Deleted member 94680

Can anyone tell whether this is in British waters or International waters and would it make a difference in the preservation of the ship?

The article says it’s 98 nautical miles from Port Stanley and British territorial waters around the Falkland Islands is 12 miles.

Britain could declare it a “protected place” but realistically, they can only enforce that against British citizens, given its location.

Maybe Germany would look to declaring it a War Grave or similar?

I don’t know if the UN has some form of international status for such sites.
 
Can anyone tell whether this is in British waters or International waters and would it make a difference in the preservation of the ship?

I Can't answer that but she's deep and its hella cold, and considering how rough those seas can be, I doubt its going to be at risk of being scavanged.
 
One of my personal ideas for an Alternate Admiral Armament is the Vickers 15" A gun, aka 16"/45 Pattern A intended for the Russians 1914 program of battleships. It's available already so would not really slow things down like having to design a new gun would

That said 16.5" just sounds more in sequence with the previous British practice

“Available already” is stretching it slightly going by NavWeaps. The article they have on the Vickers 16” makes it sound like by 1914 there was only one gun produced.

Fair point, but was the Vickers gun built to Admiralty standards?

There’s also this bit from the NavWeaps article:
The center of gravity of this gun was far forward, which would have meant that the battleship turrets would have been larger than standard British practice.

It doesn’t mean that it’s impossible, but there’s every chance there would be delays introducing this gun to British service.

Mmm...interesting thoughts going on there.
There would be other problems with using that exact type of gun too, but with Armstrongs building their '15" 48-cal Mk.2' (that one's wearing a little thin now, isn't it ...), Vickers undoubtedly want to horn in on the act. They'd being trying to sell 16" designs to Japan and Brazil since 1912.
 
Problem with the 18 inch gun is its too big pretty much for anything in service, and putting it on a ship in lieu of dual 15-inch would require a bigger turret if you want to put dual mounts on, needing bigger barbettes, meaning greater beam, meaning greater length if you want to keep the ships speed up etc etc etc. They are not plug and play unless you want to put single mounts on a ship.
 

Can anyone tell whether this is in British waters or International waters and would it make a difference in the preservation of the ship?

The article says it’s 98 nautical miles from Port Stanley and British territorial waters around the Falkland Islands is 12 miles.

Britain could declare it a “protected place” but realistically, they can only enforce that against British citizens, given its location.

Maybe Germany would look to declaring it a War Grave or similar?

I don’t know if the UN has some form of international status for such sites.

Magnificent find.

Within 200 miles, it's within the 'exclusive economic zone', which gives rights to the seabed (and in the case of Falklands, those rights are jealously guarded).
Any wreck, anywhere can be considered a war grave (or equivalent) by its owners. Unfortunately, that doesn't necessarily give it any real protection, but it does make it very difficult for anyone to salvage it and then expect to do business in Germany, Britain etc...
 
Wasn't it the Armstrong 14-inch that was on the Canada that the RN looked at as their gun but went with the 13.5? Also speaking of the HMS Canada, what's happened to her in this TL, is she still as per OTL design or did she get canned and turned into something else, there's also the Eagle out there too.

Latorre (OTL HMS Canada) is HMS Newfoundland in the story. Otherwise she's the same ship.
Cochrane/Eagle is currently rusting on the stocks.

Just to add to any confusion :), the story's HMS Canada is a Royal-class battleship (8-15", 23 1/2-knots), part paid-for by the Canadian gov't.
See post #572
 
Problem with the 18 inch gun is its too big pretty much for anything in service, and putting it on a ship in lieu of dual 15-inch would require a bigger turret if you want to put dual mounts on, needing bigger barbettes, meaning greater beam, meaning greater length if you want to keep the ships speed up etc etc etc. They are not plug and play unless you want to put single mounts on a ship.
Quite so.
Even building from the keel up, putting eight 18" on Hood's hull means a totally different ship with less machinery - such a type was proposed in 1919, but was much slower.
Either that or something rather bigger; 'K2' was essentially an 18" Hood, although she traded a little speed for armour.
 
One of my personal ideas for an Alternate Admiral Armament is the Vickers 15" A gun, aka 16"/45 Pattern A intended for the Russians 1914 program of battleships. It's available already so would not really slow things down like having to design a new gun would

That said 16.5" just sounds more in sequence with the previous British practice

One of my main gripes with things like this, suggesting the use of weapons like the 15"/45, 16"/45, 14"/45 (Mark I, II, III, IV and V) in actual newly built British capital ships is completely against Royal Navy practice. These export weapons are usually never built to Admiralty specifications and such as the American 14" guns, the Admiralty flat out rated them as inferior or potentially dangerous to mount on a captial ship, which we've seemed to ignored here. Wartime or not, the Admiralty has strict gun quality and construction standards and these export guns do not fit them at all. The only time these guns were viewed as acceptable was when the RN was taking over foreign ships completely for wartime use. These guns also exist in questionable quantities as well to start with.

Just to put into perspective some of the issues foreign builds would have allowed, the 14in Mark I mount had overhead rail mounted transfer from the the hoists to travellers rather than the usual floor mounted bogeys of period RN battleships, so if the gun trained the shells had to chase the waiting tray. The cages themselves were also not flashproof so if there was a flash in the gunhouse it could spread to the working areas but not the magazines as those were still sealed.
 

Deleted member 94680

The guns on the Yamato class maybe?

As guns, they worked. But you could ask with the resultant hull that those monsters needed, would the resources have been better spent on smaller 15” or 16” armed battleships?

The Yamato as a class didn’t exactly achieve much, did they? I imagine Gambier Bay would have still been sunk by 15” or 16” fire.
 

SsgtC

Banned
As guns, they worked. But you could ask with the resultant hull that those monsters needed, would the resources have been better spent on smaller 15” or 16” armed battleships?

The Yamato as a class didn’t exactly achieve much, did they? I imagine Gambier Bay would have still been sunk by 15” or 16” fire.
Like all the late 1930s battleship designs, they were OBE. Primarily, the ascendence of the carrier. But at the time they were designed, the rationale behind them was sound. That Japan would be outnumbered in any war against the United States and therefore needed better ships than the USN with heavier guns that could hopefully knock out an American battleship with just a few hits, allowing the Japanese ship to shift targets and hopefully even the odds
 

Deleted member 94680

Like all the late 1930s battleship designs, they were OBE. Primarily, the ascendence of the carrier. But at the time they were designed, the rationale behind them was sound.

I agree completely with the first part, not so much with the second.

That Japan would be outnumbered in any war against the United States and therefore needed better ships than the USN with heavier guns that could hopefully knock out an American battleship with just a few hits, allowing the Japanese ship to shift targets and hopefully even the odds

I would say higher quality 15” or 16” battleships, more manoeuvrable due to their smaller size, present in greater numbers than Yamato (due to Japan’s lack of resources) and probably with higher speed, would suit Japan better. That or listen to the naval aviators and build more carriers rather than wunderwaffen nonsense that sucks resources into pointless black holes.
 

SsgtC

Banned
I agree completely with the first part, not so much with the second.



I would say higher quality 15” or 16” battleships, more manoeuvrable due to their smaller size, present in greater numbers than Yamato (due to Japan’s lack of resources) and probably with higher speed, would suit Japan better. That or listen to the naval aviators and build more carriers rather than wunderwaffen nonsense that sucks resources into pointless black holes.
I'm not saying that the specific design choices the Japanese made were the right ones. What I'm saying is, the thinking behind those choices was sound. Primarily that they needed ships that could take one hell of a pounding and still be battle ready, that mounted heavy guns that could reliably punch through enemy armor at all expected battle ranges, and shells that could cause enough damage to render an enemy battleship combat ineffective in just a few hits.

With hindsight, we know that smaller 16" gunned ships would have been a better use of resources. Or even building more carriers instead would be even better. But looking at it through the eyes of a Japanese Admiral in the 1930s, and using only the knowledge available to me at the time, the ships had a solid design rationale behind them.

Had the Japanese known that the Americans would develop a Super Heavy 16" shell that would make their 16" gun a better armor penetrator than their own 18" gun, or that the Americans and British would develop radar fire control to the extent that they could reliably score first salvo hits at 24k+ yards, or that aircraft would so utterly dominate naval combat, they would almost certainly have made different choices. But given what they knew, and what was commonly assumed, namely that battleships were still the premier capital ships in the world, they made the best choices they could
 
Coastal Waters
Coastal Waters

As a neutral nation with the ability to trade with the world, by 1916 both Dutch merchants and the Netherlands government itself found there were great profits to be made from the war, particularly when it came to importing materials from their East Indies colonies, or buying from the Americas, and then re-exporting to Germany.
Needless to say, the Allies took a dim view of this practice, as it created a leak in the blockade. However, the Dutch were clever, and with very few exceptions, their cargoes always passed the neutrality inspections that were regularly carried out in the North Sea. Both warring alliances largely respected Dutch territorial waters, despite occasional clashes between British and German light forces in the southern parts of the North Sea.

However, most of the action was away to the southwest, and in late 1916 the Germans began a series of more aggressive attempts to disrupt shipping in the English Channel by challenging the Dover Barrage. Two Flotillas of torpedo boats were deployed to Zeebrugge and Ostend under Admiral von Schroder, and they launched a series of night-time raids.
The skirmishes in the dark after the Battle of Stavanger had confirmed earlier German suspicions that the British were ill-prepared and even unwilling to engage at night. Black-painted British destroyers showed up better than the grey German boats on anything other than the darkest of nights, and so Schroder chose to use the night to maximise his forces’ advantage.

A series of close-range, snap actions occurred throughout October, during which six British destroyers were sunk and a dozen more damaged, in return for the loss of just three German torpedo boats. British cross-Channel shipping had to be halted during the lengthening nights of autumn, and the old destroyers that had been guarding the Straits had to be reinforced by newer ‘M-class’ ships from the Grand Fleet.
Admiral Schroder submitted a plan to use the repaired Goeben and Seydlitz to support a heavy raid on the Anglo-French base at Dunkirk, to open the way for German torpedo-boats and cruisers to enter the channel in daylight. However, the loss of the G91 to a mine on 27th October highlighted one particular risk of the plan, while Admiral Hipper objected to the idea of sending two of his three operational battlecruisers so far into the congested waters south of the Hook of Holland.

By the middle of November, the German raids were producing diminishing returns. Two more torpedo boats were lost on the night of the 16th, when a British force unexpected fired large numbers of powerful flares to illuminate the scene, whereupon four M-class destroyers, Munster, Noble, Morris and Mindful, poured fire into the leading German ships and launched a total of ten torpedoes. G88 had her bows blown off and would sink later that night, while S54 was overwhelmed by the British gunfire. All her boilers were put out of action within minutes and she was left crippled, but she maintained steady fire from her aft 4.1” gun, despite the impossible odds. She sank with her colours still flying, leaving the British ships to pick up just eleven survivors.

Aside from a few inconclusive skirmishes later in November, that was the end of the Dover Strait campaign, and in December the torpedo boats were withdrawn back to Wilhelmshaven.
The operations caused disproportionate loss for the Royal Navy and some interruption to the smooth flow of supplies across the Channel, but the long-term consequences were probably more favourable to the British. The great increase in the number of patrols led to an alarming discovery; that U-boats were in the habit of running the Dover Straits at night on the surface. Most of the minefields were deployed on the assumption that submarines would be submerged, and during the course of the war so far, only one submarine had been sunk by mines in the Dover Barrage. It was therefore assumed that most U-boats were using the route around the north of Scotland to reach the Atlantic and the Western Approaches, which had led to disastrously bad practices that greatly helped the submarines’ skippers. At night, many of the Channel minefields were marked by acetylene lamps to help prevent British shipping from blundering into them.

At Dover, Admiral Bacon would respond by starting to deploy new minefields, but progress was initially slow, in part due to a reluctance to accept the facts. He had spent the better part of 1915 and ‘16 arguing that the lack of sinkings in the Channel was a clear indication that few U-boats were using the Dover Straits. The need the accept and admit the exact opposite slowed the pace of change, until a host of new appointments were made in the opening days of 1917.
 
That could have been intersting if the Germans had redeployed two battlecruisers but also probably suicidal for the ships involved. Has unrestricted submarine warfare started yet or are the Germans still following Cruiser rules?
 
That could have been intersting if the Germans had redeployed two battlecruisers but also probably suicidal for the ships involved. Has unrestricted submarine warfare started yet or are the Germans still following Cruiser rules?
It's either a one-way mission or an almost sure-fire way of forcing another major battle if the German fleet tried to cover the retreat - as Hipper and Scheer rightly saw.

USW hasn't started yet, but it's about to.
They've been buying time to refit the U-boat force (and of course the surface fleet) while all this has been going on.
 
Top