IIRC I remember reading somewhere that the 5.5-inch gun had been installed in some export cruisers (I want to say Greek for some reason) and were used on Furious in lieu of the triple 4-inch installed on Courageous and Glorious. The article said the Admiralty was anxious to see how well the gun performed vs. the 6-inch.
IIRC I remember reading somewhere that the 5.5-inch gun had been installed in some export cruisers (I want to say Greek for some reason) and were used on Furious in lieu of the triple 4-inch installed on Courageous and Glorious. The article said the Admiralty was anxious to see how well the gun performed vs. the 6-inch.
McPherson
Banned
That would be Eustace Tennyson D'Eyncourt, DNC during WWI and designer of Hood, and it was not criminal, that armor scheme was a brilliant innovation and one of the best layouts ever devised for warships:
It makes the hull stronger because a trapezoid is stronger than a square, and it becomes more effective than upwards sloping armor against shells already impacting at a downward angle. Against a shell coming down at a 20 degree angle the armor angled downwards 20 degrees from vertical is already at a 50 degree slope to the shell. Armor angled upwards 20 degrees from vertical is effectively at no slope against the same shell and eliminates the possibility of a deflected shot, purely vertical armor would have been better.
The other big benefit is that this sloping drastically reduces the citadel size and the armor required to protect it. Because the gun barbettes dictate armored deck size, the width between the top of the armored belts must be a certain width. But the barbettes usually taper or end towards the bottom, and the bottom of the belts can be much closer together by inclining them, as narrow as the ship's boilers and engines allow. This allows less volume contained in the citadel, and thus thicker armor or less weight of armor. Further reductions could be achieved by an internal belt, which by further reducing width was very weight-efficient but harder to build and repair, and this combination of an internal belt and the maximum inclination allowable is a good trick to reduce ship weight in SpringSharp. Internal belts weren't always used for that building/repairing disadvantage however, especially when tonnage limits from treaties were removed.
Most battleships except British and German ones used this design of inclined belt and bulges (or internal torpedo defense system) since then because it was so efficient. Here is the armor scheme of the Alaska (A), North Carolina (B), South Dakota (C), Iowa (D), and Montana (E) ships (source):
Here is the scheme for some of the same ships plus the Yamato, Richelieu, and Bismarck (source):
And photos of practically every WWII battleship's midships armor scheme can be found here.
Text color edit added above to show what I have to address in answer.
Hmm.
And I quote from that source...provided.
Driving down is still not a good idea, especially as the inclination actually acts as a diverter. I understand the plate acted as a kind of framing longeron in the trapezoid scheme...
Notice how the force vectors when applied to the shape distribute? BUT...
NTS.
There are penalties for not paying attention to physics. Prince of Wales, even with her near vertical plate face, took underwater shock which and when her plate amplified waterline effects from penetrators and concussion waves into her, and that contributed to her loss from near miss bombs and actual torpedo strikes. Earlier in WW I the HMS Lion, was almost lost when Seydlitz put a couple of shells into her at Dogger Bank, at the waterline... (duds). Interesting if her torpedoes had not been safed when that one shell pieced the vulnerable crease between 5 inch and main belt under her torpedo flat.
Massie, Robert (2004). Castles of Steel: Britain, Germany and the Winning of the Great War. New York: Random House pp 397.* for HMS Lion.
So I respectfully disagree about Eustace Tennyson D'Eyncourt. He probably influenced all the induced protection scheme errors that show up as very expensive battle damage the USN had to repair in WW II due to torpedo impacts and armor plate compression effects on her modern warships. Fortunately, and I mean this, the modern USN fast battleships were not subjected to more than one gun action where the problems of the inverted trapezoid would have shown up starkly against the Japanese blunt nosed armor piercing shells.
The trapezoid works fine if the true reasons for its employment are understood; which are weight (mass reduction) and necessary conformal geometry to mask barbette armor. ( It acts as a predetonator hopefully.). This does not mean it is the best way to resist long range plunge fire from BLUNT NOSED BCAPC naval shells. Nor is it ideal against the torpedo. It makes things worse, especially in just below the waterline strikes, much worse as HIJMS Yamato proved. Better to have no armor at all (USS Alaska) and allow pass through and rely on compartmentalization, blast venting, and the float bubble defense.
Last edited:
McPherson
Banned
Munch on that one. The Itsukushima is ATL modified post Yalu. Funny thing about those Japanese protected cruisers (French built), they were bow heavy and their boilers were garbage. Their steam plants were suspect and of course that Schneider Canet RTL forward mount was a piece of garbage as naval armament. The ATL fix is British boilers and guns in the rebuild and the assigned culprit is J.L. Thompson and Sons.
Well...
The cruisers became Birkenhead and Chester. They were basically C-class cruisers with the different guns. They were then used as secondaries on Hood, Furious, and Hermes.
Minor (or rather major) nitpick. While HMS Hood is indeed in three major sections, the forward break (Between forecastle and 'A' barbette) was NOT due to internal explosion. This can be reasoned because the forward armoured bulkhead (ie the fwd bhd of the fwd magazines) is 100% intact. It is the aft face of the break. IMHO one of the following 2 is likely:
1) The hull took too much strain when it reared up. Keep in mind most of this area would be above the water and simply put the hull is not designed to take that stress. It simply collapsed in the weakest area (the area with the largest openings) which was the chain lockers. The fact that the chain is all over the separated bow does show the chain lockers collapsed.
2) Implosion as she sunk. The largest areas would be full of air the longest, and again chain lockers. The decks in the bow section are missing and the hull shows massive denting (ie clear implosion damage).
Actually having typed that, best guess is now:
Combo of the two!
As the bow raised during the sinking process it was weakened around the chain lockers due to localised stresses, and then when she sunk and imploded the bow gave out in the weakened area. This frees the chain to lay over the bow and ensures the bow decks are far enough away from the bow that they are not found during the survey of that area.
More severe. Look at the sonar images of the IJN Musashi. She sunk intact and there were reports of two underwater explosions. When she was found.....
https://i373.photobucket.com/albums/oo179/omekeki/YamatoclassMusashisonar24-10-14.png
Birkenhead and Chester were Town class rather than C Class. The 5.5” gun was also to arm the Bretagne class ship that the Greeks ordered in 1914.
McPherson
Banned
You cannot understand the Spanish American War, or my version of it without this background... Be warned that there is a lot of Chinese propaganda mixed in with this "purported history". Anyway, the Americans driving West knew this "history" and reacted to it badly in 1898. The modern Filipinos are not too happy about it either. The Actual Filipino history that is not myth or speculation begins with the Spanish arrival when good continuous records are maintained. The Spaniards were and are good historians.
Last edited:
@McPherson Any thoughts on the flotilla leader/AA cruisers of the Second World War (Atlantas and Didos)? I don't know if something like that would be viable in that period as a multirole combatant, if flotilla leader light cruisers are really needed for that role instead of stretched destroyers, or if larger light cruisers with 6" guns would be a more efficient use of resources. An alternative for the fleet AA escort role might be either a larger multirole cruiser with the same AA fit but additional surface warfare capability or a more specialized large destroyer like the Akizuki with AA-focused DP guns. Considering all the problems the French contre-torpilleurs had, would big destroyer hulls even be viable before the end of the war? The French and Italian super-destroyer arms race certainly led to some interesting ships.
McPherson
Banned
I'm not sure what you want. I can tell you the British were in the ballpark with the Didos, (around 6,000 mt) except that the gun armament 13.33 cm (5.25 inch) was terrible. The Atlanta/ Juneaus were much bigger at 7,500 mt and had the 12.7 cm (5 inch)/38 but had a poor deck layout and suffered stability problems. Would big destroyer hulls be viable before the end of the war? Depends. Take a look at 1939.
Magador.
General characteristics
Type: Large destroyer
Displacement:
- 2,997 t (2,950 long tons) (standard)
- 4,018 t (3,955 long tons) (deep load)
Beam: 12.57 m (41 ft 3 in)
Draft: 4.74 m (15 ft 7 in)
Installed power: 92,000 shp (69,000 kW)
Propulsion:
- 2 × Rateau-Bretagne geared steam turbines
- 4 × Indret boilers
Range:
- 4,345 nmi (8,047 km; 5,000 mi) at 15 knots (28 km/h; 17 mph)
- 1,780 nmi (3,300 km; 2,050 mi) at 28 knots (52 km/h; 32 mph)
Armament:
- 4 × twin 14 cm *(5.4 in) M1934 guns
- 2 × single 3.7 cm (1.5 in) M 1933 AAA guns
- 2 × twin 13.2-millimeter (0.52 in) M1929 AAA machine guns
- 2 × double + 2 × triple 550 mm (21.7 in) TT
- 32 depth charges and up to 40 mines.
Now what was the USN answer?
Sims
General characteristics
Type: Destroyer
Displacement:
- 1,570 tons (light standard)
- 2,293 tons (full load)
Beam: 36 ft 1 in (11.00 m)
Draft: 13 ft 4 in (4.06 m)
Installed power:
- 3 Babcock and Wilcox boilers,
- 2 geared steam turbines,
- 51,138 shp (38,134 kW) on trials
Speed: 37 knots (69 km/h; 43 mph) on trials
Range: 5,640 nmi (10,450 km; 6,490 mi) at 12 knots (22 km/h; 14 mph)
Complement:
- 10 officers, 182 enlisted (peacetime)
- 16 officers, 235 enlisted (wartime)
- As designed:
- 5 × 5 in (12.7 cm)/38 caliber guns (5×1)
- 4 × .5 in (12.7 mm) machine guns (4 x 1)
- 12 x 21 inch (53.3 cm) 12 × 21 TT (3 × 4) (one mount centerline)
- 2 x depth charge racks
- Typical 1941:
- 4 × 5 inch (127 mm)/38 caliber guns (4×1)
- 8 × .5 in (12.7 mm)
machine guns (8 x 1) - 8 × 21 inch (533 mm) TT (2 × 4) (both mounts centerline)
- 2 × depth charge racks
- Typical 1944:
- 4 × 5 inch (12.7 cm)/38 caliber guns (4×1)
- 4 × 4 cm (1.6 in) Bofors autocannons (2 × 2)
- 4 × 2 cm Oerlikon guns (0.8 in) (4 x 1)
- 8 × 21 inch (533 mm) TT (2 × 4) (both mounts centerline)
- 6 × K-gun depth charge throwers
- 2 × depth charge racks
Better hull form, much better DP guns with much better fire control, much better range, TOUGHER hull construction, tighter turn circle, much worse torpedoes, but all around a better GP fleet destroyer designed for the North Atlantic, which means it could operate anywhere. It would eat the Magadors for lunch. Only near peers are Japanese and British destroyers and they are not as good GP destroyers either. Emphasis on term "general purpose". British and Japanese "battle destroyers" were plainly better anti-ship units than the Sims; but not so good at AAA. Early war when anti-ship actions predominated, the USN destroyers were definitely handicapped because of their lousy torpedoes and relatively fewer MA barrels. Once it becomes a naval air war, the Sims and later classes come into their own.
I've re-evaluated the first three Manticoran Fleet Plans (1890, 1895, and 1900). Each Fleet Plan will include a division of four battleships. The 1890 battleships will be coastal defense ships oriented towards use in the Bight of Manticore and around Tarrantry. These ships would be similar in style to but larger than the Austro-Hungarian Monarch-class and the Russian Admiral Ushakov-class. Next would be four larger ocean-going battleships capable of South American service to confront the new Argentine armored cruisers. The gun plan is similar to the Indiana-class, with the intermediate batteries fore and aft on the beam, but the hull would be more similar to the British pre-dreadnoughts of the era. The following class of 1900 battleships will be similar but with superfiring intermediate batteries. The Virginia-class had stacked batteries but this will be more like the South Carolina-class.
I've identified four roles for cruisers. The first is the fleet screening role. These ships would be equivalent to the British second-class protected cruisers, relatively fast with 6-inch guns on about 4,000 tons. Four would accompany each battle division as a covering force screen. The second would be the advance guard role, with ships capable of fighting through an enemy covering force and then finding and fixing the enemy main body. These ships would be armoured cruisers with 10-inch guns capable of about 20 knots. The parallels I'm looking at are Cressy and Drake, and then Tennessee. A lot of countries had pre-dreadnoughts with guns smaller than 12-inch, so this might be too large for the role. However, larger guns would pose a bigger threat to enemy capital ships and might be able to force them to deploy for battle before the Manticoran battleships have to. The third role would be for a large cruiser for commerce protection, with high speed and long cruising range along with the ability to defeat enemy auxiliary cruisers and smaller protected cruisers. The British had first-rate protected cruisers larger than 8,000 tons. I'm thinking that twin 8-inch mounts would be enough armament for this role. The fourth role would be the flotilla leader for the torpedo boats or destroyers. I think the screen cruisers could do this without having to come up with a new design.
I'm trying to figure out what the fleet doctrine would look like, but the nearest examples of peer naval battles on the high seas are the Russo-Japanese war.
I've identified four roles for cruisers. The first is the fleet screening role. These ships would be equivalent to the British second-class protected cruisers, relatively fast with 6-inch guns on about 4,000 tons. Four would accompany each battle division as a covering force screen. The second would be the advance guard role, with ships capable of fighting through an enemy covering force and then finding and fixing the enemy main body. These ships would be armoured cruisers with 10-inch guns capable of about 20 knots. The parallels I'm looking at are Cressy and Drake, and then Tennessee. A lot of countries had pre-dreadnoughts with guns smaller than 12-inch, so this might be too large for the role. However, larger guns would pose a bigger threat to enemy capital ships and might be able to force them to deploy for battle before the Manticoran battleships have to. The third role would be for a large cruiser for commerce protection, with high speed and long cruising range along with the ability to defeat enemy auxiliary cruisers and smaller protected cruisers. The British had first-rate protected cruisers larger than 8,000 tons. I'm thinking that twin 8-inch mounts would be enough armament for this role. The fourth role would be the flotilla leader for the torpedo boats or destroyers. I think the screen cruisers could do this without having to come up with a new design.
I'm trying to figure out what the fleet doctrine would look like, but the nearest examples of peer naval battles on the high seas are the Russo-Japanese war.
Last edited:
If you google it, there are photos of her salvage in the 70's I think. There is also a turret on the Japanese Defence Force training grounds.
McPherson
Banned
Like most massive detonations, the evidence of first cause must be inferred since the forensics disappeared with that part of the ship.
Here.
What we can take from the historic record of survivors of these kinds of incidents (and we have the US Navy, the Japanese, and the Russian Navy largely to thank for it, because these navies actually did do the hard work and published the results of their own embarrassing incidents.
Maine, South Dakota and Iowa; poor crew training, improper procedures, overage ammunition and propellant.
Mutsu, probably electrical short that started a fire in the # 3 handling room underneath #3 turret. The IJN reported many such electrical problems on many of their overage or older warships. Akagi for example during her rebuild had such a fire.
Last edited:
Terrible at what? For anti surface its an 80lb shell v a 55lb shell, before radar it will simply destroy the lighter gun at range or if it needs to penetrate protection.
9,500 yards (8,690 m) 3" (76 mm) SAP - 3.25 lbs. (1.47 kg) TNT
v
7,400 yards (6,770 m) 3.0" (76 mm) Special Common Mark 38 - 2.04 lbs. (0.9 kg) Explosive D
Max range (not that they will hit at this but range they can hit will likely be a % reduction of this in daylight before radar, especially as shell splash size will determine salvo spotting range)
45 degrees 23,400 yards (21,397 m)
v
45 degrees 17,575 yards (16,070 m)
All of the above are as you say a balance as is the cost between two 3000t ships (super DDs) and a 6000t ship (CL) what did you want and where and who will you fight will decide what’s best.
Do you have more details (or links?) doctrine and fleet plans will be drive more by your nations sats and objectives than ship designs (that should come after)....?