Comments by "Steve Valley" (@stevevalley7835) on "The Drydock - Episde 241 (Part 1)" video.
-
wrt the more smaller vs fewer larger guns question, this argument raged for decades. In the USN, it was the head of BuOrd, during the teens, Joseph Strauss, that promoted the more/smaller option. As Drac said, the argument for more, smaller guns, always depends on an artificial restraint. Strauss insisted that all combat would be at 12,000 yards, or less. Since a 14" could penetrate well enough at that range, they could put more of them on a ship and increase the probability of a hit. The Tennessees could have been built with 16", there was active speculation they would be, reported in the newspapers, but Strauss pushed through the 14" option. Jutland satisfied the General Board and SecNav that engagements would be fought at considerably more than 12,000, so Strauss was overruled when guns were specified for the Colorados. In his annual report that year, SecNav Daniels said the 16" decision was made over the objections of some officers. That same argument arose again, in the design of the KGVs. In the Admiralty's own analysis, a 9-15" armament would provide a more satisfactory ship, but the decision was made to go to 12-14" instead. It is probably worth noting that Admiralty fighting instructions at the time required closing, as fast as possible, to 16,000 yards, or less, before fully engaging. Again, the artificial restraint: not requiring the KGVs to be effective at greater ranges, made the 14" look like the better option. I give the credit for the Admiralty clinging to an obsolete doctrine, against the recommendations of Admiralty technical staff recommendations, to Admiral Chatfield, who was First Sea Lord from 1933 to 38.
1
-
1