Battlecruisers

[Guest aevans]

Originally posted by Redbeard:

I really don't think this has to be so complicated - or emotional. Go and see John Campell's "Jutland, an analysis of the fighting" and count the number of heavy British hits on Germans ships that failed to penetrate and detonate properly. Then try, as an experiment of thought, to replace the actual shells with ones performing to the standard of the later Greenboy standards, and it now appears probable that the Germans would have lost 2-3 extra capital ships. This of course is based on an assumption that a heavy shell penetrating main armour and detonating does far more excessive damage (not necessarily blowing up) than a shell either breaking up, only partially penetrating or penetrating but not detonating. If anyone has evidence or even indications of this not being so, I would really like to hear.

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

 

German shells, getting inside British ships, then exploding. In one battle (Dogger Bank), it took only a few to knock Lion out of action. In another (Jutland), a greater number of hits could not knock the same ship out of the fight. Properly functioning shells improve your chances of getting tactically significant damage, but they do not guarantee it. My objection is to the categorical statement that X number of German ships would have been lost to improved British shell technology. It's a plausible sounding argument, but it doesn't stand up to operational data.

[Tiornu]

"Your position, as I understand it, please correct me where I am mistaken"

Yes, you've got the general thrust. I picked the figure of three additional losses as indicative of what might well occur based on German assessment. Of course, the actual results could be more dramatic--suffering increased damage might make the Germans less able to defend themselves, thus prompting a heavier British assault--or even less dramatic depending on the vagaries of battle.

 

"Would you care to bring forward any other evidence, or, perhaps more useful, actually detail your impressions of the above, with specific commentary on why you think non-operational trials* and anecdote constitute overwhelming evidence?"

No, not particularly. I don't find this conversation either engaging or fruitful to any significant degree. There are loads and loads of firing trials and damage reports available, some of them even in published sources.

 

"Improved British shells may have contributed to the sinking of more German ships, or they may not have, but coming down on one side or the other of that question is irresponsible."

I disagree, noting the use of the word "may."

 

"Would you care to comment on how your Baden trials and anecdote stand up to the evidence of actual ships, loaded with actual men, ammunition, and fuel, actually fighting one another, and why your interpretation, based on your evidence, should be taken over one based on real events?"

No, not really, except to note that the Baden trials were a real event.

 

"BTW, I haven't addressed it before, but I'll address your initial assertion on this thread now: it is incorrect."

You have already established that your views are ill informed, so I'll simply direct you to some good source material readily available in published form: Oscar Parkes, Beeler's Birth of the Battleship, and Roberts's Battlecruiser.

 

"The German BCs were designed to fight other battlecruisers not because that was the understood mission of all battlecruisers, but because the British BCs already existed when the German ones were planned."

The Germans also saw their battlecruisers as a more direct counter to enemy battleships than the British did. I think I may have mentioned this previously. One intention of Tirpitz's system of naval laws was to reach a point of independence from specific procurements, a point known as "Eternity" which would arrive in 1918. With the arrival of Eternity, the navy could build imposing ships that combined the qualities of BB and BC--genuine fast battleships. This would allow him to counter even ships like Queen Elizabeth which had caused so much consternation among German planners.

[Guest aevans]

Tiornu,

 

You have yet to conclusively demonstrate your points. You have just pointed to sources that no one but you seems to have access to, claiming superior knowledge and intellect because you have access to them. If you're sources make you so sure of your position, by all means feel free to quote chapter and verse -- until then, you're just blathering on with a personal opinion of no particular merit.

 

Of course, I am doing exactly the same thing, but at least I don't claim to know for a fact that history would have been changed by a slight alteration of technology available to one of its participants. Here's a little bit of free advice (which I'm sure you won't take, because you can't be bothered to be engaged with or sample the fruits of an obvious simpleton such as myself, but you can have it anyway): beware the hazards of minutiae and first order effects -- they will ensnare and strangle you.

 

[Edited by aevans (28 Nov 2004).]

[Guest Sargent]

Originally posted by aevans:

German shells, getting inside British ships, then exploding. In one battle (Dogger Bank), it took only a few to knock Lion out of action.

 

Lion was not put out of action by a penetrating shell at Dogger Bank; she was put out of action by a shell that did NOT penetrate the armor belt but broke a piece loose and collapsed it into the ship. The structural bracing behind the armor was sharp and sliced into the feed tanks. Flooding of the feed tanks led to the loss of power which took Lion out of the fight. There were some hits which penetrated and exploded, but those were not the ones which disabled the ship.

[Argus]

I'm with Steffan on this one.

 

We have the German dammage reports, we have the trials data on both old and Greenboy shells. I don't see the problem with saying that given the same striking angle, velocity and point of impact a Greenboy sucessfully detonating 'High Order' would be more dammaging than an older mark of shell that failed detonate.

 

I mean Tony's right, if Jutland was refought with Greenboys who can say how it would have gone. Every shell is subject to the laws of probability.

 

But probability cuts both ways, just as it's unlikley in a re-inactment of Jutland the same shot would land in the same place, or even be fired at the same target, it is safe to say some shots would land in equally important if different places. Given the Greenboy had a better chance of functioning correctly and causeing dammage than the shells it replaced, those hits would cause more dammage in these different places than the historical hits.

 

On the other hand we can't re-fight Jutland, and we can only work with what evidence we have. Those historical hits were as probable as any others that might have occured, so on the basis of least change substituting a Greenboy in place of the original shell and speculating on the result is a reasonable hyperthetical.

 

Storm in a tea cup.

 

shane

 

 

 

[Edited by Argus (28 Nov 2004).]

[Guest aevans]

Originally posted by Sargent:

Lion was not put out of action by a penetrating shell at Dogger Bank; she was put out of action by a shell that did NOT  penetrate the armor belt but broke a piece loose and collapsed it into the ship. The structural bracing behind the armor was sharp and sliced into the feed tanks. Flooding of the feed tanks led to the loss of power which took Lion out of the fight. There were some hits which penetrated and exploded, but those were not the ones which disabled the ship.

 

Fair enough. Yet it does serve to illustrate my point: trying to predict real world outcomes from theory based on insufficient data* is, to borrow a turn of phrase, fruitless.

 

(*And the data is very insufficient. With the possible -- and debatable -- exception of the loss of three British BCs at Jutland, every single shell strike in every single naval battle in the last 100 years is a unique event, without reproducible consequences, and from which no valid predictions can be made. This is because ships full of men, fuel, and ammunition don't behave the same way target hulks or test targets behave, and never will.)

[Guest aevans]

Originally posted by Argus:

I'm with Steffan on this one.

 

We have the German dammage reports, we have the trials data on both old and Greenboy shells. I don't see the problem with saying that given the same striking angle, velocity and point of impact a Greenboy sucessfully detonating 'High Order' would be more dammaging than an older mark of shell that failed detonate.

 

I mean Tony's right, if Jutland was refought with Greenboys who can say how it would have gone. Every shell is subject to the laws of probability.

 

But probability cuts both ways, just as it's unlikley in a re-inactment of Jutland the same shot would land in the same place, or even be fired at the same target. However some shots would land in equally important if different places, and given the Greenboy had a better chance of cvauseing dammage than the shells it replaced, those hits would cause more dammage in different ways than the historical hits.

 

On the other hand we can't re-fight Jutland, and we can only work with what evidence we have. Those historical hits were as probable as any others that might have occured, so on the basis of least change substituting a Greenboy in place of the original shell and speculating on the result is a reasonable hyperthetical.

 

Storm in a tea cup.

 

shane

 

 

Yet it is essential to make a distinction between the Bringer of Truth's absurd assertions of absolute certainty and rational observers making educated guesses, with the necessary caveats of uncertainty.

[Tiornu]

"You have just pointed to sources that no one but you seems to have access to"

Uh...didn't I just direct you specifically to three published sources that everyone can have access to? Two are still in print, and the other is always available via the used-book sellers. The fact that you lack some basic texts does not mean that no one but me has them.

 

"claiming superior knowledge and intellect because you have access to them."

If I have sources that you don't, then obviously my knowledge on those materials is superior. Duh. You are the only person who has made any comments on superior intellect.

 

"If you're sources make you so sure of your position, by all means feel free to quote chapter and verse -- until then, you're just blathering on with a personal opinion of no particular merit."

That is yet another inaccuracy on your part. Citation of references doesn't change what those references say.

 

"Of course, I am doing exactly the same thing, but at least I don't claim to know for a fact that history would have been changed by a slight alteration of technology available to one of its participants."

If it is an alteration, by definition it involves change.

 

"Here's a little bit of free advice (which I'm sure you won't take, because you can't be bothered to be engaged with or sample the fruits of an obvious simpleton such as myself, but you can have it anyway)"

You are correct. I do not want to sample your fruits.

 

"beware the hazards of minutiae and first order effects -- they will ensnare and strangle you."

Thanks for the warning.

[Guest aevans]

Tiornu,

 

It is considered a common courtesy in argumentation, even towards those who are so beneath your contempt as my unworthy self, to produce direct quotes with page citations from books which are not readily available to your correspondents. Since the university and college library system of the entire state of Utah does not carry a single one of these sources (I've checked their online catalogs of books currently in circulation), since the one used bookstore in this town does not carry that kind of book, and since I don't have the money to go buying online just to satisfy your whims of what should be available to me, we can consider your sources to be essentially unavailalbe to me. In those circumstances, by not deigning to directly quote your sources to me, you are denying me a fair ground on which to analyze the correctness of your opinions. I think I know Tank-Net well enough to say that continuing to do so will not be in your interest.

[Tiornu]

If I were interested in further discussion with you, that would be no problem.

Try an ILL. That's what I always do.

[Argus]

Originally posted by aevans:

Yet it is essential to make a distinction between the Bringer of Truth's absurd assertions of absolute certainty and rational observers making educated guesses, with the necessary caveats of uncertainty.

 

 

Ah Tony, before you go useing me to insult Tiornu, I would like to point out that I wasn't supporting your position. I'm saying a ligitmate argument can be made but no definitive conclusions drawn. Now while that is mostly what you're saying, I certainly do not and have not read any assetions of absolute certainty, absurd or otherwise in T's original position on the technical difference in potential dammage between a Greenboy or the older gerneration of shell.

 

Perhaps I'm just used to reading between the lines, but you're taking a dogmatic position on something T (I believe) was expressing within the usual proviso's of historical "What If."

 

Since then it's decended into a storm in a teacup, you're both 'right' just arguing to cross purposes.

 

shane

[Guest aevans]

Originally posted by Tiornu:

If I were interested in further discussion with you, that would be no problem.

Try an ILL. That's what I always do.

 

 

Fine by me -- I'm not the one making assertions of fact without presenting evidence.

[Guest aevans]

Originally posted by Argus:

Ah Tony, before you go useing me to insult Tiornu, I would like to point out that I wasn't supporting your position. I'm saying a ligitmate argument can be made but no definitive conclusions drawn. Now while that is mostly what you're saying, I certainly do not and have not read any assetions of absolute certainty, absurd or otherwise in T's original position on the technical difference in potential dammage between a Greenboy or the older gerneration of shell. 

 

Perhaps I'm just used to reading between the lines, but you're taking a dogmatic position on something T (I believe) was expressing within the usual proviso's of historical "What If."

 

Since then it's decended into a storm in a teacup, you're both 'right' just arguing to cross purposes.

 

shane

 

I said:

 

"Improved British shells may have contributed to the sinking of more German ships, or they may not have, but coming down on one side or the other of that question is irresponsible."

 

Tiornu replied:

 

"I disagree, noting the use of the word 'may.'"

 

Now, there is a possibility of misinterpretation here, given that there are two instances of 'may' in my statement, but it seems to me that he would have agreed with the following statement:

 

"Improved British shells would [vice 'may'] have contributed to the sinking of more German ships."

 

(Eliminating the enitre rest of the sentence, of course, in order to avoid the contradictory "may not have".)

 

Now that sounds to me like an assertion of absolute certainty to me -- how 'bout you?

 

Nor am I taking a dogmatic position -- that would be the business of someone making categorical statements of fact, based on theory. Tell me, why do you choose to credit me with dogmatism when I'm the one saying no one knows for sure? Because Tiornu is one of the biggest loudmouths on the naval boards? I guess that means I'll be an expert too someday if I say so often enough and loud enough and refuse to quote my sources? Until then I'm just a po', po' peasant who's not even enough of a swine to spread Tiornu's pearls before?

[Tiornu]

"I guess that means I'll be an expert too someday if I say so often enough and loud enough and refuse to quote my sources? Until then I'm just a po', po' peasant who's not even enough of a swine to spread Tiornu's pearls before?"

While you're giving yourself violin lessons, you might want to reflect on the fact that you twice refused to specify your reference to "ruling out"--information that can be found nowhere but inside your own mind. In contrast, I have directed you to source material readily available to anyone who cares to consult it. When you're done blending the disingenuous with the gratuitous of your posts, you may have time to learn how to get a library book.

"I'm not the one making assertions of fact without presenting evidence."

Yes, this was after you stated, "Fisher was quite clear that he expected the BCs to be fight less well armed opponents and run from equally or more heavily armed ones." And what evidence did you present?

Don't bother....

 

[Edited by Tiornu (28 Nov 2004).]

[Guest aevans]

Originally posted by Tiornu:

While you're giving yourself violin lessons, you might want to reflect on the fact that you twice refused to specify your reference to "ruling out"--information that can be found nowhere but inside your own mind.

 

Verbatim, from a previous post:

 

Please note that, except for the mishandling of powder, barbette and turret penetrations do not do very much to sink a ship.

 

How else should one interpret this, except that it rules out catastrophic kills in the absence of poor ammunition handling practices? Anticipating that your response will be something along the lines of: "I meant partial penetrations or penetrations that do not lead to high-order detonations of the filler", why did you not specify such conditions? Either you were being imprecise (whether by intention or inattention I will not speculate), or you're not being consistent. Take your pick and I'll meet you on either ground.

 

(The text in red is yours.)

 

In contrast, I have directed you to source material readily available to anyone who cares to consult it.

 

Verbatim, from a previous post:

 

Since the university and college library system of the entire state of Utah does not carry a single one of these sources (I've checked their online catalogs of books currently in circulation), since the one used bookstore in this town does not carry that kind of book, and since I don't have the money to go buying online just to satisfy your whims of what should be available to me, we can consider your sources to be essentially unavailalbe to me.

 

IOW, your sources are not "readily available" to anyone, not even to many who actually might wish to consult them.

 

When you're done blending the disingenuous with the gratuitous of your posts, you may have time to learn how to get a library book.

 

The only person who is being disingenous would be the one claiming his sources are "readily available" when they in fact aren't. Just because they are available to you, in your community, does not mean they are available to everybody, in every community.

 

Yes, this was after you stated, "Fisher was quite clear that he expected the BCs to be fight less well armed opponents and run from equally or more heavily armed ones." And what evidence did you present?

Don't bother....

 

Source: recollections of numerous books and web postings that I've read -- IOW, I was expressing an opinion, possibly ill informed, or informed by faulty recollection. But then again, I've never claimed that I was doing anything else. You, on the other hand, have been making assertions, explicitly contextualized as fact, not opinion. There's a slightly different evidentiary standard for those.

[MiloMorai]

Tiornu,

 

what is the name of the book(s) you wrote and had published?

[Argus]

Tony, I was regretably imprecise in my use of dogmatic. It was intended to refer to your unbending style of argument, not any of the technical particulars.

 

On your first quote:

This is purely my opinion but I must say your use of the word 'may' (in the place you suggest) was... 'legalistic' is as good a word as any.

 

If we take as given the Greenboy and/or its equivelent developments in other calibers were more effective shells than those they replaced. That is that each hit has a signifigantly higher chance of acheiving its full destructive potential, the only way a substitution couldn't make a positive difference is if there were no signifigant hits. That is the RN shot all day and didn't do more than put splinter holes in the HSF's wind dodgers.

 

Of all the potential outcomes of Jutland Take II, that has to be one of the least likely provided there was a battle at all. It's certainly the least interesting for this little black duck.

 

Technically in my most inexpert opinion you are correct, but splitting a very fine hair.

 

Tiornu was just rateing the slight possiability you covered with 'may' as too small to be relevent. So in the name calling stakes you're legalistic about the Nth decimal place and Tiornu is careless about the Nth decimal place. So its a wash to the nearest signifigant Nth!

 

While I'm busily engaged in pissing everyone off I'll quote myself subtly rearanged:

 

Originally posted by Argus:

Ah Tiornu, before you go useing a post to me to insult Tony,

 

po,' po' peasants - ain't we all?

 

Gent's this hasn't been about Greenboys for quite some time. It's an argument about an argument. Now please feel free to argue about my argument, in which case I'll be all to happy to argue that it's an argument about an argument about an argument about an argument. But what ever you do, don't argue with me on that, because then you in for one hell of an argument about an argument about an argument about an argument an argument about an argument about an argument about an argument (and you know the scary thing? I didn't cut and paste, have I got too much time on my hands or what? Although that's an argument we probably don't want to have either).

 

I respect Tiornu's credentials as a commentator on matters historical/naval. Just as I respect Tonys on the USMC and matters relating to landwarfare. And I suggest if either of you didn't raise half a smile and call me an idiot for that last paragraph then its time to step outside, take three deep breaths and let this matter drop.

 

yours in correspondance

 

shane rogers

 

 

[Edited by Argus (29 Nov 2004).]

[Argus]

Stuffed up edditing a format error. Sorry.

 

shane

 

[Edited by Argus (29 Nov 2004).]

[Guest aevans]

Shane,

 

You are of course right, but I doubt you'll get Tiornu to admit it.

[Tiornu]

aevans, how about this? We forget the animosity and see if we can wrestle something constructive out of this discussion.

As far as I can tell, you saw my statement that three more German dreadnoughts would be sunk and took it to be a precise prediction rather than a general indicator of the sort of outcome we could expect. I intended the latter, and it never occurred to me that anyone would think I was attempting the former.

[Tiornu]

"what is the name of the book(s) you wrote and had published?"

I have one naval reference in print at the moment: FLEETS OF WORLD WAR II.

If anyone wants a copy--or maybe ten or twelve copies--I'm selling signed copies for $10US from now till Christmas. I can arrange paypal/credit card payments so you don't have to wait for a money order to make it through the mail.

[Jeff]

Originally posted by Tiornu:

aevans, how about this? We forget the animosity and see if we can wrestle something constructive out of this discussion.

 

That would be appreciated, this was a worthwhile topic.

[Guest aevans]

Originally posted by Tiornu:

aevans, how about this? We forget the animosity and see if we can wrestle something constructive out of this discussion.

As far as I can tell, you saw my statement that three more German dreadnoughts would be sunk and took it to be a precise prediction rather than a general indicator of the sort of outcome we could expect. I intended the latter, and it never occurred to me that anyone would think I was attempting the former.

 

Y'know, I actually respect your knowledge in this subject area -- I'm just driven up the wall by people that seem to be claiming certain knowledge based on pure theory. Though it may sound immodest, I've been around long enough to be wary of -- and thoroughly disgusted by -- people who apply deterministic logic to what are at best statistical exercises. And that's how you came across, whether you intended to or not.

 

Sure, I'd like to salvage something from the discussion, but only with the clear understanding that I'm turned off (in fact offended) by anything that even smells of "I can massage data, therefore I know all of the answers."

[Tiornu]

Well, even if I wanted to, I could never claim to have all the answers on Jutland. My main interests and studies lie in the other world war.

[Argus]

The internet - the great miscommunicator!

 

Thanks you gents.

 

 

shane <who intended to shut up while he's ahead>