Does the following United States ship design look familiar?
It should because it's HMS Hood!
Hood had a profound impact on the United States Navy. In many ways, the arrival of Hood served as the catalyst for the eventual break away from the Standard Battleship doctrine.
The US Navy saw that the combination of firepower, armor, and speed would set the groundwork for new "Fast Battleships" (Or "Battleship-cruisers" as they were known in the US at the time). This would provide greater flexibility over the current generation of 21 knot battleships.
This spurred a flurry of activity among designers in the US Navy. New designs such as faster battleships, traditional battlecruisers, and hybrid battleship-cruisers were created. The pros and cons of each vessel were then vigorously weighed among senior naval officials.
The Hood plans (Cabled over from Britain and also personally delivered to the US Navy by Stanley Goodall) were created to serve as the benchmark for evaluating these new designs.
An interesting example of the effect that Hood had on the world. She heralded in a new generation of warship design that extended well past her own Navy.
On the post about the Yamato class and torpedoes, someone had pointed out that they always seemed to take on roughly 3,000 tons of flooding after they were initially torpedoed by aircraft or submarines.
Perfect because I wanted to talk about a design flaw in the Yamato design.
Japanese designers went above and beyond in the design of the Yamato class, stretching their capabilities to the limit to produce a very advanced warship.
Notably, the Yamato class used plenty of full scale testing in its design. This was especially true for the armor design.
Gunnery tests against Tosa showed that large calibre shells retained enough momentum to travel for some distance underwater, allowing them to bypass the main armor belt entirely by going under it.
If you think Bismarck supporters are crazy with the "It took an entire British fleet to sink it", Let me introduce you to the Japanese equivalent when discussing the Yamato class.
This picture is tossed around way more than it should, being inaccurate and without proper context
The problem I have with this picture, and the loss of the Yamato class for that matter, is that people don't understand the progression of damage.
They almost seem to assume that the ship's were perfectly fine until that final hit that sent them under.
The fact of the matter is that US Navy aircraft continued hitting the battleships long after they were done and sinking. Some of those bombs and torpedoes were gratuitous at best.
Instead, the proper question is what straw was it that broke the camel's back?
In turns of protection, tumblehome was also effective in countering gunfire at close ranges (approaching horizontally). So much so that the US Navy designed a battleship that returned to a tumblehome hull reminiscent of a civil war ironclad.
However, gunnery ranges ultimately increased so that shells approached at steeper angles. Here, they negated the slope of tumblehome hulls.
This meant that armor that inclined outwards was superior.
The unsung heroes among the United States cruisers during the Second World War were the Brooklyn class light cruisers.
The impact of these cruisers extends far beyond their service. Their very design influenced all future cruisers of the US Navy.
The Brooklyn class cruiser introduced the long flushdeck style hull (increasing structural strength and stiffness) that would be used on future heavy and light cruisers.
The safer location of the stern was chosen to carry aircraft and their equipment (rather than amidships).
Other features were also introduced for cruiser designs. The propulsion system was arranged into the unit system. The final two ships of the class would even introduce the 5"/38 guns in twin mounts.
An accurate representation of the state of my DM box following the posts on the King George V class.
I've been challenged to name my favorite Treaty battleship.
Of course, I imagine it's so that ruffians might be able to poke holes in my opinion.
Jokes on them because we are talking about the Richelieu class today.
My friends across the pond either concede that the Richelieu class was a valid Treaty design or they get more distracted by attacking the French, ignoring me completely.
I win either way.
Now, why do I think the Richelieu class was the best treaty battleship?
Well, a lot of it ties into what I said on the last post about the King George V class perhaps being the best "pure" or "true" treaty battleship.