Subject:
|
Re: Lego seems to be copying Mega Blocks
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 25 May 2004 22:05:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1861 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Hickman wrote:
| |
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 embraced the battle cruiser name, simply refering
to them as armored cruisers or large cruisers.
|
I think they did actually use Schlachtkreuzer at some point--
Breyer at least suggests that they did, but you do see Panzerkreuzer
and Grosser Kreuzer used as well. (Imagine the s-tsett there, I
cannot remember the ANSI number for it.)
But it is worth noting that Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were originally
designated “D” and “E” as the fourth and fifth members of that pocket-battleship
class, but they were redesigned rather...substantially. And like their WWI
predecessors, they could take more punishment than even fully-fledged
battleships on the British and French sides. Little wonder that the USN took
its naval-architecture lead more from the Germans than the British, then, when
it wasn’t busy devising its own solutions.
| |
| |
Considering that the best evidence suggests that Prinz Eugen
sank Hood
|
That has been adequately proven (at least to me) by the fire control logs of
the Prinz Eugen. The poor Bismark, she and the Tirpitz suffered fates
much less admirable then they deserved.
|
The one I’m much sadder about, in terms of fate, is Prinz Eugen--she could
have been saved, after all; it’s always been a chuckle to see photos from after
the war of the “U.S.S. Prinz Eugen” and her USN designation, IX-300. So many
beauties were wasted in those tests--Nagato too, another of the truly
attractive ships of the interwar period.
| |
Ah, now those ships were bizarre indeed, especially once they began the
conversion to aircraft carriers. In fact, Fisher wanted the Furious for a
joint amphibious operation with the Russians across the Baltic and armed her
with two 18” guns. At one point in her life, she actually carried her bow
18” gun while her stern was converted for carrier ops. Very unique.
|
I seem to remember something about the fate of those guns, whether they ended up
emplaced in southern England, awaiting operation Seelöwe. The turrets and 15”
HG from Courageous and Glorious, of course, became the HG and turrets used
for Vanguard, last of the British battleships.
| |
True, that was one of the reasons FDR and his supporters passed the
Alaskas. There was also the supposed threat of German surface commerce
raiders, but even as early as the initial Alaska designs were being drawn
up, that threat was non-existant.
|
And it’s hard to imagine that the Alaskas wouldn’t have been crumpled like
paper cups in combat with something of Scharnhorst’s size and design. It
would have been much better to go after them with modern battleships altogether,
given the speed the later classes could attain.
| |
Well, the ‘outclassing’ is a weird thing when refering to Japanese vessels
and needs to be taken with a grain of salt. The Japanese were notorious for
building super-armored vessels i.e. the Yamato. However, their armor
design was somewhat flawed, in that they could not produce large enough
sheets of armor and had to rivet smaller ones together. This caused very
accute weak points along the lines of rivets.
|
That’s true, they weren’t much for welding, were they? And it didn’t help that
the Japanese had a tendency not to rotate crews, and later not to train
damage-control crews particularly well or even install all the gear until just
before operational deployment, a practice Shinano and Taiho suffered the
ultimate price for.
| |
Actually, in the August 1916 Naval Building Plan, the 6 Lexingtons were
supposed to constructed along with 10 Scout Cruisers. The CC was apparently
a new classification for a Heavy Scout Cruiser. The General Board of the
Navy wanted to utilize the Lexingtons at least in basic mission as Scout
fleets in support to the main battle fleet. This is possibly in reaction to
the poor performance of the Invincible and the other British battle
cruisers at Jutland.
|
I was trying to figure out, though, why they maintained the CC designation until
1921...or did they? The battlecruiser wasn’t a totally doomed concept, but in
order not to be, it would require a bit more protection from plunging
fire...look at the Japanese rebuilds of the Kongo-types in the interwar
period; they actually made reasonably survivable battleships out of what had
been a pre-Jutland British battlecruiser design. (Of course, that didn’t save
Kirishima and Hiei from 16” South Dakota-class BBs’ guns, or Kongo and
Haruna from submarine torpedoes...)
| |
| |
Likewise; sadly, there’s not a “lugnet.off-topic.discussion.naval-wonks” or
I’d be there all the time.
|
Perhaps we should start one. . .
|
I think lugnet.build.military is as close as we get.
Finally I have a copy of Skulski’s third book, on Fuso, and enough
(old) dark grey to build it in true minifig scale. Awwwwyeah.
best
LFB
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
24 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
