The Falkland Islands, in the South Atlantic off the southern tip of South America, have long been one of the world’s backwaters. Claimed by most of Europe at one point or another, the matter eventually came down to a dispute between the British and Spanish, whose claim was taken up by Argentina when Spain’s South American colonies rebelled. In 1833, the British took possession of the islands, which they continued to hold for the next century and a half. In 1850, Britain and Argentina signed the Arana-Southern Treaty, and Argentina did not mention the question of sovereignty again until 1941.¹

In 1908, the Falkland Islands were administratively joined by South Georgia, an even more desolate place, known as a major whaling station before that trade was banned and today inhabited primarily by wildlife documentarians. In 1914, the Battle of the Falkland Islands took place, where the British battlecruisers Invincible and Inflexible took out Admiral Graf Spee’s East Asia Squadron, the largest German force outside of European waters. 25 years later, Graf Spee’s namesake ship was hunted down by a squadron based in the Falklands, eventually being defeated at the Battle of the River Plate. Other than that, things in the Falklands were quiet, and except during the world wars, the British military presence varied only between minimal and nonexistent.

Read more...

By the middle of the first decade of the 20th century, Russian naval policy was in turmoil. Their defeat in the Russo-Japanese War had thrown the government and the navy into chaos, as well as wiping out the Baltic Fleet, Russia's main overseas force. The arrival of the dreadnought didn't help matters, rendering the remaining pre-dreadnoughts obsolete. The end of the war saw the establishment of the Duma, the Russian parliament, which brought outside oversight into the picture for the first time. There was widespread distrust of the so-called Tsushima Ministry,² which had supposedly lost the Russo-Japanese war. At the same time, the Army, wary of the increasing power of Germany, began to push for a bigger share of military spending. For several years, these factors stymied any plans to build dreadnoughts, and the first class of new Russian dreadnoughts was only pushed through due to some rather exotic legal maneuvers.

Gangut, name ship of Russia's first class of dreadnoughts

In 1911 the Duma began to reverse course. The Russian economy was booming, becoming the fourth-largest in the world by 1914. The last vestiges of the Tsushima Ministry had been swept away, restoring the Duma's confidence in the Navy. Most importantly, increasing tension with the Turks, who controlled the straits through which most of Russia's exports flowed, lead to a greater appreciation of the need for a large fleet. In 1912, an even larger shipbuilding program was authorized, combined with a strengthening of the fixed defenses of St. Petersberg to free the Baltic Fleet to operate away from the capital in time of war.

Read more...

I visited Midway in the summer of 2016. Unlike at Iowa, I was pretty much just a general visitor, so this review is probably somewhat more accurate to what the normal experience is like.

Me with the gorgeous construction model of Midway

Website

Midway is a truly fantastic ship. I might even say she was better than Iowa except for the lack of 16" guns. The hangar deck has lots of exhibits about the ship, while the flight deck is full of planes, mostly from the mid to late Cold War. Most of the ship is open, including the bridge (which does require a free escorted tour), one of the engine rooms (which have the same turbines as Iowa), the various squadron rooms, and different varieties of crew spaces. The CIC (Combat Information Center) is a truly amazing space, very very similar to the real one on America that I got to see. I wanted to steal it.

I think I was aboard about 5 hours, and got to see almost everything. My pace is usually fairly similar to that of the general visitor, because I know most of the stuff on the signs. Overall, the exhibits are of very high quality, and there were lots of very knowledgeable guides around, even if they did refuse to admit the inferiority of their unarmored and unarmed ship. The crew of Midway has a great ship on their hand, and you should go and see it.

I visited Midway again in 2022, and wrote up a more detailed review. I also took the opportunity to visit the nearby Maritime Museum of San Diego, which was also quite good.

After WWI, the frantic pace of gun development that had seen caliber rise from 12" to a planned 18" in barely a decade plateaued, although work continued on mounts and mountings. One of the more interesting schemes of gun layout was that used on the British Nelson class, built under the Washington Naval Treaty. In an attempt to save weight by reducing the armored length of the ship, all three turrets were grouped together forward of the bridge. The second turret superfired over the other two, and the bridge was set very far back.

HMS Nelson displaying her unique armament arrangement³

Nelson and Rodney also deserve mention for their guns. For some reason, the British decided that it would be a good idea to build guns with light shells fired at high velocity. In practice, this didn't work, and the 16"/45 Mk I was only marginally better at piercing armor than the 15" that proceeded it. Worse, the muzzle velocity had to be reduced to increase barrel life, and the triple turret mountings were poorly designed, causing slow and inconsistent fire. There's an excellent writeup on this turret on NavWeps.

Read more...

Scott Alexander: Thank you all for coming. Ever since we accidentally created a friendly AI, and it built this new country for us to run, we’ve all been rather busy. Since we’ve got a handle on the immediate problems, Bean is going to lay out his vision for our Navy.⁴

Bean: Thank you. Ultimately, the plans for our Navy have to start with our basic strategy and situation, and flow out of that. As David Friedman's economic policies have attracted a great deal of trade, and because the AI was kind enough to leave us with a medium-sized island, I believe the policies pursued by the British over the last few decades should serve well as a general model.

Read more...

By 1907, the 12" gun had reached the limits of its development. Trying to improve range and penetration by throwing projectiles faster was clearly a losing game, so calibers began to creep up again. The British lead the way with a return to the 13.5" gun, to replace the 12"/50 used on some of their later first-generation dreadnoughts.

13.5" gun on HMS Ajax⁵

Besides the accuracy issues already discussed, the 12"/50 suffered from an absurdly short barrel life. As a gun is fired, the hot gasses melt and erode the bore. This is more of a problem for high-velocity guns, and on the British 12"/50, the liner was worn out and had to be replaced every 130-160 rounds.⁶ The 13.5"/45 that replaced it saw a significant reduction in muzzle velocity, from 2850 ft/s to 2580 ft/s, but an increase in barrel life to a full 450 rounds.⁷ Thanks to the improved ballistics of the heavier shell, the two projectiles were traveling at the same velocity by the time they reached 15,000 yards.

Read more...

Today marks 6 months of Naval Gazing here at Obormot. (This blog, like the Queen, has two birthdays.) A couple of things that have come up:

• First, I'm interested in suggestions on future topics. Unlike last time, I'm not going to give you a list of options. Just suggest things you want to hear more about, and I'll decide what to do with them.
• Second, I'm conducting an experiment to examine the factors which shape a modern navy. The framing story is that a friendly AI created a country and handed it over to a group of people, who now have to work out naval policy. It's not a simulation because I don't have the time to do that properly, but more of a general discussion on the policy of a generic medium country. I do have a few slots open for inclusion on the discussion list. Email me at battleshipbean at gmail if you're interested. The first part will post Monday, although I'm not sure if it will stay there or move to Friday. (It's already written, but the discussion will continue in later parts.)
• Third, a month from today kicks off Jutland Week. I'm reposting a lightly-edited version of last year's Jutland series over 7 straight days to celebrate the greatest clash of the dreadnoughts.
• Fourth, I expect to be in both Boston and LA over the summer/early fall, although I don't have dates yet. When I'm in LA, I definitely want to run a reader tour of Iowa. Boston might see a similar get-together on Salem. (I'm going to Massachusetts with the people I'm visiting.)

I think that's all for now. Thanks again to Said Achmiz for hosting me, and dndnrsn for proofreading my posts.

One thing that I don't often talk about is what life was like aboard a battleship. This is because I prefer the technical side of naval history, but doesn't mean I should totally ignore the human aspect of these ships. So let's take a look at what life aboard Iowa looked like, mostly during WWII but also during the 80s commission.

A corridor aboard Iowa⁸

The first impression most people get when they come aboard is one of an endless maze of twisting passageways, all alike. The walls, known as bulkheads aboard a ship, are gray, the doors mostly have really high sills called knee-knockers,⁹ and the stairs are as close to being ladders as they can be and not actually be ladders. They're called ladders anyway, maybe because it's traditional, maybe just because the Navy prefers to confuse outsiders. The overheads are filled with pipes and cables, and the bulkheads are thin and made of metal. There's all sorts of equipment hanging on them, fire-fighting gear, breathing apparatus, water fountains, electrical distribution equipment, and so on. Things are exposed so they can be gotten to if they break.

Read more...

Last time we saw the evolution from the muzzle-loading smoothbores of Nelson's day to the turret-mounted breechloaders of the 1870s. But the best way to carry heavy guns to sea remained controversial, and the 1880s saw considerable strife between advocates of the turret and advocates of the barbette. The turret was considerably better-protected, but couldn't be carried high in the ship due to topweight concerns. The barbette left the gun exposed, but was significantly more effective in bad weather, as it kept the guns away from the spray and surf.

HMS Hood, the last British low-freeboard turret ship

In the early part of the decade, the open loading position of the barbette worked reasonably well. The only weapon of note was the heavy gun, which fired slowly and was likely as not to be aimed at the waterline. However, the development of the quick-firing gun soon made the open barbette untenable. Some nations, notably France and Russia, had installed thin (1-3") hoods on their barbettes from quite early on. The British had not, apparently under the impression that it would hinder their men's combat effectiveness somehow.¹⁰ However, the development of 6" QF (Quick-Firing) guns, capable of 5-10 rounds per minute, meant that exposed positions rapidly became vulnerable.

Read more...

The ultimate purpose of a battleship is to carry guns. Everything else - armor, engines, living quarters - ultimately exists to support the delivery of high-velocity steel to the enemy. As such, it's a topic which deserves a close look.

The gun deck of HMS Warrior

As you probably expect by now, we'll start with HMS Warrior. She carried a total of 40 guns: 26 68-pounder smoothbore muzzle-loaders, 10 110-pounder rifled breech-loaders,¹¹ and 4 40-pounder rifled breech-loaders.

Read more...