My apologies, since this is not exactly on topic, but I was wondering are there any submarine centric TLs somebody could point me to? I have already found the WW1 German (Rise of the Uboat) and the one about US fixing the Mark 14 torpedo, and is there any more? Things like Kriegsmarine doing something differently with their Uboats, RN having more subs in S-E Asia or Dutch navy doing something with their own submarines?
I think I remember something about: US looses all carriers in Midway, forcing increased priority on sub warfare, at least untill mid.1944, when the Essex spam starts...
Got a link to that TL please?USS Deutschland (Renamed Bismarck after the capital of North Dakota) if she had been purchased by the US in company with the Northampton. Part of the same universe as Serapis
Anyone want to take a stab at how to modernize HMS Agincourt (1913) in the mid-to-late 20s?
Apply torpedo bulges, increased elevation for the main guns, modernize her fire control,add some deck armor, and throw on some light AA
The armor scheme alone is a reason to dump that ship as soon as possible. Dreadnoughts with 12-inch guns and battlecruiser armor are obsolete as soon as the QEs and Standards hit the water.
RamscoopRaider
Donor
I'm assuming this isn't for the RN, who would have long gotten rid of her. So Brazil or Turkey, or some other minor power who can't afford better. So shoestring, add some AA, modernize firecontrol, if you have money to burn torpedo bulges, more deck armor, and increase main battery elevation, but that is probably a waste and better spent on a new CL
New fore/aft turrets, 5xtwin 14" (this assumes you can slot the 14" turrets in without having to "dig" new pits)
Replace center turrets with AAA platform and one light seaplane; use the saved weight to spread extra armour over other areas
Replace all other guns with 4 twin 6" and 5 twin dual purpose 4" mounts and delete the torpedo tubes
Bring the speed up to 25 knots.
This would give a 2nd-rate nation a decent BB that would last for some years, assuming the hull is kept in fair condition.
Replace center turrets with AAA platform and one light seaplane; use the saved weight to spread extra armour over other areas
Replace all other guns with 4 twin 6" and 5 twin dual purpose 4" mounts and delete the torpedo tubes
Bring the speed up to 25 knots.
This would give a 2nd-rate nation a decent BB that would last for some years, assuming the hull is kept in fair condition.
She's always one torpedo away from being cut in half. So... rather not.
Convert her in to a mobile naval base......since nobody has suggested it, strip out all but the front two mounts and turn the rest into a fast (for the time) depot ship?
There was a discussion on that here
All the World's Battlecruisers-Plans for HMS Agincourt as Mobile Base
I've been meaning to post these for a while. Last time I was at the Brass Foundry I came across the plans for the proposed conversion of Agincourt int
www.tapatalk.com
The formatting has got a bit messy but an eventual carrier conversion was discussed here.
All the World's Battlecruisers-Agincourt Version 2.0
[font='BOOK ANTIQUA', SERIF]Hello all, it’s been awhile since I’ve posted anything but Rich asked me to repost a post I did several years back on
www.tapatalk.com
NavWeaps Forums-Agincourt V2
Surprise find . In 1936 whilst touring and auditing my big scottish dockyard I spot the hull and superstructure of HMS Agincourt. The only things rea
I'm fairly sure i've seen a much more detailed posting elsewhere.
McPherson
Banned
Blech.
Source: US Navy; specifically,.
https://www.history.navy.mil/conten...hhc-series/nh-series/NH-103000/NH-103738.html
HMS Agincourt. (British Battleship, 1914) Drawing prepared by the Office of Naval Intelligence to show the ship's general arrangement in 1914-1916, after removal of boat stowage structure spanning the amidships gun turrets and before elimination of her tripod mainmast. It features a waterline outboard profile, topside plan and interior plans showing arrangement of armor plating. U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command Photograph.
Some comments.
The fire rooms and the trunking for the stacks are awkwardly placed in the DN and would require fairly massive intrusion into hanger space right where that hanger space and the lifts should be as wide as possible for moving airplanes around in the British strike below and arm/fuel practices of the 1920s and 1930s.
Based on a similar hull plan (HMS Furious) the forward edge of the flight deck would be set well back from the stem leaving an exposed forecastle and a dangerous wind baffle and stall hazard at launch.
HMS Agincourt is too slow to be of much use past 1942 when wind over deck becomes a necessity for the heavy FAA monoplanes coming into service. USN aircraft are viable since a 19 knot/10 m/s) flyoff for such burdened birds is a specific USN requirement.
As to the hanger capacity? I'm thinking something like HMS Hermes. (20 aircraft) with that bodged barbette layout eating up so much hull volume and making for a wasp waisted hanger in addition to the side trunking fore and aft for the exhaust funnels for the widely separated fire rooms.
I like the idea of an AOE much better than a mobile base. No sense in letting that otherwise horribly designed DN hull go to waste when it can be used as a auxiliary oiler and explosives ship and then as a target after it is worn out.
Last edited:
These are the conversations I was remembering.The formatting has got a bit messy but an eventual carrier conversion was discussed here.
All the World's Battlecruisers-Agincourt Version 2.0
[font='BOOK ANTIQUA', SERIF]Hello all, it’s been awhile since I’ve posted anything but Rich asked me to repost a post I did several years back on
NavWeaps Forums-Agincourt V2
Surprise find . In 1936 whilst touring and auditing my big scottish dockyard I spot the hull and superstructure of HMS Agincourt. The only things reawww.tapatalk.com
I'm fairly sure i've seen a much more detailed posting elsewhere.
I also remember someone posting on the old BC board years ago about outlandish proposals for refitting Agincourt. Mine was to replace the main battery turrets with triple 6" or 8" turrets. A ready-made 21 gun salute! And no, I didn't think of that particular comment back then, don't know why.
You might have a reason for it but couldn't the aft turrets be super-firing? Wouldn't that be better?
It's an unusual design for certain. The main battery turrets look like the ones on US pre-dreadnoughts, specifically the ones with these 3 guns:
12"/35 (30.5 cm) Mark 1 and Mark 2
8"/35 (20.3 cm) Marks 3 and 4 8"/40 (20.3 cm) Mark 5
13"/35 (33 cm) Mark 1 and Mark 2
So it certainly looks like a pre-dreadnought, especially with all the casemate secondary guns in the superstructure and the fact that the rear turrets aren't superfiring. The use of 3 main turrets (presumably two-gun, giving 6 main guns in total) is unusual when most pre-dreadnoughts had 2 turrets, but it's not unheard-of- the Brandenburg class had them.
This looks like a better version of the Brandenburg layout- all 6 main guns have the same barrel length (though to be fair, this was the original plan for the Brandenburgs as well), and putting 2 turrets in the rear is more efficient than having one turret in the middle of the superstructure.
The strange part is the electric motor final drives and steam engine generators. I suppose the motors, generators, and engines could fit in the spaces provided (if barely), but OTL the first turbo-electric battleship was the USS New Mexico, in 1915-1918. The electric motors back in the pre-dreadnought era shouldn't be that good, or at least not be nearly small enough to fit in those spaces (the technology was just being developed in the 1890's).