On-topic derail: Battleships

[klr]

This topic was split from the Pub http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=30072 -- Ronja



Kill two birds with the one stone. Shove a battleship and royalty where the sun doesn't shine ...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Kill two birds with the one stone. Shove a battleship and royalty where the sun doesn't shine ...

Gak! Sponsons! Also known as "Holes in the armor."

[klr]

Kill two birds with the one stone. Shove a battleship and royalty where the sun doesn't shine ...

Gak! Sponsons! Also known as "Holes in the armor."

Some/all* of those were removed in 1930's refits, and replaced by twin DP turrets on the main deck.

*Depends on which ships of the QE class we're talking about. QE herself had them all removed.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Kill two birds with the one stone. Shove a battleship and royalty where the sun doesn't shine ...

Gak! Sponsons! Also known as "Holes in the armor."

Some/all* of those were removed in 1930's refits, and replaced by twin DP turrets on the main deck.

*Depends on which ships of the QE class we're talking about. QE herself had them all removed.

Did they cover the holes with quality armor plate or steel butter? And the portholes, them too.

[klr]

...
Did they cover the holes with quality armor plate or steel butter? And the portholes, them too.

Judge for yourself. This is what Queen Elizabeth would have looked like after her refit, courtesy of Trumpeter models. I'm not sure about the portholes. This is probably a preproduction shot based on a CAD rendering of the model, so some detail may be missing:

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There are portholes in the model, up forward, I do believe. That would have been crews quarters, so "fresh air" would have been important in pre-air conditioning days. Important enough to risk losing the entire ship?

[klr]

There are portholes in the model, up forward, I do believe. That would have been crews quarters, so "fresh air" would have been important in pre-air conditioning days. Important enough to risk losing the entire ship?

Probably not. Maybe it's the "all or nothing" principle in operation.

Anyway, four of this class were at Jutland, and took heavy fire from the Germans, but all survived - unlike some of the RN battle cruisers. So their armour was certainly good enough to meet the original design requirements.

[klr]

The actual armour layout, from a 1923 diagram:



Poor anti-torpedo protection (typical for designs at the time), but otherwise good.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There are portholes in the model, up forward, I do believe. That would have been crews quarters, so "fresh air" would have been important in pre-air conditioning days. Important enough to risk losing the entire ship?

Probably not. Maybe it's the "all or nothing" principle in operation.

Or the armored deck was under the berthing area? That would trip armor piercing shells before they hit the main plating.

Anyway, four of this class were at Jutland, and took heavy fire from the Germans, but all survived - unlike some of the RN battle cruisers. So their armour was certainly good enough to meet the original design requirements.

Did they upgrade for the gunnery developments in the '30s, or was it "good enough"?

[klr]

There are portholes in the model, up forward, I do believe. That would have been crews quarters, so "fresh air" would have been important in pre-air conditioning days. Important enough to risk losing the entire ship?

Probably not. Maybe it's the "all or nothing" principle in operation.

Or the armored deck was under the berthing area? That would trip armor piercing shells before they hit the main plating.

Anyway, four of this class were at Jutland, and took heavy fire from the Germans, but all survived - unlike some of the RN battle cruisers. So their armour was certainly good enough to meet the original design requirements.

Did they upgrade for the gunnery developments in the '30s, or was it "good enough"?

From wiki:

Between the wars, the ships received considerable upgrades, including new machinery, small-tube boilers, deck armour upgrades, torpedo belt armour, trunked funnels, new secondary armament and anti-aircraft armament, and many gunlaying and electronics upgrades. Queen Elizabeth, Valiant, and Warspite were the most modernized, receiving the new "Queen Anne's mansion" block superstructure for the bridge, and dual-purpose secondaries in turret mountings.[

Also: IIRC, the main guns/turrets were altered to raise the maximum angle of fire by 5 degrees, thus extending the range by 5,000 yards or so.

Hold on ... from the uboat.net entry for Queen Elizabeth:

Rebuilt twice between Wars. In the second rebuild both HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Valiant remained almost identical sister ships, the difference being HMS Queen Elizabeth had a tripod mainmast, HMS Valiant a pole mainmast. The changes included improvements to the main guns, allowing 30 degree elevation increasing their range to 32,000 yards. All the secondary armament was replaced with 20 4.5 inch AA gun mounts (10 x 2) (as installed on the Illustious-Class aircraft carriers). 32 2 pdr pom pom guns (4 x 8) were fitted arround the funnel, 16 0.5" (4x4) machine guns were fitted, two on B and 2 on X turret roofs, but these were quickly removed. New aircraft arrangements were made to accommodate 3 aircraft with an athwartships catapult. Throughout the war changes were being made to the anti-aircraft weapons as the threat increased. Her final 20 mm Oerlikons anti-aircraft fit was 52 (26 x 2), the quad machine-guns having been removed. Four HA/LA DCT (High Angle/Low Angle Director Control Tower) were fitted two above and forward of the bridge and two aft. Their heights had to be staggered because of their close proximity. Following the start of the war a Type 273 SR(Surface Radar) on the foremast, a Type SR (Surface Radar) 284 radar on the LA DCT (Low Angle Director Control Tower) and a Type HA (High Angle) 285 on each of the HA DCT's, a Type 291 AW (Air Warning) on the mastheads and an IFF interrogator.

And: In 1940, Warspite hit an Italian battleship at about 26,000 yards, which is the longest recorded hit in gunnery battles between dreadnoughts.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I meant opposing gunnery developments, incoming fire.

[klr]

I meant opposing gunnery developments, incoming fire.

Apart from the new torpedo bulges, it looks like there were some other improvements to armour. Certainly, for Valiant:

Deck armour was increased to 5 inches (130 mm) over the magazines, 2.5 inches over the machinery while the new 4.5" guns had between 1 and 2 inches (51 mm) of armour

But as for major changes to the main hull and turret armour ... don't know. It might have imposed an unacceptable speed or stability penalty. Even with more powerful propulsion after refits, the ships struggled to maintain their original 25 knot speed.

EDIT: I'll report the thread and let the mods decide if a split and/or move is desirable.

[Hermit]

We seem to have become separated from a vital aspect of battleships: the effect of having them shoved up one's arse. I propose we campaign to have the relevant threads merged. If nothing else, it'll give the moderators the warm and fuzzy feeling that comes from being requested to do something.

[Clinton Huxley]

There's a lump of wood from HMS Warspite set up on a cliff at Prussia Cove in Cornwall. Walked past it on me hols a few weeks ago.

[klr]

There's a lump of wood from HMS Warspite set up on a cliff at Prussia Cove in Cornwall. Walked past it on me hols a few weeks ago.

Prussia Cove? Isn't it time that was renamed to something more patriotic?

By coincidence, one of my brothers and his family spent a couple of days in that part of merry olde England a few weeks ago as well. I must ask them if they spotted any nobility out in the open.

Going back to this photo of Warspite:


5 IKU's to anyone who can tell me why the X (no. 3) turret isn't in a firing position like the others.