Comments by "Steve Valley" (@stevevalley7835) on "The Drydock - Episode 226" video.

  1. Thanks for your reply to my question about Courageous. I am satisfied that Furious was intended as a test bed for the 18". The design was in hand, could be built quickly, and, was large enough to carry the 18" guns. Since posting that question, I found a letter on The Dreadnought Project: Fisher to d'Eyncourt, saying words to the effect that the Baltic operation was "the story we will use to sell them to Cabinet", which makes it sound like the Baltic op was not what Fisher really had in mind, but only an excuse to build them. In that letter, Fisher also says having the draft be 22 1/2 feet or less was imperative. The draft was the only parameter laid out in that letter that Courageous missed, by a wide margin. Renown's draft was some 5 feet less than Revenge, but Courageous' draft was only some 14 inches less than Renown, so hardly seems worth the bother. I tried redesigning Courageous in SpringSharp to see if I could get to that 22 1/2 foot draft. Could not make the hull any flimsier, so replaced the two twin 15" with three twin 9.2" turrets borrowed from Lord Nelson pre-dreadnoughts, to reduce weight. Only reduced the draft to 24 1/2 feet. It could be a matter of Fisher seeing those unused 15" turrets and deciding he would see them used, for something, other than a monitor, and Courageous was what he came up with, to have the turrets put to use, much as the construction of Vanguard was due to the availability of those same four turrets.
    22
  2. wrt the Anglo-Japanese alliance, the version I have read was that the alliance was intended to use Japan as a counterbalance to both the Germans and Russians in the Pacific. Germany purchased the Spanish colonies in the Pacific that the US had not rolled up in 98, including the Marianas, less Guam, the Carolines, and Palau, adding them to their existing colonies in the Marshalls, New Guinea, and other islands around the Bismark Sea, in 1899. The Anglo-Japanese alliance was formed in 1902. Japan rolled up the German colonies in WWI, and was given a mandate to hold the former German colonies north of the equator by the League of Nations. So Germany was no longer a threat to UK interests in the Pacific. The Soviets were still securing their position in Russia, so they were not much of a threat to the UK in the Pacific. I am thinking the Anglo-Japanese alliance had outlived it's usefulness to the UK. Additionally, having rolled up the German colonies, there were not many directions Japan could further expand it's empire, without bumping in to European interests. China was about the only independent nation in the area, and even there, the Japanese ran into European business interests. What was there in eastern Russia that would attract the Japanese? There is significant oil and coal production in eastern Russia now, but what was there in 1920, that would attract Japanese interest?
    10
  3. wrt the question of barrel wear between French and Italian ships. Drac touched on it at the last moment, the quality of the steel used in the gun. I was reading Friedman on WWI naval weapons recently. Friedman mentions a couple things: the quality of the steel, and the combustion temperature of the propellant. British analysis of captured German guns after WWI showed the Germans were using much higher quality steel than the UK used, which enabled much greater barrel life. Estimates were that the German guns cost 5 to 6 times as much to build as British guns, but the superior material lead to much greater barrel life. The lower combustion temperature of the German propellant was another contributor to barrel life. That being said, I have noticed that the barrel life for German guns on Navweaps is in line with UK guns, so I am not sure about who is right.
    1