Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΒ  permalink

Poor naval engineering throughout WW2?

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by Mike Waller (U4782937) on Monday, 11th October 2010

  I have just read the obituary for Vice-Admiral Sir Louis Le Baily, which appeared in The Times last Friday. It gives the engineering standards maintenance and design) in the RN up to and throughout WW2 an apalling drubbing. For example, when units of the RN, under Admiral Fraser, joined up with the USN in the Pacific towards the end of the war, Fraser was told "that US Navy ships stayed at sea for 90 days. Fraser could only offer 8 for RN ships. Eventually there was a compromise on 20." Any comments?

  Link to this forum: Poor naval engineering throughout WW2?

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by VF (U5759986) on Monday, 11th October 2010

  Read Bruce Taylor's "The Battlecruiser Hood" which Le Bailey contributed to.Some of it you couldnt make up,two examples spring to mind.The first was when they had to traverse "Y" turret into an astern position so that the ships awnings could be put up.The roller bearing ring of the turret was so corroded that a block and tackle,the ships tug of war team and a steam capstan had to be used to pull the errant turret into position.They achieved this but buckled the deck in the process! The second example revolves round shock damage to the ships condensors following an air attack,which almost left the ship dead in the water.The fix which got them home? Sawdust added to the water! Blocked up holes and leaks!
  
  DK Browns "Nelson to Vanguard" also highlights similar accounts.To be honest from what Ive read the RN didnt develop machinery plants as well as the US did.On the other hand I think the RN had been starved of cash for a fair while pre war,was then in the position where they had to re-arm quickly and during the war went more for a quantity v quality.An awful lot of the ships needed big overhauls - HMS Hoods at one point was not capable of more than 25knots and was in a desperate condition,HMS Rodney did a 150000 miles without a proper engine overhaul,no woder she ended up virtually immobile t the end of her service! A shame really considering as the RN put the first turbine engined battleship to sea.

  Link to this forum: Poor naval engineering throughout WW2?

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by Mike Waller (U4782937) on Monday, 11th October 2010

  The guy writing the obituary also implicates the class system thus: ""Turning its back on the efforts of Lord Fisher to inculcate a community of spirit in the Navy, the Admiralty post 1918 permitted an attitude which appeared to disparage engineers socially and implied that what went on "down below" in a ship was not the affair of an officer and gentleman".
  
  Was there ever a formal inquiry into what had gone wrong? Apart from Le Bailly, did anybody name names?

  Link to this forum: Poor naval engineering throughout WW2?

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by VF (U5759986) on Monday, 11th October 2010

  The guy writing the obituary also implicates the class system thus: ""Turning its back on the efforts of Lord Fisher to inculcate a community of spirit in the Navy, the Admiralty post 1918 permitted an attitude which appeared to disparage engineers socially and implied that what went on "down below" in a ship was not the affair of an officer and gentleman".
  
  Was there ever a formal inquiry into what had gone wrong? Apart from Le Bailly, did anybody name names? Β 
  
  From what I can gather Le Bailly suffered for his honesty and did not reach the heights of some of his peers.Its ironic that the RN reverted back to the spit and polish of the pre Fisher days post 1918.The RN had to learn some harsh lessons during WW1 but had arguably ended the war a far more effective professional unit than when they began.

  Link to this forum: Poor naval engineering throughout WW2?

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Tuesday, 19th October 2010

  I suspect the original problem of endurance related more to the non-existence of the Fleet Train - Roskill gives a fairly comprehensive list of what was considered necessary, and what could actually be provided - than to "poor Naval engineering".

  Link to this forum: Poor naval engineering throughout WW2?

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by VF (U5759986) on Tuesday, 19th October 2010

  On the bright side (on a dark day for the RN)poor engineering issues are unlikely to occur in the next 10 years......
  
  Not that much can go wrong with an outboard motor.
  
  
  From a historical point of view can anybody think of a time when the RN was so weak? Post Spanish Armada when a huge number of ships were laid up?

  Link to this forum: Poor naval engineering throughout WW2?

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Tuesday, 19th October 2010

  Perhaps one reason was the parlous state of the British ship yards. Virtually moribund from 1920 to 1937. And the yards that did just tick over contained machinery and methods that were outdated by 1920. Any idea how long it took the ship yard owners to accept the principle of welding?

  Link to this forum: Poor naval engineering throughout WW2?

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Tuesday, 19th October 2010

  Urungal
  
  I would agree. The obit seems to confuse the question of time "on station" with the engineering problems, which were a separate matter.
  
  The development of Fleet Trains was a product of WWII - the USN had hadn't them prior to the war, either. But the RN was constrained from producing one of their own by other wartime priorities.
  
  Roskill, and his friend and disciple (on matters naval) Corelli Barnett, are rather partisan in their complaints about the ships scraped together for the BPF's Fleet Train. True, there were more suitable ships available, but they were also required for bringing supplies to the UK. the War Cabinet had agreed that this had priority, which seems absolutely correct.
  
  The sad thing was, the USN had more Fleet Train assets than it needed, and could have supplied the BFP with the necessary vessels. But the USN hierachy did not want a British fleet turning up and muscling in on their private war.
  
  When the BFP first arrived, they were under Spruance's 5th Fleet, and Spruance took a co-operative line; the BFP was resupplied by his Fleet Train. But when command passed to Halsey's 3rd Fleet, Halsey and his Chief of Staff insisted on the letter of the agreement between the Admiralty and the US Navy that the RN would be responsible for itself, and such co-operation ceased.
  
  Not a good way to end the war.
  
  LW
  
  

  Link to this forum: Poor naval engineering throughout WW2?

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 8.

  Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Tuesday, 19th October 2010

  One possible error was allowing the MAC tankers to be re-converted. They'd have been mighty useful in the train, IMO. It's always been said that Britain was more dependant on shore bases precisely because, pre-WWII, they had so many more available than their potential rivals.

  Link to this forum: Poor naval engineering throughout WW2?

  Report message9

• Message 10

  , in reply to message 9.

  Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Tuesday, 19th October 2010

  Urungal
  
  As I understand it, the MAC tankers and grain carriers, the Empires and Rapanas, were precisely the ships considered in the debate over priorities. They would have been ideal for the BFP Fleet Train but they were also vital for food and fuel deliveries to the UK.
  
  LW

  Link to this forum: Poor naval engineering throughout WW2?

  Report message10

Back to top