The Dreadnought Project Forum Index The Dreadnought Project
Naval History in the years 1890-1920
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Reg1sterReg1ster 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

"Furious" or "Spurious?"
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Dreadnought Project Forum Index -> Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
bargami



Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Posts: 75
Location: Richmond, Virginia

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 7:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think that Burr makes a strong argument for Fisher's strategic and tactical conceptions of the battlecruiser in general, and the "large light cruisers" in particular. However, I wonder whether Fisher's ideas of the battlecruisers spearheading global flying squadrons was rooted in an era that was passing, i.e. the late Victorian era and imperial rivalry with France and Russia.

Once the battlecruiser concept was off the drawing boards and in existence Britain was in the midst of a naval arms race with Germany, bearing some similarities to the nuclear arms race with which many of us grew up. As with nuclear warheads, so with naval big guns; it becomes a matter of bean-counting and each side is going to count every gun which may have effect in a major engagement. So inevitably, Fisher's battlecruisers, as Burr argues intended by fisher for a unique use, have their main armament and general presence counted in the firepower totals along with the battleships.

And at the end of the day, even Fisher was not a one man band; there were other naval and political voices that counted and eventually he had to retire. Burr makes a compelling case, but still a tough call.

bargami
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Adrian Dobb



Joined: 13 Nov 2005
Posts: 41
Location: Devon, UK

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 11:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Bargami,

I agree with your second paragraph but I'm not so sure about:

Quote:
However, I wonder whether Fisher's ideas of the battlecruisers spearheading global flying squadrons was rooted in an era that was passing, i.e. the late Victorian era and imperial rivalry with France and Russia.


Fisher was instrumental in many of the naval reforms and revolution of this era not least of which was the concentration of the bulk of the Royal Navy's combat strength in home waters. Under his stewardship the Med fleet (temporarily as it post war turned out) lost its prestige role. Where as he was always keen to emphasise the potential seek and destroy role of the battlecruiser on the high seas I don't think he was fixed on late Victorian imperial rivalries which demanded strong overseas fleets and squadrons and not the home concentration he did much to bring about.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bargami



Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Posts: 75
Location: Richmond, Virginia

PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 11:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I certainly agree re. Fisher's leadership in pulling back warships into home waters with the German threat in mind, unpopular as this was with some at the time, especially the cutting back of the Mediterranean fleet, perhaps the most controversial aspect. Indeed, as a stopgap anyway, I believe that the assigning of battlecruisers to be the vanguard of that pared-down fleet "was" an appropriate use for them, at least until the four-or- five-a-year clip at which the government was building dreadnoughts just as the War broke out eventually allowed a small battleship squadron for the Med. without prejudicing the home position.

Although the battlecruisers might encounter dreadnoughts in the Mediterranean, the anticipation was that, in the event of War, Italy and Austria-Hungary would not in fact be allies so that their dreadnoughts would cancel each other out. In addition, there would be the French dreadnoughts to assist. Finally, those Austro-Hungarian "Tegetthoff"s, the battleships the British BCs would be most likely to engage, had some weaknesses which didn't exist with German dreadnoughts (lighter armor,
a badly-designed system of watertight seal-off doors). An "Invincible" just might be able to best one of these.

Now as far as Fisher's conception of the strategic and tactical use of battlecruisers in general, I do feel like, as with his ideas about flotilla defense, he wasn't always consistent, which makes gauging his true position difficult. At all events, if Fisher had in mind a carefully-bounded role for these vessels, which would allow them to perform to maximum effect and also not come to disproportionate harm, he wasn't able to get many others on his side, so that it appears that his favorite child got carried away from him and it was beyond his power to stop it.

But then one thing which is sometimes said of Lord Fisher was that his real passion was for design and invention, creating warships and seeing them built. When he came back to the Admiralty in 1914 "that" was the area he was most eager to dive back into. As this critique goes, in the area of strategy and tactics-the "use" of the vessels- he was never as passionate or as consistent. Maybe if he had had the postion of "Admiralissimo," which he demanded in May of 1915, he might have been able to have the BCs used as he wished.

bargami
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tom Hunter



Joined: 17 Apr 2009
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Each of the three ships had a nickname, as did many other ships in the Royal Navy

These three were Curious, Spurious and Outrageous.

Repair and Refit for a couple of the other BCs.

A question I was pondering the other day, what do you all think would have happened if the two 15" armed large light cruisers had gone into the Baltic?

I think there is a range of possible answers, of course the short one is: hit mines and sunk. Longer answers? If they get past the mines what can catch them? What can they do?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GerritJ9



Joined: 22 Jul 2009
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Refit" and "Repair" were "Renown" and "Repulse" (or vice versa)
"Courageous"- "Outrageous"
"Glorious"- "Uproarious"
"Furious"- "Curious" or "Spurious"; I've seen both used for "Furious".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Dreadnought Project Forum Index -> Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group