Subject:
|
Re: Lego seems to be copying Mega Blocks
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 24 May 2004 17:26:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1670 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Hickman wrote:
| |
| |
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.
|
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 Admiral Scheer. Those were well under 20,000 tons and were in
fact designed to supplant the pre-dreadnought “coast defence battleships”
allowed to Germany to retain after Versailles. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau
are generally classed as battlecruisers, certainly by Breyer and by every other
commentator I’ve seen, despite their use of the very same turrets as Lützow,
albeit three as opposed to two. The purpose of those latter two ships is a
matter of some debate, but considering their employment, you would be just as
right to consider Bismarck not to be a battleship. Considering that the best
evidence suggests that Prinz Eugen sank Hood, and not Bismarck, then the
latter is even behind in number of enemy combatants destroyed when compared with
Scharnhorst. Gneisenau in fact ended its life in Kiel, rotting away after
having been taken into dock for conversion to carry three twin 15”
(Bismarck-type) turrets instead of its 11” triples, given that they had the
armament for the incomplete “H” class ships just lying around doing nothing.
I just tend to think that the designation is very subjective, but the
Kriegsmarine’s intent was certainly that all after the three pocket
battleships were to be fully-fledged capital ships and form part of the “Z” plan
put together by Zenker long before the war (and, in its early stages, before the
Nazi assumption of power).
| |
| |
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.
|
Ahhh, but what was the actual role those units fulfilled? That’s what is
important--they were used for attacking shore targets exclusively, and of course
for showing the flag, one task I will readily admit a battleship utterly excels
in and that no other ship can do with quite as much poignancy, not even attack
carriers. Those are roles for the ships deemed “battleships,” but it is a far
cry from what they were actually designed for.
| |
| |
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 would have liked to have seen those ships, just for the sheer weirdness
value. They were oddities on the scale of Fisher’s “Large Light Cruisers”
Courageous, Glorious and Furious--those were the truly awful logical
conclusion of the battlecruiser concept, finally converted into aircraft
carriers, and 2/3 of the class lost in WWII anyways. Well done, Jacky! My
understanding is that the Alaskas were designed as pre-emptive “responses” to
a Japanese 12-inch-gunned “raider” class, which if it had been put out under its
suggested design would actually have outclassed the Alaskas by far.
Fortunately, like a lot of Axis ship designs, they were never built, so the
Alaskas were put into service as gigantic Baltimore class cruisers, and they
did just fine but not nearly enough to justify their enormous cost. They
weren’t the only battlecruisers ever designed for the US Navy of course;
Lexington and Saratoga were originally “CC” in designation, though what “CC”
actually signified literally I cannot imagine. I think it is the only case in
which a ship designation type actually shrank in terms of the tonnage of its
classes.
I agree regarding Hawaii’s final designation; they did change it in the 1960s,
even though they never finished it. I seem to recall “ACG 1” as what they
finally came up with, but now that I think about it they did reclassify the
battleship Mississippi as something else when using it for guided-missile
platform tests in the 1950s. Oh, to be without my naval wonk books. :(
| |
| |
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.
|
Likewise; sadly, there’s not a “lugnet.off-topic.discussion.naval-wonks” or I’d
be there all the time. I get the impression that the Navy has been looking
since then for a new organizational system that will allow it to deal with
modern threats and tasks, and are resisting at all events becoming the Coast
Guard’s big brother. I’m glad at least that the Iowas have good homes
befitting their US historical importance; it would have been very sad had the
cutting torch been taken to them. The British made that mistake with Warspite
and Vanguard, and we made it with the original carrier Enterprise, so I’m
not eager to see the grand old ladies suffer any further attrition.
all best
LFB
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Lego seems to be copying Mega Blocks
|
| (...) Doh! Right you are! My mistake. The Gneisenau and Scharnhorst were definitely of the battle cruiser type vessel, in that they were built in response to the Invincibles and later Indefatigables. Interestingly, the Germans never really fully (...) (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
|
| (...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 24-May-04, to 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
|
|
|
|
