Re: Small ships

----- Original Message -----
From: Thomas Barclay <kaladorn@fox.nstn.ca>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 6:19 AM
Subject: Small ships

> Similarly, I think England
> has had this kind of issue many times over the
> centuries. I suspect smaller ships have done
> combat many times when bigger ships could
> have fought, if the consequences of losing the
> big boys hadn't been deemed too dire.
>
> Tomb.
>
If you look at the dreadnought era (190?-1945), in WW1 the problem was
trying to force the enemy (German high seas fleet) into combat, where
the
superior number of RN ships could destroy them and leave the RN in
control.
Most of the RN heavies were tied down ensuring the KM (?) were unable to
sail in force without a heavier force coming to intercept. The only time
the
two fleets met in combat (jutland), the RN were sucessful, and the KM
didn`t
sail against the RN in force for the remaining war. In WW2, the problem
was
the lack of ships, not just capitols, to protect the mearchent fleets.
The
heavies were used for everything, and some kept in reserve in scarper
flow
against the new german battlewagons. In the battle of the river plate,
the
KM pocket battleship scuppered itself on false inteligence that a RN
heavy
was on the way to sink them (and someone pointed out to me that the
hood,
with a maximum speed of 30 knots, could have made the jurney in a short
time, and no overguned heavy cruiser could have suvived or outran her).
The
RN proved that it was willing to risk it`s heavies, but when it did and
lost
them (prince of wales), the lost was severe to the war effort.

BIF

"Yorkshire born, yorkshire bred,
strong in arms, thick in head"