WI German navy destroys British navy in Jutland.

Funny guy, not uber, just better at certain things, in this case night fighting.

Except they were not. You have been reduced to making excuses for their demonstrated simple problems with basic manoeuvres in the dark and the fact that among other things when trying to respond to attack they managed to ram and sink one of their own light cruisers (hence why I claim it for the British, an own goal is still a goal) or are you now going to argue that the Germans just routinely ran down their own shipping?

Fact is your argument rest solely on people having studied no other action than Jutland, relies on them not actually studying what happened at Jutland and more importantly is completely dependent on them not having a good idea of what was humanly possible which is something that emerges once you have studied enough actual naval actions that took place.
 
Heh.

Actually...


This is a bit of a tangent, but I wondered if it would be possible to list "the most powerful warship in the world" and how long each warship that *did* have that title held it.

I know the 1875 HMS Devastation basically held the title for over a decade, say...

You could start a post-1900 discussion thread on this. Could be fun.
 

JAG88

Banned
I actually don't think anyone in the world except the British could have pulled off the build speed of HMS Dreadnought. It's a combination of experience, good in-place procurement systems, quick turret production and sheer enthusiasm.

If what you mean is cannibalizing other ships in order to make a PR stunt, then yes...
 

JAG88

Banned
Except they were not. You have been reduced to making excuses for their demonstrated simple problems with basic manoeuvres in the dark and the fact that among other things when trying to respond to attack they managed to ram and sink one of their own light cruisers (hence why I claim it for the British, an own goal is still a goal) or are you now going to argue that the Germans just routinely ran down their own shipping?

Fact is your argument rest solely on people having studied no other action than Jutland, relies on them not actually studying what happened at Jutland and more importantly is completely dependent on them not having a good idea of what was humanly possible which is something that emerges once you have studied enough actual naval actions that took place.

Heh, there is nothing simple about night navigation and crossing a battleline is something better avoided as Jutland showed.

Your claim about my argument is absolutely and ridiculously false, if anyone has doubts about who is the one lacking knowledge and data the prior pages in this and other discussions are full of the things you tried to make up.

Just to remember a small jewel, there i your claim that the RN dd "managed to find" the HSF, when in reality they were just trailing the RN formation and were hit by the Germans in the flank as they steamed through them.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
If what you mean is cannibalizing other ships in order to make a PR stunt, then yes...
No, I don't.
Dreadnought was not built by cannibalizing other ships.

She was built by bumping other ships back in the priority for the turrets, sure, but that's not surprising since she rendered every other ship in the world obsolete the moment she hit the water - the ships for which those other turrets were destined were definitionally obsolete.

Wiki:


To meet Admiral Fisher's goal of building Dreadnought in a single year, material was stockpiled in advance and a great deal of prefabrication was done before she was formally laid down on 2 October 1905. In addition, she was built at HM Dockyard, Portsmouth which was regarded as the fastest-building shipyard in the world. Christened with a bottle of Australian wine,[33] Dreadnought was launched by King Edward VII on 10 February 1906, after only four months on the ways; the bottle required multiple blows to shatter on a bow that later became famous. She went to sea on 3 October 1906 for her steam trials, only a year and a day after construction started, although she was not commissioned until 11 December 1906, fifteen months after she was laid down.[34] The ship cost £1,783,883 to build.[35] The suggestion[36][37] that her building had been sped up by using guns and/or turrets originally designed for the Lord Nelson-class battleships which preceded her is not borne out as the guns and turrets were not ordered until July 1905. It seems more likely that Dreadnought* '​s turrets and guns merely received higher priority than those of the earlier ships.
 
No, I don't.
Dreadnought was not built by cannibalizing other ships.

She was built by bumping other ships back in the priority for the turrets, sure, but that's not surprising since she rendered every other ship in the world obsolete the moment she hit the water - the ships for which those other turrets were destined were definitionally obsolete.

Wiki:


To meet Admiral Fisher's goal of building Dreadnought in a single year, material was stockpiled in advance and a great deal of prefabrication was done before she was formally laid down on 2 October 1905. In addition, she was built at HM Dockyard, Portsmouth which was regarded as the fastest-building shipyard in the world. Christened with a bottle of Australian wine,[33] Dreadnought was launched by King Edward VII on 10 February 1906, after only four months on the ways; the bottle required multiple blows to shatter on a bow that later became famous. She went to sea on 3 October 1906 for her steam trials, only a year and a day after construction started, although she was not commissioned until 11 December 1906, fifteen months after she was laid down.[34] The ship cost £1,783,883 to build.[35] The suggestion[36][37] that her building had been sped up by using guns and/or turrets originally designed for the Lord Nelson-class battleships which preceded her is not borne out as the guns and turrets were not ordered until July 1905. It seems more likely that Dreadnought* '​s turrets and guns merely received higher priority than those of the earlier ships.


dunno why you bother replaying to him - the bloke obviously could'nt lie straight in bed
 

JAG88

Banned
No, I don't.
Dreadnought was not built by cannibalizing other ships.

She was built by bumping other ships back in the priority for the turrets, sure, but that's not surprising since she rendered every other ship in the world obsolete the moment she hit the water - the ships for which those other turrets were destined were definitionally obsolete.

Wiki:


To meet Admiral Fisher's goal of building Dreadnought in a single year, material was stockpiled in advance and a great deal of prefabrication was done before she was formally laid down on 2 October 1905. In addition, she was built at HM Dockyard, Portsmouth which was regarded as the fastest-building shipyard in the world. Christened with a bottle of Australian wine,[33] Dreadnought was launched by King Edward VII on 10 February 1906, after only four months on the ways; the bottle required multiple blows to shatter on a bow that later became famous. She went to sea on 3 October 1906 for her steam trials, only a year and a day after construction started, although she was not commissioned until 11 December 1906, fifteen months after she was laid down.[34] The ship cost £1,783,883 to build.[35] The suggestion[36][37] that her building had been sped up by using guns and/or turrets originally designed for the Lord Nelson-class battleships which preceded her is not borne out as the guns and turrets were not ordered until July 1905. It seems more likely that Dreadnought* '​s turrets and guns merely received higher priority than those of the earlier ships.

Lol, same difference they were taking equipment and armour earmarked for other ships which is one of the main reasons they could mount that PR stunt and claim they were "first", otherwise the Japanese with the already laid down Satsuma or the US with the already approved design would have gotten the lead as the RN was well aware.

You need to make noise with a quick construction when you want the rest of the world to forget that the IJN laid down theirs first...

Dreadnougt's originality lays on its turbine propulsion, a gamble that paid off.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Lol, same difference they were taking equipment and armour earmarked for other ships which is one of the main reasons they could mount that PR stunt and claim they were "first", otherwise the Japanese with the already laid down Satsuma or the US with the already approved design would have gotten the lead as the RN was well aware.

You need to make noise with a quick construction when you want the rest of the world to forget that the IJN laid down theirs first...

Dreadnougt's originality lays on its turbine propulsion, a gamble that paid off.
It's generally accepted that the Dreadnought's uniqueness lies in her:

1) Being constructed extremely fast. And no, that didn't involve taking material earmarked for other ships - but even given the prefabrication of parts in advance of the laydown, she was still finished first.
That said that the RN could construct a battleship quicker than anyone else - that is, they could go from a finalized design (finalized after the other ships) to a ship in the water and completed (done before the other ships) faster. Who cares about who laid theirs down first if the Brits could finish a ship first - and then build many more before anyone else could match them, which is why the Brits managed to build 27 dreadnoughts and several battlecruisers in ten years.
2) Combining all the latest advantages (turbines, all-big-gun armament, electrically transmitted fire control data...) into a single ship.


As for your accusation that she was using equipment and armour earmarked for other ships, can you demonstrate the extent of this? It was not done with the turrets, which are the usual quoted equipment this happened with.
 

JAG88

Banned
It's generally accepted that the Dreadnought's uniqueness lies in her:

1) Being constructed extremely fast. And no, that didn't involve taking material earmarked for other ships - but even given the prefabrication of parts in advance of the laydown, she was still finished first.
That said that the RN could construct a battleship quicker than anyone else - that is, they could go from a finalized design (finalized after the other ships) to a ship in the water and completed (done before the other ships) faster. Who cares about who laid theirs down first if the Brits could finish a ship first - and then build many more before anyone else could match them, which is why the Brits managed to build 27 dreadnoughts and several battlecruisers in ten years.
2) Combining all the latest advantages (turbines, all-big-gun armament, electrically transmitted fire control data...) into a single ship.


As for your accusation that she was using equipment and armour earmarked for other ships, can you demonstrate the extent of this? It was not done with the turrets, which are the usual quoted equipment this happened with.

It was done with the turrets or at the very least with turret parts which is exactly the same since gun and armour are always ordered in advance of keel laying, the only kinda dissenting opinion Ive seen is Roberts, and he is speculating, not asserting, that the materials for the Nelsons might have been used for the Dreadnought... which means the same, that at whatever stage the Nelsons' turrets or parts of them were transferred in order to speed up Dread's construction.

Basically its splitting hairs claiming that it wasnt full turrets, just the parts of them and the materials committed to their construction, their labour and priority. So basically they got the turrets for the Nelsons and they the ones ordered later as replacement.

You can read it by yourself intead of relying on wiki.
 
Here is a PR Stunt for you all from British Dreadnought Battleship construction times 1906 to 1916

HMS Dreadnought - 16 Months from Laid down to Commissioning

HMS Bellerophon - 26 Months from Laid down to Commissioning

HMS St Vincent - 32 Months from Laid down to Commissioning (Actual Commissioning took 12 months for some reason!? Only took 20 months from laying down to finished fitting out! HMS Collingwood only took 26 months)

HMS Neptune - 24 Months from Laid down to Commissioning

HMS Colossus - 25 Months from Laid down to Commissioning

HMS Orion - 25 Months from Laid down to Commissioning

HMS King George V - 22 Months from Laid down to Commissioning

HMS Iron Duke - 26 Months from Laid down to Commissioning

HMS Queen Elizabeth - 26 Months from Laid down to Commissioning

HMS Revenge - 26 Months from Laid down to Commissioning

Then everything stops because of some bloody Serbian
 

JAG88

Banned
Here is a PR Stunt for you all from British Dreadnought Battleship construction times 1906 to 1916

HMS Dreadnought - 16 Months from Laid down to Commissioning

HMS Bellerophon - 26 Months from Laid down to Commissioning

HMS St Vincent - 32 Months from Laid down to Commissioning (Actual Commissioning took 12 months for some reason!? Only took 20 months from laying down to finished fitting out! HMS Collingwood only took 26 months)

HMS Neptune - 24 Months from Laid down to Commissioning

HMS Colossus - 25 Months from Laid down to Commissioning

HMS Orion - 25 Months from Laid down to Commissioning

HMS King George V - 22 Months from Laid down to Commissioning

HMS Iron Duke - 26 Months from Laid down to Commissioning

HMS Queen Elizabeth - 26 Months from Laid down to Commissioning

HMS Revenge - 26 Months from Laid down to Commissioning

Then everything stops because of some bloody Serbian

The PR stunt is that they claimed 1 year and 1 day for Dreadnought, didnt they?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
It was done with the turrets or at the very least with turret parts which is exactly the same since gun and armour are always ordered in advance of keel laying, the only kinda dissenting opinion Ive seen is Roberts, and he is speculating, not asserting, that the materials for the Nelsons might have been used for the Dreadnought... which means the same, that at whatever stage the Nelsons' turrets or parts of them were transferred in order to speed up Dread's construction.

Basically its splitting hairs claiming that it wasnt full turrets, just the parts of them and the materials committed to their construction, their labour and priority. So basically they got the turrets for the Nelsons and they the ones ordered later as replacement.

You can read it by yourself intead of relying on wiki.

Okay, even assuming that that were settled and true, then why would that matter? Doesn't it still demonstrate UK industrial capacity that it was able to just slam in some turrets they had already available?

I mean, the British demonstrated the ability to fabricate the equipment for three dreadnought battleships each year for ten years, and they also demonstrated that with the equipment present they could put it together into a ship in a year and a day.

(Yes, she went to her sea trials a year and a day after being laid down, in other navies she would have been commissioned before sea trials - for example the Bismarck was commissioned three weeks before her sea trials and so was the Nassau.)
 

JAG88

Banned
Okay, even assuming that that were settled and true, then why would that matter? Doesn't it still demonstrate UK industrial capacity that it was able to just slam in some turrets they had already available?

It demonstrates that everything was done to carry out the publicity stunt.

I mean, the British demonstrated the ability to fabricate the equipment for three dreadnought battleships each year for ten years,

Big woop, so did Germany

and they also demonstrated that with the equipment present they could put it together into a ship in a year and a day.

They omitted that part, they claimed one year construction, no qualifications.

(Yes, she went to her sea trials a year and a day after being laid down, in other navies she would have been commissioned before sea trials - for example the Bismarck was commissioned three weeks before her sea trials and so was the Nassau.)

Good job on finding other good examples of PR stunts! Im glad you agree.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Big woop, so did Germany
No she did not.

Germany did not manufacture thirty modern battleships/battlecruisers in ten years.


And what do you define as "finished construction"? Because for the British it's sea trials, for the USN it's sea trials, for everyone it's sea trials because at that point it becomes "working up".
 

JAG88

Banned
1 year 1 day from laying down to sea trials, other navies (like the German one) counted them commissioned well before sea trials.

German custom was to commission AFTER sea trials, see the dates in Conways, they are after trials with the exception of the Nassaus. See the difference?

Lutzow for example was commissioned in 1916, after suffering damage during sea trials in 1915. Moreover, most "commissioning" dates for the HSF ships were the day the officially joined the fleet as in the case of Bayern, which appears as commissioned in July when the ship had already finished working up in May and was combat ready but with the crew on leave.

This explains in part the large difference in construction times with the RN, check the Rs for example, one went into battle a month after commissioning, another one also a month after comm. didnt.

Audacious went down due to poor training, the crew was still too green and didnt cope well with the emergency, the ship was lost. See the difference?
 

JAG88

Banned
No she did not.

Germany did not manufacture thirty modern battleships/battlecruisers in ten years.


And what do you define as "finished construction"? Because for the British it's sea trials, for the USN it's sea trials, for everyone it's sea trials because at that point it becomes "working up".

This is the number of ships Germany laid down per year until the 1912 law:

1907 - 4

1908 - 5

1909 - 3

1910 - 3

1911 - 5

By FY:

1906 - 2

1907 - 3

1908 - 4

1909 - 4

1910 - 4

1911 - 4

And they werent using their shipyards to full capacity yet. Btw, the RN also did lay down more than 3 a year, often a lot more, check your numbers.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
And they werent using their shipyards to full capacity yet. Btw, the RN also did lay down more than 3 a year, often a lot more, check your numbers.
I wasn't using laying down. I was using how many battleships the RN had cmmissioned within ten years of the laying down of the first, HMS Dreadnought.
In other words, during the first ten years the RN was working on making dreadnoughts, she built and completed and commissioned thirty and had many more building. That is, she could deliver three a year to the fleet with ease.


In the ten years from the laying down of the first German DN, the Germans commissioned (and remember commissioning into the German navy is not what you consider being complete)


Nassau laid down 1907


1907-17 was:

2 commissioned in 1909
2 1910
3 1911
3 1912
3 1913
3 1914
2 1916



So over the same period the RN commissioned nearly thirty DN BBs from scratch (over thirty counting BCs), the KM commissioned 18 from scratch.

By Jutland the KM had commissioned 16 DN BBs and 6 BCs and the RN had commissioned 31 DN BBs and 9 BCs.

So that's 22 to 40.
 
Top