Archive Taylor's site Technical Discussions

On February 18, 2016 Alexey Shiro says:

//You can’t really blame the Americans for thinking it. These were the same(ish) people that got the Lusitania sunk just to bring the States into WWI. And don’t get me started on the Suez Crisis…//

Well, this time, I’m afraid, the real reason was admiral Moffet – the creator of US naval aviation and the rigid airship program (lost his life with “Acron” in 1933). Moffet was a strong proponent of hybrid carrier-cruisers – flightdeck cruisers, as they were named.

His motivation was that the decidate carriers are not fitted well to operate as a part of cruiser vanguard. The small carriers (as “Ranger”) was slow and in case of surface action, completely unable to protect themselves. The large carriers (as “Lexington”) was fast, pretty capable of dealing with enemy cruisers in artillery duels – but due to their size, only a few could be build in the limits, allowed by the Washington naval Treaty.

Moffet argued that the hybrid ship – half-cruiser, half-carrier – would be able to provide the cruiser squadrons with aerial reconnaisance and fighter protection, and would be able to defend itself in case of artillery battle. He even was able to persuade Congress in 1929 to give him the money for one experimental ship – but then the Great Depression striked, and all money was diverted to the construction of already-ordered ships.

It’s pretty possible, that Moffet was behind all the “Nelson battleship-carrier” scheme. What is the better way to persuade the Congress that they need hybrid warships than hint that the most powerfull navy (Royal navy) already planned them?
On February 18, 2016 Justin says:

//…The poor british only blinked dazedly – because for just one time, they honestly didn’t plotted ANYTHING…//

You can’t really blame the Americans for thinking it. These were the same(ish) people that got the Lusitania sunk just to bring the States into WWI. And don’t get me started on the Suez Crisis…

On February 18, 2016 Alexey Shiro says:

A good example, General!
On February 17, 2016 Generalstarwars333 says:

I think the first time it really dawned on me how horrible war,especially nuclear war, really was, was when I was playing civ III, maybe ten years old or something, and in a nuclear war of rome(me) and my allie(s) versus america and allie(s). For some reason the other civs besides me and america had only made one city. I saw the indians, who had been one of my only allies and had no business in that war other than that I had a treaty with them, wiped out by a single ICBM. AN entire civilization, gone with a single action. Millenniums of culture and history blown off the planet in a second. All because I’d made a treaty with them and had declared war on someone else. That was when I really appreciated what war was.

On February 17, 2016 Alexey Shiro says:

Quite a good post, Charles. I agree with you completely. One of the best sides of “Destroyermen” series – those books show the war as it really was. Heroic and glory – yes, but also blood, horror and unimaginable suffering.

I heard once that “the war pulls out the best and the worst of human souls both”… Seems more than right to me.

On February 17, 2016 Charles Simpson says:

General, besides troops pining to get into the action there was another feeling, this I got from the WW 2 Vets called up for Korea. A friend once told me, “When I went to WW 2 I was young, single, foot loose, and fancy free, and like all kids I thought I was bullet proof. I saw war on Iwo, I got this the second day [shows scar from a Samari sword cut.] When I was called up for Korea I knew is was not bullet proof, I had a wife and kids back home depending on me, that makes for a cautious marine with little, or no gung-ho.”

Another Korea vet suffered pangs of conscience on his birthday, “I was a machine gunner the Chinese sent human wave attacks there was a ditch between our position and them, I literally melted MG barrels going through five. At the end you could walk across the bodies they had filled the ditch. I pulled the gold teeth of the dead, I can’t believe I was so callas, but then thought nothing of it.”

Tailor has given us such soul searching, in Chack-Sab-At and others. Veterins of combat go from feeling war is bullet proof game to callas realists. I have posted to letters home from my Uncle John written in WW 2 see:

http://pokermind.deviantart.com/gallery/40299281/Potos-and-portraits

These were written to my mother, Uncle John on powdered eggs written in England prior to Joining Patton’s 3rd Army, and Letter from WW 2 Soldier, my uncle John Jett written by a now combat veteran somewhere in France. This will get you closer to the real thing. Note racist expression of a heavy rain, it was not until the 1960s I quit using it, not for political correctness, but the fact it was impolite, this was before political correctness. Enjoy

On February 17, 2016 Alexey Shiro says:

A little fun:

…The US admirals were absolutely sure: the British are up to something. They couldn’t design their “Nelson”-class battleships with all guns forward for no reason. They wanted to put something on the rear. Something inportant. Something like flight deck.

The British played innocence and pretend not to understand what it was about. The Americans suspicions intensified.

And on the London Naval Limitation Conference of 1930, the Americans finally acted:

“Article 3
1. For the purposes of the Washington Treaty, the definition of an aircraft carrier given in Chapter II, Part 4, of the said Treaty is hereby replaced by the following definition:
The expression “aircraft carrier” includes any surface vessel of war, whatever its displacement, designed for the specific and exclusive purpose of carrying aircraft and so constructed that aircraft can be launched therefrom and landed thereon.
2. The fitting of a landing-on or flying-off platform or deck on a capital ship, cruiser or destroyer, provided such vessel was not designed or adapted exclusively as an aircraft carrier, shall not cause any vessel so fitted to be charged against or classified in the category of aircraft carriers.
3. No capital ship in existence on 1 April 1930 shall be fitted with a landing-on platform or deck.“

In your face, Britania!

…The poor british only blinked dazedly – because for just one time, they honestly didn’t plotted ANYTHING…

———————-

The funny thing is, the US navy was absolutely sure in 1920s, that Royal navy either build their “Nelson”-class as hybrid carrier battleships, or would refit them into it at first occasion:

https://i.imgur.com/tUcJfpe.png

The “Nelson”-class in USN point of view)
On February 17, 2016 Donald Johnson says:

//Technically, it is possible. You need a really big airship, of course, and it would be a lot of engineering work to deal with recoil. Tactically… As I recall, only the Italians ever tried to put long-barreled 4-inch gun on the aircraft, and it was Piaggo P.108 four-engine bomber. And, I must point out that this contraption weren’t tested in action.//

I don’t remember where I read it but I seem to remember that someone mounted a recoiles Rifle on a B26 in the pacific and tried it our sinking or heavly damaging a Japanese DE. It has been over 40 years since I read this.
On February 17, 2016 Generalstarwars333 says:

FINALLY! I actually did it!

On February 17, 2016 Generalstarwars333 says:

Wait, I think I’ve got it now. “and I’ll say this now: NOBODY is bullet-proof. ”
Oh godz, not Reddy!!
There. That’s how i intended it to look. Still getting the hang of the bolding and italicizing. Okay. Now it should work.
On February 17, 2016 Generalstarwars333 says:

God dangit! I absolutely hate i/ the italicizing and boldign system for this!
On February 17, 2016 Generalstarwars333 says:

“and I’ll say this now: NOBODY is bullet-proof. /b”
Oh godz, not Reddy!!
There. That’s how i intended it to look. Still getting the hang of the bolding and italicizing. drat. there. I think i fixed it.
On February 17, 2016 Generalstarwars333 says:

“and I’ll say this now: NOBODY is bullet-proof. /b”
Oh godz, not Reddy!!

There. That’s how i intended it to look. Still getting the hang of the bolding and italicizing.

On February 17, 2016 Generalstarwars333 says:

“and I’ll say this now: NOBODY is bullet-proof./b”

Oh godz, not Reddy!!

On February 17, 2016 Taylor says:

Strangely, I can agree with Charles AND Justin on this issue, but that’s mainly because a lot of my secondary or tertiary characters can come and go without dying. Even primary characters can fade out for a while if they are not “engaged.” This because I can update where they are in the Cast of Characters. At the same time, I don’t like to use “redshirts.” Usually, if I do, it’s because they have a unique perspective on something that a central character can’t. That goes back to “it’s better to show than tell.” If I have to conjure up a character for readers to see something through their eyes, and then waste them, I will–but only so I can put the reader there. I’m not saying this is a RULE, but it’s what I try to do. Otherwise, even characters who get bumped off usually have a couple (or more) book run first. Then again, I think there’s a limit to how far you can “spread the care.” Too many central characters risk diluting a reader’s investment in them, and they don’t get enough page time. And you all know I DO kill them off from time to time, and I’ll say this now: NOBODY is bullet-proof.

On February 17, 2016 Justin says:

//Remember you don’t have to kill characters to introduce others as the war expands the number of characters can expand. Roles can change Matt can change from a hard driving DD Skipper to a more George Marshal like Strategist, and get time with his new family to boot.//

But then you’d get something like Safehold or Ring of Fire, where you’ve got two dozen protagonists, a dozen antagonists and about a hundred background characters all vying for page space – and that’s not counting all the redshirts you see for about half a chapter. Personally, I’m having a hard time remembering the less used members of the supporting cast as it is.

And even if you, me and every reader had the attention span of an elephant, Mr. Anderson increasing the character limit means that either the books’ll need to be twice as thick, which means a bi-annual release, or the current ensemble will be getting a whole lot less coverage. Not a good idea.

On February 16, 2016 Charles Simpson says:

//As to the future Allied crusier, all I can say is that there is a long discussion/expose in the narrative, like I usually do it, with guys working on/looking at it and describing the design philosophy and how they did it, etc. You guys are going to love it.// Taylor that and discussions of other societies, and the Alliance Politics will be great seasoning, but as with all spice too much might lose the general audience. As you improve this site you can include monographs here on such things and provide links in your books to keep both the curious fans and your publisher happy.

Remember you don’t have to kill characters to introduce others as the war expands the number of characters can expand. Roles can change Matt can change from a hard driving DD Skipper to a more George Marshal like Strategist, and get time with his new family to boot.

On February 16, 2016 Alexey Shiro says:

//1933 overhead view showing the “turret” it looks like a center-line sponson rather than a true turret.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/012/0401201.jpg
//

Hm, I’m not familiar with this photo. Thanks!

//it looks like a center-line sponson rather than a true turret.//

Quite probably, actually. After all, they didn’t really need the extreme angles of train or vertical elevation, so the more simple and lightweight solution would be preferable.

Still, a pretty good idea. Imagine all “Omahas” refitted with all their old casemates removed and those sponsone/turrets placed on the rear and upper superstucture. A lot of weight would became avaliable to put a descent anti-aircraft weapons, like five-inch dual-purpose guns. The old “Omahas” could become really nasty with only a two guns less in broadside – and, actually, during the war, most of them have half of casemates removed anyway.

On February 16, 2016 Charles Simpson says:

1939 view taken from USS Pope in Manila bay. Looks like sponson removed or at least the gun.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/012/0401226.jpg

On February 16, 2016 Charles Simpson says:

1933 overhead view showing the “turret” it looks like a center-line sponson rather than a true turret.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/012/0401201.jpg

On February 16, 2016 Alexey Shiro says:

//Alexey, Nav Source has a photo from 1932 showing that single turret. ://

Exactly! Must admit, that there isn’t too many photos of her in this confiduration at all, for some reason.

//Note the lower to sponsons removed from rear a net loss of 1 gun//

Well, the broadside actually remained the same, because the single turret could be aimed on both port and starboard.

I read that this refit was a testbed to the possible more capital refit of other “Omahas”. As I recall, the idea was to get rid of all casemates, replacing them with a similar turret arrangements on the forward and aft superstructures. Broadside would be reduced to six guns, but the stability would be greatly improved. For some reason, the idea was dropped; either the single turret didn’t work well, or (more probable) they couldn’t obtain money for this refit in early 1930s.

On February 16, 2016 Charles Simpson says:

Alexey, Nav Source has a photo from 1932 showing that single turret. Note the lower to sponsons removed from rear a net loss of 1 gun:

http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/012/0401224.jpg

Hmm are those deckapes chipping and painting on those planks?

On February 16, 2016 Alexey Shiro says:

//As to the future Allied crusier, all I can say is that there is a long discussion/expose in the narrative, like I usually do it, with guys working on/looking at it and describing the design philosophy and how they did it, etc. You guys are going to love it. //

Oh, can’t wait to read it!

On February 16, 2016 Taylor says:

I don’t know, Alexey. Good question. As to the future Allied crusier, all I can say is that there is a long discussion/expose in the narrative, like I usually do it, with guys working on/looking at it and describing the design philosophy and how they did it, etc. You guys are going to love it.
On February 16, 2016 Alexey Shiro says:

//Same class as USS Marblehead of the Asiatic fleet familiar to the Destroyermen.//

There is a question I wanted to ask for a long time. I heard, that on USS “Marblehead” the rear upper pair of casemates were dismounted in late 1920s, and single turret was fitted on the roof of rear superstructure instead. How long the ship sailed in thotse configuration? By 1940s there were no trace of upper turret.

On February 16, 2016 Charles Simpson says:

Yes General, from previous page February 15, 2016 Taylor wrote:

//Two things: Remember, there ARE “rockets”– Grik ones, discovered at Grik City, and then encountered when Ragak lured Matt’s ships away from Grik City in Straits. They were really BAD rockets, essentially large solid fuel (black powder motor) “model” rockets with contact fuses, fired in heavy salvos that did more damage on the ground than anything, but they obviously are working on them–and contact fuses, at least. Does Kurokawa have them? He hasn’t used them, but he hasn’t had to, has he? Might the Grik have come up with them on their own, or did they have help? Can they be made more effective? If so, what would make them so?
As for the cruiser debate, it has been established that the Allies are working on one, with vague references to its construction and possible configuration. This in addition to their Walker clones–though little else has been revealed about it. Like I said, when we get more “home front” perspectives, a lot of these questions will be answered. In the meantime, the speculation is great–but I thought I’d toss you a few more “bones” to pick. //

Also in Straits of Hell was a breach loading organ gun that Silva investigated on a Grik dirigible wreck that could be a Grik ‘MG’ for ground troops. Katuscha rockets for army use is possible too based on the anti air rockets Taylor mentioned.

On February 16, 2016 Generalstarwars333 says:

Remember in the books when they said there was even talk of a four stacker cruiser?

On February 16, 2016 Charles Simpson says:

Drawing of light four stacker cruiser Omaha CL-4

http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?dir=Real%20Designs/United%20States%20of%20America/CL-4%20Omaha%201923.png

Same class as USS Marblehead of the Asiatic fleet familiar to the Destroyermen.
On February 16, 2016 Alexey Shiro says:

HM, no, seems I made a mistake – the Lexington and Saratoga was two closest to completion.

But, after all, this is alternate history… So, was it possible for Constellation and Constitution to be completed as battlecruisers? After all, it’s not likely that they would appear in the books…

On February 15, 2016 Alexey Shiro says:

//So–Lex and Sara were NOT built as BCs in the version of our world they came from.//

Ok, there was also “Constitution” and “Constellation”. What about them? They were, actually, in more complete condition, as I recall (that’s why the Lex and Sara was chosen for rebuild…)

On February 15, 2016 Taylor says:

Actually, a couple of references to the Lexington–as a carrier. Matt describes Big Sal as reminding him of her due in part to her size and vaguely, the appearance of the superstructure/island. Also, though it must be assumed that Matt and many of his destroyermen (if not Walker herself, for many years before the war), had maneuvered with carriers and learned and observed carrier ops and doctrine, Sandy Newman was made Big Sal’s XO because he was the only one with a clue about internal carrier ops, having served on Lexington in the past.
So–Lex and Sara were NOT built as BCs in the version of our world they came from.
On February 15, 2016 Charles Simpson says:

General Nav Source is a good site for photos and drawings of USN lighter than aircraft:

http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/99/0299idx.htm

Check out the flying carrier Akron it has plans for both the airship and the specially designed airplanes the flying aircraft carrier carried.

On February 15, 2016 Alexey Shiro says:

//oooooooooh! They could have a ship and add wings and lots of propellers that point forwards and upwards!//

Got it

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ru/6/6c/%D0%A2%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2_%D0%A2%D0%91-6.jpg

The TB-6, the proposed super-heavy bomber with twelve engines. She was supposed to carry up to fifteen tons of bomb on the 3000 km range, and have five autocannons and mnine machinegins for defense (and, quite probably, a pair or two parasite fighters under wings). The prototype were even started to build, but in 1934 all works were stopped: the goverment realised that the super-heavy bomber with a max speed about 170-180 mph wouldn’t be a good solution in modern warfare.
On February 15, 2016 Generalstarwars333 says:

oooooooooh! They could have a ship and add wings and lots of propellers that point forwards and upwards!

On February 15, 2016 Alexey Shiro says:

//That, or a metal airship.//

Well, the metal airships – with all-metal envelope (if I recall, it was called “metalclad”) – actually existed in 1920s. But they required aluminium… and if the Alliance would somehow be able to obtain aluminium in near future, they would probably not really need airships (they would still be usefull as sea patrol and even long-range bombers, thought)

The main current problem of Alliance aviation is that they lacked aluminium, and the production of this metal isn’t easy to obtain. Without the aluminium, the Alliance air forces basically locked in early 1920s – all-wood planes. They couldn’t really move far forward without the aluminium at least for frames.

Or the really good steel. The steel could be the alternative to aluminium in aviation. In USSR, a few models of all-steel passenger planes were build in early 1930s – they were named “Stal”. They worked good, but eventually the aluminium alloys became cheaper and thin steel elements weren’t as durable as the engineers thought.

But it was the Soviet Union – that have, in 1920s, probably more experience with large all-metal planes than anyone else in whole world. After all, it was Soviet Union who build the FREAKING EIGHT HUNDREDS OF ALL-METAL FOUR-ENGINE TB-3 BOMBERS IN EARLY 1930s – ten times more than all other nations of this time combined. Yes, there were times, when the Europe really trembled, fearing to saw someday the soviet flying dreadnoughts over their heads…

On February 15, 2016 Alexey Shiro says:

//Prototype Lex, got it. Although if they’re at that stage by Book Y, they might as well go all the way and add two/three turrets and a proper bridge.//

Quite probably. Hpvewer, considering that their most known example is “Amagi”, they would probably build pagoda masts on their designs.

//… That actually makes sense. Neither one’s been mentioned so far.//

Frankly, I always thought that USA could relatively easily demand two of “Lexington”-class allowed to be completed on the Naval Conference of 1922. Maybe with 14-inch guns, but definitely could. The only problem was, that the US representatives were so afraid to not reach any global acomodation at all, that they were reluctant to push even a little.

The US admirals would probably easily agreed to trade all their four remaining 12-inch battleships – “Florida”, “Utah”, “Wyoming” and “Arkansas” for two “Lexington”-class battlecruisers. They could be pretty handy; their large size and high speed would make them awesome carrier escorts, and they could carry really a lot of anti-aircraft guns. Not to mention that the IJN “fast wing” superiority would be really awesome screwed…

Second half page 57
On February 15, 2016 Alexey Shiro says:

//Prototype Lex, got it. Although if they’re at that stage by Book Y, they might as well go all the way and add two/three turrets and a proper bridge.//

Quite probably. Hpvewer, considering that their most known example is “Amagi”, they would probably build pagoda masts on their designs.

//… That actually makes sense. Neither one’s been mentioned so far.//

Frankly, I always thought that USA could relatively easily demand two of “Lexington”-class allowed to be completed on the Naval Conference of 1922. Maybe with 14-inch guns, but definitely could. The only problem was, that the US representatives were so afraid to not reach any global acomodation at all, that they were reluctant to push even a little.

The US admirals would probably easily agreed to trade all their four remaining 12-inch battleships – “Florida”, “Utah”, “Wyoming” and “Arkansas” for two “Lexington”-class battlecruisers. They could be pretty handy; their large size and high speed would make them awesome carrier escorts, and they could carry really a lot of anti-aircraft guns. Not to mention that the IJN “fast wing” superiority would be really awesome screwed…

This is an excellent idea, at least we can save the content.

Maybe we can copy paste the text and then remove the rants and so on to create some good posts.