BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!

Subject: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 May 07 - 09:23 PM

The Canadian armed forces today succeeded in sinking one of our own ships, the 35 year old destroyer Huron. HMCS Huron ended her proud career under the shells of Canadian warships and strafing by fighter aircraft.

When questioned as to why this had occurred, Admiral Dudley Preston of the Canadian Forces said:

"Well, we have not succeeded in sinking any real ships, specially combat ships, in a very long time, eh? In fact, I can't remember the last time we did. We don't get many opportunities to do that, eh? So...this was kind of wearing down our troops' morale pretty badly, you know, feeling like maybe we just didn't have what it took. So we figured it was time to take the moose by the horns and show that we still have what it takes. It was a hell of a fight. The Huron put up a real battle, but we finally sank the old girl. She's under 2 miles of water now. Beauty, eh?"

It is unclear if this will be regarded as a glorious victory or a splendid defeat, but it is sure to go down in Canadian nautical history and be remembered for many long years.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: artbrooks
Date: 14 May 07 - 09:26 PM

Is it true that the crew of the Huron was made up entirely of francophones?

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 May 07 - 09:29 PM

I'm not sure, Art! ;-)

Here is Wickipedia's article on the Huron:

HMCS Huron - R.I.P.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: heric
Date: 14 May 07 - 09:31 PM

Why wouldn't they scrap it? Or at least use for artificial reef?

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: heric
Date: 14 May 07 - 09:38 PM

Oh. Google suggests asbestos, PCBs, lead, mercury, and other toxics.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 May 07 - 10:33 PM

Because they were desperately in need of practice, heric? ;-) Look, what fun is it having expensive toys if you never get to play with them?

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 14 May 07 - 10:51 PM

The legend comes round from the Chippewa on down
Of the destroyer they once called the Huron
How she guarded the shore of Nova Scotia and more
with a crew of the Brave and the Pure on

Oh the Huron was the pride of the Canadian side
Her crest was tobacco a-bloomin'
She'd run 'cross the blue since '72
'Til the Great Northern Navy come boomin'

What chance, can you tell, in that maelstrom of hell
with no shot and no fuel and no crew on?
The good ship and true was a bone to be chewed
That luckless destroyer, the Hruon

Like a Canada Goose with her head in a noose
In the gunmen's cross-hairs she was floatin'
One hundred clicks west of Vancouver she rests
in waters too deep now for boatin'

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: Rapparee
Date: 14 May 07 - 11:09 PM

Shane McBride wasn't involved in this, was he?

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: Peace
Date: 14 May 07 - 11:27 PM

So, do we have to declare war on our air force? Our navy? I hope you realize how complicated this could become.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: Big Mick
Date: 14 May 07 - 11:43 PM

Gord is really gonna be pissed with you, Leej........LOL.

btw, got a good, slightly used Cards hat you can get cheap......

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: Amos
Date: 14 May 07 - 11:47 PM

Beaut job, Leej!! LOL!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 May 07 - 11:56 PM

LOL, LeeJ!! You are on a roll, STILL!

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: Peace
Date: 14 May 07 - 11:59 PM

"What chance, can you tell, in that maelstrom of hell
with no shot and no fuel and no crew on?
The good ship and true was a bone to be chewed
That luckless destroyer, the Hruon"

THAT is THE stanza. Beautiful work, EJ.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: Gurney
Date: 15 May 07 - 02:00 AM

Heric, our navy sank a frigate in good diving depth and clear water after stripping out all the toxic bits and cutting access holes here and there. The demolition specialists were delighted, and it was on TV so they were happy, too. It has been very popular with divers ahd the people in the hospitality industry in that remote locality.   And with the fish.

Waste of good steel, though. Nor has anyone reported where the toxic bits went.....

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 15 May 07 - 04:45 AM

Where do toxic bits usually go...?

The UK has a large number of suburban 'green areas', parks and such, that were once landfill sites and have such toxic stuff underneath them that to build on them would cost too much, so they grass 'em over and put the odd vent hole in here and there to prevent build up of poisonous gasses.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 15 May 07 - 05:00 AM

thread opened 9.23PM, song posted 10.21PM.

as kat said, you are on a roll!

sandra

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 May 07 - 05:15 AM

Sounds a damn fine idea to me! Now if we could only get the UK, USA, Iran, Iraq, etc etc to all destroy their own war machines...

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: skipy
Date: 15 May 07 - 05:21 AM

H.M.C.S. Sackville
Words and Music: Tom Lewis
(Recorded by Tom Lewis on Mixed Cargo)
There's a grey, old lady sitting by the pier at Halifax,
When they made her kind they threw away the mould,
And it seems like no-one needs her nowadays and that's a fact,
As she sits beside the ocean growing old.
She never was a 'movie queen', and glamorous she sure ain't been,
Many men have loved her just the same,
When she and they were in their prime in a bygone age we call 'wartime',
H.M.C.S. Sackville made her name.

When freedom called for every hand to turn-to on the sea and land,
Sackville sailed outside the limelight's glare,
With four-inch gun and depth-charge racks
to guard against the U-boat packs,
The convoys made a bridge from here to there.
Thought not much faster than the tramps,
with the 'lease-lend' tubs sent by the Yanks,
She shepherded her flocks across the foam,
For three long years she did her job
like a faithful, fearless collie-dog,
Then, duty done, she steered a course for home.

But in the aftermath of war, too many heroes are a bore,
And each one just gets lost among the throng,
Words like: honour, glory, pride, are far too quickly set aside,
And peacetime voices sing a different song.
But take a walk down Sackville Street
to the bottom where the harbour meets,
The town that Nova Scotian's call their own,
In livery white, blue and grey, you'll find her harboured, safe to day,
For H.M.C.S. Sackville has come home.
The last corvette has finally found a home.

Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: kendall
Date: 15 May 07 - 09:15 AM

The ship in which I spent much of my young life was sunk by missles in 1968. I have photos of her going down. (Forget it Spaw)

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: heric
Date: 15 May 07 - 11:27 AM

Gurney: Yes I read of a controversy where people had sent ships to India for dismantling (with alleged child labour), with full knowledge that the British had the technology/skills to do it properly. Presumably for a lot more money.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 07 - 11:31 AM

It costs a LOT more if one has to obey the work safety laws, and remove the asbestos BEFORE dismantling.

Many of the WWII US ships ended up in India as scrap.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: GUEST,Gza
Date: 15 May 07 - 12:17 PM

And one of them ended up, oddly enough, serving as the premier gunship of the Argentinian Navy until it got sunk by a British submarine in the Falklands War in '82. That was the renamed General Belgrano....a USA-built cruiser that had survived the attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 07 - 12:21 PM

USS Phoenix (CL-46)

Ordered:   
Laid down: 15 April 1935
Launched: 13 March 1938
Commissioned: 3 October 1938
Decommissioned: 3 July 1946
Fate: Sold to Argentina, 9 April 1951, sunk in 1982 by HMS Conqueror.
Struck:   
General characteristics
Displacement: 10,000 tons
Length: 608 ft 4 in (185 m)
Beam: 61 ft 9 in (18.9 m)
Draft: 19 ft 5 in (5.9 m)
Propulsion: 100,000 shp,
Geared Turbines,
4 screws
Speed: 33.6 knots (61 km/h)
Range:   
Complement: 868 officers and enlisted
Armament: 15 × 6 in (152 mm), 8 × 5 in (127 mm), 8 × 0.50 calibre guns
Aircraft: 4
Motto:   
USS Phoenix (CL-46), a Brooklyn-class light cruiser, was the 3rd Phoenix of the United States Navy. After World War II the ship was transferred to Argentina in 1951 and became known as the General Belgrano. General Belgrano was sunk during the Falklands War in 1982 by HMS Conqueror.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: GUEST,Gza
Date: 15 May 07 - 12:29 PM

Those Brooklyn class cruisers were darned good antiaircraft ships. They mounted a lot of high angle guns. They proved quite useful in the Pacific War.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: Schantieman
Date: 15 May 07 - 01:46 PM

In some ways the disposal of a fine and historic warship as a target is a lot more dignified than the alternative - being broken up on a beach in India. And, as mentioned at first, it provides the lads with some fun as well as target practice.

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 07 - 01:57 PM

The DesMoines class heavies were impressive, even if they did not see combat.

Guns: 8 inch/55 caliber in three triple turrets
Rate of fire: 10 rpgpm (rounds per gun per minute)

90 rounds per minute on the main guns!

Guns: 5 inch/38 caliber in six dual mounts, Mk 32
Guns: 3 inch/50 cal in 11 (originally 12) twin mounts.

http://www.uss-salem.org/museum/history/specss.htm

And the DesMoines (CA-134) is still in the Philly Navy yard...

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 May 07 - 02:12 PM

BB, do you have any idea how to figure out the comparative weight of broadside of various ships, based on their size and number of primary guns, and rate of fire?

For example:

Bismark - 8 x 15" gun
King George V - 10 x 14" gun
Hood - 8 x 15" gun
Rodney - 9 x 16" gun
Yamato - 9 x 18" gun
Fuso - 12 x 14" gun
Scharnhorst - 9 x 11" gun
Missouri - 9 x 16" gun
Richelieu - 8 x 15" gun
Nagato - 8 x 16" gun

And so on...

The reason I ask is that I used to try and estimate the comparative hitting power of these various ships for self-designed wargames, and it was quite a puzzle. The bigger guns fire a much heavier shell, but they do so at a lower rate of fire, so how does it work out? A heavier shell, of course, is more likely to penetrate protective armour.

I would have to assume, for example, that the Nagato's 8 x 16" guns were a more effective broadside than the 12 x 14" guns carried in the earlier Fuso and Ise class battleships...because the Nagato was considered a more modern and formidable ship in every way. That means that 16" shells must be a lot heavier than 14" shells, if 8 of them can outmatch 12 of the 14".

Then too, are all 16" shells and guns in all ships carrying them the same? Are all 14" shells and guns the same? Probably not.

I never really came up with a formula that I could be sure of.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 07 - 02:23 PM

Well, the Iowa class BB was

Nine 16-inch / 50 caliber guns in 3 gun turrets. (Range: 23 miles - Projectiles: Armor Piercing 2,700 lbs and High Capacity 1,900 lbs - Powder: Standard Load six 110 lb bags - Rate of Fire: 2 Rounds per gun per minute)

Twenty 5-inch / 38 caliber dual purpose guns in 10 twin mounts. (Range: 9 miles - Projectile: 55 lbs. - Powder: 30 lbs. - Rate of Fire: 15 Rounds per gun per minute)


Sixty-four 40mm anti-aircraft guns in 16 quad mounts, later increased to eighty guns in 20 mounts. (All were removed in 1967 - 68 modernization)

Forty-nine 20mm anti-aircraft guns, increased during WW II to fifty-seven. (All but a few removed during 1947 - 48 inactivation, remainder removed in 1952)

8 Quad Tomahawk Armored Box Launchers, 4 Quad Harpoon Canister Launchers, 4 Vulcan / Phalanx CIWS all were added during 1981 modernization.


On just the main guns, the Desmoines could put out 10rpmpg x 335lb x 9 guns of armour piercing- 30,150 lb per minute

Iowa class BB was 2rpmpg x 2700lb x 9 AP- 48,600 lb per minute.

Looking only at the long range ( over 20 miles) , the BB put 1.6 times the weight onto target.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 07 - 02:30 PM

But then, I would NOT want to be on the receiving end of the DesMoines' fire!

Remember, these are PER MINUTE rates- and the Desmoines ( being automatic) would have a longer sustained rate of fire- the ready ammo would be coming in a lot faster than on the BB, which would have to manually hoist the rounds after the "ready" loads kept in the turret were used.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 07 - 02:37 PM

Of course, the BB had a LOT heavier armour than the CA.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: Metchosin
Date: 15 May 07 - 02:37 PM

You wouldn't want to be in some of our provincial parks on the west coast of Vancouver Island either. Some American navy vessel thought it might be a hoot to use them for target practice a few years ago. Hikers at the time were a bit disconcerted.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 May 07 - 02:39 PM

Hmm. Well, it's a puzzle, isn't it? I tried to work out a formula based on estimated rate of weight and fire, and I replayed the encounter off Norway between the Renown (6 x 15") and the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau (combined total of 18 x 11"). The Renown got massacred under an absolute avalanche of 11" shells, and was sunk in short order.

But in the real incident the Renown scored a single long range hit on one of the German ships, and they disengaged at high speed.

If what you say about the firepower of heavy cruisers is correct, the Germans were wise to have the Prinz Eugen stay in the battle and assist the Bismark in the fight with Hood and Prince of Wales. In fact, the Eugen may have been the ship which really won that battle and blew up the Hood, but that remains uncertain.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 07 - 02:45 PM

New Jersey BB-62 1943

Length Overall: 887'7"
Extreme Beam: 108'1"
Normal Displacement:
Tons: 45,000
Mean Draft: 28'11"
Designed Complement:
Officers: 117
Enlisted: 1,804
Catapults: (2) aft.
Armor:
Belt: 12.125"
Turrets: 17"
Deck:
Main: 1.5
2nd: 6"
3rd: .625"
Conning Tower: 17.25"
Designed Speed: 33
Designed Shaft Horsepower: 212,000
Engines:
Manufacturer: Wstgh.
Type: Turbine, geared drive
Screws: 4
Boilers:
Manufacturer: BW
No.: 8
Fuel :
Fuel Oil: 7,251 Tons
Drive: TRD
Class: Iowa


DesMoines CA-134

Displacement (std) 19500
Displacement (full) 20933
Length 716'
Beam 76.5'
Draft 25.6'
Powerplant 2 GE geared turbines; 4 Babcock & Wilcox 615psi boilers
Horsepower 120000
Screws 4
Speed 33.5
Armor 4-6 inch belt, 3.5 inch deck, 2-8 inch turrets, 6.3 inch barbettes, 4-6.5 inch CT
Armament 3 triple 8-inch/55RF Mk16 guns
6 twin 5-inch/38 Mk12 guns
12 twin 3-inch/50 Mk27/33 guns
6 twin 20mm/70 Mk2/3/4 AA guns (removed 1947)
Aircraft 1 - utility helicopter
Complement Complement: 1668
Officer: 103
Enlisted: 1565

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 07 - 02:47 PM

Well, I AM cheating a little- The DesMoines class was the first gunship to HAVE automatic ( main) guns. But the throw weight is impressive.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: Metchosin
Date: 15 May 07 - 02:48 PM

Then again, the Canadian Navy managed to lob a shell through someone's garage roof in a residential neighbourhood awhile back too. Seems the only time our little island has been under attack has been by "friendly fire". LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 07 - 02:49 PM

Luck ALWAYS plays a part in any military action.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 07 - 02:50 PM

Vancouver is FRIENDLY????

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 May 07 - 03:10 PM

They certainly aren't friendly to Toronto. Of course, everyone else in Canada hates Toronto. That's a given. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: Metchosin
Date: 15 May 07 - 03:41 PM

The Canadian and American Navy didn't shell Vancouver....more's the pity....they shelled Vancouver Island. They ain't the same animal.   We're very friendly over here! Hell, it was probably American hikers that had to take cover from their own in the park.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 07 - 03:45 PM

As an American, I apologize for our shelling the island.


But then, we shell Hawaii, too...

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 07 - 03:47 PM

and other islands...

"Navy lands on the east became the Inner Range of the Atlantic Fleet Weapons Training Facility (AFWTF). This was divided into the Eastern Maneuver Area (EMA), the Surface Impact Range (SIA) and the Live Impact Area (LIA).

The EMA was used for such activities as a small arms range, practice minefields, electronic warfare and mock amphibious assaults.

The SIA was used for practice shelling from ground artillery positions and from warships offshore

The LIA was for the target for the really big stuff, bombs dropped from jet aircraft, missiles fired from ships planes and for the testing of an assortment of both conventional and non conventional weapons. Non conventional usually refers to nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Non conventional weapons tested on Vieques that the public kows about include depleted uranium artillery shells, Agent Orange, napalm, chaff (an aluminum coated fiberglass dust that serves to form a cloud impenetrable to radar) and in 1966, a "test bomb with nuclear characteristics" that was meant to be dropped on Vieques, but accidentally was dropped in the sea between St. Thomas and Vieques. (The bomb was recovered at great expense by a crack team of divers aided by dolphins from the Navy's then super secret animal research laboratory.

In addition to the land areas on Vieques, the surrounding waters, which the navy called the "Outer Range," were used for an assortment of bombing, missile and artillery exercises."

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 07 - 03:49 PM

Navy Test Ground Returns to Hawaii
Print Save Share
DiggFacebookNewsvinePermalink

Published: May 9, 1994
An island whose ancient shrines are viewed as sacred by native Hawaiians now officially belongs to the state after a half-century of being blasted by Navy guns and bombers.

Hawaii is "whole again," Gov. John Waihee 3d said on Saturday after Under Secretary of the Navy William J. Cassidy Jr. turned over control of the island, Kahoolawe, to the state. The Navy will continue to control access to the island until Nov. 11, 2003, or until all exploded bombs and shells are removed, whichever is first.

Mr. Cassidy said the island's role as a practice target had contributed to the nation's security, "but this is 1994 and times have changed."

Ancient Hawaiians established fishing shrines, agricultural shrines and major temples as well as housing sites on the island, west of Maui. Much later, the 45-square-mile island, which is mostly barren, was a penal colony and then a cattle ranch. The United States military began using the island as a target site in 1941 when martial law was declared in the territory after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: Metchosin
Date: 15 May 07 - 04:35 PM

Thank you BB. On behalf of our hikers, apology much appreciated. LOL I do believe the Canadian Navy apologized for the hole in the garage roof too.

Yup you are right. The Canadian Navy needed the practice. Seems boys with toys get a bit antsy and sloppy when they aren't getting enough play time.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: kendall
Date: 15 May 07 - 04:52 PM

I used to sail with the men of the Canadian dept. of Fisheries and Forestry back in the 60's. Somehow, the subject of firepower came up, and one of the officers said they used to have a cannon, but they fired it at something and the shell bounced off the water and destroyed a farmer's hen coop.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 May 07 - 10:25 PM

"But then, we shell Hawaii, too... "

... and parts of Australia too.... :-)

(by governmental consent!)

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: Gurney
Date: 16 May 07 - 03:06 AM

"I think our firing on Miami Beach can best be termed 'ill timed'.....

'Cruise of the USS Codfish.'

Heric, I saw a documentary of that Indian breakers yard. They run the ships up un the beach on spring tides and deal to them, wearing the protective dhoti. The beach sticks to their (bare) feet.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 May 07 - 12:52 PM

"...some of our provincial parks on the west coast of Vancouver Island either. Some American navy vessel thought it might be a hoot to use them for target practice a few years ago. Hikers at the time were a bit disconcerted."

Metch, when was this?

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 May 07 - 12:54 PM

Sounds like something that would happen to Shane and Don McBride while they were having a beach party.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: Teribus
Date: 16 May 07 - 01:22 PM

Ranges given for most warships gunnery capabilities are what they call the maximum effective range (MER) of the gun. That is defined as the range at which there is a 2% chance of inflicting damage to any given target.

In LH's contest between the German Heavy cruisers and the Renown, by manoeuvre and effectiveness of her gunnery Renown would be able to hold the two lighter armed cruisers off at a range where Renown's armament could inflict damage while the other ship's main armament would be virtually useless.

A similar combat was played out when Graf Spee met three light cruisers off the River Plate. The RN managed to corner the German ship in restricted waters and fool her Commander into believing that a "heavier" force was in the area. The RN ships did engage their enemy but at tremendous cost to themselves, damage inflicted upon the Graf Spee was minimal.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 May 07 - 01:27 PM

Thanks, T!

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 May 07 - 02:14 PM

Good points, Teribus. I think the long range factor was important in the encounter between Renown and Scharnhorst & Gneisenau. Those German ships, however, were not "heavy cruisers". They were somewhat undergunned high-speed battleships or perhaps you could call them battlecruisers. A main armament of nine 11" guns (in 3 triple turrets) was a far heavier armament than any heavy cruiser carried. A heavy cruiser in those times was a ship mounting six to ten 8" guns. The most typical heavy cruiser armament at the time was eight 8" guns in 4 double-barreled turrets. This was true of the German and British heavy cruisers of the day, such as the German Hipper class or the British County class cruisers. (The British also had a smaller class of heavy cruiser in service, such as the Exeter, with six 8" guns.) Japanese heavy cruisers usually carried ten 8" guns, American heavy cruisers usually carried nine.

The 11" gun was a battleship caliber gun, but very much to the lighter side by WWII standards. It was a smaller caliber gun than should have ever been mounted on ships such as Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. I'm sure that at extreme range this would have presented problems in facing Renown's eight 15" guns, as you suggest.

On the other hand, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were very fast ships, and they had a total of eighteen 11" guns to bring to bear on the Renown. They were also more modern and better protected than the Renown. I think if the Germans had been in an aggressive mood that day, they might well have decided to close on the Renown and fight it out, in which case they could well have sunk her, though at the risk of considerable damage to themselves.

Evidently, they were keeping on the cautious side, and they decided to use their speed to disengage. The German Navy was generally quite cautious about engaging British heavy units, because the Germans were badly outnumbered in the war at sea and could not afford equal losses. On top of that, they were given orders to be overcautious, because Hitler couldn't stand to risk or lose big ships. This negative attitude on Hitler's part hampered the big German ships again and again in the naval war with Great Britain, and it only delayed their inevitable loss and made their lives miserable in the interim. Hitler was a dreadfully bad person to put in overall command of a naval war...he himself had asserted that on land he was courageous, but at sea he was a coward! Not a good psychological situation for the German Navy.

Only the heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen survived the war in fighting condition. All the other large German ships were sunk or ruined beyond repair (some by being bombed in harbour by the RAF).

Isn't it fun talking naval minutiae? ;-) I know I'm enjoying it.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: Metchosin
Date: 16 May 07 - 02:40 PM

If memory serves about 10 or 12 years ago, Ebbie. They sent some hikers scrambling on the Juan de Fuca Marine Trail in Juan de Fuca Provincial Park. The park's south of Pacific Rim National Park. The US and Canadian Navy, on occasion, use the area off there for war games and such. My daughter and I used to do practice hikes on it in prep for the West Coast Trail.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 May 07 - 04:43 PM

Correction to my previous post, teribus: "Renown's eight 15" guns" should read "Renown's six 15" guns".

That makes six 15" barrels against eighteen 11" barrels if she were to fight Scharnhorst and Gneisenau.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 16 May 07 - 09:39 PM

Damn LH, you are one tactical pacifist!

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 May 07 - 10:23 PM

I like war history, L.E.J. My theory is that I was probably in a whole lot of wars in a series of previous lives, got killed a bunch of times, eventually had had my fill of it, and that's why I don't like war anymore. But I still love war history. That's where war belongs now...in the history books. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: Rusty Dobro
Date: 17 May 07 - 03:42 AM

You're talking about shelling America as though it's a bad thing.....

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 17 May 07 - 04:08 AM

Metchosin - one of the UK's most popular coastal paths, the South West Peninsular Coast Path, has a bit that goes right through a live firing range at Lulworth. It's still used during the winter as an armoured vehicle training ground but thankfully, they close it at weekends and during July/August, which is fantastic, as it is one of the most stunning parts of the walk.

As a consequence of the Ministry of Defence taking over 60 years and more ago, it's the least spoilt part of Dorset, apart from the odd shell crater and rusting tank - but even they provide food and shelter for various creatures. It's one of the few places you'll see all three British lizards, orchids grow unmolested, it's got it's own species of butterfly, the little blue Lulworth Skipper, and is well worth a visit.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 May 07 - 09:32 AM

"You're talking about shelling America as though it's a bad thing..... "

Depends on who's doing it ...

Now in Australia we get bombed in the Northern Terroritory¹ (Talisman Sabre 2007) by our trusty and long term Allies - the USA....

So here's a song...

DEPLETED URANIUM
(tune: Old Time Religion,
words: Chuck Cliff)

Give me depleted uranium,
Give me depleted uranium,
Give me depleted uranium, -- it's good enough for me!

It was good for "Norm" and Powell
When we made old Saddam howl
It was good for "Norm" and Powell, and it's good enough for me!

Who cares if it's a waste
Produced by industry
Who cares if it's a waste?


¹ certainly is known as that once the Yanks start throwing bombs around there....

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: Metchosin
Date: 17 May 07 - 12:05 PM

Oddly enough, the Huron that was involved in a friendly fire event here too. I noticed in this article that they also referred to the US Navy incident as well, but I think they got the wrong park, unless this has happened more than once or it is thought that the Juan de Fuca Marine trail is "an area less frequented by the public" .

VICTORIA (CP) - Embarrassed Canadian Navy officials launched an investigation Wednesday to probe reports that live ammunition may have been fired from a Canadian warship docked near Victoria.

A sailor on board the HMCS Huron. reported hearing a bang and seeing a flash at the end of the ship's anti-missile machine gun while the weapon was undergoing routine maintenance Tuesday. It's the second military misfire by the Canadian Navy in the area in recent years.

Commodore Ken McMillan, commander of the Pacific Fleet, said military police and a board of inquiry from National Defence headquarters in Ottawa will attempt to determine what happened in the most recent incident,

Thousands of people live near CFB Esquimalt, home of the Pacific Fleet. In August 1996, the Navy accidentally launched a 20-kilogram, 1.5-metre long chaff missile from HMCS Regina into the neighbouring community of View Royal.

The missile travelled almost three kilometres before crashing through a garage roof behind Pete's Tent and Awning, located on the main street in View Royal. There were no injuries, but the missile, which was not loaded with explosives, embedded itself into the ground after hitting the garage.

Shortly after the missile accident, Pete Bishop painted a bull's-eye onto the side wall of his business and put up a poster declaring Pete's Tent and Awning a missile free zone. A Navy inquiry determined human error caused the accidental firing.

''There were a lot of lessons learned from that particular incident,'' McMillan said Wednesday. ''We have hoisted in those lessons and we have moved forward. There is the policy that no live rounds are in any of our weapons systems while we are in harbour.''

In another military misfiring incident two years ago, hikers on the world-renowned West Coast Trail in Pacific Rim National Park were forced to duck for cover as American naval vessels fired 50 calibre rounds into a wooded area near the popular hiking spot. Following that incident, measures were taken to ensure American and Canadian naval ships test their weapons far away from areas frequented by the public.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 May 07 - 12:10 PM

There are just 3 British lizards, Liz? What are their names? I wonder if they could be persuaded to form a reptilian British band?

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 May 07 - 01:36 PM

Photos of the Huron (click)

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 May 07 - 01:48 PM

Thanks, Joe!

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: Les from Hull
Date: 17 May 07 - 02:25 PM

LH - of the three Britsh lizards, only two have legs!

Presumably the reason that Canada has had ships called 'Huron' was that they ordered Tribal class destroyers from the UK in 1938, and kept the tradition of 'tribal' names. The Royal Navy had an earlier Tribal class in WW1. When HMS Zulu had her stern blown off by a mine and HMS Nubian lost her bows in action, they joined what was left into a new ship called HMS Zubian!

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: gnu
Date: 17 May 07 - 02:26 PM

LH : "There are just 3 British lizards, Liz? What are their names?"

The Geico gecko is one, right? Um, er, roight?

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 May 07 - 02:34 PM

At least three ships of the Royal Navy have borne the name HMS Zulu, in honor of the African Zulu tribe.


The first was a First World War destroyer
The second was a Second World War destroyer.
The third was a Cold War frigate.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first HMS Zulu was an F-Class destroyer launched September 16, 1909 at Hawthorn Leslie Shipyard[?] and commissioned in March, 1910.
She was mined during the First World War, on October 27, 1916 off Dover, England. The stern was blown off and sank, but the forward section remained afloat. It was towed into port and attached to the stern of HMS Nubian[?], which had been torpedoed, to form a new destroyer named HMS Zubian[?].


General Characteristics
Displacement: 1027 tons
Length: 270 feet
Beam: 26 feet
Draft: 8.5 feet
Engines: 4 boilers feeding steam turbines driving three screws
Speed: 33 knots maximum
Complement: 70
Armament: two 4 inch guns, two 18-inch torpedo tubes


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The second HMS Zulu was a Tribal-class destroyer[?]. Her keel was laid down on August 10, 1936. She was launched on September 23, 1937, and commissioned on September 7, 1938.


General Characteristics
Displacement: 1870 tons
Length: 344 feet
Beam: 36.5 feet
Engines: Parsons geared turbines of 44,000 shp
Speed 26.5 knots
Complement: 190
Armament: eight 4.7 inch guns, seven smaller guns, four 21-inch torpedo tubes


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The third HMS Zulu was a Tribal-class frigate. Her keel was laid down by Alex Stephens and Sons[?] of Govan on December 13, 1960. She was launched on July 3, 1962, and commissioned on April 17, 1964.

Zulu was the only Tribal built with Seacat[?] missiles; her six sister frigates were built with two 40mm Bofor guns and fitted with Seacat during later refits.


General Characteristics

Displacement: 2300 tons
Length 360 feet
Beam: 45.2 feet
Draught: 17.5 feet
Complement: 13 officers, 240 ratings, including Royal Marines detachment
Armament
two single 4.5-inch guns (fore and aft) taken from scrapped C-class destroyers[?]
two quadruple Seacat Surface-to-Air (SAM) missile launchers
20mm Orelikon guns
one three-barrelled Limbo depth-charge mortar
Aircraft: Westland Wasp helicopter

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: Stringsinger
Date: 17 May 07 - 04:53 PM

I heard about it on South Park.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 17 May 07 - 05:04 PM

They have WASP helicopters? Isn't that a bit ironic on board a ship named for a South African tribe?

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 May 07 - 05:06 PM

It IS a british ship, after all...

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 17 May 07 - 11:01 PM

At least no person was killed in this story.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: Schantieman
Date: 18 May 07 - 09:48 AM

Common lizard (not enormously common)
Sand Lizard
Slow worm (not slow and not a worm. Or a snake.)

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Canada sinks its own destroyer!
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 18 May 07 - 04:18 PM

India ink in English
        
encre de chinois in French

leap frog English
        
saute-mouton (sheep) French