More naval trivia

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi:

Prior to the advent of Aegis class cruisers, US cruisers were named after American cities with the exception of USS Canberra named to honor the Australian cruiser lost at Savo island. But apparently the city didn't need to be in a US state to have a ship named after it. Can you name the cruisers that were not in US states that served in WWII (hint there are 3 of them)?

[old_pop2000]

Hi:

Prior to the advent of Aegis class cruisers, US cruisers were named after American cities with the exception of USS Canberra named to honor the Australian cruiser lost at Savo island. But apparently the city didn't need to be in a US state to have a ship named after it. Can you name the cruisers that were not in US states that served in WWII (hint there are 3 of them)?
USS Juneau - Alaska was not a state at the time

USS San Juan - Neither was Puerto Rico

USS Honolulu - Neither was Hawaii

[john964]

Name the two ship classes with the largest broadsides?

These ships are not Ragwagons.

[Ed Rotondaro]

USS Juneau - Alaska was not a state at the time

USS San Juan - Neither was Puerto Rico

USS Honolulu - Neither was Hawaii

Dennis:

Very good, you are correct.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Name the two ship classes with the largest broadsides?

These ships are not Ragwagons.

John:

Are we including main batteries and secondaries?

[john964]

John:

Are we including main batteries and secondaries?
Just mains.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Just mains.

John:

In that case, one class is the Atlanta class CLAAs with 14 5" guns broadside. The other would be the one off HMS Agincourt with 14 12" guns in 7 turrets.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Just mains.

Hi John,

Are you talking a single broadside or weight of metal over a measured period of time?

[john964]

Hi John,

Are you talking a single broadside or weight of metal over a measured period of time?Just number of guns. But Ed had it correct with USS Atlanta and HMS Agincourt

[clacton2]

John:

In that case, one class is the Atlanta class CLAAs with 14 5" guns broadside. The other would be the one off HMS Agincourt with 14 12" guns in 7 turrets.

Ed,
As I am sure you know, HMS Agincourt was originally designed for the Brazilian Navy, then sold to the Turkish Navy, and then taken over by the RN at the start of WWI.
Here is a link to an interesting site with facts and pictures of her:

http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/hms_agincourt.htm

Cheers
Jon:)

[old_pop2000]

John:

In that case, one class is the Atlanta class CLAAs with 14 5" guns broadside. The other would be the one off HMS Agincourt with 14 12" guns in 7 turrets.

USS San Juan had 16 x 5 inch guns, along with the USS San Diego. The USS Charleston, C-22 had 14 6 inch guns, as did the USS Milwaukee and the USS St. Louis.

It would seem to me, that these would be a better answer. :D

[john964]

USS San Juan had 16 x 5 inch guns, along with the USS San Diego. The USS Charleston, C-22 had 14 6 inch guns, as did the USS Milwaukee and the USS St. Louis.

It would seem to me, that these would be a better answer. :DDennis, The San Jaun and San Diego are part of the Atlanta class along with Juneau. But they could only fire a 14 gun main battery broadside. The Atlanta class had 8 x 2 5in/38 arranged 3F/3A/P/S. The St Louis class Protected Cruiser could only fire a 9 gun main battery broadside with 4 guns in mounted in 2 twin turret F/A and the rest mounted an casemates. But I being stupid and forgetful overlooked the Brooklyn and St Louis class along with the original Mogami class these classes all had 15 6in guns.

[Ed Rotondaro]

USS San Juan had 16 x 5 inch guns, along with the USS San Diego. The USS Charleston, C-22 had 14 6 inch guns, as did the USS Milwaukee and the USS St. Louis.

It would seem to me, that these would be a better answer. :D

Dennis:

I expected better old friend. Broadside OK? The 16 5" guns weren't all broadside mounted my brother. Atlanta class had 8 5" twin turrets, six on the center line and one each in the waist position giving you 14 5" guns per broadside. And none of those old Omaha cruisers mounted that kind of broadside.

[john964]

Dennis:

I expected better old friend. Broadside OK? The 16 5" guns weren't all broadside mounted my brother. Atlanta class had 8 5" twin turrets, six on the center line and one each in the waist position giving you 14 5" guns per broadside. And none of those old Omaha cruisers mounted that kind of broadside.Ed, Dennis is refering to the old St Louis class Protected Cruiser of which Charleston and Milwaukee are part of not the Omaha class of almost 20 years later. The St Louis class was commissioned 1904-05, they were all decommissioned 1922-3.

[john964]

Lets go back to some trivia.

Which does not belong?
PA, CA, WV, TN, NV, MD

[djcyclone]

Lets go back to some trivia.

Which does not belong?
PA, CA, WV, TN, NV, MD



The U.S.S. Pennsalvania was the only Battleship of the 6 that was not in Battleship row when Pearl Harbor was bombed. The Penssalvania was actually in Dry Dock at Pearl harbor.

[john964]

The U.S.S. Pennsalvania was the only Battleship of the 6 that was not in Battleship row when Pearl Harbor was bombed. The Pennsalvania was actually in Dry Dock at Pearl harbor.
Close but no banana. You would be correct if I had included AZ and OK. Think of another time these girls got together.

[old_pop2000]

Close but no banana. You would be correct if I had included AZ and OK. Think of another time these girls got together.


USS Nevada was missing at the Battle of Suriagao Straits, her place was taken by the USS Mississippi.

[john964]

USS Nevada was missing at the Battle of Suriagao Straits, her place was taken by the USS Mississippi.
Ding, ding, ding, and we have a winner. Yes USS Nevada was the only Battlship from Pearl Harbor not to get revenge(sort of)

[old_pop2000]

Here is a bit of irony, the two fleet flagships at Pearl Harbor-Pennsylvania and Nagato- were both at Bikini together. Nagato sank five days after Test Baker, while Pennsylvania was towed to Eniwetok for testing and then sunk in deep water in 1948.

[paladin5]

*goes to find his book with over 4,000 bits of ww2 trivia.

[john964]

*goes to find his book with over 4,000 bits of ww2 trivia.
Funny, now try this. What nations navy lost more submarines than ships sunk?

[Warship NWS]

Funny, now try this. What nations navy lost more submarines than ships sunk?

I think its possible that the IJN could be one.. I don't recall of them sinking very many ships but they did lose quite a few subs.. ironically, many to our own subs.

[old_pop2000]

I think its possible that the IJN could be one.. I don't recall of them sinking very many ships but they did lose quite a few subs.. ironically, many to our own subs.

Not according to records, the IJN submarine fleet had 174 submarines during the war, of which they lost 128. They accounted for 184 merchant ships for 907,000 GRT.

Russians lost 109 boats sank 160 ships

Brits lost 76 boats, sank 697 ships

US Lost 52 sank 1314

Germany 781 lost sank sank 2828

Italians lost 82 sank 132 merchant, 18 warships

My guess would be the French, since they lost at least 15 at Toulon alone.

[john964]

Not according to records, the IJN submarine fleet had 174 submarines during the war, of which they lost 128. They accounted for 184 merchant ships for 907,000 GRT.

Russians lost 109 boats sank 160 ships

Brits lost 76 boats, sank 697 ships

US Lost 52 sank 1314

Germany 781 lost sank sank 2828

Italians lost 82 sank 132 merchant, 18 warships

My guess would be the French, since they lost at least 15 at Toulon alone.

Dennis it was the russians according to recetly released recoreds by the russian navy they sank fewer ships than reported and also lost more than reported. This was a cover up done by the russian navy to avoid the wrath of Uncle Joe.

[Warship NWS]

Not according to records, the IJN submarine fleet had 174 submarines during the war, of which they lost 128. They accounted for 184 merchant ships for 907,000 GRT.


That is somewhat surprising.. since they did not really press the issue of attacking merchants, either way.. for their losses that is a poor showing for such well designed subs.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis it was the russians according to recetly released recoreds by the russian navy they sank fewer ships than reported and also lost more than reported. This was a cover up done by the russian navy to avoid the wrath of Uncle Joe.


It was either the Russians or the French, because the Russian reports and information was very sketchy and incomplete. So, that makes perfect sense.

[Ed Rotondaro]

That is somewhat surprising.. since they did not really press the issue of attacking merchants, either way.. for their losses that is a poor showing for such well designed subs.

Chris:

I'm surprised they did that well. I'll bet most of that was early in the war.

[john964]

Chris:

I'm surprised they did that well. I'll bet most of that was early in the war.

IIRC the US didn't escort there convoys in the Pacific very much after 43. My Uncle told me that when his APA sailed from the US for Iwo Jima a 100 ship convoy only had 5 escorts IIRC it was 1 old DD and 4 DE's. He said that the escorts were mostly there for sheepdog duty.

[Ed Rotondaro]

IIRC the US didn't escort there convoys in the Pacific very much after 43. My Uncle told me that when his APA sailed from the US for Iwo Jima a 100 ship convoy only had 5 escorts IIRC it was 1 old DD and 4 DE's. He said that the escorts were mostly there for sheepdog duty.

John:

The IJN's submarine arm made the mistake of concentrating on warships rather than merchant vessels. It scored some notable successes, but it never seriously threatened the logistical end of the Pacific campaign. Your father's example is proof of this.

[paladin5]

Funny, now try this. What nations navy lost more submarines than ships sunk?

Germany maybe.

UPDATE: never mind i should have read the post by dennis before replying.

[djcyclone]

Okay lets get rough.

How manny British Battle Ships where Sunk (by German U Boats) during WW I?

What where the names of the Ships?

THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE SHIPS SUNK BY MINES!

Best of luck to you.:p

[old_pop2000]

Okay lets get rough.

How manny British Battle Ships where Sunk (by German U Boats) during WW I?

What where the names of the Ships?

THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE SHIPS SUNK BY MINES!

Best of luck to you.:p


None. In fact, there were no battleships sunk, for any major power during WWI, by a submarine's torpedo.

However, nine pre-dreadnoughts were sunk by submarine- one of which was the Majestic, sunk by U21 in the Eastern Med. The Cornwallis, a Duncan class PDN, sunk by U32 off of Malta. The Britannia sunk by UB-50 off of Cape Trafalgar.

So, if we include PDN in the category of battleships, three PDN and no dreadnoughts.

[djcyclone]

Jane's reffers to them as Battleships. The total number that you have is wrong, but the three you named where right. There are more, just how many though?

[djcyclone]

Since no one is going to answer this I will go ahead and finish it.

The total number is 5.

Britannia
Formidable
Triumph
Cornwallis
Majestic

[old_pop2000]

Since no one is going to answer this I will go ahead and finish it.

The total number is 5.

Britannia
Formidable
Triumph
Cornwallis
Majestic


Actually, in my list, Triumph was there, but I missed it. She was a Swiftsure second class PDN battleship sunk by U21 off of Cape Helles. She had torpedo nets up and watertight doors closed and capsized in 10 minutes. She was struck on the starboard side opposite the No. 2 boiler room. 3 officers and 75 men were lost.

[djcyclone]

How many German U Boats where sunk during WW I?
This does not include ships surrendered, or never completed.

(Bonus Question)
How many German U Boats where sunk by Submarines during WW I?

[old_pop2000]

How many German U Boats where sunk during WW I?
This does not include ships surrendered, or never completed.

(Bonus Question)
How many German U Boats where sunk by Submarines during WW I?

183 Lost from 1914-1918

19 including one by mistaken identification and one by a French submarine. Amazing how many were sunk by their own mines.

There were 14 scuttled and 7 interned.

[djcyclone]

Close, but Jane's Combat Ships of The World says your wrong.

Total number is 203.

I counted the subs sunk by other subs and the number I got was 12, plus one more that was sunk by its own torpedo exploding during a combat action against an American sub.

The Book is old though, so you might be right.

[old_pop2000]

Close, but Jane's Combat Ships of The World says your wrong.

Total number is 203.

I counted the subs sunk by other subs and the number I got was 12, plus one more that was sunk by its own torpedo exploding during a combat action against an American sub.

The Book is old though, so you might be right.

The source I use, is U.boat.net.

Here is a link to its source page.

http://www.uboat.net/wwi/sources.html