On Tuesday, December 16, 1997 1:00 AM, John Leary
[SMTP:realjtl@sj.bigger.net]
wrote:
> Bottom Line: It seems that
I'd be interested as an aside which ships these were. However it was not
'that' common and a lot of British Navy Cruisers in the early years were about
8 inch.
> Part of the problem is the way the ship classed are divided,
I don't quite understand you here, are we talking about WWII or FT? In WWII
the size of a destroyer and battleship where significantly different. Which
costs, the cost of building a WWII battleship?
> This is a way to ignore reality and use the navy terms
What is a 'way'? Which 'reality' FT or WWII?
sincerely
> On Tue, 16 Dec 1997, Tim Jones wrote:
> I'd be interested as an aside which ships these were.
A couple of coastal monitors, mostly used for gunnery training, and possibly
shore bombardment. Certainly never saw any surface combat worthy of note. They
weren't called coastal for nothing either, I don't think they were all that
seaworthy. Slow as hell, certainly.
A couple of monitors saw combat in WWI, if you count bombarding
a holed-up-in-river-delta german cruiser.
> However it was not 'that' common and a lot of British Navy
That, OTOH, is almost entirely due to the Naval treaties of the era. Anything
with guns larger than 8 inches was classified as a capital, and restricted
under treaty.
> I don't quite understand you here, are we talking about WWII or FT?
I agree... you shouldn't think too strongly in terms of parallels. Look at the
present situation: Destroyer and cruiser are used almost interchangeably, more
an indication of function than size.
Additionally in WWI the British light cruiser Audacious was fitted with 15"
guns and was planned to have an 18"(yes...18") before it was changed and
turned into the first air craft carrier.Granted there was less difference in
size between a light cruiser and dreadnought in those days.
David Best
> ----------
> At 10:12 16/12/97 -0700, you wrote:
Not quite- the three "large light cruisers" were Courageous, Glorious
(4x15-inch in twin turrets) and Furious (intended to have 2 single
18-inch,
but completed with a single 18-inch aft and a flying-off deck forward).
All
were converted to full aircraft carriers. These were _big_ ships, about
800
feet long and 20-odd thousand tons, very distinct from contemporary
light cruisers of 5000 to 7000 tons. I think Audacious was a dreadnought, and
the first capital ship lost in WW1.
Wasn't one of our (UK) WW1 monitors sunk in the Med. in a surface action?
Rob
> Tim Jones wrote:
...Snip...(JTL)
> I'd be interested as an aside which ships these were.
...Snip>...(JTL)
Tim, As requested, slightly better information on the ships I mentioned.
MONITORS:
MARSHAL NEY and MARSHAL SOULT were used as accomodition ships
during the war. The turrets were removed and installed on the
ROBERTS and ABERCROMBIE. Displacement was 6400 and 6700 tons.
I02 EREBUS and I03 TERROR; 2 X 15", 8 X 4", 2 X 3"AA. 7200 tons, 12 kts.
405x89x11 feet. Terror was lost to enemy action on 24FEB41.
F40 ROBERTS and F41 ABERCROMBIE; 2 X 15", 8 X 4"AA.
7850 tons. Roberts was not completed.
Abercrombie may (stress on the may) have been at Normandy.
The desire for the latter paragraphs was to show that one cannot draw a strict
relationship between the real, (WWII) world and the use of the ship class
names to
determine the 'proper' assignment of the sci-fi weapons
to the sci-fi ship classes because of the sci-fi ship
class names. I hope that will make everything clear. (Hopefully more clear
than mud, but maybe not!)
Rob Paul,
Corageous, Glorious and Furious were The three light BATTLEcruisers, completed
as carriers. The intended use for these ships; to penetrate into the Baltic
Sea on raids.
Bye for now,
> At 16:37 16/12/97 -0800, you wrote:
> Rob Paul,
"Light battlecruisers" is a perfectly reasonable description of these
vessels, but "large light cruisers" is how the RN designated them- their
armour was apallingly thin and scanty, even compared with early
battlecruisers. C and G saw action in WW1 as supports for cruiser forces
(and were sunk as CVs early in WW2). The Baltic raid/invasion idea
persisted into WW2, interesingly enough (Operation Catherine (or Caroline, I
forget) using lightened R-class BBs amongst others.
Rob
> At 4:40 PM +0200 12/16/97, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
The HMS Erebus and a sister ship saw limited action during the Normandy
invasions in a shore bombardment capacity. Churchill contemplated using the
HMS Erebus in a few situations where the armored decks would provide needed
protection against aerial bombs. I have a good photo of the Erebus in my copy
of "The Word War II Album", Ross Burns ed., Saturn Books, 1991.
> At 1:59 AM +0000 12/17/97, Rob Paul wrote:
In volume one of his history (Gathering Storm), Churchill reprints the
Admiralty memo on Operation Catherine. Given the Luftwaffe's spotty
record in anti-shipping operations, the Baltic operation would have
been a reasonable risk. The R-class battleships weren't just going to
be 'lightened' for the operation, the conversion plan was more ambitious. The
ships were to be stripped to two main turrets, and the
extra mass used for deck armor to ward off aerial bombs. Anti-torpedo
bulges were also to be added, which would have substantially increased the
ships bouyancy and reduced their draft to a reasonable depth for Baltic
operations. The lack of yard space for the conversion was largely responsible
for preventing the conversion.