WW1 battleships

From the birth of the Dreadnought to the period immediately after the end of World War I.
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 790
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

WW1 battleships

Post by paul.mercer » Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:19 pm

Gentlemen,
looking at old films of WWI RN battleships they all seem to have diagonal 'strakes' down each side, what were these for?

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 990
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: WW1 battleships

Post by Byron Angel » Tue Jan 22, 2019 12:06 am

paul.mercer wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:19 pm
Gentlemen,
looking at old films of WWI RN battleships they all seem to have diagonal 'strakes' down each side, what were these for?

Hi Paul,
Re those "diagonal strakes", my guess is that you are referring to the numerous anti-torpedo net booms in their stowed positions along the sides of the ship. These nets were featured in both the British and German navies of the era. IIRC, the RN dispensed with them, but the IGN retained them at least through Jutland.

B

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3366
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: WW1 battleships

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue Jan 22, 2019 1:58 pm

...and the anti-torpedo booms were present also in all other Navies of the late XIX century ships and in the ones that fought at Tsushima in 1905:
this is Imperator Nikolai I, built in 1889 and captured by Japanese, showing the booms at her side some time before the Japanese-Russian war (colors are from before the battle, when the Russian battleships were painted black).

RUS_Imperor_Nikolai_I.jpg
RUS_Imperor_Nikolai_I.jpg (24.54 KiB) Viewed 3458 times

Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3366
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: WW1 battleships

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Wed Jan 23, 2019 2:19 pm

Hello everybody,
I must amend my previous post, the ships of the Third Pacific Squadron (Nikolai I was the flagship) were apparently not all painted black at Tsushima (First and Second Squadron were), therefore the image posted above can have been taken just before her last "mission".

Here the evidence with a photo taken just after the ship surrender at Tsushima:

ImperatorNikolaiI1905.jpg
ImperatorNikolaiI1905.jpg (16.32 KiB) Viewed 3410 times

Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 187
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: WW1 battleships

Post by HMSVF » Sun Mar 03, 2019 6:17 pm

Byron Angel wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 12:06 am
paul.mercer wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:19 pm
Gentlemen,
looking at old films of WWI RN battleships they all seem to have diagonal 'strakes' down each side, what were these for?

Hi Paul,
Re those "diagonal strakes", my guess is that you are referring to the numerous anti-torpedo net booms in their stowed positions along the sides of the ship. These nets were featured in both the British and German navies of the era. IIRC, the RN dispensed with them, but the IGN retained them at least through Jutland.

B

I believe the reasons for the RN ditching the anti torpedo booms was two fold.

Firstly, torpedoes ended up with net cutters that allowed the torpedoes to go straight through the nets. HMS Majestic whilst off Gallipoli had her nets deployed.It didn't stop her from being sunk for the above reason. If you look at the famous picture of her sinking you see she her booms and the netting still in position has she rolled over to starboard.

Secondly, there was concern that if damaged they could foul either the screws or the rudder.


Best wishes


VF

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 990
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: WW1 battleships

Post by Byron Angel » Thu Mar 07, 2019 1:10 am

Agree with respect to both your cited cases.

Also, IIRC, for deployed anti-torpedo nets to be effective, the ship had to maintain a speed of not more than about 12 knots.

B

BuckBradley
Junior Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 12:29 am

Re: WW1 battleships

Post by BuckBradley » Thu Apr 25, 2019 3:43 am

So gents I am pretty sure that the USN contemplated these torpedo nets at the time but as far as I know they never adopted them. Anyone know why?

Thanks,

BB

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 990
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: WW1 battleships

Post by Byron Angel » Sat Apr 27, 2019 3:15 am

BuckBradley wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 3:43 am
So gents I am pretty sure that the USN contemplated these torpedo nets at the time but as far as I know they never adopted them. Anyone know why?

Thanks,

BB

Hi Buck,
Anti-torpedo nets were heavy, cumbersome, posed a fouling risk if damaged while the ship was under way and proved ineffective at speeds much above 9-10 knots due to a tendency to trail near the surface rather than remain fully suspended. I just checked my copy of Reilly & Scheina's "American Battleships 1886-1923 - Predreadnought Design and Construction" and could find no imagery (photo or diagram) of any US ship so fitted.

Ultimately, paravanes proved a far superior solution.

B

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 194
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 1:00 pm

Re: WW1 battleships

Post by OpanaPointer » Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:46 am

And who sweeps in front of the minesweepers? :lol:

I actually got to watch the USN sweep the Suez Canal. Helos first. Not so much "tap dancing in a minefield" that way. :whistle:

Post Reply