Came across this picture, thought it was cool and worth sharing.
USS Tennessee
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F3%2F37%2FUSS_Tennessee_BB43.jpg&hash=32f845fca9980af3635fbf6203d6a2a639020513)
Wiki Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Tennessee_%28BB-43%29
Image shows widening after damage sustained at Pearl Harbour. From wiki: As part of the new policy of the Two-Ocean-Navy, American battleships had been designed within a beam constraint of 108 feet (33 m) in order to pass through the locks of the Panama Canal. After being similarly rebuilt, the Tennessee, the California, and the West Virginia were broadened to 114 feet (35 m) wide, limiting their use in wartime to the Pacific Theater of Operations.
Too fat, too old.
I remember reading a n article, I think from the Procedings, that argued that the post-Pearl-harbor rebuildings were way over-done, with only modest actual combat effectiveness increases at the cost of diverting materials from more useful projects, and delaying the badly-needed NGFS capabilities of the battleships for nine unnecessary months.
It is a great picture, though. She may be fat, but she can sing.
I wonder if the bulges weren't necessary though? Not just from an anti-torpedo standpoint, but just because they were adding so much topweight to the ship. Otherwise, you end up like the British R-class battleships, which by the end of the war were pretty scary. And the old US battleships were getting a lot more additions than the R-class did, what with those twin 5/38 turrets.
It's hard to fault them for ensuring that the ships were sent out with a decent AA suite, given Pearl Harbour and all that.
That's a really great picture. I love seeing warships from that angle.
Quote from: Neil on November 23, 2013, 11:09:23 AM
I wonder if the bulges weren't necessary though? Not just from an anti-torpedo standpoint, but just because they were adding so much topweight to the ship. Otherwise, you end up like the British R-class battleships, which by the end of the war were pretty scary. And the old US battleships were getting a lot more additions than the R-class did, what with those twin 5/38 turrets.
It's hard to fault them for ensuring that the ships were sent out with a decent AA suite, given Pearl Harbour and all that.
That's a really great picture. I love seeing warships from that angle.
Yes, the bulges were necessary for stability, given that the ships had so much added topside weight. The point of the article was that most of that added weight didn't add that much to the ships' effective fighting power, given the missions that they were to be tasked with. The 5"/25 guns they already had would have, combined with the 40mm batteries they were capable of adding, would have given them sufficient AA power for self-defense, and removing the 5"/50 surface battery could have accommodated the extra light AA and electronics without bulging. Adding the 5"/38s and keeping the armored conn was overkill. At least, that's how I remember the argument.
The counter-argument, I suppose, is that the planners couldn't know what missions the ships would be assigned (they did, after all, end up fighting a surface engagement) and so overkill was worth the cost in time and materials.
Did the extra widening increase stability with targeting and volley rate of fire?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 23, 2013, 01:14:39 PM
Did the extra widening increase stability with targeting and volley rate of fire?
Actually, no. The bulging caused a more "stiff" and less predictable roll, and therefor one harder for the FC computers to compensate for.
Quote from: grumbler on November 23, 2013, 01:07:44 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 23, 2013, 11:09:23 AM
I wonder if the bulges weren't necessary though? Not just from an anti-torpedo standpoint, but just because they were adding so much topweight to the ship. Otherwise, you end up like the British R-class battleships, which by the end of the war were pretty scary. And the old US battleships were getting a lot more additions than the R-class did, what with those twin 5/38 turrets.
It's hard to fault them for ensuring that the ships were sent out with a decent AA suite, given Pearl Harbour and all that.
That's a really great picture. I love seeing warships from that angle.
Yes, the bulges were necessary for stability, given that the ships had so much added topside weight. The point of the article was that most of that added weight didn't add that much to the ships' effective fighting power, given the missions that they were to be tasked with. The 5"/25 guns they already had would have, combined with the 40mm batteries they were capable of adding, would have given them sufficient AA power for self-defense, and removing the 5"/50 surface battery could have accommodated the extra light AA and electronics without bulging. Adding the 5"/38s and keeping the armored conn was overkill. At least, that's how I remember the argument.
The counter-argument, I suppose, is that the planners couldn't know what missions the ships would be assigned (they did, after all, end up fighting a surface engagement) and so overkill was worth the cost in time and materials.
Yeah, I would have a hard time discounting the battleship and a surface battle, given the way things had gone the first 2 1/2 years of World War 2. Given the size and power of the Japanese battleline, it would be unwise to discount it. It's easy to look back now and realize that the main examples of bombers attacking warships prior to Force Z were the Luftwaffe, who were laughably underarmed and unprepared, but at the time the USN can't be blamed for playing it safe. It would have sucked for the ship to be sunk again, and they might have judged that there wouldn't be much need for the Tennessee in the Atlantic. After all, the RN and USN had a dozen or so obsolete battleships between them for gunfire support in the Atlantic.
Quote from: Neil on November 24, 2013, 06:58:28 PM
Yeah, I would have a hard time discounting the battleship and a surface battle, given the way things had gone the first 2 1/2 years of World War 2. Given the size and power of the Japanese battleline, it would be unwise to discount it. It's easy to look back now and realize that the main examples of bombers attacking warships prior to Force Z were the Luftwaffe, who were laughably underarmed and unprepared, but at the time the USN can't be blamed for playing it safe. It would have sucked for the ship to be sunk again, and they might have judged that there wouldn't be much need for the Tennessee in the Atlantic. After all, the RN and USN had a dozen or so obsolete battleships between them for gunfire support in the Atlantic.
I don't think that anyone knowledgeable would argue that the bulging was bad because the ships couldn't serve in the Atlantic - they could, after all, just sail around South America. Wikipedia articles aren't really worth quoting, as their authors frequently make this kind of mistake.
I didn't read the wiki article. :(
I also wanted to make sure that I insulted airpower, in the form of the Luftwaffe. Because Ide is wrong.
Quote from: Neil on November 24, 2013, 07:12:41 PM
I didn't read the wiki article. :(
I also wanted to make sure that I insulted airpower, in the form of the Luftwaffe. Because Ide is wrong.
Don't insult the Luftwaffe; they were the first to prove that strategic bombing was a really stupid way to waste resources, and, thus, that Ide is wrong. Tactical air power, under the control of the war fighter, is a very useful thing, indeed. The Luftwaffe's flaws were caused by its not being under army control, and therefor it lacked direction and was overly bureaucratic. Had Hitler made the Luftwaffea part of Das Heer, I believe it would have been a successful organization.
Quote from: grumbler on November 24, 2013, 07:23:54 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 24, 2013, 07:12:41 PM
I didn't read the wiki article. :(
I also wanted to make sure that I insulted airpower, in the form of the Luftwaffe. Because Ide is wrong.
Don't insult the Luftwaffe; they were the first to prove that strategic bombing was a really stupid way to waste resources, and, thus, that Ide is wrong. Tactical air power, under the control of the war fighter, is a very useful thing, indeed. The Luftwaffe's flaws were caused by its not being under army control, and therefor it lacked direction and was overly bureaucratic. Had Hitler made the Luftwaffea part of Das Heer, I believe it would have been a successful organization.
They were also sorta bad at attacking ships. The Stuka was pretty crap compared to the carrier dive bombers being used in the Pacific, and the He-111 was an awful torpedo bomber. Can you imagine if the Germans had ever tried a cross-Channel invasion? Slaughter.
[David Attenborough] Now we see the bait has been laid, in an amazing way, to lure in the prey. Countless years of evolution have gone into this trap, and the creator has made it perfectly. [/David Attenborough]
Quote from: Neil on November 24, 2013, 10:24:52 PM
They were also sorta bad at attacking ships. The Stuka was pretty crap compared to the carrier dive bombers being used in the Pacific, and the He-111 was an awful torpedo bomber. Can you imagine if the Germans had ever tried a cross-Channel invasion? Slaughter.
The Luftwaffe was a ground-support type air force, and wouldn't be good at attacking ships (the USAAF and the RAF were bad at that, as well). The Stuka was crap compared to the Dauntless, but was a better dive bomber than the Val (longer-ranged, bigger load, and better-protected). The Germans never had an effective aerial torpedo, so all their torpedo bombers were crap, not just the He-111.
The early Stukas, of the sort used in the Battle of Britain (before they put the improved engine in them) where inferior to the Val in speed and range. I will give you the bombload, armour and the torpedo. Looking at wiki, it actually give better figures for the Val in range and speed even over the Junker Jumo Stuka, but I wonder if they might be comparing an unloaded Val to a loaded Stuka.
Stukas had a soundtrack. Therefore, WIN.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 25, 2013, 08:39:28 AM
Stukas had a soundtrack. Therefore, WIN.
Quite the opposite. After all, what's the best dive bomber attack of all time? The Dauntlesses diving at Midway, totally by surprise. One minute, the Japanese sailors are cheering their guys while they massacre Devastators. The next, they're getting incinerated by a somewhat careless aviation gas system that has been blown up.
Neil's post gave me a Banzai Boner.
Great pic of the battleship! Can't beat a pic of a battleship, best lines of any warship!
Quote from: Neil on November 25, 2013, 08:38:48 AM
The early Stukas, of the sort used in the Battle of Britain (before they put the improved engine in them) where inferior to the Val in speed and range. I will give you the bombload, armour and the torpedo. Looking at wiki, it actually give better figures for the Val in range and speed even over the Junker Jumo Stuka, but I wonder if they might be comparing an unloaded Val to a loaded Stuka.
I recalled an assertion that the Stuka had a longer range loaded than the Val (and vice-versa unloaded) due to the Stuka's more powerful power plant and three-bladed prop, but I think my recollection was faulty. Looking at load versus range, the Val appears to be better loaded and unloaded.
Here is another shot of the USS Tennessee:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.victoriareview.com%2Ftennessee.jpg&hash=964dee83825e13cc3c74f4a2269010f9971bdb7c)
It's always so impressive seeing pics or video of the big guns going off.
I also couldn't help feeling empathy for those soldiers and marines aboard the landing craft heading to shore, and the tough slog they'll be up against.
And in the age of anti-access and area denial, we don't need that kind of resilience or amphibious naval gunfire support anymore, no sir.
Disposable littoral ships that don't meet shock testing standards, that's the answer.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 27, 2013, 08:22:12 AM
And in the age of anti-access and area denial, we don't need that kind of resilience or amphibious naval gunfire support anymore, no sir.
Disposable littoral ships that don't meet shock testing standards, that's the answer.
We don't need that kind of naval gunfire support though. In the age of cheap PGMs, the idea of area obliteration of targets is a thing of the past.
Quote from: KRonn on November 27, 2013, 08:18:19 AM
It's always so impressive seeing pics or video of the big guns going off.
When I see the great guns going off I always hear Thulsa Doom's voice: "THAT is strength! THAT is power!"
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2013, 09:42:42 AM
We don't need that kind of naval gunfire support though. In the age of cheap PGMs, the idea of area obliteration of targets is a thing of the past.
Nonsense. Besides, arty shells are fiscally prudent alternatives.
One of my Fav classes. More thought of as a Battle Cruiser IIRC. To me the most visually appealing, second only to the Iowa-class BB's.
Scharnhorst and Gneisenau
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scharnhorst-class.dk%2Fgneisenau%2Fgallery%2Fpictures%2Fgallgneiseseatrials2%2Fgallgneiseseatrials22.jpg&hash=0fee3a570a6ca0bc2b4290af80b1be400f035fd8)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scharnhorst-class.dk%2Fgneisenau%2Fgallery%2Fpictures%2Fgallgneiseseatrials2%2Fgallgneiseseatrials27.jpg&hash=0d8549f68edc730e7fca398d6bd6768cbcd74b1c)
http://www.scharnhorst-class.dk/gneisenau/gallery/gallgneiseseatrials2.html
I'm more of a Type VII u-boat guy, but those are nice.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 27, 2013, 11:59:21 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2013, 09:42:42 AM
We don't need that kind of naval gunfire support though. In the age of cheap PGMs, the idea of area obliteration of targets is a thing of the past.
Nonsense. Besides, arty shells are fiscally prudent alternatives.
I doubt that the cost of 50 artillery shells is less than the cost of a single cheap PGM. Plus the cost of the ship to move all those shells, etc., etc.
Quote from: 11B4V on November 27, 2013, 12:11:13 PM
One of my Fav classes. More thought of as a Battle Cruiser IIRC. To me the most visually appealing, second only to the Iowa-class BB's.
They are good-looking ships, no question. They really are inferior battleships, though, rather than battlecruisers, because they didn't really have a speed advantage over contemporary battleships. They were good ships for what they were built for (commerce-raiding), but I think that an objective analysis of their worth would conclude that their main value was in providing German shipyards badly-needed experience in building big armored ships.
They are similar to the
Dunkerque class in both of those regards.
Quote from: grumbler on November 27, 2013, 02:14:16 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on November 27, 2013, 12:11:13 PM
One of my Fav classes. More thought of as a Battle Cruiser IIRC. To me the most visually appealing, second only to the Iowa-class BB's.
They are good-looking ships, no question. They really are inferior battleships, though, rather than battlecruisers, because they didn't really have a speed advantage over contemporary battleships. They were good ships for what they were built for (commerce-raiding), but I think that an objective analysis of their worth would conclude that their main value was in providing German shipyards badly-needed experience in building big armored ships.
They are similar to the Dunkerque class in both of those regards.
Surely
I've always hear of them referenced as commerce raiders, but aren't they massive overkill for sinking merchant ships?
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2013, 02:17:15 PM
I've always hear of them referenced as commerce raiders, but aren't they massive overkill for sinking merchant ships?
:lol: True. Kind of like the Tiger
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2013, 02:17:15 PM
I've always hear of them referenced as commerce raiders, but aren't they massive overkill for sinking merchant ships?
They were designed to force the French (or British, but the French were the nation the Germans had in mind when designing them) to commit heavier units to commerce protection than cruisers, thus laying France open to German attacks on the main fleet. Despite what fanboyz will tell you, the "pocket battleships" were vulnerable to cruisers.
The Scharnhorst class weren't really expected to fight battleships, but they were expected to tie up battleships in countering them.
I'd note that the German O-class battlecruisers (planned but never built) were, in fact, battlecruisers; they gave up protection and a turret in order to gain a six-knot speed advantage over the Bismarcks. That the Germans were still thinking in terms of battlecruisers in 1940 showed just out of touch they were with naval realities.
Quote from: grumbler on November 27, 2013, 02:14:16 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on November 27, 2013, 12:11:13 PM
One of my Fav classes. More thought of as a Battle Cruiser IIRC. To me the most visually appealing, second only to the Iowa-class BB's.
They are good-looking ships, no question. They really are inferior battleships, though, rather than battlecruisers, because they didn't really have a speed advantage over contemporary battleships. They were good ships for what they were built for (commerce-raiding), but I think that an objective analysis of their worth would conclude that their main value was in providing German shipyards badly-needed experience in building big armored ships.
They are similar to the Dunkerque class in both of those regards.
Exactly. The real benefit to
Scharnhorst and
Dunkerque was that they allowed their builders to work out the kinks for
Bismarck and
Richelieu. They weren't supposed to fight capital ships (and the few times that they did, it ended rather badly), but they had to be able to defeat a convoy escort that didn't have a battleship, forcing the opponent to use their fleet to escort convoys. They were improved pocket battleships.
Quote from: grumbler on November 27, 2013, 03:39:39 PM
I'd note that the German O-class battlecruisers (planned but never built) were, in fact, battlecruisers; they gave up protection and a turret in order to gain a six-knot speed advantage over the Bismarcks. That the Germans were still thinking in terms of battlecruisers in 1940 showed just out of touch they were with naval realities.
By 1940, nobody had built a real battlecruiser in almost 25 years. The ideas behind
Repulse just didn't exist anymore. I'd be interested in reading a study of the design process behind the Z-Plan ships, just to see where the thinking was that put them there. I know that Raeder was an old battlecruiser sailor, but he always struck me as a little bit in touch with German realities, at least in the context of a balanced fleet.
So, if we're talking about shore bombardment in the context of the US Navy, what do you guys think of the Rail Gun program?
Will they be the answer Captain James Kirk is looking for?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/24/captain-kirk-us-navy-zumwalt-star-trek
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/04/booooom_bae_systems_gets_million_of_dollars_to_design_rail_gun/
We already had the rail gun shore bombardment discussion.
Quote from: Neil on November 27, 2013, 09:48:33 PM
By 1940, nobody had built a real battlecruiser in almost 25 years. The ideas behind Repulse just didn't exist anymore. I'd be interested in reading a study of the design process behind the Z-Plan ships, just to see where the thinking was that put them there. I know that Raeder was an old battlecruiser sailor, but he always struck me as a little bit in touch with German realities, at least in the context of a balanced fleet.
As near as I can figure out (this discussion caused me to see it Warships1 had returned to the internet, and it has, but with all of the old stuff lost), the battlecruiser idea of 1940 was part of the German commerce-raiding concept where they would have a core force of a battleship to deal with heavy escorts and carrier to scout, and then a battlecruiser or two to chase down the light escorts and merchant ships and sink them. The battlecruisers would also be the scouts in weather too rough for the aircraft carrier.
the problem with all of this, of course, is that it ignores the fact that the RN would simply assemble a fleet big enough to smash the German force (which is too weak to fight and too big to hide) and then rejoice that the Germans were so stupid as to split their forces up like this to be defeated in detail.
By the time the Germans were contemplating starting these ships, airborne radar was a couple of months from being deployed. Aircraft with radar make the concept behind these battlecruiser designs obsolete, because they can do pretty much the same job, in all but the worst of bad weather, at a much lower cost. As a side note, the ASV on the RN's swordfish made the attack on the
Bismarck possible; I doubt that any navy but the RN could have launched air strikes in the weather prevailing when
Ark Royal and
Victorious launched.
If Germany wanted battleships, it should build them; if it wanted battlecruiser capabilities, it should build carriers, and equip them with radar-equipped strike aircraft.