Comments by "Steve Valley" (@stevevalley7835) on "The Drydock - Episode 146" video.

  1. Drac, in the live stream segment yesterday, there was some discussion of the QEs, in theory, being capable of 28kts. The first thought that comes to my mind, as QE and Valiant received new powerplants during their rebuilds, why did they not install more powerful plants so the ships could make 28kts? Looking at the WNT, I see that improvements are limited to torpedo and aircraft defense, not to exceed 3,000 tons. Alterations in side armor and main armament are explicitly prohibited, except in the case of France and Italy. Given the other changes made in specifications in Second London, why were terms not inserted that would give the other parties the same latitude in upgrading ships as Italy was implementing on it's battleships of similar age?
    1
  2.  @timengineman2nd714  some sources say that NC and Washington initially had vibration issues at normal speeds and it took some experimenting with different screws to reduce the vibration. I'm responding to Drac's comments that the people in a position to know were saying the QEs could have made 28 if they had been fitted with small tube boilers. Their rebuilds in the late 30s offered the opportunity to do that, but they didn't. According to the text of the WNT, the QE's displacement was only 27,500 tons, so they had plenty of headroom to the 35,000 ton limit, more than a Tennessee or Colorado, they could use to make improvements, like lengthening the hull to improve speed more, like the Japanese and Italians did. Thanks for posting your dad's experience. I have read elsewhere that that the NCs had better speed capability than the South Dakotas, in spite of the lower power plant. Had not expected to see 30+. I presume the ship was lightly loaded at the time.
    1
  3.  @jamesb4789  That is true, in general. The QEs were designed from the outset for more speed, so they trended longer and narrower that USN battleships of the time. A US Pennsylvania class is 600' at the waterline with a beam of 97'6", and plods along at 21kts with 31,500hp. A QE, of about the same vintage is 643'9" at the waterline with a beam of 90'7" and was designed for 24kts with 75,000hp. When QE and Valiant were rebuilt in the late 30s, their new boilers did nudge power up to 80,000, but, as you say, the bulges offset the power increase. It could be the Admiralty interpreted the WNT's prohibition on "reconstruction" conservatively and declined to put as much power in the QEs as late 1930s technology allows. or the people Drac was quoting were blowing smoke.
    1
  4.  @bcoop1701  I start from the assumption that the Admiralty designers were pretty good at their job, as they had more experience designing battleships than anyone else. They clearly thought that performance and weight distribution were favorable for what they settled on. What I find so disturbing/hilarious is the kabuki dance with the treaty: the UK demands the gun size limit for all parties be cut to 14", after the limit had been 16" for 15 years, and many ships the KGVs would potentially run up against would have 15-16" guns.. Then the US demands the escalator clause to put the limit back to 16" if any party to the WNT fails to sign Second London by April 37. Japan gave formal notice, in 34, that it would leave the treaty system when First London expired at the end of 36. Italy left the conference over pushback over it's invasion of Ethiopia. It was a sure bet the escalator clause would be tripped. But the Admiralty pressed on with the KGVs as designed, with the 14" guns, while floating a narrative to the effect "oh darn, the escalator clause tripped, too late for us to change the KGVs".
    1