LateNighter is an online news outlet that focuses on late-night television comedy shows in the United States.[1]
 | Welcome to my talk page! To make things easier for me:
|
All pages with titles beginning with User:The ed17/Sandbox Nevadasedithttp://books.google.com/books?id=qXcSAAAAYAAJ&pg=327 Lexingtonsedithttp://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=940DE0DA113FE233A25753C2A9639C946796D6CF Superimposed turretsedit"We are now building $30,000,000 worth of battleships with the superimposed feature and within a year of finally adopting it for these battleships have rejected it in our most recent designs." Folger, W.M.; Alger, P.R.; Taylor, D.W. "Discussion; A New Type of Battleship." Proceedings of United States Naval Institute 28, no. 2 (1902): 269–275. ISSN 0041-798X. OCLC 2496995. --part of Taylor's comments, p. 274 LinkseditRfAedit
FACedit
Design 1047editMinas Geraes classedit
A-class/FACeditShannara templatesedit
North Carolina classedit"I" was testament to the fact that there were problems with "K": many of the weight estimates were too low—forcing the belt to be thinned, from 15 in (380 mm) to 12.25 in (311 mm)—and the propulsion plant called for would be hard to fit into the underwater protection plan. The major alteration in II was one of the three main turrets fore was moved aft, which caused some problems; it was difficult to add a turret, with its accompanying barbette and magazine, into a place which had not been designed for it. In addition, the original plan called for a ship that displaced 35,745 tons—over the limit. Friedman (1985), pp. 252 and 254 In the developments of "K", the General Board asked for an immune zone between 20,700 yd (11.8 mi; 18.9 km) and 30,000 yd (17 mi; 27 km), which roughly corresponded to less belt armor (14 in (360 mm) rather than 15 in (380 mm)) and the same amount of deck armor (5.25 in (133 mm)). Friedman (1985), p. 252 Although a plan had finally been chosen, there were still tweaks that were, or were attempted to, be made. In a conference in the Chief of Naval Operations' office, the following were proposed: four additional secondary weapons, a thicker belt, and the raising of the second main turret's barbette so that it could fire over the first turret. It was believed that a small cut in power/speed would allow these changes while still remaining under the 35,000 long tin limit, but it was found that the additions—which together would weigh 782 long tons (795 t; 876 short tons)—would force the propulsion plant down to 65,000 shp, equating to a 24 kn (28 mph; 44 km/h) top speed, and it would also lower the metacentric height by an unacceptable amount. Friedman (1985), p. 265</ref> Design and serviceeditBackgroundeditPrior to World War I, it appeared that battlecruisers were going to supersede all other types of cruiser. However, experiences during the war, especially the performance of the British battlecruiser during the Battle of Jutland, curbed the enthusiasm of the battlecruiser's supporters.[citation needed] Instead, only one battlecruiser was completed after the war, the Admiral-class HMS Hood;[citation needed] the other three ships of that class, the United States' six Lexington-class and Japan's four Amagi-class, were all canceled and scrapped, used as _target ships, or converted to aircraft carriers to comply with the Washington Naval Treaty requirements.[2] The treaty set strict limits on new capital ship building; the cornerstone was a 5:5:3 ratio of warship tonnage, in which Britain and the United States, who had to keep up two-ocean navies in the Atlantic and Pacific, were allowed 500,000 tons of warships each. Also by this ratio, Japan was allowed 300,000 tons, as she had a one-ocean navy. The agreement forced all of the signatories of the treaty to stop all current capital ship production and instead scrap older, mostly obsolete, ships such as pre-dreadnoughts. However, even though the treaty controlled tonnage of each navy's warships, and limited maximum tonnage and armament of any new warship to 10,000 tons and 8 inches (200 mm) guns, the lower classes of ships were left unrestricted. This oversight led to a naval cruiser arms race in the 1920's,[3] including the start of a building program of 15 cruisers and an aircraft carrier by the United States after failed talks in Geneva.[4] The arms race led the nations back to the negotiating table in 1930 for the London Naval Treaty. This finally regulated cruiser numbers, as it put a 10:10:7 limit on "auxiliary ships" (which included cruisers), placed a cap on total cruiser tonnage (339,000 for Great Britain, 323,500 tons for the United States, 208,850 tons for Japan), capped the number of heavy cruisers at 18 for the U.S., 15 for Great Britain and 12 for Japan, and defined what "heavy" and "light" cruisers were (a gun bore of less than or equal to 6.1 inches (150 mm) was a light cruiser, while bores up to 8 inches (200 mm) were considered heavy cruisers).[5] The treaty spawned a new type of cruiser: the treaty cruiser. These ships were characterized by trying to fit as much as possible onto a 10,000 ton hull. The first large cruisers built under the treaty were Japan's Furutaka class, which mounted six 8-inch guns on a ship that displaced only 7,100 tons; this was quickly followed by France's Duguay Trouin and Duquesne-classes and Great Britain's Kent, London and Norfolk-classes. Japan countered with the first treaty-busting ships, the Nachi-class, which were officially 10,000 tons but were 10,980 in reality.[6] The United States built ten cruisers of a pre-war design, the Omaha class, completing them all by 1925. As President Warren G. Harding and his successor, Calvin Coolidge, believed that disarmament, not rearmament, was teh best choice to avoid future wars; as such, naval spending was cut, and by 1926, naval spending was at its lowest since WWI. However, Japan's new-found naval power alarmed the U.S., so modern cruisers were finally designed and laid down; 11 treaty cruisers from the Pensacola, Northampton, Portland and New Orleans classes were laid down in 1926–30.[7] The last treaty cruiser to be laid down was the one cruiser of the Wichita class, which was laid down in 1935 and completed four years later.[8][9] However, many cruisers built in the 1930's exceeded the 10,000 ton limit. Although the early years of that decade saw "the best treaty cruiser", the French Algérie and the treaty-following U.S. cruisers hit the water, they also saw the launch of the so-called "pocket battleships"—Germany's Deutschland class. Although Germany was not bound by the terms of the London Naval Treaty because it had not signed it, it was bounded by the Treaty of Versailles, which limited all new German capital ships to 10,000 tons and 11-inch main armament. Although these new ships appeared to comply with both limitations, being listed in official records at 10,000 tons, they were much heavier in reality—11,700 tons.[10] GenesiseditThe initial impetus for the design of the Alaska-class came from the deployments of the so-called "pocket battleships" in the early 1930s. Though nothing happened right away, plans were revived in the late 1930s when intelligence reports were received that said Japan was planning or building "super cruisers" which were much more powerful than U.S. heavy cruisers.[11][12][13][14][15] The Navy responded in 1938, when a request from the General Board was sent to the Bureau of Construction and Repair for a "comprehensive study of all types of naval vessels for consideration for a new and expanded building program".[16] The U.S. President at the time, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, might have inspired the idea for the class with his desire to counter the raiding abilities of Japanese cruisers and German "pocket battleships",[17] but these claims are difficult to verify.[12][18] ScharnhorsteditThe Scharnhorst class filled no real need in Germany's navy, the Kriegsmarine, as political considerations limited aspects of the design. Nine 280 mm (11 in) guns were utilized as the main armament because Hitler did not want to alarm the British, but this choice rendered the class inferior to the 14, 15 and 16 inch (360, 380, and 410 mm) guns of British, French and American battleships. In addition, the steam turbines used were much less fuel-efficient than the long-range diesel engines of the Deutschland class. Although giving a higher speed, the turbines limited the maximum sailing range of the Scharnhorst class, reducing their effectiveness as commerce raiders. These characteristics, though problematic for Germany, were perfect for the cruiser-killer role the Netherlands had in mind.[19][20][21][22]
Referencesedit
1.1 in, .50 cal, 40mm, 20mmeditThe 1.1 in was developed in the late 1920s and early 1930s as a replacement for the lighter .50 caliber. It was derided within the Navy, as it commonly jammed and was unreliable in general; hence, it was normally replaced by 40 mm and 20 mm guns whenever possible. By early 1945, it was only in use on a few smaller ships. About 100 rounds per minute was commonly obtained with one gun; it was capable of firing at angles as varied as -15 and 110 degrees, moving to these at 24 degrees per second. Capable of turning a full 360 degrees, the guns had the interesting capability of being able to slew 30 degrees side-to-side. This was for minor aiming corrections when the guns were elevated and normal training would not alter the direction of fire enough. Its AA ceiling was 19,000-foot (3.6-mile; 5.8-kilometre).[1] The .50 caliber machine gun was originally designed after the First World War as an aircraft-mounted weapon; it was only modified for army use in the early 1920s and navy use in 1932. Water-cooled, the latter version began service in 1933; it was capable of firing about 450–600 bullets per minute at 2,930 ft/s (893 m/s), though its practical rate of fire was lower. Its effective range was 7,800-foot (2,400-metre), while its effective AA ceiling was around 5,000-foot (1,500-metre). It could be elevated from -10 to 80 degrees and trained in a 360 degree radius.[2]  The Bofors 40 mm gun was the most widely used ship-borne heavy machine gun of the Second World War, seeing service on virtually every American and British warship that served during that time, and is still in use on ships today. Based on a 1918 Krupp design, the 40mm developed into a gun quite unlike its inspiration. First tests occurred in the early 1930s; a twin mounting was ordered by the U.S. Navy in 1940 in order to test it. A license to construct the gun was obtained in June 1941; after adaptations to suit American needs—such as the ability to mass-produce the gun—a quad was installed upon the training ship Wyoming on 22 June 1942, and a twin was fitted to the destroyer Coghlan on 1 July 1942.[3] The American versions of the gun utilized either air- or water-cooling, depending on the mounting. All single 40 mm were air-cooled, while all guns in twin or quads were water-cooled. The latter guns weighed around 1,150-pound (520-kilogram) each; they were 148.8-inch (3,780-millimetre) long overall, had a bore length of 88.6-inch (2,250-millimetre), and had a rifling length of 75.85-inch (1,927-millimetre). One gun could fire at a rate of 120 shells per minute; about 10,000 rounds total could be fired prior to a gun needed to be replaced. The quad version of the gun was, in essence, two twin mounts mounted together—each pair carried a left- and a right-hand gun (Mark 1 and Mark 2, respectively), like the twins.[3] With 124,735 manufactured from 1940 through 1945, the Oerlikon 20 mm was probably the most-produced AA gun of the Second World War. Although it had been rejected in 1935—almost bankrupting the company—an updated model was selected to replace the .50 caliber machine guns, with full approval for the change occurring on 9 November 1940. A gun was test-fired on 8 June 1941, and 379 had been made by the attack on Pearl Harbor. American manufacturers, working with the Bureau of Ordnance, almost totally redesigned the gun so that it could be mass-produced; as a result, the time it took to construct a gun dropped from 428.4 man-hours (1941) to 76.2 man-hours (1944). By the end of the war, the United States alone had produced over a billion shells for this gun.[4] The 20 mm had a maximum range of 10,000-foot (1.9-mile; 3.0-kilometre), though its effective range was only about 1,000-foot (0.19-mile; 0.30-kilometre). The gun was manually elevated from -5 to 87 degrees, though this varied depending on the Mark; the last single mounting, the Mark 10, could go as low as -15 and as high as 90 degrees. It could train around a full 360 degrees. In action, it fired shells at around 2725 ft/s (835 m/s); the gun would last for about 9000 rounds prior to the barrel needing to be changed.[4]
Royal Navy sources in libraryedit
|
Battleship stuff
edit- Agincourt pic, grainy but definitely PD
- Gigantic painting of Rio de Janeiro, Scientific American vol 108 (Oscar Parkes)
- Arizona image going into East River, half page, Scientific American vol 115 p. 471
- Rivadavia image quarter page Scientific American vol 109, p. 253
- Nevada painting, SA vol 114 (1916), p. 191
- Arizona description: "Our Latest Dreadnought, the 'Arizona'," SA 115 (1916): 471, 485.
- Rivadavia description: "The New Argentine Dreadnought 'Rivadavia'," SA 109 (1913): 253.
"Trials of Our Latest Dreadnought," SA 114 (1916), no. 12: 297. "satisfactorily" high-speed trails, averaging .5 knot above contract speed (21 knots) for "some hours", in gun power and armor, Pennsy is better than foreign ships, but its speed is "lamentably low" compared to British QE (25), Russian Gongort (23) and Italian Caio Duilio (22.5).
SA
edit- "Naval authorities look to the dreadnought strength of a navy as the first test by which to determine its comparative efficiency." left column [11]
The Navy (Washington)
edit- Different titles
- Starts as Navy League Journal
- Navy (1907) ACI-0113 (OCoLC)7550453
- Navy and Merchant Marine
- National marine ACI-0111 (OCoLC)7550411
Proceedings
edit- 1904, vol 30
- 1905, vol 31 Peru naval ambitions
- 1906, vol 32, issues 3 and 4. Has info on 1905 Brazilian bb program. [CAN'T FIND 1-2]
- 1907, vol 33, issues 1 and 2.
- 1907, vol 33, issues 3 and 4.
- 1908, vol 34
- 1909, vol 35
- 1910, vol 36, all but search is odd.
- 1910, vol 36, issues 3 and 4.
- 1911-14, vol 37-40
- Others
American Society of Naval Engineers
edit- 1909 p. 339, 1065 (Engineering technical description), Para destroyers 1070 (Engineering description w/ pic, ship plans, boiler diagrams)
Antiaircraft Journal
edit- Full Engineering report of 21 Jan 1910- [12] 179
Engineering(!)
edit- Minas Geraes
- [13] I think? 1910
Hazell's Annual
editCincinnati Price Currant
edit- Reaction to MG class "Battleships," Cincinnati Price Currant 65, no. 48 (1908): 767.
Navy League Annual
editNeed this, vol 3 1909