Re: Not quite a mission kill....
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 10:53 pm
I agree. I still think you Brits should have kept her a memorial.
www.ditl.org
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
https://ns2.ditl.org/forum/
Not quite a mission kill....
Page 3 of 4
Re: Not quite a mission kill....
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 11:11 pm
Ark Royal would be a great name for a ship.
Re: Not quite a mission kill....
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 11:20 pm
Would be?RK_Striker_JK_5 wrote:Ark Royal would be a great name for a ship.
Bloody heathen.There were suggestions to do so, but there were two problems:McAvoy wrote:I still think you Brits should have kept [Warspite as] a memorial.
1) She was a wreck by the end of the war. She'd never been properly repaired from the glider bomb attack off Salerno, and like the entire Royal Navy she'd been seriously overworked throughout the war. Even getting her into decent condition to become a museum ship would have been a massive job.
2) We were broke.
Re: Not quite a mission kill....
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 11:21 pm
Given the huge role we played in the development of the Battleship, it's positively criminal that we never kept a single example as a museum. Warspite would have been an excellent choice. I've been around HMS Belfast, which is moored on the Thames, and she's just awesome. The thought of something three times that size...McAvoy wrote:I agree. I still think you Brits should have kept her a memorial.
Re: Not quite a mission kill....
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 11:31 pm
We've still got a couple, including one of the most important milestones in that development.GrahamKennedy wrote:Given the huge role we played in the development of the Battleship, it's positively criminal that we never kept a single example as a museum.
Re: Not quite a mission kill....
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 11:31 pm
Sorry, Seafort. I recall reading about the a very early aircraft carrier being named that, but considering the state my mind's in, I wasn't 100% sure. 
Re: Not quite a mission kill....
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 11:38 pm
There have been five Arks so far:
1) Flagship of the Royal Navy at the Armada.
2) WW1 seaplane carrier at Gallipoli.
3) WW2 carrier, the RN's first purpose-built fleet carrier, and one of the three most famous allied ships of the war.
4) Post-war, the RN's last proper carrier.
5) The last-built Invincible-class.
Re: Not quite a mission kill....
Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2011 12:03 am
Captain Seafort wrote:We've still got a couple, including one of the most important milestones in that development.GrahamKennedy wrote:Given the huge role we played in the development of the Battleship, it's positively criminal that we never kept a single example as a museum.
HMS Warrior? Moored nearby is the Victory?
I know the reasons why none of the British battleships survived. Just sad though. Hell the CV-6 Enterprise was scrapped even though there was strong pressure to make her into a museum.
Technically, Mikasa in Japan is British built though...
Re: Not quite a mission kill....
Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2011 12:08 am
Somehow I could't edit my previous post to add this.GrahamKennedy wrote:Given the huge role we played in the development of the Battleship, it's positively criminal that we never kept a single example as a museum. Warspite would have been an excellent choice. I've been around HMS Belfast, which is moored on the Thames, and she's just awesome. The thought of something three times that size...McAvoy wrote:I agree. I still think you Brits should have kept her a memorial.
Anyway I have been on the USS Texas which is the HMS Warspite's direct contemporary and she was impressive. The Texas I believe is about 60 or 80 feet shorter though off of the top of my head. I have been on the USS New Jersey which is a different animal.
Re: Not quite a mission kill....
Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2011 12:20 am
Contemporary, but by no means her equal - lighter broadside, slower, and still using triple-expansion engines rather than steam turbines. She was more a KGV or Iron Duke than a QE.McAvoy wrote:Anyway I have been on the USS Texas which is the HMS Warspite's direct contemporary and she was impressive.
Re: Not quite a mission kill....
Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2011 12:23 am
I assume you mean the second USS New Jersey? 
I've ben aboard the New Jersey and the USS Missouri, both Iowa-class battleships, and they are phenomenal. I've been on the USS Intrepid as well, though that's as impressive for its facet as a museum as for being a former warship. However, that's not my point - while the Iowa-class dwarfs the QE-class (such as Warspite) by a third again, I meant that the name should be remembered for her gallant, stubborn, and extraordinarily widespread contribution rather than her size and appearance.
I've ben aboard the New Jersey and the USS Missouri, both Iowa-class battleships, and they are phenomenal. I've been on the USS Intrepid as well, though that's as impressive for its facet as a museum as for being a former warship. However, that's not my point - while the Iowa-class dwarfs the QE-class (such as Warspite) by a third again, I meant that the name should be remembered for her gallant, stubborn, and extraordinarily widespread contribution rather than her size and appearance.
Re: Not quite a mission kill....
Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2011 12:34 am
True, but as has been pointed out neither of our countries has a very good record. Of all our great ships, not a single 20th century example has been preserved. The Ark was sunk, Warspite and Enterprise were scrapped, and Saratoga was expended as a nuclear target.
Re: Not quite a mission kill....
Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2011 1:25 am
Never said they were equal. Actually broadside weight is roughly equal with the QE class slightly ahead. But I get what you are saying.Captain Seafort wrote:Contemporary, but by no means her equal - lighter broadside, slower, and still using triple-expansion engines rather than steam turbines. She was more a KGV or Iron Duke than a QE.McAvoy wrote:Anyway I have been on the USS Texas which is the HMS Warspite's direct contemporary and she was impressive.
The Texas is the only representative of her era.
Re: Not quite a mission kill....
Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2011 2:41 am
All our great ships? I just mentioned two Iowa-classes and an Essex-class which I have visited in my lifetime.Captain Seafort wrote:True, but as has been pointed out neither of our countries has a very good record. Of all our great ships, not a single 20th century example has been preserved. The Ark was sunk, Warspite and Enterprise were scrapped, and Saratoga was expended as a nuclear target.
Re: Not quite a mission kill....
Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2011 6:22 am
I think the PoW isn't bad since that name carries good weight in battle but could use a few tours without a sinking. The QE though, imo, that's a name that belongs to a ship of the line and not a carrier.Captain Seafort wrote:Queen Elizabeth and Prince of WalesDeepcrush wrote:@seafort, do they have names selected for your new carriers? Please tell me they aren't going with Titan or Invincible...
The first is fine - the ship never really did much, but the class as a whole performed magnificently. The latter was a disaster - suffered numerous malfunctions in her first battle and was sunk in her second. This seems to be a recent trend - two of the new Astute-class subs are being named Audacious (last given to a battleship lost to progressive flooding after striking one mine) and Ardent (there were three of them during the 20th century, all lost in action, although they had a decent record of going down stubbornly).