Ships of the wall

saber964 wrote:The field repair of the USS Minneapolis was to take pressure off the remaining forward bulkhead and to lesson or prevent flooding. It was also used so that the ship could steam under her own power and get back to the US faster. IIRC if she was towed it would have been at a max's speed of about 5 knots vs about 20 knots with the false bow.

All US navy warships carry a supply of wood onboard just for the purpose of field repairs/shoring up.

saber964 wrote:The field repair of the USS Minneapolis was to take pressure off the remaining forward bulkhead and to lesson or prevent flooding. It was also used so that the ship could steam under her own power and get back to the US faster. IIRC if she was towed it would have been at a max's speed of about 5 knots vs about 20 knots with the false bow.

MAD-4A wrote:All US navy warships carry a supply of wood onboard just for the purpose of field repairs/shoring up.

Exactly, but I'm highlighting that particular element of the repair. As you can see from the photo, that isn't cut timber, but actual tree trunks. It's entirely likely that the ships supply of timber was used up and they had to resort to local supplies to construct the breakwater. Plus they needed some really big pieces of wood for it. Therefore using what was available as opposed to what they were provided with.

Semantics, I know, but that's the point I was making.

Mike.

MAD-4A wrote:

WLBjork wrote:...but a pre-dreadnought would get battered by a WW2 era CA (if not CL).

no - Russian PDs fought German DREASNOUGHTS at Moon sound. While TTs may be a problem (most were designed before TT protection) but they still fought well. The German PDs even fought the Grand fleet at Jutland (only 1 was lost {to a TT}) a CA (TTs not withstanding) would be in trouble from those 12" guns.

I did specify WW2 ships.

Let's take the Des Moines class. Generally has 6-8" of armour*, which is penetrated at a range of 6,000-8,000 yards by the Russian 1895 12"/40 that would have been on those ships. At that range, and with the original fire control systems, there is less than a 40% chance of a hit from a full broadside of the 4 12" guns.

Firing the 8" guns back, the Des Moines can penetrate the maximum 10" of armour* at a range of 10,000 yards, with a significantly higher rate of fire and greater accuracy. Further, those 8" guns are capable of higher elevation, allowing plunging fire beyond this range (in no small part due to the advent of radar), allowing effective engagement at ~28,000 yards.

Furthermore, Des Moines has a significant speed advantage, allowing her to control the action.

*Armour thickness taken from Wikipedia. Naval gun performance taken from NavWeaps and as such I'm not certain which armour type this data refers to, and it is therefore possible that the engagement will move in favour of the Des Moines.

John Prigent wrote:Now you've done it. I've just had a vision of an SD(W) built entirely out of wood with its entire armour consisting of sidewalls and bucklers. Plus the wedge, of course.

Tourville will want it as his flagship.