The Frank Hipper Naval History Quiz.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-05-02 12:31am

Any rulling on Ten yet?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-05-02 12:42am

Supposedly the Turkish monitor Seyfi was sunk on 25 May 1877 by Russian Torpedo boats. Of course both might be true, and the Shah's shot is counted because it was against a moving target in a battle rather then the anchored vessels the Russians struck at.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-05-02 12:59am

Frank Hipper wrote:Someone's done her homework, 9 out of 10. B

Ten is NOT correct.

Are we going to have to debate the definition of operational, Frank? Jean Bart is the naval fandom equivlant of "it depends on the definition of sexual relations."

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-05-02 01:15am

Ah, to hell with waiting until tomorrow! The Duchess gave away the real toughies, anyway.

1) The first naval battle for which an account exists.

Ramses III defeated the "Sea Peoples" ca. 1190-1176 B.C.E.

2) The only time a naval action has contributed directly to the downfall of a civilisation.

The siege of Tenochtitlan, 1521

3) The last major battle which was fought almost exclusively under oar.

Lepanto, 1571

4) This American Revolutionary War battle led to Cornwallis' surrender.

Battle of The Chesepeake.

5) The last major fleet action under sail.

Navarino

6) The first major fleet action pitching ironclad vs ironclad.

Lissa.

7) The first use of the "modern" locomotive torpedo in action.

Shah vs Huascar is generally given as the first. However, the Russian launches Tsarevitch, Xenia, and Djigit did sink the Turkish river gunboat Seife four days earlier with a combination of spar and locomotive torpedoes.

8 ) The only battleship to have ever sunk a submarine.

HMS Dreadnought

9) The fastest battleship class ever built.

The Iowas

10) The last battleship ever built.

The French Jean Bart

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-05-02 01:21am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Frank Hipper wrote:Someone's done her homework, 9 out of 10. B

Ten is NOT correct.
Are we going to have to debate the definition of operational, Frank? Jean Bart is the naval fandom equivlant of "it depends on the definition of sexual relations."

When a completion date is given as 1952, and sea trials were only begun in 1949, no matter if a ship forced to activity before, what are you supposed to think?
Was the U.S.S. Washington a completed ship when sunk during target practice?
Was the Graf Zeppelin complete?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-05-02 01:29am

Frank Hipper wrote:When a completion date is given as 1952, and sea trials were only begun in 1949, no matter if a ship forced to activity before, what are you supposed to think?
Was the U.S.S. Washington a completed ship when sunk during target practice?
Was the Graf Zeppelin complete?

Trials are run after completion. The French patched up the Jean Bart post war and she was effectively finished and then decided at the last minute to rip out large areas of the ship to install new equipment and 57mm AAA

Burak Gazan · Post by **Burak Gazan** » 2003-05-02 01:34am

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/battleships/fran_dr.htm

Jean Bart
Built by A C de St. Nazaire-Penhoet. Laid down 1/1939, launched
6 March 1940, escaped to Casablanca under her own power 6/1940
at 77% completion, with only one 15" turret installed. Damaged by US
gunfire during the invasion of North Africa. Completion work began in
1946 at Brest, completed for trials 1/1949. but AA armament was not
installed until 1951-52. Armament in 1955 was 8 15 inch, 9 6 inch,
12 dual 3.9 inch, 14 dual 57 mm, 20 single 20 mm. Used as gunfire
support ship at Suez in 1956, training ship until stricken 1/1961.
Hulked as accommodation ship at Toulon, scrapped 1970.

Tough early questions

Almost remembered the Huascar, but too late

generator_g1 · Post by **generator_g1** » 2003-05-02 03:49am

What was the name of the Jap aircraft carrier that never saw action in WW2? Got sunk by the US submarine Archerfish on her maiden voyage?

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-05-02 03:51am

generator_g1 wrote:What was the name of the Jap aircraft carrier that never saw action in WW2? Got sunk by the US submarine Archerfish on her maiden voyage?

Shinano. Pretty weak showing for partial sistership to the Yamatos.

generator_g1 · Post by **generator_g1** » 2003-05-02 03:57am

Ah..I keep forgetting the name. But wasn't Shinano originally supposed to be a battleship like the Yamato and Musashi but was converted into a carrier?

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-05-02 04:00am

generator_g1 wrote:Ah..I keep forgetting the name. But wasn't Shinano originally supposed to be a battleship like the Yamato and Musashi but was converted into a carrier?

Yup.
She was sunk with a single torpedo-hence my "poor showing" statement. To be fair, she was under-manned, and had zero damage control capability. But still, she had that Yamato hull.....

generator_g1 · Post by **generator_g1** » 2003-05-02 04:08am

Frank Hipper wrote:
generator_g1 wrote:Ah..I keep forgetting the name. But wasn't Shinano originally supposed to be a battleship like the Yamato and Musashi but was converted into a carrier?
Yup.
She was sunk with a single torpedo-hence my "poor showing" statement. To be fair, she was under-manned, and had zero damage control capability. But still, she had that Yamato hull.....

Plus she was not alone on her voyage, she did have 3 escorts ships along...

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-05-02 04:16am

Frank Hipper wrote:Yup.
She was sunk with a single torpedo-hence my "poor showing" statement. To be fair, she was under-manned, and had zero damage control capability. But still, she had that Yamato hull.....

No, Shinano was sunk four hits. In an act of brilliance by the Japanese she had put to sea and waters crawling with American submarines, without her watertight doors installed! She had been heading to Kure Navy Yard for finnal fitting out when those would have been installed.

As for the strength of her hull, the Yamato's had a very thick torpedo bulkhead but the system overall wasn't very good and the bulkhead was too stiff, allowing for progressive flooding even if few torpedoes could blast an outright hole in it. There main advantage was there 54,000+ tons of reserve buoyancy. Even then, both vessels where massively over killed and Musashi would have capsized much sooner if some Avengers hadn't decided to hit her other side in hopes of getting an under the belt strike.

The carrier sunk by a single submarine torpedo was Taiho. The torpedo fractered her aviation fuel tanks, flooding the well of one of the elevators. To disperse the fumes the damage control teams turn on all the ships ventilators, but had no good way of draining out the multi thousand gallon pool of highly volatile fuel. It wasn't long before the vapors built up and got sparked off. The resulting blast blew the hanger deck to hell along with about half of the rest of the ship. Now massively damaged and a blazing wreck she was quickly abandon.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-05-02 04:24am

generator_g1 wrote:
Plus she was not alone on her voyage, she did have 3 escorts ships along...

Japanese ASW is not something to be impressed with. They're where three destroyers with her, but none had radar. As it was the force was steaming at something like 25 knots when Archerfish encountered her at night on the surface. She wouldn't have been able to intercept and indeed the Japanese where opening the range when they suddenly made a turn right across Archerfish's path.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-05-02 05:55am

Hey Frank, I'm sharpening my knives for the Jean Bart debate tonight - In good humour, of course, but, well... Shing. Shing. Shing.

Burak Gazan · Post by **Burak Gazan** » 2003-05-02 10:51am

More on Jean Bart, different source

According to my olde copy of Jane's Fighting Ships 1959-60:
Jean Bart
Pennant No. : B 61
Builders: AC Loire Shipyard
Laid down: Jan 1939
Launched: 6 Mar 1940
Completed: 1949 (in service 1955)
33,750 tons (standard) 49,000 tons (full load)

Unusal armament configuration, 2 x quad 15" primaries forward, 3 x triple 6" secondaries aft.
150,000 shp on 4 shafts = 30 knots (on preliminary trials reached 32 knots, with 160,000 shp)

and as long as we have it out......

HMS Vanguard
Pennant No. : B 23
Builders: John Brown & Co. Ltd. Clydebank
Ordered: 14 Mar 1941
Laid down: 2 Oct 1941
Launched: 30 Nov 1944
Completed: 25 Apr 1946
44,500 tons (standard) 51, 420 (full load)

8 x 15" primaries in 4 twin turrets in standard configuration (A,B,X,Y)
16 x 5.25" secondaries in 8 twin mounts (4p, 4s)
Main guns are those first mounted in 1917 on HMS Courageous and Glorious and later removed to be added to reserve of weapons of that calibre maintained for Hood, Queen Elizabeth and Royal Sovereign types.
130,000 shp on 4 shafts = 29.5 knots

Best 10 bucks spent for old book

Nice to see what navy looked like then.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-05-02 11:12am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Hey Frank, I'm sharpening my knives for the Jean Bart debate tonight - In good humour, of course, but, well... Shing. Shing. Shing.

Oooooh. *puts "buy popcorn" on my list of things to do today*

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-05-02 11:43am

Marina, Skimmer, look here:
http://www.warships1.com/FREbb06_Richelieu_specs.htm

Name Builder LD LCH COM
Jean Bart AC & CH.de la Loire St.Nazaire Dec.12/36 Mar.6/40 Dec./40(incomplete) May.1/55

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-05-02 12:08pm

Burak Gazan wrote:Best 10 bucks spent for old book Nice to see what navy looked like then.

Hmm. So the USS Wisconsin is pretty close to last battleship built, as it was launched in 1943.

Burak Gazan · Post by **Burak Gazan** » 2003-05-02 01:28pm

Crayz9000 wrote:
Burak Gazan wrote:Best 10 bucks spent for old book Nice to see what navy looked like then.
Hmm. So the USS Wisconsin is pretty close to last battleship built, as it was launched in 1943.

Er, no
see above for Vanguard and Jean Bart;

Iowa-class BB:

BB 61 USS Iowa -- Laid down 27 Jun 1940, Launched 27 Aug 1942, Completed 22 Feb 1943

BB 62 USS New Jersey -- Laid down 16 Sep 1940, Launched 7 Dec 1942, Completed 23 May 1943

BB 63 USS Missouri -- Laid down 6 Jan 1941, Launched 29 Jan 1944, Completed 11 Jun 1944

BB 64 USS Wisconsin -- Laid down 25 Jan 1941, Launched 7 Dec 1943, Completed 16 Apr 1944

jane's rules

If it was only cheaper, It'd be on the bookshelf (current version ~ $300 USD+

)

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-05-02 05:02pm

Ted wrote:Marina, Skimmer, look here:
http://www.warships1.com/FREbb06_Richelieu_specs.htm

Name Builder LD LCH COM
Jean Bart AC & CH.de la Loire St.Nazaire Dec.12/36 Mar.6/40 Dec./40(incomplete) May.1/55

Warships1's stats aren't the end-all of knowledge, and also represent the opinions of Tony and Guy.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-05-02 07:22pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:The carrier sunk by a single submarine torpedo was Taiho.

Yup. Sorry, all.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-05-02 07:38pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Hey Frank, I'm sharpening my knives for the Jean Bart debate tonight - In good humour, of course, but, well... Shing. Shing. Shing.

*drools, smacks lips*
Your Grace, I am SO there.
*drools unprettily some more*

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-05-02 07:59pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Ted wrote:Marina, Skimmer, look here:
http://www.warships1.com/FREbb06_Richelieu_specs.htm

Name Builder LD LCH COM
Jean Bart AC & CH.de la Loire St.Nazaire Dec.12/36 Mar.6/40 Dec./40(incomplete) May.1/55
Warships1's stats aren't the end-all of knowledge, and also represent the opinions of Tony and Guy.

True, but you think if Skimmer puts the site in his website button, you'd THINK he'd check it.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-05-02 08:03pm

Ted wrote:
True, but you think if Skimmer puts the site in his website button, you'd THINK he'd check it.

Actually I'm quite aware of what the pages say. I'm also aware that each page draws on multiple sources and the opinions of many people factor into them. I also know that the forums of warships1 consider Vanguard to be the last. Jean Bart had a few finishing touches after Vanguard, but the overwhelming majority of all work was completed before Vanguard had even been laid down.