Beatty "the cad"

Discussions on all aspects of the First World War not covered in the other sections. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Dolmetscher04
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: 23 Feb 2009 22:11

Re: Beatty "the cad"

Post by Dolmetscher04 » 20 Nov 2009 19:40

Terry Duncan wrote: I would sort of agree, but it is not easy to make a ship fully watertight and provide the old voice pipe communications to everywhere below decks, and any seal will eventually fail or decay. The worst problems seem to occur after battle damage when the frame can distort, all the German ships showed a tendancy to progressive flooding to some degree, but it would take a naval architecht to explain it properly...
Not at all, Terry, you explain it well enough. It's just the "scale" I have difficulty with (more below)
British ships were also to suffer similar problems, the Audacious being the most notable as she struck a single mine and took hours to sink. This was largely due to being unable to make her watertight properly, some areas (doors and deck hatches) had corrosion that prevented a proper seal and so on. This would be more understandable if she had not been a new ship! In the Victorian navy HMS Victoria sank after being rammed, but the flooding was very rapid as many doors and portholes would no longer close, some due to rusting and some reportedly due to paint!
"Rusting and paint" + "failed seals" -- how true that rings. Even firing the main armament for a couple of hours could loosen rivets, if what one reads about Rodney is true. But it raises a question: surely this kind of failure causes leakage and seapage, not all-out flooding, and if so, why can't the pumps deal with it? (assuming they're still in action). After all, it must take many thousands of tons of water inside the hull to sink a battleship

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 3821
Joined: 29 Oct 2008 22:53
Location: England

Re: Beatty "the cad"

Post by Attrition » 20 Nov 2009 21:16

Terry Duncan wrote:
Do the signalling difficulties that Gordon goes on about mean that there was a limit to what a commander could do tactically 'off-the-cuff' so that a preference for decentralised command was irrelevant?
Gordon's points are valid with hindsight, but at the time a decentralized command was seen as a very poor idea, mostly due to the problems of keeping in contact once out of sight. The wonderfull idea of turning towards the torpedoes that is so often brought up now in books by respected authors and historians completely ignores that no such signal exsited at the time, not only in the Grand Fleet but the High Seas Fleet too - indeed I am unaware of any navy having such a signal at the time of the battle.
I wonder if any commander could have obtained a wireless network suitable for tactical control which would have allowed a decentralised command system to work.
Only if the war was fought later, nothing was really sure at the time or reliable enough to trust. Radio was around, but as the British were well aware, very open to interception which at best allowed the position to be traced.

The positions obtained by Jellicoe ware about as good as anyone could dream of, but his detractors did come up with some very strange ideas to show he was wrong. The most notable was from Sturdee (supposedly a tactical expert) and later repeated by Churchill, which was to divide the Grand Fleet int two columns and sail one each side of the German line so both could fire into it. This overlooks that if the position of the German fleet was unknown it could allow the Germans to fight only one of the two columns and defeat it as the other was masked by the closer half of the fleet. I think it was Richmond who described it as a lunatic idea.
Come to think of it an adequate wireless system wouldn't make any difference to centralisation, it would make a different form of control feasible but the the amount of centralisation would depend on decisions about how to fight taken long before, same as with a flag or light system. I remember Gordon remarking on how astute Jellicoe had been in writing down that he wouldn't risk the fleet on a dubious proposition but would refuse battle for the Admiralty and stashing a copy at his bank just in case. perhaps this was why he was removed by intrigue rather than public scapegoating. Apparently he also said that he would turn away from torpedos since they were slow and short ranged so a portion of them would stop before they got near his ships.

It strikes me that Jellicoe pulled of a coup at Jutland and that the strategic result was crushing even if the numbers game was in Germany's favour.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 5996
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

Re: Beatty "the cad"

Post by Terry Duncan » 20 Nov 2009 22:27

Dolmetscher04
Even firing the main armament for a couple of hours could loosen rivets, if what one reads about Rodney is true.
The famous 'badly shaken up' comments come from an American journalist who was onboard and shown the damage to lockers and to the decking. The former were aluminium to save weight, the latter was a less durable wood than on other ships for a similar reason. The lockers did rip of the walls and the deck did splinter under the guns, but whilst visually impressive there was no actual structural damage and Rodney's refit was as expected before the action. There is a piece that mentions this, but as I dont really like citing work I have produced or worked on you may wish to check it elsewhere;
These are the major changes to the gun mountings and were certainly the ones that caused most problems for the designers and for the crews once in service. There were many other changes in the finer details adopted for the "O3" design (Nelson) that have also led to the ships themselves being thought of as sub-standard or badly built. The most notable being the performance of HMS Rodney during the final stages of the Bismarck chase, and relate to the damage she caused to herself due to the blast effects from the main armament.

One of the two most notable defects was the adoption of aluminum alloys for most of the minor ships fittings, such as kit lockers, mess racks, store cupboards and indeed the fittings holding some items in place, especially with regards to the crews lockers and wash facilities. These were all shaken up badly by the main armament being fired, and indeed many became loose and some were even thrown around the cabins and mess decks. Nobody was injured by these unexpected happenings, though many were shocked by the level of destruction that resulted!

The other major fault was the adoption of Douglas fir for the upper deck, instead of the normal teak. This was deemed acceptable by the designers due to the weight saving, even though the resulting loss of appearance and durability were appreciated. However, the fir proved to be less acceptable in service, as it proved to be less resistant to the blast effects from the 16" guns. Indeed, it seems to have surprised many people quite how much the fir was ripped up when the guns were fired over it. This appears to have occurred on all bearings at low elevations, and from "A" and "B" when firing forwards, even at higher elevations. The resulting destruction of the decks was viewed with extreme distaste by some senior officers who wanted the ships to be "tight and tidy" at all times, very similar to the Victorian officers who disliked gunnery practice as it caused soot marks and chipped the paintwork!

Neither of these two faults, though very noticeable caused any loss of fighting efficiency whatsoever! With hindsight, as the ships turned out 1500 tons (Nelson) and 1100 tons (Rodney) under the Treaty restrictions, that some of the measures taken to save weight were adopted at all!

One of the other things noted about Rodney, is that she seemed to wear out quicker than Nelson. This was largely because Nelson was nearly always used to test modifications and new equipment. Rodney was fitted second, as and when/if money could be spared. When WWII broke out, she was already in need of an engine refit. She was destined to never receive this much needed refit throughout the war, despite her extensive service, as she was looked upon as too valuable a unit to spare from duties for any period of time, if she was still capable of service. By the time she could be spared, in 1944, there seemed to be little point in sending her for the refit, as the need for her type had largely passed.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-059.htm
After all, it must take many thousands of tons of water inside the hull to sink a battleship
From memory there was 7,000 tons or so on the Lutzow when she was lost. I will look the figure up and post it later.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 5996
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

Re: Beatty "the cad"

Post by Terry Duncan » 20 Nov 2009 22:36

Apparently he also said that he would turn away from torpedos since they were slow and short ranged so a portion of them would stop before they got near his ships.
A turn away of 16^ was enough to remove a threat from 5/6 of torpedoes fired, the 32^ that Jellicoe ordered removed all risk according to the doctrines of the day, and even then a couple of ships had close calls with torpedoes at the end of their range.
It strikes me that Jellicoe pulled of a coup at Jutland and that the strategic result was crushing even if the numbers game was in Germany's favour.
It was probably one of the most crushing victories, but spoilt by people expecting the enemy fleet to be anhilated on sight, despite Trafalgar being over a decade into war and even then not ending the enemies naval forces ability to be a problem. Naval battles ore never decided by numbers, they are decided by control of the seas, and the British were if anything far more secure after Jutland than before it.

Does anyone else get a problem when typing any long post? Anything over about 20 lines causes the writing to bounce up several lines and remove the ability to see what is being typed at present. I have not been able to cure it, hence the split reply here.

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7047
Joined: 26 Dec 2002 00:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: Beatty "the cad"

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 28 Nov 2009 15:47

Terry Duncan wrote: Does anyone else get a problem when typing any long post? Anything over about 20 lines causes the writing to bounce up several lines and remove the ability to see what is being typed at present. I have not been able to cure it, hence the split reply here.
Yes , I do. and it is really irritating. Ask someone who knows Java. I recall having this similar problem on the forum a few years back and someone gave me a quick fix, sadly, I can't remember how in the hell to fix it.

User avatar
cormallen
Member
Posts: 232
Joined: 09 Jun 2006 14:32
Location: united kingdom

Re: Beatty "the cad"

Post by cormallen » 08 Dec 2009 12:17

Hi chris

sneaky fix is to write long reply in word and paste it across? can confuse people by using different fonts if feeling whimsical...

alan

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 5996
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

Re: Beatty "the cad"

Post by Terry Duncan » 08 Dec 2009 12:39

Yes , I do. and it is really irritating. Ask someone who knows Java. I recall having this similar problem on the forum a few years back and someone gave me a quick fix, sadly, I can't remember how in the hell to fix it.
Thankjs Christopher, I will ask around to see if anyone knows.
sneaky fix is to write long reply in word and paste it across? can confuse people by using different fonts if feeling whimsical...
It is easy to do that, but getting quotations included is difficult still - and the new vogue for colour probably is too, though I doubt I will try that myself.

Delta Tank
Member
Posts: 2340
Joined: 16 Aug 2004 01:51
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Beatty "the cad"

Post by Delta Tank » 08 Jul 2021 21:21

Peter H wrote:
23 Jan 2009 01:06
Review of Robert Massie's Castles of Steel :

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-enter ... 70529.html
David Beatty, raffish commander of the battlecruiser fleet at Jutland, was a man for whom the term "cad" might have been invented. Massie relates how he would spend afternoons with his mistress in the North British Hotel in Edinburgh. He was a commander in the Rommel mould. In disregarding signalling and staff procedures in favour of a Nelsonic gut-instinct for battle, Beatty is an attractive and modern figure. However, this approach could lead to problems.
Having read this book I agree Beatty doesn't come across too well.while also showing a good face to Jellicoe,Beatty's back stabbing is also shown in his private letters to his American,rich wife.


The postwar Jutland controversy should also be mentioned.

http://filsonyoung.com/biography/part-7 ... ntroversy/
Journalists and naval officers had long since divided into a pro-Jellicoe camp and a pro-Beatty camp, which spent most of the 1920s crashing salvoes into each other. With the Battle Cruisers had been a major salvo from the Beatty camp. The two admirals themselves refused to quarrel in public, but they were caught up in the fray nonetheless. In the words of the modern naval historian Arthur Marder, it was an ‘unsavoury affair’.

Massie also relates that Beatty's son,Peter,was born retarded.Its hinted that his wife had a "social disease" that caused this. :(
His son was not born retarded, he had an eye condition that may of been caused by a STD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Beatty

I enjoyed this thread very much! Just re-read “Castles of Steel” and “Rules of the Game” and ordered two more books that were mentioned in this thread, thanks.

Mike

Return to “First World War”