Joined: June 18th, 2015, 7:51 am

January 13th, 2018, 9:38 am #1041

ikeda wrote:.
In my scenario the US had plenty (21) 14" and 16" gunned BB's that were more than a match for the 13.5" and 15" gunned British ships.
Start your own thread then.  No one cares about your scenario here you petulant child.  
Like
Share

Joined: December 11th, 2004, 1:10 pm

January 13th, 2018, 9:42 am #1042

MarkLBailey wrote:
Dave AAA wrote: Toronto:  Plus 10C this morning (50F).  Minus 10C this evening ( 14F) with a wind chill of -19C (-2F).

Winnipeg: Minus 26 (-15F), -34C (-29F) with wind chill.

Vancouver: Plus 5C (41F).
Dave, those bits in bold. What are they? They appear to be written in some alien tongue I cannot understand.

😇

Cheers: mark
I too can't work out what scale they are using, but 'Wind Chill' is obviously referring to a degree of air conditioning, and the degree of state control implied by such universal climate regulation is really quite disturbing :D

Shane
Rule .303
Shoot straight ya bastards.
Like
Share

Joined: April 25th, 2007, 7:40 pm

January 13th, 2018, 9:45 am #1043

ikeda wrote:
ChrisPat wrote: Exactly.  The point that I think was being made was that if we assume an RN that has retired all its 12" battleships the US 12" battleships need special circumstances to be useful.
The ones that can't steam with the rest, and I assume different maximum speeds probably also mean different cruise speeds, will be a drag on them.  The IGN certainly felt the 18kt battleships should not have sailed at Jutland and that was with a main line of varying speeds; the USN main line has a tactically homogenous 21kt speed if they leave the SCs behind.
The 21kt 12" BBs can work with the rest of the line but in a battle with ships designed with 15" or 18" opposition in mind they aren't going to wear well.  If relegated to protecting the West Coast they are "only" overmatched by one or two gun generations but trying to intercept raids by 23kt or 26kt ships will be a frustrating business.
That leaves IIRC twelve BBs with 14" guns plus however many get built in this scenario with 16" or larger.  The RN had ten 15" gunned battleships, one 15" fully armoured BC and two 15" BC; up to thirteen or so 13.5" / 14" battleships less however many get replaced by 16" or 18" new builds.
Obtuse !

I guess you have moved on from Marks rather imaginary definition of a semi-drednought.
Perhaps that is just as well.
The 12" BB's don't need to sail with the main fleet. There are many other duties that they can be usefully employed at, patrolling, killing cruisers, killing DD's, bombarding enemy islands, escorting coastal shipping, killing British merchant vessels, protecting the canal, etc, etc, etc.
In my scenario the US had plenty (21) 14" and 16" gunned BB's that were more than a match for the 13.5" and 15" gunned British ships.
Have you read Dreadnought by Robert K Massie?

The Dreadnought was revolutionary because it had an all big gun armament, 21knot speed and turbine engines. This is the reason why it was revolutionary. Neither the Nassaus or Soith Carolinas managed that jump in one ship. On it's shakedown cruise it ran to the Caribbean at speeds which would have wrecked a TE pre dreadnought. TE was a dead end technology for Battleships in the same way that piston engines died for fighter aircraft at the end of WW2. Yes late piston engine aircraft were as fast as early jets but they were a dead end you cant run continuously at high speeds without wear and tear building up quickly even with forced lubrication, or the fuel efficiency conscious USN would have built TE fast battleships for WW2.

In 'your' scenario 14" armed USN ships with poor shells and poor quality ammo and are more than a match for RN 13.5" ships. Which mostly carried 1400lb shells. While the USN's own analysts considered the RN 15" to be a match for it's own 16" armed ships.
Like
Share

Joined: June 18th, 2015, 7:51 am

January 13th, 2018, 9:50 am #1044

ikeda wrote: Rather than making a bunch of wrong assumptions would you like to see my scenario?
No.
Like
Share

Joined: October 6th, 2011, 8:56 pm

January 13th, 2018, 9:52 am #1045

I do not have that reference, Maciej, that was a paraphrse I found on the net when looking at Rodham. When I get access to the ADFA library next month at the Academy, I'll borrow Jones to read it.
It is doctorate slight modified for more readable from. So there are many references to each sentence and I don't expect enormous mistakes. Some could happen but as doctorate was not throw away nothing terrible should existed there.
I bought it some time ago when it was new, and could say it is worth it money. Don't know how much it cost now.
Like
Share

Joined: October 6th, 2011, 8:56 pm

January 13th, 2018, 10:10 am #1046

That's a good point Getz. The South Dakota class will be a strong driver for the British to proceed with the N3.
Yes and were some kind of source for N3
during war when British were in USA and had opportunity to see all plans vailable, they clearly show that had problem with that kind of ships.
Dreyer (the same as Dreyer table) clearly told it to Americans.
There was stron pressure on British Admirality to build ships to follow Hood "revolution", so battleships with battlecruiser speed (but new generation not repeat Hood design), but it was strong feeling that such a fast ship could have a problem with South Dakota or need to be really large to have no problem.
Large was not compatible with cost low, so it was expected that some kind of new battleships with speed 23-25 knots would be needed to keep size down.
Later British expected that American and Japaneese will start 18 and even 19" battleships soon, so result N3
Battlecruiser I3 was too large
Like
Share

Joined: February 17th, 2005, 5:54 am

January 13th, 2018, 11:13 am #1047

Thank you Maciej."But atmosphere of christmass you will see. Christmas tree music bazaar and all sort of it. No danger of attack by fanatical people and so on. Peace and calm."

That sounds wonderful.

Cheers: Mark
Like
Share

Joined: February 17th, 2005, 5:54 am

January 13th, 2018, 11:22 am #1048

Maciej Chodnicki wrote:
I do not have that reference, Maciej, that was a paraphrse I found on the net when looking at Rodham. When I get access to the ADFA library next month at the Academy, I'll borrow Jones to read it.
It is doctorate slight modified for more readable from. So there are many references to each sentence and I don't expect enormous mistakes. Some could happen but as doctorate was not throw away nothing terrible should existed there.
I bought it some time ago when it was new, and could say it is worth it money. Don't know how much it cost now.

I definitely have to get it. If only to see how he converted his doctoral thesis into a book. I have to do the same thing assuming that they grant me the doctorate..

Cheers: mark
Like
Share

Joined: December 15th, 2017, 9:54 am

January 13th, 2018, 1:41 pm #1049

Getz wrote: Moving up the RN has ten 15" gunned battleships facing the three 16" guns the USN did complete and whatever else the USN has managed to complete in a world without the WT - and lets be clear about this, whilst the Colorados might again be more modern and enjoy a meaningful calibre advantage over a QE or R, it is not to the extent that they would find them to be a pushover.  Of course, any South Dakotas completed would be a major problem for the RN to deal with until they get the G3s in service - those ships would have been overwhelmingly more powerful than anything the RN would have in the water before 1925.
Yes, but the SoDak program is unlikely to be complete in 1925. In something simple like heavy guns, the US has to capacity to build 35-36 barrels per year. 3 SoDaks per year would absorb the entire output, leaving nothing for Lexington's, coastal defences or spares to replace worn out barrels on existing ships. This was not considered a problem though as Congress had cut the construction budget massively and all ships were not being moved forward at their full pace. Many were moving at ca. 50% of capacity and this meant the hard supply problems were avoided.

The first 5 SoDaks were on track for ca. 1926-7 deliveries. The Massachusetts was only laid down just before the budget cut and was on course for a 1928-9 delivery. Lexington and Saratoga were on course for 1926-7 deliveries as well. The other four BC's were not on track to complete before 1930.

More sensibly instead of having the Colorados, SoDaks and Lexingtons building together would have been to do the normal phasing and fund fully each construction.
Like
Share

Joined: February 10th, 2010, 3:58 pm

January 13th, 2018, 3:34 pm #1050

Phoenix04 wrote:
ikeda wrote: Rather than making a bunch of wrong assumptions would you like to see my scenario?
No.
Petulant child....more like petulant children.
Like
Share