|
Post by director on Aug 11, 2016 21:39:15 GMT -6
I'd recommend a book called "On Seas Contested". I found it fascinating. It looks at how each of the six big naval powers intended to fight at sea, examines how they went about preparing, and then contrastingly looks at how they actually fought.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 11, 2016 22:10:23 GMT -6
I'd recommend a book called "On Seas Contested". I found it fascinating. It looks at how each of the six big naval powers intended to fight at sea, examines how they went about preparing, and then contrastingly looks at how they actually fought. I've read it and two other books by Vincent O'Hara. I've had lunch with him twice and am in the acknowledgements for "Struggle For the Middle Seas". He would send me each chapter for review of his conclusions. I went to the book signings on two occasions. He has some good people doing research in Italy for him. I haven't seen or heard from him in years. He has a new book on Torch, that is getting excellent reviews.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Aug 16, 2016 19:45:54 GMT -6
I'm going to buy On Seas Contested and read that next. Is the kindle version sufficient or should I go hard copy? I usually like a physical book over the e-book version if it contains a lot of pictures, illustrations or maps since I have an older version kindle. I'll have to wait a bit on The Battleship Builders based on price.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 16, 2016 20:37:59 GMT -6
I'm going to buy On Seas Contested and read that next. Is the kindle version sufficient or should I go hard copy? I usually like a physical book over the e-book version if it contains a lot of pictures, illustrations or maps since I have an older version kindle. I'll have to wait a bit on The Battleship Builders based on price. The kindle version is just fine, I have both. It has a few pictures and some charts in the three appendices. I like Kindle books now because they are easier to read for me, I can take many books along on my cruises and tours with my wife. Essentially I can almost bring a whole subject full of books to read. You will enjoy "The Battleship Builders" as it provides a new view of dreadnought building in the early part of the century.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Sept 5, 2016 16:55:08 GMT -6
Great thread all (an +1 for On Seas Contested being a great book), no way I could contribute to the convo at this level, but thanks for a great read .
|
|
|
Post by kyle on Oct 10, 2016 11:47:26 GMT -6
Thank you both for the interesting discussion. To your knowledge, did any other navy except for France ever give serious consideration to the all-forward design? One of the designs for the Yamato class was an all forward ship. It was in this book: Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 10, 2016 17:22:17 GMT -6
Thank you both for the interesting discussion. To your knowledge, did any other navy except for France ever give serious consideration to the all-forward design? One of the designs for the Yamato class was an all forward ship. It was in this book: Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II Scheme A and A1 of the North Carolina Class were an alternative design with nine 14 inch guns all mounted forward. There were others but they stressed catapults for aircraft aft. C & R eventually settled on a standard design.
|
|
|
Post by atlanticghost on Nov 2, 2016 17:36:17 GMT -6
One of the designs for the Yamato class was an all forward ship. It was in this book: Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II This book also includes a number of all-forward variants of the A 140 design, which led to Yamato. Those familiar with World of Warships (I know, I know) may be interested to know the drawings show a Nelson-style layout, rather than that of Wargaming's Izumo, though they do seem to have that odd superstructure. Not all of the A 140 variants get a drawing in the book, though.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 2, 2016 20:19:53 GMT -6
One of the designs for the Yamato class was an all forward ship. It was in this book: Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II This book also includes a number of all-forward variants of the A 140 design, which led to Yamato. Those familiar with World of Warships (I know, I know) may be interested to know the drawings show a Nelson-style layout, rather than that of Wargaming's Izumo, though they do seem to have that odd superstructure. Not all of the A 140 variants get a drawing in the book, though. I thank you for the link, it looks like an interesting book. It's amazing how everyone is fascinated by a useless class of ships. It even had some internal failures in its hull and armor joints. Interesting, thank you.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Nov 2, 2016 21:36:09 GMT -6
Call it a fascination with the monster. There's a reason the trope is called "Awesome, but Impractical."
Along those lines, I was thinking recently about the critiques of the Iowa-class when they were designed; compared with the earlier South Dakotas they gained 10,000 tons of displacement for no added gains in protection and no major improvement to the armament; to quote Norman Friedman "Ten thousand tons was a very great deal to pay for six knots." However that six-knot speed increase over the 27-knot North Carolinas and South Dakotas was precisely why the Iowas had the long careers they did after WWII; they were perceived to be the only battleships capable of keeping up with the new carrier-centric fleet.
Admittedly though, the Iowas would have essentially ended their service after Korea if it had not been for the hype in the 1980s over the Soviet Kirov-class cruisers.
|
|
|
Post by director on Nov 24, 2016 0:05:19 GMT -6
I've always regretted the disposal of the Alaska class. Admittedly they were not well armored (well, pitifully armored might be more truthful) but they were fast, had a big enough gun for shore bombardment and there was less wear on those engines even than on the Iowas.
I'd bring up the Japanese Tone class as an all-forward design that seemed to work well. I don't think they were ever really called on to serve as heavy cruisers, but their large floatplane capacity made them excellent scout cruisers.
In general, I think the 'all forward' design had some theoretical advantages that were not borne out in practice. I've always heard the French were pleased with the Dunkerque and Richelieu designs, but it's hard to point to an 'all forward' design that was a resounding success.
Has anyone ever made up a battlecruiser (or any other) design with all guns aft?
|
|