Gunboards Forums banner

1 - 20 of 375 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
847 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I'm BAAAAAAACK! Seems that my other posts got lost in the change over.
So here goes part two!

What ships?
What navy?
History?

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas
 

·
Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
93,697 Posts
First one looks like a Koenig-class from the Kaiser's Navy. Class of four, all laid down 1911, in service 1914, served through WWI, including +present at Jutland. All four (Koenig, Grosser Kurfurst, Markgraf, Kronprinz) scuttled at Scapa 1919 and sunk there. Grosser Kurfurst salvaged in 1936, other three remained in place until more recent years.

Mating looks like the 1914 fit.

Second ship is Italian. Not sure if it is Conte de Cavour or a Caio Duilio, but it is in the modernized state from the total conversions informed 30s, with lengthened hull, removal of Q turret, and reboring main battery from 12" to 12.6". Ships came out with 10 guns, 28 knots and improved but still inadequate for modern conditions armor and underwater protection. Conte de Cavour and Giulio Cesar converted 1933-1937, Caio Duilio and Andrea Doria converted1937-1940 and had 85K SHP for 27 knots instead of 93k for 28. Cesare was transferred to Russia and re-named Novorossijsk, lost 1955 at Sevastopol, hit left-over WWII mine, apparently.
 

·
Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
93,697 Posts
I'll have to get Breyer out - but No. 1 just might be No. 2 before conversion. But I will have to check references to see if that is correct or not. I stand by No. 2 being one of the Eytie Dreadnoughts as converted
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,704 Posts
That's right. They rebuilt the Cavours drastically, including removing the center turret and changing out the power plant, actually increasing the top speed of the battleships (usually battleships get slower as the navy piles on more junk). I think they bored out the main guns to a larger caliber too...
 

·
Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
93,697 Posts
OK - I as wrong aout No. 1, not a KOENIG. Even found he right picture - it is CONTE DI CAVOUR, at Taranto in June 1917 (page 171, Preston's BATTLESHIPS OF WWI).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
847 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Clyde WINS!!!!! Drastic changes did little good. But she LOOKS good!

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas



























More to come.
 

·
Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
93,697 Posts
Actually, the rebuilt Cavours and Duilios weren't all that bad, though they would ahve had a bad time if they'd had the misfortune to encounter ABC with Warspite or any other QE. Or James Somerville with Renown. On the other hand - the amount of work and resources spent on them might ahve been better used to get an extra Veneto or two.
 

·
Diamond with Oak Clusters and Swords member
Joined
·
11,131 Posts
On the other hand - the amount of work and resources spent on them might ahve been better used to get an extra Veneto or two.
Clyde, wasn't there a problem with building new ships at the time under the Treaty of Versailles ending WW1?
 

·
Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
93,697 Posts
No. The Italians were on the winning side and suffered no restrictions from Versailles. They were (like France) relegated to a lesser capital ship tonnage than the British, Americans or Japanese (the 5-5-3-1.75-1.75 ratios) under the Washington Naval Treaty of 1921. But the ships could have been replaced under the age clauses of the WNT without a problem instead of reconstructed (which also had limitations which were at least skated around on these conversions IMO). Both the Italians and the French were entitled to build some new tonnage by the mid-30s and did so, producing the 35,000 ton displacement Venetos in Italy and the Richelieus in France (as well as the earlier Dunquerque and Strasbourg there). In addition to reconstructions.

The Italians and the Japanese went further with reconstruction than any of the other powers, by the way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,704 Posts
Rebuilding existing hulls doesn't require as much work for your heavy industry as building new. When you read about WW1 fleets especially, they talk about drydocks as a major limiting factor.
 

·
Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
93,697 Posts
The limiting factor in re dry-docks isn't building - it is having docks big enough to put the ships in for service and repair (especially repair of battle damage) later on. Means size is limited by dry dock dimensions.

And when you do the sort of total conversion the Cavours and Duilios or the Japanese BCs and Nagatos got, you are getting into the same sort of required resources new construction needs. And while you may get decant ships (the Kongos, built as battle cruisers before and during WWI, can reasonably be called fast BBs after the changes they got, while the Nagatos came out almost as fast as South Dakotas or Washingtons, though with less protection, but then they were always a bit light that way), my opinion is the resources would have been better spent on new ships.

I think the British would ahve been better served by building something like Vanguard in the mid-30s instead of the major reconstruction some of the QEs got (espeicially QE, Warspite and Valiant). But they did have some treaty problems that way, so maybe I'm wrong. They should unquestionably have done "the big thing" for Hood, probably starting c.1938 and then pushing it really hard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,704 Posts
Politics has some part to play in it too. In the late 19th century the US congress refused to give the Navy money to build ships, so the Navy asked for a large sum to rebuild some of the Civil War monitors, then proceeded to strip the monitors down to the keel and build a new ship in the empty drydock.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
847 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Once again.
This is a "Who is it?"

American military
Singer, songwriter
"one hit wonder"

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas
 

·
Diamond with Oak Clusters and Swords member
Joined
·
11,131 Posts
Sargent Barry Sadler, Ballad of the Green Berets.

"Ballad of the Green Berets" is a patriotic song in the ballad style about the Green Berets, an elite special force in the U.S. Army. It is one of the very few songs of the era to cast the military in a positive light and yet it became a major hit.

The song was written by Robin Moore and Staff Sgt. Barry Sadler, while the latter was recuperating from a leg wound suffered as a medic in the Vietnam War. Moore also wrote a non-fiction book, The Green Berets, about the force.

The recording of the song was the number one hit in the United States for five weeks in 1966 and was the number twenty-one song of 1960s, despite the later unpopularity of the Vietnam War. Refer to United States Army Special Forces in popular culture

It has sold over nine million singles and albums. It was the top single of a year in which the British Invasion, led by the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, dominated the U.S. charts.

It is currently used as one of the four primary marching tunes of the Fightin' Texas Aggie Band.
 

·
Gold Bullet Member/Moderator
Joined
·
25,334 Posts
What ship/s

might these be? (I know, just an eye test) :)
 

·
Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
93,697 Posts
Well the piccies of a boat are all of DD-445, USS Fletcher. The airplane is an F/A-18 assigned to the USN Flight Demonstration Team, the Blue Angels. The girl is handsome, blonde and seems to be (hooray!!) challenged in the "What can I find to wear" department. Good enough?
 

·
Diamond with Oak Clusters and Swords member
Joined
·
11,131 Posts
Appears to be a ball turret so I would guess a B-17.

You had to be small and brave to climb into one of those and fight!
 

·
Platinum Bullet Member
Joined
·
8,124 Posts
Built by the Sperry Company, if I'm not mistaken.
 
1 - 20 of 375 Posts
Top