One of the more interesting claims that I have heard recently is that Italy and Germany relied on spaced armor because they could not use high-quality armor plate.

So far as Italy goes, the opposite is true. Spaced armor allowed them to utilize the highest quality armor plate. The difficulty in manufacturing armor plate increased congruently as the thickness of the armor increased.

It was hard to make make an armor plate of 305mm thickness. It was significantly harder to manufacture one that was 356mm and harder yet for 406mm armor.

Super Heavy Shells

I wanted to talk about plunging fire and super-heavy shells, but I realized that they are but a small part of the equation.

So, this post will be broken into two pieces, the second part focusing on shell design and shape. Super Heavy Shells.

The wonder weapon of the United States Navy that everyone acknowledges but does not seem to understand the rationale behind.

So what are Super Heavy Shells.

Super Heavy Shells are, for the most part, the result of a panic in the 1930s.

Standards and Speed

While most Navies made the pursuit of greater speeds in their dreadnoughts a priority during the First World War, the United States remained happy with maintaining a speed of 21 knots throughout their series of superdreadnoughts. Much has been written about the great leap in capability that was brought about by faster battleships such as the Queen Elizabeth class. This premium on speed has led the casual reader to discount the US Navy's Standard-Type battleships or even the entire battleline.

The United States "Standard-Type" Battleships are something of an oddity so far as naval history is concerned.

They are typically overlooked by the casual observer and are seen as smaller, slower, or perhaps less visually impressive compared to their European contemporaries. However, there was a good reason for the Standards and why they were designed the way they were.

They were, along with the strategic thinking of the US Navy, heavily influenced by Alfred Thayer Mahan.

Battlecruisers in the US Navy: Part 4

We talked about the Lexington class battlecruisers, what they might have looked like had they been built, and how they might have been upgraded.

Now let's see how they might have operated in the US Navy. I imagine they would have spent the interwar years split between the Atlantic and Pacific Fleet, generally following the distribution of the battleships. Most of them likely would have been sent to the Pacific along with the Battleline by the late 1930s to contain Japan.

Battlecruisers in the US Navy: Part 2

So let's assume that the US Navy did produce it's Lexington class battlecruisers in their original configuration.

How might they have influenced the US Navy during the interwar years and into World War 2? There likely would have been no Alaska class cruisers for one.

With six large capital ships to patrol the sea lanes, there would be less impetus for the development of the large cruiser proposals in the 1930s.

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.

I don't know who needs to hear this, but Bismarck was sunk by the Royal Navy, not scuttled.

I wanted to do a post on the torpedo protection of the Yamato class, but recent events required a change of plans. There seems to be this weird, persistent belief that the Royal Navy could not sink it and the Germans scuttled it.

Some of the more extreme takes seem to suggest that Bismarck was in great shape prior to her being scuttled.

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.

Yes and No and that answer only applies to the specific time period.

Tumblehome has its original benefits that made it attractive to designers (reduced top weight, better maneuvering in restricted areas, etc).

https://twitter.com/oddhanfoo/status/1718077853244522824

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.

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).

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.

The Colorado class dreadnought USS Washington under construction. The details of her multi-layer torpedo defense system are easily seen.

The United States enjoyed somewhat of a significant advantage in warship development at this time. Most major powers (such as Britain and Germany) were locked in the dreadnought race. In an effort to outproduce the competition, the implementation of new features was somewhat hamstrung by the rush to get ships into serve as quickly as possible.

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.

The battleship Mustu at anchor. Her extensive bulges, the result of her 1930s modernization, are prominent.

A lot of people are surprised by just how large the Nagato class grew to be over their careers. At the start of their careers, the Nagato class were 215m (708') long with a beam of 29m (95'3"). At a draught of 9m (29'), this gave them a displacement of 32,200 tons (38,498 tons at full load).

Alright! Everyone has been taking wild guesses about what I consider a simple, yet brilliant design feature on the Yamato class. However, everyone was thinking big!

So what could this mystery thing be? Well, before we get to it, we need to first talk guns and loading them!

1 As battleships evolved, they increasingly made use of larger, more powerful guns.

In turn, these guns required larger turrets to house them. However, other things also increased in size along with the guns, namely the propellants and loading mechanisms.

2

The Yamato class are best remembered for their massive guns and thick armor. Speed is the last thing on anyone's mind when discussing these dreadnoughts.

However, Japanese designers put considerable thought into the speed of the class. The most famous feature was the bulbous bow.

Contrary to popular belief, the bulbous bow was not a Japanese invention. However, they did introduce what was the most radical design yet, one that offered superior performance to her contemporaries.

Alright, the United States and its flight deck fantasies Part 1: The Flight Deck Cruisers

The Washington Naval Treaty, as well as the later London Naval treaties, were an incredible achievement for halting (temporarily) a growing naval arms race. The German and Japanese navies are best known for their attempts to circumnavigate treaty restrictions. However, this does not mean other countries were playing by the rules.

The United States Navy was also looking for ways to circumnavigate treaty restrictions.

In an early post, we briefly touched upon high velocity, shallow arc and lower velocity, higher arc guns.

While discussions on muzzle velocity are typically examined from a range, accuracy, or penetration angle, one other factor existed that played an equal if not larger role. This factor is barrel wear. Something that influenced naval design for several navies.

The forces required to force a heavy naval shell through a barrel are tremendous. The intense heat and pressure places a great deal of strain on the barrel

One of the greatest ships you never heard of. Shinshū Maru was a amphibious assault ship developed by the Japanese before WW2.

To call her innovative would be an understatement as the ship was a collection of advanced features. The most advanced of which was a large, floodable well deck. This allowed her to rapidly deploy her landing craft during amphibious operations. On the subject of landing craft, she could carry about fifty in addition to four gunboats.

The forward 6"/47 Mark 16DP guns aboard the cruiser Worcester.

The Mark 16DP saw the earlier Mark 16 (Cleveland & Brooklyn classes) guns be mated to a new turret and greatly enhanced shell handling equipment. This allowed the Mark 16DP to retain its powerful anti-ship performance, while granting it autoloading capability and any angle loading. The mounts also featured powerful motors, granting fast traverse and elevation rates.