I feel bad for the Nelsons people just remember them as slow. They proved anything that didn't or couldn't run away was bang in trouble. Other than a mistaken change of direction in their gun design these ships are very advanced for the 20s
@Colonel_Overkill
Жыл бұрын
Also if I recall correctly the pressure waves from their 16" rifles made everyone in the mess deck see red from the squishing of their eyeballs.
@Ralph-yn3gr
Жыл бұрын
I like the _Nelson_ class. Anything that annoys Admiral King is pretty great in my book. I can't wish he'd been replaced, but I can take joy in watching things increase his blood pressure. Also I get the impression that not even the Japanese were completely sold on reclassifying the _Kongo_ class as battleships. They always seemed to use them as battlecruisers or as some sort of capital ship that was separate from their "proper" battleships, at least prior to 1944 when they started deploying them alongside _Yamato_ and _Nagato._
@robmarsh6668
Жыл бұрын
I was just reading about King's handling of the eastern seaboard u-boat war. Inexplicable except for straight anglophobia. Took him down a couple of pegs in my book for sure.
@sharlin648
Жыл бұрын
If I recall the Rodney managed to hit 25 knots during the Bismarck chase. And whilst the 16-inch 45's were not the best gun due to their comparatively light shells. They still did perfectly good against the Bismarck. The hit forward scored by Rodney was probably the most devastating hit a ship's taken without blowing up in modern warfare considering that it knocked out A and B turrets, probably damaged the bridge with shrapnel and possibly buggered up comms between the main fire director and the guns.
@admiralbeatty6083
Жыл бұрын
Nelson class: one of my favorite BB’s! Thank you Dr. C!
@michaelcouch66
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for another enjoyable and informative session. Some time ago you asked us about whether we preferred this sort of video as recorded Long Patrol or live chat. I think this video and the live chat perfectly demonstrates the way the two formats offer different things. I watch the livechats for enjoyment, the interaction(both yours with viewers, and between the chatters themselves - whole sub threads of conversation bubble away without your involvement), howver your interaction with the chat, answering question and going off on tangents, while intereting,gets in the way of you conveying the information on the topic in hand. The long patrols however, while lacking the atmosphere of the live, see you concentrating on the topic, and I personally find it easier to follow the topic and the points you're raising, without the interuptions of the chat. Neither format is "better" , both hit the target, but both (in my mind) are aiming at different targets. If I want a "knowledge" session I go for the recording, if I want "fun " (with some knowledge) I go for live.
@waynesworldofsci-tech
Жыл бұрын
Agreed. And the Long Patrols make up for when I can’t do a LiveStream, so both are hugely useful.
@PaulfromChicago
Жыл бұрын
24:40 Sometimes there is no good decision to be made. And sometimes you leave Beatty and Chatfield in charge. As Blackadder once said, "If you want something done right, kill Beatty before you start "
@timandellenmoran1213
11 ай бұрын
Thank you as always, very informative.
@andhelm7097
Жыл бұрын
Thank you for covering the design of these 2 famous warships. I really like the Design and have for years read nothing flattering about them .
@richardcutts196
Жыл бұрын
I also like the J3 Hood design, It needs a shorter belt and is looks like it would be less moist inside. Also like the way it shows up in WoWS as Rook.
@johngregory4801
10 ай бұрын
I never heard of the F2/F3 designs until Drachinifel featured them in the most recent Drydock. That's how I found this video. I have to say, it makes more sense to me, logistically speaking, to have built the F3 design instead of the Nelson class as we know it. Beyond being able to use the same shells as the Mk I 15" gun and updating the other 15"/42 ships as barrels became available, the ninth barrel and the extra 10' of barrel length is what makes them more powerful than Hood. In addition, if they'd been built, they might have been sent out against Bismarck when she sailed, giving the Royal Navy the chance to give Hood the refit she so desperately needed. With their armor scheme and turret placement, they would have been, at least to my mind, better suited to that particular battle than Hood and the untested Princess Wales. Of course, as you say, place the steam turbines for'd of the boiler rooms to limit temperature differential issues with C turret's magazine and, personally, I'd have refit them with 4.5" DP guns replacing the 6 inches. That might allow 2-4 more turrets for upgraded AA capabilities. Anyway... Those are my thoughts based on this video and the short time Drach had to showcase the designs last Sunday. Excellent video. Thank you.
@matthewkeeling886
Жыл бұрын
The 15"/50 would be 25"-30" (635-762mm) longer than the 16"/45s actually used (30" barrel, overall length difference depending on breech mechanism length and gun balance point) which might have been enough to compact the turret layout and save weight overall even with the larger caliber. As far as the F3 design, I might reduce the conning tower armor (7" instead of 9", or remove its protection against direct hits altogether if possible for splinter/shrapnel/aircraft machinegun protection only) to save a bit of weight (to be used elsewhere). I would almost certainly flip the engines and boilers as it is a good design move all round, though I am a bit concerned about the length of the shaft needed and would look into turbo-electric drive like the later Standard type ships (which we know can handle the speed requirement as the Lexingtons use the system) this might even allow 4 shafts with 2 engine units while increasing subdivision and electricity availability. I would probably look into designing a 4.7"/50 as a dual purpose weapon in a twin turret for the secondary to replace the 4.7" and 6" armament actually mounted on Nelson and Rodney and likely on F3's final design. By doing this I am saving on complexity and internal space, 8-10 such installations should be possible, it might even save weight when all things are taken into account and become the prototype of a lighter installation for cruisers and destroyers later on. While the 24.5" torpedo is cool from a technical standpoint: they are a bit pointless on a capital ship, take up a lot of useful space and open up a weakness in the anti-torpedo defenses, thus, they can go. Any remaining displacement is to be placed into beefing up the armor. These ships should provide a significant boost in power for the Royal Navy overall and, with Renown and Repulse cruising trouble spots and the Counties in slightly less concerning areas, should still provide the big gun deterrent they are looking for. The effect of the 15"/50 being retrofitted (if possible, unworkable shell hoist adjustments might be needed) would be major as that would allow the QEs, Renowns, Hood and, maybe, even the Rs to reliably fight at ranges Bismarck has trouble with and they can engage the Littorios at their "good ammunition day" ranges. It would also mean that the KGVs are probably 9x 15"/50 ships giving the RN a single supply chain for heavy caliber naval guns and thus easing logistics greatly. The leftover 15"/42 guns and turrets can be used to strengthen the coastal fortifications around the Empire; Gibraltar, Singapore, Hong Kong, Malta, Dover, and Suez could all benefit from them. Overall, it is a significant operational benefit for the Royal Navy to go for the 15"/50 gun. I don't see too much changing with the Japanese response, the Yamato Class was always designed with the US as the primary opponent and the arguments for and against it are the same either way. The Americans will probably be less troubled by these ships than the actual Nelson Class, they have "smaller" guns than the Colorado Class after all, and will probably not support the 14" in the Second London Treaty because of it. This frees up their concurrent design program from one set of headaches and the improvements in that, no longer compromised, design cascade into their later designs. That would be a net benefit for the US in the long run while not being threatening to them in the short run. Germany isn't really in a position to respond to them and probably still builds the Bismarcks in a very similar fashion to the actual ships, dictators tend to like bloated weapons after all. The Italians and the French are probably the most likely to be affected. The Italians will have to contend with the 15"/50's improved capabilities when considering their new 15" battleship designs resulting in some, not insignificant, modifications though they would be roughly similar in overall specification from a speed/firepower perspective albeit with a bit more armor and slower build times. The French, if they can swallow their national pride for practicality, may well buy the design for the 15"/50 from the UK for their newest ships in the 1930s resulting in both powers using the same shells and compatible guns in later years and easing logistics once again.
@wierdalien1
9 ай бұрын
Admiral King was just pissed that he didnt think of the idea.
@raithebatou
7 ай бұрын
I have always liked the look of the Nelsons. I think they proved their worth, but one more would have been useful. The possibilities of the longer gun and the upgrading of the rest of the fleet would have been a massive boost to firepower if the finances were available to do the conversions fully with upgraded fire controls etc. From what I have read, funding was a concern after WW1.
@Aubury
3 ай бұрын
Really impressed
@aw34565
Жыл бұрын
The Washington Naval Treaty should had been modified to allow three extra ships to be built, namely, the Americans could have finished USS Washington (BB-47), the British build a third NelRod, and the Japanese complete the Akagi as a battlecruiser. Not only does this give the Allies two extra 16" battleships come World War 2, it also denies the Japanese an aircraft carrier, as the battlecruiser Akagi is no longer available for conversion.
@waynesworldofsci-tech
Жыл бұрын
Rodney was my favourite battleship of all time. Great ships, just wish they had 60k installed power.
@petehall8381
10 ай бұрын
BZ, thanks!
@kevinmcdowell9293
4 ай бұрын
Thanks
@jonyungk
Жыл бұрын
Heretical as this may sound, the more I look at the J3, the more I think, "Why didn't the RN listen to Jellicoe when he asked about triple turrets for the Admirals and build *this* instead of Hood?"
@jackwardley3626
9 ай бұрын
Dr Clarke whats your opinion on the Nelson class with all guns ford do you think thats was the way to go designs even without treaties ?
@richardcutts196
9 ай бұрын
I think the G3 and N3 are good examples of going big to convince others to avoid getting into the race. I really believe that if instead of building Dreadnought as an evolutionary design, Fisher should have built the most powerful ship the infrastructure would allow. Building something like that would have completely stopped the French (the perceived enemy) and most likely, given what they were capable of building at the time, would have persuaded the Germans not to enter into a battleship race. I believe that Fisher could have defended building the biggest you could would in the long run save money because by the time anyone else could build anything that could be a threat the RN would have, using a modest building plan, the numbers to easily defeat them.
@richardcutts196
Жыл бұрын
One thing you mentioned in an earlier video, was eliminating the torpedo tubes on the Nelson class for more armor. Would this really have been that much of a weight saving, the areas would have had to be given anti torpedo bulkheads which would use up some of the weight benefit. It no doubt would have improved it's watertight compartmentalization.
@robmarsh6668
Жыл бұрын
Greg's airplanes released a vid on the Ki-84 today. Dr. Clarke is talking about the lovely (and awesome) Nelsons today. Now if the Chieftain will just have a chat about the Valentine...
@DrAlexClarke
Жыл бұрын
Matilda & Valentines, my favourite tanks of early WWII... what can I say, I like Pugnacious machines, it's probably why I have such affection for Grumman's Wildcat & Hellcat. hope you enjoyed the video
@robmarsh6668
Жыл бұрын
I have listened to many hours of your thoughts on boats and have enjoyed it immensely. If i may be so bold, why doesn't Hawke or the KGV's armour get more love? Anyway, Cheers.
@PaulfromChicago
Жыл бұрын
13.5" armor isn't really enough to deal with 16" shells. (I'm an a-head and don't really rate sloped armor though.) Put differently, the f3s are still battle cruisers, though on the battle end of the spectrum. However, a 27 knot genuine battleship would still be tremendously useful for Empire duty, and the power plant savings from the f3 design should be enough to put the belt up to 14.5 with a cheerfully thick deck. With a 15"/50 or even 16"/45 caliber, that ship would be a world beater. (Idk, I still might keep the old 15"/42 in a triple if it means other onboard amenities. That was a very good gun. The lessons from the 12"/50 are valuable ones. Bigger is not always better.)
@patrickradcliffe3837
Жыл бұрын
Would it have been possible to do a similar style refit to the Kongö's with installing a newer powerplant with more SHP to propel them up to 28kts? I always think of Rodney making her way to New York for that overhaul and what if
@DrAlexClarke
Жыл бұрын
Not really, they need a third shaft to deploy enough power to make anything more than 26kts... but if the cost was not a factor you could
@PaulfromChicago
Жыл бұрын
I don't know that you can say G3 is battlecruiser. She's a chonky girl armored against her own shells. With a block coefficient around .650, that puts them firmly into battleship category, particularly when you consider Iowa and Hood hang out a little under .450. She is designed for a battle cruiser role, but I suspect similar to the Elizabeths she would not make her designed top speed.
@JevansUK
Жыл бұрын
I get a bc of 0.578 for hood, and 0.579 for g3
@juicysushi
Жыл бұрын
Love the Nelsons, but I always have affection for an oddball. If we were going to really do a full-fat 35k F3, then with my hindsight hat on I’d like to ditch the secondaries and torpedoes for a bunch of HA 4-inch twin mounts (these are the early 1920s after all) and take all the weight savings/displacement room to put on battleship style framing and subdivision. Flipping the engines and boilers also sounds like a great idea and we can ditch the armour on the conning tower, for further weight savings to be used elsewhere. And re-gunning the rest of the fleet with the same 15/50s is exactly the choice the British should have done. You could turn around and offer the removed 15/42s to the French for the Dunkerques for free, which gives them a big boost and a default combined logistics situation at very, very low cost. Q for Dr Alex: Given the time frame of the Yamatos, were the Japanese designing them against the Nelsons, or did they ignore the threat these two ships actually possessed?
@KPen3750
Жыл бұрын
The reversed boiler and engine rooms is a pretty ingenious solution to keeping the magazines cool. But I do wonder, I've always heard that the British foundries (like Elswick, Armstrong, etc.) just couldn't produce a lot of 16" guns. Nor could they produce the 15" guns in quantity to arm the KGV's. What was the actual issue? was it supply of steel? capability to make the barrels of that diameter? Refusal to share plans for the guns between steel works? or a combination of it all?
@DABrock-author
Жыл бұрын
I’m another fan of Nelson & Rodney, especially the all-forward main battery. In fact, I chose that layout for the main battery of some of the Texas Navy ships in my ‘Republic of Texas Navy’ book series. As for Dr. Clarke’s question, the F3 design looks OK as it is, I’m not sure I understand the thought about reversing the positions of the engine and boiler spaces. Wouldn’t moving the engines forward mean longer, and possibly more vulnerable, propeller shafts? Thinking about what happened to Prince of Wales when she was sunk.
@michaelcouch66
Жыл бұрын
Your Question about the impact if RN built the F3s - well you said that one of the German design criteria was "We need to be Faster than the Nelrods, otherwise they'll chew us up" - well with F3s with an (official) top speed of 29 knotas suddenly that gets a whole lot more difficult. To still meet that criteria the Kreigsmarine needs faster ships, and speed means more engine power, which requires compromises elsewhere. So What would the Germans sacrifice to get faster Bismark class? Firepower? Protection? Because they can't get more speed unless they lose something.
@kevinmcdowell9293
4 ай бұрын
Thanks for the responce. Is there anywhere I could find out more about them 50 cal.
@DrAlexClarke
4 ай бұрын
There are books, but most of them are in boxes and I'm having real trouble having spent the day packing up the house remembering them... but if you pop into a Bruships in July and ask, I'll be able to grab them off a shelf and show you them... in the meantime I'll do my best to remember & respond, but if I don't then please just pop into the sunday live and ask and I'll get them out
@kevinmcdowell9293
4 ай бұрын
What are the characteristics of the 15"/50 compared to the Nelsons 16" weapons
@DrAlexClarke
4 ай бұрын
They were base on the existing 15/42s, were designed to use same breech & shell, but never built one so can't really say more than an improved 15/42... kind of like the 16.5in/45 was from the same line and we don't think they were built, although they were ordered for the G3s... basically these guns represent the carrying on of the British gun theory, the 16in guns on the Nelrods represent the fusing of that with the lessons the British thought they'd learned from the German guns post WWI.
@TheDoctorMonkey
Жыл бұрын
I think I love the F3 design more every time I think about it! 💓 How would I change the F3 if taking it to actual production... - I agree about the re-arrangement of boiler rooms, moving them to be aft of the engine rooms (and subdividing the engine rooms more) - I like the thickness of the armour over the magazines and control spaces - 7 inches of deck armour! Hello Col Mitchell, I see your bluff and smack it in the face with a giant lump of steel! - The secondary armament worries me a bit as it is relatively limited; the number of 6in guns that can be brought to bear on any annoying destroyers or cruisers coming up behind me (as the F3) is likely to only be two twin mounts and backing them up all I have is some PomPoms. - This is less of an issue in early service, I should have supporting cruisers, even if "only" C /D/E class, to keep me from getting inconvenienced - Later I can hope to get refitted and (🤞) get a load of those sexy new 4.5in twin mounts before they start giving them to little destroyers and other such lesser creatures - I would happily lose the 24 1/2 inch underwater torpedo tubes but fear that the RN is going to stick to that idea/plan c1922 and removal later won't help me with structural issues, even if they are removed in favour of better armoured cheese magazines* and other improvements later *moment's pause in memory of the cheese so cruelly lost when Nelson was torpedoed Currently working on my own idea for procurement after an alternative Washington Naval Treaty that allowed more ships - British Empire and USA 20 Capital Ships (of 35000tW each) - Empire of Japan 13 Capital Ships (of 35000tW each) - France and Italy 7 Capital Ships (of 35000tW each) There would also be a greater scrapping option allowed, so that Britain (for example) could plan to get rid of all of the 13 1/2 inch armed ships as well as all of the 12 inch ones; this would allow a build up of 700000tW less the 5 x QEs, 5 x R, Hood and Renown/Repulse Carriers would be similarly increased in number albeit in similar ratios - this would allow for 10:10:6:4:4
@TheDoctorMonkey
Жыл бұрын
@@Knight6831 well, there is the 3000tW of "additions" that can be added a la Lexington class...
@patttrick
Жыл бұрын
very good
@canuckled
Жыл бұрын
Response to F3: Politicians in UK asking why the guns aren't 16 inch, foreign press mocking the 15 inch, other navies developing armour and guns to deal with them, and RN wanting more powerful 15 inch shells for the increasing armour on latest US or Japanese ships. (15 inch shape charge?) Changes might include getting past 30 knots, more AA guns, and scout planes. If you were to bring back the name Nelson what type of ship would give it too? I'm thinking a class of LHDs for his work with amphibious operations in Corsica and Denmark or LPDs with a pair 127mm guns for fire support.
@andrewcox4386
Жыл бұрын
Interesting question regarding the F3s. I think to have gone that way you need to show a significant upgrade over Hood or your whole "big nasty ship at home" deterence doesn't work. Likewise if they are fast ships they probably get sent around the world doing the presence mission which then dulls the mystique. If I had the choice I would probably pay a few thousand tons to move to quads at the expense of a few knots, trying to keep 25kts to be in line with the QEs. Maybe I need to go to a Nelrod arrangement to gain a few more tons. Then I have a fast battleship force and the Rs. And a cocktail party it's "Ah yes, we're quite powerful but Nelson and Rodney are as powerful as 2 of Repulse over there, not much slower than we are and MUCH heavier armoured........".
@jackray1337
Жыл бұрын
I wonder if you've ever been copyright struck for your opening 'music'. Anyway, thank you for another nice video.
@andrewcox4386
Жыл бұрын
Was the USN irritation also linked to the fact that they knew their own fast battleship torpedo defences were deficient?
@andrewcox4386
Жыл бұрын
Wouldn't an upgrade of the battlefleet to 15" 50s run afoul of the limitations on upgrading the firepower of existing ships? Also, given the limited success of the 12" 50, would the 15" 50 have been that good? 🤔
@karlvongazenberg8398
Жыл бұрын
About tinkering with the F2 design - obviously change the engine and boiler rooms, see "heat problem" - make a bigger superstructure - having single and duel 6" secondaries is... weird. - 2 pdrs for flak is inadequate even for 1921, given that you need some heavy flak for anti-airship work "just in case" and potential for even more after a refit, thus future proofing the design (we know that air force WILL be serious, land based bombers ALREADY proven to be effective, shown by Italian bombing raids on the Cattaro base of A-H)
@duwop544
Жыл бұрын
Some other historian brought up Stanley Goodell this week. Must be something in the air. Did he do so privately?
@fightforaglobalfirstamendm5617
Жыл бұрын
Dr Clarke, Is possible the French may have accepted the entire High Sea Fleet being transfered to the Royal Navy in exchange for all land based weapons and technologies being given to them, the French?
@michaelcouch66
Жыл бұрын
It wasn't a 2 party deal, the US also had a say, as well as Belgium and Italy, even the Japanese were seeking their due. Now whats in it for the other parties to sign off on UK getting all the ships?
@spencerjones841
Жыл бұрын
if only the RN had been willing to use the same cheat as the USN did with the lexingtons.....probably could have gotten a lot of additional capabilities on a 38,000 ton design, would have been diplomatically interesting at 1st LNT as a result though. on another note would have it made more sense to go with 6 twin 4" mounts instead of the 6 single 4.7s they got for the heavy AA guns? or at least added more 4.7s?
@sjdavies47
Жыл бұрын
Given the technology of these ships and the fact they are neutered from what they could have been. Why did Vanguard’s design go back to such an old school design?
@DrAlexClarke
Жыл бұрын
speed/ease of construction were key driving factors, basically consider the Vanguard design the "R'' to the Lion's '''Queen Elizabeths''
@fightforaglobalfirstamendm5617
Жыл бұрын
Dr Clarke could a ship be built with larger barbettes than the turrets they are fitted with to save weight and to be able to be refit with a larger gun turret when the escalator clause was invoked? For example, the Nelson’s being fitted with 4 twin 16” gun turrets but with barbettes able to take a triple at a later date? One would that work, two would it be realistic and three is there another way to up gun a ship while being cheap enough to justify a refit rather than building a new ship? Thank you sir!
@richardcutts196
Жыл бұрын
If you look at many older ships the turrets look way small for the barbette. At first I wondered the same thing, if they was a planned upgrade. Since then I've decided it had to do with the bulk of the machinery needed to rotate the turret. An example: cdn.suruga-ya.jp/pics_light/boxart_a/603067492_2.jpg?v=997905bd5e3226cd2db5 While It may be possible, they would have to armor the top of the barbette and have the machinery, with an extra large and strong mounting, to rotate the turret fill in the gap. I'm not sure how much weight (for treaty purposes) it would save. Though I'm not sure if anyone seriously considered the idea, it is nice out of the box thinking.
@fightforaglobalfirstamendm5617
Жыл бұрын
@@richardcutts196 thank you for your reply and thoughts.
@QuizmasterLaw
Жыл бұрын
I am in fact the prince of a thousand enemies.
@andrewcox4386
Жыл бұрын
Was the 15" 50 really such a game changer? Don't forget the US had stocks of 16" 50s lying around from the Lexingtons which could have been used to upgrade the Colorados. Given that, I can't really see the 15" 50 as the right decision.
@andrewcox4386
Жыл бұрын
Sorry, the 16" 50s were of course from the South Dakotas as well
@DrAlexClarke
Жыл бұрын
it's a game changer for the RN, not the USN... because you can upgrade all the 15in ships
@lesliemitchell4984
Жыл бұрын
Dr Clarke rating Singing 1/10, History 10/10, teaching 10/10. Keep up the History, and do not become a Cabaret Singer I find this video has confirmed the Nelson/Rodney where a miss opportunity. Good but could have been so much better.
@michaelcouch66
Жыл бұрын
I don't know ... how about we propose Dr C as UKs next Eurovision entry? Singing a three minute ditty about cruisers (one from each Eurovision nation, in a shameless attempt to gain their votes) 😀
@lesliemitchell4984
Жыл бұрын
@@michaelcouch66 That would not be British 😉
@andrewcox4386
Жыл бұрын
Are you thinking the triple turret Hood would have been a 12 gun ship or 9?
@JevansUK
Ай бұрын
The was a legend produced for a 12 gun hood
@iancarr8682
Жыл бұрын
If Nelson was faster the cheese may have survived with the torpedo striking further aft!
@simonnorburn3518
Жыл бұрын
You seem to have an issue with lip synch
@DrAlexClarke
Жыл бұрын
In theory it shouldn't because the mic is a USB & it's all synced, but if there's a specific time point you see it at please say and I'll figure out if it's on the original or just the upload... thanks for the comment
@simonnorburn3518
Жыл бұрын
@@DrAlexClarke No hassle - about 2:15 it is noticable. 2:49 the word "sourced" is pronounced with the mouth closed; perhaps you are a closet ventriloquist? Simon
love the NelRods, but wished made the rear 16" triple to be superfiring over the other front 2 and no torp tubes.
@DrAlexClarke
Жыл бұрын
So, an F3 style design, then? It would have worked.
@Duke_of_Petchington
Жыл бұрын
@@DrAlexClarkeI had a look the F3 design, But I could not find anything on modifying it with 16”/L45 MK1 guns. For the planned weight and speed, I’m surprised they didn’t go for them in the first place.
@DrAlexClarke
Жыл бұрын
@@Duke_of_Petchington they seem to have shut down the battle cruiser line and not looked at it, but I have heard there are O3 (aka 'Nelson' designs with the 15in 50)
@Duke_of_Petchington
Жыл бұрын
@@DrAlexClarke kinda funny the “Fully Armoured” Battlecruiser/“Fast” Battleship concept won out in the end. you only have to look at the Euro-Axis Navies as well as the US and French navies to see where things, all in one capital warships.
@richardcutts196
Жыл бұрын
I think the firepower advantages of the 15/50 for the whole fleet make up for the minor prestige buff on two ships. Not to mention the logistical benefits of only having one shell size. You suggested that the QE's (and by implication the R's) might not be able to take the longer barrel, I would think that this could be rectified when they were brought in for refit and boiler upgrades. Even if some of the ships, like the R's didn't get a full refit it might be possible to swap out the turrets and guns for the longer barrel.
@DrAlexClarke
Жыл бұрын
I think the Queens could have taken it, as would the Renowns, and of course Hood, but it would be expensive as it would require modification to the turrets and possibly even the Barbettes, so I'm not sure the R class get it
@Duke_of_Petchington
Жыл бұрын
B.L. 15"/L45s MK2s*, the Italians made 15"/L50s
@DrAlexClarke
Жыл бұрын
@Duke of Petchington if you check out the drawings you'll see the planned guns for the F3 & F2 were 15in/50s, never made... and not even considered for the KGVs, when of course the 15in/45 is the design offered (sort of loading the base in favour of the 14in)...
@richardcutts196
Жыл бұрын
@@DrAlexClarke As long as the 15/50 used the same shells as the 15/42 it's tolerable. At least the RN only would only have to carry one size of ammunition instead of two (15 and 16) or if the KGV still had 14" three. I know the RN's DD guns, secondaries and AA evolved over time (4", 4.5", 4.7", 5.25" and 5.5"), but good god they would have made things so much easier on themselves by just picking a caliber (except possibly the 4") and improving on it.
@bjturon
Жыл бұрын
It's too bad for those oppsing enemy rabbits that they did not have a copy of 'Janes Big Book of Rabbits' 😄 🐰
@raymcconnell4815
Жыл бұрын
As I understand it Britain was pretty much bankrupt after WWI; all of these changes to existing guns on essentially low milage ships would have cost a small fortune not to mention the cost of a third Nelson. Stop and think how this was all going to be paid for, and then in the 1930's comes along the great depression and money completely drys up,mass building cancelations and pay cuts(even a munity in the Med.) . It is all very easy for us to say the Admiralty at the time should have done this and that but how was the government of the day supposed to pay for it. Not until Hitler started his nonsense could any responsible government even contemplate rearmament.
@DrAlexClarke
Жыл бұрын
Despite the very common perception, Britain wasn't bankrupt after WWI (WWII is a different kettle of fish and it's often memories of that combined with the financial issues of the 1930s that have led to this view of the post WWI settlement), yes there was a lot of debt, but the Goverment chose to repay it much faster than the terms required - believe it or not another battleship or changes to existing guns would not have cost that much more (and they could still have repaid it quicker than required by a hefty margin). In fact the changes to guns would have been quite do-able spread over the refit program anyway; as honestly new barrels were fitted to many ships as improvement in metalurgy became avaialble. Rearmanent also started before Hitler rose to power really, focused on the Japanese threat in the Far East. Pay issues were not about the money, so much as trying to force everyone to accept the post war conditions & terms of service, which were a little less pay, but honestly on the navy budget not that much- it was mainly considered an administrative saving and it was handled terribly badly, the mediteranean fleet actually managed it better, the Invergordon Mutiny of the Atlantic Fleet is considered the worse issue it caused. Hope that all helps & thank you for commenting. p.s. to add some stats to this, as page 328 of Mitchel's 'British Historical Statistics' shows for most of the 1920s with a GDP of around 4,000 million (they didn't use billion at the time), spending on 'Public Administration and Defence' usually stayed just below 200 million. Put another way the cost of the administration of government, presumably the pay off of the debt and defence, was less than 5% of GDP... whilst 'Other Services' often accounted for as much as, sometimes more, 12.5% of GDP, now these are simple figures drawn from the data as presented in the work, but against these figures the cost of such ships, especially as the money would stay within the economy and provide wages & economic incentive in key areas, such a course of events should decisions have changed does not seem that improbable or even that undesirable to the government of the time.
@EricDKaufman
Жыл бұрын
FIRST
@richardserrano7395
Жыл бұрын
The asymmetrical design of these ships made them inherently ugly.
@paulbarnes2499
Жыл бұрын
dracinifel you are not!
@DrAlexClarke
Жыл бұрын
Nah, Drachinifel is a good friend though so I'm glad you enjoy his channel, but we do have very different styles. Thanks for the comment
Пікірлер: 95