Dilandu wrote:lyonheart wrote:There's no textev the KH VII's are experimental, you just want to have it your way despite RFC patiently explaining how wrong you are.
How could the iron-hulled battleships, build on industry, that simply didn't exist less a decade ago be NOT experimental? Where they could find the experienced construction crews for this project? You missed my point; they are experimental in the meaning of experience for constructors and engineers, that NEVER BUILD SOMETHING LIKE THAT BEFORE.
They are not "experimental" --- in the sense in which you appear to be using the word --- at all. They are incremental, building on the basis of the experience gained in building the initial ironclad conversions followed by the first class of purpose-designed river ironclads, followed by the first class of coastal ironclads. The initial design work is experimental, but with the proviso that the chief designer is a member of the inner circle and in a position to intervene in anything which threatens to go too far off the rails.
The construction personnel building these ships have acquired a very impressive resume in previous construction projects, and they will gain more in the course of building them. And, yes, there will be instances in the building process of problems which bite people on the butt because of inexperience in the yards, but they still aren't "experimental" and they still don't constitute being "experimental in the meaning of experience for constructors and engineers, that NEVER BUILD SOMETHING LIKE THAT BEFORE," given the Delthak IIs and Eraystors (which I have repeatedly told you are coming) classes which preceded them, unless you want to argue that building the 1905 Dreadnought required the evolution of "experimental" technologies and construction techniques rather than a new and more powerful combination of existing technologies and construction techniques. And before you point at her turbine power plant, allow me to point out that (a) civilian turbine use was already a reality (you do remember Turbina and the Naval Review at Victoria's Diamond Jubilee?) and (b) that Dreadnought would have been equally revolutionary with triple-expansion engines and an 18-knot tope speed. The high (relatively speaking) speed was icing on the cake and, in fact, represented what was in many ways an unnecessary complication.
I would argue that aside from the Dreadnought's 2,000-ton displacement advantage (which bought her a higher freeboard and raised the axis of her main battery guns and nominal endurance advantage (6,600 nautical miles versus 5,100), USS South Carolina, with reciprocating engines, was actually the superior design. She gave the same broadside weight and equal or superior standards of armor on that same 2,000 less tons, at the cost of a somewhat greater tendency to roll in heavy weather because of the increased weight of the superimposed turrets high up in the ship (relatively speaking). I would count her inherent combat advantage in terms of broadside firepower per ton/unit and ability to carry matching armor on her lower displacement as more decisive than the Dreadnought's theoretical 2.5-knot speed advantage. It was primarily the difference in building times (and the very different levels of urgency their respective nations attached to naval construction) which permitted the British designers to build larger numbers of ships at each stage of the forward bounds in dreadnought design evolution and permitted the Royal Navy to stay in front of the USN. I personally would have backed the Pennsylvania over the Iron Duke and the Colorado over the Revenge and even the Queen Elizabeth in a stand up fight, despite the Brits' nominal speed advantages, and there were quite a few British officers who would have agreed with me. And, in fact, who did agree with me (in writing) at the time.
and, Mangy Fur the Smart Alick Spacecat.
Note the shock absorbing cylinders that allow gun to recoil are top mounted so gun can be raised to a high angle after loading by lowering the breach.