SiegeGunner Posted 15 March , 2008 Share Posted 15 March , 2008 I am not totally sure what your pal Phil means by "a cruiser" - but I have been called worse! For the avoidance of any misunderstanding, I only meant that Phil had taken your forum name to be Exeter (a WW2 heavy cruiser) rather than Astraltrader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonharley Posted 17 March , 2008 Share Posted 17 March , 2008 They certainly made beautiful targets for Warspite et al! Warspite herself was a pretty good (or just pretty?) shell and bomb magnet. Retaining her 6-inch guns in casemates after the last reconstruction gave her a unique appearance, albeit somewhat impractical. Harley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Posted 18 March , 2008 Share Posted 18 March , 2008 Was the U.S.S. Texas re-engined between those two pictures. Lost one funnel, and she needed two as a steamer by the looks of it. Or did she have nice new efficient boilers fitted. With the smoke gone no need for those high baskets. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbo Posted 19 March , 2008 Share Posted 19 March , 2008 Texas, along with all other coal burning US battleships retained after the Washington Treaty of 1922, was refitted in the 1920s to burn oil fuel. This reduced the number of boilers from 14 to 6. At the same time the 2 cage masts were repalced by a single tripod, which allowed the fitting of an aircraft catapult amidships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Repulse Posted 2 May , 2008 Share Posted 2 May , 2008 Has to be Repulse for me ! In our family pronounced 'Repulsee' ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astraltrader Posted 4 May , 2008 Share Posted 4 May , 2008 Has to be Repulse for me ! In our family pronounced 'Repulsee' ! Certainly an imposing handsome ship Jeffers. Just for you here is my favourite shot of Repulse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Repulse Posted 4 May , 2008 Share Posted 4 May , 2008 Thanks. That is a lovely picture. This is my favourite. Photographed at Toulon Harbour and hand-tinted. Taken whilst serving on the Royal tour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astraltrader Posted 5 May , 2008 Share Posted 5 May , 2008 Indeed that is a fine photo. My only criticism and this IMO often spoils photographs is the presence of the sun-awnings or canopies [to the rear of the ship in this case]. Whilst I am sure they were a god-send to the crew they obviously hide parts of the ship. They are not too intrusive in your picture - but in some they look like floating marquees! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyHollinger Posted 6 May , 2008 Share Posted 6 May , 2008 I remember relpying when the thread was new ... but there is something wonderful about a ship ... sort of like a bicycle ... a system whose heart is human ... these pictures are inspiring ... well, all but the scale model of the Tirpitz ... that's a little ... mmm .... weird ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 6 May , 2008 Author Share Posted 6 May , 2008 Some consider the modern battleship, with all its systems, to be among the most complex of man`s creations. When you consider the variety of technologies involved, it probably rivals (or exceeds) those in space vehicles or aeroplanes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikB Posted 6 May , 2008 Share Posted 6 May , 2008 QUOTE (Phil_B @ May 6 2008, 01:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Some consider the modern battleship, with all its systems, to be among the most complex of man`s creations. When you consider the variety of technologies involved, it probably rivals (or exceeds) those in space vehicles or aeroplanes. And the only silicon was in the polish on the wardroom table! Makes you wonder how they managed. I suppose there were things approximating the role of computers in the fire control instruments and tables - but they weighed hundreds of tons, used precision-engineered mechanical and optical components, and needed tens of skilled operators to function. Regards, MikB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duece Posted 30 March , 2014 Share Posted 30 March , 2014 H.M.S. Tiger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals Posted 31 March , 2014 Share Posted 31 March , 2014 Pretty the likes of HMS Renown & Repulse may have been but when touted at such great replacements for the loses of Jutland they were in fact useless and unfit for battle so I can only guess this talk is a bit of bravado for the enemy. For those who know that is exactly what Jellicoe stated & he even said they would be sunk by a single hit , and also for those who have written the book called WITH THE BRITISH FLEET around pages 245 & 246 exchange Russian Officer G. Von Schoultz also goes straight to the point when he says, "I had already heard the that the new cruisers Renown & Repulse were in many respects failures." Von Schoultz writes many aspects of the British fleet at the time, all words from what was being said at the time, one thing he does state is all the officers around him believed Jutland was no victory whatsoever for the British and they knew it, seems only modern historians have twisted this point. He also points out it may well have been fortunate that the main Fleet under Jellicoe did not come under intense German gunfire as it could have resulted in the same results as the fate of the battlecruisers, his views not mine. As for Lutzow, Defflinger, Hindenburg, beautiful ships and much better designed ships that could actually fight, giving & taking & proven in battle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikB Posted 31 March , 2014 Share Posted 31 March , 2014 I don't really understand why people even discuss the 'beauty' or 'lines' of warships - but even publications supposed to be 'technical' seem sometimes to stray into this area. It's possible that unbalanced or asymmetrical structures in the shape could indicate topheavy, badly-designed or cumbersome design features, but the reverse isn't necessarily the case. I would take the view that handsome is as handsome does, and a warship that was successful in action is impressive on that count alone, whatever it looked like. Regards, MikB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeCeeCee Posted 31 March , 2014 Share Posted 31 March , 2014 Note how often battlecruisers are chosen in the thread? It must be about 2:1 over non-battlecruisers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darloboy Posted 21 April , 2020 Share Posted 21 April , 2020 On 14/03/2007 at 09:48, MikB said: Nah, it was us that used the tripods. Uncle Sam used a funny kind of basketweave, not (AFAIK) seen elsewhere. The Americans built 2 BBs for Argentina, they originally had cage masts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Hall Posted 24 April , 2020 Share Posted 24 April , 2020 On 30/03/2014 at 16:31, duece said: H.M.S. Tiger Absolutely agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikB Posted 24 April , 2020 Share Posted 24 April , 2020 28 minutes ago, Gunner Hall said: Absolutely agree. Yeah - pretty. Pity she couldn't shoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Hall Posted 26 April , 2020 Share Posted 26 April , 2020 (edited) Harsh. But sad!y accurate. Just get rounds down the range, you'll hit something eventually. Gunner 101. Edited 26 April , 2020 by Gunner Hall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikB Posted 26 April , 2020 Share Posted 26 April , 2020 (edited) 36 minutes ago, Gunner Hall said: Harsh. But sad!y accurate. Just get rounds down the range, you'll hit something eventually. Gunner 101. 303 rounds of 13.5 fired at Jutland and 2 hits posted, was it? Contrast that with the ill-fated Invincible's 48 rounds fired for 8 hits? Edited 26 April , 2020 by MikB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RNCVR Posted 27 April , 2020 Share Posted 27 April , 2020 I have always liked HMS Dreadnought, the "mother" of all subsequent Dreadnought ships. HMS Dreadnought was also the only Battleship to sink a Submarine - U-29, on 18 Mar 1915. As she was in refit at the time she missed the battle of Jutland May 31-June 1, 1916. Thanks, Bryan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 27 April , 2020 Author Share Posted 27 April , 2020 No takers for modern vessels like USS Zumwalt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikB Posted 27 April , 2020 Share Posted 27 April , 2020 28 minutes ago, PhilB said: No takers for modern vessels like USS Zumwalt? Mercifully off-topic, squire... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 27 April , 2020 Author Share Posted 27 April , 2020 I`d forgotten it was in Sailors, Navies and the War at Sea and not Skindles. Well it was 2007! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyacinth1326 Posted 28 April , 2020 Share Posted 28 April , 2020 I ran into the same trap and was about to suggest the Battle class destroyers of WWII 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