|
Post by generalvikus on Oct 13, 2018 23:23:21 GMT -6
Airy W - very interesting, I'll have to give those semi - dreadnoughts a shot some time! director - thanks for the information, and I agree about the Queen Elizabeth; a beautiful ship to be sure, but I think it could also be argued that it was the best BB design for its time ever made, with an excellent combination of protection, speed, and firepower. I did however recently read that, when the Admiral class was being designed, Jellicoe had said that his experience had convinced him there was little use in having an intermediate speed between the battleships and battlecruisers, and that the new ships ought to be either 21 knot or 30 knot ships. It seems to me, however, that if Beatty had used his squadron properly at Jutland the verdict might have been different.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Oct 14, 2018 14:05:31 GMT -6
[The French] 9x6" light cruisers were - I think - magnificent ships. Everyone else was busy trying to cram 15 or 12-6" guns onto too little displacement, but I think the French got the balance just about right. I'm not seeing what makes the French nine-gun light cruisers better balanced than the twelve- or fifteen-gun cruisers of the other powers. The nine-gun Emile Bertin has about as much tonnage per gun as the American fifteen-gun Brooklyn and St Louis classes, roughly four fifths as much tonnage per gun as the British twelve-gun Town classes, roughly two thirds as much tonnage per gun as the American twelve-gun Cleveland and Fargo classes, and roughly half as much tonnage per gun as the American twelve-gun Worcester class, and the La Galissoniere class is about halfway between the British Town and American Cleveland classes in terms of tonnage per gun. In terms of protection, Emile Bertin is I think unquestionably worse than any of the British or American 12- or 15-gun light cruisers, and probably also the Japanese Mogamis, while the La Galissoniere class is I think roughly comparable to the British Town and American Cleveland classes. They did. In fact, seven of the Clevelands commissioned before the first Baltimore - four of them over six months before the first Baltimore.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Oct 14, 2018 17:27:04 GMT -6
As long as we're sticking to big-gun ships, I like the look of the Queen Elizabeths and Tiger.
I kind of like how Furious and Vindictive looked before Furious became a flush-deck carrier and Vindictive went back to being a cruiser, with a flying-off deck forward and landing deck aft of an otherwise fairly normal superstructure.
Don't remember which one it was for, but one of the early carriers was initially designed with an island on either side of a full-length flight deck and had a bridge connecting the two islands across the flight deck, which amuses me. Might've been Hermes.
The Konig class had fore-and-aft superfiring pairs and a midships centerline turret like the British Orion-, King George V-, and Iron Duke-class battleships. Did you perhaps mean the Kaiser-class battleships, which had an aft superfiring pair, a pair of wing turrets en echelon, and a forward turret on the centerline like the British Neptune and Colossus classes? HMS Furious cracks me up. It looks like someone built a Hotwheels track over the weather deck. As far as favorites, for me it has to be the Yorktowns. They didn't win the war, the Essex-class and the Amphibious navy/Marines did but they shortened the war by at least a year and stopped the Japanese advance cold. That and the North Carolinas. Named after my home state (I'm biased I'll admit). They set the look of the American fast battleships which saw its ultimate expression in the cancelled Montanas.
|
|
|
Post by director on Oct 14, 2018 21:43:54 GMT -6
aeson - for me, the 12 and 15-gun light cruisers are overgunned for their displacement. All of them had serious topweight and stability issues and, in my opinion, all would have benefited from losing a turret. That comes with the benefit of hindsight; when built, no-one really knew how much light and medium AA and electronics would be added.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Oct 14, 2018 23:51:38 GMT -6
Actually, I've generally heard the analysis that it was the heavy cruisers that found themselves outmatched in night actions in constricted waters, due to the lower rate of fire if their 8-inch guns. Certainly more CAs were lost in surface combat during the war than CLs. The CAs were more suited to daytime action in the open sea, but that kind of combat didn't really happen. Problem with all cruisers in WW2 was that they have displacement of 10.000 (a little more if nation cheated). On that tonnage you cannot balance your design so you need to sacrifice something. Usually it was armor, especially on heavy cruisers. The reason was that 8" guns were so powerful that having adequate armor against them was out of possibility. As the armor was not great on cruisers even 6" guns could penetrate and do real damage. And that if any gun could penetrate than it is mainly matter of how much explosive power you can hit you enemy. As there were 6" guns with fast fire possible that was the reason why there were sometimes preferred. But again we should ask what was cruisers task for Allies. 1. defend against surface raiders (mainly RN at start of war) 2. AA role 3. fight other cruisers (it happened mainly in the Mediterranean and Pacific but there usually tactics and crew wins over quality of ships) As you can see there are different roles and specially role 2 and 3 are opposite on needs for cruiser design.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Oct 15, 2018 0:10:16 GMT -6
If I look and battleships/battlecruiser, there are ships which influenced rest.
HMS Dreadnought - no comment needed Invincible class - new type of ships with vey high speed (able to achieve for long time) German battlecruisers/battleships - excellent passive defence systems Michigan class - showing superfiring turrets are working Queen Elisabeth class - balanced design with 15" guns, first try to have fast battleship without compromising firepower or armor Nevada class - AoN armor Dante Alighieri/Tegetthoff class - first triple turrets HMS Hood - first prototype of fast battleship (at her time her armor was top class surpassing only by the newest battleships) Iowa class - the change of role of the battleship
The rest were just improvements with Queen Elisabeth and Iowa class could even not be on list.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Oct 15, 2018 0:57:41 GMT -6
aeson - for me, the 12 and 15-gun light cruisers are overgunned for their displacement. All of them had serious topweight and stability issues and, in my opinion, all would have benefited from losing a turret. That comes with the benefit of hindsight; when built, no-one really knew how much light and medium AA and electronics would be added. Displacements from Wikipedia, so take it with a grain of salt: The La Galissoniere class has about as much tonnage per main battery gun as the British Town classes (Southampton, Gloucester, Edinburgh) and less tonnage per main battery gun than the American Cleveland and Fargo classes or the Ceylon group of the British Crown Colony class; Emile Bertin has less tonnage per main battery gun than any of the other late-interwar light cruisers save for the Mogami class (before its refit with 8" guns and consequent reclassification as a heavy cruiser per the definitions set in the 1930 Treaty of London). I agree that the 15-gun ~10,000t American light cruisers and especially Mogami probably had too many main battery guns for their displacements, but I do not agree that that was the case for the 12-gun ~10,000t American and British cruisers, or at least not any more so than it was the case for the 9-gun ~7600t La Galissoniere class.
The differences in armament between the French and the American/British/Japanese cruisers that I'd be inclined to blame for the American, British, and Japanese cruisers' topheaviness problems, especially after the midwar light AA battery upgrades, lie mostly in the secondary/heavy AA and light AA batteries, not in the main battery. Specifically, the British and especially the American and Japanese cruisers had heavier secondary/heavy AA batteries and lighter light AA batteries than the French cruisers; perhaps the most extreme example of this is in the American Brooklyn and St Louis classes, whose 8x1x5" secondary batteries were considerably heavier and 8x1x0.5" MG light AA batteries were considerably lighter than the La Galissoniere class's 4x2x90mm secondary and 4x2x37mm/6x2x13.2mm MG light AA batteries. The wartime upgrades to the light AA batteries exacerbated this difference; Brooklyn for example gained much more weight in going from its prewar 8x1x0.5" MG light AA battery to its late-war 6x4x40mm/2x2x40mm/18x1x20mm light AA battery than Montcalm did in going from its prewar 4x2x37mm/6x2x13.2mm light AA battery to its late-war 6x4x40mm/20x1x20mm light AA battery.
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Oct 15, 2018 1:35:52 GMT -6
If I look and battleships/battlecruiser, there are ships which influenced rest. HMS Dreadnought - no comment needed Invincible class - new type of ships with vey high speed (able to achieve for long time) German battlecruisers/battleships - excellent passive defence systems Michigan class - showing superfiring turrets are working Queen Elisabeth class - balanced design with 15" guns, first try to have fast battleship without compromising firepower or armor Nevada class - AoN armor Dante Alighieri/Tegetthoff class - first triple turrets HMS Hood - first prototype of fast battleship (at her time her armor was top class surpassing only by the newest battleships) Iowa class - the change of role of the battleship The rest were just improvements with Queen Elisabeth and Iowa class could even not be on list. I think this is a good list. South Carolina and Michigan were certainly superb designs and even further ahead of their time than dreadnought, considering that they were actually designed earlier and got the all big-gun layout and superfiring turrets at the same time. If only they hadn't been so sluggishly constructed, and if only the short-sighted 16,000 ton limit had been lifted, it could have been a truly great design - but then again, it's probably for the best that it wasn't. Imagine if they were completed first - would we be calling all battleships that came after them Michies? Carries? I'll take Dreadnoughts any day. HMS Invincible, of sank-in-90-seconds fame, makes your list. It wouldn't make mine! Of course, you could argue they were mishandled by Beatty - as they almost certainly were - but I wouldn't cut Fischer too much slack for that, since the reality is that theory did not match practice: the design of the ship did not match up to the role for which the navy saw fit to use her, which required that she take hits from her opposite numbers. Ditto for Hood! Nevada probably deserves a mention, and gets extra points for being a pre-Jutland design for the post-Jutland era. I think a lot of credit has to go to the USN for trail-blazing here, as with superfiring turrets. Certainly those earlier American ships were behind in some aspects, like turbines, for instance - but that was a technological limitation, as I understand it, rather than a deficiency in imagination, and I think we should be quicker to criticize the latter than the former. As for the Queen Elizabeth - she's the ship that has got the most love in this thread, and she probably deserves it; she was the first ship that I thought of when I was writing the OP. What do you think - this goes for everyone else as well - of Jellicoe's statement during the design of the Admiral class that such an 'intermediate speed' ship was a waste? As a corollary to that - what do you all think of QE's armament? Warspite, of course, has her famous trick-shot, but considering that the contemporary Fuso was sporting 12 14 inch guns at a 23 knot speed - could the Queen Elizabeth really compete with that? As for Iowa - if Queen Elizabeth gets the gold for the all-rounder category, then Iowa is probably the runner up. Still, though, what about her predecessor, the South Dakota? I think she deserves at least an honorable mention for doing more with less.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Oct 15, 2018 3:04:48 GMT -6
If I look and battleships/battlecruiser, there are ships which influenced rest. HMS Dreadnought - no comment needed Invincible class - new type of ships with vey high speed (able to achieve for long time) German battlecruisers/battleships - excellent passive defence systems Michigan class - showing superfiring turrets are working Queen Elisabeth class - balanced design with 15" guns, first try to have fast battleship without compromising firepower or armor Nevada class - AoN armor Dante Alighieri/Tegetthoff class - first triple turrets HMS Hood - first prototype of fast battleship (at her time her armor was top class surpassing only by the newest battleships) Iowa class - the change of role of the battleship The rest were just improvements with Queen Elisabeth and Iowa class could even not be on list. I think this is a good list. South Carolina and Michigan were certainly superb designs and even further ahead of their time than dreadnought, considering that they were actually designed earlier and got the all big-gun layout and superfiring turrets at the same time. If only they hadn't been so sluggishly constructed, and if only the short-sighted 16,000 ton limit had been lifted, it could have been a truly great design - but then again, it's probably for the best that it wasn't. Imagine if they were completed first - would we be calling all battleships that came after them Michies? Carries? I'll take Dreadnoughts any day. HMS Invincible, of sank-in-90-seconds fame, makes your list. It wouldn't make mine! Of course, you could argue they were mishandled by Beatty - as they almost certainly were - but I wouldn't cut Fischer too much slack for that, since the reality is that theory did not match practice: the design of the ship did not match up to the role for which the navy saw fit to use her, which required that she take hits from her opposite numbers. Ditto for Hood! Nevada probably deserves a mention, and gets extra points for being a pre-Jutland design for the post-Jutland era. I think a lot of credit has to go to the USN for trail-blazing here, as with superfiring turrets. Certainly those earlier American ships were behind in some aspects, like turbines, for instance - but that was a technological limitation, as I understand it, rather than a deficiency in imagination, and I think we should be quicker to criticize the latter than the former. As for the Queen Elizabeth - she's the ship that has got the most love in this thread, and she probably deserves it; she was the first ship that I thought of when I was writing the OP. What do you think - this goes for everyone else as well - of Jellicoe's statement during the design of the Admiral class that such an 'intermediate speed' ship was a waste? As a corollary to that - what do you all think of QE's armament? Warspite, of course, has her famous trick-shot, but considering that the contemporary Fuso was sporting 12 14 inch guns at a 23 knot speed - could the Queen Elizabeth really compete with that? As for Iowa - if Queen Elizabeth gets the gold for the all-rounder category, then Iowa is probably the runner up. Still, though, what about her predecessor, the South Dakota? I think she deserves at least an honorable mention for doing more with less. I did list of ships/classes that has effects on battleships/battlecruisers design in future so real life of battleships is not important so much as effects on other designs in future. With all you respect with your choose I will try to add some explanation. Michigan class - I agree however with you about this class however HMS Dreadnought has all these features which Michigan class has not, firepower 2 times the previous ships, speed much higher (because of use of steam turbines) and equivalent armor. Invincible class - for the point of design she was important same as HMS Dreadnought, the usage of the ship is not fault of the design innovations. And the sinking of English battlecruisers are not by design only, it is more with cordite handling. HMS Hood - she was sunk as 20 years old without any major refit. Put any 20 year old battleships against brand new one. It would be not fair fight so blaming her for that has nothing to do with her design. However she is important for design and evolution as she is the first capital ship with firepower of battleship, armor of battleship but speed of battlecruiser (at that time she was fastest except HMS Renown and HMS Repulse), all at the time of her design and some time after. Nevada - she was ahead because of US doctrine however not practically (fighting capabilities) ahead at that time as USA were quite behind to UK, Germany and with fire control and ability to hit she cannot face even worse contemporary UK battleships. After USN catch that area she was slow but very advanced design because her armor scheme with high fighting capabilities. Queen Elizabeths - yes, but they were excellent ship design but not revolutionary so much as evolutionary design (she was oil fired, she get better guns and she was a little faster, at that time with target of 25 knots, reaching only 23-24 knots). South Dakota was evolution as all the fast battleships limited by treaties. They all were better protected with higher speed because of technology progress but nothing really new and important in design. Even Iowa was evolution, revolution was with her usage and for what she was designed. Just added note: According to my information the South Dakota has false TDS based on tests in 1939 which was corrected in Iowa class. TDS are really problem as one thing is design, the second one is how it function in reality. As not all battleships were hit on TDS it is much more difficult and compare TDS on different battleships.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Oct 15, 2018 5:03:54 GMT -6
HMS Invincible, of sank-in-90-seconds fame, makes your list. It wouldn't make mine! Of course, you could argue they were mishandled by Beatty - as they almost certainly were - but I wouldn't cut Fischer too much slack for that, since the reality is that theory did not match practice: the design of the ship did not match up to the role for which the navy saw fit to use her, which required that she take hits from her opposite numbers. Ditto for Hood! Say what you will of HMS Invincible's battle performance; it was for battlecruisers and the large cruisers that the British Royal Navy called first class and the US Navy called armored what Dreadnought was for battleships. It rendered the older type obsolete overnight - possibly far more so than did Dreadnought, considering that not only did it represent the jump to 'all-big-gun' configuration and an increase in speed but also incorporated a significant jump in main battery caliber over most earlier large cruisers - and set the general pattern followed by almost all large cruiser-type warships for the next fifteen or so years, until the Treaty of Washington ended battlecruiser construction.
Also, I'd be more critical of Indefatigable than Invincible; nothing particularly comparable to Invincible was even on the horizon when Invincible was laid down (the first of the three Invincibles to complete commissioned only three months or so after Von der Tann was laid down), but Von der Tann and Moltke were already under construction by the time that Indefatigable was laid down, and Von der Tann at the least had been for long enough that the British Royal Navy should have been aware of their general characteristics. Designing Invincible without considering comparable opponents is understandable, even if it doesn't reflect particularly well upon the foresight of its designers; designing Indefatigable in the same way is rather less so.
As to Hood, remember that Hood was over twenty years old at the Battle of the Denmark Strait and that plans to modernize the ship and improve its protection had to be shelved due to the war. It's true that Hood had flaws from the outset, but its protection was probably adequate for its era, and it's a very high standard that only calls a design good when it remains equal or superior to ships twenty years newer. Personally, I think that Fuso's armor is sufficiently worse than Queen Elizabeth's to offset the advantage of its heavier broadside, at least as the ships were built (Fuso's post-modernization deck armor might be enough better than that of the modernized Queen Elizabeths after the 1930s modernizations to offset the Queen Elizabeths' heaver guns at very long range, though I doubt it would've been relevant at practical engagement ranges), especially considering that Queen Elizabeth's 15" guns are probably better at penetrating armor than Fuso's 14" guns (much better at long range in the WWI period, if the armor penetration data for the American 14"/45 Mark 1/2/3/5 on the navweaps site is anything to go by). Additionally, while Fuso does have a heavier broadside, the arrangement of the main battery means that Queen Elizabeth's main battery is better when only the forward or after superfiring pair can bear on a target. My opinion is that Queen Elizabeth is probably better than Fuso overall, particularly at relatively long engagement ranges, but might be slightly disadvantaged broadside-to-broadside.
I neither entirely agree nor entirely disagree. I don't feel that the couple extra knots was enough to allow the Queen Elizabeths to maneuver relative to a 21kn battle line as well as might be desired for a fast division, and it certainly wasn't much better than 21 knots when it came to operating with fleet carriers in the Second World War, but it's also part of why the Queen Elizabeths were more valuable than the later Revenge/Royal Sovereign/R class between the wars and it would have been useful as a step towards a faster battle line had such a transition occurred gradually in the absence of the interwar treaties rather than abruptly after more than a decade of near-total stasis as happened historically. Debatable; several of the German battlecruisers are pretty close to being to contemporary German battleships what Hood was to Revenge or Queen Elizabeth. Von der Tann and Nassau or Derfflinger and Konig, for instance.
The only significant advantage Dreadnought has over South Carolina and Michigan, aside from entering service earlier, is its speed. 4x2x12" guns in fore-and-aft superfiring pairs is at least as good as 5x2x12" guns in three centerline and two wing turrets when the wings mask each other, except maybe in special circumstances with a target more or less dead ahead or with at least one target on each side of the ship.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Oct 15, 2018 6:23:13 GMT -6
Debatable; several of the German battlecruisers are pretty close to being to contemporary German battleships what Hood was to Revenge or Queen Elizabeth. Von der Tann and Nassau or Derfflinger and Konig, for instance.
The only significant advantage Dreadnought has over South Carolina and Michigan, aside from entering service earlier, is its speed. 4x2x12" guns in fore-and-aft superfiring pairs is at least as good as 5x2x12" guns in three centerline and two wing turrets when the wings mask each other, except maybe in special circumstances with a target more or less dead ahead or with at least one target on each side of the ship.
HMS Hood - you are right especially for Derfflinger class battlecruisers if you compare it to Konig class. However if you compare them to QEs (they were launched at almost same time) that 3 knots more, 12" instead of 15" and less armored is not something that impresses. On opposite HMS Hood have 8x15" vs best 8x16" is minimal diference. Armor protection of 12" belt (angled) vs. 13.5" of Colorado class, 15" vs. 18" turrets, 3" vs. 3.5" deck armor at important part of the ship, speed 31 knots vs. 21 knots. The other ships (Nagato, QE) compare even worse. So HMS Hood has slightly lower firepower and protection vs. best ship at world at that time (view of point firepower, protection) which is minimal difference but 10 knots speed advantage. For other ships HMS Hood is usually at least from point of view firepower and protection equal. If HMS Hood is compared to previous class battleships of UK (R class, QE class), she has equal firepower, better protection, far better speed, she was step ahead. She was battleship with speed of modern cruisers at that time at least. Michigan class - I completely agree with you, the only advantage was speed so it makes HMS Dreadnought as being earlier the design to follow and Michigan as example of superfiring turrets. Quite strange as other nations laid down their own dreadnought that superfiring turrets on both ends was something that takes time (country, class, laid down/year commissioned) USA - Michigan - 1906/1910 UK - Orion - 1909/1912 AH - Tegethoff - 1910/1912 France - Courbet - 1910/1913 Italy - Conte di Cavour - 1910/1914 Germany - Konig - 1911/1914 Japan - Fuso - 1912/1915 Russia - never
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Oct 15, 2018 9:32:13 GMT -6
As for the Queen Elizabeth - regardless of the extent to which the greater top speed kept them relevant for longer, I think that the experience of Jutland contradicts the idea that the extra speed was wasted, since they were able to operate with the Battlecruisers, though the particular circumstances of that battle of course worked to their detriment. As for Hood, aeson and dorn, you make good points - and of course, the Hood should not have been expected to be on par with Bismarck, but she did not face Bismarck in a one-on-one engagement. The question for me is not whether or not she should have been built in such a way that she could go toe-to-toe with a ship 20 years her junior, but whether or not she should have been capable to holding her own, of surviving at least long enough to inflict some damage in return. Perhaps, however, we must account for the fact that Bismarck appears to have got very lucky.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 15, 2018 9:50:40 GMT -6
As for the Queen Elizabeth - regardless of the extent to which the greater top speed kept them relevant for longer, I think that the experience of Jutland contradicts the idea that the extra speed was wasted, since they were able to operate with the Battlecruisers, though the particular circumstances of that battle of course worked to their detriment. As for Hood, aeson and dorn , you make good points - and of course, the Hood should not have been expected to be on par with Bismarck, but she did not face Bismarck in a one-on-one engagement. The question for me is not whether or not she should have been built in such a way that she could go toe-to-toe with a ship 20 years her junior, but whether or not she should have been capable to holding her own, of surviving at least long enough to inflict some damage in return. Perhaps, however, we must account for the fact that Bismarck appears to have got very lucky. The problem for Hood and Prince of Wales was tactical. the charge. Hood, with her weak deck should not have been leading the charge, POW should have been. Even with her relative newness, she was the ship with the armor protection who could lead against Bismarck. We actually don't know where the origin of the explosion was on Hood and it will remain in doubt. Personally, I believe she was the victim of the "golden BB" and with her design weaknesses adding to the mix.
In fact, we are not even certain it was Bismarck that hit her, the speculation, with evidence is that it was Prince Eugen. However a study of the shot penetration by Eugen shows that she could have damaged Hood, but not sunk her. So we are back to square one.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Oct 15, 2018 12:41:04 GMT -6
As for Hood, aeson and dorn , you make good points - and of course, the Hood should not have been expected to be on par with Bismarck, but she did not face Bismarck in a one-on-one engagement. The question for me is not whether or not she should have been built in such a way that she could go toe-to-toe with a ship 20 years her junior, but whether or not she should have been capable to holding her own, of surviving at least long enough to inflict some damage in return. Perhaps, however, we must account for the fact that Bismarck appears to have got very lucky. One possibly contributing factor is that British powder turned out to be much more sensitive, when tested by the USN, than contemporary American powder. It's quite possible that the British BC losses at Jutland and Denmark Strait could have been avoided with better powder.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Oct 16, 2018 0:25:59 GMT -6
As for the Queen Elizabeth - regardless of the extent to which the greater top speed kept them relevant for longer, I think that the experience of Jutland contradicts the idea that the extra speed was wasted, since they were able to operate with the Battlecruisers, though the particular circumstances of that battle of course worked to their detriment. As for Hood, aeson and dorn , you make good points - and of course, the Hood should not have been expected to be on par with Bismarck, but she did not face Bismarck in a one-on-one engagement. The question for me is not whether or not she should have been built in such a way that she could go toe-to-toe with a ship 20 years her junior, but whether or not she should have been capable to holding her own, of surviving at least long enough to inflict some damage in return. Perhaps, however, we must account for the fact that Bismarck appears to have got very lucky. The ship is whole system however if we simplify it a little in battleship vs. battleship combat, the ship needs speed to engage, firepower to hit and amor and to protect her. Firepower is mix of main guns and fire control. There was evolution of guns but not that important. It was fire control which allowed more hits at long range. And thus we go to protection which was issue as more hits could be done in long range thus importance of horizontal protection increased. Hood had good speed, good firepower however her protection was not up to day and refit to remedy this issue was never done. And this was the issue as some penetrating hit could have fatal effect as it happened. But it is still interesting how much fatal hits (lucky hits) were in WW2 on battleships: - HMS Hood - blew up - Bismarck - torpedo hit on stern that disabled him - Prince of Wales - torpedo hit on stern
|
|