Alternate warships of nations

Just for a moment imagine please that you are walking into Portsmouth historic naval dockyard. As you pass the large original Georgian stores on you left the vista opens up, dead ahead is the French 74 gun ship Implacable (in the dry dock where the WW1 monitor M33 now is) flags flying gun ports open. To your half right is HMS Victory 100 guns, Gun ports open signal flags hoisted as she breaks the French line. You take you seat in the stands and as the sun sets the 'Son et Lumiere' show begins.

Oh What Might Have been!!!!
 
Last edited:
Just for a moment imagine please that you are walking into Portsmouth historic naval dockyard. As you pass the large original Georgian stores on you left the vista opens up, dead ahead is the French 74 gun ship Implacable (in the dry dock where the WW1 monitor M33 now is) flags flying gun ports open. To your half right is HMS Victory 100 guns, Gun ports open signal flags hoisted as she breaks the French line. You take you seat in the stands and as the sun sets the 'Son et Lumiere' show begins.

Oh What Might Have been!!!!
Was Implacable at Trafalgar?
 
Any reason you can put a finger on?
Mounting that much armor on the flight deck is Topsy Turvy Turtle territory.
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.
Ehhh. that's 5.6 cm on the upper hanger floor? Isn't that closer to 1800 tonnes? Lower hanger floor is about ~ 7.0 cm? That is still about 1700 tonnes? it will not keep out a 457 kg bomb. In the two cases, trying to pre-detonate the bomb outside the hangers would be a good idea.
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.
I think hull side shutters forward (not fire curtains or barriers) runs into a wave generated spray problem, but I do agree that shutters to ventilate and to act as blow out panels a bit amidships is a good idea.
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?
I make it about 1.8 meters or 2 yards beam added? That robs about a meter a second. (~1.9 knots.).
Thread derails have been a McPherson problem, so it was a fair shot across the bow.
Was Implacable at Trafalgar?
Yes. On the French side, she was the Duguay-Trouin.
 
Speaking of ships being captured and prizes, it appears that the standard Royal Navy practice is mostly keeping the name but just adding HMS on the front with the actual renamings being rarer.

Was that actually the case or am I perhaps mistaken? Was there any rule/trend or was it just whatever the officer who captured it wanted?
 
Speaking of ships being captured and prizes, it appears that the standard Royal Navy practice is mostly keeping the name but just adding HMS on the front with the actual renamings being rarer.

Was that actually the case or am I perhaps mistaken? Was there any rule/trend or was it just whatever the officer who captured it wanted?
It was generally keep the name and add the HMS prefix to the name. The only exception was if the Royal Navy already had a ship serving with that name, not impossible by any means given the number of prizes the RN took from everyone. The only other circumstance I can think of is if the ship bore a name that was decidedly anti-British. Such as a ship named after a victory against them or the ruler of a nation they were at war with. But I cant think of any examples of this off the top of my head.
 
The only exception was if the Royal Navy already had a ship serving with that name, not impossible by any means given the number of prizes the RN took from everyone.

A semi-related example: iirc there were three ships named "Neptune" in the Battle of Trafalgar (one British, one French and one Spanish).
 
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 might be the case with timbers, but the nails do not appear to be a disadvantage- everyone in Europe used wooden treenails until the early 1800's and they were considered superior:
It has been a subject of discussion amongst ship-builders, whether tree-nails or metallic fastenings are to be preferred. The objection to iron bolts is their rapid corrosion, from the gallic acid of the wood, the sea-water, and perhaps by a combination of both; in consequence of which, the fibers of the wood around them become injured, the bolts wear away, the water oozes through, and the whole fabric is shaken and disarranged. This corrosion of iron fastenings was most remarkable when the practice of sheathing ships with copper became general, and when iron nails were made use of to fix it; for, by the contact of the two metals in the sea-water, a galvanic action took place, and both were immediately corroded. Mixed metal nails are now used for this purpose; and copper bolts are universally employed below the line of flotation, though it is found that in these also oxidation takes place to a certain degree, and causes partial leaks. Various mixtures of metals have been tried, but all of them are considered as liable to greater objections than pure copper. It would appear, then, that tree-nails, if properly made, well-seasoned, and driven tight, are the least objectionable, being seldom found to occasion leaks, or to injure the plank or timbers through which they pass. This species of fastening has at all times been used by all the maritime nations of Europe. The Dutch were in the habit of importing them from Ireland, it being supposed that the oak grown in that country was tougher and stronger than any which could be procured on the Continent, and in all respects best adapted for the purpose. "Under all circumstances," says Mr. Knowles, "it appears that the present method of fastening ships generally with tough, well-seasoned tree-nails, with their ends split, and caulked after being driven, and securing the buts of each plank with copper bolts well clenched, is liable to fewer objections, and more conducive to the durability of the timber, than any other which has been tried or proposed to be established."
Source (Page 46) They may have been wrong (as many people were until the 1850's), and there may be better sources to contradict this, but otherwise it seems there was no issue with French nails.
 
That might be the case with timbers, but the nails do not appear to be a disadvantage- everyone in Europe used wooden treenails until the early 1800's and they were considered superior:

Source (Page 46) They may have been wrong (as many people were until the 1850's), and there may be better sources to contradict this, but otherwise it seems there was no issue with French nails.
The french seem to have used metal nails, not wooden ones.
Link: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-057.php
The referenced article, "British vs French Shipbuilding" uses an analysis of Royal Navy dockyard records to compare the refits of british built and captured french built ships.

Quote from the article (my emphasis):
"Surveys of French ships make continual reference to the ship's frame hogging, sagging and racking. They refer to decks sagging. Frames were cracked and broken. It's very rare to read this sort of structural damage on a British ship unless she's being repaired after a severe action.
Also interesting are the comments on structural practices. British ships had their joints grooved and rebated, secured by a peg and reinforced with a futtock. The French equivalent was to butt the two members together and nail them in place. The use of nails was extensive in French building and was a major cause of failure. There was a thing called nail sickness - a nail would rust in place with the rust seeping into the wood greatly weakening it. Stamp on a joint with nail sickness and the components would separate - not a good idea. Another very common reference is to the French using green timber rather than seasoned wood in the construction of their ships."
 
The use of nails was extensive in French building and was a major cause of failure. There was a thing called nail sickness - a nail would rust in place with the rust seeping into the wood greatly weakening it. Stamp on a joint with nail sickness and the components would separate - not a good idea. Another very common reference is to the French using green timber rather than seasoned wood in the construction of their ships."
The latter was an issue right up until the end of sail, Gloire's sisters being built with green timber and thus had rotted quite significantly within a decade or so of construction.
Likely never helped with naval arms races where stocks of seasoned timber were an absolute must.
 
British ships used to be built slowly so that green cut oak frames would dry on the ways as the ship was built. using trunnels was also much slower than Iron nails and took a very different and highly developed skill set. Having myself set trunnels in both new timbers and in old when carrying out repairs I can tell you that a well set Trunnel will hold as good as new for decades,
 
I know, no ship deserves the French Navy.
I meet that challenge sir.
t9shgzc4e5751.jpg
The Carnot.
 
Just for a moment imagine please that you are walking into Portsmouth historic naval dockyard. As you pass the large original Georgian stores on you left the vista opens up, dead ahead is the French 74 gun ship Implacable (in the dry dock where the WW1 monitor M33 now is) flags flying gun ports open. To your half right is HMS Victory 100 guns, Gun ports open signal flags hoisted as she breaks the French line. You take you seat in the stands and as the sun sets the 'Son et Lumiere' show begins.

Oh What Might Have been!!!!
Imagine that on the 200th anniversary of Trafalgar with the worlds press attending and broadcast around the world.
 
Top