The Royal Oak

Frankly, I don't know why the Germans didn't stand off at 26,000 yards and have some target practice.

 

chickens?

 

The skipper who kept his ship just out of 15in gun range in hopes of kuring the "R" away from the convoy got in a heap of trouble.
Of course, he could have gotten worse if the "R" had been carrying super-charge propellants....

 

They may not have stand a chance (ofcoarse they had altough very small) against the Bismarck they still had a very good carreer in the beginning of WWII and did a good job in the Med (so obviously the RN needed them at that time as they lacked new BB's).

 

They did some good service, yes, but their utility was limited.

 

more bbc news on the Oak

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/...4125.stm&news=1&bbwm=1&nbram=1&bbram=1&nbwm=1

FNG

 

thanks for the link

 

Yeah, that was a nice news story. The USN is facing similar problems with the wreck of USS ARIZONA. They're still trying to figure out how to remove the oil from her fuel tanks as well, since she is deteriorating. The damage she sustained December 7th, 1941 isn't making the task any easier.

 

Hiya, long time lurker first time poster

In response to why the twins did'nt engage the R, and why they did'nt stand off at 26K yards, I believe that if the BB in question had'nt had it's gun elevation increased post WW1 from 20 to 30 degrees then the ship in question would have had supercharges.

and without wanting to deviate from the topic am i the only one that thinks the RN should have stumped up the extra cash for a repeat QE class, rather than take a backward step and order the R class BB's?

 

In answer to the first I would guess the answer boils down to risk.

For the twins to engage Ramillies would risk damage. As Bismarck later showed a raider out in the Atlantic really can't afford to take damage at any price. If they stayed out of range of Ramillies 15" gun then was the problem that long range fire is generally none to accurate. They could burn through a lot of ammunition without achieving a result.

On the second point I don't believe cost was the biggest factor. Ordered pre WW1 the British could afford to build repeats of the QE but there were question marks over fuel. The QE were oil powered, the rest of the fleet coal burning. The island of Britain had lots of coal but no oil, so effectively the R's reverted to coal to ensure wartime supply.

Final note, bare in mind that in the previous 50 years most warships had been rendered obsolete within about ten years. I don't believe the designers expected them to be frontline unit 25+ years after entering service. The treaty environment kept the going when 'naturally' they would have been replaced.

 

As far as I know, R-class ships were designed with mixed fired (or coal fired) boilers but built as all oil fired.

I think R-class ships are wholly underappreciated, mainly because of their WW2-service. If we look at their original purpose (slugging out with HSF at North Sea, low visibility, part of battleline), they fit nicely for that purpose. Actually, I think they were better than QE-class battleships for that purpose. R-class had same armament and better vertical protection than QE-class.

R-class ships were designed to be in service for 15 years and lasted almost twice of that.

 

Whoops on the fuel. Shouldn't try to relie on memory for these things.

Your right on the speed issue as well. The R's (and for that matter the Nelsons) are unfairly damned for speed that was perfectly acceptable for at least the first ten years of their existance.

 

I suppose that's the biggest problem with looking back, we're looking back with the benefit of hindsight. However I still think it would have been a safe assumption to assume that BB speeds would increase and that a repeat (improved) QE series would have been better than the R's.

The fact that the treaties brought about the building holiday meant that the QE's became much more valuable than the slightly newer R's.

I wonder how the early pART OF ww2 would have went if the RN had 10QE's, and wonder more so what would have happened if instead of their historic rebuilds they'd been given full neato rebuilds ala the jap kongos and ?? class BB's, might it have pushed their speeds upto 26/27 knots. How would the DS battle have went if a 26/27 knot intercept course had been plotted and it was a QE, POW and Hood vs BS & PE

 

Certainly in 1939 10 QE's would have been more useful than 5 QE's and 5 R's but that's a lot to ask of whoever authorised their construction back in 1912 (approx)

It would also depend on the level of undating between the wars. Some of the QE's were virtually gutted between the wars. A process that would never have taken place in a treaty free environment.

 

Yes, QE's were more useful than R's. But what if they had built all R's as battlecruisers as they did with two of them? And give them extensive modernization like Renown. I think it would have been even better than building 10 QE's.

But surely no-one back then 1912 (ish) would have proposed or accepted that. And would those 7 (or 8) R-class BC have survived that most destructive naval battle ever, Washington Naval Conference 1922?

 

I think it's safe to say they would'nt have survived as BC's. Possible half survive and half get converted to CV's (although this leaves the battleline severely depleted, although it would have been understrength anyway with all those BC's waiting to go 'boom')

 

Given how many battlecruisers the British scrapped as a result of the treaty, I doubt that so many would have survived.

 

I admit my knowledge of the treaties is limited, but a cursory check shows that the RN scrapped 2 invicibles, 2 inde's and 2 lions. The most modern of these was laid down in 1910 so i dont think it's safe to assume that newer BC's would be scrapped as a result of the treaty, especially given how they would have had to been constructed in leiu of BB construction

Maybe??

 

Given that the only battlecruisers the RN kept were HOOD, RENOWN, and REPULSE, I think it likely that they wouldn't have kept much more than that under the Washington Treaty, if indeed any.

 

Off the top of my head I think Tiger and Lion survived Washington. I think they were sacrificed at one of the later conferences though.