Comments by "Steve Valley" (@stevevalley7835) on "The Architecture of Dreadnoughts - Blueprints of Success" video.

And probably the tight turning radius award too?
12
@timrobinson513 the full text of the treaties is available on line. Makes for interesting reading. For instance, Italy and France were the only countries given BB building windows in 27 and 29, while no-one else could start building replacements until 31. The first London treaty extended the BB building moratorium from 31 until 36, but the two construction windows the 1922 treaty allocated to France and Italy did not expire in those years, but rather were good until used. That is how France could lay down the Dunkerques and Italy could lay down the first two Littorios when they did, while the UK could not lay down the KGV until 37.
4
@jetdriver by "fully modernized" members of the Big 5, I presume you are referring to California and West Virginia. Those ships had been sunk, and were going to be in the yard a long time anyway. As long as a lot of reconstruction was being done anyway, may as well build them to 1942 standard. Colorado received next to nothing in reconstruction, just added AAA. Once the war was on, as long as ships were not severely damaged, I can understand the Brits not wanting to take a ship offline for a year or two for major work. As for wearing out the QEs and Rs, the ships were over 20 years old and obsolete. With Italy out of the war in 43, the German capital ships mostly sunk, and the KGVs in commission, the old tubs were not worth more than what could be described as palliative care as they all had a date with the breakers on V-E day.
4
@f12mnb "The Battleship Builders", which focuses on the RN, says the really heavy cranes were in the fitting out basin, where they handled the turrets, guns and, the object of the question I put above, the turbines and boilers. The cranes along the building ways were smaller, as they only handled sections of steel.
4
@rickyc8958 The RM's issue seemed to be more a matter of fuel and leadership. Some things I have read about the Caracciolo class are not very complimentary, like that the torpedo protection was inadequate. That being said, after all the money spent updating the Cavours and Dorias in the 30s, they were well short of state of the art too. At lease the Caraccoilos started out with better speed capability. It's doubtful that the Caracciolos could have been completed before the Washington Treaty went into effect. The Caracciolo was built up enough to launch, to clear the ways, in the spring of 20. If Italy had had the money, which it didn't, that one could probably have been completed by the end of 21. Ansaldo had Columbo about 5% done, overall. The Orlando and Odero yards had made even less progress on their ships. If Italy had the money, which it didn't, it could have argued at the Washington conference that, as the US and UK were both allowed to complete two ships after the treaty went into effect, Italy should receive the same courtesy, but if they did that, then Italy would not have had the 1927 and 1929 BB construction windows, which they used to build the first two Littorios. Given a choice between two updated Caracciolos and two Littorios, I would go with the Littorios every time. The other issue with completing the Caracciolos is most of the 24 guns that had been made for them had been diverted to other uses. 7 of the Ansaldo built guns had been transferred to the army, which mounted 4 of them on railroad carriages that were on the firing line for almost 2 years. The other two Ansaldos were mounted on a monitor of particularly eccentric design, and spent a few months on the firing line. Two of the Terni built guns were installed as shore batteries near Venice, which left one Terni as a spare. Four of the Pozzuoli built guns were used as shore batteries at Brindisi. Two Pozzuolis were installed on an improvised monitor that foundered in a storm. Two more Pozzuolis were installed on improvised monitors that survived the war. So, of the 24 guns built for the Caracciolos, there were only 3 Ansaldos, 1 Terni and 4 Pozzuolis that were in new condition and could be made available. This is where it gets complicated. The guns were supposed to all have the same ballistic performance, but they were different designs. The Pozzuolis were designed by Armstrong, the Ternis by Vickers and the Ansaldos were a monobloc design by Schneider. By 1919, I don't think this mess could have been cleaned up at anything resembling reasonable cost to get even two Caracciolos built, and if they did, they would have lost authority to build two Littorios a dozen years later. And that is probably far more than you anticipated learning about the Caracciolos.
3
This question received several likes, but no answer, when posted a while back, so, with a shipbuilding video, lets try it again: At what point were a battleship's turbines and boilers typically installed? "The Battleship Builders" says the powerplant was installed during fitting out, so that the hull would be lighter at launching. But, the Wiki entry on the North Carolina class shows boilers being installed in NC, on 16 January of 39, while the ship was launched in June of 40. I have seen an aerial photo of Washington being launched, which shows midships decked over, implying the powerplant has already been installed. Which was the usual sequence of powerplant installation on a BB, before or after launch? Thanks!
2
The naval treaties have been brought up in comments a couple times recently, and that got the wheels turning wrt the Deutschlands. Some articles mention that, as the allies were trying to figure out a way to prevent their construction, Germany offered to break up Deutschland on the ways, if the allies agreed to replace the naval limitations of the Versailles treaty with the existing naval treaties between the five powers, with a capital ship quota of 125,000 tons, vs 175,000 for France and Italy. Ultimately, France opposed the proposal and it was dropped. What if Germany had come under the 5 power treaties? The Deutschlands would immediately be outlawed as cruisers as their 11" guns exceeded the treaty limit. However, Germany then could go directly to the Scharnhorsts, which were comfortably under the naval treaty's 35,000 ton limit for battleships. Drach's video on Scharnhorst says that Germany had lost the ability to build really large guns, so, instead of the desired 15". the Scharns received the 11" developed for the Deutschlands. But if the Deutschlands are not built, then that 11" gun is not developed either. By the time the Deutschland would have been laid down, the treaty change agreed, Deutschland broken up on the ways, and the Scharnhorsts designed, Hitler was in power. By 34, Hitler could ring up his buddy in Rome and say "hey Benny, could Ansaldo run off some extras of the 15"/50 it's making for your Littorios? I have an idea." So, which would work out better for the allies? With the treaty switch, the Deutschlands, which churned up their share of mischief early in the war don't exist, but the Scharnhorsts are more potent.
2
@jetdriver Yes, you are correct wrt Tennessee and Maryland. All of the big 5 were promptly laid up at the end of the war, along with the North Carolinas and South Dakotas, where they languished for a dozen years before going to the breakers. All the QEs, Rs and Nelsons went straight to the breakers in the late 40s. I think the US hanging on to the big 5 was the aberration, not the Brits sending 30 year old ships straight to the breakers. Besides the 4 surviving KGVs, the Brits also had Vanguard. Reading about the construction of the Lions and Vanguard, I get the impression that the UK was having chronic shortages of workers and material during the war, far worse than the US ever had as work on the ships started, and stopped, several times. A severe shortage of workers and material in the UK could also contribute to skimping on refits for old ships that weren't long for the world anyway, while the US was relatively flush with resources, so could do work the Brits couldn't manage.
2
@Paladin327 I think you are referring to the ventilators. They provided fresh air into the ship. They disappeared on newer ships as electric blowers could move more air faster, without taking up as much deck space. Here is a photo of what I'm talking about. https://www.harpgallery.com/shop/item23570.html
2
@coltaxe100 There would actually be two different "if you coulds', one with the naval treaties and one without. Without treaties and an unlimited checkbook, the sky is the limit, especially if you include contracting with yards in Canada and the US. With the treaties, then you get out the calculator and a copy of Jane's to see what decisions to make differently. wrt Carriers, the Washington treaty specified that all carriers in service or building at the time of the treaty were deemed "experimental" and not subject to the 20 year replacement schedule, so they could be replaced at any time. Argus, Eagle and Hermes all fit that criteria. Eagle was not efficient as a carrier, but had a bit of size and a bit of speed, not fast, but fast enough to cruise with QEs, so it might be worthwhile to retain. Argus had no speed, and Hermes had no size. so remission both as seaplane tenders to free up the tonnage to build a second Ark Royal. Depending on the assessment of the situation, Renown and Repulse had size and speed, and could have been converted to carriers, after the treaty collapsed, faster than new carriers could have been built from the keel up. As for BBs, instead of building the Nelsons, the RN could have taken deferred construction windows, like France and Italy did, so they could have built two, modern, fast, BBs in the early 30s, rather than the eccentric and slow Nelsons. Outside of that, the RN really couldn't do anything more within the framework of the treaties. The 1930 London treaty extended the BB building moratorium through 1936. KGV and Prince of Wales were laid down New Year's day of 1937. The other three KGVs had all been laid down by July of 37. Really, when it comes to BBs, the Brits did about as well as they could, within the limits of the treaty, without having 20/20 foresight.
2
@greg_mca the first thing is carrier aircraft tend to be built stronger to withstand the rigors of carrier ops. The first day out when I was on the Lexington, I was taking a shortcut through the hanger when, with no warning, I heard *WHAM*. I was wondering what part of that old ship had broken, when a guy walking with me said "plane landed". I also, by luck, got a photo of an A7, that had just trapped. The deceleration was so strong the pilot can be seen in the photo thrown several inches away from his seatback, in spite of the harness he was wearing. I used to know at what deceleration rate a person's eyeballs will pop out of their sockets. Obviously, the deceleration on a carrier landing is safely below that limit, but not hugely below it. Consequently, a land based plane, like a Hurricane or Spitfire, will usually require structural strengthening, in addition to the expected arresting hook and life raft. The strengthening will usually degrade performance due to the extra weight. The aircraft will be changed to suit the ships, not the other way around. The Brits were hurting for single seat fighters in 40. They bought the Grumman F4F, know in British service as the Martlet. The Martlet I, like all early Wildcats, did not have folding wings, so the Brits tended to leave them ashore. The Martlet II introduced Grumman's folding wing feature to the Royal Navy, so more of the planes could be accommodated on board. When Drac does his video on the Graf Zepplin, he may get into how the 109s and Stukas were modified for carrier service. If you get a chance, see "Ships With Wings", a British 1941 production. It gives some good looks at Swordfish and Skuas coming up the elevator with their wings folded. A lot of that footage was shot on the Ark Royal, less than a year before it was sunk.
2
@bluemarlin8115 I don't think there would have been 4-5 Scharns. Given all the time that would have been lost laying down Deutschland, then negotiating the shift to the naval treaty, then breaking up Deutschland on the ways, the political pushback in Germany to building capital ships, then Hitler coming to power, then the time spent arguing over the D class cruisers, The Scharns would have been laid down in 34-35 anyway, and armed with the Ansaldo 15"/50 because it would have been the only big gun available. Once the 2 Scharns were launched in 36, Hitler was feeling his oats and went straight to the Bismarks, laying down both the same year.
1
@gregblount6640 The WWII action between Renown, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau was fought in bad weather. All ships suffered some damage, nearly as much from the weather as the engagement. The Wiki article is titled. Action off Lofoten.
1
@ChaosEverDecoy the Wiki entry on the Littorio class BBs says they apparently got their sums wrong on the bow. The result was a serious vibration, which required modification of the bow.
1