A windy Saturday morning and a nice high resolution photo strikes me as an opportune time to look at some battleship design features.

1/

https://twitter.com/mpwarwick/status/1864748682043650094

Firstly, how do we know this is Warspite?

At a glance, the four twin turrets and tower like superstructure narrow it down to one of the three fully reconstructed Queen Elizabeths. (Vanguard, commissioned 1946, does share these features but she is very distinct!)

2/

I am going to take the liberty of extensively quoting from the end of Friedman's book 'British Carrier Aviation', because I think it makes some important points about aircraft carriers and seapower relevant to today.

1/ "This long story would seem to have several morals. The first and most important is that carriers are valuable because they enhance the flexibility - the crucial element - of seapower. Navies are effective because they can present a great variety of enemies with a wide range

2/

Was looking through a copy of Janes Fighting Ships 2009-10 this week. Comparing the fleet then and the theoretical or anticipated replacement plans to what actually happened is depressing.

A grim thread...

1/18

https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1859881964452655530

Attack Submarines.

In 2009 there were 8 in service (1 Swiftsure, 7 Trafalgars). Sceptre was to decommission in 2010 with Astutes replacing the Trafalgars on a 1-to-1 basis between 2009 and 2022. Astute boat 5 was due to commission in 2017.

2/18

The battleship HMS Vanguard. She is often derided for being armed with ‘her Great Aunt’s teeth’.

This is due to her being equipped with four spare 15-inch turrets from storage, previously used on Courageous and Glorious prior to their conversion into carriers.

1/14 These turrets were ordered in 1913-14 and consequently were some 30 years old by the time Vanguard entered service in 1946. This, however, does her firepower a great disservice. This can be seen by looking at each element of the main armament.

2/14

I appreciate that Think Defence is asking this question to pose a discussion, and it is a fair question to ask. But the answer is a resounding "no".

It is easy to blame the carriers for the navy's woes - but I really don't think it stands up to any scrutiny.

(1/17)

https://twitter.com/thinkdefence/status/1843732387584454818

The carriers aren't responsible for the sorry state of the RFA, decades of below-inflation pay rises, and their inability to provide a crew for half of its ships.

(2/17)

The battleship HMS Prince of Wales. Commissioned, still incomplete, into the Royal Navy on the 19th January 1941, she would fail to see out the year.

Despite being in commision just 326 days, she had an eventful career.

(1/11) On the 21st May she reported to CinC Home Fleet as being ready for Fleet service. On the 22nd May she sailed to intercept the Bismarck.

She subsequently fought at the Battle of the Denmark Strait against the Bismarck. While Hood was sunk, Prince of Wales managed to...

(2/11)

A brief thread on the Revenge class battleships, because there seems to be some myths about them.

Often seen as a retrograde step after the Queen Elizabeths, this misunderstands their fleet role compared to the Queen Elizabeth class. The Queen Elizabeths were a 'special' class. Intended to give the battle fleet its own organic fast division, they introduced some notable improvements - the 15in gun, being entirely oil fueled, and the increased speed of 25 knots.

One of my favourite photos of the battleship HMS Prince of Wales, late summer/early autumn of 1941.

This profile view offers a good opportunity to highlight some features of the class, so, a thread... First, the main armament. 10 x 14-inch guns in a 4-2-4 arrangement. The turrets were called 'A', 'B' and 'Y'. 'B' turret was originally conceived as a Quad as well, but changed to a twin to enable more armour to be carried on a Treaty limited displacement.

@ransonwrites To be honest, there wasn't much capacity for accelerating the Lions.

In essence, for most of 1934-35 the Royal Navy expected its next capital ship to have 14" guns. This was because most countries had indicated a willingness to reduce the calibre limit - except the USA. @ransonwrites However, by Sep 1935 it had become clear that Japan would not agree to a reduction unless the USA didn, and the USA had given no such indication. European nations were also building fast 15" gun ships.

The need for a fast capital ship meant the 16" gun was viewed unfavourably.

Battleship Guns - Is fewer larger guns or more smaller guns better?

A question that troubled many a ship designer.

A comparison of 14", 15" and 16" guns...

1/30 The advantages of the larger gun are clear - it has a bigger shell, with more ability to penetrate armour. It'll generally have a larger bursting charge inside it.

Thefore, your hits are more likely to do significant damage when they do hit.

2/30

HMS Vanguard, Britain's last battleship. A brief overview.

1/25 Vanguard was the last British battleship built – the 59th in a line of big-gun warships going back to Dreadnought. She was a ship with quite an interesting origin. In the late 1930s the Royal Navy had embarked on an ambitious construction programme of capital ships.

2/25

The superstructure of the battleship HMS King George V, January 1941.

There's a lot going in this photo, but what is everything for? And the 'Queen Anne's Mansion' superstructure is a distinctive feature, but what actually is inside it?

Well, starting from the top...

(1/18) This is the sight for the UP Launcher on "B" turret. As designed it was meant to be No. 1 Pom Pom director for an Octuple Pom Pom on "B" turret, but such mounts were in short supply when the ship completed.

(2/18)

KGVs - Survivability Beyond Armour.

Clearly, battleships are known for their extensive heavy armour. But there's a lot more that goes into ensuring that they can remain combat capable if damaged.

I thought it would be interesting to highlight a few aspects.

(1/23) Firstly, unit machinery and sub-division. The main propulsion machinery was divided across 8 compartments. 4 boiler rooms, each with 2 boilers, and 4 engine rooms.

These formed pairs, which were a self contained unit that drove 1 shaft.

(2/23)

A short thread on the evolution of British battleship armour.

Detail is in the images!

(1/10) HMS Dreadnought, laid down 1905. This layout was typical of the early British 12-inch armed battleships, although of course there are some detail differences.

(2/10)

Conning a battleship without a Conning Tower - a small thread.

Or, where should you drive a battleship from if you're being shot at? And what happens if that position does get shot?

1/14 Traditionally, capital ships had both something called a Compass Platform and an armoured Conning Tower. Helpfully modelled below by HMS Hood.

2/14

The King George V class - Fire Control Arrangements

(Not how the maths works - that's far too complicated!)

(1/17) For the 14-inch guns the centrepiece of the Fire Control System was the Admiralty Fire Control Table (AFCT). The KGVs carried the Mark IX.

(Pictured is Belfast's, a Mk VI, which is smaller).

Each turret also contained an Admiralty Fire Control Box for local control.

(2/17)