Alternate warships of nations

Ark Royal's 3/4 in thick flight deck while not armoured as such was strong enough to trigger a bomb's fuse. It wouldn't keep the bomb out, but it would burst in the hanger where the resulting fires could be controlled rather than in the ship's machinery spaces.

If you want Ark Royal to have an armoured Flight Deck though you need to convince the British Government not to push for a 23,000 ton limit on the standard displacement for carriers. Either leave the issue alone altogether or accept a compromise of 25,000 tons.
 
Last edited:

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
Ark Royal's 3/4 in thick flight deck while not armoured as such was strong enough to trigger a bomb's fuse. It wouldn't keep the bomb out, but it would burst in the hanger where the resulting fires could be controlled rather than in the ship's machinery spaces.
So even the initial 1500tons (3 million pounds?) of plate (one sq ft of inch thickness is about 40lb?) could be on the hanger floor. Both lower and more useful to ship survival. Deck edge lifts retrofitted mid-war (while short of aircrews) to class, to reach upper hanger only, cut down some of the lift time to get aircraft on/off the flight deck. Lower Hanger is an armoured box. Folded and even crated aircraft are stored and can be repaired here. Making ready aircraft in upper hanger and ready aircraft on the flight deck. Standby flight deck parking increase in milder seas. The follies' refits would take a leaf out of this book, but lack the armoured storage and maintenance hanger.

The weird double decker box lifts are lost for single deck internal lifts between lower and upper deck only. This retains/improves integrity of structure and saves weight towards fitting the deck edge lifts. While they could be moved to the hanger ends and not have the middle one for easier aircraft accommodation, just losing the middle one would save a lot of structural reworking. The edge lifts could be the wider 33ft standard. Two edge lifts still move aircraft faster than three that are trying to service twice as many hangers. Port side lift weight might counter an enlarged island for radar.
 
Last edited:
If the pre-war Ark Royal (91) were to get a light armoured flight deck, it might act as a detonating plate to limit bomb penetration. The 1500 tons extra allowed for air protection flight deck armour overlapping the hanger space, magazines, boilers and machinery would be supported by 1500 tons of displacement from extra anti-torpedo blisters. As war approaches the limitations relax and more torpedo protection and a thick plate of hanger deck armour can make full use of that groundwork. Enough torpedo protection to matter off Gibraltar? Enough armour to be useful on club runs and for Tarranto?

Adapted design (with the extra layers torpedo defences and both armour layers) continued in production for follow up ships? Does the extra blistering increase bunkerage for fuel(s)? Good enough design frees up draughtsmen and naval architects for other work? Experience with 1500ton add on clause uses shows how to fit 3x3 fifteen inch guns on a 35,000 ton battleship.
I do not think that can work.
 
So even the initial 1500tons (3 million pounds?) of plate (one sq ft of inch thickness is about 40lb?) could be on the hanger floor. Both lower and more useful to ship survival. Deck edge lifts retrofitted mid-war (while short of aircrews) to class, to reach upper hanger only, cut down some of the lift time to get aircraft on/off the flight deck. Lower Hanger is an armoured box. Folded and even crated aircraft are stored and can be repaired here. Making ready aircraft in upper hanger and ready aircraft on the flight deck. Standby flight deck parking increase in milder seas. The follies' refits would take a leaf out of this book, but lack the armoured storage and maintenance hanger.

The weird double decker box lifts are lost for single deck internal lifts between lower and upper deck only. This retains/improves integrity of structure and saves weight towards fitting the deck edge lifts. While they could be moved to the hanger ends and not have the middle one for easier aircraft accommodation, just losing the middle one would save a lot of structural reworking. The edge lifts could be the wider 33ft standard. Two edge lifts still move aircraft faster than three that are trying to service twice as many hangers. Port side lift weight might counter an enlarged island for radar.
Is this realy worth a topic? The flightdeck naturally had to be tough enough to withstand the bouncing of aircraft landing on it, so making it a flimsy tissue paper thickness would cancel its usefulness as an aircraft carrier as such. USN wooden flightdecks as such were at least 6 inches thick as this wood had to carry aircraft as well allow airplanes landing on it. A cartboard or plywood flightdeck was not an option here as well as on the British carriers.
 
Is this realy worth a topic? The flightdeck naturally had to be tough enough to withstand the bouncing of aircraft landing on it, so making it a flimsy tissue paper thickness would cancel its usefulness as an aircraft carrier as such. USN wooden flightdecks as such were at least 6 inches thick as this wood had to carry aircraft as well allow airplanes landing on it. A cartboard or plywood flightdeck was not an option here as well as on the British carriers.

As long as it is not a Us-versus-them, but strictly a merits discussion of how much armor cladding and what kind of protection scheme can be worked in for best effect on an aircraft carrier. I tend to favor blow out panels and a roof and floor hanger protection armor scheme and at least cruiser level protection for the magazines and fuel storage as well as a 5 cell torpedo defense.

1500 tonnes of STS is about an 4 cms thick over the protected sections of an Ark Royal-sized and shaped portion of bomb resistant flight deck. The fore take off and the stern land-ons were not usually armored that much, if at all, on a British armored box carrier: the armor being invested in the hanger and the magazines and depending on the serial, also invested in the machinery spaces of the armored box aircraft carriers.

I think for the Ark Royal to add the cladding suggested, she would lose speed, some hull resilience and would ride too deep. Was it worth it?
 
So going back a ways more than we usually do on this thread in the age of sail it is well known the many in the RN considered French and Spanish ships to be better built than their English counterparts. With the French ships having finer lines (though this seems to be a bit of a case of grass being always greener on the other side) and thus faster. But my question is how other navies ships were considered by the RN? The Dutch, Danes, Portuguese, Napolese, Swedish, Russian, and Turks all built ships which wound up in RN hands during various wars, and yet we seldom hear much about them.
 
So going back a ways more than we usually do on this thread in the age of sail it is well known the many in the RN considered French and Spanish ships to be better built than their English counterparts. With the French ships having finer lines (though this seems to be a bit of a case of grass being always greener on the other side) and thus faster. But my question is how other navies ships were considered by the RN? The Dutch, Danes, Portuguese, Napolese, Swedish, Russian, and Turks all built ships which wound up in RN hands during various wars, and yet we seldom hear much about them.

I think the Dutch and Danish ships tended to have less draft than their English counterparts. Allowing them to operate in shallower water but also bringing some disadvantages. I remember Danish ships being viewed as sub-standard (because they were pretty much coastal defense battleship style).
 
Last edited:
So going back a ways more than we usually do on this thread in the age of sail it is well known the many in the RN considered French and Spanish ships to be better built than their English counterparts. With the French ships having finer lines (though this seems to be a bit of a case of grass being always greener on the other side) and thus faster. But my question is how other navies ships were considered by the RN? The Dutch, Danes, Portuguese, Napolese, Swedish, Russian, and Turks all built ships which wound up in RN hands during various wars, and yet we seldom hear much about them.
The British did not like the way French 74s were put together as if the joinings were not too good, the fastener system was not as stout as English construction or the sail rig was not as battle repairable or redundant as British rig-out. The American examples captured by the British were regarded as hull overbuilt in some cases and not too dissimilar from British practice. Not surprising since sail ships in America were starter British tech.
 
The British did not like the way French 74s were put together as if the joinings were not too good, the fastener system was not as stout as English construction or the sail rig was not as battle repairable or redundant as British rig-out. The American examples captured by the British were regarded as hull overbuilt in some cases and not too dissimilar from British practice. Not surprising since sail ships in America were starter British tech.
I forgot to mention US ships! But yeah it seems the US overbuilt their ships as part of their notion that their ships had to have qualative superiority over potential enemies, so built their ships bigger and stronger built than other navies.
 
Yeah, though I don't think even the southern US pre ACW could match imperial Japan in sheer racism and insanity
This characterization of the Japanese is a bit extreme. Except that a very very small % of the WWII Japanese practiced ritual cannibalism and some very very small % of Americans became head-hunters and I attribute THAT to racism and cultural imperialism. Up until they went off the rails completely about 1934, the Japanese military were fairly scrupulous about the "rules of land warfare". Their warfare at sea was about similar. As for racism and insanity in general, I am loathe to draw analogies or comparisons. I am more inclined to suggest that the Japanese were simply human beings prone to human nobility and human depravity like anyone else.
 
I think the Dutch and Danish ships tended to have less draft than their English counterparts. Allowing them to operate in shallower water but also bringing some disadvantages. I remember Danish ships being viewed as sub-standard (because they were pretty much coastal defense battleship style).
The Royal Navy quite liked Christian VII, and built copies.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
I do not think that can work.
Any reason you can put a finger on?

I think for the Ark Royal to add the cladding suggested, she would lose speed, some hull resilience and would ride too deep. Was it worth it?
Cladding? Plate and basic ship steel sheet more like. Yes exterior layered defence would lose fineness and the shape would be less ideal for speed too, but Ark Royal starts with a lot of speed and not enough defences. An extra 1500t plate on the floor of the upper (568ft x 60ft) hanger would be about 2.2inches thicker. if it were on the floor of the lower (453ft x 60ft) hanger the plate would be just over two and three quarter inches and a lot lower above the waterline. I'm not sure that that is enough to benefit much in terms of protection from 1,000lb bomb damage in the vitals.

Ditching the tall 4.5 inch belt would start to give you the sort of weight of floor plate to make one of the two options worthwhile. The existing spec called for 3.5in over the magazine and machinery spaces, so this is additional thickness. Shuttering aft of the enclosed forward section to ventilate the upper deck becomes an option too at the cost of some splinter/bullet protection.

The torpedo defence spaces/blisters add displacement (within treaty rules) that cancels out any extra deck plate weight. The depth in the water remains the same from these measures. Density of seawater gives you added below water volume for the 1500t displacement. the existing 13ft 4.5in of layered bulkheads from the side to the armoured 1.5in inner bulkhead on each side would have to come out a yard or two along the main protected area. A knot slower? More stable spread of buoyancy?

Is this really worth a topic?
Harsh.
 
Last edited:
The British did not like the way French 74s were put together as if the joinings were not too good, the fastener system was not as stout as English construction or the sail rig was not as battle repairable or redundant as British rig-out.
Actually it's well documented that Seppings took the use of waterways, shelf-pieces, and binding strakes in his designs from the French, and up until his innovations in about 1805 French ships were generally better designed for this reason:
The shelf-pieces and thick waterways were used in French and other foreign vessels before sir Robert Seppings proposed the application of them to English ships, but the shelf-pieces were applied only to small vessels, and they were neither used in a systematic form nor brought to act so much in conjunction in supporting the beams, and in securing the ends of them to the sides of the ship. The French water-ways and binding-strakes constituted an excellent combination, and acted well in preventing the separation of the beams from the side, as the fastenings were more directly in the line of the beam, and consequently they were in the line of the pull to prevent separation; and, as a plan, it was equal in merit to the thick water-ways and binding-strakes introduced by sir Robert Seppings, if, indeed, it did not excel these: and sir Robert Seppings' plan of water-ways and binding-strakes can be considered as entitled to preference only when they are in connection with diagonal decks, to which experience and observation have pointed out some objections.
Source (page 204)
More details are also given here (page 815), here (pages 137-139), here (pages 97-98), here (pages 72-78), and here (pages 508-514). Seppings' report in 1820 indicates that apparently Britain was the only country to use a weak method involving chocks to connect the parts of frames together.
 
Actually it's well documented that Seppings took the use of waterways, shelf-pieces, and binding strakes in his designs from the French, and up until his innovations in about 1805 French ships were generally better designed for this reason:

Source (page 204)
More details are also given here (page 815), here (pages 137-139), here (pages 97-98), here (pages 72-78), and here (pages 508-514). Seppings' report in 1820 indicates that apparently Britain was the only country to use a weak method involving chocks to connect the parts of frames together.
Good, but there is a problem. The French tended to mismatch their timbers and they used NAILS. The British were more careful and they pegged and jointed better insofar as the hull framing was concerned.
 
That ship should have been part of a museum
1632820484952.png
 
Top