Real time Discusion thread

[stevep]

Mar 5, 2020 17:05:19 GMT lordroel said:

So stevep what are the difference between 1915 HMS Queen Elizabeth.



And 1941 HMS Queen Elizabeth.

  Lordroel

  Well there was a fairly extensive rebuild, with some details in HMS_Queen_Elizabeth_refits. 

  Steve

[lordroel]

Mar 5, 2020 18:26:16 GMT stevep said:

Mar 5, 2020 17:05:19 GMT lordroel said:

So stevep what are the difference between 1915 HMS Queen Elizabeth.



And 1941 HMS Queen Elizabeth.

  Lordroel

  Well there was a fairly extensive rebuild, with some details in HMS_Queen_Elizabeth_refits. 

  Steve

Thanks for the link stevep .

Is it normal for a Great War era battleships to have two refits in less than 10 years from each other.

[stevep]

Mar 5, 2020 18:33:47 GMT lordroel said:

Mar 5, 2020 18:26:16 GMT stevep said:

  Lordroel

  Well there was a fairly extensive rebuild, with some details in HMS_Queen_Elizabeth_refits. 

  Steve

Thanks for the link stevep .

Is it normal for a Great War era battleships to have two refits in less than 10 years from each other.

  I think it depends on the circumstances, including the rate of technological change and also other factors, in this case the existence of the treaties which prevented replacement ships being built.  For instance HMS Dreadnought was completed in early 1906 and was effectively obsolete by 1914 when WWI started.  It acted as the flagship of the Channel fleet, the other battleships in that force being pre-dreadnoughts. 

  Traditionally if things weren't moving too fast BBs often had a 'great' refit after about 10-15 years and then after a similar period would be scrapped or put in reserve, both because it would probably be obsolete by then and also likely to be largely worn out.  If not for the 1921 and 1930 treaties the Queen's would probably have had one such refit, probably less extensive than their OTL 2nd one but then be being replaced by new construction by the late 30's - the RN having built more ships in the 20's and early 30's so their probably the slowest and oldest units still active and the slightly newer but smaller and slower R class having already been retired.

  I think in the case of the Queens' and the other ships upgraded the plight of the navy by the early 30's and the combination of the depression and the 1930 treaty extending the naval 'holiday' some upgrades were desperately needed and with technology advancing fairly rapidly, including in air power for instance this continued into the late 30's as the restricted capacity for new capital ship construction and the growing number of threats meant that some older ships needed extensive reconstructions to keep a decent sized battlefleet comparable to the new threats.

  Anyway waffling a bit but hope that helps.

  Steve

[lordroel]

Mar 6, 2020 10:34:45 GMT stevep said:

Mar 5, 2020 18:33:47 GMT lordroel said:

Thanks for the link stevep .

Is it normal for a Great War era battleships to have two refits in less than 10 years from each other.

  I think it depends on the circumstances, including the rate of technological change and also other factors, in this case the existence of the treaties which prevented replacement ships being built.  For instance HMS Dreadnought was completed in early 1906 and was effectively obsolete by 1914 when WWI started.  It acted as the flagship of the Channel fleet, the other battleships in that force being pre-dreadnoughts. 

  Traditionally if things weren't moving too fast BBs often had a 'great' refit after about 10-15 years and then after a similar period would be scrapped or put in reserve, both because it would probably be obsolete by then and also likely to be largely worn out.  If not for the 1921 and 1930 treaties the Queen's would probably have had one such refit, probably less extensive than their OTL 2nd one but then be being replaced by new construction by the late 30's - the RN having built more ships in the 20's and early 30's so their probably the slowest and oldest units still active and the slightly newer but smaller and slower R class having already been retired.

  I think in the case of the Queens' and the other ships upgraded the plight of the navy by the early 30's and the combination of the depression and the 1930 treaty extending the naval 'holiday' some upgrades were desperately needed and with technology advancing fairly rapidly, including in air power for instance this continued into the late 30's as the restricted capacity for new capital ship construction and the growing number of threats meant that some older ships needed extensive reconstructions to keep a decent sized battlefleet comparable to the new threats.

  Anyway waffling a bit but hope that helps.

  Steve

Thanks for your answer stevep, i think the Queen in here 1930s look a lot nicer than here 1915 looks, but that might be just me.

[stevep]

Mar 6, 2020 10:38:21 GMT lordroel said:

Mar 6, 2020 10:34:45 GMT stevep said:

  I think it depends on the circumstances, including the rate of technological change and also other factors, in this case the existence of the treaties which prevented replacement ships being built.  For instance HMS Dreadnought was completed in early 1906 and was effectively obsolete by 1914 when WWI started.  It acted as the flagship of the Channel fleet, the other battleships in that force being pre-dreadnoughts. 

  Traditionally if things weren't moving too fast BBs often had a 'great' refit after about 10-15 years and then after a similar period would be scrapped or put in reserve, both because it would probably be obsolete by then and also likely to be largely worn out.  If not for the 1921 and 1930 treaties the Queen's would probably have had one such refit, probably less extensive than their OTL 2nd one but then be being replaced by new construction by the late 30's - the RN having built more ships in the 20's and early 30's so their probably the slowest and oldest units still active and the slightly newer but smaller and slower R class having already been retired.

  I think in the case of the Queens' and the other ships upgraded the plight of the navy by the early 30's and the combination of the depression and the 1930 treaty extending the naval 'holiday' some upgrades were desperately needed and with technology advancing fairly rapidly, including in air power for instance this continued into the late 30's as the restricted capacity for new capital ship construction and the growing number of threats meant that some older ships needed extensive reconstructions to keep a decent sized battlefleet comparable to the new threats.

  Anyway waffling a bit but hope that helps.

  Steve

Thanks for your answer stevep , i think the Queen in here 1930s look a lot nicer than here 1915 looks, but that might be just me.

lordroel,

  Would agree plus its markedly more efficient.  The 6" casement secondaries, see casements for more details, were too low and largely unable to be used in a seaway in any speed or anything but a flat calm, a serious problem for many WWI designs in most powers I believe.  Also engines were improved as was deck armour - for protection against both longer ranged fire and aircraft, along with markedly more AA fire.  We didn't get a lot out of QE herself early in the war as she was in refit until 1941 and then at the end of the year, along with her sister Valiant were mined in Alexandria harbour, Queen Elizabeth in WWII, which kept her out of action until July 43.  Which is a pity as while slow by WWII standards she was a pretty powerful unit.

  Steve

[lordroel]

So that was another War in real time as Gulf War 1991 - Operation Desert Storm in real time is now Finished.

[stevep]

   lordroel ,

   A couple of comments on the last two WWII posts - with other activities didn't check back on the site other than on rugby issues - after my initial pass through it yesterday.

   On WWII 7/3/41

a) Your still referring to the twins as heavy cruisers when they are either BCs or light BBs - a subject of heated debate on the BB v BB board.

b)  A good day for the change in the Atlantic with two U boats sunk, especially the very lethal Prien.

  On WWII 8/3/41

Admiral Raeder confers with Adolf Hitler. Raeder, a prime proponent of the "Peripheral Strategy" against Great Britain, tells Hitler that northwest Africa - colonized by Vichy France - is the likely spot for a US invasion should the US enter the war.

  Very interesting comment, although given how hostile the US was to the operation initially possibly by chance.

  Steve

[lordroel]

Mar 8, 2020 13:49:02 GMT stevep said:

   lordroel ,

   A couple of comments on the last two WWII posts - with other activities didn't check back on the site other than on rugby issues - after my initial pass through it yesterday.

   On WWII 7/3/41

a) Your still referring to the twins as heavy cruisers when they are either BCs or light BBs - a subject of heated debate on the BB v BB board.

I will make a note to not do that again in the future.

[stevep]

   lordroel ,

  A couple of issues with today's WWI post.

a)  The last two paragraphs under the western front heading are duplicated.  Complicated by a couple of images being included but those are the paras starting with

By noon the British have achieved the goal ....

This is precisely how the breakthrough at Neuve Chapelle plays out.....

b)  Below this is the Eastern front section but the 1st two paras I think should be in the preceding western front section as they concern German plans for a gas attack at Ypres. 

  Otherwise looks good and the section on Neuve Chapelle gives a very good summary of some of the problems with trying to obtain a real break-through at this point.  Unfortunately it takes far too long for the generals, especially Haig to accept this.  Also the tragedy that having made a successful initial attack, by a very short and intense bombardment which gives minimal warning and reaction time the British army - along with the French - for a long period switch to the idea of a prolonged bombardment which gives the defending Germans far too long to react.

  Steve

[stevep]

   lordroel ,

  One small typo noticed in the WWII thread.  In the E African campaign section you have

The Italians top the 23rd Nigerian Brigade of the British 1st African Division at Dagabur (Degehabur), about 100 miles (160 km) south of Jijiga.

  Presuming that should be stop.

  Steve

[lordroel]

Mar 10, 2020 10:09:25 GMT stevep said:

   lordroel ,

  One small typo noticed in the WWII thread.  In the E African campaign section you have

The Italians top the 23rd Nigerian Brigade of the British 1st African Division at Dagabur (Degehabur), about 100 miles (160 km) south of Jijiga.

  Presuming that should be stop.

  Steve

Seems the troll in charge made a mistake, will edit it, thanks for spotting it as usual.

[stevep]

   lordroel ,

   Did you see my comments about the WWI thread yesterday as that hasn't been changed, i.e. the duplication of details about the British offensive and that mention of the planned gas attack at Ypres is under the Eastern front heading?

  Steve

[lordroel]

Mar 11, 2020 16:18:54 GMT stevep said:

   lordroel ,

   Did you see my comments about the WWI thread yesterday as that hasn't been changed, i.e. the duplication of details about the British offensive and that mention of the planned gas attack at Ypres is under the Eastern front heading?

  Steve

A my mistake, seems i missed that stevep, will fix it.

[stevep]

   lordroel ,

  One small query on today's WWI entry.  You have

German cruiser Admiral Hipper, meanwhile, has been at Brest for a month. It requires a major overhaul in Germany. Taking advantage of the attention drawn by Operation Berlin to the south, the Germans send it on its way during the day. It is bound for the Denmark Strait, then Norway. The British are completely aware of its departure.

  This is slightly odd wording as normally it would be "are aware" so I'm wondering if it should be "are completely unaware", i.e. not knowing of it being planned/happening.  Another option is simply that because English is your 2nd language your said/translated it that way but "completely aware" slightly jars as its not the way it would normally be said.

  Presumably we will know if there are [unfortunately] unsuccessful attempts to intercept Hipper as I know she doesn't get sunk and manages to get back to Norway.

  Steve

[lordroel]

Mar 15, 2020 11:23:48 GMT stevep said:

   lordroel ,

  One small query on today's WWI entry.  You have

German cruiser Admiral Hipper, meanwhile, has been at Brest for a month. It requires a major overhaul in Germany. Taking advantage of the attention drawn by Operation Berlin to the south, the Germans send it on its way during the day. It is bound for the Denmark Strait, then Norway. The British are completely aware of its departure.

  This is slightly odd wording as normally it would be "are aware" so I'm wondering if it should be "are completely unaware", i.e. not knowing of it being planned/happening.  Another option is simply that because English is your 2nd language your said/translated it that way but "completely aware" slightly jars as its not the way it would normally be said.

  Presumably we will know if there are [unfortunately] unsuccessful attempts to intercept Hipper as I know she doesn't get sunk and manages to get back to Norway.

  Steve

Thanks will change it.