Search this Topic:
Jul 4 17 7:22 PM
Jul 4 17 7:27 PM
Jul 4 17 7:57 PM
Jul 4 17 8:15 PM
Jul 4 17 8:53 PM
Jul 4 17 9:39 PM
To be fair, I believe that the British did put 7" of armor on the Indefatigable's barbettes.
In addition, the pre-war British testing indicated that losing a turret wouldn't threaten the loss of the ship.
In the Indefatigable vs von der Tann duel, the von der Tann got 3 un returned hits, at a fairly short range for heavy naval guns.
I'm less inclined to fault the RN for the lack of armor, as the armor level looks adequate vs the expected threat.
Jul 4 17 11:36 PM
Jul 5 17 12:19 AM
Jul 5 17 12:29 AM
Jul 5 17 12:34 AM
Jul 5 17 12:56 AM
mike1880 wrote:Disagree, they were among the most powerful cruisers around when they were built (granted the design stayed in production a tad longer than it should) and no slower than most at the time.
Jul 5 17 7:02 AM
Jul 5 17 10:29 AM
Joshua Kintner wrote:Naturally the discussion has gone from the last generation or two of ACR to BCs and what qualifies as which.
Surprised to see no discussion about the Garibaldi class in this thread. Perhaps best isn't synonymous with successful as much as powerful in this instance.
Jul 5 17 10:53 AM
Jul 5 17 12:42 PM
sergeante wrote:mike1880 wrote:Disagree, they were among the most powerful cruisers around when they were built (granted the design stayed in production a tad longer than it should) and no slower than most at the time.
Was outclassed by USS Brooklyn from the beginning, and things got worse from there. The design was certainly of little major-power relevance by the time the last several examples were delivered, which also happens to be the period under discussion.
Jul 5 17 12:56 PM
Sunk at Narvik wrote:Fascinating discussion. Re the Garibaldi's- there was an interesting race going on in South America which resulted in the Swiftsure & Triumph (ordered by Chile to counter Argentina's Garibaldi's). Smaller but faster than contemporary battleships but armed with 10inch on 19 knots. Essentially a "battlecruiser"?
Anyone know how the Italians achieved 22 knots on triple expansion engines?
Jul 5 17 12:58 PM
Jul 5 17 1:33 PM
MarkLBailey wrote:Again, I note Sergeante's discussion on the USS Brooklyn. This ship displaced more than the Garibaldi's and had a chase armament of uniform 8" (8"/35 caliber Mark 3 ), with a rof of 0.5 – 0.8 rounds per minute as designed and built (it was later increased in the 1900s). They had a MAIN armament of 12 5" /40. These had a rof of 12 rpm.Again, these were hail of fire ships intended for actions at 2000-4000 yards as no-one could hit anything ove that range (in any Navy). Their chase armament was very powerful and numerous enough that it too could be expected to play a really significant role at such ranges. And yes, the 8" guns were the chase armament, look at it. She was carefully designed to have no fewer than SIX 8" guns firing forward or aft. And remember that range and bearing changes in a stern chase change much, much more slowly than in broadside actions.So Brooklyn could fire roughly 72 5" and 6 8" shells a minute. One can see why 'hail of fire' using QF made the lighter guns the main armament of these ships in this era!She was also a 20 knot ship (and reliably so) - their main problem was the thin 3" belt on this ship.You can see why I am quite puzzled as to why the USN did not continue on the development path that Brooklyn started. Keep the speed and add armour and you'd have a hell of a ship for the era. The USN did something unusual with this ship, others had 9-10" chase guns in smaller numbers and 6" guns in slightly larger numbers. Going for 6 x 8" in the chase armament and 6 x 5" QF per broadside in the main armament was very interesting.Cheers: mark
Jul 5 17 2:03 PM
sergeante wrote:Re: dorknought
You know what all of this demonstrates? Nobody was thinking about what was going to happen when British battlecruisers encountered enemy battlecruisers. In the posted account of the 1912 cruiser reorganization, the big dilemma is whether to place battlecruisers in the line, where they would face battleships, or to assign them scouting duties, where they would (preseumably) be safe from battleship fire.
Jul 5 17 2:10 PM
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.