Originally posted by steelehc
Was the Warspite at Nomandy? I haven't found anything about that, although I don't know where else she would have been...
I'm almost positive this is just a story, and not true, but...
In 1944, Allied naval bombardment of Normandy put a battleship shell in a railroad car. The car traveled 300 miles before hitting a bump in the tracks and touching off the shell. Thus the battleship hit a target more than 300 miles away. Thats much farther than 26,400 yards.
Steele
Actually, the Lions were slower, had less overall deck protection, and a much inferior gun to the Iowas. Her belt thickness (though not technologically up-to-date with decapping shield) certainly was impressive at 15", though!
), and the Yamato (Too bad it didn't get into much fighting )
Well, they did build the KGVs and the Vanguard, which were useless before they were built. I guess that was the spirit of the times, but I think that the Brits would have recieved more utility out of six more 30,000-ton carriers than six battleships. Looking at their service record, Prince of Wales and Duke of York took part in vital actions against German surface combatants, but the PoW's action was a defeat of sorts, and the Scharnhorst was so heavily outclassed by any RN battleship that a Queen Elizabeth or the Renown could have countered her. And then she would have been taken out by Lancasters, Tirpitz-style.Originally posted by Trip
That's because the Brits built useful ships, rather than 'London Gun'-esque types.
As I recall, the KGVs were slightly overweight as it was. You guys simply didn't have the desire to blow the treaty to the same extent as Japan. Was Germany actually a signatory to the Washington and London treaties? I was under the impression that when they repudiated Versailles, all their limitations went out the window. And here they had already built three useless pocket battleships. Just imagine how much more satisfying it would have been to have two more Scharnhorst-class battleships. Especially if the naval war had gone better and they had been rearmed with the double mount 15"/47 cal. weapons that they were supposed to get. Tirpitz and three or four super-Scharnhorsts up in Norway would have certainly put the fear of God into the RN! And imagine how the River Plate would have gone...
Considering the aircraft available tio them when they were making the decisions, I think the British were right to build at least SOME new battleships. Carriers are useful, but weather and nightime limit their utility more than they do that of battleships.
As the Scharnhorst/Glorious duel showed, carriers were just PART of the supernavy, and certainly not an invincible part of it.
True, the KGVs were a massive disappointment, and it is especially ironic that some were ordered instead of the Lions because it was thought that they would be delivered more quickly (and then were delayed beyond what the Lions would have been). However, I think we would look on the Lions as less than completely successful ships as well, given their lack of underwater protection (worse than the KGVs) and the really outdated 16" guns they were to carry.
Yes, but since their limits were set by other treaties, this didn't amount to much.
That wasn't one of the options. The PBs were built when Germany was still limited to 10,000 tons max displacement. A Scharnhorst design limited to 10,000 tons would have looked like... well, exactly like the PBs!
Since the RN wouldn't have ignored such a building program, they would easily have matched this foursome with four Lions and the 5 KGVs. Then, the fear of God is back in the hearts of the Germans. And in the meantime, the Sovs are running a year ahead of sked in dismantling the Thousand Year Reich on account of there aren;'t as many German tanks!
Scharnhorst versus 3 cruisers and a Lion. Not good news for the bad guys.And imagine how the River Plate would have gone...
