Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Planned German Battle Cruiser raids on convoys


centurion

Recommended Posts

Ah Simon. I love a good game of "you show me and I'll show you". So, you show me where your figures come from, and I will show you my reputable source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, you didn't even answer the question. Roberts. "The Design and Construction of the Battlecruiser Tiger" Part I. p. 11. Campbell. "Battle Cruisers" pp. 37, 40, 50. Parkes. "British Battleships". pp. 551, 556.

Roberts couldn't find the official figures on endurance, and Campbell wrote that "radius of action figures were not quoted in the usual detailed way."

Simon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

R. A. Burt. But you have missed the point. The point is that TC's assertion, without facts, that British ships were longer ranged is quite incorrect. As is his assertion that there was more crew space, which there was not. The point is, regurgitating these old folk law myths, without any basis in fact, is quite misleading and harmful to young people with an interest in naval history. I had to grow up surrounded by propaganda and outright lies, let's not do the same to the few young people who have an interest in naval matters today. They deserve accurate information, which is freely available today, and not the same old clap-trap from the 1930's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Burt wouldn't have had any official figures to work with, so he must be using an educated guess. Considering he couldn't even get the survivor tally for "Queen Mary" right, I'd take his accuracy with a pinch of salt.

And no, I didn't miss the point. All you've done is refute TCC's assertion with one of your own, that in one circumstance "Lutzow" was longer-ranged than "Tiger".

Simon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simon,

being the self-appointed guru on correcting the truth re WW1 RN Battlecruisers, can you please explain what you wrote here, did the RN Battlecruisers in actual fact take on the whole HSF? And by the way, what were the percived shortcoming? They are well documented.

It should perhaps be noted that despite the perceived shortcomings of the British battle cruisers, they still intended to fight the German battle cruisers. Indeed, in the Grand Fleet battle Instructions the British battle cruisers are instructed to engage their German opposite numbers "closely". The only caveat is that they shouldn't do what they did at Jutland and engage the whole High Sea Fleet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simon,

being the self-appointed guru on correcting the truth re WW1 RN Battlecruisers, can you please explain what you wrote here, did the RN Battlecruisers in actual fact take on the whole HSF? And by the way, what were the percived shortcoming? They are well documented.

It should perhaps be noted that despite the perceived shortcomings of the British battle cruisers, they still intended to fight the German battle cruisers. Indeed, in the Grand Fleet battle Instructions the British battle cruisers are instructed to engage their German opposite numbers "closely". The only caveat is that they shouldn't do what they did at Jutland and engage the whole High Sea Fleet.

Is this to avoid plunging shell fire? Beaty was always castigated for giving away the range advantage his 13.5s/12s had over the Gerries 12s/11s. If he was avoiding the formentioned shells, it makes sense to fight when tradjectories are shallower. The same tactic was used by Hood about 5 minutes before its end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: "Germany out engineering Britain"

The damage 5 German BC's at Jutland caused, what can you say? The Q's coped a towelling as well, lucky not to lose a couple with one going around in circles and one with secondary armament magazine fires. It is a giggle to read the Wikipedia site on the Queens, Warspite having 15 hits, mmmmmmm, i guess that is what they wanted us to believe. But that is Wikipedia, just peoples opinions at times, look at the great one on HMS E22, no survivors hey.

I read the page on Bismark and the 'Towelling' that got from KGV and Rodney. I concur!!! The geriies didn't have itall their own way, Seydltz was lucky to reach home after the RN had made a sxxt tip of her. I did read an anecdote from a RN sailor? recalling a german sailors remarks of Jutland. The german said of german sailors in their ships "being blown around the steel surfaces like leaves".

Out engineering can be learning from mistakes such as Dogger Bank and re-engineering, and the results of this were at Jutland. Both sides chose different paths with the outcome of Dogger Bank. Behind the backslapping over the sinking of odd ball Blucher and the lucky early shots on Seydlitz, from that point the Germans outgunned the British who set about finding ways to increase rate of fire with disastrous consequences, the RN learnt nothing. Of course I did not see the magazines on the battered German BC's blow up. One can only imagine the results if the roles were reversed, 10 German Batlecruisers against 5 British, or for that matter equal numbers. Sherman's tanks verses Tiger tanks.

This was the Battlecruiser fleet standing orders and pre-Jutland. Effort was made to speed rate of fire and removal or by-passing of built-in safety features was encouraged or ordered so as to mitigate against the fleets lack of main-calibre firing practice.

It was not the diverse theatres of operation, more the thinking behind the use of these ships, and many of the British Battlecruisers were designed to hunt down and destroy cruisers, of which they were totally successful. The German ships were designed to scout for the fleet, draw the British in, then fall into place with the battleships and slug it out, and this was such an important role in their tactics that is the reason why they would not be risked in raiding convoys. They were basically fast battleships, and even when ships such as Tiger were built and became an even match, the underwater protection on the German ships was better. When built Renown, Repulse, Glorious, Courageous, the British were taking their concept one way, the Germans the other, and the building of these ships left a gaping hole in combating new German battlecruisers.

Would these German battlecruisers go out in the Atlantic? It was never going to happen as why would you risk these valuable assets, if they lost them it would be a major blow.

There was a difference in the ships. The admiralty compared Lion and Seydlitz. Seydlitz was an enlarged Moltke. Lion was 3,170 tons heavier than Moltke, had more powerful guns but her 9in belt, 1¼ deck and 9in barbettes compared badly against Moltkes 11, 3 and 10½ respectively.

Against Seydlitz, Lion was 42ft longer, 5ft less beam, 6ft greeater in freeboard, 2 or 3 ft less draught and was 1500 tons heavier. Lions 70,000 SHP required 25% greater boiler and 60% greater engine room space than the 61,000 SHP Seydlitz though it provided her a 15% increase in propulsive power. The saved space in Seydlitz went towards a smaller, but wider, ship with the weight savings going towards the thicker armour. Seydlitz had a 12in belt, Both ships attained 28kts.

Lion was longer, thinner, higher and a bit deeper, had 8x 13.5 and 16x 4in against 10x 12in and 12x 5.9s!

You can readily see the germans achieved the same results as the british but via a different design ethos and with different design choices made along the way. The lower ships power in Seydlitz was equally capable of moving the smaller ship as fast as Lion. The 12in guns may have not had as greater range but Jutland proved that light affects the shooting more than any other factor. Having the light in your favour was a battle-winner, both sides proved this at different times.

In looking this stuff up, I came across a few facts that imply BCs where not meant to face a battleship calibre gun!!! That Invincible was designed to fight at a range of 8,000yds! (Thus you can see why no deck armour... they weren't expected to receive plunging fire!) Though it begs a question, what would fight germanys BCs if not ours?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The geriies didn't have itall their own way, Seydltz was lucky to reach home after the RN had made a sxxt tip of her.

Difference is the numbers they were up against, the German BC's should have been crushed, instead it was the perceived best ships from the best navy that lost out, yes the Gerries took a pounding but they did not, embarrassingly for the world to see, simply blow up. Or maybe they need Nelson back or asked Togo for a hand. England was brought up on the theory of their maritime invincibility, so they got a little shock that some upstart navy could match, and even better what they had claimed was their expertise.

Though it begs a question, what would fight germanys BCs if not ours?

This is why they were embarrassingly trying to buy 2 Jap Battlecruisers behind the scenes, even old Winnie suggested offerring 4 new dreadnoughts for them as a swap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The geriies didn't have itall their own way, Seydltz was lucky to reach home after the RN had made a sxxt tip of her.

Difference is the numbers they were up against, the German BC's should have been crushed, instead it was the perceived best ships from the best navy that lost out, yes the Gerries took a pounding but they did not, embarrassingly for the world to see, simply blow up. Or maybe they need Nelson back or asked Togo for a hand. England was brought up on the theory of their maritime invincibility, so they got a little shock that some upstart navy could match, and even better what they had claimed was their expertise.

Though it begs a question, what would fight germanys BCs if not ours?

This is why they were embarrassingly trying to buy 2 Jap Battlecruisers behind the scenes, even old Winnie suggested offerring 4 new dreadnoughts for them as a swap.

Campbell's estimate is that if the German BCs had been carrying British cordite (instead of German charges) then several German BCs would have been lost at Jutland (to say nothing of SEYDLITZ at Dogger Bank). So it is not just a question of ship design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The geriies didn't have itall their own way, Seydltz was lucky to reach home after the RN had made a sxxt tip of her.

Difference is the numbers they were up against, the German BC's should have been crushed, instead it was the perceived best ships from the best navy that lost out, yes the Gerries took a pounding but they did not, embarrassingly for the world to see, simply blow up. Or maybe they need Nelson back or asked Togo for a hand. England was brought up on the theory of their maritime invincibility, so they got a little shock that some upstart navy could match, and even better what they had claimed was their expertise.

Though it begs a question, what would fight germanys BCs if not ours?

This is why they were embarrassingly trying to buy 2 Jap Battlecruisers behind the scenes, even old Winnie suggested offerring 4 new dreadnoughts for them as a swap.

What were the ships Darren? Kongo? and what? And where the 2swaps named?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What were the ships Darren? Kongo? and what? And where the 2swaps named?

They mention Japan at the time was the only other country with Battlecruisers, so without naming them it would be 2 x Kongos, while the 4 swaps suggested by Churchill he just said modern type Battleships, this was in 1918.

Part of what Jelly said in 1917.

The Board of Admiralty desire to draw the attention of the War Cabinet to the serious situation which will arise by the end of this year in regard to the comparative strength of the British and German Battle Cruiser Forces, owing to their superiority in amour protection and speed, raids can be carried out with comparative impunity by German Battle Cruisers on our Coasts and East Coast shipping and successful scouting work for the Battle Fleet by the Battle Cruiser Force becomes a matter of considerable difficulty, and places the Battle Fleet at a disadvantage on joining action with the HighSeas Fleet.

The Board suggest that the only way of meeting this danger is by using Japanese Battle Cruisers. The Japanese are unlikely to consent to such craft joining the Grand Fleet, and in any case, it is doubtful whether, manned by Japanese, they would be a match for the German Battle Cruisers, the Board suggest for the consideration of the War Cabinet that the Foreign Office should be asked to instruct the Ambassador at Tokyo to sound the Japanese Government as to whether they would sell two Battle Cruisers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Campbell's estimate is that if the German BCs had been carrying British cordite (instead of German charges) then several German BCs would have been lost at Jutland (to say nothing of SEYDLITZ at Dogger Bank). So it is not just a question of ship design.

So i guess Hood was still using the same cordite in 1941. Yes, as mentioned, Seydlitz had issues at Dogger Bank, but guess what, she did not break in half and sink, she got home, now that is a well designed ship, she was also improved after Dogger Bank, ammunition handling and flash doors. Did Campbell mention had the Germans and British numbers been reversed how these British battlecruiers would have coped with twice as many guns and the superiour rate of fire? I wonder.

Also can someone find me similar daming comments from the likes of Hipper & Scheer on their newest Battlecruiser Hindenburg???

On a detailed comparison, taking vessels of Approximately the same age, the First Sea Lord remarks That RENOWN & REPULSE are completely outclassed and not fit to even engage HINDENBURG:

Jellicoe 20th of August 1917.

The armour protection of "REPULSE" and "RENOWN" calls for serious consideration. With a belt of only 6 inches they are dangerously liable to destruction by a single hit and in view of their high-speed and powerful armament it is considered that, as soon as the new shell has been supplied to all battle cruisers, no time should be lost in fitting the additional protection which is now in course of preparation for them.

ERIC GEDDES

31st of August 1918.

And another, TIGER & DERFFLINGER, PRINCESS ROYAL, LION & SEYDLITZ are fairly matched except for very inadequate torpedo protection in our ships; Jellicoe 20th of August 1917.I guess no argument here, Jellicoe’s words seem spot on, he was a smart chap, mmmmmm, Goeben 2 mines at once 1914, 3 mines at once 1918, Audacious 1 mine 1914 and sank, with the magazine explosion as she said goodbye. Now that was embarrassing and a poor attempt at hiding the truth from the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So i guess Hood was still using the same cordite in 1941. Yes, as mentioned, Seydlitz had issues at Dogger Bank, but guess what, she did not break in half and sink, she got home, now that is a well designed ship, she was also improved after Dogger Bank, ammunition handling and flash doors. Did Campbell mention had the Germans and British numbers been reversed how these British battlecruiers would have coped with twice as many guns and the superiour rate of fire? I wonder......

In so far as the HOOD is concerned, it was not the same cordite but similar. Certainly, tests by the USN in 1945 seem to show that if HOOD’s magazines had contained USN propellant she might well not have blown up.

I think that there were some German turrets burnt out at Jutland but no explosions – perhaps their flash regulations were being observed and/or perhaps the lesser volatility of their propellant resulted in lower pressures. There was little in the way of flash precautions in SEYDLITZ at Dogger Bank and yet she did not blow up, which seems to indicate a difference in propellant behaviour.

We can argue about the percentage of responsible for the destruction of the battlecruisers which should be allocated among poor armour, dangerous propellant, lack of flash precautions and careless handling of charges but the correct answer is now beyond us.

The battlecruiser concept was arguably a good one in the context in which it was formulated – to hunt down the enemy’s armoured cruisers on the oceans. The problems arose when another navy built battlecruisers. We might consider this to have been inevitable, but I do not remember seeing it covered in any of Fisher’s writings about the genesis of the Class or of how it would effect the tactical use of these ships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did Campbell mention had the Germans and British numbers been reversed how these British battlecruiers would have coped with twice as many guns and the superiour rate of fire? I wonder.

The point of all this is completely escaping me. You might as well ask what would've happened if the Goblins had intervened. The Hindenburg class was never built - Repulse, Renown and Hood were.

The Hood failed at Denmark Strait, but many think she was unlucky and the outcome could have been different, for example if Holland had been able to start the engagement crossing Bismarck's bow as he'd intended.

Regards,

MikB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Hindenburg class was never built - Repulse, Renown and Hood were.

Hindenburg, the third and final Derfflinger-class battlecruiser, was scuttled at Scapa Flow. Do you mean the Mackensen class? They were all started and built to varying stages of completion, but none of them was actually completed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hindenburg, the third and final Derfflinger-class battlecruiser, was scuttled at Scapa Flow. Do you mean the Mackensen class? They were all started and built to varying stages of completion, but none of them was actually completed.

Sorry, yes - I meant the planned German BCs that the Renowns and Hood were built in part to counter.

My point was that a reversal of numeric ratios in a fleet action against an enemy with later and more modern vessels was completely out of the question as any kind of realistic scenario.

Regards,

MikB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In so far as the HOOD is concerned, it was not the same cordite but similar. Certainly, tests by the USN in 1945 seem to show that if HOOD's magazines had contained USN propellant she might well not have blown up.

I think that there were some German turrets burnt out at Jutland but no explosions – perhaps their flash regulations were being observed and/or perhaps the lesser volatility of their propellant resulted in lower pressures. There was little in the way of flash precautions in SEYDLITZ at Dogger Bank and yet she did not blow up, which seems to indicate a difference in propellant behaviour.

We can argue about the percentage of responsible for the destruction of the battlecruisers which should be allocated among poor armour, dangerous propellant, lack of flash precautions and careless handling of charges but the correct answer is now beyond us.

The battlecruiser concept was arguably a good one in the context in which it was formulated – to hunt down the enemy's armoured cruisers on the oceans. The problems arose when another navy built battlecruisers. We might consider this to have been inevitable, but I do not remember seeing it covered in any of Fisher's writings about the genesis of the Class or of how it would effect the tactical use of these ships.

Correct me if I'm wrong. The explose-ability of cordite depends on if it is enclosed or not. When set off with room for the gases to expand, there is no 'explosion' and it burns out, witness Seydlitz dogger bank, Lion Q turret at Jutland (flames higher than the mast out of the missing roof plate). It is when it is enclosed that the 'explosion' causes damage.

I think the battlecruiser question comes down to the big calibre guns and lack of deck armour. On the one hand we have long range guns with suitable fire control equipoment, on the other we have ships that are inadequate to the effects of the long-range fire. It's a contradiction!!!

As has been said earlier, a BC is the only response to another BC... they are destined to meet their peers over the horizon. Plunging fire and thin deck armour? Survive-ability is then down to luck or fate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong. The explose-ability of cordite depends on if it is enclosed or not.

...

I think the battlecruiser question comes down to the big calibre guns and lack of deck armour.

It's more a question of burning speed being proportional to temperature and pressure. Even if it's not enclosed in a pressure resistant container, the more of it there is, the higher the temperature gets and the burning rate increases greatly. So the 'fizz' of the individual stick burning might not get to be the 'crack' of a gun discharge, but it certainly could become a 'woof'. It was said the Hood burnt through with a fan of flame like a blowlamp. If the bags of cordite can be separated before large stored masses are alight, the runaway conflagration of the magazine might be avoided, and this is probably what Lion's crew succeeded in doing, similarly to Seydlitz's at Dogger Bank.

Plunging fire reaching magazines through deck armour was not really the issue, either at Jutland or at Denmark Strait - the ranges simply weren't long enough to produce an angle of descent steep enough for a round passing above the side armour to reach the magazine spaces. This would have taken - generally speaking and in round numbers - about 25,000 yards or more; ranges at which hits were theoretically possible but in practice very rare. The catastrophic losses of British BCs seem to've occurred at ranges between 14,000 and 18,000 yards. The causes should probably be sought in the generally weaker armour scheme of the British ships, the known shortcutting of safety procedures, and possibly the poor performance of our AP shells in not inflicting - if not similar, then equivalently mortal - damage on the enemy.

Regards,

MikB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong. The explose-ability of cordite depends on if it is enclosed or not. When set off with room for the gases to expand, there is no 'explosion' and it burns out, witness Seydlitz dogger bank, Lion Q turret at Jutland (flames higher than the mast out of the missing roof plate). It is when it is enclosed that the 'explosion' causes damage.

MikB has covered the cordite burning/explosion issue. LION might well have been destroyed but for the flooding of "Q" magazine and the actions taken earlier by Grant to reduce the number of charges outside the magazine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what i have read one of the main causes of the loss of all 3 RN battlecrusiers at Jutland may have been because the crews ignored RN ammo safety regs in order to speed up the rate of fire.

I found some notes I wrote from the book US Battleship operations in WW I by Jerry W Jones. In the Sept-November 1918 period a number of USN battleships pre drednought Virginia, New Hampshire, Georgia, Kansas, North Carolina, Louisianna and the drednoughts Michigan and South Carolina were used as convoy escorts. In Ireland were the Utah, Oklahoma, & Nevada Note my note are not 100% accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

R. A. Burt is a respected author on British battleships. I am not interested in your opinion of what he might or might not have used. The point, which you have missed, is that the German ships were as equally long ranged as the British. Iron Duke 8100 nautical miles at 12 knots, König 8000 nautical miles at 12 knots. The contention that the German ships were designed for only short range is simply incorrect. I cannot make it any plainer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point was that a reversal of numeric ratios in a fleet action against an enemy with later and more modern vessels was completely out of the question as any kind of realistic scenario.

And so is the suggestion of If the Germans had British cordite, they did not, would not, so this is kind of unrealistic scenarioe as well. Put simply the RN failed at Jultland in one main area which affected the outcome more than any other issue, communications. They simply should have smashed the HSF with their numbers, but missed their opportunity, then sat back and were only capable of no other aggressive action other than keeping the ring, and this was against Germany trading with how many countries in 1918? Jutland was no great victory, we were all taught the HSF never looked for action again after this, seems to me they did just that in August & October 1916.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

,...... we were all taught the HSF never looked for action again after this, seems to me they did just that in August & October 1916.

But they didn't look very hard and certainly not for action with the Grand Fleet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You my friend are in dire need of taking this course. You will have plenty of friends there.

http://www.ice.cam.ac.uk/component/courses/?view=course&cid=1941

Cambridge Uni quote:

"It is often said, and even mistakenly taught, that the German High Sea Fleet did not come out of port again after the Battle of Jutland. The aim of this course is finally to lay this myth to rest. It will begin with an assessment of how the Germans read Jutland and the strength of the High Sea Fleet subsequently. It will cover the later sorties in 1916 by the Fleet and the real reasons for abandoning these forays. It will then cover the highly successful operations of the Fleet in the Baltic in 1917 and its sortie against the Norwegian Convoy in 1918. It will conclude with the attempted final sortie, the consequent mutiny and the final fate of the fleet."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...