Comments by "Steve Valley" (@stevevalley7835) on "The Drydock - Episode 136" video.
-
10
-
wrt the New Yorks using VTE power, the Wiki entry gives a somewhat different answer to that question. The Floridas and Wyomings used Parsons turbines, from the UK. When the New Yorks were ordered, there was apparently pressure to "buy American", but the US turbine manufacturers could not meet the Navy's performance specifications, so the Navy reverted to VTE. Of the next class, Oklahoma still had VTE power, while Nevada used Curtis turbines, then the Pennsylvanias were a head to head comparison of Curtis and Parsons turbines. It is entirely possible that Parsons understood something about turbine efficiency that Curtis did not. There had been earlier head to head comparisons, where the USN would build one BB with VTE power, and it's sister with Curtis turbines and the Curtis powered ships were horribly inefficient. The range and coal capacity for the two classes is incomplete in the 1919 edition of Jane's and somewhat divergent in the Wiki entries, but there is some indication that the Parsons turbines were quite competitive with VTE. The 1919 edition of Jane's also reports an inability/unwillingness of US turbine manufacturers to meet USN specifications motivating the reversion to VTE.
4
-
2
-
@bkjeong4302 That question has crossed my mind too. Most navies had been settled in at 12", for a while. European next evolution seemed to always be a hair under 14". The Brits went to 13.5", French 13.4", German 13.8". Then those three, plus Italy, which got big gun technology from Vickers and Armstrong, went to 15". Japan, in spite of it's close ties to the RN, went to 14", then 16", following the US pattern. The first cause that comes to mind is the various gun development programs are following the evolution of forging equipment, Europe went to 15" during WWI because that was the largest/longest tube the Brits and Germans could forge? But the Japanese bought forging equipment from the US, and US forging technology was at a slightly different pace than in Europe? I really don't know. Don't even have any sort of evidence based suspicion.
2
-
@Nemisiscreed I read an account a while back, it might have been in "Big Gun Monitors" that, in retrospect, was hilarious. The normal routine for monitor operations along the occupied Belgian/French coast was for the monitors to drop anchor out of range of the German batteries, rig a torpedo net to their seaward side, and lob shells into a rail yard or canal for several hours, then head back to England for tea. The Germans had installed a new 11" gun, without the British observing the work. One day, monitors showed up near the new gun. The Germans held their fire as the monitors did their normal routine of dropping anchor and rigging torpedo nets, well within the 11" gun's range. Then the battery opened up, showering the monitors with shells. Some of these monitors could only make about 7kts, so they were desperately trying to waddle their way out of range as the Germans were trying to get zeroed in on them. I don't recall now, if the Germans scored a solid hit on any of the monitors, but, iirc, one shell did go through the torpedo bulge of one of them.
1
-
1