winter training stuff burned it out of me

Bro that was an artillery joke.........

[peter12]

Originally Posted by edslunch

9x16" guns firing horizontally at 2700M....good god

Re: your previous post on the beauty of the Rodney....while the main justification for putting all the guns forward of the bridge was to save weight for treaty compliance, I love the unofficial rationale, that the British Navy never retreats!

Exactly. The King George class were the real beauties, but I love the rationale for the Nelsons.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

There was nothing inherently misguided about the battlecruiser concept, it's just that the ships were foolishly used in roles for which they were never intended. The idea was that they would be the ultimate hunter-killer on the open seas: they had enough speed to catch any ship and enough firepower to destroy any ship. The trade-off was that they were more lightly armoured; they had enough protection to absorb fire from shells of 8 inches or less from cruisers and destroyers, but not the 14+ inch shells from battleships. So their mission profile was to chase and sink anything up to and including cruiser class but use their speed advantage to run away and avoid combat with enemy battleships.

The problem is the admirals who foolishly used battlecruisers as part of their fleets' main line of battle. That should have been exclusively the role of battleships and their escorts, never battlecruisers.

But why not just build more heavy cruisers and more battleships? The battlecruiser was too heavy and too expensive to waste on hunter-killer missions that could be better performed by flotillas of smaller ships.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Bro that was an artillery joke.........

My mind is mush as late.