To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 23977
23976  |  23978
Subject: 
Re: Lego seems to be copying Mega Blocks
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Mon, 24 May 2004 13:22:33 GMT
Viewed: 
1618 times
  
   that German battleships and battlecruisers in WWI (and in WWII--Scharnhorst and Gneisenau in particular) mounted weapons of 11” bore or even smaller.

Very true. But, even the Germans considered the Gneisenau and Scharnhorst something called ‘Pocket Battleships.’ This was a peculiar way to present a ship that was greatly outclassed by BBs and BCs. The Germans could thus claim Naval equality simply by classing their ships as battleships. However, the two pocket BBs, as you stated had limited guns and even lacked the high speed of contemporary Fast Battleships. Due to their limits, the pocket Battleships were used in cruiser squadrons as commerce raiders, which was more in line with the WWI role of a battlecruiser.


   It had more to do with role than with the specific qualities possessed, and those that persisted after WWII were still coined “battleships” only because they started life that way (not that there was a role for them anyways

Well not exactly, the role of the battleship remained of supreme importance. While the aircraft carrier had become the center of the Task Force concept implemented in the last half of WWII, the Battlship still retained a very central role to that organizational unit. For example, carrier operations were very limited by weather and did not have the ability to operate at night. Therefore, the offensive capabilities of the Task Force fell to the more dependible battleship during these times. Also, a carriers battle performance was in direct proportion to the strength of its airwing, which was remarkably easier to attrite than the warfighting abilities of the battleship. There are many in the Navy today that still consider there to be a role for the Battleship. During the Reagan Era, with the push for a 600 ship Navy, there was an organizational unit that operated independently from the Carrier Battle Group. The Surface Action Group was centered around the reactivated Iowas and operated inedepent of airsupport.

   But if you look at the various proposals for completion of the Iowa-class BB Kentucky, some of which if memory serves did eliminate the HG altogether, they still refer to it as “BB” (though with suffixes at times). It wasn’t until the mid-1960s that the guided missile was really placed in that other category. The same (again, if memory serves) held true for various completion scenarios for Hawaii, the third of the Alaskas. Weren’t the Alaskas reclassed as “large cruisers” at some point in their careers anyways?

The Alaskas were queer birds indeed. The Navy actually resisted their construction, given the previous poor performance of the Battlecruiser type vessel at the Battle of Jutland. However, these ships were pushed by FDR, as he sort of had a hankering for a new battlecruiser class. I don’t seem to recall that they were ever reclassed however. Both the Alaska and the Guam served through the Korean War, but never truly saw much action, except in shore bombardment and anti-aircraft roles. The latter actually became the most prominent. Given the severe lack of armor on the Alaskas, no commanding officer would have risked her in fleet action, thus her big guns (12in IIRC) would have been useless. However, her 11 dual 5in anti-aircraft guns were heavily used. I do seem to remember reading something in General Board of the Navy hearings about the Hawaii being reclassed a Guided Missile Anti Air Ship, or something and there was also plans drawn up to modernize the existing Alaskas as guided missile large cruisers.

   I was simply pointing out that what you define as a “battleship” depends on who’s doing the defining and when

And right you are. I conceed that ship classification is a very relative thing, especially since the 1980s when the US Navy reclassed a majority of its warships (not something I’m thrilled about). I just jump at the chance to talk about this sort of thing.

Steve



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Lego seems to be copying Mega Blocks
 
(...) The "pocket battleships" (literally Panzerschiffen, or armor-clads) you're thinking of were Deutschland (later Lützow), Admiral Graf Spee (of the River Plate, and which a private company is talking about raising and restoring (!!!!)), and (...) (20 years ago, 24-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Lego seems to be copying Mega Blocks
 
(...) But this is the US naval classification system (or perhaps Jane's)--and it is therefore that also used by those of us operating in retrospect. Remember that German battleships and battlecruisers in WWI (and in WWII--Scharnhorst and Gneisenau (...) (20 years ago, 24-May-04, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

24 Messages in This Thread:






Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR