Foreign Response to a Different RN
- Thread starter ArtosStark
- Start date
-
- Tags
- improvements royal navy ww1 ww2
Thanks! I came across a couple of these when you brought this up earlier and I went looking around. It does seem like they are testing them away from the assembly pits?
McPherson
Banned
Yes they were. The pits were for function of the barbette. The shooting range was to proof and measure the gun's ballistics and often at times to test shell function against plate while proofing the gun.
Does anyone know what state the SS Statendam/Justicia was in 1914/1915, she had been launched and fitting out was underway.
en.wikipedia.org
According to wiki
Statendam was built at Harland and Wolff in Belfast on the same slip way which had built RMS Titanic, beneath the Arrol Gantry. She was launched on 9 July 1914 but the First World War broke out only weeks later[2] and fitting-out work stopped for a year. In 1915 the British government requisitioned Statendam for use as a troopship. The ship was at first given to the Cunard Line to manage because of the sinking of Lusitania, and the ship was renamed Justicia (Latin for justice) because of their traditional ship suffix -ia. Cunard had difficulty in assembling a crew for Justicia, so the ship was reassigned to the White Star Line, which had the crew of the sunken Britannic available.
Various books list the various liners looked at for conversion to carrier but I dont recall ever seeing Statendam mentioned?
SS Justicia - Wikipedia
According to wiki
Statendam was built at Harland and Wolff in Belfast on the same slip way which had built RMS Titanic, beneath the Arrol Gantry. She was launched on 9 July 1914 but the First World War broke out only weeks later[2] and fitting-out work stopped for a year. In 1915 the British government requisitioned Statendam for use as a troopship. The ship was at first given to the Cunard Line to manage because of the sinking of Lusitania, and the ship was renamed Justicia (Latin for justice) because of their traditional ship suffix -ia. Cunard had difficulty in assembling a crew for Justicia, so the ship was reassigned to the White Star Line, which had the crew of the sunken Britannic available.
Various books list the various liners looked at for conversion to carrier but I dont recall ever seeing Statendam mentioned?
From Wikimedia commons:Does anyone know what state the SS Statendam/Justicia was in 1914/1915, she had been launched and fitting out was underway.
SS Justicia - Wikipedia
According to wiki
Statendam was built at Harland and Wolff in Belfast on the same slip way which had built RMS Titanic, beneath the Arrol Gantry. She was launched on 9 July 1914 but the First World War broke out only weeks later[2] and fitting-out work stopped for a year. In 1915 the British government requisitioned Statendam for use as a troopship. The ship was at first given to the Cunard Line to manage because of the sinking of Lusitania, and the ship was renamed Justicia (Latin for justice) because of their traditional ship suffix -ia. Cunard had difficulty in assembling a crew for Justicia, so the ship was reassigned to the White Star Line, which had the crew of the sunken Britannic available.
Various books list the various liners looked at for conversion to carrier but I dont recall ever seeing Statendam mentioned?
This is her at launch, AIUI.
She is listed as having 2 decks of superstructure on some literature and that appears to be the case in her pictures. But Lloyd’s register has her at 4/5(https://titanicbelfast.com/Discover/Ship-Fact-Files/Justicia.aspx) So maybe they did the same thing to her they did to her sort of sister, the Belgenland, and just finished her most complete two decks tether than all 4 or 5 originally intended? Seems like either her or Belgenland could have been converted if the will was there.
Last edited:
also found another RMS Aurania
RMS Aurania (1916) - Wikipedia
The Aurania was launched on 16 July 1916 and was immediately fitted out as a troopship.
No dimensions listed in that article but the one for her sister ships
RMS Andania (1913) - Wikipedia
say 520ft x 64ft
Definitely slower than I would prefer (even Campania was 19.5 kts) but I could see a slower ship being made into a seaplane carrier in certain circumstances.
McPherson
Banned
What about re-engining to boost the watts? Any room for it, or are they stuck with as is?
Probably technically possible. Justicia had two TE engines, probably on the outer screws, and one low pressure turbine. Coal fired, I think. Put in oil firing and all better turbines you may get 21 knots. If the system is redesigned to take advantage. The problem is probably that they were far enough along that it would be a pretty major refit. I am not sure if it would be considered worth it for a conversion.
McPherson
Banned
Well... If the builders are aiming for troop transports, then a hybrid drive makes sense.
Let's look at the rather sparse data... (from wiki)
| General characteristics | |
|---|---|
| Type: | Steamship |
| Tonnage: | 32,234 gross tons |
| Length: | 776 ft (237 m) |
| Beam: | 86 ft (26 m) |
| Propulsion: | triple expansion steam engines turning two outer propellers, plus an exhaust-steam turbine turning the centre propeller. |
| Speed: | 18 kn (21 mph; 33 km/h) |
| Capacity: | Intended passenger capacity of 3,430 people. |
| Troops: | Approximately 4,000 |
Not even a draft, so I have no idea how to calculate reserve flotation or how to estimate watts needed to drive her at 23-25 knots.
IIRC, Friedman says that the Empress of Asia, Empress of Russia and Alsation were looked at for conversion but couldn't be spared and there were issues of the cost of converting to a carrier and then back to a liner.
From what I can see these have speeds of 18-19kts so is the 18kts of Statendam too much of a problem?
I've never seem an indication of what level of of completeness the Conte Rosso and Giulio Cesare were in but I have assumed not much more than a hull up to the shelter deck with more complete machinery in the Conte Rosso. Conte Rosso originally had coal fired machinery that was modified and destroyer type boilers substituted so some re-engining for other ships is possible.
Last edited:
McPherson
Banned
Too much of my 20/20 hindsight. It will prove to the Americans by 1922 (And they knew it from the USS Pennsylvania trials.) that USS Langley would be generally too slow at 6-7 m/s (12-15 knots) so they installed a catapult from the start. The British in WWI probably knew the same thing. I believe they were trying for 10-11 m/s (20-22.5 knots) speed runs on Argus and Eagle. I do not remember if the British installed catapults, but I think they did not as originally built. So I generally think that by WWI standards the British would want 10 m/s (20 knots) was the desired speed run limit and 7-8 m/s (15-17 knots) was the usual air launch speed. An 18 knot passenger liner might not have had the margin desired?
McPherson
Banned
Just glanced at Wiki on these potential bird farms... (data from wiki)
Giullo Cesare: Long enough and fast enough. (See note in parenthesis.)
| General characteristics | |
|---|---|
| Class and type: | Ocean liner |
| Tonnage: | 22,576 GRT |
| Length: | 636 ft (193.9 m) |
| Beam: | 76.15 ft (23.2 m) |
| Depth: | 66.3 ft (20.2 m) (??? Is that correct? Virtually useless in most naval ports extant, even as a transport. McP.) |
| Decks: | 4 |
| Installed power: |
|
| Propulsion: | 4 × screw |
| Speed: | 20 knots (37 km/h; 23 mph) |
| Capacity: |
|
| Notes: |
|
Conte Rosso
| General characteristics | |
|---|---|
| Type: | ocean liner |
| Tonnage: | 18,500 GRT |
| Length: | |
| Beam: | 22.5 m (73 ft 10 in) |
| Draught: | 9.1 m (30 ft) |
| Depth: | 10.9 m (35.9 ft) |
| Installed power: |
|
| Propulsion: |
|
| Speed: | 21 knots (39 km/h) |
| Capacity: |
|
| Notes: | sister ship: Conte Verde |
Useful potential flattop.
That's not the same ship that was being built in Beardmores yard and the potential sistership to Argus. It's a post war ship built as a replacement for the ship cancelled during WWI.
According to Friedman, the Conte Rosso at Beardmore's was 535 x 68 x 26ft, 18, 530 tons, originally with coal fired machinery developing 18,000hp to give 20.5hp
The dimensions for Argus as built show a longer ship at 565ft
Hull 967 at Swan Hunter was 605ft x 76ft x 22ft 6", 19,000 tons with machinery that could be oil fired that generated 22,000hp to give 20.5kts
Interestingly Friedman states that hull 967 was initially favoured as it was longer and had better subdivsion.
The dimensions for Argus as built show a longer ship at 565ft
Hull 967 at Swan Hunter was 605ft x 76ft x 22ft 6", 19,000 tons with machinery that could be oil fired that generated 22,000hp to give 20.5kts
Interestingly Friedman states that hull 967 was initially favoured as it was longer and had better subdivsion.
Last edited:
McPherson
Banned
The thing about Giullio Caesare that scorched her, was, I suspect, her unusually deep draft on her hull form.