Wyoming class bombardment ship

Finally a ship that Cal Bear can hate more than the Alaska.
I expect him to comment pretty quickly,I wouldn't be surprised if he has an AI that scans all posts for mentions of the Alaska.
 
One thing when considering the rapid fire 8" guns: at maximum rate of fire, the ship would shoot herself dry in 15 minutes. A high rate of fire's useful when you're shooting at an enemy ship, but it's not helpful when you need to find the target, shoot, correct, shoot, and find another target. In short, the excess weight of the system is mostly wasted fr bombardment. (The high rate of fire is also useful when shooting at aircraft, and the gun was fitted for a fuse setter.)

The USN had plenty of bombardment platforms; if it had needed more, a monitor similar to the British ones would have been much more affordable, and much faster to build. Plenty of 12" guns in storage...

http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_8-55_mk16.php
 

SsgtC

Banned
I see the point you're trying to make, but keep in mind, this isn't the days of sailing wooden warships where, outside of details, they were all constructed using the same basic methods. Repairing a foreign warship is no easy task. Since the US would have literally NONE of the materials needed to fix her. So that more than likely accounted for Malaya's extended repair period. Whereas the US has literally everything it needs to repair one of it's own ships sitting in a warehouse. And at any rate, Britain was sending it's ships to the US to be repaired due to the threat of air attack in the Home Isles.

Or, contrast Malaya taking a torpedo off of Cape Verde, where she was heavily damaged on the port side, but managed to limp back to Trinidad before going to the US for repairs (which took 4 months).
 
And because British industrial capacity was fully committed to business rather more important than repairing obsolescent battleships.

There's some silly comparisons going on here.
 
Just to keep on my thought, is the difference in outcome not a lot to do with simply the lack of RN repair resources due to battles of the Atlantic?

I'm trying to cite damages that were done underway vs their ability to continue with their action or being forced to return home. Some of those British battleships could have returned to service if they had the chance to refit. With the two still in service by the end, plus Rodney (undamaged but just worn out from constant use) plus some number of the others (I'd say all the ones that retired/were to retire in 1945, making it 4.) which would give you 7 of the 15 that could still serve. (plus one in Soviet service).

Again, compared to 12 of the 15 US interwar battleships still in service at war's end (although, if we're counting the British ones as repairable if the desire was there, then we have to count Pennsylvania as her lack of repair can be attributed to the war's end). And, as before, the only two losses were done in harbor under peacetime conditions.

Did Warspite not steam herself home after the action, 38 killed is bad but was the decision to sail her to US not due to lack of repair facilities rather than how badly damaged she was?

Oh, she certainly did. Much better than in later instances. And that is the reason she went to the US.

Was more putting the US reference to point out the Warspite received repairs from a similar source as the US ships.

Regarding Fritz X is it not more like 1,362 kg (3,000 lb) and moving much faster than any Japanese bomb due to the high it was dropped from?

Was citing the actual explosive warhead, not the total weight. Though, the 500 lb bomb should be listed as with a warhead of about 1/4 its size (I can't find the exact weight). Makes the previous incident a bit worse if it caused flooding.

Malaya was LD/Commissioned in 1913/1916 v Maryland in 1917/1921 I think that's a significant different generation of torpedo protection?

As the damage to Maryland wasn't to the torpedo protection, but rather to the very extreme bow, compared to the Malaya's damage either to the torpedo protection or part of it on the port side, the torpedo that hit Maryland didn't hit the torpedo protection at all vs Malaya (which did receive two refits, one in 27 and one in 34, but they weren't as comprehensive as the others).

Although, Maryland was damaged so badly that she had to back all the way to Pearl to make repairs. Sailing forward would have torn off the bow it was so badly damage (though she could make 10 knots in reverse, so nothing too shabby).

I see the point you're trying to make, but keep in mind, this isn't the days of sailing wooden warships where, outside of details, they were all constructed using the same basic methods. Repairing a foreign warship is no easy task. Since the US would have literally NONE of the materials needed to fix her. So that more than likely accounted for Malaya's extended repair period. Whereas the US has literally everything it needs to repair one of it's own ships sitting in a warehouse. And at any rate, Britain was sending it's ships to the US to be repaired due to the threat of air attack in the Home Isles.

Then what of Barham? Took a torpedo on December 28 of 1919 in her torpedo bulge, heavily flooded with and listing, but did eventually make it back to port in England. There, she was laid up until April of 1940, roughly the same 4 month timespan as Malaya. And Barham was one of the Queen Elizabeths to actually receive the extensive 34 refit, unlike Malaya.

Although, the latter would explain why she was practically retired when she came back, only to be brought back out for the Normandy landings. Her lack of a comprehensive refit likely doomed her later on, as she wasn't worth that much after being damaged.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Because Britain had much higher priories than repairing a 20+ year old ship. Like building convoy escorts. The UK had almost no need for big gun ships at that time. The KM was focused almost entirely on smaller ships (destroyers, cruisers and subs). The US on the other hand was facing an enemy in the Pacific with one of the best battle lines in the world. They believed there was an urgent need to get those BBs back in service ASAP because of that.

Then what of Barham? Took a torpedo on December 28 of 1919 in her torpedo bulge, heavily flooded with and listing, but did eventually make it back to port in England. There, she was laid up until April of 1940, roughly the same 4 month timespan as Malaya. And Barham was one of the Queen Elizabeths to actually receive the extensive 34 refit, unlike Malaya.

Although, the latter would explain why she was practically retired when she came back, only to be brought back out for the Normandy landings. Her lack of a comprehensive refit likely doomed her later on, as she wasn't worth that much after being damaged.
 
Then what of Barham? Took a torpedo on December 28 of 1919 in her torpedo bulge, heavily flooded with and listing, but did eventually make it back to port in England. There, she was laid up until April of 1940, roughly the same 4 month timespan as Malaya.
tumblr_nrba01uRLh1ropumpo1_500.png
 
Because Britain had much higher priories than repairing a 20+ year old ship. Like building convoy escorts. The UK had almost no need for big gun ships at that time. The KM was focused almost entirely on smaller ships (destroyers, cruisers and subs). The US on the other hand was facing an enemy in the Pacific with one of the best battle lines in the world. They believed there was an urgent need to get those BBs back in service ASAP because of that.

But this was prior to the fall of France and at the very beginning of the war, and she was finished repairing by the time the invasion of Norway started. I'm trying to find the exact timeline of the British building programs, but from what I can tell, the first of the O-class destroyers were laid down in June 1940 under the War Emergency Programme, and these were the first ships in a serious to build the convoy escorts that you're mentioning.

That gives a two month gap between the completion of Barham's repairs and the first destroyer from the Emergency Program being laid down. Whatever interference there was by the system (and I understand that there was quite a bit, as that was responsible for the later repairs being shunted to the US), that didn't start to ramp up until mid 1940, far after she was completed.


Let's do the time warp agaiiiiiin.
 
Then what of Barham? Took a torpedo on December 28 of 1919 in her torpedo bulge, heavily flooded with and listing, but did eventually make it back to port in England. There, she was laid up until April of 1940, roughly the same 4 month timespan as Malaya. And Barham was one of the Queen Elizabeths to actually receive the extensive 34 refit, unlike Malaya.

Although, the latter would explain why she was practically retired when she came back, only to be brought back out for the Normandy landings. Her lack of a comprehensive refit likely doomed her later on, as she wasn't worth that much after being damaged.
Its been noted by Lost Freeway, but you might want to rewite this part as I'm not sure what you mean? HMS Barham certainly did not come back for Normandy....
But then I cant think of any capital ship that survived three submarine torps?
 
Its been noted by Lost Freeway, but you might want to rewite this part as I'm not sure what you mean? HMS Barham certainly did not come back for Normandy....
But then I cant think of any capital ship that survived three submarine torps?

Sorry, that was in reference to Malaya. Should have specified.

I can't either; part of the problem was avoiding the torpedoes in the first place. This is where the 700 yard tactical diameter comes into play. It's far easier to out turn a torpedo than to outrun it. (I can't find anything for the Queen Elizabeth class, but Hood's tactical diameter was 1400 yards). Also, for the ships with turboelectric drive, they had one that was even smaller (as they could twist with half their shafts in reverse and half in forward).
 
Sorry, that was in reference to Malaya. Should have specified.

I can't either; part of the problem was avoiding the torpedoes in the first place. This is where the 700 yard tactical diameter comes into play. It's far easier to out turn a torpedo than to outrun it. (I can't find anything for the Queen Elizabeth class, but Hood's tactical diameter was 1400 yards). Also, for the ships with turboelectric drive, they had one that was even smaller (as they could twist with half their shafts in reverse and half in forward).

Barham? Good luck trying to out-turn torpedoes launched from 400 yards away. Anyway, you don't avoid torpedoes by out-turning them, you avoid them by preventing the U-boat getting into an attack position.
 
Top