The Whale has Wings

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Lexingtons did not have quite the maneuverability of the Yorktowns, and had the problem of the generators that went off-line in times of receiving shock damage (like the torpedoes Saratoga kept attracting). This meant long trips back to drydock to tear into the guts of the ship to allow the turbines to be reset.:( One reason why the Saratoga was eventually Lend-Leased entire to the Indian Ocean for British use to keep her out of harm's way. The Lexington, of course, didn't last long enough for that.

For all the criticism against the USN's old WWI battleships (slowness), they proved quite adaptable at modernization. Even the ancient Arkansas.

I think the modernisation of most of the Standards was more for national pride after Pearl Harbour than any real military value; Most of the modernised ships could have carried out the tasks they were given during OTL without the large modification programmes. Some of the standards also had to be excessively bulged to provide the stability to take all of the extra weight of the new conning towers and AA suites, further reducing their speed and there fore their utility in any battle line.

Thats not knocking the excellent rebuilds that did happen, you just wonder if the yard time could have been better spent building carriers or Baltimore’s.

Has to be said though USS Tennessee and the WeeVee ended up being fine looking ships after modernisation.

Oh and 7500 posts in this thread Astrodragon, excellent work and just shows how much we all apreciate your time line!
 
Last edited:
brazen

Thanks for that. I'm got a copy of Raven and Roberts from the library at the moment and that sounds even worse. Before bulging and in standard or light condition they had a GM of ~2.5" in light condition. Similarly with Hood and Repulse and Renown in anything other than fairly heavily loaded their GM is about a metre. Rather surprised that they could be upgraded then although at deep load and with bulges probably more is available. According to page 36 adding bulges increase the GM to about 5 - 5 1/4 feet. [Although I notice this seems to reverse the ratio before with the light condition having the marginally larger GM?]

That book covers only UK ships so do you know what the GM for the 1918 SD were please? - please ignore, see below!

Thanks

Steve

PS As I've said to usertron2020 I actually have that Friedmann book myself, although haven't read it for probably a couple of decades.:eek: From what I remember while fairly slim its pretty heavy on detail so have to try and re-read it some time.

PPS having looked at the Appendix in the back it lists the GM amongst other details.:eek::eek: This gives the following:
Early US dreadnoughts are about 1.6 to 2.2, presumably meters.
Mississippi - 1.4
Tennessee - 1.18
Colorado - 1.23
S Dakota - 1.05
Lexington - 1.32

Its only with the late 30's ships that the US moves to a GM of 2.5 - 2.7M. Similarly for the RN while earlier ships have about 1,.5M the Revenge, Renown and Hood are down as 1.0, 1.04 and 1.0. The Nelson comes out at 2.5 and the Queen's at 1.4M. Unfortunately it doesn't give details for the G3's but from R&R that suggests it was 4.9" i.e. ~1.5M at light condition, 5.63" at standard, 7.79" at deep and 8.48" at extra deep.




This article explains why the revenges could not be modernised.

http://www.gwpda.org/naval/gmdefn.htm

Basically the low metacentic height means there is no spare stability for extra weight without making the revenges dangerously unstable if they are damaged and start to ship water.

Modernisation usually meant new engines and boilers that cut down on the weight of the original engineering plant, this would have been extremely unwelcome on the Revenges as that would have further reduced stability, I believe all 5 were given large bulges during the early 20s this may have improved things slightly but I would imagine any improvement would have been quickly eaten up buy the extra equipment that all ships seem to gain during there active service life’s (Radios, extra AA, more crew and radar).


The armour was actually pretty good for the time and even in WW2 may have been quite effective, if they had had a higher metacentric height they may well have been able to fit a new Bow (like the Italian rebuilds) to fine up the lines and give them more speed, but the lack of stability precluded any large alterations.


ITTL I thought the Revenges had been put into reserve in order to find the crews for all these shiny new carriers?
 
Last edited:
The Lexingtons did not have quite the maneuverability of the Yorktowns, and had the problem of the generators that went off-line in times of receiving shock damage (like the torpedoes Saratoga kept attracting). This meant long trips back to drydock to tear into the guts of the ship to allow the turbines to be reset.:( One reason why the Saratoga was eventually Lend-Leased entire to the Indian Ocean for British use to keep her out of harm's way. The Lexington, of course, didn't last long enough for that.

For all the criticism against the USN's old WWI battleships (slowness), they proved quite adaptable at modernization. Even the ancient Arkansas.

usertron2020

Thanks for that. Sounds like something I read, rather vaguely but a long time ago, about some US ships being prone to shock damage, or even occasionally the firing of their own main battery:eek:, knocking out the power supply. According to what I read this was due to them having turbo-electric gearing.

Checking my own library I've just noticed I have a copy of Friedman's Battelships 1905-45, which I hadn't read for years.:eek: Looking through it, as its not a heafty tome, although pretty dense from what I remember, it says the two CVs had problems from relatively minor battle damage because of this. Always rather assumed it was something that could be sorted in situ but sounds from what you said that it needed extensive dockyard time, which would be a serious problem. Never heard of other US ships with turbo-electric gearing having this problem but possibly they never saw active service that resulted in them getting heavy damage - apart from possibly Pearl, where it would rather have been lost amongst all the other problems. I would presume however, from the amount of shore bombardment they did in later days that this would disprove the fear about their own guns causing such disruption.

Wouldn't it have been worthwhile replacing the turbo-electric gearing if such ships did have a major rebuild? Another problem with that method was that the gears were pretty heavy, which was the reason the USN stopped using it as under the treaties weight was such a crucial factor in designs.

Steve
 
Oh and 7500 posts in this thread Astrodragon, excellent work and just shows how much we all apreciate your time line!

Very true. Now where is the next one, pretty please.;):p At this rate should be safely in about 15k territory by the time its all over.

Steve
 
Because of certain armor design flaws inherent in the Revenges they literally cannot be modernized, worst luck. It wasn't lack of $$$, time, or shipyard space. It was practicality. It could not be done, period. The problems the Revenges had with their armor, the Lexingtons had with their engines and steering. Some flaws, once built in, cannot be fixed.:(
They'd still be good enough as floating batteries though, surely?
 
Royal Soveriegn was transferred to the Soviet navy in May 1944 and returned for breaking up in 1949. I find it Ironic that of the four surviving Revenge class ships that it should be the one with a Royal name assigned to join the comunist fleet!
 
Royal Soveriegn was transferred to the Soviet navy in May 1944 and returned for breaking up in 1949. I find it Ironic that of the four surviving Revenge class ships that it should be the one with a Royal name assigned to join the comunist fleet!

Yeah I am sure that was a co-incidence... :rolleyes:
 
They'd still be good enough as floating batteries though, surely?

MattII

As shore bombardment in the latter stages of the war, definitely. Also as deterrent escorts for high value convoys when there was the danger of powerful German raiders being at sea. Otherwise however they were a sizeable manpower sink, both in their own crews, in crews of their escorts and in the land based support facilities.

Steve
 
Fair enough then, not useful out east, but can cover at home for the ships the RN feels it necessary to send.

MattII

Definitely in TTL as the 'A' team can go east as the German and Italian fleets are pretty much redundant with regards to capital ships, or even cruisers pretty much. Not to mention that Astrodragon is keeping a significant CV force in the European theatre.

Steve
 
MattII

Definitely in TTL as the 'A' team can go east as the German and Italian fleets are pretty much redundant with regards to capital ships, or even cruisers pretty much. Not to mention that Astrodragon is keeping a significant CV force in the European theatre.

Steve

I really cant see them being in service once the RM and KM have been effectively wiped out, Revenge and Resolution were effectively in reserve from 1943 onwards because of the poor condition of their machinery and the fact we willingly leased Royal Sovreign to Russia in 1944 shows how useful we considerd them at this point.

In this time line the only one I can see staying in service and not paid off to reserve is Royal oak who had been refitted in the mid 30s with a modernish AA battery, the rest will be classed at training ships as they have nothing to fight against.

Astro what is the status of the unmodifed Battleships like the Hood, Repulse, Nelson and Rodney, have they had time to be refitted and modenised due to their being less opposition and having more Capital ships availabe to escort the carriers? I can see Hood and Repulse getting a refit due to the speed they are capable of, but the Nelrods and the unmodernised QEs I can also see being paid off quite early to free up crews for the new carriers.
 
Royal Soveriegn was transferred to the Soviet navy in May 1944 and returned for breaking up in 1949. I find it Ironic that of the four surviving Revenge class ships that it should be the one with a Royal name assigned to join the comunist fleet!

As a bizarre sidelight on the Russian character, when the Royal Sovereign was returned from Russia, the British teams that came on board found every gun on the ship still loaded, from the 15 inchers down to the 2 pdr pom-poms. And large stretches of the lower decks covered in human excrement.
 
What about using Revenges for shore bombardment on D-Day?

They are only in reserve so they could be brought out to take part, however Revenge and Resolution were in pretty poor condition by this point and the RN had more ships to use to replace them (Barham, Hood, Repulse and the POW are still in service for a start) also by the time 1944 comes round there may not be a need for so many ships in the far east and your not having to push convoys through to the arctic ports either which will free up more ships for bombardment.

You also have the french ships as well to assist with any bombardment, I can possibly see one of the Rs being used as a breakwater in a similar fashion to HMS Centurion or the Courbet.

Whats the status of the french fleet Astro? are the Bretagne's still in service? If they are this would add another 3 bombardment ships for D-Day along side the 4 modern french ships in service.
 
If you pick your spot off the Normandy beaches it is quite practical to bottom an R class battle ship whist keeping the main turrets operational! so you have a static bombardment fortification as part of your beach break water!!;):):D
 
If you pick your spot off the Normandy beaches it is quite practical to bottom an R class battle ship whist keeping the main turrets operational! so you have a static bombardment fortification as part of your beach break water!!;):):D

Good Idea, I'll work in the turret you can pass the shells up :D
 
I suspect that if the IJN takes a bit of a beating the British may look to retire a significant number of the RN's older battleships, and redeploy the crew. Keeping a battleship running is expensive, after all.
 
If you wanted the bombardment power then surely taking the turrets out and fitting in a monitor would economise on crew. Following the tradition of WW1 (Soult Davout etc) these would be named after retired US generals - and as the distinguished ones are used for tanks would we have a monitor class of say McLellan, Pope, Custer and MacArthur?:D
 
IMHO At this time of the war it is not really worth the effort of building new monitors. The existing ships would suffice and the shipbuilding capacity is better used for more urgent hulls. :)
 
Last edited:
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top