Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

RN design weirdoes

Discussion in 'The War at Sea' started by Notmi, Apr 1, 2005.

  1. Notmi

    Notmi New Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Suomi Finland Perkele
    via TanksinWW2
    For some time I have wondered why did RN ship designers do some rather controversial decisions, especially when it comes to placing turrets.
    First, they managed to get rid of wing turrets with Orions and midshipturrets with QE's and Tiger. And then, after having perfectly good arcs of fire with their ships, they choose midshipturrets with G3 and N3 designs and limited arc forward with third turret of Nelsons.
    I understand why they place that third turret there with Nelsons but why on earth midshipturrets with G3 and N3? No arc of fire directly aft and magazines in the middle of engineering spaces.

    Edit: making text more understandable.
     
  2. Ebar

    Ebar New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    On a space station in geosynchronous orbit above y
    via TanksinWW2
    We now await Tiornu to dispense wisdom in this matter. :D
     
  3. Boba Nette

    Boba Nette New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2004
    Messages:
    3,142
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chicago
    via TanksinWW2
    I think the Nelson's original design was modified to comply with the Armistice treaties.It originally would have had aft turrets.I think!
     
  4. Notmi

    Notmi New Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Suomi Finland Perkele
    via TanksinWW2
    I believe Nelson design was heavily modified G3. In order to fit Nelsons to 35000 tons limit, they had to cut over quarter of displacement. To archieve this, designers had to cut almost three quarters of SHP, move all main gun turrets at bow in order to shorten armoured citadel. They also tweaked armour layout and thickness. Designers archieved their goal, Nelsons fit nicely under 35000 tons limit.
     
  5. Ebar

    Ebar New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    On a space station in geosynchronous orbit above y
    via TanksinWW2
    Well bare in mind with the exception of a couple of French classes of capital ships battleship aren't going to engage across their bow or stern out of choice. If they do so at least a third of their guns won't be able to bare. The RN in the twenties made the reasonable assumption that they weren't going to be running away from anyone. At why interupt their machinary spaces - pass must have seemed like an exceptable trade off for something to someone somewhere.
     
  6. Notmi

    Notmi New Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Suomi Finland Perkele
    via TanksinWW2
    Well, what buggers me most is that they go backwards with design evolution. They just got rid of midshipturrets (and midshipmagazines) and now they introduce them again? After some spontaneous cordite explosions RN suffered early 20th century, I thought RN didn't like magazines in bethween boilers and steampipes.
     
  7. Tiornu

    Tiornu Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    21
    via TanksinWW2
    The only inherent problem with midships turrets is that blast and wooding limit the arcs of fire. If you accept that this is a minor issue, you can then take advantage of the plusses a midships mount will give you.
    (Note: the Russians put two mounts in midships positions in their dreadnoughts to help INCREASE their firing arcs. Their turret design at that time did not provide enough blast protection to allow superfiring guns.)
    A midships mount sits in the widest portion of the hull where you can put the widest TDS. The greater width also allows you to fit your ammunition into the shortest possible length of hull, which can be a big deal if you plan to provide more armor for ammo spaces than for machinery spaces.
    Personally, I think the British underestimated the blast factor; consider Rodney's famous experience in the Bismarck battle. However, my main complaint with Nelson, N3, and G3 is that they're all horribly ugly.
    As far as I can tell, the entire alphabet of British designs at this time had separation between the main mags and heat sources. In G3, it looks like just a small fuel compartment. N3 was an early example of having the engines in front of the boilers. I don't see any cases of mounts placed between the boilers and engines.
     
  8. Ebar

    Ebar New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    On a space station in geosynchronous orbit above y
    via TanksinWW2
    The Nelsons were desperately ugly as a Brit I will admit that. But they both survived while the looker of the RN Hood was lost. Speed isn't armour neither apparently is good looks.
     
  9. corpcasselbury

    corpcasselbury New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    High Point, North Carolina, USA
    via TanksinWW2
    There is that. I'd much sooner serve on an ugly ship that'll bring me home that a pretty one which is going to blow up under me the first time somebody shoots at her. :wink:
     
  10. Tiornu

    Tiornu Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    21
    via TanksinWW2
    There is a theory that ugliness is armor; the enemy gunnery personnel will try to fix the ugly ship in their rangefinders, but the ugliness of the ship will cause them to recoil and refuse to get the ship exactly in focus. I understand that one must be drunk to accept this theory, and as we all know, the more drunk you are, the better things look.
     
  11. PMN1

    PMN1 recruit

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,032
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Talking of turret, boiler etc arrangement....

    http://p069.ezboard.com/falltheworldsba ... 1288.topic
     
  12. PMN1

    PMN1 recruit

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,032
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    There were some very good looking trolls out tonight.... :smok:


    How many times have you woken up I the morning after a hard night of drinking and thought ‘How did I get home?’ As hard as you try, you cannot piece together your return journey from the bar to your home.

    The answer to this puzzle is that you used a beer scooter.

    The beer scooter is a mythical form of transport, owned and leased out to the drunk by Bacchus the Roman god of wine. Bacchus has branched out since the decrease in the worship of the Roman pantheon and bought a large batch of these magical devices.

    The beer scooter works in the following fashion:

    The passenger reaches a certain level of drunkenness and the slurring gland begins to give off a pheromone. Bacchus or one of his many sub-contractors detects the pheromone and sends down a winged beer scooter. The scooter scoops up the passenger and deposits them in their bedroom via a trans-dimensional portal.

    It is not cheap to run a beer scooter franchise, so a large portion of the passenger’s in-pocket cash is taken as payment. The generates the second question after a night out ‘How did I spend so much money’

    Beer scooters have a poor safety record and are thought to be responsible for 90% of all U.D.I (unidentified drinking injuries).

    Independent studies have also shown that Beer Goggles cause the scooter’s navigation system to malfunction thus sending the passenger to the wrong bedroom often with horrific consequences.
     
  13. Tiornu

    Tiornu Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    21
    via TanksinWW2
    Now you know why I restrict myself to Diet Mountain Dew.
     
  14. Ebar

    Ebar New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    On a space station in geosynchronous orbit above y
    via TanksinWW2
    By that theory G3 and N3 should have been totally immune to harm since you'd have to be fail down drunk before they looked good :D


    Probably immune to nukes too. "Ah ha! My force field of uglyness easily blocks your blast." :p
     
  15. corpcasselbury

    corpcasselbury New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    High Point, North Carolina, USA
    via TanksinWW2
    Same here, except that I prefer diet cola, preferably caffeine free.
     
  16. Tiornu

    Tiornu Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    21
    via TanksinWW2
    Diet cola - caffeine = water in disguise
     
  17. GP

    GP New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    like it :lol: :lol: :lol:
     
  18. Tony Williams

    Tony Williams Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    23
    via TanksinWW2
    I don't know....Rodney and Nelson are so ugly that I find them quite appealing in an odd sort of way. Perhaps I just feel sorry for them. :)

    Odd that the best looking battleships IMO also had all turrets forwards - the Richelieu class.

    Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
    forum
     
  19. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    ... that just shows what British design flair is capable of! :grin:
     
  20. Tiornu

    Tiornu Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    21
    via TanksinWW2
    Oh shoot, it happened! I'm a butterbar. Come, mourn with me, my friends.
     

Share This Page