When it comes to warships, bigger is usually better.

Warship design and construction, terminology, navigation, hydrodynamics, stability, armor schemes, damage control, etc.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: When it comes to warships, bigger is usually better.

Post by dunmunro »

OpanaPointer wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 7:39 pm
dunmunro wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 4:03 pm
OpanaPointer wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 12:37 pm The US laid up a lot of vessels post war.

Could the UK afford to replace the Didos?
The USN only laid up entire classes of ships when they deemed they were no longer useful.
Nothing about the Didos, ok. Do you have a cite for the laying-up policy? Usefulness is a relative term. We didn't use the fourstackers we had laid up, but we kept them in operational status. Churchill had no problem with them.
The RN used what they could get hold of after the fall of France. That isn't really much of an argument for design.

I can't state definitively why the Didos were used post war. Certainly they were cheaper to operate but the same argument could be made for the Atlantas which were promptly decommissioned.
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1651
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: When it comes to warships, bigger is usually better.

Post by Byron Angel »

Steve Crandell wrote: Mon Nov 29, 2021 12:07 am Very interesting article. Of course, the anti 5"/38 and Mark 37 crowd will come out shortly, as well as the armored carrier people.
It seems you were spot on, Professor Crandell. LOL
B
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: When it comes to warships, bigger is usually better.

Post by dunmunro »

Byron Angel wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 3:54 am
Steve Crandell wrote: Mon Nov 29, 2021 12:07 am Very interesting article. Of course, the anti 5"/38 and Mark 37 crowd will come out shortly, as well as the armored carrier people.
It seems you were spot on, Professor Crandell. LOL
B
A lot of myths came out of WW2. As naval historians we have to look at facts and be careful not to propagate false ideas that originated during the war. Using post war data from both sides in the conflict, we can dispel these myths. It is disappointing that nationalism seems to stand in the way of an honest appraisal of both material and doctrine.

Friedman is propagating false ideas regarding the Atlanta class. A careful analysis of their operational use in 1942 shows that they were ineffective as AA cruisers and yet, being equipped with 5in/38 guns they were also severely handicapped in the surface combat role. The Dido class couldn't have performed worse than the Atlanta class as AA cruisers but they were still equipped with a main battery that was much better suited to surface to surface combat as it had a much flatter trajectory and outranged Atlanta by ~6000yds, having a maximum range 1/3 longer than Atlanta. Incidentally, these same attributes would make the 5.25in gun somewhat more accurate against aircraft as well, as partial compensation for their slower RoF. Friedman states that the last AA cruisers ordered by the USN would have had a battery of 5in/54 guns and these mounts sacrificed RoF for a heavier projectile with a much longer range and flatter trajectory....hmmm, so really the Atlanta's evolved to have the gunnery attributes of the 'failed' Dido class, and yet Friedman doesn't bat an eye when stating this in his article.
Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 876
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: When it comes to warships, bigger is usually better.

Post by Bill Jurens »

There is an old aphorism in naval architecture, told to me (independently) by two very-well respected naval architects.

"The advantage lies, in increasing size..."

This has affected ship design since forever. It's 'baked into the cake'...

Generally, the square/cube law results in ships getting bigger and bigger until the structural materials available reach their limits, at which point further growth ceases or one adopts different materials and/or construction techniques. Ship design tends to proceed incrementally, so in general when one goes to much larger size, rather than try to develop something entirely new, it's better to scale-up an existing satisfactory (or nearly-satisfactory) model until some experience has been gained. In the absence of very powerful and ground-breaking new technologies, it's best to proceed fairly conservatively, and thereafter enhancing and refining the rather conservative larger design.

One looks for convergences, too -- often by observing the results produced by competitors. Overall, highly variant semi-experimental designs tend to close upon a basic overall format over time. As an example, most automobiles have now converged to liquid-fueled four-wheel arrangements with transverse engines forward. Electric drive may (or may not) prove to be a 'game-changer'. In the very early years of automobile design almost anything went -- or, in the case of 'failures' maybe didn't go at all...

Bill Jurens
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: When it comes to warships, bigger is usually better.

Post by dunmunro »

Bill Jurens wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 6:53 pm There is an old aphorism in naval architecture, told to me (independently) by two very-well respected naval architects.

"The advantage lies, in increasing size..."

This has affected ship design since forever. It's 'baked into the cake'...

Generally, the square/cube law results in ships getting bigger and bigger until the structural materials available reach their limits, at which point further growth ceases or one adopts different materials and/or construction techniques. Ship design tends to proceed incrementally, so in general when one goes to much larger size, rather than try to develop something entirely new, it's better to scale-up an existing satisfactory (or nearly-satisfactory) model until some experience has been gained. In the absence of very powerful and ground-breaking new technologies, it's best to proceed fairly conservatively, and thereafter enhancing and refining the rather conservative larger design.

One looks for convergences, too -- often by observing the results produced by competitors. Overall, highly variant semi-experimental designs tend to close upon a basic overall format over time. As an example, most automobiles have now converged to liquid-fueled four-wheel arrangements with transverse engines forward. Electric drive may (or may not) prove to be a 'game-changer'. In the very early years of automobile design almost anything went -- or, in the case of 'failures' maybe didn't go at all...

Bill Jurens
Your second sentence is certainly true, except when treaty limits force design trade offs. If you're searching for an enemy AMC raider, two small cruisers are a lot more useful than one large one.

Friedman doesn't mention the tonnage limitations forced upon the USN and RN and that the RN choose more, but smaller cruisers, over fewer but larger cruisers, for example. Of course once war started in Sept 1939 the treaty limits went out the window, but the RN had to continue building what they had, even if it wasn't exactly what they wanted, whereas the USN had another two years to design ships outside of the treaty limitations and they had the ship building capacity to bring them into service before wars end.
Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: When it comes to warships, bigger is usually better.

Post by Steve Crandell »

I would always take an Atlanta against a Dido in the typical night brawls in the Pacific during WWII, where rate of fire would be more important than trajectory. Assuming of course that you don't have your own CAs shooting at you.

Naturally, all things being equal, it would be nice to have a 5"/54 over a 5"/38. Unfortunately the USN experienced some of the same problems with the 5"/54 as the British did with the 5.25"/50. With the weapons on the Midway class CVs, the ammunition was too heavy to handle quickly and the mounts were cramped. The result was the crews couldn't load as fast and they tired quickly. They tried to solve that with fully automatic gun loading systems that could load as fast as a 5"/38 crew, and those had problems with reliability. It took many years to develop a reliable mount, and now it's pretty much limited to surface gunnery and a relatively low rate of fire. Full circle.
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1651
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: When it comes to warships, bigger is usually better.

Post by Byron Angel »

Steve Crandell wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 12:19 am I would always take an Atlanta against a Dido in the typical night brawls in the Pacific during WWII, where rate of fire would be more important than trajectory. Assuming of course that you don't have your own CAs shooting at you.

Naturally, all things being equal, it would be nice to have a 5"/54 over a 5"/38. Unfortunately the USN experienced some of the same problems with the 5"/54 as the British did with the 5.25"/50. With the weapons on the Midway class CVs, the ammunition was too heavy to handle quickly and the mounts were cramped. The result was the crews couldn't load as fast and they tired quickly. They tried to solve that with fully automatic gun loading systems that could load as fast as a 5"/38 crew, and those had problems with reliability. It took many years to develop a reliable mount, and now it's pretty much limited to surface gunnery and a relatively low rate of fire. Full circle.

Hi Steve,
Friedman touches upon the 5in/54 versus 5in/38 topic in his nook on US Cruisers. When the Montana Class BBS were cancelled, the 5in/54 under development as their secondary became "orphans" and, according to Friedman, some consideration was given to employing them aboard cruisers (IIRC, either for new construction or as replacement for existing 5in/38 batteries. The idea was, however, ultimately deemed not worth the effort.

In terms of night surface actions, the 5in/54 arguably would not IMO have brought a much extra to the fight. Its principal attraction was a higher velocity round and, by implication, greater range. But higher velocity meant little, given that 5in was never intended as an AP caliber, and the extra range was of relatively little value, given that night engagement ranges were really dictated by the distance at which the controlling FC radar could detect fall of that caliber shot (MK4 FC could, for example detect 5in fall of shot out to about 10,000 yds).

Apart from that, you yourself made a good case regarding the weight and complexity costs involved in even getting the 5in/54's RoF up to existing 5in/38 levels.

FWIW.

Happy holidays!

B
Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: When it comes to warships, bigger is usually better.

Post by Steve Crandell »

I had all of Friedman's ship type books. My wife was giving me one and sometimes more every Christmas. But then she died suddenly and I went crazy and sold or gave away most of the things I didn't need to live in a motorhome. I did that for two years and now I'm in a studio apartment. Life happens.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: When it comes to warships, bigger is usually better.

Post by dunmunro »

Steve Crandell wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 5:38 pm I had all of Friedman's ship type books. My wife was giving me one and sometimes more every Christmas. But then she died suddenly and I went crazy and sold or gave away most of the things I didn't need to live in a motorhome. I did that for two years and now I'm in a studio apartment. Life happens.
That must have been a difficult time in your life. I divorced, moved into a condo apartment 10 years back, remarried, and have never been happier in my entire 65 years.

A fair amount of Friedman's (and others) works are available in digital format, (Amazon Kindle, Google Books, etc) and many can be purchased used at reasonable prices. I greatly prefer digital content now because of it's portability. Your local libraries can often use their inter-library loan system to obtain books that they don't have locally.
Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: When it comes to warships, bigger is usually better.

Post by Steve Crandell »

Thank you. I am a great Kindle user, but I've found that a lot of the drawings in technical pubs are difficult to read in digital format on the small screens.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7759
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: When it comes to warships, bigger is usually better.

Post by RF »

When it comes to warships, bigger is usually better, unless its an Austro-Hungarian battleship facing down an Italian motor torpedo boat.

Or the Bismarck having its gunnery fire control position knocked out by a 8 inch direct hit by Norfolk.

Mind you the Kormoran was bigger in size than HMAS Sydney and did win out - but the bigger size presented a larger target and Kormoran was lost as well....
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
HMSVF
Senior Member
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: When it comes to warships, bigger is usually better.

Post by HMSVF »

dunmunro wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 5:47 pm
marcelo_malara wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 5:28 pm Victorious had a serious drawback, that was hangar height, refitting involved dismounting all ship from hangar deck up, that was why it took 8 years to refit her. This and cost increases beyond initial estimates make her the only one of her sisters and half sisters to undergo modification.
This is not the whole story. The rebuild was complicated by the desire to also replace the machinery, mid way through the rebuild, and this greatly increased the design complexity, cost and completion time. However, once Victorious' rebuild was complete it could have been used as a template for the other carriers, but cost ruled that out because the UK was essentially bankrupt at that point, and they were scrapping Audacious class carriers still on the blocks.
I think this is a valid point. I can remember reading a great book by Paul Kennedy (I think) that basically tied naval supremacy to economic wealth. Post 1945 the US had it whereas the UK hadnt, we were econimcally spent. In fact we were up against it from WW1 and I'm sure that I read that the UK would not have been able to continue the war past May 1941 had it not been for US help. It puts Chamberlain's efforts prior to Sept 1939 into focus. They knew what was coming but knew the price that would have to be paid.

So when it comes to the RN in the 40's and 50's its all about pragmatism. In an ideal world Formidable, Indomitable and Victorious get modernised as do Implacable and Indefatigable (as single storey hanger vessels). In reality the RN had neither the funds nor the manpower to staff them. That's why the Centaurs looked so attractive as did the Colossus class.

The US could afford to rebuild USS Franklin and lay her up. The RN couldn't. It was all about face saving and gentle withdrawal .
Post Reply