That was the torpedo boat Tomozuru in a storm in March 1934. This lead to a reassessment of designs and stability of all vessels built, building and planned.
That's what you get for attempting to cram too much on hulls in an attempt to beat Treaty restrictions.
Sargon
Last edited:
In 1934 the Mexican empire placed orders with French yards for a pair of new battleships to replace their old Aquila class of dreadnoughts which dated to 1912 and 1914, and were coming up for replacement. In the end the increasingly poor financial situation would see only a single vessel, the kuautli (Nahuatl for eagle) would be completed and the battle ship Emperador Maximiliano el primero moderately modernized. Only a few of the planned cruisers, destroyers and submarines initially ordered in the 1934 bill would eventually see completion.
Kuautli entered service in 1939, arriving in Mexico just three days before the outbreak of the second world war. The ship displaced 27,376 tons and was armed with a primary battery of twelve 305mm guns in three quadruple turrets, the ship being largely obsolete compared to the monsters which had been ordered just after her laying down by the major powers as the naval treaties collapsed. The ship spend most of the war participating in neutrality patrols in Mexican territorial waters, notably the ship would have a prolonged stand-off with the Alyskan battleship Ryker in 1941 as the ship attempted to travel through the Nicaraguan canal despite a Mexican policy forbidding warships of the combatants using the canal for military purposes.
Post war the ship remained in Mexican service with refits into the 1970s and was placed in reserve in 1974, and languished in harbor for several decades until she caught fire in 2003 and was scuttled by the navy to stop the risk of her magazines detonating.
Anyone looking at oil and the RN needs to read the thesis below
The Royal Navy's fuel supplies 1898-1939 : the transition from coal to oil
Brown, Warwick Michael
Chapter 2 Pages 41 to 61 list the advantages in terms of more energy per volume, reduced crew etc and also lists some of the issues faced.
The Royal Navy's fuel supplies 1898-1939 : the transition from coal to oil
Brown, Warwick Michael
Chapter 2 Pages 41 to 61 list the advantages in terms of more energy per volume, reduced crew etc and also lists some of the issues faced.
Last edited:
I would also recommend this as a summary of British Oil policy in the time period in and around WW1.
I wasn't aware bats could be used to deliver torpedo's. Might inventive critters those bats.
I wasn't aware bats could be used to deliver torpedo's. Might inventive critters those bats.
Those ASBs must be busy.
Sargon
Those ASBs must be busy.
Sargon
I see the biggest problem with the infamous "Bat Bomb" was that they just didn't aim big enough with the ordnance. To think they went with little two ounce napalm charges when they could have gone with bigger fish.
A bat breeding programme to obtain bigger bats would have been something to see. On the other hand better not give them ideas. Didn't they decide to roost in a fuel tank on the test range and wound up destroying the range? Seems they had ideas of their own anyway.
Sargon
Naval Estimates
1904/1905 2 battleships of the Lord Nelson class [1.65 million each]
1905/1906 1 battleship Dreadnought class [1.785 million] 3 Armoured cruisers Minotaur class [4.187 million for 3]
1906/1907 0 battleships 3 Dreadnought Armoured Cruisers of the invincible class [5.25 million for 3]
1907/1908 3 battleships of the Bellerophon class [5.8 million]
This is a total of 20.3 million.
We know that the battleships of the Lord Nelson class were laid down late in the year, the design for Dreadnought had already been finalised. I have always considered that these ships should not have been built as the ship that would make them obsolescent was already designed.
Given how revolutionary Dreadnought was it seems odd that spending on armoured cruisers continued. They were barely faster than the battleship they were ordered with. Furthermore multiper calibre guns were abandoned on battleships. Why continue on cruisers? It seems to me that the director of naval construction was so focused on dreadnought that it did not consider the effect of technological changes made on the other half of the large ship program.
Fisher said (when speaking about the invincibles) that a knot or two speed difference is irrelevant. If you are faster you need to be a lot faster or a dirty bottom gets rid of your advantage. It would be very easy to see a armoured cruiser stuck to the same speed as Dreadnought due to a dirty bottom. This would leave her useless as a fleet screen and merely a bad ship in the line of the battle.
So as an alternate program someone decides to cancel the Lord Nelsons (reordering as additional Dreadnoughts) and to cancel the Minotaur class ordering two additional Dreadnoughts.
The justification being that there's no need to lay down ships that will be obsolescent when completed (in the case of the Nelsons) and that the effect of new technologies and methodology on large armoured cruisers should be considered at a later date (in the case of the Minotaur class).
1906/1907 continues as historical
1907/1908 sees the Royal Navy order Indefatigable (a year early but due to the cancelation of the Minotaur class extra faster capital ships are warned)[1.63 million] and two Bellerophon
This adjustment would see the Royal Navy finishing the 1907/1908 fiscal year with the following built or laid down
5x Dreadnought
3x Invincible
2x Bellerophon
1x Indefatigable
To sum up 7 dreadnought battleships and 4 battlecruisers compared to the historical 2 preadnoughts, 4 dreadnoughts 3 armour armoured cruisers and 3 battlecruisers.
The cost of the changed program would be approx 19.7 million compared to the historical program costing 20.3 million.
Does anyone feel that the Royal Navy would prefer the historical program? Does anyone feel that they might go for 2 Indefatigable and 1 Bellerophon to catch up the numbers of faster ships.
1904/1905 2 battleships of the Lord Nelson class [1.65 million each]
1905/1906 1 battleship Dreadnought class [1.785 million] 3 Armoured cruisers Minotaur class [4.187 million for 3]
1906/1907 0 battleships 3 Dreadnought Armoured Cruisers of the invincible class [5.25 million for 3]
1907/1908 3 battleships of the Bellerophon class [5.8 million]
This is a total of 20.3 million.
We know that the battleships of the Lord Nelson class were laid down late in the year, the design for Dreadnought had already been finalised. I have always considered that these ships should not have been built as the ship that would make them obsolescent was already designed.
Given how revolutionary Dreadnought was it seems odd that spending on armoured cruisers continued. They were barely faster than the battleship they were ordered with. Furthermore multiper calibre guns were abandoned on battleships. Why continue on cruisers? It seems to me that the director of naval construction was so focused on dreadnought that it did not consider the effect of technological changes made on the other half of the large ship program.
Fisher said (when speaking about the invincibles) that a knot or two speed difference is irrelevant. If you are faster you need to be a lot faster or a dirty bottom gets rid of your advantage. It would be very easy to see a armoured cruiser stuck to the same speed as Dreadnought due to a dirty bottom. This would leave her useless as a fleet screen and merely a bad ship in the line of the battle.
So as an alternate program someone decides to cancel the Lord Nelsons (reordering as additional Dreadnoughts) and to cancel the Minotaur class ordering two additional Dreadnoughts.
The justification being that there's no need to lay down ships that will be obsolescent when completed (in the case of the Nelsons) and that the effect of new technologies and methodology on large armoured cruisers should be considered at a later date (in the case of the Minotaur class).
1906/1907 continues as historical
1907/1908 sees the Royal Navy order Indefatigable (a year early but due to the cancelation of the Minotaur class extra faster capital ships are warned)[1.63 million] and two Bellerophon
This adjustment would see the Royal Navy finishing the 1907/1908 fiscal year with the following built or laid down
5x Dreadnought
3x Invincible
2x Bellerophon
1x Indefatigable
To sum up 7 dreadnought battleships and 4 battlecruisers compared to the historical 2 preadnoughts, 4 dreadnoughts 3 armour armoured cruisers and 3 battlecruisers.
The cost of the changed program would be approx 19.7 million compared to the historical program costing 20.3 million.
Does anyone feel that the Royal Navy would prefer the historical program? Does anyone feel that they might go for 2 Indefatigable and 1 Bellerophon to catch up the numbers of faster ships.
I vaguely remember hearing about a test not going great because the bat's ended up roosting on the bits of the base they weren't trying to burn down. Of course in real life that woudn't have been a big deal because the only time they'd carry explosive charges would be when dropped on Japan. Can't really use the same bat twice for that sort of work.
Though I wouldn't be surprised if at some point in that project someone had at least half seriously asked "Can we make the bat's bigger?"
I'm just having images of airbases, or aircraft carriers carrying bat bombs and the things somehow escaping causing havoc before they even get loaded onto a plane. The basic idea of using them on wooden buildings seems workable, but you just know the whole scheme was probably asking for batty trouble somewhere and somehow.
I suppose it could get US commanders saying "Bats!" instead of "Nuts!".
Aye, I'm sure someone was thinking about how to make them bigger.
Sargon
That reminds me of the Soviet Anti Tank Dogs trained to run under tanks looking for food with mines on their backs. Trouble is they only associated Soviet tanks with food and when used in action ran under them instead of the German tanks.
As Predreadnoughts go, the Lord Nelson’s were pretty good ships. The RN kept them on their list of first class ships for some time. I believe that Fisher tried to get them finished as dreadnoughts but they were too far along? Putting either turbines or small tube boilers in them could have raised their speed to 21 knots, which would have made them much more useful tor longer, even with a mixed armament.
Not sure. Fisher had to fight to get a lot of what he wanted out of both Dreadnought and Invincible and they were still a long way from the ships he had envisioned ( his proposal for Dreadnought had 6 super firing turrets if you can picture that). Still, it does seem a better program in general. I don’t know if the Minotaurs had a particular reason for existing when BC’s are a thing beyond conservatism.
The Minotaurs should have at least had steam turbines instead of triple expansion engines.
I have a book called Heroic Failures by Bill Tidy, and I remember reading that. Seems they not only went after Soviet tanks but ran back to Soviet trenches and caused mayhem there too.
The things military minds come up with sometimes!
Sargon
Fisher suggested rebuilding them as proto dreadnoughts when Dreadnought was launched iirc. It would have had 2x2 12 inch guns and 2x1 12 inch guns. I'm talking about making the decision before laying them down (but after the dreadnought design was finalised. I'm aware it's a very tight turn around.
BCs weren't a thing until a year after dreadnought. There was nothing wrong with the Minotaur class. They were an iterative improvement on the Warriors based on a 1902 design proposal (by Fisher and semi designed by DNC at the time) without thinking about moving naval technology.
I initially thought about suggesting a 4x2 9.2 inch gunned British Blucher here however I made the decision that the director of naval construction is busy going over dreadnought again and again with a fine toothed comb and isn't going to pay attention to anything else.
I do agree that building triple expansion engined large ships after moving to turbines is wrong. I especially find it weird that the slower ship (dreadnought) gets the better engines rather than the cruisers. It did really help dreadnought stay relevant but the armoured cruisers were in a bad way here.
Last edited:
Considering how the Admiralty board fought him overDreadnought’s design, I don’t think Fisher could afford to count on the Invincible’s being in place to make Armoured Cruisers obsolescent until it was done. If he had cut Minotaur and gambled on Invincible and lost, the RN would be out several good first class cruisers. Probably better to let them stand. Plus the Minotaurs were probably already included in the Naval Rstimate by the time he would have felt comfortable going for Invincible.
If I had to guess why the Minotaur class had triple expansion engines and not turbines....its probably something to do with their job as cruisers needing as much range as possible and the fact that early turbines weren't as efficient as triple expansion engines