Uncompromising way out of order snippet for Rose

runsforcelery wrote:Yep. but if you read Firedman's history of earlier classes, one of the points he makes consistently is that the "practical" officers were always astounded by "how little" they could get on a given displacement or how much a "minor" tweak would cost. For example, the Iowa class displaced 10,000 tons more than the South Dakota, yet had essentially the same armament and armor. The only real difference between them was about a 5 knot speed advantage, and the "practical" officers were astounded that a 25% increase in displacement (and a radically different hull form specifically modified for high speed) bought only those 5 knots. And, of course, they'd spent the years since the Washington Treaty hearing about what couldn't be done on the mandated tonnage limits. Because of that, many of them imagined (without really thinking about it) that once the treaty limits no longer applied, obviously they could have everything they wanted on an "unlimited" displacement.

Unfortunately, they were wrong.

The Montanas could have been bigger and nastier than they were, but the emphasis would have been on the "bigger." There is no such thing as the perfect ship design; the Montanas were "only" the best battleship design ever produced in terms of total weight of broadside (#1 all time), lethality of shell (#1 all time), fire control (#1 all time), armored protection (#1-#2 all time), endurance (#1 all time), and speed. And North Carolina or South Dakota would have taken Bismarck apart --- quickly --- in any one-on-one engagement, despite Commander Battle Force's questions at the time. What a Montana would have done to Admiral Raeder's pride and joy boggles the imagination!

Of course, Bismarck's displacement was only about 60% of the Montanas', but Yamato would have been their only true peer competitor, and they would have kicked her butt any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Not only did they have a heavier broadside, they were also a knot faster and had 2.2 times her endurance (plus immeasurably better fire control and sensors), despite displacing (depending on your source) between 1,000 and 5,000 tons less at standard displacement.

Friedman is the gold standard for technical histories of the USN design process, and the recurrent thread throughout most of his work is the inevitable compromise inherent in any design . . . and the unending surprise of the "end users" when the technical experts can't give them everything they want in the same platform. So in that sense, there's never been a "satisfactory" capital ship in the USN!

munroburton wrote:

runsforcelery wrote:Yep. but if you read Firedman's history of earlier classes, one of the points he makes consistently is that the "practical" officers were always astounded by "how little" they could get on a given displacement or how much a "minor" tweak would cost. For example, the Iowa class displaced 10,000 tons more than the South Dakota, yet had essentially the same armament and armor. The only real difference between them was about a 5 knot speed advantage, and the "practical" officers were astounded that a 25% increase in displacement (and a radically different hull form specifically modified for high speed) bought only those 5 knots. And, of course, they'd spent the years since the Washington Treaty hearing about what couldn't be done on the mandated tonnage limits. Because of that, many of them imagined (without really thinking about it) that once the treaty limits no longer applied, obviously they could have everything they wanted on an "unlimited" displacement.

Unfortunately, they were wrong.

The Montanas could have been bigger and nastier than they were, but the emphasis would have been on the "bigger." There is no such thing as the perfect ship design; the Montanas were "only" the best battleship design ever produced in terms of total weight of broadside (#1 all time), lethality of shell (#1 all time), fire control (#1 all time), armored protection (#1-#2 all time), endurance (#1 all time), and speed. And North Carolina or South Dakota would have taken Bismarck apart --- quickly --- in any one-on-one engagement, despite Commander Battle Force's questions at the time. What a Montana would have done to Admiral Raeder's pride and joy boggles the imagination!

Of course, Bismarck's displacement was only about 60% of the Montanas', but Yamato would have been their only true peer competitor, and they would have kicked her butt any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Not only did they have a heavier broadside, they were also a knot faster and had 2.2 times her endurance (plus immeasurably better fire control and sensors), despite displacing (depending on your source) between 1,000 and 5,000 tons less at standard displacement.

Friedman is the gold standard for technical histories of the USN design process, and the recurrent thread throughout most of his work is the inevitable compromise inherent in any design . . . and the unending surprise of the "end users" when the technical experts can't give them everything they want in the same platform. So in that sense, there's never been a "satisfactory" capital ship in the USN!

Bismarck isn't really comparable to Montana at all. I would have thought the H-class battleships are, at least the two they laid down.

runsforcelery wrote:I agree entirely. The reason Bismarck is mentioned in my post is that she was mentioned in the quote from Norman Friedman as an example of what contemporary US naval officers were comparing the Montana design to. My point, in fact, was that the two ships weren't comparable , but that the officer in question thought they were on the basis of the partial information available to him at the time. As I pointed out, the Montana's only true peer competitor would have been the Yanmato class ships, and even they were inferior to the American design. Personally, I think the H-class ships were also significantly inferior to Montana. German concepts of armoring really hadn't progressed very much from World War I, which is one reason Bismarck was effectively put out of action so early in her engagement with King George V and Rodney. Among other things, critical cable runs for her fire control were above the armored deck! Not a good place to put your ship's essential nervous system. I'm not aware that the H-class ships rectified the worst problems with Bismarck's protection. And whereas the USN had adopted the super-heavy shell, German shells are actually lighter, caliber for caliber, even than British shells, which were significantly lighter than American AP. The only two ships laid down would've had only 8 16 inch guns, not the 12 of the Montana, and their shells would've been lighter and with less ability to penetrate armor. In theory, the German ships would've been a couple of knots faster, but in practice, American ships tended to be faster in service than European ships of the same nominal speed because the American ships ran their trials at displacements closer to their service displacement.

Theemile wrote:Ships also have the option of carrying the pods the old fashioned way-using ship tractors, which allows nearly unlimited range, assuming periodic breaks for tractor maintenance. However, this would cut a Sag-C to 10-15 pods, instead of 40. A Roland might carry 5 or so pods indefinently, instead of 15.

isaac_newton wrote:

Joat42 wrote:[SNIP][quote="isaac_newton
where is the 'head about to explode' icon when you need it???

Here you go:

Jonathan_S wrote:

Theemile wrote:Ships also have the option of carrying the pods the old fashioned way-using ship tractors, which allows nearly unlimited range, assuming periodic breaks for tractor maintenance. However, this would cut a Sag-C to 10-15 pods, instead of 40. A Roland might carry 5 or so pods indefinently, instead of 15.

I wonder what the operational endurance of a Havenite Donkey is...
It seems to be used tactically, but running off beamed power might have indefinite endurance if tractor continuous operating life really isn't an issue.

You seem to have to tow it outside the compensation field, but if you're willing to give up strategic acceleration it might let small ships lug along more pods on a long deployment. (Assuming you can fire up the pod microreactor later from stored or beamed power)

Then when you got into a tactical situation you could either fire up the pods and have them tractor in tight, or temporary drop them and pick them up after (depending on circumstances)

PeterZ wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:I wonder what the operational endurance of a Havenite Donkey is...
It seems to be used tactically, but running off beamed power might have indefinite endurance if tractor continuous operating life really isn't an issue.

You seem to have to tow it outside the compensation field, but if you're willing to give up strategic acceleration it might let small ships lug along more pods on a long deployment. (Assuming you can fire up the pod microreactor later from stored or beamed power)

Then when you got into a tactical situation you could either fire up the pods and have them tractor in tight, or temporary drop them and pick them up after (depending on circumstances)

Why can't power runs go to those locations where the pods are best tractored on the hull? Run it from the top or bottom of the ship where the armor is non-existent. Once the pods are deployed, cut the power to the runs. Considering the new scale of the RMN's responsibilities, having pods available for the entire deployment of ships smaller than Nike would be beneficial.

Jonathan_S wrote:

PeterZ wrote:[
Why can't power runs go to those locations where the pods are best tractored on the hull? Run it from the top or bottom of the ship where the armor is non-existent. Once the pods are deployed, cut the power to the runs. Considering the new scale of the RMN's responsibilities, having pods available for the entire deployment of ships smaller than Nike would be beneficial.

The oft mentioned "the RMN apparently forgot extension cords exist"

But yes, you'd think power cables could be run for that. They don't need to be survivable in combat situations so unarmored cables simple glued to the exterior of the hull should work fine -- not sure why they don't.
I was just pondering about Donkeys because they are shown and used in the books while (apparently) extension cords aren't or can't be (for reasons I'm unclear on)

munroburton wrote:

runsforcelery wrote:Yep. but if you read Firedman's history of earlier classes, one of the points he makes consistently is that the "practical" officers were always astounded by "how little" they could get on a given displacement or how much a "minor" tweak would cost. For example, the Iowa class displaced 10,000 tons more than the South Dakota, yet had essentially the same armament and armor. The only real difference between them was about a 5 knot speed advantage, and the "practical" officers were astounded that a 25% increase in displacement (and a radically different hull form specifically modified for high speed) bought only those 5 knots. And, of course, they'd spent the years since the Washington Treaty hearing about what couldn't be done on the mandated tonnage limits. Because of that, many of them imagined (without really thinking about it) that once the treaty limits no longer applied, obviously they could have everything they wanted on an "unlimited" displacement.

Unfortunately, they were wrong.

The Montanas could have been bigger and nastier than they were, but the emphasis would have been on the "bigger." There is no such thing as the perfect ship design; the Montanas were "only" the best battleship design ever produced in terms of total weight of broadside (#1 all time), lethality of shell (#1 all time), fire control (#1 all time), armored protection (#1-#2 all time), endurance (#1 all time), and speed. And North Carolina or South Dakota would have taken Bismarck apart --- quickly --- in any one-on-one engagement, despite Commander Battle Force's questions at the time. What a Montana would have done to Admiral Raeder's pride and joy boggles the imagination!

Of course, Bismarck's displacement was only about 60% of the Montanas', but Yamato would have been their only true peer competitor, and they would have kicked her butt any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Not only did they have a heavier broadside, they were also a knot faster and had 2.2 times her endurance (plus immeasurably better fire control and sensors), despite displacing (depending on your source) between 1,000 and 5,000 tons less at standard displacement.

Friedman is the gold standard for technical histories of the USN design process, and the recurrent thread throughout most of his work is the inevitable compromise inherent in any design . . . and the unending surprise of the "end users" when the technical experts can't give them everything they want in the same platform. So in that sense, there's never been a "satisfactory" capital ship in the USN!

Bismarck isn't really comparable to Montana at all. I would have thought the H-class battleships are, at least the two they laid down. Never mind the ones they only drew up - with 20 inch guns.

munroburton wrote:

runsforcelery wrote:Yep. but if you read Firedman's history of earlier classes, one of the points he makes consistently is that the "practical" officers were always astounded by "how little" they could get on a given displacement or how much a "minor" tweak would cost. For example, the Iowa class displaced 10,000 tons more than the South Dakota, yet had essentially the same armament and armor. The only real difference between them was about a 5 knot speed advantage, and the "practical" officers were astounded that a 25% increase in displacement (and a radically different hull form specifically modified for high speed) bought only those 5 knots. And, of course, they'd spent the years since the Washington Treaty hearing about what couldn't be done on the mandated tonnage limits. Because of that, many of them imagined (without really thinking about it) that once the treaty limits no longer applied, obviously they could have everything they wanted on an "unlimited" displacement.

Unfortunately, they were wrong.

The Montanas could have been bigger and nastier than they were, but the emphasis would have been on the "bigger." There is no such thing as the perfect ship design; the Montanas were "only" the best battleship design ever produced in terms of total weight of broadside (#1 all time), lethality of shell (#1 all time), fire control (#1 all time), armored protection (#1-#2 all time), endurance (#1 all time), and speed. And North Carolina or South Dakota would have taken Bismarck apart --- quickly --- in any one-on-one engagement, despite Commander Battle Force's questions at the time. What a Montana would have done to Admiral Raeder's pride and joy boggles the imagination!

Of course, Bismarck's displacement was only about 60% of the Montanas', but Yamato would have been their only true peer competitor, and they would have kicked her butt any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Not only did they have a heavier broadside, they were also a knot faster and had 2.2 times her endurance (plus immeasurably better fire control and sensors), despite displacing (depending on your source) between 1,000 and 5,000 tons less at standard displacement.

Friedman is the gold standard for technical histories of the USN design process, and the recurrent thread throughout most of his work is the inevitable compromise inherent in any design . . . and the unending surprise of the "end users" when the technical experts can't give them everything they want in the same platform. So in that sense, there's never been a "satisfactory" capital ship in the USN!

Bismarck isn't really comparable to Montana at all. I would have thought the H-class battleships are, at least the two they laid down. Never mind the ones they only drew up - with 20 inch guns.