Comments by "Steve Valley" (@stevevalley7835) on "The Drydock - Episode 102" video.

On the ship launching issue: Is there a general rule about when the boilers and turbines are installed, before or after launching? In "The Battleship Builders", power plant installation is said to be done during fitting out as that makes the hull lighter at launch. In the Wiki entry on the 1930s North Carolina class BBs, there is a pic of boilers being installed in NC dated 16 January, 1939, but the ship didn't launch until June of 40. I have seen an aerial photo of Washington launching, and midships appears to be decked over, indicating that the power plant has already been installed. So, what is the usual sequence of power plant installation vs launching? Thanks!
9
iirc, the QE2 was reengined from steam turbine to diesel during it's major refit after the Falklands war.
8
@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
@sparviero142 that issue with developing a recoil system may explain why the 1932 model Breda did not have a good recoil system and vibrated so badly. The Breda's recoil was addressed with the 1939 model however. This issue of Germany not having the guns it needs, but Italy does, comes up again wrt the Scharnhorsts. Supposedly, the Scharns were intended to have 15" guns, but the Germans had not developed a 15". The Italians had a 15" in hand. The model the Littorios used was available when the Scharns were laid down. Why didn't Hitler say to his buddy "hey Bennie, can we buy a license to produce your 15"/50s?". It's probably a good thing, from our perspective, that the Germans were in the grip of "not invented here" syndrome and declined to buy Italian gun designs. Imagine the warmer welcome the Stringbags would have gotten if Bismark had been equipped with the Breda AA gun, or Renown would have received if the Scharns were armed with the Italian 15".
2
In the New Mexicos, New Mexico itself had TE drive, while Mississippi and Idaho had straight turbine drive. One of the selling points of TE is it allows tighter compartmentalization. The engineering spaces of New Mex were designed like the other two, rather than the larger number of smaller compartments TE would have allowed, so replacing it's TE with geared turbines was about as easy as replacing the old turbines in the others. Doing a TE to geared turbine conversion of the Tennessees or Colorados would have been far more complicated as some bulkheads would need to be removed to make room for the new turbines and reduction gears.
1
wrt the question about axis attacks on the Suez Canal: Italy occupied Ethiopia until April 41. Italian air and naval assets could have made using the canal problematic. The RM had 6 destroyers based at Massawa, on the Red Sea. With Italian entry into the war, those destroyers became stranded without access to Italian shipyards for refit and repair. They were all sunk by British action or scuttled by their crews April 2-4 of 41. In a precursor to the St Nazaire raid, those destroyers could have steamed into the southern end of the canal and scuttled. Half a dozen wrecked DDs in the canal would have disrupted operations for some time.
1
@beigethursday1352 One convoy the Scharns intercepted was escorted by HMS Malaya. Malaya apparently had not been modernized like the other QEs, so it's 15" guns would have been limited to the original 20 degree elevation. 20 degrees gives a 15/42 a range of 23,734yds. Scharn's guns could elevate to 40 degrees, giving a range of over 40,000yds. So a Scharn could hang outside of Malaya's range and shower shells on it with impunity, and Scharn's superior speed can be used to maintain that distance. On paper, the Scharn's shells could not penetrate the thickest parts of Malaya's armor. My theory of the nature of a heavily armored citadel is the only thing it does is prevent the engagement being brought to a sudden end by a direct hit to a magazine or engine room. Lay enough rounds on target, and the target will eventually be shot to bits, without the citadel being penetrated. I have a hunch that is what happened to Bismark: no single fatal hit through the heaviest armor, but the ship progressively shot to bits until it could not carry on the engagement, then the Germans tried to salvage their pride by scuttling it. So, by the information I have at hand right now, when the Scharns intercepted the convoy escorted by Malaya, they might not have been able to sink Malaya, but they could probably have pounded it to the point where Malaya would have all it's armament disabled and dead in the water.
1
@johnfisher9692 thanks for your input on long range gunnery. I looked up the longest range hits and there were 2 noted at 26,000yds. One of the two hits at that range was by Scharn, on Glorious. wrt to your question on why German capital ships had three screws, instead of four. I have not seen cross-section drawings of Bismark, but I suspect that 3 more powerful turbines would make a narrower package than 4 less powerful turbines. With a narrower turbine package, there would be more width available in the hull for torpedo protection.
1
@DurinSBane-zh9hj Probably the same situation as previously discussed wrt the two Scharns engaging Malaya. The Scharn's guns have a far greater range than that of a 15/42 in a turret that can't elevate above 20 degrees. However, as discussed above, with WWII gunnery technology, the farthest Scharn ever hit anything was 26,000 yards, which is still slightly longer than the maximum theoretical range of a 15/42 as installed in Ramilies or Malaya. When both of the Scharns engaged Renown, Renown held it's own, but Renown was just out of an extensive modernization and was a far more capable ship than Ramilies or Malaya. Considering that the Scharns were out to attack convoys, declining to engage a convoy, without even trying to fend off the obsolete BB, seems a step too far on the damage-phobic scale.
1
@jkausti6737 The movie shows the idea of Bis sortieing with both Scharns as Lutjens' wet dream. Sounds to me like 3/4s of the German capital ship force, in one place, without air cover, is a really big opportunity for the Fleet Air Arm.
1
@skwb29 First thing that comes to my mind is the Bonnie is over 20 years old. All the ships of the preceding class were decommissioned at 25-30 years. There is an America class currently building. Given the Bonnie's age, I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out cheaper to simply run one of the other Wasps longer as the Americas enter the fleet.
1
I can see that point about IJN command thinking 25mm was adequate. The USN developed the 1.1", or about 27mm. Bofors developed a 25mm gun at the same time as the 40, because a lot of people didn't think anything as big as a 40 was needed. By the late 30s, aircraft were larger and faster, and the swing to larger AA guns started. If there had been more technology sharing among the Axis powers, Japan could have obtained a production license for the Breda 37mm gun, which would have been more effective than the 25, both in terms of shooting a larger round, and, as magazines could be stacked in the Breda's loading machine, eliminating reload stoppages.
1