Why on earth did the British, after their performance at Jutland, not immediately through the battlecruiser concept into the trash? And on a related note, how was this twenty-year old obsolete design still the pride and joy of the Royal Navy when she went up against Bismarck? They had better armed ships by numbers in the King George V's, and by caliber in the Nelsons.
I'm sure there are reasonable answers to these questions by guys more intimately familiar with Royal Navy history, but with the virtue of hindsight none of this makes good sense and the outcome of Hood's meeting with Bismarck was entirely predictable.
>in the middle of a gigantic war
>takes 2 years to build a capital ship
>why wouldn't you continue to use this suboptimal ship you already have?
Jutland was human error. Explosives stored outside magazines and lockers, doors left open, etc. They developed these habits from peacetime gunnery competitions.
Hood didn't have pre-Jutland scheme battlecruiser armor though. She was under construction when Jutland happened, and they halted construction to add a shitload of armor. Hood was better described as a fast battleship than a battlecruiser.
Hood literally had nothing to do with jutland era battlecruisers.
It literally had armor comparable to most battleships if its era. The only reason it was called battlecruiser was its speed - both its armor and weapons were battleship grade.
Most likely Bismarck just got lucky with a golden bullet.
>Why on earth did the British, after their performance at Jutland, not immediately through the battlecruiser concept into the trash?
Because it worked; a battlecruiser was simply the next step to a fast battleship. Bear in mind that the older British BCs at Jutland were fricked by modern German BCs. If anything the performance of the latter validated the BC concept. As such, even as late as the 30s no less than the US NAVY was asking for BCs aka fast battleships
Besides, the British BCs blew up because of improper ammo handling practices. Or even if you don't accept that, they had thinner armour. Hood was comparable to the German BCs at Jutland in terms of protection
>And on a related note, how was this twenty-year old obsolete design still the pride and joy of the Royal Navy when she went up against Bismarck?
It wasn't. That's just the usual "oh look at this death star we got" propaganda. Kind of like if an F18 got shot down today - boomers would be doing their nut, but the real next step is the F35 as we all know.
>They had better armed ships by numbers in the King George V's
Precisely
>and by caliber in the Nelsons
The Nelsons were good ships but they were definitely a compromised design. The 16" gun was unproven and turned out to be inferior; putting all the turrets togrther means they might all get taken out together, which is why it wasn't standard practice; and it sacrificed range and (iirc) speed which has both tactical and operational mobility issues
>with the virtue of hindsight none of this makes good sense
Hindsight tends to be 20/20, provided revisonism doesn't get in the way
and the outcome of Hood's meeting with Bismarck was entirely predictable
It wasn't at all. Analysts have gone over the Hood shot over and over again, and concluded it was either a one in a million Death Star hit, or it would have pierced any Brit battleship anyway. Either way it was not at all predictable, like most things in war.
P.s.
Bismarck would have made it to port if not for one torpedo in the rudder sent in by a fricking biplane.
Chance is a hell of a thing. That's why I love the whole story of the Bismarck's cruise - there were so many chance occurrences on both sides, you couldn't make this shit up. And the damn thing actually nearly got home. It's just like my Greek tragedies...
And they only got biplaned because Lutjens incorrectly assumed the British knew where they were and broke radio silence.
You should read about the life of the ship's commander, Admiral Gunther Lutjens. The guy's entire life was a Greek tragedy.
>quarter-israeli, wife was half-israeli
>only kept his commission because he was friends with Raeder and Donitz
>was fully aware that he was in the service of a morally bankrupt government
>was one of a handful of German flag officers to dare file formal protests against Kristallnacht
>had a reputation for being an butthole because he had to keep his opinions to himself 99% of the time, lest he put himself and his family in mortal danger
>was opposed to Rheinübung from the start and had his protests overruled by his superiors, still felt compelled to take command out of fear of being branded a coward if he didn't
>foresaw his own death and was deeply depressed in the weeks leading up to the fateful sortie
>had his nightmares come true and died along with most of his men, leaving behind three children and a widow who was pregnant
>was subjected to posthumous insult in the film Sink the Bismarck where he's depicted as a comically rabid Nazi
>even as late as the 30s no less than the US NAVY was asking for BCs aka fast battleships
wasn't that so they can serve as escort for carrier?
Partially, but not having enemy cruisers/battlecruisers7fast battleships run rings around you also remained relevant. The Iowas got their speed largely to run down the Kongos.
And in the end the Kongous were way more useful than the interwar battleships such as the Ise and Fusou.
Hood died to a freak lucky hit. No ship was immune to such occurrences. If the luck had been on the other side you'd be asking why the Germans sent their new and untested B out to fight the pride of the RN.
As to why Hood was still subject to such high esteem in Britain, there was little else to be proud of. The RN had been hollowed out by the post ww1 budget cuts plus the London and Washington naval treaties. The alternative to hyping Hood was to admit the RN, and by extension the Empire, was pretty much existing on the sufferance of the US. The UK could not afford a naval race with the US after pretty well bankrupting itself in WW1 while the US lost next to nothing. "Look at our treaty battleship! We're only allowed a cucked version of the original design because the yank's say so!" doesn't exactly scream worlds strongest navy.
The reason the Axis powers had such an advantage in the war was that they pretty much ignored the treaty and built whatever they wanted. To take Bismarck as an example, at full load she weighed around 50,000 tons. She launched in early 1939 and mounted 8 x 15 inch guns.
British designers at the end of WW1 drew up the N3 design, set to be laid down in 1921 before the treaty saw her cancelled. Given say a 4 year build time (a very doable pace) she'd be working up by the mid 1920s so a good 15 years older than Bismarck. She was set to mount 9 x 18 inch guns - so Yamato firepower - and would have weighed 49,000 tons.
Inb4 Wehraboos dropping their big brained "Lmao, we cheated what are you going to do about it?" take. Not being able to keep to your word on fricking treaty is a big part of the reason for that 'unconditional surrender' demand. No one would trust you to keep to the agreed conditions after lying over and over again.
>The reason the Axis powers had such an advantage in the war was that they pretty much ignored the treaty and built whatever they wanted. To take Bismarck as an example, at full load she weighed around 50,000 tons.
Bismark is the worst example you could use though because she's a horribly inefficient ship. Any allied navy would have gotten 2+ more knots or 2+ more guns on the same displacement. She also had a janky mix of 105mm AA guns and 150mm anti-surface guns instead of a standardized dual purpose battery like everyone else.
>she's a horribly inefficient ship
Efficiency is another matter. Anon's point is that she was overweight as hell.
The two go together here. Bismark was far overweight for a treaty battleship, but only about as capable as a treaty battleship. The extra tonnage didn't buy them extra armor or power or guns, it was wasted on German autism.
The Brits tricked the Germans into building battleships instead of expanding the U-boat fleet.
Bismark sank to a Biplane haha.
Ha.
HMS Hood was pretty much the first of the modern fast battleships that all battleships became. Well above 25 knots, normal battleship protection, normal battleship weaponry.
The treaty compliant battleships had to deal with a lot of limitations and the US treaty battleships viewed speed as more important than armor. The South Dakota-class and North Carolina-class both sailed 28 knots but had a few inches less armor than the far slower Nelson-class. The King George V priortized speed.
I think eveery treaty battleship but the Nelson-class and Nagato-class prioritized speed over armor.
If the British design knew how the 16 inch Mk I was going to turn out they would've stuck with the 15 inch gun with a faster ship probably.
>bullets pass through without detonating
>too slow to be tracked by modern AAFCS
>versatile load out options
>mogs terror of the seas
>takes off in a stiff breeze
>very cute
I want the plans. I want to build one in my garden shed. I've tried to track down the blueprints but its merger after company merger. Maybe I'll FOIA request the MOD.
>FOIA request the MOD
Would that work? Does Britain have a FOIA equivalent? Does the American law have jurisdiction over there?
We have our own FOIA but things like aircraft designs wouldn't be covered because they're owned by private businesses, not the government.
In the case of Fairey, I believe it was amalgamated into what is nowadays Babwiener
>I've tried to track down the blueprints but its merger after company merger. Maybe I'll FOIA request the MOD
Lol at this point they probably don't know themselves. That's what happened to the fricking Mosquito of all planes; they lost the blueprints in all that postwar shuffle and only found them when a de Havilland factory was to be demolished.
God I love the swordfish. It's such a piece of shit that would better suited in WW1. slow, no protection, barely armed, open wienerpit, made of string and canvas and the you are supposed to take that thing and fly it low slow and straight towards an enemy ship covered in every type of AA imaginable. And yet the crews still climbed into this deathtrap somehow managed to get results.
It's even funnier when you consider it survived multiple attempts to replace it.
It sunk more enemy tonnage than any other plane on the allies.
I doubt the germans+itay had that many tonnage, and the Pacific was dominated by the Dauntless
They certainly didn't after the Swordfish was done with them, and yes it sunk more than the Dauntless despite being inferior by most metrics.
>It's such a piece of shit that would better suited in WW1
The Swordfish was not appreciatably obsolete in any meaningful sense for the purposes it was designed for. It was introduced in the mid-1930s as a pretty typical design of the era, only really lagging behind what was for the time cutting edge designs like the Devestator. At it's introduction it's purpose was simple: attack enemy ships who had limited or no air cover. In 1940-42 those targets still existed, and the Swordfish still worked perfectly well as a result.
>The Swordfish was not appreciatably obsolete in any meaningful sense
>It was introduced in the mid-1930s...to attack enemy ships who had limited or no air cover
When people say "Swordfish was obsolete" they don't mean it was obsolete in 1936, they mean it was obsolete in the "1940-42" period. The contemporary aircraft from that period, like the Kate and Avenger flew circles around the Swordfish both literally and in terms of durability / payload / etc. Swordfish was successful against navies that didn't have carriers, and the CAP is the primary air defense component of a WW2 fleet. Swordfish also never faced an opponent with VT fuses or radar AA direction.
Old doc has Fairey rebuilding one if you look around on YouTube.
You may not like it, but this is the most successful naval bomber in history. Literally peak performance.
>utcome of Hood's meeting with Bismarck was entirely predictable.
HMS Hood was sunk by a single lucky shot. Based on the various reports from the Bismark, their attacks were ineffective bar that shot. They essentially rolled a D20 and got a Nat 20.
The deck armor was deficient as the ship was old. They charged the enemy so as to minimize the window they'd be vulnerable. Almost worked but Bismarck gunnery was outstanding. They should have let PoW lead, but bong tradition and all...
Very sad story.
This is a really interesting one that I think about pretty often.
How would the 1920 design of the Lexington class BC have faired in WW2? Was the armor at all adequate? How did they compare to the Hood?
>Was the armor at all adequate?
From what I understand the pre-conversion Lexingtons somehow took the lesson of Jutland to be "battlecruisers need even LESS armor and even MORE speed". Like, HMS Invincible levels of armor. And many, many funnels.
They would probably have been sunk at Pearl Harbour and the war would have gone significantly worse for America. Japan would still eventually capitulate to the Essex swarm, but no Saratoga or Lexington early is going to hurt a lot.
This is a warning to any potential time travelers.
If you go back in time to ensure the Lexingtons get built as battlecruisers instead of converted into carriers and deny me my Sara, I will personally go back in time to beat your ass on the streets of 1920s D.C. She did this country good and the only timeline revisions to her life that are acceptable would be arranging a less ignominious fate. Anything else is a declaration of war.
You need to take the Battlecruiser pill Anon.
The real battlecruiser pill is that the fast battleship is the ultimate iteration of battlecruiser
Iowa is a battlecruiser, the best ever built
Allow me to reiterate.
Any time travelers who lay hands on Sara will be flayed.
Put simply, even the 1930s refits for Japan's Kongo class battleships had thicker armor than the Lexington battlecruisers did. Italy's Zara class heavy cruisers had comparable armor thickness. If the Lexingtons (assuming original armor configuration) had to go toe to toe with a Japanese surface force in 1942, I think the chances of them taking heavy damage or sinking is pretty high.
In the 1930s, carriers were still universally considered to be secondary in importance to battleships. The scouting abilities they provided, along with the ability to shoot down enemy snoopers, was valuable but aircraft ranges by and large were still too short to prevent them from getting run down by fast surface ships and aircraft payloads too low to inflict meaningful damage on a battleship. With that in mind, the Lexingtons were not really meant to be carrier escorts. They were to be the fast wing of the battle line, an answer to the Japanese Kongo battleships (which was the original reason for the Lexington battlecruiser class), and heavy scouts capable of dealing with any scout cruiser the enemy possessed.
So you see the label "battlecruiser" and think that's all there is to know. That's really stupid of you, but fear not, there's a path to not being not quite as stupid. Start with: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkSY_ALpBQQ
>They had better armed ships by numbers in the King George V's
They had two, and at least one of them (Prince of Wales) was still trying to get itself up and running properly. A bit early for them to take over the crown British propaganda had spent the last twenty years nailing onto Hood's head. (HMS Duke of York wasn't commissioned until August, wand the last two the following year.) As for the main armament the KGV's had ten guns against eight, but theirs were 14" while Hood's were 15". HMS Hood was also larger by displacement than the KGVs and NelRod, the only British battleship ever to beat her there was the HMS Vanguard, and none of them beat Hood in length.
Hood was carved out in the Washington and London treaties so she was essentially a free capital ship for Britain in the interwar years.