Dread Nought but the Fury of the Seas

Reader mode

roachbeef

Does anybody know what's taking up the space aft of the two funnels and in front of the rear mast? Is it machinery space? From the outside, it just feels like unnecessarily lengthening the hull.

no21987-Exhibit_M_Sketch.jpg
(http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/no21987-Exhibit_M_Sketch.jpg) has a drawing but I can't make out the letters.
 

Deleted member 94680

The diagram makes it look like it’s basically an engine room. I doubt the hull would be lengthened unnecessarily.

There’s also hull form to consider, given displacement and speed required.
 

sts-200

steamboy said:
Great update, and an interesting change, TTL's Hood is going to emerge about as well armoured as the OTL Renown did following her rebuild with the uniform 9-inch belt that IIRC was yoinked from the Eagle. Whereas the Howe will have an armour scheme at least similar to the OTL Hood's layout with an 11 and 9-inch belt.

Also I was thinking (always a dangerous undertaking) the OTL Furious badly hurt herself when she fired her single 18-inch gun. Has TTL's Furious fired all 6 of her 18-inchers yet in a single go to see what would happen? If not I think that if she's as lightly built as the OTL Furious there's going to be some SERIOUS reworking needed on her to make it so she does not buckle her hull if she fires a broadside.
Click to expand...

We're in about Oct/Nov 1916, so the story's Furious is currently a floating hull half-filled with equipment; she's a lot bigger than the real one, so she's taking longer to complete.
However ... you are thinking along the right lines, and post-Stavanger there are reservations in high places about her value.

It could make an amusing/interesting annecdote :D
Click to expand...
It will :)
 

roachbeef

Time to buy a larger monitor... and maybe get back to my optometrist.

Wikipedia says the OTL Delaware Lexington-class had bulbous bows (although they don't seem that pronounced as some Japanese designs). With the increased emphasis on protection, perhaps TTL's KGV-equivalent would have something like that to decrease machinery space to focus protection better.
 
SsgtC

SsgtC

Banned
sts-200 said:
We're in about Oct/Nov 1916, so the story's Furious is currently a floating hull half-filled with equipment; she's a lot bigger than the real one, so she's taking longer to complete.
However ... you are thinking along the right lines, and post-Stavanger there are reservations in high places about her value.


It will :)
Click to expand...
I'm guessing Fisher's reputation is already dropping? Maybe with comments like, "he was right that we needed more fast ships, but somewhere along the way he lost sight of the fact that eventually, these ships will have to fight and then they're screwed?"
 

sts-200

Spencersj345.346 said:
Probably the turbines and reduction gearing
Click to expand...

Stenz said:
The diagram makes it look like it’s basically an engine room. I doubt the hull would be lengthened unnecessarily.

There’s also hull form to consider, given displacement and speed required.
Click to expand...

Hood had 3 engines rooms. The forward one had two sets of machinery to drive the outboard shafts (unlike previous British BCs, she had 4 engines), with the inner shafts driven by each of the two rooms aft. There was other machinery (e.g. pumps) abeam both of the two after sets.

She had a very fine hull aft - hence the requirement for the engines to be split. It also caused considerable debate in 1918-19 about the protection scheme to the aft magazines (shells didn't have far to travel to reach them).
 

Deleted member 94680

Did it always have to be bulges for torpedo protection?

Did any ships use ‘crush tubes’ or heavy compartmentalisation to good effect OTL?
 

sts-200

roachbeef said:
Time to buy a larger monitor... and maybe get back to my optometrist.
Click to expand...
With all the naval talk, I had to take a second glance at that to realise you didn't mean this type of monitor ... :D
600px-HMS_Erebus_I02.jpg


Wikipedia says the OTL Delaware Lexington-class had bulbous bows (although they don't seem that pronounced as some Japanese designs). With the increased emphasis on protection, perhaps TTL's KGV-equivalent would have something like that to decrease machinery space to focus protection better.
Click to expand...

All of the British 'ram' or 'plough' bows were technically slightly bulbous (and I suspect most of the US ones too). The otherwise obsolete design was kept as tests showed the bulge slightly improved performance. Proper bulbous bows are apparently rather difficult to optimise, but I don't doubt the Lexingtons would have derived some benefit.
Transom sterns are probably more useful when it comes to underwater protection and stability after damage.
 

sts-200

SsgtC said:
I'm guessing Fisher's reputation is already dropping? Maybe with comments like, "he was right that we needed more fast ships, but somewhere along the way he lost sight of the fact that eventually, these ships will have to fight and then they're screwed?"
Click to expand...
Yes, certainly the 'speed is everything' fixation has been fading since he left office, with Stavanger illustrating that not all is well with the battlecruisers.
However, he may yet be proved right in other areas, and there are plenty of officers and plenty of evidence that speed still matters.
 
SsgtC

SsgtC

Banned
sts-200 said:
Yes, certainly the 'speed is everything' fixation has been fading since he left office, with Stavanger illustrating that not all is well with the battlecruisers.
However, he may yet be proved right in other areas, and there are plenty of officers and plenty of evidence that speed still matters.
Click to expand...
So basically, "he was on the right track, he just took it too far."
 

Trevayne

sts-200 said:
With all the naval talk, I had to take a second glance at that to realise you didn't mean this type of monitor ... :D
View attachment 506767



All of the British 'ram' or 'plough' bows were technically slightly bulbous (and I suspect most of the US ones too). The otherwise obsolete design was kept as tests showed the bulge slightly improved performance. Proper bulbous bows are apparently rather difficult to optimise, but I don't doubt the Lexingtons would have derived some benefit.
Transom sterns are probably more useful when it comes to underwater protection and stability after damage.
Click to expand...

Off topic monitor question, why is the turret so elevated? It almost looks like it was supposed to be superfiring over a non-existent forward turret. The only reason I can think of is the entire turret installation was taken from a battleship and the BB had a greater draft, so the barbette was elevated, to allow the same space for shellroom and magazine. Still, it looks topheavy mounting a heavy gun turret that high on a small ship.
 

Cryhavoc101

sts-200 said:
Yes, certainly the 'speed is everything' fixation has been fading since he left office, with Stavanger illustrating that not all is well with the battlecruisers.
However, he may yet be proved right in other areas, and there are plenty of officers and plenty of evidence that speed still matters.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of what he did is missed due to subsequent events

What he did for the Royal Navy was force it to push the boundaries and revolutionizes designs in what was a very conservative organisation - that needed to stay ahead of its 'peers'.

Had 1922 not happened much of his work would likely have continued with the nutty designs becoming in the next leading edge generation of design that pulled the best design features from the previous ships.

HMS incomparable is Nuts on Nuts that contains more Nuts - but a few short years later Britain was planning to build the G3s - 48,500 Ton vessels with a speed of 32 Knots!

A Dreadnought Battleship and Invincible Battle cruiser would likely have emerged anyway as design's evolved but without Fisher pushing these designs along with better longer ranged guns they would have happened later and possibly not in British ships forcing the British to play catch up rather than everyone else.
 

RamscoopRaider

Donor
Trevayne said:
Off topic monitor question, why is the turret so elevated? It almost looks like it was supposed to be superfiring over a non-existent forward turret. The only reason I can think of is the entire turret installation was taken from a battleship and the BB had a greater draft, so the barbette was elevated, to allow the same space for shellroom and magazine. Still, it looks topheavy mounting a heavy gun turret that high on a small ship.
Click to expand...
I think that's HMS Erebus and she got a backup 15" mounting from HMS Furious in case the 18" did not work out. I think they did not really want to take the time to modify the turret, as HMS Abercrombie which got the other backup mount from Furious had hers shortened by 7.5 feet
 

sts-200

Stenz said:
Did it always have to be bulges for torpedo protection?

Did any ships use ‘crush tubes’ or heavy compartmentalisation to good effect OTL?
Click to expand...
Hood had 'internal bulges' (i.e. built into the hull form) from the start. Arguably, they were the same as the 'multi layer' forms the Americans were using, and post-war the two nations' designs came much closer.
Hood's torpedo protection was very good for the time - as good as anything else afloat. I recall one study that suggested that she could survive 8 hits and still steam (if they were all perfectly distributed). Of course, that's only a study...

The tube crushing system certainly did some good; at least one of the R-class was torpedoed and survived, and Warspite survived all sorts of nastiness.
However compartments were probably a better idea. There was an AMC (wish I could remember the name) during the 2nd War that had been fitted with hundreds of oil drums as protection (as was standard practice). She was hit by seven torpedoes, and shelled by a U-boat in between some of the hits, before she sank a couple of hours after the last pair of torpedoes hit.
 

sts-200

Cryhavoc101 said:
I think a lot of what he did is missed due to subsequent events

What he did for the Royal Navy was force it to push the boundaries and revolutionizes designs in what was a very conservative organisation - that needed to stay ahead of its 'peers'.

Had 1922 not happened much of his work would likely have continued with the nutty designs becoming in the next leading edge generation of design that pulled the best design features from the previous ships.

HMS incomparable is Nuts on Nuts that contains more Nuts - but a few short years later Britain was planning to build the G3s - 48,500 Ton vessels with a speed of 32 Knots!

A Dreadnought Battleship and Invincible Battle cruiser would likely have emerged anyway as design's evolved but without Fisher pushing these designs along with better longer ranged guns they would have happened later and possibly not in British ships forcing the British to play catch up rather than everyone else.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, arguable even 'his' dreadnoughts weren't the most important of his achievements.
Pre war, he cut out a lot of nonsense and directed the RN against the only enemy that mattered, and helped bring about a new generation of officers who weren't afraid to think and experiment.
It's fair to say his ideas on capital ships had gone off in an extreme direction by the start of the war, but he did a lot of other good work, ordering (and driving through the orders) for hundreds of ships.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top