|
Polyakov posted:Is that an issue with the lexingtons or with battlecruisers as a concept? Yes Hood blowing up was monumental bad luck but her armour couldnt protect against battleship caliber shells at any range really. They attempted to refit Hood with more armour but weren't able to overcome that weakness, there were 3 or arguably 5 battlecruisers of ww2 at all, depending on whether we count scharnhorst and gneisenau. The only reason the RN maintained its 3 is because they were already completed. The G3 class was designated a battlecruiser but was really a fast battleship just that concept hadn't really been mainstreamed yet. Hood had fairly decent armour for the time she was built. In terms of thickness, her armour layout was comparable to the Queen Elizabeth class, but including the effect of the armour sloping and the backing plate behind her belt, her armour was thicker than on any previous class of British battleship. The problem was that these armour layouts worked well for a fairly close range engagement. At longer ranges, there was a greatly increased risk of hits striking and penetrating her thinner upper belts or deck armour - but in theory shells striking these areas were likely to explode before they were able to reach vital areas. However, there were also issues with her internal layout. At the time she was designed, it was felt that lyddite-filled shells were much more dangerous than cordite propellant, so the magazines were placed over the shell rooms. As it happened, the opposite was true and so this decision had exposed the magazines to much more damage. Her cancelled sister ships would have corrected this. The RN's response to her loss is illuminating as to how they saw her weaknesses. There was something of a panic because if she was so catastrophically vulnerable, so was any older British battleship. This was a major problem, as these ships were the only ones that could be detached to escort convoys against heavy surface raiders like Tirpitz. The 'R' class battleships were seen as useless against them, while the Queen Elizabeths could only engage in good tactical circumstances at relatively close ranges. Repulse and Renown, meanwhile, could engage ships like Tirpitz if bow or stern on to the target to maximise the effect of their protection.
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 14:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 13:21 |
|
|
Also the Hood was massive compared previous British ships. About a third more displacement than the QEs
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 14:42
|
|
|
Doctrine is one thing, but I wonder if the hypothetical captain of a Lexington-class BC would actually have the moral courage to run from every big gun he saw, or if he'd feel obligated to start some poo poo? It's not a fun to imagine being in command of a BC displacing 43,000 tons and having to explain that you ran away from a 30,000 ton Revenge.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 17:07
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Having seen those photos of DPR vodka-bloat Uncle Vanyas with Mosins manning checkpoints, I wondered- I think someone posted a quote from a WWII officer's handbook, maybe a Nazi one, that went: "A rifleman's purpose is to point out targets for the machine gunner. A rifle's purpose is to improve the morale of the soldier holding it." If anyone remembers and can share the exact quote I'd appreciate it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 17:36
|
|
|
Chamale posted:I think someone posted a quote from a WWII officer's handbook, maybe a Nazi one, that went: I don't know about the morale line, but that's broadly interwar-to-ww2 German squad tactics in a nutshell. Although the rifles weren't superfluous, the way I've always seem them describe it is as the riflemen essentially being a security detachment for the MGs, as well as extra bodies to carry supplies for the gunner (ammo, spare barrels, etc). Rifles are useful for more than just improving the morale of the people standing around the MG, they're a key component to keeping the MG alive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 17:44
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Rifles are useful for more than just improving the morale of the people standing around the MG, they're a key component to keeping the MG alive. It might have been a pithy line in someone's memoir, not an official piece of doctrine. That's why I hope someone remembers the source of the quote.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 17:52
|
|
|
To be fair to the rifle, it's also a convenient place to attach optics and grenade launchers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 18:21
|
|
|
Chamale posted:It might have been a pithy line in someone's memoir, not an official piece of doctrine. That's why I hope someone remembers the source of the quote. Nazi-era military writings could get pretty sassy, i wouldn't put it out of line.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 22:28
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Nazi-era military writings could get pretty sassy, i wouldn't put it out of line. They wouldn't denigrate their own equipment, even implicitly, by suggesting it was nothing more than a security blanket. It reads like the kind of from the hip "tell it like it was" affectation you see in memoirs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 22:40
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:I can't find any accounts of battles in that period fought in the rain, and multiple battles brought to an end because it started raining. Dresden, 1813, comes to mind.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 22:48
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:They wouldn't denigrate their own equipment, even implicitly, by suggesting it was nothing more than a security blanket. It reads like the kind of from the hip "tell it like it was" affectation you see in memoirs. The common saying among Scandinavian infantry is that the rifle is for "självskydd och självmord" (self-defense and suicide). That is, with the implication that support weapons like LMGs and RPGs achieve the unit's objectives, rather than that the rifles themselves were of questionable usefulness.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 00:35
|
|
|
Everyone in the Lebanese Civil War in Beirut kind of moved to a squad structure with a LMG and an assistant gunner, 3-5 dudes with RPGs, and 3-5 riflemen, whose primary job was to like, kick down doors and poo poo, provide cover for the LMG and the RPGs, and carry extra ammo for both.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 01:00
|
|
|
I may be revealing my extreme ignorance and/or stupidity here, but I thought a common infantry tactic was 'fire and maneuver' where one element suppresses the enemy with mg fire and the other element uses this opportunity to move into a flanking position and kill the enemy with rifle fire?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 01:23
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:I may be revealing my extreme ignorance and/or stupidity here, but I thought a common infantry tactic was 'fire and maneuver' where one element suppresses the enemy with mg fire and the other element uses this opportunity to move into a flanking position and kill the enemy with rifle fire? They could use rifles; they are more likely to use grenades since an enemy that is suppressed but not killed by the MG is likely in a resilient position.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 02:13
|
|
|
The unit will often have multiple MGs or SAWs, so the fire and maneuver is about suppressing with some automatic weapons while moving others to a better position.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 04:29
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:I may be revealing my extreme ignorance and/or stupidity here, but I thought a common infantry tactic was 'fire and maneuver' where one element suppresses the enemy with mg fire and the other element uses this opportunity to move into a flanking position and kill the enemy with rifle fire? This is correct. I think it's a bit of a exaggeration to say that bolt action rifles were useless, but it's o exaggeration to say that machineguns did the real killing. In a German squad the riflemen were to, as said, support the machinegun - by carrying ammunition, by securing flanks, and by putting pressure on the enemy so the machinegun can kill them. You wouldn't be able to do this effectively if your rifles were incapable of hurting the enemy at ranges greater than a grenade throw.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 16:49
|
|
|
Reiterpallasch posted:Dresden, 1813, comes to mind. Good catch. That battle appears to have had exactly the sort of "swordsmen (cuirassers armed with sabres) tearing into musketeers who can't shoot because of rain" scenario posed in the original question.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 20:17
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:Good catch. That battle appears to have had exactly the sort of "swordsmen (cuirassers armed with sabres) tearing into musketeers who can't shoot because of rain" scenario posed in the original question. To be honest I hadn't actually considered that scenario but it perfectly illustrates what happens when it rains and the rifles aren't using cartridges. Fixing bayonets in that battle wouldn't have done much good because a bayonet on the end of a rifle isn't a match for troops with primay edged weapons and the training and equipment to use them. I appreciate everyone's responses 
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2022 04:12
|
|
|
bewbies posted:My "research" for that blurb was hurriedly taken from this website: Oh yeah, Ryan Peeks. Good guy, about seven feet tall. His British stuff in that thesis is pretty weak overall but it's very good about what and why the Lexingtons were what they were. Hood's loss wasn't as much from a design weakness as it was that Admiral Holland deliberately tried to close with the Bismarck quickly enough that the German ship would be unable to attack her weak decks with plunging fire. It was a huge gamble and he lost. Acebuckeye13 posted:(With Courageous being a particularly awful design, with only 2" of armor and only four guns). Courageous and her sisters were the best that could be done within the design requirements, which resulted from a Cabinet decision that no more capital ships were to be build because the war would be over too soon for new capital ships to be useful. Thus why the "three weird sisters" were termed "large light cruisers". They weren't meant to be full-scale battlecruisers, they were meant as part of a plan to, among other things, put as many 15" guns afloat as possible. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 04:33 on Mar 26, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2022 04:24
|
|
|
Pikehead posted:To be honest I hadn't actually considered that scenario but it perfectly illustrates what happens when it rains and the rifles aren't using cartridges. Fixing bayonets in that battle wouldn't have done much good because a bayonet on the end of a rifle isn't a match for troops with primay edged weapons and the training and equipment to use them. I'm not sure if the issue there was "bayonets can't beat swords" exactly - cuirassers are swordsmen, yes, but more importantly they're also HORSEMEN, and heavy horsemen at that. That's always going to be a bear for any kind of infantry to take on in a melee if the infantry isn't very well drilled. If it wasn't raining standard infantry drill when attacked by cavalry is to fix bayonets and present a square spear wall to help deter the cavalry from charging home alongside musket volleys to send them off, so the bayonet would normally be an important tactical counter against cavalry. Don't know much about that particular battle, though, so dunno myself how well the battle supports your thesis. Honestly would be curious what the assessment of the fixed bayonet as a melee weapon is - my understanding is that a gun with a bayonet fixed is essentially a spear and that's one of the most effective and easy to use melee weapons available, but on the other hand the shape and weight of the gun would also probably make it a weirdly weighted spear.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2022 05:00
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Courageous and her sisters were the best that could be done within the design requirements, which resulted from a Cabinet decision that no more capital ships were to be build because the war would be over too soon for new capital ships to be useful. Thus why the "three weird sisters" were termed "large light cruisers". They weren't meant to be full-scale battlecruisers, they were meant as part of a plan to, among other things, put as many 15" guns afloat as possible. "They were bad because they were trying to exploit a loophole" doesn't change the fact that they were an absolutely terrible design. Like, we're talking about ships that were so lightly built Courageous damaged herself trying to actually reach her top speed, the ships were damaged by their own muzzle blasts the one and only time they were actually in combat, and the worst design of the three was converted into a (much more useful though still kinda bad) aircraft carrier before she was even finished being built. All the effort that went into building them would have been far better spent constructing actual light cruisers. Acebuckeye13 fucked around with this message at 05:50 on Mar 26, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2022 05:26
|
|
|
Tomn posted:I'm not sure if the issue there was "bayonets can't beat swords" exactly - cuirassers are swordsmen, yes, but more importantly they're also HORSEMEN, and heavy horsemen at that. That's always going to be a bear for any kind of infantry to take on in a melee if the infantry isn't very well drilled. If it wasn't raining standard infantry drill when attacked by cavalry is to fix bayonets and present a square spear wall to help deter the cavalry from charging home alongside musket volleys to send them off, so the bayonet would normally be an important tactical counter against cavalry. Don't know much about that particular battle, though, so dunno myself how well the battle supports your thesis. A really short, super heavy spear with the weight on the wrong end. I don't know how much the capabilities of individual weapons really matter on a battlefield, but a bayonet is about as lovely as you can make a spear. Like, its only competition is if you made a spear U shaped or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2022 05:34
|
|
|
As bad as a bayonet is, it's still not a sword. Edit: Except, of course, if it's a sword-bayonet, in which case 
Siivola fucked around with this message at 09:00 on Mar 26, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2022 08:44
|
|
|
Pikehead posted:To be honest I hadn't actually considered that scenario but it perfectly illustrates what happens when it rains and the rifles aren't using cartridges. Fixing bayonets in that battle wouldn't have done much good because a bayonet on the end of a rifle isn't a match for troops with primay edged weapons and the training and equipment to use them. Some of Murat's dragoons had evidently kept their pistols dry enough in their holsters that they could load them under their cloaks and do the saddest, muddiest caracole ever seen. As you might imagine, the results for the Austrian squares getting shot at spitting range with no chance to reply were...bad. other squares were shattered by horse artillery, too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2022 08:58
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:"They were bad because they were trying to exploit a loophole" doesn't change the fact that they were an absolutely terrible design. Like, we're talking about ships that were so lightly built Courageous damaged herself trying to actually reach her top speed, the ships were damaged by their own muzzle blasts the one and only time they were actually in combat, and the worst design of the three was converted into a (much more useful though still kinda bad) aircraft carrier before she was even finished being built. All the effort that went into building them would have been far better spent constructing actual light cruisers. Hey, I agree, they sucked. I'm just explaining why the drat things were built in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2022 09:13
|
|
|
Pikehead posted:To be honest I hadn't actually considered that scenario but it perfectly illustrates what happens when it rains and the rifles aren't using cartridges. Fixing bayonets in that battle wouldn't have done much good because a bayonet on the end of a rifle isn't a match for troops with primay edged weapons and the training and equipment to use them. while the curassiers might have studied the blade, cavalry charges against proper infantry formations almost always end up badly for the cavalry. especially when it's muddy. perhaps the infantry panicked because their guns didn't work and their formations broke before the charges?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2022 13:22
|
|
|
Oh boy you don't want to panic when in square formation now. Horses don't really give a poo poo if a bayonet is the perfect balanced weapon in form or concept, they are not riding into pointy thing.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2022 14:48
|
|
|
The Indian pattern Infantry musket is 1.4 metres long with an extra 44cm of bayonet gives you almost 2 metres of very pointy stick. Yes if you stab a horse going past you and the bayonet sticks it might break off but the entire thing was designed to stab people effectively so is a pretty decent spear when used in massed ranks. The problem with fighting against cavalry in the rain is that infantry's only option is purely defensive by forming squares to stop cavalry from breaking into your formations. Just standing there presenting massed ranks of bayonets and waiting for the cavalry to get board/decide to leave takes considerable courage and it would be very easy to freak out and break because you cannot shoot back and just have to take the few loses that the cavalry could produce.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2022 18:19
|
|
|
Dead horses and the men riding them would legit tumble into these things and once the mess was kicked out/pulled inwards the ranks would reform and brace. Have fun trying to hold ground and not be brained in the head by the hooves of a horse in death spasms.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2022 18:31
|
|
|
I've held a rifle with a bayonet on, it's not ungodly heavy but it's awkward to poke with. I've got to imagine a proper spear is significantly better for that, which is why the bayonet is a last resort. It would be exhausting to fight with in a prolonged melee. Much better all around to shoot the horse guy while he's out of sabre range.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2022 19:43
|
|
|
Nobody wants to be impaled by a bayonet in the infection death zone era. Unless it is a super desperate situation, like the horse the soldier will try and avoid the pointy zone when possible too.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2022 19:45
|
|
|
Feel like a lot of you are imagining 300 spear combat, when the main purpose is "present pointy wall"
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2022 19:49
|
|
|
Don't undersell bayonets in the era of muzzle-loading smoothbores. Infantry would routinely end up in melee and the ability of the gun to function as a polearm was a feature, not an afterthought.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2022 20:23
|
|
|
Yea I dunno if a bayonet is better or worse than a spear or whatever but I think the inclination by many nations to emphasize the bayonet charge was more than just misplaced elan or whatever. My understanding is your first few musket volleys are fairly effective and then quickly fall off as men become disoriented, get sloppy with reloading, etc
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2022 22:14
|
|
|
FastestGunAlive posted:Yea I dunno if a bayonet is better or worse than a spear or whatever but I think the inclination by many nations to emphasize the bayonet charge was more than just misplaced elan or whatever. My understanding is your first few musket volleys are fairly effective and then quickly fall off as men become disoriented, get sloppy with reloading, etc A bayonet is categorically worse at being a spear than an actual spear in any way you want to measure, unless that measurement is "can it shoot bullets?". If you squared off a bunch of soldiers with rifles and bayos with a bunch of soldiers with spears (assuming everyone is trained in how to use them) the spear guys have a solid advantage if only because their weapon is purpose-built for the task at hand. What bayos are good for is giving you a way to have a gun 99% of the time, then the 1% of the time you need it you have a kinda lovely spear. Think of it like the screw driver on a pocket knife. Not as good as an actual screw driver, but if you carry your knife around a lot it's probably the screwdriver you're going to have on hand when a weird, unanticipated screw-related task shows up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2022 22:34
|
|
|
The bayonet isn't *that* bad as a melee weapon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2022 22:53
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:A bayonet is categorically worse at being a spear than an actual spear in any way you want to measure, unless that measurement is "can it shoot bullets?". If you squared off a bunch of soldiers with rifles and bayos with a bunch of soldiers with spears (assuming everyone is trained in how to use them) the spear guys have a solid advantage if only because their weapon is purpose-built for the task at hand. I mean I don’t disagree with you I was really just referring to a few other posts that seem to imply a bayonet is so bad at being a spear that it shouldn’t be used at all. At least that was my read on it. My initial sentence was more flippant than serious
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2022 23:17
|
|
|
Fangz posted:The bayonet isn't *that* bad as a melee weapon. A musket is much, much heavier than an equivalent shortspear, so once you've committed to a thrust that's about it, and you've got a much smaller window of places you can deliver a thrust to because of how cumbersome it is. If you misjudge distance or get a thrust baited out against you vs someone with an actual melee weapon, you'll be cut to pieces. Of course, none of this means it isn't a deterrent against cavalry, or that not having a bayonet on your musket is better, but they are not designed to be a melee weapon. Nothingtoseehere fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Mar 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2022 23:52
|
|
|
What repeatedly comes up in Musket-and-bayonet era commentary is that while bayonet charges were not infrequent on the battlefield, actual bayonet combat was not and is the kind of thing a professional soldier might see once or twice in a career in Europe. Unless the defending side was attached to a piece of terrain that it felt provided particular safety then it was almost always the case that one side or the other would turn and run before making contact.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 00:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 13:21 |
|
|
Nothingtoseehere posted:A musket is much, much heavier than an equivalent shortspear, so once you've committed to a thrust that's about it, and you've got a much smaller window of places you can deliver a thrust to because of how cumbersome it is. If you misjudge distance or get a thrust baited out against you vs someone with an actual melee weapon, you'll be cut to pieces. Of course, none of this means it isn't a deterrent against cavalry, or that not having a bayonet on your musket is better, but they are not designed to be a melee weapon. My experience is mid-19th rifles, and doing kendo in high school. Thrusting a bayonetted old rifle with force takes a whole body movement, vs say a bokken, which is really easy to wave around and swing with force, and about 1/4 the weight. Obviously I can't speak for what real mortal melee is like, but I can see why people didn't get into bayonet combat if they could help it. I can also see why you might say "gently caress the bayonet" and start using the rifle butt as a club instead. It's way more natural.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 00:27
|
|