PhilB Posted 14 March , 2007 Author Share Posted 14 March , 2007 What was the drawback of the basketweave mast? PS This has been a great thread for looking at ships! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyrene Posted 14 March , 2007 Share Posted 14 March , 2007 What was the drawback of the basketweave mast? I don't know but they don't look very sturdy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horatio2 Posted 14 March , 2007 Share Posted 14 March , 2007 It could be that the lattice masts could not support the additional topweight evident in the 1945 picture. The early picture does not seem to sport any substantial high-level gunnery directors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Moretti Posted 15 March , 2007 Share Posted 15 March , 2007 Looking at the two pics of the same ship in its pre-WW1 and (effectively) end-of-WW2 guise also gives a stark indication of the changing nature of the threat. The casemate guns appear to have gone, but every spare square foot of deck is covered by light AA gun tubs. Was that Chicago in the picture the same Chicago that got transformed into a guided missile cruiser after the war? There's a sight that would have made Jacky Fisher's eyes pop out! The Iowa of course just exudes functionality and power. What we wouldn't have given for a similar shot of the HMS Agincourt doing that with all fourteen 12-inch! (If anyone makes a film of Jutland, they HAVE to do that...). Interesting how both the Brits and the Yanks between the wars came to the conclusion that the ideal, well-balanced capital ship gun fit is three triple 16 inch... (e.g. Iowa, Washington, 1930's Lion class, G3 b/c, Rodney). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 15 March , 2007 Author Share Posted 15 March , 2007 HMS Incomparable looks to have been an attractive design. 20" guns, 35 knots and sufficient bunker capacity to go round the world. Light on armour though, so potentially another Hood? Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikB Posted 15 March , 2007 Share Posted 15 March , 2007 What we wouldn't have given for a similar shot of the HMS Agincourt doing that with all fourteen 12-inch! (If anyone makes a film of Jutland, they HAVE to do that...). Did she ever do that? I remember reading 'The Big Battleship' decades ago, and there was some anxiety she'd break her back if she let 'em all off at once. There were certainly stories of clouds of popped rivets flying like confetti below decks... Regards, MikB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
staffsreg Posted 15 March , 2007 Share Posted 15 March , 2007 [quote name='Justin Moretti' date='Mar 15 2007, 02:23 Was that Chicago in the picture the same Chicago that got transformed into a guided missile cruiser after the war? There's a sight that would have made Jacky Fisher's eyes weep! [/quote Justin,--- can't be the same ship mate as the Chicago was torpedoed and sunk in January 1943! Regards, Ivan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob H Posted 16 March , 2007 Share Posted 16 March , 2007 MikB HMS Agincourt did fire full broadsides without structural damage. She fired several full salvos at Jutland. Here is a sentence from 'The big battleship': Far from blowing up or breaking her back under the combined recoil, "the sheet of flame," commented one eyewitness, "was big enough to create the impression that a battle cruiser had blown up; it was awe-inspiring." Regards Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 16 March , 2007 Author Share Posted 16 March , 2007 Was it necessary for the broadside to be simultaneous or could it ripple like on Nelson`s ships? Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikB Posted 16 March , 2007 Share Posted 16 March , 2007 MikB HMS Agincourt did fire full broadsides without structural damage. She fired several full salvos at Jutland. Here is a sentence from 'The big battleship': Far from blowing up or breaking her back under the combined recoil, "the sheet of flame," commented one eyewitness, "was big enough to create the impression that a battle cruiser had blown up; it was awe-inspiring." Regards Bob Yes, I suppose it should've been safe enough if you do a few sums and don't assume she was unusually weak. After all, 12" shells were less than half the weight of Rodney's 16", so if muzzle velocities were roughly similar, recoil force from 14 discharges should be a good deal less than Rodney's 9. As well as being rather more evenly distributed... Unfortunate image about the battlecruiser though. That happened far too much. Regards, MikB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyrene Posted 28 March , 2007 Share Posted 28 March , 2007 Was HMS Hood named after the Hood who commanded a battlecruiser squadron at Jutland or Samuel Hood? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbo Posted 28 March , 2007 Share Posted 28 March , 2007 According to the website of the HMS Hood Association, Hood was officially named after Samuel Hood. Some sources claim that she was named after the Hood killed at Jutland, Sir Horace, perhaps because she was launched by his widow, but this is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 28 March , 2007 Share Posted 28 March , 2007 Ambiguity is sometimes a good thing. She was officially named after the same Hood as the Hood Bn, RND, but also acquired a resonance of battlecruiser admiral Horace Hood by virtue of being launched by his widow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyHollinger Posted 29 March , 2007 Share Posted 29 March , 2007 Thank you all. The Thread of the week IMHO. These are beautiful ships ... the witty stuff at the beginning about the Graf Spee was also funny ... Again, thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted 2 April , 2007 Share Posted 2 April , 2007 A WW2 story ref HMS Hood. A chap who lived in the next street to me when I was a kid was posted to HMS Hood for what was to be her last voyage. His train was delayed by bombing and he arrived in time to see HMS Hood leaving. He was sent out some days later on Corvettes after breathing a huge sigh of relief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Gilinsky Posted 8 April , 2007 Share Posted 8 April , 2007 The most beautiful ship for ww1? My nomination would be HMS HOOD from pure aesthetics BUT as Kant said aesthetics and morality are inseperable! My real nomination therefore would be HMHS LLANDOVERY CASTLE. Sunk on June 27, 1918 the legal ramifications though distorted subsequently still stand as an international legal precedent and benchmark. John Toronto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottsGreys Posted 9 April , 2007 Share Posted 9 April , 2007 Great thread. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 9 April , 2007 Author Share Posted 9 April , 2007 I don`t think Hood counts as WW1. Though launched Aug 1918, she wasn`t completed till 1920. Any comments on Incomparable (post #55)? Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 9 April , 2007 Share Posted 9 April , 2007 QUOTE (Phil_B @ Apr 9 2007, 09:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Any comments on Incomparable (post #55)? Probably just as well Incomparable was never built, as she would surely have gone the way of Hood and Repulse in WW2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 9 April , 2007 Author Share Posted 9 April , 2007 Probably so. She was to be lightly built because Fisher thought all battleships/battlecruisers would be obselete after 10 years as technology moved on, so she was designed to last 10 years. One assumes Fisher was wrong in planning a light build and also in his forecast of obsolescence, as some WW2 battleships have had much longer lives? Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FAAAEd Posted 9 April , 2007 Share Posted 9 April , 2007 HMS Vanguard, the last of the Brit battleships, was very nice too (she has Courageous & Glorious's turrets; there's the WW1 link for you). My understanding is that Vanguard used the guns from Courageous and Glorious but in new design turrets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FAAAEd Posted 9 April , 2007 Share Posted 9 April , 2007 QUOTE (Phil_B @ Mar 16 2007, 08:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Was it necessary for the broadside to be simultaneous or could it ripple like on Nelson`s ships? Phil B Salvo firing usually involved firing one gun in each turret with their counterparts firing the following salvo. Full broadside, all guns at once, did often have a detrimental effect on the ship's structure particularly upper decks and close structures. Cross - deck firing of P and Q turrets on WW1 era capital ships certainly caused damage in this way. The blast effect is not inconsiderable similarly with flash where the heat caused severe burns to exposed flesh - face and hands. There is a photo' of victims of the latter in one of the Jutland books, 'The Battle of Jutland 1916' by Geroge Bonney. A colleague on an FAA unit had once served on Vanguard and told of the cracks in the deck caused by firing broadsides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FAAAEd Posted 9 April , 2007 Share Posted 9 April , 2007 Was HMS Hood named after the Hood who commanded a battlecruiser squadron at Jutland or Samuel Hood? I would consider HMS Hood to be qualified as the most attractive of WW1 genesis warships, qualified because she was laid down during that conflict. She was named after Samuel Hood (1724-1816) of St Kitt's renown. By 1939 she 'was undeniably in a state of advanced delapidation by 1939..', from 'The Battlecruiser HMS Hood: An Illustrated Biography 1916-1941' by Bruce Taylor. She was a hard ship in which to serve by that time having never been allowed due time for a thourough refit. I had the pleasure of meeting Ted Briggs (last of the three survivors from Hood's loss) in the Veteran's enclosure on Southsea Common in summer 2005 during the Drumhead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FAAAEd Posted 9 April , 2007 Share Posted 9 April , 2007 QUOTE (Phil_B @ Mar 14 2007, 04:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> How many anchors does Royal Oak have? (Post #41) I must be mistaken but can we see 5 on the one side? Phil B The photographer had just had his tot, plus 'sippers', and was suffering from double vision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 9 April , 2007 Author Share Posted 9 April , 2007 Data on Incomparable shows armour thickness of 10" belt, 14" turrets, 4" deck and 10" CT (command Turret/Tower?). How does that compare with optimum? Was armour plate ever re-used? Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.29d4195f801e5a5004f52840449366a7.jpg)
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