Comments by "Steve Valley" (@stevevalley7835) on "The Drydock - Episode 173" video.
-
Several of the standards were reboilered with boilers left over from the cancelled South Dakota program, so would have been state of the art circa 1919. I know that the New Mexicos were reengined with new geared turbines in the early 30s. New Mexico herself had been built with turbo-electric drive, but the hull arrangement had not been specifically designed for TE drive, so it was possible to retrofit geared turbines. North Dakota had been built with Curtis turbines, which were a failure, so she received new geared turbines in 1917, When North Dakota was scrapped, those newer turbines were reinstalled in another battleship. wrt gun elevation changes, the WNT prohibits altering the "general type" of existing mounts. When the USN wanted to increase elevation, there were, lets say vigorous discussions between the US and UK whether that violated the treaty clause prohibiting altering the "general type" of mount.
3
-
I posted a comment related to this earlier, which the net seems to have eaten. There was a debate in the USN on this very topic during WWI. The head of BuOrd from 1913-16, Admiral Strauss, seemed dead set against the 16"/45. Strauss seems to have been of the opinion that optical gun direction systems would never be improved, and battleships would never engage at more than 12,000 yards. In his view, the greater range and long range penetration ability of the 16"/45 was unneeded, while the 14"/50 penetrated well enough at less than 12,000 yards, and, being lighter, more could be mounted on a ship. The 14"/50 could not penetrate battleship belt thickness armor at more than 12,000. In the 1915 BuOrd annual report, Strauss sneers at the mounts in the Tennessees being designed for 30 degrees of elevation, vs the 15 degrees of the New Mexicoes, because, in his view, that much elevation will never be needed. Even more disturbing, was the disinformation about the 16" being fed to American newspapers at that time. One story that appeared in several papers in early 1915, a couple months after the Battle of Dogger Bank, which proved that capital ships could engage at much greater distance than 12,000 yards, said that the 16" suffered very high erosion, the British 15"/42 only had a life of 100 rounds, and the 14"/50 was more durable. Barrel life data on Navweaps shows exactly the opposite: the early 15" and 16" both more durable than the 14". In an article published in early 1916, Strauss is directly quoted as saying the 14" is the equal of the 15"/42, and, again, rattles on about how USN guns can penetrate "heavy armor" at 12,000 yards. A few months later, the Battle of Jutland, again, demonstrated that battles can be carried out at far grater ranges than the 12,000 that Strauss kept rattling on about. Strauss had his way with the New Mexicoes and Tennessees, but, the need to reach and penetrate at ranges of 15,000-20,000 yards, having been demonstrated twice, SecNav Daniels announced the Coloradoes would be armed with 16" guns. In the 1916 SecNav annual report, Daniels says the move to 16" is being made over the objection of some Naval officers. Also in late 16, Strauss was transferred out of BuOrd and given sea duty.
2
-
Did some more reading on this issue last night. The 16"/45 completed trials in late 1914. To get the 14"/50 on the New Mexicos, instead of the 16"/45, they were ordered off the drawing board, without a prototype being built and tested. A prototype 14"/50 finally completed trials in August, 1915. In July, 1916, SecNav Daniels announced that, due to multiple examples from the war, the next generation of BBs would have 16" guns. On December 21st of 1916, months after the train had left the station wrt what size guns future BBs would have, Strauss was quoted in newspapers, again, promoting the 14" and insisting BBs would never engage at more than 12,000-13,000 yards. On December 30th, Strauss was transferred out of BuOrd, to command Nevada. Seems like Strauss was stubborn to the edge of irrationality in his promotion of the 14". Without his obstruction, it's quite possible the New Mexicos would have had the 16", and probable that the Tennessees would have had the 16". Wonder how that would have impacted terms of the WNT? The Admiralty could not build 8 Nelsons. By Drac's work, the 16", in improved 1930s form, was slightly inferior to the 15"/42, implying that a US argument that, while the 16" had a bigger bore, it was actually the equal of the 15" and no more, so the US BBs were actually comparable to the Revenges and Queen Elizabeths. But the data Drac was using for his comparisons would have been secret at the time.
1
-
1