Gentlemen,

We have had a fairly quiet year. We renewed our security arrangement with Great Britain instead of allying ourselves to Germany, and have laid down a pair of new battleships, a new armored cruiser, and a pair of light cruisers. We have also developed several pieces of improved technology, most notably improved directors and better training gear for small turrets.

Our upcoming year looks to be relatively quiet. Our CLs will complete late in the year, but otherwise, we are unlikely to be able to do new construction. Our refit program will continue, as all of our vessels will need the new directors. Read more...

Reader Suvorov has graciously agreed to provide extracts from a paper he wrote on Southern commerce raiding during the Civil War.

When it comes to Civil War naval history, the conflict between the Virginia and the Monitor, or the trials of the South’s submarine Hunley, or David Farragut’s sprint through a field of “torpedoes” at Mobile Bay—all of which happened just off the coastline of the United States—often overshadow the conflict on the high seas, and the South’s deployment of a much more archaic technique: commerce raiding and privateering.

USS Congress and USS Susquehanna, pre-war frigates of the USN

Yet commerce raiders were an important part of the Southern strategy to defeat the Northern blockade of their ports and weaken the Union’s will to fight. While they were ultimately unsuccessful at that task, they were remarkably effective, as we’ll see throughout this series. In this first post, we’ll examine the “starting positions” on both sides. Read more...

A modern aircraft has a wide variety of weapons for destroying ground targets. Everything from simple iron bombs and JDAMs for lightly-defended targets to ARMs and decoys to let them defeat heavy air defenses. But for a few very important targets, the defenses are too heavy for manned aircraft for the aircraft to even attempt to penetrate them. These are dealt with by standoff cruise missiles, weapons with ranges in the hundreds of miles, the most effective but also most expensive of aerial weapons.

A V-1 in cutaway

The idea of a cruise missile dates back to 1916, when the first practical autopilots were developed and quickly mated to an unmanned airframe loaded with explosives. Inadequate accuracy doomed many early attempts, all of which were launched from the ground. This was also the launching platform for the first operational cruise missile, the German V-1 flying bomb. The V-1 was only moderately effective, as its simple autopilot meant that it was lucky to get within 5 miles of the target point. In an attempt to rectify this, a piloted, air-launched version was developed,¹ but never saw operational service. The Germans did develop a method to air-launch a standard V-1 from an He 111 bomber, and although it was not particularly effective, over 10% of V-1s fired at London were launched in this manner. Read more...

It's time once again for our open thread. Talk about anything you want, even if it's not military/naval related.

I just discovered that Iowa has opened up the turret officer's booth on Turret I for weekend tours. It's a $45 extra charge, and I'm really looking forward to the next time I get to go and pay it a visit.

Overhauls since last time include the last part of Why the Carriers are not Doomed, So You Want to Build a Battleship - Strategic Background, Early US Battleships, Aegis, and Amphibious Warfare parts one and two for 2018 and Commercial Aviation Part 6, The King George V class*, German Guided Bombs Part 1, The PHS Corps, Ship History - Wisconsin, and Rangekeeping Part 1 for 2019.

In the aftermath of World War I, the torpedo, carried aboard battleships almost since its invention, was removed from the ships of most nations. It was seen as obsolete as improvements in fire control drove up battle ranges, and as the danger posed to the ships by the underwater torpedo flats became more apparent.

Rodney's torpedo room in 1940

The one exception to this trend was Britain. The last battleships built with torpedoes were Nelson and Rodney, and they had several unique features that deserve close scrutiny. First, their torpedoes were a new design, 24.5" in diameter, the largest ever fitted aboard a battleship. The British, still believing that torpedoes could form an important part of a fleet action, thought that the 21" torpedo had been pushed as far as it could go, and wanted a new design with more room to grow. This growth in size was to be coupled to another technology which offered potentially revolutionary performance. Torpedo propulsion was based around burning fuel and compressed air together, with the compressed air taking up the lion's share of the space and weight due to the need for the air flask. But only 20% of the air was the oxygen needed to support combustion, while the other 80% was inert gasses. The British built specialized plants aboard the ships capable of enriching the air pumped into the torpedoes with extra oxygen,² offering a significant improvement in performance. During the war, this plant was disabled to keep maintenance burden down, reducing range by about 50%. Read more...

While battleships had carried torpedoes since the earliest days of underwater weaponry, it wasn't until the world wars that they were properly tested in battle, and even then, they were only used on a handful of occasions.³

SMS Lutzow

At Jutland, both sides fired only a handful of torpedoes from their capital ships. The British battleships used 5, with the battlecruisers firing 8, while the German battleship Konig fired one, and their battlecruisers fired a total of 7.⁴ None of these appear to have hit, as most were fired at extreme range. The battlecruiser Lutzow did provide a graphic demonstration of the vulnerability of the torpedo flat to damage when hers was opened to the sea by a pair of 12" shells. It flooded almost instantly, and poor watertight design and maintenance quickly spread water throughout most of the forward part of the ship, ultimately leading to Lutzow’s loss. Read more...

Gentlemen,

We have arrived at a crucial juncture. Our current building programs are about to come to an end, and the past year has been extraordinarily fruitful in terms of setting up our future fleet. Specifically, we have made a deal with the British to guarantee our supply of oil, and our researchers have discovered a number of technologies that will aid future ships.

With Ocean just commissioning, and two more battleships about to enter service in the next year, we have many options in terms of what to lay down. The design staff is hard at work producing new sketches for all types, and they will be made available next week. Read more...

Almost from the day it was invented, the torpedo was seen as the counter to the battleship. Suddenly, the smallest craft could carry and use a weapon capable of sinking a battleship, a task that had previously required another vessel of the same type. But despite this apparent dichotomy, many battleships did carry torpedoes, and it's worth taking a look at these weapons.

Early Whitehead torpedoes

The British first began to fit their ironclads with torpedoes in 1879, when HMS Devastation was fitted with a torpedo-launching carriage on each side, firing through a port cut in the breastwork armor. At the time, torpedoes were only capable of ranges of a few hundred yards, and speeds of maybe 20 kts, but this wasn't a huge problem. Many officers still thought that the ram would be a major weapon, which meant that their ships would be very close to those of the enemy. The torpedo was seen as an adjunct to the ram, capable of extending its reach to the sides or compensating for a miss. How well the launching gear would have worked in combat is dubious at best. At the time, launching a torpedo from above the water was a tricky business, and the carriages were unlikely to work well at high speeds. To make matters worse, in some cases they were on the exposed decks, which would have made them exciting to use in combat. Read more...

In late 1945, the US Navy was in peril. The threat came not from a foreign power, but from within. The atomic bomb was poised to radically change warfare, and just as they had after WWI, advocates of air power were quick to pounce. The surface ship, they said, was now obsolete, an easy target for the new weapon. Both sides vividly remembered Billy Mitchell's attack on the USN in the wake of WWI, and the effectiveness of his bombing of the Ostfriesland in swaying public opinion. A new set of tests was thus sought, to establish the vulnerability or survivability of the warship under atomic attack, depending on the taste of the advocate.

The iconic image of the Baker shot at Bikini

The Navy won a critical early battle when Vice Admiral William Blandy was selected to head the tests instead of the Army's choice, Leslie Groves, who had run the Manhattan Project. The targets would be some of the massive fleet of obsolete or captured ships left over from the war, everything from battleships to submarines and transports. Three tests were planned: Able, an airburst test; Baker, a shallow underwater burst; and Charlie, a deep underwater test to investigate the efficacy of nuclear depth charges. They would have to be carried out quickly, before the men required returned to civilian life. The site had to be somewhere controlled by the United States, far away from any major population centers and possessed of predictable weather patterns to minimize the danger of radioactive contamination to the men of the Task Force. The location chosen was Bikini Atoll, in the Marshall Islands.⁵ Read more...

It's our usual open thread. Talk about whatever you want, even if it's not military/naval.

A recent news story of interest is the decision to name CVN-81 after Dorie Miller, the first African-American to win the Navy Cross for his actions during the Attack on Pearl Harbor. I'm of two minds on this one. On one hand, Miller is far more deserving than most recent recipients of warships, particularly the carriers. On the other, I'd really rather we used the traditional carrier names for carriers. Right now, Lexington, Yorktown, Saratoga and Ranger are all unused. Still, this is one of the better naming decisions to come out of the Navy Department in recent years.

Overhauls for 2018 are Why the Carriers aren't doomed Parts two and three, Stability, Pre-Dreadnoughts, Basics of Naval Strategy and Russian Battleships Part 2. 2019 overhauls are Commercial Aviation Part 5, Falkands Part 10, the Spanish-American War Part 1, The NOAA Commissioned Corps, Ship Structure and Strength and The Mk 23 Katie.