|
steinrokkan posted:Behold, the Nazis I mean maybe the Soviets aren't the best "gotcha" to use here.
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 18:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 00:44 |
|
|
SerthVarnee posted:If you need to know what the gently caress caused them to plonk down a lookout post right behind the main exhaust for the main boiler room instead of somewhere survivable for a crewman to inhabit, then yes you need to look at this book. (yes. yes they did indeed do this on at least one of their battleships.)  Not RN but a good example of what happens when the lookouts are a bit too close to the funnels from USS Wyoming.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 18:46
|
|
|
SerthVarnee posted:Absolute yes. The Grand Fleet covers the evolution of all british warship (and submarines) designs, starting around the time of Dreadnaught and ending up with the pre-WWII ship designs and what was learned and incorporated along the way. The author was a Naval architect for the Admiralty and writes in a way that, while technically heavy here and there, comes across as very informative and very readable at the same time. Isn't this the same book where the author claims that the battlecruiser design was sound?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 19:05
|
|
|
SerthVarnee posted:Absolute yes. The Grand Fleet covers the evolution of all british warship (and submarines) designs, starting around the time of Dreadnaught and ending up with the pre-WWII ship designs and what was learned and incorporated along the way. The author was a Naval architect for the Admiralty and writes in a way that, while technically heavy here and there, comes across as very informative and very readable at the same time. To add to this, Brown also wrote Nelson to Vanguard which covers British ship design from 1923 to 1945 ending with the last British battleship. All in all, Brown wrote there major books covering British iron/steel ship design. Warrior to Dreadnought covers 1860 to 1905, The Grand Fleet covers 1905 to 1923 and Nelson to Vanguard 1923 to 1945. All are easily readable and comprehensible but he focuses on the design and technology of the ships and not on their individual statistics and histories. Battles and wars are not discussed on their own but only in the context of lessons learned and their effects on ship design. The very technical information such as in dept discussions of stability and its calculations are left in the appendixes. There are two more Brown books that I have yet to read, Rebuilding the Royal Navy covers the period after 1945 and Before the Ironclad covers 1815 to 1860. Both are available only for Kindle on Amazon. On the US side, the books by Norman Friedman are very well regarded. Saint Celestine posted:Isn't this the same book where the author claims that the battlecruiser design was sound? For its intended purpose of fleet scouting, hunting cruisers and trade protection, the battlecruiser design was sound. The battle of the Falklands was exactly what they had been designed to be used for. The BC is the logical evolution of the earlier armoured cruiser design using the same logic that led to dreadnought while trading armour for speed. They were never intended to engage the enemy's main battlefleet but only to hang out on the edges of the battle scouting and denying the enemy the ability to perform their own scouting. Note that the battlecruiser type design didn't actually go away. Instead it evolved and merged with the dreadnought into the fast battleship design best exemplified by the Iowas. Zeond fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Dec 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 19:40
|
|
|
Zeond posted:
Except, that they were supposed to provide support for the main battle fleet if required, as an additional wing. Which would subject them to possible return fire of a calibre that they were not armored for. IMO, in the view of the original BC design as Fisher/The British envisioned, it was flawed. It was only until the fast battleship that the design flaws were rectified due to increases in technology. What is interesting is that of all the BC battles, the most important was probably Dogger Bank, which could easily have turned catastrophic for the British as what happened at Jutland. In theory, the usage of BCs didn't take into account that the enemy would also have their own BCs, so now you have two battle lines trading shots that neither are armored against. (Reality of German ships being much more armored notwithstanding) Saint Celestine fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Dec 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 20:04
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I mean maybe the Soviets aren't the best "gotcha" to use here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 20:28
|
|
|
Siivola posted:That's C. N. Annadurai's funeral in Chennai, India in 1969. About 15 million people showed up. All right well Google Image Search can gently caress right off then.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 21:01
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Behold, the Nazis I mean the scene there in a New Hope clearly is evoking Triumph of the Will; probably because it's probably so striking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 21:03
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:All right well Google Image Search can gently caress right off then.  I hate how Google just guesses what's on the image and then insists on showing you results based on that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 21:07
|
|
|
On the oil vs. coal topic. When did navies switch from burning oil to combustion engines? I know subs had diesels from the beginning, but what about surface fleets?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 21:13
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Except, that they were supposed to provide support for the main battle fleet if required, as an additional wing. Which would subject them to possible return fire of a calibre that they were not armored for. IMO, in the view of the original BC design as Fisher/The British envisioned, it was flawed. It was only until the fast battleship that the design flaws were rectified due to increases in technology. I'd argue that that's an issue of use rather than design. All designs are compromises and ship design is the art of finding the best possible mix of armament, speed and protection for a given displacement and intended, but not actual, use. It's like using a wooden 2x4 to drive a nail when you lack a hammer. It may work but the results won't be good or pretty. It's not fair to blame designers when ships are placed in unintended situations either by happenstance or by glory-hound admirals. Everyone focuses on the battlecruisers at Jutland but the armoured cruisers such as Defence and Warrior were just as out of place in the battle and faired just as badly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 21:16
|
|
|
Unless I've been following all the wrong sources, the battlecruisers exploded due to unsafe ammunition-handling practices. If they'd kept things buttoned up, they'd have been a lot less likely to sink, and certainly the body count would have been lower. None of that is to say that if I had to go into battle on a battlecruiser, I wouldn't have preferred to ride in a German model.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 21:24
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Except, that they were supposed to provide support for the main battle fleet if required, as an additional wing. Which would subject them to possible return fire of a calibre that they were not armored for. IMO, in the view of the original BC design as Fisher/The British envisioned, it was flawed. It was only until the fast battleship that the design flaws were rectified due to increases in technology. The battlecruiser was perfectly sound as a fast wing of the battlefleet. At Jutland, the British ships were compromised not by any lack of armour, but by poor storage of propellants. British propellants were more volatile and flammable than German ones, especially when old. Crews often left old cordite charges aboard, rather than changing them as frequently as they were supposed to. They also often failed to store the charges properly, which caused the loss of the pre-dreadnought Bulwark in 1914, the armoured cruiser Natal in 1915, and Vanguard in 1917, all to accidental explosions. The RN's main takeaway from Dogger Bank was that the Battlecruiser Fleet needed to raise their rates of fire. Accuracy at the battle was low, roughly 2%. The BCF had no protected gunnery range at its base at Rosyth, so couldn't train for accuracy without risking losing a battlecruiser to mines or submarines. Raising the rate of fire was easier to train, but required the turret crews to compromise safety standards. More ammunition was stored in the turrets and placed in the hoists, and on some ships, the crews might have altered the anti-flash protections, speeding up the hoists. On Lion, though, the gunner was replaced in June 1915. The new gunner, Alexander Grant, replaced the ship's stored cordite with completely new charges, and instituted safer procedures while maintaining a high rate of fire. In particular, he reduced the number of charges stored in the turrets. At Jutland, the three battlecruisers exploded after turret hits. These were on the gunhouse or barbette, the above-decks portion of the turrets, rather than the handling chambers or magazines belowdecks. There's direct eyewitness evidence from aboard Invincible of the hit on the turret that exploded, both from inside and outside it. There's no such evidence from either Queen Mary or Indefatigable, though one of the other hits on Queen Mary did start a fire in a turret, from which we have survivor testimony. However, reports from observers on other ships indicate that the explosions occurred slightly after hits on turrets. Lion would survive a turret hit which started a major fire in the turret's handling chamber. Lion survived this hit because the reforms implemented by her gunner slowed the spread of the fire. On the three ships that exploded, there was a direct train of cordite from the turrets to the magazines, especially if the flash protection was compromised. On Lion, there were no charges in the gunhouse, meaning that the fire was minor in its early stages. The flash protection was in place, and the hoists were down, meaning there was no path for the flash of the shell or initial stages of the fire to reach the handling chamber and magazine. It was only once molten lead from burning cables dripped into the handling chamber that the main fire started. She survived this because the gap between initial hit and the fire entering the handling chamber was long enough for damage control to take place, with the magazine being flooded. Had the crew fought the fire in the gunhouse better, and ensured it was completely out, the cordite fire would never have started. On the other three ships, the fire reached the magazine within minutes, if not seconds, to quick for anything to be done to stop it. The German ships had thicker armour, but the effect of this is hard to discern because British shells were worse than German ones (only 27% of British shells operated correctly, compared to 63% of German ones, even on thinner armour). However, it's clear that turret fires were started at similar rates. There were nine hits on British turrets, with four fires started, as compared to five fires from ten hits on German ships. The German ships survived because their propellants were inherently safer, and because fewer charges were exposed to fire. The Germans had nearly lost the battlecruiser Seydlitz to a turret fire at Dogger Bank; this fire had been caused by a shell which did not fully penetrate the armour, but caused spalling which ignited charges. The near-loss of Seydlitz caused the Germans to reduce the number of charges stored in their turrets, and in transit, reducing the severity of the fires at Jutland. It's worth noting that Derfflinger, which had the most serious fires of the German ships, had the most charges left exposed to fire. Had the British followed the German example, or the example of Lion, it's likely that none of the battlecruisers would have exploded. Increasing the armour would reduce, but not eliminate the risk, as long as poor procedures were followed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 21:24
|
|
|
I have a thought experiment I was wondering about the other day. If you were given access to modern shipbuilding knowledge/science/computer modeling, but needed to build a ship using only techniques, budgets and materials that might be available to a major naval power in the early 1800's, could you make a fighting ship that would be noticeably superior to leading examples of the time. I assume yes, even just on superior understanding of hydrodynamics and rigging, but I'm interested on hearing from people who have more knowledge than I do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 21:33
|
|
|
comedy answer: pykrete iceberg ships
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 21:37
|
|
|
Lemony posted:I have a thought experiment I was wondering about the other day. If you were given access to modern shipbuilding knowledge/science/computer modeling, but needed to build a ship using only techniques, budgets and materials that might be available to a major naval power in the early 1800's, could you make a fighting ship that would be noticeably superior to leading examples of the time. I assume yes, even just on superior understanding of hydrodynamics and rigging, but I'm interested on hearing from people who have more knowledge than I do. Aside from the cheap shot answer where you scoop Humphreys on diagonal bracing, I wonder what sort of laminates you could produce using old technology? I know that some ultramodern laminates are stronger (in what way, I do not recall) and lighter than steel. I doubt you could do that with 19th century glue, but I have no idea how much of the strength of modern laminates comes from the glue vs the technique. If if you had to hand-make them on an artisanal basis, being able to make critical bits out of superior materials might be a huge advantage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 21:45
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Except, that they were supposed to provide support for the main battle fleet if required, as an additional wing. Which would subject them to possible return fire of a calibre that they were not armored for. IMO, in the view of the original BC design as Fisher/The British envisioned, it was flawed. It was only until the fast battleship that the design flaws were rectified due to increases in technology. Let us imagine that the RN does not build these flawed battlecruisers but the Germans do. Dogger Bank is neither a victory nor a catastrophe because it simply does not happen. German battlecruisers range up and down the British coast, bombarding at will, until public pressure forces the Admiralty to penny-packet battleships out to man the entire coast at which point the HSF can defeat the RN in detail, starve Britain out and win the war. The battlecruiser is a critical part of any early 20th Century fleet until engine and design technology allows the true fast battleship to be built.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 21:56
|
|
|
Lemony posted:I have a thought experiment I was wondering about the other day. If you were given access to modern shipbuilding knowledge/science/computer modeling, but needed to build a ship using only techniques, budgets and materials that might be available to a major naval power in the early 1800's, could you make a fighting ship that would be noticeably superior to leading examples of the time. I assume yes, even just on superior understanding of hydrodynamics and rigging, but I'm interested on hearing from people who have more knowledge than I do. Brown in Warrior to Dreadnought makes a big deal of the Admiralty Experiment Works which gave the RN a significant advantage in hull form and propeller design starting in the 1880s. The AEW ran thousands of ship models on a tank and compiled this empirical data into what were known as the Iso-K books. The end result of these experiments were that RN ships were handier and speedier for a given engine power compared to their contemporaries. Materials and hull fouling notwithstanding, this data can easily be applied to make a better sailing ship.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 22:01
|
|
|
ChubbyChecker posted:
i'm back from vacation and catching up to thread and I think that European "glaive" certainly looks very similar to the Asian weapons. Hard to say anything more about it though when this image is the only record that it ever existed. Also I bet similar slings were used in East Asia. I imagine the longer your weapon the more difficult it is to juggle them while also using a bow. I have no evidence of this but I suspect it might be related to why from the late 16th century as Japanese cavalry shifted away from a focus on mounted archery they switched from naginata to longer yari that probably couldn't be balanced with a sling. I found a video demonstrating their use, notice even though the blade is straight all the strikes with the yari are still cuts, which I find interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LA46V6sWDpg Randarkman posted:Pastoral nomads are really quite different from hunter-gatherers, and largely are a by-product of agricultural society. I would say the general consensus on (nomadic, tropical) hunter gatherers is that they are very egalitarian relative to every other kind of economy, and do not have any system that we might call patriarchy. This is related to what v. Ilyich said. They tend to have effectively no property of any value, and everyone performs the same subsistence labor. There are typically no chiefs, priests, witch doctors, or any kind of formally defined social hierarchies. Among Malaysian negritos and Congolese Bambuti people all hunted meat is divided equally within the band. The only form of division of labor is between men and women, but even that division tends not to be very hard relative to agriculturalists. The lack of property and social hierarchy makes any custom resembling patriarchy more-or-less impossible. If a woman runs away from her husband and goes back to her parents, he has no recourse to get her back against her will. There is no bride price he can demand back in exchange, so the family has no reason to send her back. Neither he nor anyone else in his band has the time to get her by force, they need to spend their energy getting food, nor have they any means to keep her in place if they had her. That said, just because there isn't any system we can call patriarchy, doesn't mean gender relations were perfect. I remember Colin Turnbull in his study of the Mbuti people spent a lot of ink describing how great and equal gender relations were for them compared to the neighboring Bantu. However he also recounted one anecdote of a guy suddenly beating the poo poo out of his wife in the middle of his village, and everyone just ignored it as it happened. What were they supposed to do? Like fights between men it was seen as the couple's business. If she didn't like it she could leave, but it wasn't anyone else's job to interfere in their relationship.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 22:02
|
|
|
VictualSquid posted:I know subs had diesels from the beginning #notallsubs
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 22:08
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:(Reality of German ships being much more armored notwithstanding) Could you throw a source behind this claim? I don't exactly have any firsthand experience myself to draw on with regard to the thickness of german vs british armor, but I do still have this The Grand Fleet book that claims the german and british armor was almost identical in performance during the postwar trials using the salvaged german battleship Baden on 29th of september 1921. a massive issue during the war was the fact that the british shells were utterly inferior to the german ones. they were more unstable and prone to unintended discharges and their casings were brittle on the shoulders so they would shatter at impact if they hit on the wrong angle (which happened to be the new average impact angle due to increases in gunnery ranges). The Admiralty tried to upgrade their shells to TNT based shells instead of Lyddite-filled shells, but for those to work, a new fuse would be needed. Said fuse was invented and pattented på Krupp who were unwilling to license the design to the British. Fake Edit: Actually im wrong about the armor. Aside from Baden having a coal bunker directly behind its armor to further mitigate the force of the impact and alot of the shrapnel, Baden did indeed have 13 and 3/4 inch armor plates compared with Royal Sovereign as well as Queen Elizabeth having no coal bunker and 13inch armor. However, the Baden had a lower profile and only a third of the ship that was above waterline had 13 3/4 inches. the next third had 9½inches and the final third had 6 1/4. Royal sovereign and Queen Elizabeth had 13inches for about a third and then 6 inches for the other two thirds. Queen Elizabeth had a sloped 6inch armor for its center third.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 22:13
|
|
|
I get the impression this is one of those projects that everyone kind of knows is a bad idea, but you've got to do it to show the boss why you should never do it again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 22:36
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:the smol fat plane liker has logged on I like it for the bizarre and colorful monastic karate laser sword fighting, so it's like I'm in bizarro world when I'm around people talking about it, since everyone who has an opinion seems to want more FPS-style military activities, but in exotic backgrounds.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 22:44
|
|
|
SerthVarnee posted:Could you throw a source behind this claim? I don't exactly have any firsthand experience myself to draw on with regard to the thickness of german vs british armor, but I do still have this The Grand Fleet book that claims the german and british armor was almost identical in performance during the postwar trials using the salvaged german battleship Baden on 29th of september 1921. Comparing battlecruisers only, (its not really fair to compare a BC to a QE class...)- I'm using German Battlecruisers of World War One by Gary Staff- You've got Invincible with 152mm belt, with a 38 mm angled turtleback scheme over the machinery. Compared to Von der Tann, sporting 250mm belt, 225mm upper belt, with a 50mm angle, AND a torpedo bulkhead at 25mm. Dogger bank could have very easily gone in either direction. British almost lost Lion, Germans almost lost Seydlitz, the design of BCs, especially the British ones, shows that you can't really rely on them in a situation where they are subject to fire that they aren't armoured against.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 23:59
|
|
|
Siivola posted:That's C. N. Annadurai's funeral in Chennai, India in 1969. About 15 million people showed up. Eh, it's a manifestation to mark Stalin's funeral. The point being, the Nazis don't have a monopoly on standing in lines.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 00:10
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Except, that they were supposed to provide support for the main battle fleet if required, as an additional wing. Which would subject them to possible return fire of a calibre that they were not armored for. IMO, in the view of the original BC design as Fisher/The British envisioned, it was flawed. It was only until the fast battleship that the design flaws were rectified due to increases in technology. There's only so many ways to make the tradeoff of speed, armor and armament. The German BCs were armored better, but their guns weren't particularly threatening to anything other than British BCs and old BBs. SMS Lützow sank for a reason, despite being one of the newest and best protected German BCs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 00:12
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:There's only so many ways to make the tradeoff of speed, armor and armament. The German BCs were armored better, but their guns weren't particularly threatening to anything other than British BCs and old BBs. SMS Lützow sank for a reason, despite being one of the newest and best protected German BCs. That reason was as much to do with German failures of design and damage control. After all, the hits that did most damage to Lutzow were 12in shells from Invincible and Inflexible, shells that were only about 20lb heavier than Lutzow's own shells. While German ships were arguably better sub-divided than British ships, they had more large compartments outside the areas with thickest armour - especially the forward torpedo flat, the main culprit for Lutzow's sinking. The bulkheads between compartments on German ships were also not fully watertight. There were a lot of voicepipes, cableways, and ventilation trunks running through them, and these penetrations were not easily closed by valves. Finally, German ships had insufficient pumping capacity to counteract heavy flooding. British ships started the war with similar problems, but the loss of Audacious to flooding after a relatively small mine strike in 1914 showed that they were issues that needed to be fixed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 00:32
|
|
|
Randomcheese3 posted:That reason was as much to do with German failures of design and damage control. After all, the hits that did most damage to Lutzow were 12in shells from Invincible and Inflexible, shells that were only about 20lb heavier than Lutzow's own shells. While German ships were arguably better sub-divided than British ships, they had more large compartments outside the areas with thickest armour - especially the forward torpedo flat, the main culprit for Lutzow's sinking. The bulkheads between compartments on German ships were also not fully watertight. There were a lot of voicepipes, cableways, and ventilation trunks running through them, and these penetrations were not easily closed by valves. Finally, German ships had insufficient pumping capacity to counteract heavy flooding. British ships started the war with similar problems, but the loss of Audacious to flooding after a relatively small mine strike in 1914 showed that they were issues that needed to be fixed. That's a point, would the 11" shells their German contemporaries would have been throwing done significantly worse outside the major armor?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 01:07
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Comparing battlecruisers only, (its not really fair to compare a BC to a QE class...)- You're comparing apples to oranges here. Invincible was laid down in April 1906 and Von der Tann in March 1908. The decade prior to WWI was one of massive improvements in naval design and technology. Those two years make a big difference and VdT was built in response to Invincible. A closer German contemporary would be Blücher which had armour up to 18cm and 21cm guns due to the British disinformation campaign which convinced the Germans that Invincible was armed with 8 or 9.2-inch guns. In addition, German design considerations were significantly different from British considerations. German capital ships were designed to operate only in the North sea for short periods of time and sacrificed range and crew facilities to improve survivability. British battlecruisers were designed not only for fleet scouting but also to protect their world-wide empire and their vital shipping routes from commerce raiders which led to compromises in armour over range, speed and armament.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 01:08
|
|
|
Zeond posted:You're comparing apples to oranges here. Invincible was laid down in April 1906 and Von der Tann in March 1908. The decade prior to WWI was one of massive improvements in naval design and technology. Those two years make a big difference and VdT was built in response to Invincible. A closer German contemporary would be Blücher which had armour up to 18cm and 21cm guns due to the British disinformation campaign which convinced the Germans that Invincible was armed with 8 or 9.2-inch guns. How is a comparison between the first German BC and first British BC apples and oranges, its two years. Apples and oranges would be comparing Invincible to Derfflinger. The ships are roughly similar except for the naval doctrines that defined their designs. German thought was that these ships would inevitably find themselves in the main battle line, and armored them sufficiently for it. British thought was fleet scout and vs cruisers. Lets take the succeeding classes then - Indefatigable (1909) - same problematic light armor scheme. Lets take something much later, which truly would be apples to oranges - Renown (1916) - different armor layout, but still the same thickness. Much bigger guns, but again , you have the problem of not being able to take hits, which is a problem when you are using the ship in Jutland-type grand battle. Saint Celestine fucked around with this message at 02:01 on Dec 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 01:57
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Eh, it's a manifestation to mark Stalin's funeral. The point being, the Nazis don't have a monopoly on standing in lines. The ANH scene is definitely quoting Triumph of the Will. It’s not just ‘people in line.’ Why would Lucas, who is a skilled, intelligent, and pretty actively left-wing filmmaker with a particular bent for visual storytelling, choose to draw an analogy between the triumph of the Rebellion over the Empire and the ascendency of the Nazis? (It’s because the ANH rebels are merely vying for control of the evil empire rather than trying to abolish it) To make at least some attempt at inflecting this derail towards milhist, a fun little fact: George Lucas and Hitler were simultaneously alive for 351 days.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 02:16
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:The ships are roughly similar except for the naval doctrines that defined their designs. That right there is my main point. Designers don't build up a whole class of brand new ships and expect their respective admiralties to find proper uses for them. Instead the admiralties come up with design requirements and constraints that the designers do their best to accommodate. You were comparing the armour thickness of Invincible to Von der Tann while ignoring that the latter was built in response to the former and that Invincible and British battlecruisers had been designed to fulfill roles for which the German BCs were not. All designs are compromises and while the ability to take and absorb damage is important, it was secondary to other considerations in the design of British battlecruisers. In a nutshell, British BC considerations can be summarized as armament > speed > range > survivability and German BCs as survivabilty/armament > speed > range. quote:Lets take the succeeding classes then - Indefatigable (1909) - same problematic light armor scheme. Renown was still designed and built in a pre-Jutland British mindset to fulfill the same roles as earlier BCs. Post Jutland British design doctrines and priorities did change which resulted in a massive redesign to Hood. If not for that unluckly hit, Hood might have held up well against Bismarck. Fisher's follies, on the other hand, really had no reason to exist in their original configurations. The best thing that can be said about these mistakes is that some provided adequate service as aircraft carriers in WWII. Zeond fucked around with this message at 02:46 on Dec 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 02:38
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:How is a comparison between the first German BC and first British BC apples and oranges, its two years. Apples and oranges would be comparing Invincible to Derfflinger. The ships are roughly similar except for the naval doctrines that defined their designs. German thought was that these ships would inevitably find themselves in the main battle line, and armored them sufficiently for it. British thought was fleet scout and vs cruisers. The belt was half again thicker on the Lions (plus the guns going to 13.5"), which are a pretty good example of what a mere two years can do. The R class was a reversion, presumably to get an utterly blistering speed of 32 knots, the doctrinal reasons for which I'm less confident of.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 02:40
|
|
|
That my entire point. British and German doctrines defined what kind of BC would be built. The Germans anticipated correctly that these ships would end up in the main battle line, and designed appropriately. The British designed them for scouting and support, with unfortunate results.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 02:42
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:That's a point, would the 11" shells their German contemporaries would have been throwing done significantly worse outside the major armor? The bursting charge on the German 11in armour-piercing shell was about 20 lbs, while that on the British 12in was 26lb or 27lb (depending on model of shell). The 12in did have a heavier HE shell, though I don't have numbers for the bursting charge in the German shell. The difference in bursting charge probably wouldn't have made much difference in less-armoured areas. If Lutzow had been hit with 11in, rather than 12in shells, she would probably have suffered the same fate. Saint Celestine posted:How is a comparison between the first German BC and first British BC apples and oranges, its two years. Apples and oranges would be comparing Invincible to Derfflinger. The ships are roughly similar except for the naval doctrines that defined their designs. German thought was that these ships would inevitably find themselves in the main battle line, and armored them sufficiently for it. British thought was fleet scout and vs cruisers. Firstly, the British were absolutely planning to use their battlecruisers in the battleline. Fisher had been long interested in a 'composite' design, one capable of both performing cruiser warfare and fighting as a battleship. British exercises towards the end of the 19th and during the first few years of the 20th Century showed the utility of fast ships in the battleline. They were also influenced by the successful use of armoured cruisers in this role during the Russo-Japanese war. The idea that the battlecruisers weren't intended for use as a fast wing of the battlefleet only really shows up post-Jutland, as a way to exonerate Fisher for their perceived failings. Secondly, the British ships weren't that badly protected compared to other British ships. While their armour was thinner, the belt of the Invincibles was in line with those fitted to other ships intended to lie in the battleline. It was the same thickness as on the Canopus class battleships, and on earlier British armoured cruisers, similarly intended for close fleet work. The British tended to prioritise thinner armour spread over more of the ship, as they were more concerned with the effect of HE shells on unarmoured areas of the ship. The armour on the Indefatigables was a misstep, but the Lions and Tiger had thicker belts more in line with German practice. The Renowns had thin armour, yes, but this must be understood in terms of Fisher's thinking. With her 15in guns, she could outrange most enemy capital ships, and with her 32 knot speed, she could keep the enemy ship in a range where her guns were effective, but her opponent's were not. The British ships could definitely take hits. The losses of the British battlecruisers at Jutland were not caused by a lack of armour, but by poor magazine practices. Where turret hits didn't cause magazine fires, the ships displayed a remarkable ability to keep fighting. Tiger took 15 hits at Jutland, joint most of any British capital ship with Warspite. Warspite had to limp back to the UK, heavily damaged, while Tiger was in a position to continue fighting. Lion took 16 heavy hits at Dogger Bank and 13 at Jutland, but was never in any serious danger of sinking at either battle. Had the British crews been following proper procedures for propellant storage and handling, it's likely that every British battlecruiser would have successfully returned to Rosyth. Randomcheese3 fucked around with this message at 03:07 on Dec 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 03:02
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:That my entire point. British and German doctrines defined what kind of BC would be built. The Germans anticipated correctly that these ships would end up in the main battle line, and designed appropriately. The British designed them for scouting and support, with unfortunate results. I think we can all agree there. It's not that British BC designs were unsound for the uses for which they were designed but that they were used in ways which their designers couldn't anticipate due to the constraints placed upon them. Should a designer have pushed for thicker and more armour? In hindsight, yes. But that would have come at the cost of reduced speed, range and armament. Once again, I point to the battle of the Falklands as the battle that BCs were expected to fight. Their high speed was supposed to enable them to run away from anything that could out-gun or out-survive them in a prolonged engagement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 03:03
|
|
|
I did the thing where you scroll backwards through the wiki entries of all the battleships and just learned that the 1876 HMS Inflexible had "what the gently caress" thick armor...a 300mm belt, then 280mm of teak, then 300 mm MORE steel, then 150mm MORE teak. Could the Iowas or Yamati have popped that armor at a reasonable combat distance?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 03:13
|
|
|
What I'm saying is the R class is an anomaly from the trend even of british battlecruisers, having thinner armor than the preceding Lion, Queen Mary, and Tiger. The follow ons were the large light cruisers in all their exceedingly dubious glory but then the admirals get right back on the trend of thickening up. Also, is the fast battleship part of an intentional decision to fill BC roles or a mix of needing to keep up with the carriers and each successive knot after 30 taking a ton of effort to get so you may as well armor even something intended to be very fast? bewbies posted:I did the thing where you scroll backwards through the wiki entries of all the battleships and just learned that the 1876 HMS Inflexible had "what the gently caress" thick armor...a 300mm belt, then 280mm of teak, then 300 mm MORE steel, then 150mm MORE teak. What steel? There's a huge difference between steel and steel after all! 300mm is battleship belt thickness, the Yamato's mantlets, the thickest armor steel floated, were 660mm and pretty much impervious to anything including her own guns at point blank. Thing is 300mm twice isn't 60mm, and 1876 steel isn't krupp cemented. xthetenth fucked around with this message at 03:25 on Dec 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 03:15
|
|
|
^^ Yamato's mantlet could be penetrated by the 16"/50 at particular angles and at a short enough range. http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-040.php bewbies posted:I did the thing where you scroll backwards through the wiki entries of all the battleships and just learned that the 1876 HMS Inflexible had "what the gently caress" thick armor...a 300mm belt, then 280mm of teak, then 300 mm MORE steel, then 150mm MORE teak. Your regular ol 12" model 1903 would probably have easily penetrated Inflexible or at least caused severe spalling. Keep in mind the armor development. 1876 Armor is pretty much Iron plate. Not much difference from Civil war ear plate. Then you get into Compound armor, then Nickel-Steel, then a Harvey process, then the modernish Krupp armor. All of which are increasingly more effective for the weight and thickness. Randomcheese3 posted:The British ships could definitely take hits. The losses of the British battlecruisers at Jutland were not caused by a lack of armour, but by poor magazine practices. Where turret hits didn't cause magazine fires, the ships displayed a remarkable ability to keep fighting. Tiger took 15 hits at Jutland, joint most of any British capital ship with Warspite. Warspite had to limp back to the UK, heavily damaged, while Tiger was in a position to continue fighting. Lion took 16 heavy hits at Dogger Bank and 13 at Jutland, but was never in any serious danger of sinking at either battle. Had the British crews been following proper procedures for propellant storage and handling, it's likely that every British battlecruiser would have successfully returned to Rosyth. Sure, they took hit, mostly from 11" and 12". Replace the German BCs with the British BCs, and Scheer's 2nd turn most likely results in 5 sunken BCs. Comparatively, look at the beating Seydlitz took and somehow made it back to port. Saint Celestine fucked around with this message at 03:33 on Dec 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 03:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 00:44 |
|
|
bewbies posted:I did the thing where you scroll backwards through the wiki entries of all the battleships and just learned that the 1876 HMS Inflexible had "what the gently caress" thick armor...a 300mm belt, then 280mm of teak, then 300 mm MORE steel, then 150mm MORE teak. Almost certainly. Wrought iron armour was quite soft compared to later steel armour. For example, WWI vintage Krupp Cemented armour was considered to be more than twice as effective for a given thickness compared to an equivalent thickness of wrought iron. There's a table somewhere in Brown's Warrior to Dreadnought that compares armour thickness in British pre-dreads in wrought iron equivalents and the latter pre-dreads come in at 24 to 36 inches of equivalent wrought iron armour.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 03:31
|
|