pgollin wrote: NO ONE has argued that the raid wasn't a success - merely your use of poor secondary sources being wrong.
As far as the actual damage was concerned, the official damage reports assessed that IF the damage had occurred at sea that Queen Elizabeth would have been disabled for a short period and that then she could have retired at slow speed .....
..... I'd be interested to know your source for that assessment of QE's condition. My source indicates that she was dead in the water and unseaworthy, with her boilers and auxiliary, electrical and hydraulic systems all severely damaged.
ADM 267/60 Damage Report HMS Valiant 1941 - human torpedo
ADM 267/62 Damage Report HMS Queen Elizabeth 1941 - human torpedo
The latter states that Queen Elizabeth was much more seriously damaged (but because of it being the same sort of damage needed much the same effort). However, she could have sailed at a very reduced speed - but could NOT have fought (her report is heavily biased towards electrical damage which is hardly mentioned in Valiant's report).
ADM 267/60 Damage Report HMS Valiant 1941 - human torpedo
ADM 267/62 Damage Report HMS Queen Elizabeth 1941 - human torpedo
The latter states that Queen Elizabeth was much more seriously damaged (but because of it being the same sort of damage needed much the same effort). However, she could have sailed at a very reduced speed - but could NOT have fought (her report is heavily biased towards electrical damage which is hardly mentioned in Valiant's report).
The above are the official DNC reports and go into a lot of detail and are purely internal. Your reference is a summary document only.
ADM 267/60 Damage Report HMS Valiant 1941 - human torpedo
Moored in 8 fathoms of water (48 feet)
Draught
Before
Forward - 33ft 1 inch
Aft - 33ft 1 inch
Maximum
Forward - 36ft 6 inches (false reading of 38ft 0 inches originally reported)
Aft - 30ft 6 inches (false reading of 31ft 6 inches)
Upon entering dock
Forward - 33ft 8 inch
Aft - 29ft 9 inch
ADM 267/62 Damage Report HMS Queen Eliabeth 1941 - human torpedo
Moored in 8 fathoms of water (48 feet)
Draught
Before
Forward - 33ft 5 inches
Aft - 32ft 7 inches
Maximum
Forward - not noted
Aft - not noted
Upon entering dock
Forward - 41 ft 10 inches
Aft - 33ft 10 inches
Queen Elizabeth’s inner bottom was damaged over an area of over 1000 square feet, Valiant’s inner bottom over an area of 1 square foot.
ADM 267/60 Damage Report HMS Valiant 1941 - human torpedo
ADM 267/62 Damage Report HMS Queen Elizabeth 1941 - human torpedo
The latter states that Queen Elizabeth was much more seriously damaged (but because of it being the same sort of damage needed much the same effort). However, she could have sailed at a very reduced speed - but could NOT have fought (her report is heavily biased towards electrical damage which is hardly mentioned in Valiant's report).
The above are the official DNC reports and go into a lot of detail and are purely internal. Your reference is a summary document only.
.
..... If Aurora's data are correct, QE was drawing nearly 42 ft at the bow when she was put into dry dock at Alexandria, and this was after she was dramatically lightened by having all her ammunition, accessible fuel, water, etc, even her anchors and chains off-loaded - which in aggregate probably came to 3,000 tons or more (probably worth another 4 to 6 ft in draft forward). QE also spent 6 months in Alexandria undergoing temporary repairs before even departing for formal dockyard repair in the States. Summing all that up, forgive me if I say that I'm highly skeptical regarding your claim that QE remained in any way mobile or seaworthy immediately after the attack. The fact that CB4273(52) was a "summary document", as you put it, does not in any way qualify it as untrue. The specific words "immobilized" and "unseaworthy" were used to describe QE's post-attack condition - all very straightforward with no word mincing or equivocation - by service staff who presumably had access to the very same Damage Reports you have cited: To accept your suggestions as to QE's immediate post-attack condition, one must be willing to believe that the authors of CB4273(52) were incompetent to comprehend the contents of QE's damage report. That is difficult for me to credit, which in turn implies that there may be a problem with your interpretation thereof. So - no offense - but I would very much like to read the original text of the damage report for myself.
aurora wrote:ADM 267/60 Damage Report HMS Valiant 1941 - human torpedo
Moored in 8 fathoms of water (48 feet)
Draught
Before
Forward - 33ft 1 inch
Aft - 33ft 1 inch
Maximum
Forward - 36ft 6 inches (false reading of 38ft 0 inches originally reported)
Aft - 30ft 6 inches (false reading of 31ft 6 inches)
Upon entering dock
Forward - 33ft 8 inch
Aft - 29ft 9 inch
ADM 267/62 Damage Report HMS Queen Eliabeth 1941 - human torpedo
Moored in 8 fathoms of water (48 feet)
Draught
Before
Forward - 33ft 5 inches
Aft - 32ft 7 inches
Maximum
Forward - not noted
Aft - not noted
Upon entering dock
Forward - 41 ft 10 inches
Aft - 33ft 10 inches
Queen Elizabeth’s inner bottom was damaged over an area of over 1000 square feet, Valiant’s inner bottom over an area of 1 square foot.
.
EXCELLENT BIT OF RESEARCH THERE - did you note who posted it ?
( Hint :- you may post your thanks here. )
P.S., I think the Valiant data got a bit corrupted it was something like 150 square feet, I will have to check.
.
Last edited by pgollin on Tue Jan 06, 2015 1:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.
AS YOU MAY NOW NOTICE, Aurora's "research" was actually a PARTIAL copy of what I actually posted - so strangely enough, support my view.
The figures quoted are MAXIMUM draughts recorded, NOT as entering drydock (I don't know where you got that from). The figures come from the proper damage reports.
Your idea of summary documents agreeing with full documents show that you haven't poked around many archives.
"ADM 267/62 Damage Report HMS Queen Elizabeth 1941 - human torpedo
Moored in 8 fathoms of water (48 feet)
Draught
Before
Forward - 33ft 5 inches
Aft - 32ft 7 inches
Maximum
Forward - not noted
Aft - not noted
Upon entering dock
Forward - 41 ft 10 inches
Aft - 33ft 10 inches"
i.e. - Before: 33ft 5in forward / 32ft 7in aft. Maximum: not noted forward / not noted aft. Upon entering dock: 41ft 10in forward / 33ft 10in aft.
If I'm missing something in the interpretation of the above, I would be pleased to have you clarify since, as you say, it is the fruit of your own research. If Aurora's transcription is in error or incomplete, please likewise clarify. I shall await with keen anticipation any sort of material evidence (as opposed to simple unsupported personal disputation) that actually demonstrates that the statements in CB4273(52) are untrue or inaccurate. Given your countless hours of archival study, I imagine that it will be a simple task indeed for you to pull an original source document from your shelf to set this matter straight.
As to your remark regarding my own archival research efforts, you may find it filed under record group A for "arrogant", box I for "ignorant, folder P for "puerile".
Pretty much the sort of reply to be expected from you - still unwilling to respond to the actual issue at hand and hiding behind a lot of childish effrontery.
FYR - The naval constructors at Alexandria, once they had an opportunity to fully examine the extent of QE's damage, deemed it so extensive as to propose stripping her and turning her into a depot ship.
