Barbette.

This is coolbert:

"Chatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today." - - Beatty at Jutland - - 1916.

There was something wrong with the “bloody ships” under the command of Beatty at Jutland [1916]. Weaknesses, made manifest only DURING COMBAT, led to the repeated destruction of British combat vessels.

“Flash”, from the detonation of a German naval shell penetrating the roof of a gunhouse, traveling down the barbette, through the supposedly foolproof, interlocking safety doors, causing a catastrophic explosion of disastrous consequences within the ship’s magazine.

"flash - - 8.the sudden flame or intense heat produced by a bomb or other explosive device."

Barbette: The cylinder connecting the gunhouse with the innards of the ship. Hoists and lifts [elevators] within the barbette allowing shells and propellant charges to be moved from the magazines to the gunhouse. Possesses safety doors with interlocking mechanisms.

"the barbette is the non-rotating drum beneath the rotating gun turret (properly known as the "gunhouse") . . . It [the barbette ] forms the protection for the upper ends of the hoists that lift shells and their propelling charges (e.g. cordite) from the magazines below"

Design flaws [barbettes insufficiently armored?], doctrine [rapid firing preferred over safety concerns], safety interlocking door mechanisms over-ridden, callous and lax attitude toward ammunition handling, all contributed to serious deficiencies ONLY BECOMING APPARENT DURING ACTUAL COMBAT!!

Consider the catastrophic losses from internal magazine explosions the British suffered at Jutland:

* Indefatigable. ". . . Indefatigable was ripped apart by another magazine explosion, sinking immediately with her crew of 1,019 officers and men, leaving only two survivors."

* Queen Mary. "disintegrated when both forward magazines exploded, sinking with all but nine of her 1,275 man crew lost."



* Defence. ". . . . which detonated her magazines in a spectacular explosion . . . she sank with all hands (903 officers and men)."

* Invincible. "Invincible's flash detonated the magazines below . . . killing all but six of her crew of 1,032 officers and men, including Rear-Admiral Hood"

* Lion. [Beatty's flagship] "far larger destruction was averted when the magazine doors [were] shut and the magazine flooded. This prevented a massive magazine explosion at 16:28, when a flash fire ignited ready cordite charges beneath the turret and killed everyone in the chambers outside "Q" magazine."

ONLY two survivors. All but nine - - lost. All hands [lost]. All but six of her crew.

Lion was NOT lost, but almost was!

"Each of the British battlecruisers was penetrated through her turret roof and her magazines ignited by flash passing through turret, and shell handling rooms." [into the magazines, setting off a sympathetic detonation that blew up the entire ship]

"the British BCF had adopted a philosophy of having exceptionally high rates of fire as a tactical advantage. Flash protection and interlocks were considered an impediment . . . in some cases BCF ships had removed what rudimentary flash protection they had, to speed up ammunition feeds."

"British cordite propellant . . . tended to burn violently causing uncontrollable "flash fires" when ignited by nearby shell hits . . . Moreover the British magazines were not adequately protected against the intrusion of flash fires, and the Royal Navy emphasised speed in ammunition handling over safety procedures . . . leaving the ships vulnerable to chain-reaction ammunition fires and magazine explosions."

"the cause of the British ships' tendency to suffer from internal explosions. On this evidence, a major part of the blame may be laid on lax handling of the cordite propellant for the shells of the main guns"

"In practice drills . . . the cordite could not be supplied to the guns rapidly enough through the hoists and hatches [with all interlocks working as intended] . . . many safety doors which should have been kept shut to safeguard against flash fires were opened . . . 'bad safety habits' carried over into real battle practices."

“'There is something wrong with our ships,' . . . 'And something wrong with our system.'” - - Beatty at Jutland [during a latter stage of the battle]!

Indeed, there was. AND, ONLY found out about during COMBAT. At the worse possible moment, flaws, deficiencies, problems, etc.

Mr. Murphy at work?

coolbert.

Gunboats.

This is coolbert:

In his television series on naval warfare, the host Admiral Lord Hill-Norton did an entire episode devoted to the gunboat.

The term gunboat in modern parlance is considered to have a perjorative connotation, as in "gunboat diplomacy".

"A country negotiating with a European power usually over issues of trade would notice that a warship or fleet of ships had appeared off its coast. The mere sight of such power almost always had a considerable effect, and it was rarely necessary for such boats to use other measures, such as demonstrations of cannon fire."

The threat of course was that if you do not accede to the demands of the "Europeans", something bad will happen to you.

And on many occasions, it DID!!

Gunboats, however, also have a history that is far more positive.

Lord Hill-Norton points out that the gunboat DID play an absolutely essential and pivotal role in ENDING the African slave trade.

Gunboats can be defined as:

Naval vessels having an ability to operate in shallow coastal waters, or in navigable rivers of size, such as would be the Congo, Nile, Amazon, Yangste, etc. Vessels having considerable organic firepower for a craft their size.

Naval vessels ideal for patrolling and holding position for a long time if necessary.

Vessels that were not only for coastal patrol. Had a shallow draft and could go "up-river" if necessary, pursuing miscreants. Sailors on the such war craft did have to able at a moments notice be ready to take up arms and fight as what was called naval infantry [as distinct from Marines]. This type of behavior is seen in the excellent movie "Sand Peebles".

Gunboats of the British Royal Navy, of which Hill-Norton is speaking about, DID play an instrumental role in putting a stop to the slave trade.

Slavery in the British Empire was outlawed in 1807 [slaves not actually set free until 1838]. In the French Empire in 1848.

Slavery, however, did not end at that point.

Slavery, and the exportation of black Africans to various parts of the world did continue for sometime thereafter.

English slave abolitionists [such as of the type of person exemplified by Dr. Livingston] urged the Victorian Era government to take strong measures to prevent further removal of African slaves to places such as Brazil [slavery did not end until 1888!].

"Brazil, however, did not agree to stop trading in slaves until Britain took military action against its coastal areas and threatened a permanent blockade of the nation's ports in 1852."

Gunboats, patrolling off the coast of west Africa and Brazil, would have been a major part of such an anti-slave trade action.

The gunboat has an undeservedly bad reputation. Gunboats accomplished a lot more good than bad. Without doubt.

The gunboat does have a noble past. Perhaps it will again too. In the suppression of the ever growing world piracy epidemic. Ships of the Israeli "Reshef" class, modern gunboats, being ideally suited for the task.

coolbert.

Projection.

This is coolbert:

The American military historian Alfred Thayer Mahan was the first of his profession to enunciate the role that sea power played in the history of great world powers.

Military history prior to Mahan consisted of evaluation of ground forces, not naval forces.

Mahan made some interesting observations that have seemed to hold true ever since Mahan was first published [circa 1900].

World and regional powers of the past found being a naval power much to their advantage. Powers with a small population could wield an influence way out of proportion to their population strength by the judicious use of naval forces. Projecting power is the modern term used to describe this activity of navies.

Projection of power by navies has ancient lineage and modern lineage both.

Athens in it's war with Sparta, was able to hold the Spartans, a much superior land power, at bay, by the use of naval power. The Athenians could strike at will anywhere along the coast of Sparta, an ability for which the Spartans had no counter. The Spartans had to devote a goodly portion of their army to just protect their coastline from attacks of the Athenians. Attacks that could manifest themselves at any time. Judicious use of naval forces allowed for the Athenians to develop and maintain the initiative [Athens did succumb to the Spartans after say a twenty five year war].

The Romans did not become a world class power until they were able to master the art of naval warfare. This ability at naval warfare allowed the Romans to extend their dominion over all over the Mediterranean, extending and projecting their power which until that time was limited to the marching power of the legions.

In the Middle Ages, and in the years just after the discovery of the New World by Spain, small countries and city-states such as Venice, Portugal, and Holland, minor countries population wise, exerted and projected power all over the world with their fleets.

Not only with military force, but with trade and cultural influence, these naval powers exerted very disproportionate influence in places far removed from their home bases.

Holland in particular, a country largely reclaimed from the sea, and possessing almost no trees, was able through trade and skill at seamanship able to build a fleet that rivaled any other power in the world. This was similar to the situation three thousand years earlier in Egypt, a desert country also without trees, but through trade with Lebanon, was able to create a fleet that gave them regional domination, militarily and trade wise.

Indeed, the felling of trees all over the Mediterranean by the various historical naval powers of the region, Egypt, Greece, Rome, Venice, Spain, has had a devastating effect on the ecology of the entire region.

What was once heavily wooded and fertile land has been decimated over the millenniums by the felling of trees to build wooden ships. [I once read an interesting article about how the forests of northern Italy were stripped bare to harvest trees used in the building of the fleet commanded by the Venetians. And exact record has been maintained of how many trees of what types were needed to build one Venetian galley, and it numbers something like eight hundred trees of all varieties were felled to build one galley. An immense undertaking.]

And of course, the British were able to rule the largest empire in the world through their dominant navy. A navy that consisted of a force in the nineteenth century that could beat at any given moment the fleets of the next two world powers combined.

Even the Mongols, normally thought of as only a land power, realized the important function of naval power. In their war with the Song Empire [southern China], the Mongols employed a large fleet of river going craft [riverine] that allowed them to fight the Song on several fronts at once, keeping the Song on the defensive and allowing the Mongols to maintain the initiative, much as the Athenians had done to the Spartans. Subsequent naval adventures of the Mongols to Japan and Java did result in disaster for the Mongols, but not for want of trying.

In the time of Mahan, a number of ascendant countries all vied for the role of naval power. Aspiring world powers to include the United States, Japan, Germany, Russian, and even the Austro-Hungarian Empire all developed large fleets and attempted to project power to various parts of the world. In the case of the U.S. and Japan, these two countries were successful. The latter three listed countries were not successful in their endeavor to develop strong winning navies, but once again, not from want of trying. They did realize the importance of a strong, ocean going navy, and did attempt to establish themselves as world powers through strong navies.

After World War Two [WW2], the U.S. remained as the last great naval power for quite a long time. And this did allow the U.S. to project almost unlimited power throughout the entire world. The Soviets also saw the value of naval power and did build a navy to rival that of the U.S., but like all other things following the collapse of the Soviet Union, a strong navy has gone the way of the dodo for the Russians. In the area of naval power, the U.S. ranks alone in this category and will probably do so for some time to come

coolbert.

Navy!

This is coolbert:

Well, navies throughout the world are certainly not what they were 100 years or so ago.

Navies have become somewhat of an anachronism.

It used to be that all world powers and aspiring world powers had a large pelagic [deep water] navy.

A navy that would show the colors all over the world.

Project power.

Especially in the hey-day of the colonial powers.

Britain, U.S., France, Germany, Russia, Japan, all had large navies 100 years ago.

And in the day of the wind powered sailing men-of-war, Spain, Holland, and Portugal could at one time put large navies on the oceans of the world.

In the years prior to WW2, Italy made the decision to build and deploy a significant naval force in the Mediterranean as part of it's nationalist/imperialist agenda.

Navies counted their ability to fight in the number of capital ships they could deploy. Capital ships [battleships] were the means by which navies were to fight future [I am speaking here of the year 1900] battles at sea.

A countries technological expertise was measured by it's ability to produce the largest capital ship with the largest guns [prior to the building of the Space Shuttle, the Iowa class battleship was the most complicated thing made by man].

An entire panoply of supporting vessels was created to support the capital ships.

Cruisers of all types, heavy, armored, light, fast, all existed.

Destroyers, torpedo boats, submarines, and later, aircraft carriers all were created [the original concept of the aircraft carrier was AS A SUPPORT VESSEL to the battleships, and adjunct to the main force of the navy, the capital ships.

To supply the coal fired boilers of the navies, strategically located coaling stations all over the world were desired and obtained by the major powers. Colliers [ships carrying coal] were constantly in position on the oceans of the world to meet the insatiable demand for coal to fire the coal fire boilers of the dreadnoughts.

And these large navies and deployments of capital ships made for dramatic photography too. Seeing five battleships sailing in line, tremendous quantities of thick black smoke trailing behind them, is a very impressive sight. Well, that was the intention, was it not, to impress??

This has almost all become a thing of the past.

With the exception of the United States, no one else is able to put to sea a large navy to fight wars and project power. The other last super-power, the Soviet Union, now has a large fleet laying at anchor, or slowing sinking in harbors all over Russia.

And in very rare instances, such as the Falkland Islands War, the British did successfully deploy their navy, but with great difficulty. This was not a sustainable venture on the part of the British.

And what are the reasons for navies disappearing all over the world?

Technology for one thing. Aircraft and missile technology has rendered surface ships very vulnerable.

The former colonial powers, Britain, France, etc., no longer possess their colonies throughout the world, another reason for having a large navy being obviated.

And cost is a major concern. Modern ships are just expensive. Just to build a state-of-the-art destroyer costs about $1 billion dollars. Most countries cannot afford this expense.

Navies still do exist, but mostly now in a coastal defense role, or in what would be termed "coast guard" activity in the U.S.

coolbert.