Alternate warships of nations

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.
The picture was of a tumblehome hulled French pre-dreadnaught. The tumblehome design offers a ton of stability in regular circumstances. But when hulled, they also take on water very quickly and lose much of their stability and reserve buoyancy. This is more or less a guaranteed quality on tumblehome hulls as compared to similar ships without such a hull design.
 
Russians got around that one the way anyone would. Their subs are highly automated. And back in the day, there were a lot of them.
They tried that on their Mike class boat. We were told one of the reasons for her loss was crew fatigue in fighting the fire. Virginia’s have some automation now. Personnel will always be one of your highest cost items. US DOD is still paying me. I’ll always believe that we would have slaughtered them in the 80s. Even with their numbers. The boats were crap and they operated them poorly.
Taking the SSN crew sizes off Wikipedia:
YearSoviet submarine classCrew sizeUS submarine classCrew size
1959627 (November)104-105Skipjack93
1960Tullibee- single boat66
1961Permit112
1967671 (Victor)100Sturgeon107
1969661 (Papa)- single boat82Narwhal- single boat107
1971705 (Alfa)31Glenard P. Lipscomb- single boat121
1976Los Angeles129
1983685 (Mike)- single boat64
1984945 (Sierra)61
1984971 (Akula I)73
1995971U (Akula II)62
1997Seawolf140
2004Virginia135
2013885 (Yasen)- single boat85
2021885M (Yasen-M)64
The Soviets/Russians appear to have used high amounts of automation consistently on all designs since the 1970's.
 
CP1s8Zt.png


HMS Conqueror - The never built titan.

Despite the performance of the Iron Duke Class the ships were considered 'small and undergunned' when compared to the American 16-inch gunned ships or the treaty breaking Bismarck's and Littorio's (both of which aslo had 15-inch guns) and rumors of absolutely massive ships being built by Japan and their answer by the USA called for a British answer. The design for the Conqueror initially started as a somewhat enlarged Iron Duke, armed with 9 x 16-inch Mk 2 guns, but wartime experience and constant redesigns saw the ship grow and change until in late 43 a monster would emerge from the DNC's offices at 70,750 tons standard load and a mind boggling 87.500 tons full load.

The size was no less immense.

Length: 944 feet overall; 928 feet waterline
Beam: 121 feet hull; 127 feet with bulges
Draught: 33.3 feet normal; 36.18 feet deep

This dwarfed the Iron Dukes who 'only' measured 707 ft (oa), 700 ft (wl) long, 103 ft beam, 28 ft draught (normal load)

The armament was to be equally impressive with 12 x 16-inch Mk 2 guns (of which one rifle was completed and tested in 1945) whilst her secondary armament was to feature the 5.25-inch turrets on the Dido class, all of which featured remote power control and powered loading and ramming, allowing for a rate of fire of 18 rounds per gun against air and surface targets.

The AA fit evolved over time but by the time the design was finally completed in 1944 it would consist of

11 x 6 barrelled 40mm Bofors Mk VI
12 x 1 40mm Bofors Mk VII in Power Assisted mounts.
4 x 2 40mm STAAG
4 x 1 20mm Oerlikon

A Mk VII in Power Assisted mount.

These were to be guided by the latest fire control systems and RADAR systems and the ships aircraft facilities were deleted early on.

The armour protection was also extensive and impressive, a 16-inch thick belt, inclined at 25 degrees offered protection against all predicted weapons, whilst the main armoured deck started at 4-inches and went up to 12-inches over the vitals. The turrets were also heavily armoured with 22-inches of armour on their faces. A considerable amount of weight was also put into the engineering and hull testing at Hasla predicted a maximum speed of 30 - 31 knots.

Of course due to the demands of other programs the Conqueror or her sistership Thunderer were never laid down, and whilst the 16-inch Mk 2 was tested in 1945 and found to be a very capable weapon, the age of the Battleship had passed and even with 12-inches of deck armour, the Conqueror would have been vulnerable to air attacks as had been shown with the destruction of the Yamato and Musashi. The Americans also cancelled their planned Montana classes and no allied 'Super Ships' were ever made.

The 16-inch Mk 2 gun can be seen at the main entrance to Porstmouth Naval Base where it serves as a gate guard.
 
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.
Honestly, yes, I do think every British capital unit of the era was a tinder box ready to blow. Their cordite was extremely prone to exploding, and HMS Vanguard spontaneously exploded in port due to old cordite powder.

Ocean and Irresistible were also old and had been built for fighting other battleships on the high seas, so that can’t be used to dismiss the comparison. They were larger, but the extremely rapid capsizing of Bouvet is so extraordinary that can’t account for the difference, likewise with the differences in crew quality.

Like, I don’t think you understand how insane it is that Bouvet capsized in two minutes. Irresistible took much longer despite her engine rooms being completely flooded and being under heavy fire from Ottoman shore batteries, and as I said, she sank from progressive flooding destroying her buoyancy, rather than the sudden and catastrophic loss of stability that sank Bouvet.

In any case, my opinion on Bouvet and her half-sisters was formed by this forum post: https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/war...ts-just-hindsight-make-them-l-t33584-s10.html which includes a link to professional analysis of Bouvet’s stability. Even by the standards of the 1890s Bouvet’s stability was extremely bad and is clearly the cause of her extremely rapid capsize.
 
The French made up for the Fleet of Samples with the Iena class onwards (Despite some explosive ends) but god damn, those ships should never have been in a combat zone as even the HMS Victoria could've fucked them up.
 
Again I'm not saying Bouvet was a bad design, even her builders the French weren't happy with here. But she can't be used to condemn the entire French battleship fleet. The French had some stand out designs, unfortunately they also had a fair number of duds.

Actually on that topic anyone know a good enough language book focusing on the French navy? Off the top of my head I can't think of one.
 
Again I'm not saying Bouvet was a bad design, even her builders the French weren't happy with here. But she can't be used to condemn the entire French battleship fleet. The French had some stand out designs, unfortunately they also had a fair number of duds.

Actually on that topic anyone know a good enough language book focusing on the French navy? Off the top of my head I can't think of one.
Im not against Bouvet specifically.
I'm against the "Fleet of Samples' she was part of.
Those ships would've been mincemeat against the Royal Soverigns they were built as a response to, let alone the Majestics that were on the scene when they were finished.

The French let themselves go in the 1880s-1890s.
 

Sargon

Donor
Monthly Donor
I seem to remember years back someone came up with a memetic critical hit list based on predictable national stereotypes or items commonly associated with them for naval wargaming where you rolled a dice for extra mayhem to occur. I don't have it to hand, so I'm going by memory, but it went something like this:


British - Tea Storage
French - Wine Locker
Italian - Fashion Compartment
Japanese - Rice Bunkerage
German - Schnapps Hold
Australian - Swear Box
Canadian - Maple Syrup Storage
United States - Ice Cream Machine
Russian - Vodka Tanks

And so forth.


Sargon
 
Last edited:
I seem to remember years back someone came up with a memetic critical hit list based on predictable national stereotypes or items commonly associated with them for naval wargaming wher you rolled a dice for extra mayhem to occur. I don't have it to hand, so I'm going by memory, but it went something like this:


British - Tea Storage
French - Wine Locker
Italian - Fashion Compartment
Japanese - Rice Bunkerage
German - Schnapps Hold
Australian - Swear Box
Canadian - Maple Syrup Storage
United States - Ice Cream Machine
Russian - Vodka Valves

And so forth.


Sargon
The US meme is guns, ice cream and the entire ship being a booze locker with the stuff hidden everywhere.
 
The virtues or lack there of, of the French style of Pre Dreadnoughts were amply demonstrated during the Russo - Japanese war. They really didn't do well even given the low quality of their crews.
 
The virtues or lack there of, of the French style of Pre Dreadnoughts were amply demonstrated during the Russo - Japanese war. They really didn't do well even given the low quality of their crews.
Given how well the last Borodino did in WW1 and the performance of the Russian Asian fleet, I'd argue the Russian fleet was hampered terribly so much that their virtues were eliminated by the time the Japanese met them. Even if the Russians weren't as bad as the accounts make out, there was still a lot that was confirmed
 

Driftless

Donor
FWIW, The US (1903) Tennessee Class were counted as armored cruisers by the US, with 14,500t disp. and 4x10"(25.4cm) guns
The Swiftsures were built to fight Armoured Cruisers so that's a fair comparison. The Tennessee's were 3 knots faster but the Swiftsure's had heavier secondary armament and armour.
 
Honestly, yes, I do think every British capital unit of the era was a tinder box ready to blow. Their cordite was extremely prone to exploding, and HMS Vanguard spontaneously exploded in port due to old cordite powder.

That's more down to the cordite composition and handling procedures than ship design, surely?

Though, on re-reading your post more carefully...I see that our comments are not ncessarily inconsistent with each other.

You know...it is sobering to contemplate how many battleships - of all navies - were lost to to non-combat magazine explosions in that era (1880-1945).

USS Maine (1898)
IJN MIkasa (1905)
Aquidabã (1906)
MN Iéna (1907)
MN Liberté (1911)
HMS Bulwark (1914)
RM Benedetto Brin (1915)
RM Leonardo Da Vinci (1916)
Imperatritsa Mariya (1916)
HMS Vanguard (1917)
JN Kawakchi (1918)
Jaime I (1937)
IJN Mutsu (1943)

Even at that, I feel like I'm missing a couple...

And of course that does not count various cruisers and smaller ships that suffered the same fate in that era.
 
I wasn't counting monitors, but a good addition to the discussion just the same. It's sobering to think about. "You might die getting blown to pieces in combat, but you also might die getting blown to pieces tied up dockside."
It happened to every major navy at some point. If dodgy explosives didn't blow you up, a build up of coal dust in the bunkers would.
 
Top