In photobucket I found a great negative schematic: http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y122/Otohiko/stuff/warspite.png
I make that eleven ship's boats!
I make that eleven ship's boats!
In photobucket I found a great negative schematic: http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y122/Otohiko/stuff/warspite.png
I make that eleven ship's boats!
"Away Boarders!"
When the Yamato is nearby.
Too bad cutting-out expeditions went out of style with the steam engine.
In photobucket I found a great negative schematic: http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y122/Otohiko/stuff/warspite.png
I make that eleven ship's boats!
As I understand it, the reason the Southern PI forces surrendered when they did was that Wainwright was in overall command and therefore had the legal authority to do this. If the command has been split, then he has no authority to order the surrender, even the Japanese will understand that whatever he says will have no direct effect. I doubt that the Japanese would openly say to the US "surrender the southern command or we will kill all the POWs". Not that they would necessarily have a lot of moral scruples, but this would be counter-productive in many ways.
Maybe I've missed something, but ITTL the Japanese have not penetrated as far south as they did OTL - Solomons etc. Especially if, as seems likely, the IJN is going to be way down on carriers ITTL compared with OTL very soon, likewise aviators...and of course beginning to feel the oil pinch, Truk & Rabaul can be neutralized and bypassed, and the threat to Australia & the US-Australia supply lines will be minimal. Unless there is some dramatic almost ASB change in IJN thinking, using bases like Truk & Rabual as depots for an anti-merchant submarine campaign is not happening.
It was my understanding that Rabaul ITTL was already occupied and the northern part of the Solomons were in the process of being occupied against little to no opposition. I could be wrong.
You're correct; we had an update describing the US raid on Rabaul; all part of their refusal to abandon their schedule regardless of the facts on the ground.
Garrison
I'm guessing here you mean the Japanese rather than the US in terms of the refusal? It sounds like the US from their mention initially but that doesn't ring true.
Steve
Aboard Warspite and the other allied ships engaging the IJN cruiser force off Java, they will not have our advantage of knowing that the IJN Destroyers have expended all their Long Lance Torepedoes. Therefore any move by IJN warships construed as a torpedo attack should cause a defensive responce from the RN and allied naval ships. I suspect that though the Admiral and everybody else on Warspite right down to the ships cat wants to wipe out the IJN force, the Admiral will be mindful of the value of the big girls pressence in the area and will I think act with discretion if not caution. That said "Cry Havock and let slip the dogs of war".![]()
And don't forget the Revenges, there's another four of them if they got modernised, or five if HMS Royal Oak didn't go down as per OTL (I can't recall and it's too late to search).
I personaly have always been of the opinion that the Revenge Class were a retrograde step from the QE's and that rather than spend huge sums on modernising the QE's it might have made more sense to scrap the Revenges in turn and build new hulls as per Vangaurd using their 15" turrets and as much of the original armered plate as pratical. I know there are a limited number of slips capable of handling KGV size ships in the late 1930's but a program of 1 for 1 rolling substitution from say 1933 might have been possible. Then you could have ended up with 4 or 5 15" armed KGV/Vangaurds pluss the KGV's and the 5 QE's as extant in the early 30's.
Now that would keep the Battle line Admirals quite and give 5 pluss 5 building 28/30 knot BB as carrier companions when war breaks out(ok verging on Britwank but
hey)
Because of certain armor design flaws inherent in the Revenges they literally cannot be modernized, worst luck. It wasn't lack of $$$, time, or shipyard space. It was practicality. It could not be done, period. The problems the Revenges had with their armor, the Lexingtons had with their engines and steering. Some flaws, once built in, cannot be fixed.![]()
usertron2020
What I've heard is that they were built with no capacity for expansion, probably as a cost-cutting measure given the naval race on at the time and short expected life span of capital ships.
With all ships in this period, even apart from modernisation of their basic equipment, they suffered serious problems with the demand for extra space and weight for things like radar and other electronic tools, along with greatly improved AA weaponry, along with of course the men needed to operate all this. The Queens had some capacity for this, as well as more general upgrades, but the R class didn't. Even Repulse and Renown, for all their design flaws proved better here because they had the capacity for extensive upgrades and also absorbing the extra demands placed on ships.
Agree that the R's were basically a dead end. They provided fairly cheap escorts for important convoys and some shore bombardment as well as a minimal fleet force when the RN was really stretched. However, without the treaties they would probably have been replaced during the early 30's.
Steve
PS Never heard that about the Lexingtons. Have heard the 1916 S Dakota's would have had the same problem as the R's in terms of lack of stretch but would have thought that with the space of the Lexington's that while it might have been expensive they should have been suitable to upgrade. [Other than the problem of their thin armour making them dubious value but then presumably something could have been done as with Repluse/Renown with extra over the magazines. What was the problem that you know of please?