Re: What where the most underated battleships?

feeds@yuku.com (Plamen1974) — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 22:18:48 GMT

Good old fashioned protection system. Russian Retvizna, built in USA had belt with uniform 9" thickness. I doubt about KEVII scheme, but I'm not sure.

Re: What where the most underated battleships?

feeds@yuku.com (Tiornu) — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 18:25:07 GMT

All the Tsushima pre-dreadnoughts were the same. I believe they all had 9in amidships and 7in abreast the turrets. A ship has its greatest hull volume (=buoyancy) amidhips.

Re: What where the most underated battleships?

feeds@yuku.com (Plamen1974) — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 13:45:45 GMT

Why Japanese thinned their main belt at the area of fore and aft magazine - because of hull problems - long hullto reduce the strain at the ends and for bette seakeeping?

Re: What where the most underated battleships?

feeds@yuku.com (Tiornu) — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 12:48:02 GMT

"Ise and Fuso classes were built with with thinner belt /12"/ than t contemporary BB"
That was the thick part of the belt amidships. It thinned to 8in by the fore and aft magazines.

"You know that Kongo's were less protected even from British BC 8" v 9" on the Splendid cats"
That was the thick part of the British belt amidships. It thinned to 5in by the fore and aft magazines. I much prefer the Japanese use of a...

Re: What where the most underated battleships?

feeds@yuku.com (Plamen1974) — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 12:10:12 GMT

Ise and Fuso classes were built with with thinner belt /12"/ than t contemporary BB, because Japanese considered long range fire with many barrels a key factor for victory.Their BB had 1-2 knot advantage as built 23-23.5 knots v. 21-22 knots dreadnoughts. Bothclasses had turret farms, because their 14"/45 twins was British design and British did not manufacture triple turrets. You know that Kongo's were less protected even from British BC 8" v 9" on the Splendid cats,...

Re: What where the most underated battleships?

feeds@yuku.com (Tiornu) — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 08:36:34 GMT

"But, relying on a secondary source as you are, you are a bit uninformed about the actual event, which is described in detail in this ship's war damage report. I recommend to you paragraphs 41 to 49."
Hee! Just a tad presumptuous, eh? Since you have the damage report, have a look at page 1. See the references? What do they tell you? You might want to have a look at the SoDak action report which shows the problem had nothing whatsoever to do with a personnel woopsie....

Re: What where the most underated battleships?

feeds@yuku.com (SMS12) — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 04:53:27 GMT

Plamen1974 wrote:
In my opinion Fuse and Ise classes were one of the most underrated classes even in the Japanese Navy - slow, moderate protection and firepower equal to those of Kongo's at long ranges, because of elevation problems of the after pair turret. Although they were not bad battleships, compared with other WWI BB in other navies.

Do not concur. I'll give...

Re: What where the most underated battleships?

feeds@yuku.com (Creeping Death1929) — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 04:02:52 GMT

That is apparently just a urban legend that the Ise aft turrets couldn't elevate past 30 degrees.

"
mucho

Re: What where the most underated battleships?

feeds@yuku.com (Plamen1974) — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 02:31:37 GMT

In my opinion Fuso and Ise classes were one of the most underrated classes even in the Japanese Navy - slow, moderate protection and firepower equal to those of Kongo's at long ranges, because of elevation problems of the after pair turrets. Although they were not bad battleships, compared with other WWI BB in other navies.

Re: What where the most underated battleships?

feeds@yuku.com (bennett0) — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 00:37:00 GMT

I would like to thank all of you for your comments. I was not aware of the other incidents. I was also involved in a number of accident investigations (rotary wing) and agree that it is easy to for even trained people to make mistakes, especially when they are tired or under a lot of pressure. In most cases aviation accidents seem to be the result of a lot of little mistakes, frequently by different people, that add up and compound and eventually lead to catastrophe.

Bennett

Re: What where the most underated battleships?

feeds@yuku.com (emc) — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 22:36:00 GMT

I've been involved in a couple of aviation accident investigations, and in the aviation business for quite a while. There are very good reasons why commercial aircraft have squat switches; there are similar reasons why gas stations use different nozzles for diesel and gasoline, and why 220v plugs differ from 110v plugs. Everybody -- even trained and certified reactor operators -- is stupid sometimes, usually at 3:00am in the middle of 8 billion things going wrong at once.

Re: What where the most underated battleships?

feeds@yuku.com (jlyons97) — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 22:34:52 GMT

Tiornu wrote:
G&D mentions that the various incidents led to Ship Alterations to be carried out on all modern BBs to prevent a recurrence.

And so they were. But, relying on a secondary source as you are, you are a bit uninformed about the actual event, which is described in detail in this ship's war damage report. I recommend to you paragraphs 41 to 49. "locked in" circuit breakers and the shock...

Re: What where the most underated battleships?

feeds@yuku.com (Tiornu) — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 22:01:24 GMT

G&D mentions that the various incidents led to Ship Alterations to be carried out on all modern BBs to prevent a recurrence.

Re: What where the most underated battleships?

feeds@yuku.com (Fermi2) — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 20:44:02 GMT

It was 100% Human Error. The USN did not change the design of the breakers 1 iota. In fact the point of the class was to show what happens when people take actions with equipment that are contrary to good solid design, then the equipment gets screwed up due to the action. It's been my experience that 99.9% of the time Human Error is the main cause of what someone felt was a design error. The SoDak was no different.

Mike

Re: What where the most underated battleships?

feeds@yuku.com (jlyons97) — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 19:33:29 GMT

emc wrote:

Fermi2 wrote:

Tiornu wrote

"The electrical failure was a personnel error not a design error."
There was a design flaw that human error then aggravated. You may recall that SoDak's blooper was ther esult of someone trying...

Re: What where the most underated battleships?

feeds@yuku.com (NewGolconda) — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 05:39:19 GMT

Does this count too?

BB48/S72 U.S.S. West Virginia
c/o Fleet Post Office,
San Francisco, California.
90-ys

From: Commanding Officer.
To: Chief, Bureau of Ordnance.
Via: (1) Commander Battleship Division 4.
(2) Commander Service Force, Pacific Fleet (FMO).
Subject: Casualties to the Mark 1 Mod 0 Shell Hoist Drive Gear in Turret I during shore bombardment of Leyte Island, and the Battle of Surigao Strait, Philippine Islands, October 20...

Re: What where the most underated battleships?

feeds@yuku.com (Tiornu) — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 04:16:05 GMT

"As far as I know, NOT ONE of these ships except South Dakota ever had a similar problem."
Actually, it was Indiana (from memory) that first reported the problem, during her trials. Massachusetts had electrical problems just a few days before the Battle of Guadalcanal. However, the consequences were minor in those cases. It was the SoDak crewman's bizarre attempt to counter the flaw that caused the big problem.

Re: What where the most underated battleships?

feeds@yuku.com (dunmunro1) — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 04:01:27 GMT

E F Draaijers wrote:
[Edited to remove unattributed quotation of an entire essay by Nathan Okun. See http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-092.htm . Note that the photo on that page does not show the shell hit the essay discusses.]

I don't want to get caught in the cross fire, but here's the official SoDak damage photos and...

Re: What where the most underated battleships?

feeds@yuku.com (bennett0) — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 04:01:10 GMT

Regarding the electrical fault in South Dakota at 1st Guadalcanal: There were 4 ships in the South Dakota class. The only major differences between South Dakota and Alabama, Massachusetts and Indiana were the extra conning tower level and the lack of two 5"/38 twin mounts (given up as...

Re: What where the most underated battleships?

feeds@yuku.com (Tiornu) — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 03:20:04 GMT

"Armor on the post treaty USN BB's was concentrated on the turrets and barbettes only"
Perhaps you didn't read my previous post, though it directly addressed you after your previous misstatement. Did you ignore the conning tower and protection aft of the citadel? Why did you do this?

"leaving less available to decks (they had the thinnest armored decks of all modern BB's)"
Assuming you mean only the deck above the citadel:...

What where the most underated battleships?

feeds@yuku.com (JonSidneyB) — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 22:32:32 GMT

Instead of the tit for tat arguments over what is best, how about those designs that were sound for what they were built for that get no attention. This is about design and not if they were improperly used or didn't have a chance to be deployed properly.

Who is most underated?