Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "The Battleship with Too Many Guns - HMS Agincourt" video.

  1. Agincourt was very weakly armoured, with a belt the equivalent of that of a Lion class battlecruiser, and deck armour, at 1.5 inches, one inch thinner than any other British battleship or battlecruiser.
    1
  2. HMS Canada was being built for Chile, not for the Ottoman Empire. The second ship being built for the Ottomans was HMS Erin, originally Reşadiye. Erin was effectively a smaller version of a King George V or an Iron Duke, and a far superior ship to Agincourt.
    1
  3. Decent protection might also be useful, however.
    1
  4. Prioritising firepower over protection never was a good idea, and Agincourt was very weakly protected.
    1
  5.  @REgamesplayer  Indeed I do. Agincourt had a 9 inch belt. Thinner than any other British battleship ever constructed, and the same as the Lion class, and Tiger, battlecruisers. Agincourt had 1.5 inches of deck armour. A full 1 inch thinner than the weakest deck armour of any other British battleship, or even battlecruiser.
    1
  6.  @REgamesplayer  ' I wouldn't say that it was "very weakly armored".' Perhaps you wouldn't. But that doesn't change the fact that the armour was inadequate. The battleship Salamis, being built for the Greek navy by a German yard at around the same time, also had a 9 inch belt, but deck armour of three inches, twice that of Agincourt. She was about a knot faster. The other Turkish battleship requisitioned by the British, Erin, formerly Reshadieh, was similar to an Iron Duke or a King George V, and was a far more formidable proposition.
    1
  7.  @REgamesplayer  Salamis had deck armour three inches thick. Agincourt had decl armour 1.5 inches thick. Look them up in Siegfried Breyer's books. 'Agincourt is noticeably less armored battleship than its contemporaries at the time.' So. You agree with my original comment after all, then? What are you actually arguing about?
    1
  8.  @REgamesplayer  I would change it if 'irotected' and 'armoured' didn't amount to the same thing. How could it be 'comparable' if it 'had noticeably weaker armor than them?' I refer you to R. A. Burt, 'British Battleships of World War 1.' 'So much weight had been devoted to Agincourt's armament that little remained for her armour. Her waterline belt was just 9 inches (229 mm) thick, compared with twelve inches or more found in other British dreadnoughts. It ran some 365 feet (111.3 m), from the forward edge of "Monday" barbette to the middle of "Friday" barbette. Forward of this the belt thinned to six inches for about 50 feet (15.2 m) before further reducing to 4 inches (102 mm) all the way to the bow. Aft of the midships section the belt reduced to six inches for about 30 feet (9.1 m) and then thinned to four inches (102 mm); it did not reach the stern, but terminated at the rear bulkhead. The upper belt extended from the main to the upper deck and was six inches thick. It ran from "Monday" barbette to "Thursday" barbette. The armour bulkheads at each end of the ship angled inwards from the ends of the midships armoured belts to the end barbettes and were three inches thick. Four of Agincourt's decks were armoured with thicknesses varying from 1 to 2.5 inches (25 to 64 mm). The armour of the barbettes constituted a major weakness in Agincourt's protection. They were 9 inches thick above the upper deck level, but decreased to 3 inches between the upper and main decks and had no armour at all below the main deck except for "Sunday" barbette (which had 3 inches), and "Thursday" and "Saturday" barbettes (which had 2 inches). The turret armour was 12 inches thick on the face, 8 inches (203 mm) on the side and 10 inches (254 mm) in the rear. The turret roofs were 3 inches thick at the front and 2 inches at the rear. The casemates for the secondary armament were protected by 6 inches of armour and were defended from raking fire by 6-inch-thick bulkheads.' You might also wish to consider what Richard Hough wrote of her internal subdivision 'Agincourt had another weakness in that she was not subdivided to Royal Navy standards as the Brazilians preferred to eliminate all possible watertight bulkheads that might limit the size of the compartments and interfere with the crew's comfort. One example was the officer's wardroom, which was 85 by 60 feet (25.9 by 18.3 m) in size, much larger than anything else in the Grand Fleet.'
    1
  9.  @REgamesplayer  'That is a quote from wikipedia and I had read it too.' Both are indeed from wikipedia, but both originally came from books written by the two authors to which I referred. I have both books. R. A. Burt, for one, has researched the design and construction of British capital ships for many years. Would you consider that, for example, Eustace Ternnyso-D'Eyncourt or Stanley Vernon Goodall to have known less about warship design and capability than John Jellicoe or David Beatty, on the grounds that they were 'merely' naval architects, rather than serving sea officers? The last serving sea officer to design a British major warship was HMS Captain, designed by Captain Cowper Phipps Coles. Look what happened to her! 'As you can see from our conversation, he is wrong in his assessment.' No, to be pedentic, you claim that he is wrong. I suggest that you are in a minority of one in this. 'Agincourt wasn't a good battleship if you intended to duel other battleships with it.' What else would she be expected to do? She lacked the speed to get close to cruisers, and her likely opponents in South America, had WW1 not intervened would have been the Argentinian 'Rivadavia' class, or the Chilean 'Almirante Latorre' class, all four of which were superior. Clearly, Brazil decided to cut their losses and sell her off to the Ottoman Empire for a reason, however much you may choose to laud her capabilities.
    1
  10.  @REgamesplayer  Armoured cruisers ceased to be built after 1910, when the battlecruiser became a more attractive proposition. The last British ones were the Minotaurs of 1909, the last German ones the Scharnhorsts of 1908, unless you count the Blucher of 1909 the last US ones the Tennessees of 1906-8. You are really stretching a point beyond breaking if you think that Agincourt when ordered would be expected to fight 1890s period cruisers. However necessary it might be for you to make the claim to justify her design flaws. 'Are you aware that cruisers of that era also sailed at around 20 knots? A lot of navy cruisers which were built up in 1890s sailed at 20 knots. Dreadnaughts of that era also sailed at those speeds.' No, I'm not, because there were no Dreadnoughts in the 1890s. However, if all the Brazilians expected to encounter were elderly armoured cruisers like the 1895 Garibaldi, why bother acquiring battleships at all? Instead of Minas Gerais, Sao Paulo, and Rio de Janeiro, why not just buy, for a fraction of the cost, a few modified Defences, or Scharnhorsts, at a fraction of the cost. Perhasps because Argentina had, and Chile were acquiring, their own dreadnoughts? 'Do you know how much outdated their fleets were compared to Agincourt? No, because the ships I have named were far from outdated when compared to Rio. 'Not sure about people you are referencing. I do however think that asking historian to pass judgement on a naval design is generally a wrong thing to do. The fact that you don't seem to know of these people is hardly a reason to question their judgement. You are becoming increasingly fanciful and disconnected from the facts of early 20th century naval warfare. In your first post, you argued that Rio/Agincourt 'prioritized firepower and had to engage other battleships at closer ranges.' Now you seem to be trying to say that Rio was a good battleship against elderly cruisers, but not against other battleships. As your arguments are becoming increasingly contorted, I will leave you to your own opinion, even if it unencumbered by facts.
    1
  11. Not in the war against Italy & Germany, they didn't.
    1