|
Post by welshofficer on Apr 19, 2015 16:49:15 GMT -6
Not improving, WO. I've had the same stuff on this board up about Jutland for years, over a decade, long before you arrived and started pretending you were well read on it and knew all about Andrew Gordon, who I don't recall appearing in the video as you said, but I wasn't vectored in. "Your only significant errors were that Beatty lost 3 battlecruisers and Jellicoe only lost 10 men." That isn't the quote, is it? No. "Jellicoe kept tight control of his ships, and of British dreadnoughts with him only one was hit by German shells (both duds, I think) and had under ten casualties till evening. Beatty lost 3k plus men." I am talking of shellfire and the dreadnoughts only and before evening, and what I said is correct, your presentation incorrect. I'd in years past correctly stated that the Invincible was coming from Jellicoe to Beatty but I bolluxed it here in error. Sort of. The 5th was angling out from under Beatty to join the Battle Line under Jellicoe as the 3rd joined Beatty and this unnecessary and dangerously confusing exchange was only because Beatty never took gunnery seriously and his ships were laughable shots. From both British and German sources. After all, there is ample space other than Scapa Flow to practice gunnery between the Atlantic and North Sea between August, 1914, and May, 1916 and Beatty never did it despite ample evidence he desperately needed to. The reason the Invicible group was at Scapa was to improve her shooting, which happened in about three days, as both the Germans and Brits said those battlecruisers were crack shots. But they'd now been training under Jellicoe, and compared with the Dogger Bank and Falklands and how Beatty's ships sucked big time that afternoon, the difference was night and day. That's not opinion: that's fact. Three days. So, it was Beatty's incompetence that necessitated the exchange of ships coincident to the battle, and if Beatty couldn't improve shooting in just three days as Jellicoe somehow managed to do, you'd think he'd make progress in 20 months had there been will and time away from distractions with mistresses. Jellicoe understood the issues better than Beatty and everyone else. Nobody actually thought Jellicoe was the only man who could lose the war in an afternoon (except Jellicoe) till Churchill put it so memorably in the World Crisis a decade later. After that, everyone pretends they understood all along. Beatty was a creep. At the end of the war, at the Naval celebratory dinner, neither Jellicoe nor Fisher - the two most important admirals in the RN between Nelson and now - were even invited. And while Beatty did sorta lead Scheer north in pursuit, Beatty himself was led into a trap by Hipper, who brought him to Scheer's High Seas Fleet. Beatty barely got out alive and failed to keep his boss informed, his job. DC,
One step forwards, ten steps back......
(1) I don't know all about Andrew Gordon. I know Andrew Gordon. Actually watch the video for his various interviews.
(2) So now it's just the dreadnoughts and before evening, when they weren't engaging the enemy...? Squirming.
(3) Beatty did not lose 3K men with the QM and Indefatigable, did he...?
(4) Scapa Flow anchorage was the only place to practice gunfire behind naval defences once it was finally made defendable, especially against U-boats. No possibility of doing that behind the booms at Rosyth and the BCF was at Rosyth for a reason. Hood's 3BCS wasn't being trained to shoot by Jellicoe, he just had to go to Scapa Flow to train his squadron at all without a constant U-Boat threat off the Firth of Forth and adjacent North Sea. The QEs meant that Jellicoe had ships suitable to cover for a BCS if it went to Scapa Flow to train. The QM of the 1BCS was actually considered the best gunnery ship in the BCF. The RN margin of superiority in battlecruisers was considerably narrower than in battleships, and thankfully the Renown and Repulse were nearing completion after Jutland. The Australia was obviously absent from Jutland, refitting.
(5) Whatever one thinks of Beatty's personality, and I agree his signalling to Jellicoe was pretty appalling (when did Jellicoe even realise that 2 battlecruisers had been sunk?), he delivered Hipper and Scheer to Jellicoe. The worst nightmare of Scheer, and his only thought was to disengage and flee from the moment he knew he was facing Jellicoe's entire Grand Fleet.
WO
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 20, 2015 8:38:17 GMT -6
WO: Could you elaborate on the Super Dreadnought. I read the RN definition provided by DC, that being the difference from D to SD is a matter of having all the main gun battery mounted on the ship's centerline. According to that all of ours from Michigan/South Carolina onward fit that definition. The Mishigans were dogs, so I suspect there must have been more to the differentiation than a center line main battery
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Apr 20, 2015 8:51:02 GMT -6
Chuck check under “Iron Duke Class” the RN had four in 1913 and these were; Iron Duke Marlborough Benbow Emperor of India If this is no use to you then have a look at this; linkIan.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 20, 2015 9:57:56 GMT -6
The link was helpful Ian, and as I suspected it was more than having the main battery on the ship's centerline. The size of the guns, armor, to some extent increased speed, and overall robustness of design added to the difference.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Apr 20, 2015 15:18:51 GMT -6
I found a web site which has pictures of naval vessels from various countries. Many interesting ships and photos. www.maritimequest.comRegards Dave
|
|
|
Post by Mike Powell on Apr 20, 2015 23:58:50 GMT -6
"super Dreadnaught" appears in Siegfried Breyer's Battleships and Battle Cruisers 1905-1970, German language edition 1970, first published in English 1973. Breyer uses it to characterize the Orion Class due to introduction of the 13.5 inch gun and some 2,500 ton growth in displacement over proceeding 12 inch gun Colossus Class. He also mentions the adoption of all center-line turrets, though his focus seems to be on the increase in calibre and displacement. I do not find the term in use in R A Burt's British Battleships of World War One, published 1986. Burt is considerably more exhaustive on the British ships than Breyer, but than again Breyer covers every nation's vessels. I'd wonder if Breyer may have coined the phrase. His work is the earliest survey I'm aware of. Any one know of an earlier use of the term than 1973?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 21, 2015 8:33:50 GMT -6
Mike: Fahey uses the term in either the 39 or 41 edition of Ships and Aircraft of the U S Fleet, maybe both, but he was referring to North Carolina and beyond. That is what prompted my question to WO, as that was the first US use of the term that I know of.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 21, 2015 9:58:34 GMT -6
No, WO, you lie, clear to anyone who can read English. I was specific and correct. Sleazy for you to imply I've trying to wiggle out by saying "now" as if I'd changed anything. Apparently military types currently of no use to their services get pleasure trying to bully and thug up civvies on this and similar boards. Several examples on this one.
The term SD appeared when all center line main turrets were installed, but it is not just coincident to the use of larger 13.5 inch guns, but mandatory since larger guns could structurally threaten the ship if located on the side and used - as they were in Dreadnought and early classes - as well as being useless half the time in combat with ships still fighting in line of battle.
Since now you claim you know Gordon, you can drench us in your well informed criticism based upon your understanding that has somehow eluded both the RN and the USN. Your duty as a patriot. I'm not going to watch the video again, but I did check out the shortened credits at the end and did not see his name, although he may have been appended later on. Since he was there, you say, would you provide the time location on the tape? I don't know what he looks like, much less "know" him.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Apr 21, 2015 10:52:56 GMT -6
WO, how dare you bully a thug especially a civilian thug! I must have missed it, but if you did, shame on you. Kind of reminds me of the school yard "yes you did, no I didn't, yes you did, na na na."
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 21, 2015 11:04:33 GMT -6
I would think Tom, that insulting one of Her Majesty's commissioned officers by calling him a liar, was somewhat ill advised, especially since the miscreant that did it is a self described coward.
Of course WO, having a forgiving nature will I assume remember that this self described coward, thinks that all truth comes from himself, and that all others lie when they don't agree.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 21, 2015 12:08:37 GMT -6
Did not have a bit of trouble identifying Lieutenant Commander, Doctor Gordon. His charming presence is first seen 59 seconds into the narrative, as part of the introduction. Of course I took the trouble of finding a photograph of him on the internet beforehand. Does ill read include those that do not do their homework before they shoot off their mouth?
Doctor Gordon also appears eighteen additional times during the presentation, starting at 3:45 minutes into the documentary and concluding his last appearance at 56:48.
Yes, I think ill read does include not doing your homework.
Am I lying too Dick? Easy enough for anyone to check.
One would think that a man who so frequently refers to Doctor Gordon over these last six months would at least know what he looks like, or at the very least attempt to find out. It's actually quite easy Dick, just Google Doctor Andrew Gordon, Naval Historian, King's College, London, and his chubby little face appears as if by magic. You stepped on Richard , Dick.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Apr 21, 2015 14:21:15 GMT -6
QC I agree that Dr. Gordon adds to this presentation. He is well educated and more importantly he is able to share this information in a way that adds to the programme's (love the spelling) value. I have enjoyed the back and forth between WO and DC. Both are knowledgeable and willing to share their thoughts. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 21, 2015 15:31:30 GMT -6
I enjoyed the program as well Dave
I enjoyed seeing Texas, with what appears to be a fresh coat of Navy Blue. There is a Daring in the presentation as well. I must remember to ask WO which one it is.
Sharing is not exactly what I would call it. DC pontificates. Others share or attempt to do so. What DC calls bullying and thugery, other, more rational and better read folks call disagreement. Smart man he is but dumb as a box of rocks when it comes to relating with others. His given name fits his personality quite well I think.
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Apr 23, 2015 4:54:25 GMT -6
Did not have a bit of trouble identifying Lieutenant Commander, Doctor Gordon. His charming presence is first seen 59 seconds into the narrative, as part of the introduction. Of course I took the trouble of finding a photograph of him on the internet beforehand. Does ill read include those that do not do their homework before they shoot off their mouth? Doctor Gordon also appears eighteen additional times during the presentation, starting at 3:45 minutes into the documentary and concluding his last appearance at 56:48. Yes, I think ill read does include not doing your homework. Am I lying too Dick? Easy enough for anyone to check. One would think that a man who so frequently refers to Doctor Gordon over these last six months would at least know what he looks like, or at the very least attempt to find out. It's actually quite easy Dick, just Google Doctor Andrew Gordon, Naval Historian, King's College, London, and his chubby little face appears as if by magic. You stepped on Richard , Dick. QC,
I have been called far worse, including by Argentine conscripts being ejected from UK sovereign territory.
Makes you wonder how much of that documentary DC actually watched, if he missed Andrew's numerous interviews....?
WO
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Apr 23, 2015 4:59:29 GMT -6
No, WO, you lie, clear to anyone who can read English. I was specific and correct. Sleazy for you to imply I've trying to wiggle out by saying "now" as if I'd changed anything. Apparently military types currently of no use to their services get pleasure trying to bully and thug up civvies on this and similar boards. Several examples on this one. The term SD appeared when all center line main turrets were installed, but it is not just coincident to the use of larger 13.5 inch guns, but mandatory since larger guns could structurally threaten the ship if located on the side and used - as they were in Dreadnought and early classes - as well as being useless half the time in combat with ships still fighting in line of battle. Since now you claim you know Gordon, you can drench us in your well informed criticism based upon your understanding that has somehow eluded both the RN and the USN. Your duty as a patriot. I'm not going to watch the video again, but I did check out the shortened credits at the end and did not see his name, although he may have been appended later on. Since he was there, you say, would you provide the time location on the tape? I don't know what he looks like, much less "know" him. DC, Dear oh dear....toys out of the pram and then throwing the pram itself at Mom.....
Nothing to stop any naval architect placing higher calibre guns to port or starboard, but it has unfortunate consequences in relation to the action that must be taken to increase the size of other aspects of the vessel.
WO
|
|