Alternate warships of nations

[HMS Warspite]

Raising the turret is one I know of:
Why was the aft 381mm turret so high on the littorio class?

Besides that, there's also cutting down on superstructure (so there's less to fire around), which is a benefit of my design rule for warships, but it might not be practical with other designs.

Perhaps a schematic will give some details: See the attachement.
Also from Navweaps:
^Train angles given above are the maximum possible. However, at the extreme angles, Turrets #2 and #3 would be firing directly overhead of the secondary 152 mm (6") batteries. After 1942, instructions were issued to limit firing at low elevations between 0 and +2 degrees. Firing at these low elevations was restricted to train angles on either side of between 50 and 120 degrees for Turret #1, between 45 and 120 degrees for Turret #2 and between 70 and 135 degrees for Turret #3 in order to reduce blast effect on the weather decks.

 

[perfectgeneral]

Perhaps a schematic will give some details: See the attachement.
Also from Navweaps:
^Train angles given above are the maximum possible. However, at the extreme angles, Turrets #2 and #3 would be firing directly overhead of the secondary 152 mm (6") batteries. After 1942, instructions were issued to limit firing at low elevations between 0 and +2 degrees. Firing at these low elevations was restricted to train angles on either side of between 50 and 120 degrees for Turret #1, between 45 and 120 degrees for Turret #2 and between 70 and 135 degrees for Turret #3 in order to reduce blast effect on the weather decks.

View attachment 525452

Pugliese system didn't work as well as USS California/South Dakota system:

Still not perfect. A lot of blast impulse transfer through solid routes, but good enough on the day. Those layered compartments take up a lot of beam. It seems to be 20ft per side! Not much beam between torpedo bulkheads left for engine/boiler/magazine space.

Here is a SoDak scheme I've altered to reduce the impulse transfer.

Those cut back webs between bulkheads (circled numbers 1-5) would need to be thicker sheet. I'm not sure what 15 lb/sq/foot is in mm for sheet steel, but it is not plate armour. Half breadth gives a beam of 106ft. Four inch outer section and second. Three more three inch sections for 17ft of spaced layered bulkheads each side, leaving 72ft between torpedo bulkheads. Space saving designs of boiler please. looks to be one of those "O" shaped Babcock Johnson boilers. The big chunk of armour at the boiler uptakes surprised me.

 

[McPherson]

After some complaints when it was alleged that the Standards could not be rebuilt to up their speed....

Well, look at that? Might think about that a while?

It appears that you CAN do an Italian job on a Standard after all.

 

[jsb]

After some complaints when it was alleged that the Standards could not be rebuilt to up their speed....


It appears that you CAN do an Italian job on a Standard after all.

"No retained capital ships .....be reconstructed except for the purpose of providing means of defence against air and submarine attack, ...... No alterations in side armour, in calibre, number or general type of mounting of main armament shall be permitted..... "
WNT till 1 JAN 37 after that yes but why bother wasting your time and money when new is available.....?

Itally was a separate case as it was allowed two new 35,000t/16" ships so allowing them to waste limited money on rebuild in 30s instead is far more acceptable.....

 

[McPherson]

"No retained capital ships .....be reconstructed except for the purpose of providing means of defence against air and submarine attack, ...... No alterations in side armour, in calibre, number or general type of mounting of main armament shall be permitted..... "
WNT till 1 JAN 37 after that yes but why bother wasting your time and money when new is available.....?

Itally was a separate case as it was allowed two new 35,000t/16" ships so allowing them to waste limited money on rebuild in 30s instead is far more acceptable.....

1. Deck armor was strengthened.
2. Superstructure was altered.
3. Gun pits and slides were deepened and hoists rebuilt.
4. Engine plants were ripped out and new turbines and boilers installed from the abandoned 1920s SoDaks.

That rather much violates the WNT, does it not? So one rips out Number 4 barbette, and moves the overbuilt anyway electric motors a bit to install more turbines and boilers? BFD. That is no worse than 1-4.

 

[jsb]

1. Deck armor was strengthened.
2. Superstructure was altered.
3. Gun pits and slides were deepened and hoists rebuilt.
4. Engine plants were ripped out and new turbines and boilers installed from the abandoned 1920s SoDaks.

That rather much violates the WNT, does it not? So one rips out Number 4 barbette, and moves the overbuilt anyway electric motors a bit to install more turbines and boilers? BFD. That is no worse than 1-4.

No,
1 - is easy to sell as Air defence against bombs
2 - isnt regulated (and could be for more AA guns/directors)
3- ok this was questioned in OTL but is still small v removing a mount
4- that can be done under simply keeping the engines running due to use.....

Removing a mount is very clearly breeching "number or general type of mounting of main armament" there is simply no way to explain it as anything else and therefore impossible without a renegotiation or walking out of WNT pre 37. (the surface USN is also never going to agree to lose 1/4 of the throw weight for a surface fight without hindsight)

 

[McPherson]

No,
1 - is easy to sell as Air defence against bombs
2 - isnt regulated (and could be for more AA guns/directors)
3- ok this was questioned in OTL but is still small v removing a mount
4- that can be done under simply keeping the engines running due to use.....

Removing a mount is very clearly breeching "number or general type of mounting of main armament" there is simply no way to explain it as anything else and therefore impossible without a renegotiation or walking out of WNT pre 37. (the surface USN is also never going to agree to lose 1/4 of the throw weight for a surface fight without hindsight)

"We need the space cleared for additional AAA guns and besides it diminishes the number of barrels, so what is the beef?"

 

[jsb]

"We need the space cleared for additional AAA guns and besides it diminishes the number of barrels, so what is the beef?"

How do you sell it to The President or Congress in 20s/early 30s? Its clearly a breach of the wording of WNT, I think the most likely outcome is simply early retirement for any USN officer who pushed the idea too forcefully.

 

[McPherson]

How do you sell it to The President or Congress in 20s/early 30s? Its clearly a breach of the wording of WNT, I think the most likely outcome is simply early retirement for any USN officer who pushed the idea too forcefully.

Well you wait until 1933. And after the Geneva Conference collapses the GIC (FDR) will be ready to listen.

 

[jsb]

Well you wait until 1933. And after the Geneva Conference collapses the GIC (FDR) will be ready to listen.

I dont think so US unilaterally walking/breaking WNT will get everybody else (Japan/Germany especially) to do so, this will lead to an arms race and a serious break down in international laws and treaties..... The idea that US civilian government was willing to do that in the depression is very questionable and large parts of US and world opinion will hate the idea, the 34 election will lead to the idea being shelved as the new republican congress cancels the funding.

 

[McPherson]

I dont think so US unilaterally walking/breaking WNT will get everybody else (Japan/Germany especially) to do so, this will lead to an arms race and a serious break down in international laws and treaties..... The idea that US civilian government was willing to do that in the depression is very questionable and large parts of US and world opinion will hate the idea, the 34 election will lead to the idea being shelved as the new republican congress cancels the funding.

Uh.... about that. The Geneva Naval Conference, 1927 - Office of the Historian

Introduction

The Geneva Naval Conference of 1927 was a gathering of the United States, Great Britain and Japan, to discuss making joint limitations to their naval capacities. The conference was a failure because the parties did not reach an agreement and the naval arms race continued unabated after the conference.

Summary. The Geneva deal foundered over the French and ultimately the British. So in fact, the US could actually do whatever it wanted. WNT be damned. The British would not compromise on the cruiser tonnage question. That kind of meant the brakes were let off until 1929 when the British "understood" that they agree to American terms or it was an arms race.

 

[jsb]

Uh.... about that. The Geneva Naval Conference, 1927 - Office of the Historian
summary. The Geneva deal foundered over the French and ultimately the British. So in fact, the US could actually do whatever it wanted. WNT be damned. The British would not compromise on the cruiser tonnage question. That kind of meant the brakes were let off until 1929 when the British "understood" that they agree to American terms or it was an arms race.

How does that ie proto LNT trying to limit smaller combatants mean anything when we are talking about USN breaching the capital ship provisions of the already signed WNT.......?

I would add that "American terms" would not really be for having light (B) cruisers at all at LNT........

I could also add what happened to the USN negotiators at GNC afterwards.......

 

[CV(N)-6]

Removing a mount is very clearly breeching "number or general type of mounting of main armament" there is simply no way to explain it as anything else and therefore impossible without a renegotiation or walking out of WNT pre 37.

5 turrets, 13 guns

4 turrets, 10 guns

Italy sold that OTL, why can't the USN?

 

[jsb]

Italy sold that OTL, why can't the USN?

History and Technology - Washington Naval Limitation Treaty of 1922 - NavWeaps

www.navweaps.com

1927 35,000t
1929 35,000t

"Note: Italy expressly reserves the right of employing the capital-ship tonnage allotment as she may consider advisable, subject solely to the limitations that the displacement of individual ships should not surpass 35,000 tons, and that the total capital-ship tonnage should keep within the limits imposed by the present Treaty."

and

"in the case of France and Italy, which countries within the limits allowed for bulge may increase their armour protection and the calibre of the guns now carried on their existing capital ships so as not to exceed 16 inches (406 millimetres) and; "

Italy was allowed by WNT to lay down new ships up to 35,000t/16" so simply rebuilding the old was always going to be accepted as better for everybody else. (that also hits the rebuilds are still weaker than any LNT ship kept so why worry, this thing is a obvious Kongo/R&R killer so RN/IJN will object......)

Not that Italy also didn't sign 1LNT so is legally in a very different position to USN who also drafted the WNT......

USN could potentially do the rebuild but only with a new treaty or full withdrawal that would change RN/IJN options as well and is a deep rabbit hole of no/different 1LNT questions.....say all the navy's get to do a few Vanguards ie new hulls so long as they use the old main guns from the existing battles line?

 

[perfectgeneral]

USN could potentially do the rebuild but only with a new treaty or full withdrawal that would change RN/IJN options as well and is a deep rabbit hole of no/different 1LNT questions.....say all the navy's get to do a few Vanguards ie new hulls so long as they use the old main guns from the existing battles line?

Well, as long as the old ship that is the source of the guns is seventeen years old and will be scrapped when it is twenty years old before the replacement is commissioned...fine, for ships 35,000tons standard and within agreed displacement allowances for that country's navy.

 

[McPherson]

Well, as long as the old ship that is the source of the guns is seventeen years old and will be scrapped when it is twenty years old before the replacement is commissioned...fine, for ships 35,000tons standard and within agreed displacement allowances for that country's navy.

A fat happy Standard in 1930 was 14-18 years old and due for a mid-life upgrade. And when it comes to fat dumb and happy...

"I" am only 76 years old!

There are a couple of jokers (Mikasa, 116, as 1 March 2018), and USS Olympia

"I'm" only 125 years old as of 5 February.

If you do your rebuilds and watch the salt water corrosion carefully, you can keep some of those jokers around for a century or more.

 

[sts-200]

US WW II optical fire control in fair to poor daylight weather was "reasonable" at most expected battle ranges. Japanese optical control was "iffy".

British fire control...

You should decide it for yourself. YMMV from mine and it should when you have researched the subject. My opinion is that the British were satisfied that what they had worked well for them.

For anyone interested in researching the subject, I would recommend 'Naval Firepower' by Norman Friedman (but it's not a 'light read').

I'd take that article with a pinch of salt, as the author doesn't appear to understand the difference between RPC and data transmission (or at the very least, he makes a mess of explaining it). If he seriously thinks fire control before RPC was a question of shouting ranges down a voice-pipe, then he clearly has much to learn!

 

[jsb]

"I'm" only 125 years old as of 5 February.

If you do your rebuilds and watch the salt water corrosion carefully, you can keep some of those jokers around for a century or more.

I'm only 159 years old.......but not really a warship any more and have had just a few rebuilds.....

 

[Hammerbolt]

There are a couple of jokers (Mikasa, 116, as 1 March 2018), and USS Olympia

"I'm" only 125 years old as of 5 February.

In that case, don't forget HMS Victory. She's technically still in commission!

And HMS Belfast, ofc.

 

[McPherson]

For anyone interested in researching the subject, I would recommend 'Naval Firepower' by Norman Friedman (but it's not a 'light read').

I'd take that article with a pinch of salt, as the author doesn't appear to understand the difference between RPC and data transmission (or at the very least, he makes a mess of explaining it). If he seriously thinks fire control before RPC was a question of shouting ranges down a voice-pipe, then he clearly has much to learn!

Look, the British used a repeater kind of telegraphic system that transmitted data to the men at the gun positions who matched their own dial settings off transmitted data they read off master dials and shot. The US system was direct control in that the settings were fed directly to the servo motors with the men and a fire control computer slaved to the local gun-house rangefinder in the main armament gun-house there as backup in case the servos lost direct input feed from the main fire director. THAT is what the article states and what actually was. The other thing is that the British persisted in keeping long base length rangefinders at the gun houses and used shorter lengthed ones in their fire control director positions (less weight high up in the ship.). That induces inaccuracy at long ranges in their directors because their angle solutions were 'coarser" at their high mounted short base length directors. I understand that ranging positive control as a cybernetic system is poorly explained in the article but I think I gave it to you in plain English. Voice piping is not as stupid as it sounds either, because if the telegraphic transmission of data from the British system failed then telephonic, voice pipe and messenger runner if it came to it, still keeps the data flowing and the guns working. Let's not claim that it was not a thing. Local control was a very important aspect of British method because they expected their primary and secondary data telegraphic transmission from directors to guns aimer positions to fail during battle. It was a redundancy they learned from experience. Was it inferior to do things the way they did? No, absolutely not. Not if you expect Jutland again. But if you are fighting an enemy like the USN in the north Atlantic, it could be "problematic". during the mid battle ranges when their directors with 2 d stabilization give better angle solutions than yours. Belt punching range in a night gun fight? British system is actually "better".

That is essentially Friedman by the way. (^^^)