Alternate warships of nations

German battlecruisers were better designed than their British counterparts. However, those British BCs were lost because of poor safety procedures, not necessarily because they had weak armor protection.
I dont really think they were "better" for a given definition of better. Each had strengths and weaknesses, and a major weakness of the British battlecruisers happened to be who commanded them and his incompetent signals officer. Agree on the second bit though, a few extra rounds here and there really wasnt worth the exchange of turning your shiny new battlecruiser into the worlds most expensive firecracker.

Trying to remember where I read, or heard it, but I recall seeing that at Jutland no shot managed to penetrate more than like six inches of armor. Presumably this was due to a number of factors if true, which I cant recall off the top of my head where exactly every BB and BC took their hits and what the armor thickness at the location was obviously. But if it is true then it shows that the earlier British ships were not as badly protected as some like to claim.

Of course there are probably several factors at play here which might be hard to replicate every time if that snipped of mental clutter is true, such as the relative lack of involvement of the German battleships in the battle, the angle of belt relative to shot trajectory, angle of fire entirely, aim of the firing vessel, and a million other variables.
 
One final look at Texas, now fully drydocked and on the stocks.

Never ceases to amaze we have a battleship this old, still out there, all 27,000 tons of dreadnought badness, that you can go up and touch. (Though I would advise waiting until she opens back up to the public next year. Dockyard security might not appreciate it.)

y0p1lbpvk6l91.jpg
 
Trying to remember where I read, or heard it, but I recall seeing that at Jutland no shot managed to penetrate more than like six inches of armor. Presumably this was due to a number of factors if true, which I cant recall off the top of my head where exactly every BB and BC took their hits and what the armor thickness at the location was obviously. But if it is true then it shows that the earlier British ships were not as badly protected as some like to claim.

Maybe not as bad, but certainly not as good as the Germans.
 
One final look at Texas, now fully drydocked and on the stocks.

Never ceases to amaze we have a battleship this old, still out there, all 27,000 tons of dreadnought badness, that you can go up and touch. (Though I would advise waiting until she opens back up to the public next year. Dockyard security might not appreciate it.)

y0p1lbpvk6l91.jpg
Shame it's not Warspite in Portsmouth. If ever a ship earned an honourable retirement it's Warspite.
 
Maybe not as bad, but certainly not as good as the Germans.
Oh certainly the German ships were better armored, just saying that if my likely half remembered and mixed with something else factoid is true then those that walk around saying the British battlecruisers were tin cans which were mincemeat to the Germans and proof of how crap British warship design is have one less line to use when they are challenged.
 
Shame it's not Warspite in Portsmouth. If ever a ship earned an honourable retirement it's Warspite.
Knowing HM government though its likely that if Warspite would have been saved they would have scrapped every other ship of historic importance in the UK as a "cost saving measure". Not like the UK doesnt have lots of other really cool and unique museum ships at least.

I actually wonder if Texas being the only extant Dreadnought has made preservation easier. Its probably better to go around asking for money to keep your totally unique ship afloat than it is to get money to keep your one of two unique warships afloat. Though saying that the US has so many museum battleships, and its been said that competing with those other ship for funds has proven difficult at times.
 
Oh certainly the German ships were better armored, just saying that if my likely half remembered and mixed with something else factoid is true then those that walk around saying the British battlecruisers were tin cans which were mincemeat to the Germans and proof of how crap British warship design is have one less line to use when they are challenged.
The German ships were designed for fairly short periods at sea in either the North Sea or Baltic with the crews living ashore in barracks when they were in port. British ships were expected to be able to cross oceans and the crews lived on them full time. Because of this more attention had to be paid to habitability on British ships than their German opponents.
 
Shame it's not Warspite in Portsmouth. If ever a ship earned an honourable retirement it's Warspite.

I know. I know. That one hurts.

I understand why it wasn't possible, but if there was just one capital ship from the 20th century that the UK could have saved as a museum ship, that's who it should have been.
 
Though saying that the US has so many museum battleships, and its been said that competing with those other ship for funds has proven difficult at times.

Yeah. Given just how MANY U.S. capital ships (9 battleships, 5 fleet aircraft carriers) have now been given the museum treatment, I fear Texas's unique history is lost in the wash at this point. Texas's severe struggles to get funding to save the ship seem to be proof of that.

I know Ryan Szymanski has expressed this concern about "museum ship saturation" on some occasions of late. There's probably a finite pool of donor dollars and visitors for these ships; the more ships they are spread across, particularly within particular regions and localities, the risk is there that there just isn't enough to keep them all afloat.
 
One final look at Texas, now fully drydocked and on the stocks.

Never ceases to amaze we have a battleship this old, still out there, all 27,000 tons of dreadnought badness, that you can go up and touch. (Though I would advise waiting until she opens back up to the public next year. Dockyard security might not appreciate it.)

y0p1lbpvk6l91.jpg
It’s so surreal to see a picture like that of a battleship in drydock in color and good quality after looking at pictures from the 40s and earlier for all of my life.
 
The German ships were designed for fairly short periods at sea in either the North Sea or Baltic with the crews living ashore in barracks when they were in port. British ships were expected to be able to cross oceans and the crews lived on them full time. Because of this more attention had to be paid to habitability on British ships than their German opponents.

It's a fair point.

Still, it's just as well how dramatic the adjustments were in RN battlecruiser design were after Jutland. With Hood, the shift to the fast battleship was well underway.
 
Yeah. Given just how MANY U.S. capital ships (9 battleships, 5 fleet aircraft carriers) have now been given the museum treatment, I fear Texas's unique history is lost in the wash at this point. Texas's severe struggles to get funding to save the ship seem to be proof of that.

I know Ryan Szymanski has expressed this concern about "museum ship saturation" on some occasions of late. There's probably a finite pool of donor dollars and visitors for these ships; the more ships they are spread across, particularly within particular regions and localities, the risk is there that there just isn't enough to keep them all afloat.
Last I heard Olympia wasn't in good condition either due to lack of funding though I don't really keep up on museum ship news all that much.
 
I dont really think they were "better" for a given definition of better. Each had strengths and weaknesses, and a major weakness of the British battlecruisers happened to be who commanded them and his incompetent signals officer. Agree on the second bit though, a few extra rounds here and there really wasnt worth the exchange of turning your shiny new battlecruiser into the worlds most expensive firecracker.

Trying to remember where I read, or heard it, but I recall seeing that at Jutland no shot managed to penetrate more than like six inches of armor. Presumably this was due to a number of factors if true, which I cant recall off the top of my head where exactly every BB and BC took their hits and what the armor thickness at the location was obviously. But if it is true then it shows that the earlier British ships were not as badly protected as some like to claim.

Of course there are probably several factors at play here which might be hard to replicate every time if that snipped of mental clutter is true, such as the relative lack of involvement of the German battleships in the battle, the angle of belt relative to shot trajectory, angle of fire entirely, aim of the firing vessel, and a million other variables.
I'm defining better designed in that they were more survivable. Their armor was a little thicker, and maybe better, and underwater compartmentalization was much better. I must admit I've always wondered how the Lexington Class BCs would've held up in a surface action. The problem was even by the 1930's their intended role as fast scouts for the fleet was already outdated. However, with their long hulls, and great speed they could have been rebuilt with powerful AA batteries, thicker armor, and would've made great fast escorts for purpose-built carriers.
 
From what I've read they would have been real death traps, which as they were designed after Jutland is inexcusable.
its worse in that the USN knew this especially after Hood entered service but didn't want to spend a year or so doing a redesign. Still assuming they had been built as battlecruisers modern engine tech would have enabled one hell of a modernization in the late 30s including a lot of up armoring
 
Top