Alternate warships of nations

Driftless

Donor
Here.



By 1906 the Americans were using British methods and systems. But...


Notice the name of Bradley Fiske and the date when he began to develop his own ideas on fire control? (1892).
A couple of thoughts on the Americans: for all his bucking the brass, Sims did manage to rise to Vice Admiral. He must have been one of those "bastards" that succeed in spite of irritating most of his superior officers (of the time), and for Fiske to persevere in spite of "Fighting Bob" Evans condemnation is also impressive by itself.
 
In the 1890's the US navy is looking to develop beyond being a coastal defence force and initially looks to France for inspiration as many are still warry about Britain.

1624580342723.png
 

Driftless

Donor
In the 1890's the US navy is looking to develop beyond being a coastal defence force and initially looks to France for inspiration as many are still warry about Britain.

View attachment 661824
The attached GIF is an old photocopy of a "proposed triple screw battleship" that I made decades ago - I think from one of Friedman's books. It's either French or German inspired - definitely not a British influenced design
 
Last edited:
In the 1890's the US navy is looking to develop beyond being a coastal defence force and initially looks to France for inspiration as many are still warry about Britain.

View attachment 661824
As maligned as the French ships were, and often rightly so, they were still quite innovative on occasion. I also think they look awesome, but that may speak to deep rooted mental issues rather than any taste on my part.
 
As maligned as the French ships were, and often rightly so, they were still quite innovative on occasion. I also think they look awesome, but that may speak to deep rooted mental issues rather than any taste on my part.

We can say at least this much: No navy succeeded more brilliantly at the steampunk aesthetic!
 
As maligned as the French ships were, and often rightly so, they were still quite innovative on occasion. I also think they look awesome, but that may speak to deep rooted mental issues rather than any taste on my part.
Eventually all that experience with various design features produced the Dunkerque and Richelieu classes, some of the best battleships ever built.
 
Eventually all that experience with various design features produced the Dunkerque and Richelieu classes, some of the best battleships ever built.
I tend to think the French predreads (a few at least) are not nearly as garbage as they are made out. If I can find the quote from a DK brown book I own, forget which one, I may share it as it explains a lot of French design and says they were not as bad as is often said.
 
I tend to think the French predreads (a few at least) are not nearly as garbage as they are made out. If I can find the quote from a DK brown book I own, forget which one, I may share it as it explains a lot of French design and says they were not as bad as is often said.
The risk of underwater damage is undeniable though and is something that took too long to rectify.
 
In 1910 the two ex Chilean battleships HMS Swiftsure and Triumph are palmed off on sold to Canada as training ships. For political reasons the new RCN classifies the two ships as large cruisers.

1624592329060.png
 
Last edited:
But wasn't that wifty compartmentalization and other sub-water line issues a common failure for many pre-WW1 warships?
Ocean and Irresistible took an hour or more to sink after fatal underwater damage off Gallipoli to progressive flooding. Bouvet sank in less than two minutes due to sudden and catastrophic stability loss.

Bouvet was bad even by French standards, but she illustrates the problem.
 
Another problem the French had was their urge to constantly tinker with their designs so their classes really weren't umm well classes. Heck we even see this on the last two Richelieus.
 
To their credit the French did introduce all round loading first, along with the italians, they also were innovators in the adoption of gunnery sights and scopes as well as carrying out 'long range' shoots of about 6 - 7000 yards in the late 1800's early 1900's to counter the numerically superior British.

But that aside their early designs were god aweful for a wide range of reasons :D
 
Ocean and Irresistible took an hour or more to sink after fatal underwater damage off Gallipoli to progressive flooding. Bouvet sank in less than two minutes due to sudden and catastrophic stability loss.

Bouvet was bad even by French standards, but she illustrates the problem.
And the invincibles blew up at Jutland so obviously all British battlecruisers were tinder boxes waiting to blow. Except no because they were older designs fighting in combat they were never designed for.

Likewise Bouvet was a small and old ship which had initially been built for fighting other battleships on the high seas. Not the Dardenelles. Also comparing mine hits without getting into the particulars is like deciding which car is safer in a crash by the sound of it's engine.

The layout of the ship, position of the strike itself, crew quality (I doubt the French had their A team aboard even more than the RN) and general material condition of the vessel all play a role.

Bouvet was hardly the most powerful battleship to ever roam the seas, even when she commissioned after a lengthy build period. But that's hardly a fitting comparison to demonstrate how terrible the ship actually was.
 
Top