Model Boat Mayhem
The Shipyard ( Dry Dock ): Builds & Questions => Navy - Military - Battleships: => Topic started by: raflaunches on March 22, 2016, 11:50:38 pm
-
Whilst I wile away the hours sitting in the Guard Room as Orderly Cpl I've been reading quite a few books- got through 6 in four days (some of them were Sci-fi books such 2001 A Space Odessey Series) but my recent one is called 'The Rules of the Game' by Andrew Gordon. Its an indepth book about Jutland and the British Naval Command, at the moment I'm about 1/4 through it but so much more information is given compared to the other book I've read about the battle (Capt D McIntyre, VE Tarrant, etc). I'm very impressed at the detail and the arguements for each of the important decisions made by Beatty and Jellicoe. From what I've gathered so far which breaks some of the myths of the battle is that some of the bad decisions made by the Battlecruiser force was due to Beatty's Flag Lieut (or signals officer) who didn't have the correct training (or qualifications) to be that role. However because he was friends with Beatty he retained his position and it wasn't until after the war that Beatty actually agreed with all the other Admirals that his Flag Lieut probably 'lost' three battles that the Royal Navy should have won due to bad signalling.
I'm currently at the important '16 point turn' of the 5th BS (QE Battleships) following the destruction of Indefatigable and Queen Mary.
There are a lot of good books coming soon about the battle, ones I'm looking forward to are:
Jutland: The Unfinished Battle by Nicholas Jellicoe (Admiral Jellicoe's Grandson)
Jutland 1916: The Archaeologly of a Naval Battlefield by Innes McCartney (the diver who found them)
Just thought I'd share whilst reading it.
-
Hi Nick
I spotted that one in the bookshop the other day - sounds like a good one!
A few years ago I read 'Castles of Steel' which is an account of the war at sea 1914-1918, some great details about the personalities involved. Also gave me an idea for a new build which would be HMS Glasgow, if I can find some time!
On the subject of good books for the Guard Room - I recently finished Admiral Sandy Woodward's book on the Falklands '100 days' which was brilliant.
James
-
The archaeology book sounds good. There is quite a bit of stuff and lots of photos on the internet about the wrecks as they are today. Just Google Jutland Wrecks.
HMS Defence is interesting, contemporary accounts stated that the ship disappeared in a huge explosion that blew her to pieces but in fact she is still surprisingly intact although the bow, and I think the stern have been blown off.
The stern turret of Invincible is still trained over the beam with the guns in place but the roof is missing which would appear to confirm the explosion shown in the after part of the ship in the photo of her sinking.
Colin
-
Hi Nick
I spotted that one in the bookshop the other day - sounds like a good one!
A few years ago I read 'Castles of Steel' which is an account of the war at sea 1914-1918, some great details about the personalities involved. Also gave me an idea for a new build which would be HMS Glasgow, if I can find some time!
On the subject of good books for the Guard Room - I recently finished Admiral Sandy Woodward's book on the Falklands '100 days' which was brilliant.
James
Glad to of been some help. I read Castles of Steel many years ago- ironically whilst on guard again!- and thoroughly enjoyed it, especially the Cuxhaven Raid.
Hi Colin
I'm kind of hoping that the new book has some new pictures in them of the wrecks and the ships, I've watched his DVDs of Jutland Wrecks available from navybooks.com and I was amazed by the Defence wreck too considering the account from the time too. Just hoping that they are not all fuzzy, grainy photos from ten or twenty years ago.
-
My Mother received a copy of Jutland the Unfinished Battle book this week from Nick Jellicoe with a personnal dedication to my late father Ron Horabin for his help and kind donation of his model of the Iron Duke to the Jellicoe family. The model is currently on display at the Sea War Museum in Denmark.
-
If the Lieutenant was a family member then Beatty's loyalty I can understand, but surely as a vastly seniour officer, Beatty could have sacked the daft biffer and held his reputation intact?
Maybe fate made it so, so that we could not lose the war in an afternoon?
-
My Mother received a copy of Jutland the Unfinished Battle book this week from Nick Jellicoe with a personnal dedication to my late father Ron Horabin for his help and kind donation of his model of the Iron Duke to the Jellicoe family. The model is currently on display at the Sea War Museum in Denmark.
I remember reading about your father and his model of Iron Duke but I can't remember where. I seem to remember a chap (presumably your Father) showing his model to Nick Jellicoe possibly in a magazine a few years ago? Not sure but rings a bell.
Stunning model and Nick Jellicoe looked very impressed with her.
-
If the Lieutenant was a family member then Beatty's loyalty I can understand, but surely as a vastly seniour officer, Beatty could have sacked the daft biffer and held his reputation intact?
Maybe fate made it so, so that we could not lose the war in an afternoon?
As far as I'm aware Lt Seymour was no relation to Beatty. The books suggests that the Battlecruiser Fleet were considered to be 'the cool kids' of the fleet and the grand fleet despised them for their behaviour. Many admirals including Hood, said that the 5BS shouldn't have lent to Beatty in lieu for the 3BCS because they all believed that with all that power would have gone to his head and he would fight the entire German fleet by himself, which was later proved he did.
-
I believe Seymour was courting Beatty's niece. Lady Beatty took exception to this and Seymour became persona non grata with the Beatty family to the extent that he suffered a nervous breakdown and committed suicide as a result of falling out of favour. Very tragic really. Beatty's behaviour after the war in attempting to change the official Jutland records to show him in a better light was reprehensible yet he apparently did a good job in representing Britain's interests in the post war negotiations which culminated in the Washington Treaty. When Jellicoe died Beatty insisted on being a pallbearer at his funeral despite being in poor health. He himself died only shortly afterwards.
The characters of the Jutland admirals make for an interesting study and comparisons. The apparently dashing Beatty had a wretched domestic life with his half mad wife taking a succession of lovers to which he had to turn a blind eye. It is interesting to surmise to what extent his personal tribulations had upon his professional career.
Just as in WW2 Admiral Sir Dudley Pound was subject to a terminal brain tumour during a critical period. And of course, at the battle of Waterloo, Napoleon was suffering from an acute attack of piles... On such personal weaknesses does history depend.
Colin
-
Here is a picture of my Dad and Nick in the London offices of Cayzer Marine with the Iron Duke in the background. The second is the Iron Duke in its natural environment.
-
Found this in the April edition of Sea Breezes ,The Jutland Scandal by Vice Admiral John Harper and Reginald Bacon ,price £30.00 .
I am not into thing navy so I do not know if it's a good read or not . It might be of interest to some .
David
-
I also find this period of history fascinating, particularly Jutland albeit i think there are too many "scandal" books about Jutland. Fundamentally the scandal was really that in they eyes of the public another smashing victory like Trafalgar was not achieved but the reality is that such victories were very rare and given the technology of the day probably impossible to achieve unless the weaker fleet decides to stay put and be smashed. when you have two fleets of equal speed how do you stop one just running for home?
Cheers
Geoff
-
Here is a picture of my Dad and Nick in the London offices of Cayzer Marine with the Iron Duke in the background. The second is the Iron Duke in its natural environment.
That's the picture I remember, I think it was in Britain at War magazine.
I've heard many sides of the Jutland story and I've come to this conclusion:
The German High Seas Fleet lost the battle as they retreated from the battlefield (a victor must retain or gain control of the battle site- the Germans certainly didn't). The damage to the surviving warships was so extreme that it perhaps would have been better if they had been sunk. The repair work took months if not years in some cases, the German Navy even erected a massive wall around the dockyards to prevent the German public seeing the battered ships.
The British Royal Navy won the battle but should have a better win, the public expected it as did the Navy, it was a complete mess with communications and lessons that should have been learnt from previous battles had not been incorporated in to reality.
-
I bought Nicholas Jellicoe's book on Friday and am half way through it. It is a good general book about the battle and the events leading up to it so far but I have not yet found anything new and most of the personal quotes from participants in the battle are those which have appeared many times previously. There are a few statements n it that I think may not be accurate but I have not got around to checking them against other sources.
It is probably a good read for people who are not familiar with the detail of the battle and are prepared to get stuck into it for a better understanding than is given in the usual brief articles on the subject.
Colin
-
Campbell -Analysis of the fighting at Jutland is also a pretty good read but rather more specific as it notes every known hit on every ship of both sides with some diagrams of the damage.
There is another book "The fighting at Jutland" if I recall correctly which was written in about 1921 and is personal descriptions of both sailors and officers of the events. Its a whole collection of personal narratives with background detail and it makes for quite interesting reading as all the participants are now long gone.
Cheers
Geoff
-
Not sure if it hs already been mentioned but here is the animation which complements Nick Jellicoe's book.
http://www.jutland1916.com/understanding-the-battle/
Well worth a look.
Colin
-
I am currently reading Nick Jellicoe's book too, a gift from the first print run sent to my mother by Nick with a hand written personal dedication to my Father Ron Horabin for his kind donation to the Jellicoe family of his model of the Iron Duke. Not knowning much about the battle details I have found the book and interesting and informative read. The animation on the website was also and intresting watch showing how the two sides fought each other. I have also been invited, by Nick, along with my mother to the Centenary Wreath laying Ceremony in the Crypt of St. Pauls Cathedral were John Jellicoe and David Beatty lay in rest next Monday 23rd May.
-
Jutland: WWI's Greatest Sea Battle
Channel 4 (UK) Sat May 21, 8:00pm
Thousands of British sailors died in the Battle of Jutland. It has been plagued by controversy ever since. Secret History joins a landmark expedition to uncover the truth about the battle.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/jutland-wwis-greatest-sea-battle
-
I found the programme rather disappointing. It was always going to be ambitious to try and describe the complexities of Jutland and its aftermath in 50 minutes of TV time but I guess they wouldn’t have been given a longer slot or two instalments. The result was to dumb down the story, missing out many important bits and telescoping the chronology which resulted in a rather inaccurate summary for viewers not familiar with the battle. They were also keen to produce ‘new evidence’ with a bearing on the battle which they didn’t do. It was interesting that the stern of Indefatigable was found some 500 meters from the rest of the wreck showing that the after part of the ship had been blown off but this is not inconsistent with accounts at the time which described an explosion near X turret followed by the ship rapidly sinking by the stern before further explosions forward; and indeed the famous photo of the sinking shows the bows rearing up with a smoke cloud some distance astern which presumably resulted from X turret magazine blowing up and which marks the spot where the stern section sank.
The description of the Indefatigable wreck looking like a wrecked village and demonstrating the force of the explosions by the craters all round it rather ignores the fact that the ship was actually blown to pieces after the war by marine salvors looking for precious metals and that this largely accounts for the present condition of the wreck.
The sonar scan of HMS Defence was fascinating, showing the bow and stern blown off by magazine explosions but the middle part of the ship generally intact with the 7.5 inch gun turrets still trained on the beam. (many of the turret roofs were blown off apparently) At the time, the ship was thought to have disintegrated as it went down so fast but that was not the case. It seems likely that when the amidships magazines went up the sides and/or bottom of the ship were blown out resulting in the rapid sinking. Reports of the Queen Mary sinking indicate that the side plating was blown away from the frames when the X turret magazine exploded. A similar thing happened with the USS Arizona at Pearl Harbour where the sides of the ship were blown out and B turret and the forward superstructure collapsed into the hole. It appears that if there is an explosion below decks then the armoured deck will contain the explosion to some degree and the pressure wave then passes through the ship blowing away plating, demolishing light internal structures and setting off other magazines. It is believed that this is what happened in the case of HMS Hood.
I have now read Nicholas Jellicoe’s book on Jutland and it is very good. He claims to be neither a historian or an author but has produced a very even handed and well written account drawing on all the major known sources on the battle (see bibliography). There are a few minor inconsistencies that I noticed but not many and none of significance. Some people might find it a bit heavy going but Jutland was a very complex event with a long drawn out aftermath and Nick’s book does an excellent job of making it accessible. I don’t think there is anything really new in it, after all this time it is unlikely that any major new facts will come to light but of course the arguments surrounding who did what and why and all the ‘what ifs’ will probably continue forever!
Colin
-
I too found the programme a bit uneven. I don't have much knowledge of the battle but having apparently scanned 4 or 5 ships and come to conclusions about Jellicoe and Beatty it was mentioned in passing at the end that 20 odd shops had been sunk. Well that suggests a lot more action than was mentioned, even briefly, so I'm inclined to take the programme's findings with a pinch of salt for now.
-
Actually I seem to recall I did see this and the main revelation appeared to be some new charts dated from 1916 which showed the course of the battle very accurately (for the time) and that Beatty did indeed loose sight of the Germans which is something Beatty always denied and indeed the official records had clearly been amended! Still no real major surprises.
Personally I think a review of the battle needs to be split into two categories, the strategic issues and how the fleets were actually handled and managed and then the losses. What is glossed over is that Scheer blundered back into the British battle line a second time in his attempts to escape home. If a British admiral had done this there would have been a public outcry of incompetence but somehow this is all rather ignored.
In terms of gunnery Hipper defeated Beatty but Beatty strategically defeated Hipper by forcing his ships back onto the High Seas Fleet such that Scheer never knew Jellico was in the field (water!) until the whole horizon erupted in gunfire.
Jutland was never intended by the Germans. they sought to trap a small portion of the Grand Fleet and destroy it with overwhelming numbers to even things up. When they "caught" Beatty and the fifth battle squadron they thought they had done it until the appalling shock of Jellico and the entire Grand Fleet appeared!!
-
I was reading (parts) of the Wikipedia article earlier today. It made me realize (again) how wonderful hindsight is. The difficulties of knowing what was happening, who was where, and then signalling commands and actioning them were huge. No radar, limited and dodgy radio, ...
It seems quite hard to actually blame anyone for what happened, good or bad, except the idiots that start these wars in the first place of course.
-
On Monday 23rd May 2016 I, along with my partner Mo and my Mum attended the Centenary of the Battle of Jutland organised by the Nick Jellicoe, Grandson of John Jellicoe. The day started with decendants of Jellicoe, Beatty, Scheer and Hipper meeting in the crypt of St. Paul's Catherdral, London by the tombs of Admiral Jellicoe and Admiral Beatty. A short service was performed by The Reverand Canon Phillippa Boardman with a reading from Nick Jellicoe, after which wreaths were laid on each of the tombs by the elder members of each family.
All the members of the gathering where then taken to the Army and Navy Club a short walk from Trafalgar Square for buffet lunch where Nick gave a short talk about the past few years organising the event and all the various family members he had met. He also mentioned the model of the Iron Duke and how pleased he was to have received the model from my Dad, Ron, but saddened that he was no longer with us to attend this event.
To finish the afternoon off everyone walked to Trafalgar Square to attend a second wreath-laying ceremony below the two bronze busts of Admiral Jellicoe and Admiral Beatty. A number of readings were given by the younger descendants of the two before they laid the wreaths below each bust. It was a very enjoyable day and we were all proud to be part of it.
-
I visited the Jutland Exhibition at Portsmouth today and enjoyed it very much. It is situated in the old Mary Rose Museum building and is a collaboration between the National Museum of the Royal Navy and the Imperial War Museum.
There are several types of exhibits. The events up to and during the battle are displayed on large illustrated storyboards as you pass around the exhibition. There are also a number of vivid original paintings depicting various stages of the battle. Several immersive video spaces recreate what it might have been like, the night action with the doomed armoured cruiser Black Prince aflame from end to end being particularly effective. A good number of models are featured, many from the IWM collection and these include a huge restored builder’s model of HMS Canada and a smaller superbly detailed model of the German battlecruiser Lutzow which was sunk during the battle.
However the most interesting items are relics from the ships engaged including smoke blackened battle ensigns, a section of plating from HMS Barham with a shell hole in it, ships bells from HMS Tiger and HMS Inflexible together with many smaller items such as fragments of exploded German shells found aboard British ships and personal possessions such as a telescope which has been dented by a shell fragment.
Perhaps most evocative however, and holding pride of place near the exit, is a relic which was not at Jutland – the recovered bell from HMS Hood which bears a memorial inscription from Lady Hood, wife of Admiral Horace Hood who went down with HMS Invincible at Jutland, and who launched HMS Hood in 1918. The bell was unveiled by Princess Anne two days ago and presented to the Naval Museum. That really was something to see.
So, an exhibition well worth visiting. I bought the commemorative mug but passed on the T shirt before having a look around the rest of the dockyard where I found HMS Bulwark in port – an unusual visitor as the ship is usually based at Plymouth.
There is another Jutland TV programme on BBC2 this coming Sunday.
Colin
-
Explanation for HMS Bulwark being in Portsmouth here:
http://navaltoday.com/2016/05/26/hms-bulwark-visits-portsmouth-ahead-of-battle-of-jutland-commemoration/
Colin
-
Another program about Jutland on BBC 2: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07dps1x
-
I have received some photo's of the Iron Duke on display at the Deutsches Marinemuseum in Wilhelmshaven from Nick Jellicoe. She will be part of the Skagerrak. Battle without winners - Jutland exhibition which opened at 14:30 yesterday afternoon (29th May.)
-
Last night's programme on Jutland was better than the earlier one although the 'experiment' with flooding the model of a hull of HMS Queen Mary was rather pointless and a waste of time, also misleading as to what constituted 'subdivision' in a warship hull - it isn't just transverse bulkheads. Otherwise what was presented was fairly accurate although a lot was left out.
Again nothing new about the battle emerged but the simulation of a hit in the gunhouse igniting ready use cordite which then spread to the main magazine was pretty impressive. It did demonstrate very graphically how the armour protection could be very dangerous in confining an internal fire or explosion so that the pressure built up and ruptured the structure. That is why they build fireworks and explosives factories with thick walls and thin roofs to vent accidental explosions. It was probably because a large part of Q turret roof was already missing that HMS Lion didn't break apart when the cordite in the turret trunk caught fire a while after the hit that disabled the turret.
What all these programmes demonstrate is that you simply cannot do justice to a complex event like the Battle of Jutland in a one hour TV slot.
Colin
-
^ For sure.
TV's strength is (duh!) portraying visual feeling - the cramped labyrinth of USS Texas, the sonar images of the Jutland wrecks, the demonstration of enclosed cordite fires: all came across well.
Its failure, as always, is the pitch to the target audience. I suppose if you knew nothing about the battle, you'd come away somewhat educated. If, however, you'd bothered to read a book or even the Wiki article on Jutland you'd be left vaguely unsatisfied.
It's always the way.
I think to most people The Great War will always be defined by the Western Front: no doubt TV's 'big push' (i.e. where the money will have been spent) will be more focussed on the Somme this July.
Andy
-
Slightly off topic but I have just re read Martin Middlebrook's book 'The First Day on the Somme'. Originally published in 1971 it is absolutely gripping, especially if you have visited the area.
Colin
-
Magazines were designed to vent because the relatively slow pressure build up of a cordite fire should have given time for the pressure to be released and avoid a catastrophic explosion. The flame was intended to vent along the outside of the internal turret trunking. The trouble is that vent pieces create weak points in the magazine protection. A lot of work was done with vent testing before WW1 and after WW1 and it was determined that venting created unacceptable paths for flash to get into a magazine so it was abandoned. Only heavy armour can protect a magazine.
The unanswered question re the Jutland explosions was why did the cordite explode when it was only designed to burn. There were impurities in the cordite which made it more unstable as it aged so it "flashed over" and exploded when in quantity rather than just burn. This was another reason for the loss of the Battlecruisers though the prime reason was negligent handling of the cordite charges and stowage in exposed positions effectively laying a fuse to the magazines together with removing flash precautions to speed up the rate of fire.
As commented above Jutland was a very complex battle in bad visibility which does not come across well when showing diagrams etc.
-
Well I've just finished watching all the Jutland documentaries over the different channels and I still believe that the best one was the Clash of Dreadnoughts which aired in 2003. However I thought the little advertised documentary about HMS Caroline presented by Dick Strawbridge and son was an example of programmes I'd want to see more of.
For those who didn't see it originally like me it's available on the BBC iplayer and is titled:
Belfast's forgotten hero- HMS Caroline
Whilst it didn't concentrate on the naval engagement it did give a stunning insight of the restoration of the ship and the things they find on board from 100 years ago.
-
I visit N Ireland quite a lot as we have family there. First time I saw HMS Caroline I was surprised to know it was there, tucked behind what is now the Titanic quarter, afloat and with a block of offices on its deck as it was still a commissioned warship then. I was glad to know they are setting about restoring her, the last ship existing from the battle of Jutland. Small guns and no armour. Crazy?
Lots of video clips of her, and the start of restoration, on YouTube.
-
I have just bought the recently published book on the Jutland wrecks by Innes McCartney https://www.amazon.co.uk/Jutland-1916-Innes-McCartney/dp/1844864162 It isn't cheap at £27 but it does go very thoroughly into the current condition of the wrecks and attempts to reconcile what is now on the seabed with contemporary eyewitness accounts. If you like that sort of thing is is absolutely fascinating and has sobering descriptions of the physical effects caused by a magazine explosion in a large warship. Structures are not so much blown up as blown apart with incredible violence. It seems unlikely that most of the crews would have known much about it.
This book does add something new and worthwhile to the Jutland story.
Colin
-
I read this book on holiday a few weeks ago and I thoroughly agree with Colin that the book is worth a read, if not just for under water imagery of the wrecks. Its amazing how they manage to identify even the smallest of destroyers using the new under water sonar imagery.
-
Just had an interesting chat on Facebook with someone who provided some excellent literature on the subject of Jutland, just a shame that his arrogant nature spoilt it at times as he was being very pedantic when I said that cordite was being stored in the passageways/handling rooms/turrets to which I was told no they only put extra cordite in these areas when in action… in my opinion it equates the same thing- cordite was being kept in a place that it shouldn’t have been! Needless to say the rest of the conversation was interesting when he wasn’t being a bit arrogant.
http://www.worldwar1.co.uk/grant.htm?fbclid=IwAR140pvi9gcEyhyBLjNjQW1jwWwvNIJ9-2EFopMuA_AwAyCTIIsYkb5mK58 (http://www.worldwar1.co.uk/grant.htm?fbclid=IwAR140pvi9gcEyhyBLjNjQW1jwWwvNIJ9-2EFopMuA_AwAyCTIIsYkb5mK58)
-
That is fascinating Nick. I have a dozen books at least about Jutland and Grant is credited with saving Lion from blowing up like the other Battlecruisers.
I have downloaded the article and will print it out for reading and putting with my other Jutland material.
As you know, there was a huge amount of politics surrounding the reasons for the loss of Indefagitable, Princess Royal and Invincible. This gives a real insight into the realities.
Thanks for the reference.
Colin
-
Colin
Glad to share it- it was the fantastic article he shared but the way he discussed the subject with me was on the verge of arrogance that if I didn’t agree with him I was wrong! Just managed to to find out that he objected to my reference to storage as he thought I was referring to the myth that the ships were overloaded with extra cordite when I was talking about the passageways, etc having cordite being stockpiled in these areas to reduce the time loading the guns. Now I know what he was finding offence at we are getting along!
-
It wasn't just the battlecruisers where cordite and other ammunition was stored in vulnerable positions. The practice seems to have been quite widespread in the Grand Fleet to facilitate maintaining rate of fire.
The descriptions of the loss of HMS Defence and subsequent scrutiny of the wreck support the view that detonation of the fore and aft magazines of the 9.2 inch guns spread rapidly through the ammunition passages serving the beam 7.5 inch turrets setting off ready use charges and blowing many of their roofs off in the process.
The position of the wreck in an upright state seems to suggest that the bottom was blown out of the ship which would account for her observed sudden disappearance. It was assumed she had been blown to pieces but in fact the bow and stern had been effectively blown off with the detonation of the 9.2 inch magazines and the mid body of the ship had sunk vertically to the seabed. One hardly likes to imagine the fate of the crew inside her.
Colin
-
Apologies for a diversion from Jutland but may I recommend this! :-))
-
My Gran's Brother was a Gunlayer on HMS Defence. RIP Uncle Joe.
Ned.
-
I read some years ago, that just prior to the WW1, that Jellico was employed in assessing the naval guns and ammunition range and effectiveness. Perhaps knowing the limitations of the guns including accuracy may have had an impact on his decisions in using the fleet, plus as some else has mentioned, radio use for reporting enemy positions was not fully utilised and the CinC was at times not fully informed as to where they were during the battle. But as Churchill stated he was the only man who could have lost the war in half an hour. But it is mentioned that Beatty started a whispering campaign soon afterwards to remove Jellico and take over as CinC. But like all battles since time immemorial, there will always be discussions and arguments about it, just it was the first of a modern Naval battle fought for the first time, with no previous experience commanded by men taught on old ironclads and Victorian warships.
-
A writer on a Facebook group has being doing his studies on accuracy and armour capabilities of both sides in WW1 and this is his findings: very interesting reading:
The Armour protection of British Battle Cruisers.
There are several factor that one needs to bear in mind when looking at the Armour of British and German Battlecruisers, and the issue and subject is not as easy, or as simple as Thick Armour Good, Thin Armour Bad. And British Battlecruisers were most certainly not the weakly armoured warships just waiting to explode.
First up is the design philosophy of British battlecruisers. They were designed around the notion of the Big Gun and Salvo firing under Director Control. The idea being that the British ships would carry a bigger gun that fired a heavier shell and carried further than any potential opponent. This was initially true when Invincible was launched, her 12" guns totally outclassed the 8", 9" and 10" guns of other nations Armoured Cruisers.
And even when the Germans replied with Von der Tann, the range advantage and weight of shell was still in favour of the British ship.
And its here that Ballistics play their part. The British tended to favour a gun that fired a heavy shell at a "low" velocity, using the weight of the shell to smash through armour.
The Germans preferred a gun that fired a light shell at a "high" velocity, using the speed of the shell to punch through anything it hit.
The trade off was that for the Germans the effective range of their guns (the range at which they would penetrate British Armour) was lesser than that of the British Guns. The lighter German shell looses velocity quicker and so also looses its ability to penetrate Armour quicker than the heavier British Shell.
Added to this that British Armour Plate, inch for inch was of better quality than that fitted to any other nations warship.
The British guns had a longer reach and with Director Control could hit further out that any other nations warship, added to that that British Battlecruisers tended to have a speed advantage over their adversaries in practical conditions a British battlecruiser could choose to fight at a range at which their guns carried and the guns of their Opponent didn't.
The Empirical evidence from the actions of the Great War show this quite starkly. Over the course of Jutland and Dogger Bank for example (and taking into account estimations for the various Battlecruisers sunk in action) the Germans were able to penetrate British 13" Armour once at a range of 10'500 yards (a hit on Warspite); British 9" Armour five times (Lion once, Princess Royal once, Queen Mary three times); British 7" plate three times; 6" plate seven or eight times.
In addition to this information it should be borne in mind that the maximum range at which British 9" plate was penetrated was 14'600 yards (the hit on Lion at 4pm), meanwhile British 12" shells were penetrating German 11" armour at 17'500 yards; British 13.5" shells were penetrating German 10" armour at nearly 19'000 yards, and German 9" Armour at nearly 20'000 yards.
Dogger Bank is another perfect example. The British battlecruisers had free reign to open fire at will on the German Battlecruisers and the Germans were unable to reply for 15 minutes because the British ships were out of range, even for Derfflinger with her 12" guns!
Also worth bearing in mind that the Dogger Bank action settled into an action fought at around 18'000 yards. Lion was able to penetrate Seydlitz's 1" upper armoured deck and penetrate the 9" Barbette of C turret at around 18'000 yards, where as a 12" hit on Lions main belt failed to penetrate her 9" armour, but did displace the Plate slightly. An issue that was rectified with extra support built in behind the Armoured Belt.
The Legend that British Battlecruisers had indifferent armour started with Jellicoe and Beatty and sadly does not hold form once its put under the microscope.
-
Bad craftsmen blame their tools!
-
Hi Nick, yes the British battle cruisers were well built and the DNC at the time was upset as he said they should have survived the hits they sustained, but as I mentioned some time ago these ships along with the armoured cruisers had their ammo stores increased by 50%, which posed no problem with shell storage but gave immense problems with the cordite storage(which is what would usually blow a ship apart if ignited due to very rapid expanse of gas), they had cordite bags stored in several places out side of the mag and their anti flash doors to the mags were clipped open. On the armoured cruisers there is stories of corrdite stowed on deck which would explain the witness reports of massive flash and smoke then clear water. As to accuracy the average hit rate for British ships was 4.7% and the Germans 5.4%. Also the the first dreadnoughts were not fitted with central gun control, they were fitted when Churchill was first sea lord and then he had to fight the DNC as he thought they spoilt the looks of his designs. The vessels fitted after build with the gunnery control had them fitted to the main mast, which meant after a day or more on exercises the gunnery officer could not descend down the ladders inside the mast tube because of the extreme heat from funnel exhaust, so it was not uncommon for food and drink being sent up by rope halliards. The latter ships had them fitted into the foremast, wonder why. But upto and including time of Dreadnought build, Admirals when they did Ship inspections were only interested in paintwork, polished brass and seamanship drills, gunnery drills and accuracy never entered their brains, even one captain had canvass tubes fitted to the end of his gun barrels to reduce soot getting on his ship.
-
Hi Nick, been thinking about what you have said. One major reason why the Germans were so hard to sink, is that they were designed to fight in the North Sea, consequently their crews lived ashore in barracks only going to sea for very short periods, so their hulls were very much more compartmented. Where else our vessels were designed to go world wide and the crews lived aboard, so to make them habitable the ships had less and larger compartments.
-
Quite right Dodes plus the German ships were wider and the anti torpedo protection had greater depth. They were tough ships. Quite a few of the High Seas Fleet were lucky to make it back to port after Jutland and spent months under repair unlike their British opponents. However after WW1 the design of Bismarck was strongly infuenced by the WW1 Bayern design and it was outdated by WW2. In particular a lot of the vital communication and control links were above the armoured deck and were quickly destroyed in her final action. The separate Primary, Seondary and Tertiarry armament compared badly with the RN and US ships which had dual purpose secondary armament.
Bismarck was a very flawed design despite her impressive appearance and only her size helped her resistance in her final battle.
Colin
-
The question of fire control in ww1 is actually very complex. In general there was a battle between independent fire and director fire. In the well publicised contest with two ships one with director and the other without the director won hands down. However in the real world it was not so easy. Which was best, independent fire or director fire, the answer is yes but it depends on the specific application.
Director has the advantage at longer ranges (which were only just coming in) and in poor weather but and its a big but, the rate of fire was less as they had to wait until the ship rolled onto the target to fire.
Independent fire was faster at shorter ranges and did not have to wait until the ship rolled onto the target or for a slower turret to compete loading because individual turrets could practice continuous aim and fire when ready.
So both methods had their advantages. The real question as to why it took a while to go for directors was the complexities of construction was significant as was the development of associated instruments, for example tilt correctors. With the technology of the day it was very hard to make sure all turrets were exactly in the same plane and this would vary if pointing forwards or aft of the beam so until additional equipment was perfected and tested and proved it was not clear directors were the answer. In general it was felt they were (and subsequently proved) but not in isolation.
Cheers
Geoff