Comments by "Steve Valley" (@stevevalley7835) on "The Drydock - Episode 269" video.
-
wrt the USN abandoning the "standard battleship" template, that is one of the historical pivot points that could have gone in a different direction very easily. The 1916 Navy Act specified a price limit for the first 4 battleships, the Colorados, but had no price limit for the other 6. The battleships being drawn starting in 1917, were 42,000 ton, 23kt concepts, using the newly developed 16"/50. Three of the Colorados were suspended before they were laid down, due to wartime change in priority. In June of 1918, Congress added language to the annual Naval appropriation bill compelling the Navy to make a start on the ships that had been authorized in 1916, but not started, due to the wartime change in priority, meaning the balance of the Colorados, Lexingtons, and South Dakotas. Meanwhile, BuOrd had ordered 14"/50s for the battlecruisers, when they were originally ordered, which were now surplus because the battlecruiser design had evolved to using the 16"/50. Were I in Daniels' shoes in June 1918, I would have proposed to Congress cancelling the three Colorados, as the previous decision to go larger and faster with the next class had rendered them obsolete, complete Maryland with 14"/50s, as the guns were in hand, abandon the 16"/45, and go directly to the South Dakotas. Of course, that would have had repercussions twenty years later, as Colorado and, especially, West Virginia, proved useful in WWII.
1
-
1
-
wrt the Chesapeake, unfortunately, my local public library decided to cull it's collection last summer, and "Six Frigates" was one of the casualties. (so was "The Grand Fleet"). Going by the Wiki entry, yes, some of the crew had been transferred from Constitution. This brings up a couple issues that I would like to see answers to. First: Constitution is generally said to be armed with 24 pounders, Chesapeake, with 18 pounders. Are the ballistics of these two size guns exactly the same? Without sighting systems, accuracy is dependent on the experience and skill of the gunner. Taking a gunner experienced on a 24 pounder, and hand him an 18 pounder, is he going to be able to hit anything, until he becomes acclimated to the smaller gun? Second, I doubt BuPers had an elaborate system for selecting men to man a ship at that time. How were the men transferred from Constitution, or any other ship, selected? If the Captain received an order "transfer 100 men to Chesapeake", what will his selection criteria be? My experience, and human nature, say that the Captain will select his worst crewmen to transfer off his ship: the idiots, the screw-ups, the discipline problems. Lawrence, an experienced, successful, Captain, had just transferred from a 440 ton sloop of war, to a 1200 ton frigate. How familiar was he with the handling characteristics of the Chesapeake? Yes, this all sounds like excuse making. On paper, the two ships were evenly matched. But getting into the details, I do need to wonder if the issues i mentioned played a part in handicapping Chesapeake.
1
-
@eiwtsexiang I might be able to help with questions 4 and 6. I am not sure where the figure of 22 capital ships for the 1916 Navy act comes from. What I have always seen was a program for the (4) Colorado class, three of which were completed, (6) Lexington class battle cruisers and (6) South Dakota class battleships. The act also called for (10) scout cruisers, but that doesn't add up to 22 ships either. Chief designer Admiral Taylor was not happy with the South Dakota design, and drew up an alternative that was a bit larger, and a bit faster, which was also more stable. It may have also had a slightly shallower draft, as the existing South Dakota design was causing concern with regard to passing through the Panama Canal locks. Taylor's improved design was rejected for cost. I have seen newspaper reports, in the immediate aftermath of the war, where SecNav Daniels was saying he was going to propose another major building program, but the incoming Harding administration had other ideas, so the second building program was never enacted. As for the shrinking number of funnels on newer ships, that probably relates to the number of boilers. Newer technology allowed the needed amount of steam to be produced by fewer boilers. New York was built with 14 coal fired boilers. When she was converted to oil fuel, the 14 boilers were replaced by only 6 oil fired boilers. HMS Valiant was originally built with 24 oil fired boilers, and two funnels. In a modernization in the early 30s, the two funnels were trunked into one very broad funnel. In her 1939 rebuilt, the 24 boilers were replaced by only 8 new boilers, and the broad funnel was replaced by a much smaller one. One bit for question #7, as far as the USN was concerned, Jutland made the case for going to 16" guns, due to the demonstrated need to penetrate at longer range. Until that time, the head of BuOrd, Admiral Strauss, championed the 14", saying that a ship could carry more of the smaller guns, which would translate into more hits. Strauss predicated his assessment on his opinion that engagements would always take place at 12,000 yards or less, where the 14" could penetrate. Jutland disproved the 12,000 yard limit on engagements, so SecNav Daniels and the General Board overrode Strauss' assessment. Strauss requested to be relieved at BuOrd and be given sea duty.
1