Technic juwels

TFLYTSNBN wrote:I want to see all of the SL weapons technooogy that was rejected by the invincible SLN because the invincible SLN is invincible.

That would be quite interesting. I bet there are a couple of gems hiding in that pile but also a bunch of turds in the same category as the grav-lance or worse.

Joat42 wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:I want to see all of the SL weapons technooogy that was rejected by the invincible SLN because the invincible SLN is invincible.

That would be quite interesting. I bet there are a couple of gems hiding in that pile but also a bunch of turds in the same category as the grav-lance or worse.

More than a few gems, especially from the Transtellars.

The SLN had the same motivations as the British navy to not introduce advanced technology that would render their existing fleet irrellevant.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:More than a few gems, especially from the Transtellars.

The SLN had the same motivations as the British navy to not introduce advanced technology that would render their existing fleet irrellevant.

One of the few times they led was with HMS Dreadnought and HMS Invincible. (Though Dreadnought wasn't much ahead of the curve. But you could make an argument that the Invincibles really disrupted cruisers - though not necessarily in a good way)


But normally the British stuck with what they knew worked, and let other navies stumble through experimental new ship design concepts or technology; confident that Britain's unmatched shipbuilding could quickly out-build any competitor once it was clear what the next workable evolution in warships was.


So I guess the difference is that the British were much better than the SLN at recognizing once disruptive technology had emerged; and then utilizing their construction muscle to rapidly field sufficient ships utilizing it. The SLN not only didn't push for disruptive technology; they got to the point where they refused to believe it had arrived.

Where is Charles (and his gizmos) when you need him?

You missed the Warrior. It had muzzle loaders, breech loaders, steam, sail, iron cladding, and for a while was the most powerful warship in the world by a fair margin.
Mind you it did destroy the British navy's numerical superiority at the same time.

Jonathan_S wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:More than a few gems, especially from the Transtellars.

The SLN had the same motivations as the British navy to not introduce advanced technology that would render their existing fleet irrellevant.

One of the few times they led was with HMS Dreadnought and HMS Invincible. (Though Dreadnought wasn't much ahead of the curve. But you could make an argument that the Invincibles really disrupted cruisers - though not necessarily in a good way)


But normally the British stuck with what they knew worked, and let other navies stumble through experimental new ship design concepts or technology; confident that Britain's unmatched shipbuilding could quickly out-build any competitor once it was clear what the next workable evolution in warships was.


So I guess the difference is that the British were much better than the SLN at recognizing once disruptive technology had emerged; and then utilizing their construction muscle to rapidly field sufficient ships utilizing it. The SLN not only didn't push for disruptive technology; they got to the point where they refused to believe it had arrived.

Daryl wrote:You missed the Warrior. It had muzzle loaders, breech loaders, steam, sail, iron cladding, and for a while was the most powerful warship in the world by a fair margin.
Mind you it did destroy the British navy's numerical superiority at the same time.

But it was only built because of the of the French Gloire, Yes, the Warrior included everything the Royal Navy had developed to date and pushed them ahead of the pack, but it was only built as a knee-jerk reaction to the French

Theemile wrote:

Daryl wrote:You missed the Warrior. It had muzzle loaders, breech loaders, steam, sail, iron cladding, and for a while was the most powerful warship in the world by a fair margin.
Mind you it did destroy the British navy's numerical superiority at the same time.

But it was only built because of the of the French Gloire, Yes, the Warrior included everything the Royal Navy had developed to date and pushed them ahead of the pack, but it was only built as a knee-jerk reaction to the French

BTW you can go round HMS Warrior at Portsmouth - closish to HMS Victory and the Mary Rose. V interestiong indeed to actually be able to see about 400 years of navel development!

Another naval earthquake was USS Monitor.

saber964 wrote:Another naval earthquake was USS Monitor.

I'd argue that CSS Virginia (nee USS Merrimack) was more of an Earthquake - as least she disrupted the USN close blockade. USS Monitor was sufficient to restore the status quo ante; preserving the blockade.

And certainly in US history she popularized the rotating turret. And to be fair she was the first to use the armored rotating turret in combat.

But from a design perspective she wasn't much different from HMS Trusty which the British has built as an experimental turret ship (modified from their Crimean War Aetna-class ironclad mobile batteries. (And don't let the name fool you, those Crimean War "batteries" had about the same size hull as USS Monitor, a lot more armored freeboard and so were 50% heavier but also more seaworthy, and were only about a half knot slower than USS Monitor. Although the unmodified ones carried 14 8" guns in broadsides compared to Monitor's pair of 11" guns. But HMS Trusty was cut down for minimum freeboard, had a large armored turret installed, and was ordered and launched about a year before HMS Monitor.

(And of course they also had put into service, a couple years before, the ironclad frigate HMS Warrior - which was capable of fighting in the open ocean, not just is relatively protected coastal waters. Yes, I know some of the later US monitors survived Atlantic crossings - but they were hardly in their element out there and were not an all weather capable blue-water warship; not like HMS Warrior was)



Iron-clad, and later steel, warships were coming whether or not USS Monitor was built. And turrets were also already being experimented with, and the design on Monitor's was a technological dead end. Certainly her performance with a rotating turret didn't discourage the adoption of the idea - but they seem almost inevitable with or without her. Improving armor requires heavier, larger, longer, and more powerful guns to defeat. It rapidly become infeasible to mount them in broadside because the ship's beam isn't wide enough. Even before armored turrets some ships were mounting a few very heavy guns on naval pivot mounts. It's not a major leap to considered armoring a pivot mount to protect the gun and crew.


Basically, as much as USS Monitor and Hampton Roads faceoff between "the Monitor and the Merrimack" were played up in school here in the states - I find, as I learn more about the naval history and design outside the microcosm of US civil war, that her reputed influence on ship designs seems quite overblown. She was a fairly impressive achievement given how far the US metallurgy and armor plate manufacturing and naval design/construction facilities in general lagged behind Europe at the time.

Jonathan_S wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:More than a few gems, especially from the Transtellars.

The SLN had the same motivations as the British navy to not introduce advanced technology that would render their existing fleet irrellevant.

One of the few times they led was with HMS Dreadnought and HMS Invincible. (Though Dreadnought wasn't much ahead of the curve. But you could make an argument that the Invincibles really disrupted cruisers - though not necessarily in a good way)


But normally the British stuck with what they knew worked, and let other navies stumble through experimental new ship design concepts or technology; confident that Britain's unmatched shipbuilding could quickly out-build any competitor once it was clear what the next workable evolution in warships was.


So I guess the difference is that the British were much better than the SLN at recognizing once disruptive technology had emerged; and then utilizing their construction muscle to rapidly field sufficient ships utilizing it. The SLN not only didn't push for disruptive technology; they got to the point where they refused to believe it had arrived.

The British took the lead in 5 major innovations of warfleets of the modern (1850 onwards) era.

1. The first iron-hulled, armoured warship in the form of HMS Warrior. Whilst it is fair to point out the construction of Gloire influenced the decision to build Warrior, I think it also important to point out Britain could have just played safe and gone for their own simple iron-on-wood warships.

2. The first turreted warships, initially in the form of HMS Trusty and HMS Sovereign, then later with HMS Monarch and the badly designed HMS Captain.

3. The first "all big gun battleships" or Dreadnoughts.

4. The first Battlecruisers, as seen with the Invincible-class.

5. The aircraft carrier, firstly in the form of HMS Furious, then later HMS Hermes.


However, I could also put forward a few other ideas - maybe less spectacular, but still innovative:

The central battery battleship - although this was probably inspired by CSS Virginia, it used a new construction method allowing a double bottom to be used, which had the benefit of raising the engine and improving stability.

Hedgehog, the first ASW that could be fired forwards, to allow warships to attack using information from ASDIC (Sonar).

The R-class submarines developed at the end of WW1 were the first designed as sub-hunters - an SSK using modern terminology.

The fast frigate hull form developed for the original Type 12 "Whitby" class.

The Brennan torpedo is another possibility. Although not the first guided torpedo design, it was the first *practical* system.

I think it also fair to point out though, that Naval ship designs underwent rapid changes in less than a 50 year period, before settling down. I think it would be more astonishing had all changes come solely from one country.