Deleted member 94680
Fair enough, but then can’t it be said that an AoN ship with the thickness of armour in the citadel would be faster than a ship banded with equal thickness of armour?
Dread Nought but the Fury of the Seas
- Thread starter sts-200
- Start date
Fair enough, but then can’t it be said that an AoN ship with the thickness of armour in the citadel would be faster than a ship banded with equal thickness of armour?
Yeah, definitely. Take the Queen Elizabeths, for example. They spent a lot of weight on those armor bands. It's a little ridiculous. Invest that in machinery - and the necessary longer hull and citadel - and you'd have a considerably faster ship. Like, I've run the numbers for the Rs, which have a very similar scheme, and you could get a 16" thick belt that's also wider than the original 13" belt by eliminating all those extra armor bands.
Deleted member 94680
Is it possible to convert a “banded” vessel to AoN in the same way ships were upgraded to small tube boilers, or casements were replaced with between deck mounts?
What I mean, is the armour plating integral to the structure, or is it bolted on top of the structure? Ships had armour added at their interwar rebuilds, but could they have armour removed?
You could remove some armor - Hood's modernization would've entailed removing her uppermost belt, the 5" one - but in general the side armor tends to be structurally important and so you don't remove it.
Deleted member 94680
Ah, fair enough. I take it the design involves the strength of the armour (thickness etc) over that area whereas the comparable area of steel hull wouldn’t have the structural strength to withstand the stresses the armour could?
Its more like the ship is designed around the main armor belt/deck armor and removing it would effectively destroy the ship's structural integrity. Armor usually is bolted onto the ship with Japanese cruiser designs post Yubari being the primary exception to this rule
Last edited:
Battleship/battlecruiser side armour was bolted onto the hull, with a wood/caulk layer to ensure a close, firm fit. It wasn't part of the hull and it wasn't intended to take any significant stresses from normal sea loads. Ships were usually launched without the belt in place, and it was often added quite late during construction.
Nevertheless, the fact that the armour was bolted to the hull plating (not usually through the frames) meant that it would have taken some minor loads.
However, what held ships of the period together was the deck plating and the frames. The frames provided resistance against twisting, and the decks and bottom held the frames together, resisting flexing (hogging and sagging). Decks, whether armoured or not, were therefore all structural (although the top deck and the bottom of the hull were the most important areas, if you consider the ship as a giant box girder).
The argument could in fact go the other way, as British BCs after Queen Mary had their structural decks counted as armour, as they were built with High Tensile steel. The steel was there for strength reasons, but it also happened to be quite resistant to impact.
Spencersj is right to say the ships were designed around the armour, but it was just as much about ensuring stresses in the hull stayed within acceptable limits, or finding where the hull needed strengthening.
An exaggerated example: if all the armour belt were over the magazines, the ends of the ship would be very heavy and she'd want to break in half, as the very light, buoyant middle part would be supporting the ends of the ship.
CV12Hornet is right to say that belt armour could be removed - e.g. on Iron Duke and Hiei when they were disarmed in the '30s. It didn't affect the fundamental strength of the hull, but it could have a huge impact on stability, as a lot of weight was suddenly gone. The plan to remove Hood's 5" upper belt was just as much about stability as it was weight (the weight would have been added back elsewhere).
Subject to stability issues, it might be possible to convert a banded ship to something approaching AoN, but I suspect it's almost cheaper to build a new ship, as you would be stripping out armour decks and rebuilding them higher up. Increases in side armour also weren't allowed under the WNT.
Needless to say, there are exceptions to what I have said above.
Cruisers are a different matter, as they were more lightly built, and often had 'protective plating', which was both armour and structure. As Spencersj says, the Japanese were particularly keen on this.
SsgtC
Banned
WRT to removing armor belts, structurally it's not a huge issue as long as it's an external belt. For example, both the American Essex and Midway class carriers were built with armor belts. However both classes had their belts removed during post war refits. The only real issue with removing an armor belt would be if the belt was internal as in the South Dakota or Iowa classes. Then you'll run into structural issues
The Problem
The Problem
‘I know we were all glad when Heaton-Ellis was cleared; it was a formality of course, there was never any doubt in my mind’, said the tall Admiral who sat at the head of the table.
A recent Board of Inquiry had concluded that the Inflexible was lost entire due to enemy action, and that her Captain and crew were to be commended for their actions in attempting to save the ship following the damage at Vieste. There had been calls for a Court-Martial following the loss; the first Royal Navy capital ship to be sunk in action in more than a century.
‘Whoever suggested a Court-Martial should be put up against a wall…’, added an intense-looking young Commander, whose expression abruptly changed to a more neutral one, as he noticed the glance the Admiral gave him. He shrank back as he realised that at another gathering, what he’d said could be regarded as gross insubordination.
‘Hmm…well, that was retracted from on-high, after Admiral De Robeck said he would stand alongside him. Sometimes the Admiralty shouldn’t be allowed near the Navy, you know’, added the Admiral with a hint of grin. Everyone else took the Admiral’s lead, and there were smiles around the room. They moved on, and the Commander’s hasty statement was instantly forgotten.
The Admiral continued,
‘Gentlemen, our concerns today are over what caused the conflagration that occurred on board Inflexible, and if can do anything to stop it happening again. As you know, the Board did not come to a conclusion in this respect, but the evidence of Commander Follsam, and others, points clearly to a rapid burning of the contents of “A” magazine, some time after a shell hit in the vicinity of “A” turret.’
Sitting next the Admiral, a senior Captain suggested firmly, ‘Even if a shell hit the turret, it wouldn’t cause a magazine fire.’
‘Not if the handling doors were closed’, confirmed another, a man who had made Gunnery a speciality earlier in his career.
‘I know Follsam and Heaton-Ellis well – most of us do’, said the Captain, ‘neither of them would tolerate sloppy magazine drill.’
‘Yes…’, replied the Gunnery man, not sounding entirely convinced, ‘but in the heat of action you know; someone gets careless, or misses a step to keep the guns firing… it can happen.’
‘Not on my ship.’
‘Oh, well, you and your perfect crew … how long is it since you rammed Falmouth?
‘Now that was her fault, and in the fog, and you know it…’
‘Gentlemen!... Enough’, the Admiral interrupted. He wasn’t annoyed. He saw healthy, competitive banter among his officers, but nevertheless they were here for a reason.
‘I think the Captain’s point is valid; mistakes do happen, and shortcuts are taken – and don’t tell me you haven’t all done it too, because I know you have!
Our magazine regulations were laid down some time ago, so perhaps it is time for a revision – as a reminder for all crews. We’ll see about something in the next General Orders.’
The Admiral nodded to one side, and his aide confirmed, ‘Very good Sir’, as he furiously scribbled a note.
There was a pause before the Admiral continued,
‘There is also another possibility; one that was not emphasised at the Enquiry as it must not become public. It may be that the shell penetrated the armour or missed the top of it and went into the barbette. Commander Follsom had a good view from the gunnery top, and he says the hit was on the hull, not the turret – although I must emphasise that is secret for now, as it suggests the shell may have penetrated the armour.’
‘A 12” shell breaking through a 6” belt or a 7” barbette and then exploding inside?’, said the senior Captain incredulously, ‘sounds highly unlikely; at that range, and the fact that the impact wouldn’t have been square-on.’
‘The Austrians appear to have been using a heavy 12” shell; an unexploded one was recovered from the Queen Elizabeth.’
‘It’s still unlikely to explode inside; or if it did, only just inside…’
‘That is the second part … The recovered shell was filled with a different explosive than our Lyddite – less powerful, but more stable. I gather the fuse was wrecked, and obviously it didn’t work on the shell we recovered, but where our shells would explode on impact, this one seems to have been designed with a delay to allow it to enter deep into the ship.’
There was a moment’s silence in the room while the implications of this sunk in.
‘So if the Germans have these shells…’, said the Gunnery man slowly, ‘… and we assume they do, as they probably had a hand in designing them, it means our 6” armour is vulnerable. That is, most of our battlecruisers.’
‘Exactly Captain. That is the concern for us, and I gather it’s causing a few ructions at the Admiralty too.
In my view, De Robeck was quite right in his use of Inflexible; she was at the head of the line, attempting to work around ahead of the enemy, while engaging a battleship that was already under fire. Classic armoured cruiser tactics in a fleet action.
What we need to consider is, do we need to change those tactics…?’
‘I know we were all glad when Heaton-Ellis was cleared; it was a formality of course, there was never any doubt in my mind’, said the tall Admiral who sat at the head of the table.
A recent Board of Inquiry had concluded that the Inflexible was lost entire due to enemy action, and that her Captain and crew were to be commended for their actions in attempting to save the ship following the damage at Vieste. There had been calls for a Court-Martial following the loss; the first Royal Navy capital ship to be sunk in action in more than a century.
‘Whoever suggested a Court-Martial should be put up against a wall…’, added an intense-looking young Commander, whose expression abruptly changed to a more neutral one, as he noticed the glance the Admiral gave him. He shrank back as he realised that at another gathering, what he’d said could be regarded as gross insubordination.
‘Hmm…well, that was retracted from on-high, after Admiral De Robeck said he would stand alongside him. Sometimes the Admiralty shouldn’t be allowed near the Navy, you know’, added the Admiral with a hint of grin. Everyone else took the Admiral’s lead, and there were smiles around the room. They moved on, and the Commander’s hasty statement was instantly forgotten.
The Admiral continued,
‘Gentlemen, our concerns today are over what caused the conflagration that occurred on board Inflexible, and if can do anything to stop it happening again. As you know, the Board did not come to a conclusion in this respect, but the evidence of Commander Follsam, and others, points clearly to a rapid burning of the contents of “A” magazine, some time after a shell hit in the vicinity of “A” turret.’
Sitting next the Admiral, a senior Captain suggested firmly, ‘Even if a shell hit the turret, it wouldn’t cause a magazine fire.’
‘Not if the handling doors were closed’, confirmed another, a man who had made Gunnery a speciality earlier in his career.
‘I know Follsam and Heaton-Ellis well – most of us do’, said the Captain, ‘neither of them would tolerate sloppy magazine drill.’
‘Yes…’, replied the Gunnery man, not sounding entirely convinced, ‘but in the heat of action you know; someone gets careless, or misses a step to keep the guns firing… it can happen.’
‘Not on my ship.’
‘Oh, well, you and your perfect crew … how long is it since you rammed Falmouth?
‘Now that was her fault, and in the fog, and you know it…’
‘Gentlemen!... Enough’, the Admiral interrupted. He wasn’t annoyed. He saw healthy, competitive banter among his officers, but nevertheless they were here for a reason.
‘I think the Captain’s point is valid; mistakes do happen, and shortcuts are taken – and don’t tell me you haven’t all done it too, because I know you have!
Our magazine regulations were laid down some time ago, so perhaps it is time for a revision – as a reminder for all crews. We’ll see about something in the next General Orders.’
The Admiral nodded to one side, and his aide confirmed, ‘Very good Sir’, as he furiously scribbled a note.
There was a pause before the Admiral continued,
‘There is also another possibility; one that was not emphasised at the Enquiry as it must not become public. It may be that the shell penetrated the armour or missed the top of it and went into the barbette. Commander Follsom had a good view from the gunnery top, and he says the hit was on the hull, not the turret – although I must emphasise that is secret for now, as it suggests the shell may have penetrated the armour.’
‘A 12” shell breaking through a 6” belt or a 7” barbette and then exploding inside?’, said the senior Captain incredulously, ‘sounds highly unlikely; at that range, and the fact that the impact wouldn’t have been square-on.’
‘The Austrians appear to have been using a heavy 12” shell; an unexploded one was recovered from the Queen Elizabeth.’
‘It’s still unlikely to explode inside; or if it did, only just inside…’
‘That is the second part … The recovered shell was filled with a different explosive than our Lyddite – less powerful, but more stable. I gather the fuse was wrecked, and obviously it didn’t work on the shell we recovered, but where our shells would explode on impact, this one seems to have been designed with a delay to allow it to enter deep into the ship.’
There was a moment’s silence in the room while the implications of this sunk in.
‘So if the Germans have these shells…’, said the Gunnery man slowly, ‘… and we assume they do, as they probably had a hand in designing them, it means our 6” armour is vulnerable. That is, most of our battlecruisers.’
‘Exactly Captain. That is the concern for us, and I gather it’s causing a few ructions at the Admiralty too.
In my view, De Robeck was quite right in his use of Inflexible; she was at the head of the line, attempting to work around ahead of the enemy, while engaging a battleship that was already under fire. Classic armoured cruiser tactics in a fleet action.
What we need to consider is, do we need to change those tactics…?’
SsgtC
Banned
This seems to be implying that the British had never seen a delayed fuse before. When in fact they had been using them for decades. British shells tended to either breakup or explode on impact because the explosive filler was unstable (which you've alluded to) or because the shell itself was incorrectly manufactured
Hypocrisy too. Not even a trial this time, hypothetically speaking.
The plunging fire raises issues of deck armour. Then there is the matter of magazines above shell rooms.
Last edited:
OTL Courts-Martial on loss of a ship stopped being held as a matter of course in the first couple of years of the Great War, according to Hansard (https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1940/jul/31/ship-losses-courts-martial) so this part reads as very realistic.
Indeed, but in the short term they have to think very carefully ... there's a limit to what they dare to say publicly, or to the fleet.
As you say delayed fuses had existed for decades, however with AP shells the British had backed themselves into a corner because of a third problem.
Lyddite, like black power or nitroglycerine, is quite easy to set off - i.e. it is easy for the fuse to initiate detonation - so much so that the shock of impact (i.e. the pressure shockwave and consequent shock heating) could sometimes trigger it.
To avoid this, less tetchy explosives were needed (at the time, TNT), but the problem (and, simultaneously the benefit) is they are more difficult to trigger when you want them to go off.
The fuse therefore needed to provide a more violent burn, but the trouble was the British hadn't developed a fuse that incorporated both a delay and the gaine needed to detonate TNT. The Germans had one (and the British tried to licence it pre-war).
Combined with the known tendency of British shells to break up, they decided to make the best of a bad job, use the more powerful explosive and have them explode very soon after they hit. Tragically, those faults were ignored, covered up, and sometimes even regarded as 'benefits', which led to design decisions - i.e. British shells were designed to cause massive damage to lightly-protected structures, so widespread but light armour was the way to go.
So far, they're still too concerned about the possibility of a belt penetration to worry about plunging fire.
In the 'game' of the action, what happened was that a shell that exploded inside the ship, sending splinters through bulkheads, starting a fire that quickly spread to cordite charges up to the turret and then through to the magazine. Some brave soul had just started to flood the magazine, and then the damaged bulkheads ruptured, preventing an explosion similar to OTL Jutland.
However, as there were no survivors from anywhere near that part of the ship, no-one in the story knows any of that.
The objection isn't so much that British don't have delayed fuses as much as "Why are they so surprised the Germans have them?" Considering the British tried to license the German fuse design, they shouldn't be so surprised in the chapter that there were bursts behind armor.
Now, if you want to preserve most of the atmosphere of that section, I think a better angle to take would be shell construction, specifically the shell caps. British KC armor of the era had been improved over the original formula to make it more effective against the soft-cap AP projectiles of the era; further, the soft AP caps lost effectiveness at most angles of obliquity. With those two factors in mind, and at the range the fight was at, it's sensible for the British to be surprised the Austrian projectiles survived as well as they did. Why did they do so well? Because both the Germans and Austrians moved from soft AP caps to hard ones in 1911, for much greater effectiveness against tougher British KC armor and far better ability to survive wild angles of obliquity. They also dig into the armor and improve penetration that way.
Side note, but in doing the research for this post I found out that Austrian face-hardened armor was harder than the usual formulas and so tended to shatter soft-cap AP shells. Now I'm even more okay with the Austrian ships' performance.
Just because you and I know the British fuses were rather limited, and that they tried to licence German designs, doesn't mean every Admiral, Captain and Commander in the fleet did at the time!
In fact, it might be quite the opposite - some of them would know British shells broke up or exploded on thin-ish armour, but would assume that foreign shells were the same. A few might even think 'well, our shells must be the best ... they're British'.
A few officers knew 'the truth', or something close to it, but none of them successfully did anything about it, and there would be more than a little secrecy and ass-covering.
Never underestimate the obscuring power of an officer determined to cover his own ass.
Particularly when it also suits most of his friends and colleagues, and when the truth might 'be detrimental to public morale' (or words to that effect).