MikeW Posted 2 May , 2006 Share Posted 2 May , 2006 My apologies if this is a stupid question! I have a Royal Naval Air Service Squadron (Ground Officers and Men) being transported from Dover to Dunkerque by the General Crawford in March 1918. Can anyone tell me what type/class of ship the General Crawford was - nothing seems to come up on Google. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph Posted 2 May , 2006 Share Posted 2 May , 2006 Mike Have a google for HMS General Craufurd. Regards Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terence Munson Posted 2 May , 2006 Share Posted 2 May , 2006 Mike if it is General Craufurd as Charles suggests, here is one link: Gen. Crauford / Craufurd Cheers: Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeW Posted 3 May , 2006 Author Share Posted 3 May , 2006 Thanks chaps, they often used Monitors to ship groups over. It never occurred to me that the CO of Gurston Road Aerodrome at Dover couldn't spelll Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FAAAEd Posted 3 May , 2006 Share Posted 3 May , 2006 Thanks chaps, they often used Monitors to ship groups over. It never occurred to me that the CO of Gurston Road Aerodrome at Dover couldn't spelll Mike Not a surprise, 'Black Bobs' (of Penninsular War fame) name was often spelled incorrectly. IIRC this monitor class was equipped with 12 inch guns from retired pr-dreadnoughts (Majestics). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FAAAEd Posted 3 May , 2006 Share Posted 3 May , 2006 Thanks chaps, they often used Monitors to ship groups over. It never occurred to me that the CO of Gurston Road Aerodrome at Dover couldn't spelll Mike Not a surprise, 'Black Bobs' (of Penninsular War fame) name was often spelled incorrectly. IIRC this monitor class was equipped with 12 inch guns from retired pr-dreadnoughts (Majestics). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Posted 3 May , 2006 Share Posted 3 May , 2006 IIRC this monitor class was equipped with 12 inch guns from retired pr-dreadnoughts (Majestics). Correct as was it's sister ship the Sir John Moore. Very unwieldly though. And a little on the slow side especially in a strong head wind and sea, they only made 1 or 2 kts! Displacement, 5900 tons. Complements, 237. Length, 320 (p.p.), 335.5 (o.a.) feet. Beam, 87.25 feet. Draught. 10.5 feet. Guns: 2 - 12 inch, M. VIII, 25 cal. 4 to 2 - 6 inch 2 - 12 pdr. 2 - 3 inch AA. 2 - 2 pdr. anti-aircraft. 4 M. G. Armour (Krupp): 6" Bulkheads F. & A.., 8" - 2" Barbettes, 10.5" - 2" Gunhouse, 6" Conning tower, 1" Foxle deck, 6" Upper deck (slopes), 2" Upper deck, 1.5" Main deck, Anti-torpedo protection: Deep bulges. Machinery: Triple expansion. 2 screw,. Boiler, : Babcock & Wilcox. Designed H.P. 2310 (?) = 6.7 kts. 2 screws. Coal : 350 tons, maximum. Cheers, Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 3 May , 2006 Share Posted 3 May , 2006 The 12" monitors were of limited usefulness because they were heavily outranged by the German coastal batteries, a problem not overcome until the arrival of two seriously good monitors, Erebus and Terror, in autumn 1916. When they were used, the slow 12" and 15" monitors were usually towed by a destroyer, which meant they could carry out a bombardment under cover of smoke and then retire at a reasonable pace when the shore guns found their range. Admiral Bacon regularly used General Craufurd and Sir John Moore for 'heavy lift' jobs to Dunkerque, in which role their slow speed did not much matter. Their broad beam, shallow draught and self-defence capability (guns against destroyers, bulges/blisters against remote-controlled motor boats/torpedoes) made them ideal for the purpose. They were also in line to be used as 'pushers' for the pontoons designed for the abortive 'Great Landing', and Bacon's original plan for a raid on Zeebrugge involved positioning General Craufurd and Sir John Moore against the outside of the Mole and shelling the lock gates at close range. Interesting to note from Jane's that although built in 1915, General Craufurd and Sir John Moore both had Krupp armour. Does anyone happen to know whether this would have been 'stockpiled' or 'recycled' ? Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph Posted 3 May , 2006 Share Posted 3 May , 2006 Mick, It was produced under licence. Having demonstrated this to all the world, Krupp at once announced the conditions under which his armour plate was for sale. Any country might buy it from him, or it might manufacture it in its own factories—on payment of a heavy licence fee and of a royalty of about £9 per ton. No great power in the world was in a position to refuse Krupp’s terms. Krupp’s armour plate was the best, and all navies had to have it. One after the other the naval powers built with Krupp armour plate, so that in 1914 the navies of Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan, Germany, and the United States were built of Kruppised steel. Regards Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 3 May , 2006 Share Posted 3 May , 2006 Thanks Charles - it must be time for me to re-read 'The Arms of Krupp'. Do you know if we paid the fees and royalties for armour plate produced during the war ? I seem to remember that Vickers demanded, and eventually got, payment from the Germans for using their patent fuzes. regards Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph Posted 3 May , 2006 Share Posted 3 May , 2006 Mick, Good question well asked, but I thought it was Krupps that demanded the royalties from Vickers for the Time fuse, I would suspect if this was the case we paid for the armour. Regards Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 3 May , 2006 Share Posted 3 May , 2006 Charles, More reasons to re-read 'The Arms of Krupp'! I'll let you know what I find out. Cheers Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 4 May , 2006 Share Posted 4 May , 2006 Charles, Re armour plate, I had a quick look in 'The Arms of Krupp' and found references to the 1897 agreement under which Krupp received $45/ton produced under licence by other steelmakers, but no mention of whether royalties were actually paid on armour manufactured during the war. Re patent time fuzes, thanks for correcting my misapprehension - it was, of course, Vickers that paid royalties to Krupp, and not the other way round. Under the terms of a licence granted in 1896 and renewed in 1902 and 1904, Vickers agreed to pay 1/3d per shell. When Lord Charles Beresford asked in Parliament whether it was true that Krupp was receiving a shilling a shell, he was apparently told that the agreement had expired in July 1914 and that no royalties had been paid since that date. What he wasn't told, however, was that both companies were still keeping records. In 1921 Krupp filed a claim for £260,000, which was referred to the Anglo-German Arbitration Tribunal and was finally settled in 1926 with a compromise payment by Vickers of £40,000. Thanks for inspiring me to look into this - it's reminded me in particular of Krupp's infamous "see-saw" of marketing armour that was proof against the current state-of-the-art shells, and then, after navies had built new capital ships using that armour, announcing a new armour-piercing shell that could penetrate it. regards Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph Posted 4 May , 2006 Share Posted 4 May , 2006 Mick, Thanks for that, maybe the license for the armour had ran out by 1914, but certainly see why they where rich. Regards Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now