Comments by "Steve Valley" (@stevevalley7835) on "Drachinifel"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
@skywise001 Some material says that the UK was willing to accept a single ship displacement limit of 42,000, rather than 35,000, in the Washington treaty. I am pretty confident that Japan would opt to complete one of the Tosas. The US could have completed one of the Lexingtons, or a South Dakota. A South Dakota would be something of a stepchild, unable to use her higher speed, because the other battleships in the fleet could not keep up. A Lexington could steam with the two carrier conversions as part of the Scouting Group, so, my hunch is, a Lexington would be completed. France and Italy would probably not build anything.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Thank you for your reply. It appears that I can request my local library to transfer in a 1919 edition of Jane's, so I can look into this further. A 1920 or 21 edition would be preferable, but none are available in my area. I don't think Congress would have objected to going straight from the Tennessees to the SoDaks. Congress approved the SoDaks as designed, and the Colorados were not that much of an advance over the Tennessees. The Colorados had the advantage of being within the 35KT limit of the 1922 treaty, so the US was able to swap the Delawares for Colorado and West Virginia, as the Brits swapped 4 older BBs the treaty allowed them to keep for the clean sheet design Nelsons. Yes, the SoDaks exceeded the treaty limit by some 7-8KT. As carriers, the Lexingtons exceeded the treaty limit of 27KT, but the US got a clause added to the treaty allowing 2 conversions at 30KT, and apparently they were allowed another 3KT for their torpedo protection. How could the SoDak's displacement be reduced? The first thing that comes to mind would be deleting the #1 and #4 16" turrets with their associated barbettes, magazines, and extensions of the armor belt, then shortening the barbettes of #2 and #3 turrets to lower them to deck height. Somewhere between the flexibility in displacement cap, the allowance for torpedo protection and putting the SoDaks on a displacement reduction program, two SoDaks probably could have been completed, maybe three. If the entire Colorado class had been cancelled, the USN would be some 90KT short of the RN's battleship tonnage. Add the 40KT of the two Delawares to the existing 90KT deficit and there would be tonnage available for three SoDaks. Have you done a piece on the SoDaks? I haven't seen one.
2
-
wrt the two questions about the Courageouses, my first thought is that the cruiser fleet tonnage limits of First London would make it imperative the Courageouses be scrapped as soon as possible, as each Courageous scrapped would make tonnage available to build three new cruisers. On the other hand, by the time of First London, the Deutschland was building, and the Admiralty might think the Courageouses were the perfect thing to kill Deutschlands.
As for a no Courageouses at all scenario, Jackie had tried to have a third Renown class, probably as Resistance, built, but his request was refused. The turrets were in hand, from the cancelled R-class ships. They probably would have ended up on monitors, or used on Hood, instead of the Mk II turrets being built from scratch. Regarding the impact on naval aviation, the Washington treaty does allow conversion of two ships that would otherwise be scrapped to be converted. The Wiki article on the G3s says there is no photographic evidence any of them were actually laid down. The G3s were so huge that they could probably not be cut down enough to get under the 33,000 limit anyway. The Lions were scheduled to be scrapped for treaty compliance. They are significantly shorter, and a bit beamier, than the Courageouses. Fit a modern, oil fired, plant, and their speed might be improved significantly. But the cost would probably be so great that the Admiralty would probably be better off building a clean sheet design. Without the Corageouses, something like Ark Royal would probably have been built in the late 20s.
2
-
Jordan's "Warships After Washington" says that the UK was supportive of a 43,000 ton limit for individual battleships, while the US wanted the 35,000 ton individual ship limit. (chapter 5, page 74) What if they compromised, that everyone was entitled to one 43,000 ton ship, because the RN had Hood, with the rest of their battleship force limited to 35,000 tons? The Japanese could have demanded the right to complete one of the Tosas as their 43,000 ton ship. That would give the IJN 3-16" armed ships. To maintain the 5:3 ratio, the US would need to complete the forth Colorado, Washington, and one 43,000 ton ship. Which 43,000 ton ship would they choose, a South Dakota, or a Lexington, and why?
2
-
@nathand.9969 If we assume the "reasons" are because the British have pursued the other Admiral class battlecruisers, as suggested in a question in part 2 of today's drydock, then converts two to carriers, leaving them with two 40,000 ton + ships, that creates the justification for the US to complete two Lexingtons as battlecruisers, for parity. I would expect them to be paired with the carriers, through the interwar years, by virtue of the fact they can keep up with the carriers, and that deployment would be consistent with the "scouting group" thinking in the USN. On December 7th, if the battlecruisers are not in refit, they would be at sea with the carriers. As the carriers were in heavy use in 42-43, I would expect the battlecruisers to be equally as busy, with modernization being along the lines of improved AA armament, radar, and fire control, rather than an extensive rebuild, like West Virginia, California, and Tennessee received.
2
-
wrt the Ise conversions, I am a bit puzzled too. Apparently Hyūga was nominated for conversion because both of her aft turrets were already damaged, limiting her effectiveness as a battleship anyway. My first impulse would be to remove the superfiring midships turrets, one from Hyūga, and one from Ise, due to their more limited field of fire, to replace the two damaged turrets, then use the freed up midships deck space for more AA. That doesn't help their lack of carriers though. Apparently the conversion work started in early 43. By that time, the Kongos had demonstrated that they did not have the survivability for a surface engagement. My plan would be to pull turrets from the surviving Kongos to replace the damaged ones on Hyūga, if feasible, and convert the Kongos to full length deck carriers, because they could keep up with the other carriers, which the Ises could not.
2
-
2
-
@TeaDrinkingOspin Wiki says the Lex earned 11 Battle Stars and a Presidential Unit Citation. I never read the Wiki entry on her before. Wiki notes that, when she was torpedoed off Kwajalein, most of the casualties were in the Chief's mess. My rack was right next to the Chief's mess. It wasn't even a compartment, more a wide spot in the passageway that we shared with a foam proportioner and racks full of the foam chemical. I figured we had to be just about over the screws. The ride was smooth and quiet in that space, until they gave the throttle the last notch, then things would start to shake. As a training carrier, the Lex would steam back and forth across the Gulf. The Lex ran at full speed most of the time as it was running air ops continuously. Once you get a ship that size up to full speed, you don't want to slow down for anything, so, when they ran out of water, either approaching the oil rigs off Louisiana, or Florida, they would execute a 180 degree turn at full speed. I swear they had it in for me, saying "ah, Steve is sitting down to chow, time to turn the ship around". All too often, I would be just getting into my meal when the 1MC would bark "heel to port". I would have to grab my tray and glass and hang on as the ship heeled over in the turn.
2
-
There was discussion, in the press, of upgunning the Tennessees to 16" in the later part of 1916, after the decision was made to go with the 16" on the Colorados. The newspapers quoted a Navy official as saying upgunning the New Mexicos would be prohibitively expensive, but, iirc, he did not directly answer the question wrt the Tennessees. The barbette diameter figures I have at had do not give the diameter for the turrets on the New Mexicos, however, the drawings on NavWeaps show the turret pan diameter being exactly the same as the Tennessees at 28' 11.5". According to the Wiki entry, 119 14"/50s were built, almost two complete sets of guns for every ship that used that model. I have read that the guns for the battlecruisers were ordered at the same time as the guns for the Tennessees. Even though California and Tennessee had not been laid down yet, I would expect contracts for that large number of 14" guns had been let, and, if the Navy did make the gun size change on the Tennessees, there would be substantial order cancellation charges that would need to be paid. The "more smaller guns equals more hits" argument that you mention was loudly and publicly exercised in the Navy at the time. While SecNav Daniels and the General Board eventually decided on 16", their determination that was the correct decision was probably not firm enough to pay the cancellation charges for the 14" guns that were already in production.
2
-
@vikkimcdonough6153 wrt your fist question, providing a hangar for the floatplane. You can get a good idea what it would look like, by looking at a Fletcher that had the FRAM modernization, which had a hangar for the DASH ASW helo, as well as the flight deck. The hanger for an OS2U would be a lot longer than the DASH hangar as the plane is over 33 feet long, vs a length of 13 feet for the DASH helo.. In addition to losing the second torpedo mount, and #3 5" mount, she would also lose the #4 5" mount. That may still leave the cat overhanging the #5 5" mount. Someone with drafting skills may care to do a layout of a FRAM Fletcher, with a hanger twenty feet longer, to see where the cat ends up, and whether it interferes with #5 5"'s arc of fire.
2
-
Expanding on the issue of the British blockade of Germany in WWI, at least in terms of raw materials for war production, tended to be a bit porous. During 1915-16, there was a lot of friction between the US and UK, over neutral US flag ships, bound for neutral European ports, being seized by the UK, the cargoes declared contraband, and sold, with the proceeds paid to the crown. The US was protesting the seizures vigorously, until the US Secretary of State met with his UK counterpart. The UK representative, the name is in my notes somewhere, brought hard data showing a sharp uptick in imports of strategic materials by the neutral European powers, and asked words to the effect "if Denmark (for instance) is not reshipping this material to Germany, why have their imports of nickel quadrupled since the war started?" Of course, once the US entered the war, that closed off a major source of material that could be reshipped to Germany.
2
-
@myparceltape1169 that is understandable. Double handling goods, unloading in Danish ports, then reshipping to Germany, raises costs and delays receipt at the final destination. An uptick in traffic in neutral ports, caused by goods destined for Germany could exceed port capacity, and cause more delays. We in the US spent several months recently listening to the media natter daily about port backups on the west coast causing shortage of goods across the US. And, of course, Germany would prioritize things like minerals and chemicals needed for the war effort, so things like grain wait again. During WWII, my mother worked in the offices of a machine shop. One frustrated customer called one day, said words to the effect "I entered my order months ago, I haven't even received a date when it will start production. It has a Double A-1 priority. What does it take to get something out of your shop?". Mom said, with a straight face "Triple A priority". That is a wartime footing. Orders in that shop with less than Triple A never went anywhere, until they were upgraded to Triple A, or the war ended.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@NoNameAtAll2 The Italians starting going to the destroyer swarm model in the 20s. Overall, Italy lost about 9 DDs in WWI, but received 10 ex-Austrian and German DDs as war reparations. They also built 35 more during the war. From the end of the war to 1925, Italy scrapped or sold 17 old DDs. So Italy had a net gain of 19 vs prior to 1915, so no shortage of DDs at all. While the RM was pleading poverty, cancelling the Caracciolo class BBs, scrapping all their pre-dreadnoughts and abandoning the salvage of da Vinci, leaving them with only 5 BBs, they were constantly building more DDs. Their DD building program laid down 3 in 1919, 4 in 20, 5 in 21, 2 in 22, 3 in 23, 4 in 24 and 8 in 25. 26 was the only year of that decade when the RM did not lay down more DDs, all the while pleading poverty, economic recession, and social unrest. They didn't lay down a new cruiser until 25, and they didn't use their 1927 and 1929 battleship construction windows offered by the Washington treaty until they laid down the first two Littorios in 34. The light Italian units appear to have been plenty busy during the war, as most of them were sunk, while the BBs mostly sat in harbor.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@vikkimcdonough6153 pushing muzzle velocity higher has it's costs, primarily bore wear. Design faces more issues as velocity is increased too. I have read that the RN tried 50 caliber guns, and they always proved unsatisfactory, though my readings did not say exactly why. The Germans seemed to have more success with 50 caliber guns, but post-war analysis showed the German guns to be made of considerably higher quality (and higher cost) steel, than British guns. The USN 14"/50 suffered very high dispersion when first introduced delivering 12 gun patterns at longer ranges of 1,200 to 3,200 yards. It was not until after 20 years of tweaking the guns, that the pattern size was reduced to 700 yards. At Surigao Strait, Tennessee and California reported patterns of 300-400 yards, at 20,000 yards. Additionally, the longer the barrel, the more it will tend to droop. The Navy Indian Head proving grounds were far too small to fire a 14"/50 with a full charge, so, even if the gun had been subjected to a test program prior to being put into production, the dispersion problem might not have been revealed. Dahlgren was big enough to allow full charge test firings, but it did not open until late 1918, long after the 14"/50s had been built, then superseded by the 16/45.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Were small German marine turbines of this era particularly fragile or maintenance intensive? The Ottoman Empire had some Schichau built torpedo boats, and the two that survived WWI were immediately scrapped, while French built boats, with VTE power, that were slightly older, served into the early 1930s. Greece bought two turbine powered V90 class torpedo boats in 1912 which were also scrapped immediately after the war, though I have been informed that the French assigned crews that tended to neglect and loot those ships. The Vulcan built boats Greece ordered immediately after the V90s, were VTE powered, and served into 1941, in spite of also being in the care of the French for part of WWI. The Greek cruiser Elli, with Parsons turbines, also survived French possession and served until being sunk by an Italian sub in 1940. It seems that only the torpedo boats with Schichau or AEG-Vulcan turbines had the lifespan of a mayfly.
2
-
@TheOhgodineedaname You didn't say when that manual was written, but I'm expecting it was talking about cordite or US smokeless powder. Black powder burns fast, so peak pressure is in the chamber, and pressure falls as the shell moves down the tube. Smokeless powder burns slower, so it is still burning, and adding pressure, as the shell moves down the tube. When the USN switched to smokeless at the turn of the century, the gun designers did not understand this. The result was chamber pressure within expected limits, but the muzzle and chase blowing off the gun because the pressure down the tube was far higher than it would have been with black powder. If the shell is only a quarter to halfway down the tube, and is not instantly dislodged by the charge, then you have the combustion gasses compressed in a quarter to half of the tube, instead of distributed through the full length of the tube.
2
-
@chrissouthgate4554 yes, I have read that 100-110lb limit for one man to handle. Reality seems to have been, yes, a man could lift a shell that size, once, maybe twice, but fatigue will become an issue very quickly. The British 4.5 had fixed ammo, with the complete round weighing 87lbs, and they had crew fatigue issues. Enter the 5.25": semi-fixed ammo, but the shell alone weighed 80lbs, so they did not improve the human factors. The USN 5/38 had semi-fixed ammo, and the shell only weighed 55lbs.
2
-
2
-
@bkjeong4302 I am not sure the USN would necessarily be much smaller if the US did not hold the Philippines. The lever for the 1916 building program was that the US was whining about the British blockade of trading partners in Europe.
Or, consider the flipside: the US buys all of the Spanish Pacific possessions, rather than just the two real pearls. The US did pay Spain to drop it's claims to the Philippines, $20M. Germany paid 17M Marks for the balance of the Spanish colonies. What was the Mark/USD exchange rate in 1899? If the US held all of the Marianas, and Carolines, and Palau, Japan could not have occupied those territories in 1914, and the League of Nations would not have given Japan a mandate to rule those islands after the war. That might turn Japanese attention even more toward a land campaign in China and eastern Russia, rather than across oceans. Would the IJN have had such aggressive expansion plans, post WWI, if they did not have an island empire to patrol?
2
-
2
-
@genericpersonx333 apparently, the KGV turrets were designed and built by Vickers. But you would think there would be some interface between Vickers, RN Ordinance, and the higher ups in the Admiralty that coordinate the work of the various departments. I have staked out the KGV armament as an area of study over the winter. Coming up with some interesting tidbits. In 35, a large series of different concepts were designed, with armament of 16", 15" and 14" and speeds of 30kts, 27kts, and 23kts. An armament of 9-15" was determined to provide the best balance of speed, protection, and firepower. The admiralty's own analysis said the 14" should be forgotten about, unless it is required by a treaty. Shazam. A year later, the UK has written a clause into the treaty to mandate 14".
2
-
2
-
2
-
@toddwebb7521 it's a tough call. The Dunkerque's high velocity guns had more range and, probably, penetration than the old 13.4, and the Dunkerques had a more modern armor and torpedo protection scheme, so, in some ways, they were better protected. If the MN had the Mackensens, the Washtington treaty probably would not have given them the two construction licenses they used to build the Dunkerques, so, when they laid down Richelieu in late 35, they would have been in violation of the treaty anyway. The idea of getting ships already half built, for free, and being able to use guns already in inventory on them, is appealing from a cost savings standpoint. But, a dozen years later, they would be sort of obsolete compared to the Dunkerques.
2
-
@adamalton2436 I am not sure what sort of powder Maine was equipped with that night, whether black powder, brown powder, or early USN nitrocellulose. iirc, USN nitrocellulose does not contain any nitroglycerine, as cordite does. USN nitrocellulose seems to be pretty patient, compared to cordite. In the early 1900s, before the USN used any safety features, there were a couple lurid turret fires, one involving the entire interior of the barbette, with 20-30 men killed, but the magazines did not blow up.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sparviero142 adding to Frank's comments, from the specs on navweaps, the German gun had a longer range and higher ceiling than the Breda, but the Breda's rate of fire was 4 times that of the German gun. The Breda came out in 1932, but, apparently, the early models did not have a full recoil mechanism, so the mounts had to be very heavy and strong, limiting the gun's use to capital ships, and they vibrated like crazy. The model 1939 single mount had an equilibrator, so the entire gun could recoil, smoothing operation. The gun was reportedly accurate and popular with it's crews. Why the heck the other axis powers didn't standardize on the Breda beats me.
2