The image resizer is an add on for windows.Additional options is port not starboard Bob. O0
Just download and when you right click on photo the resize option is in the drop down menu, just select medium.
Go to additional options bottom right of post. Left click.
Highlight modified pic and click Attach or more attachments to attach more than one pic per post.
Bob
Hoods 15in guns were arguably as good as the Bismarks but the maybe the accuracy just wasn't there.
After Jutland the RN carried out test firings of a range of RN guns.
The charges were found to be completely different which affected the range and therefore accuracy of the whole platform.
The British Navy was not interested in accuracy in WW1, but rapid rate of fire. The theory was you put the other side off it's aim and you might get lucky. To do this the capital ships carried 50% more ammo than designed for, this was fine for the shells but not the bags of Cordite which were stacked every where but not in the magazines, also the Battle Cruisers it has since been found out removed the anti flash doors to thier magazines so as to speed up the movement of cordite and shells. With all the cordite stacked inside the Barbites etc, this is now put forward as the reason for the massive loss of ships at Jutland. But the RN has had a bad reputation for accuracy since the Bombardment of Alexandra (800 odd shells fired and about 6 came close to the mark), Dogger Bank and even the Bismark , poor shooting was recorded, Tovey said to the gunner on KG5 " i can do more damage with throwing my mug than you can". The German accuracy was always good, an had it not been for the intervention of the Navigator on the Norfolk, she would have been hit by a full salvo from the Bismark instead of a close straddle.
Strictly speaking, it is completely wrong to accuse the RN of not being interested in gunnery accuracy during WW1Have you got a written source for that? I've heard that Chatfield and Beatty didn't agree at what range to take battle on, as Beatty won, I surmise C'field wanted to stay out of german range and Beatty get in 'close' (relatively). I was wondering if lack off deck armour affected Beatty decision? (To avoid plunging fire and to put the broad face of the sides armour to face the germans shells?*) or if it was for gunnery reasons (such as your 'the RF were poor past 10,000yds'
Hi Eric
well I wouldn't put my words in such black and white like that. Of course they aimed the things and took pains to do so.
I read old Naval Review articles http://www.naval-review.org/ (http://www.naval-review.org/) and you often come across this hint in them. They wanted max rate of fire, as evidenced by the crew making a trail of cordite from turret to magazine so the captain should not be left waiting for a reload.
I've never read it [that they wet for ROF over accuracy] in black and white with someone saying 'we shotgun the target' but I wonder, even with all the equipment and theories and technology aboard her... if hitting the target 20,000yds away from a rolling platform wasn't just down to pure luck helped along with a good dose of range-taking and direction aiming devices? Especially if wind, temperature and other atmosperic characteristics affect the shells so much... or battle damge throw the fine instruments 'out of whack'? Y'know... they site a couple of 100,000 £ worth of gear up aloft and then a swell 'throws' the lot!
It was the RN that revolutionised gunnery in the lead up to the war, poineered by Percy Scott who was single handedly responsable for the RN becoming fanatic about gunnery.(and the USN, thanks to Sims in the USN who copied Scotts teachings for their navy, the two men were great friends) The invention of the Pollen clock and Dreyer system put the RN far ahead of all its rivals, even the Grermans.
Jellicoe trained the Grand Fleet constantly in live fire gunnery up at Scapa Flow, but Beattie was down further south and either unable or unwilling to train so hard. This is why Admiral Hood and this three Battlecruisers were at Scapa Flow and the Queen Elizabeths were with Beattie, Hood was there for intensive gunnery training as Jellicoe was accutly aware of the Battlecruisers deficiancies. (the training Invincble recieved paid off, as she hit Luzow repeatedly and may have been responsable for the damage that sank her)
I think it was the submarine threat that kept the b/cs bottled up in Rosyth or Invergordon.
Why does Baetty get such a bad rap? Cos he was like Mountbattern (Kelly) and in the habit of making 'bad decisions' or being 'unlucky'
The loss of the Battlecrisers can be put down to several causes, not one of the due to lack of armour.
1; Old, unstable cordite.
2; Poorly designed cordite, inferior to german type
3; dangerous magazine handeling. (Magazine doors left open, or even removed) and cordite piled up outside the magazines in the rush to suppy the guns.
We agree.
You are correct about Lion TCC, but it was not SOP to be so careless with the cordite, it was enthusiasm on the part of the crew to feed the guns.
Eric, if we are to believe Grant, befefore he joined LION, it was SOP to site cordite outside the mag in all the handling spaces. You agree with me... is it the term SOP you disagree with?
Well I don't know if they'd be doing that without the Cpt. or Admirals ignorance. Surely one of those MUST have walked by ONCE during their turret drills and training? Surely the Cpt. would have looked over his gunnery officers training regme when either first came abord to see 'what he was made of'?
Grant was horriified at this when he joined Lion and took urgent steps to rectify it, even going to the extrem of landing ALL cordite stored in Lion and replacing it with new. (Old cordite as I said becomes unstable, and as the old cordite had at times been put into bags for new cordite he was unable to tell what was old and what was new)
Had the other Battlecruisers been given the same treatment it is quite likely they would not have exploded as they did.
I agree.
The main reason Beattie did not open fire earlier that the Germans at Dogger bank and Jutland was due to the rangefinders. They were the 9ft barr and Stroud type, excellent upto 10,000 yards (the accepted max range prior to the war) but no good beyond that range, greman equipment was superior. later 15ft rangefiders went a long way to rectiying this.
I may have mentioned earlier in this thread that I'd come across a table (teak) that was being thrown out... I've now found the piece with the plaque on it. It reads...They used the decking from LION to make 'garden furniture' (no doubt, amoung other things)
"Made by The Hughes Bolckow Shipbreaking Company Ltd, Blyth, Northumberland from TEAK TAKEN FROM HMS Powerful"
Would anyone like to tell us about her? I plan to use it for... the planking. Seems appropriate somehow... :-))
She was crapped at Blyth as well.{-) May I submit this fine posting to Mayhem's Typo Of The Year competition? %%
She was crapped at Blyth as well.{-) May I submit this fine posting to Mayhem's Typo Of The Year competition? %%
Andy
Here is a question that will undoubtedly draw a flame or two but a battlecruiser thread seems to be the place to ask it. Supposedly Lord Fisher, during Jutland, wanting to inspire his sailors decided to fly Nelson's message to the sailors "England expects every man to do his duty for god and country" (probably a misquote). My question is this; i had read that the code book(s) had changed and that the signal now meant "turn 9 (90 degrees) towards the enemy and advance at flank speed" thus the battle cruiser got shot to pieces. Is that the truth or what?Nope.
Supposedly Lord Fisher, during Jutland
... supply warm, weak beer and planks and massed ranks of andrews/andys(maybe an andre) could make light work of the deck :} ...
Hi Josse... the base level keel length is 7.42m which puts her exactly right. However, what is not clear is that the deck length was somewhat longer- our naval architects can guide us but isn't the ship's overall length based on the laid down keel length? The deck length comes out at just over 8m and, yes, it's too late to change if I'm wrong. %)I am afraid Josse is right Martin according to the Hood Associations dimensions your Hood should be 7.5M overall.
Sorry Martin , I thought you knew via MMSI :embarrassed: . I tried to track them down on the web. The last I heard was that they are stored in a military museum of some sort in a town near Lake Garda in Northern Italy. Not open to the public. >:-o Maybe one of our Italian speaking members could help via a model boat forum in that country ? Any offers? Fancy a holiday to chase them up ?Correction to this, the museum IS open to the public but the model ships are not on view, in fact I don't know if they are still there. www.museodellaguerra.it Interesting for military fans and housed in a fine medieval castle on major road and rail links .
OOPS ! the last two pictures were taken off a canoe builders pages just to show an alternative route to building a hull for a manned model. They are not Martin`s HMS Hood. They were part of a discussion on techniques.