Hybrid aircraft carriers (1 Viewer)

EwenS said:

Your classification into different types of carrier makes it sound like each nation had some pre-ordained plan to achieve that end.

Click to expand...

Sorry for the confusion. Sometimes ships wound up with similar (outwardly) characteristics for different reasons.

EwenS said:

Edit:- Ranger and Wasp can't, IMHO be classified as a "type". Their origins and the drivers for their designs were totally different.

Click to expand...

They certainly were not a "class". But they were both smaller, cheaper carriers built to budget/tonnage restrictions. And they sacrificed similar things. Like protection and speed although not in same amounts. The Wasp, being about 5 years newer could take advantages of some advantages in marine propulsion/machinery and other things.
My point, although not stated well, was that the two 'smaller' carriers would be more difficult (although not impossible) to combine into tactical units with the bigger, faster carriers.
They might have worked OK together although that never happened.

Thumpalumpacus said:

Right, but the working space has to be wider to accommodate the blocks.

Click to expand...

Hiya D don4331 , further to our conversation about Krupp's sliding breech-blocks, Drachinifel's Drydock episode released today has a segment addressing these knock-on effects further. I hope I got the timestamp right to take you directly to the question and his answer:


View: https://youtu.be/sG0DZ--K3eo?t=3586

Thumpalumpacus said:

Hiya D don4331 , further to our conversation about Krupp's sliding breech-blocks, Drachinifel's Drydock episode released today has a segment addressing these knock-on effects further. I hope I got the timestamp right to take you directly to the question and his answer:


View: https://youtu.be/sG0DZ--K3eo?t=3586

Click to expand...

You got the timestamp correct:

1st the picture for E EwenS

Left barrel shows the projectile pushed (rammed) from the lift onto the transfer mechanism and the cartridge case and fore charge on its 'cage'
Right barrel shows the projectile already rammed into the breach, and the cartridge case and fore charge being rolled down to be breach.
Probably not how I would have done it; but it worked...

2nd the picture of Scharnhorst's triple:

With the packaging of Scharnhorst's turret, the 38cm barrels themselves can be at same distance as 35cm barrels in KGV, give or take a few cm.

We note that there are cartridge ejection ports on outside of gun carriages which do result in the turret being larger.

And I understand that the sliding breech mechanism, requires the cartridge (for gas check).

don4331 said:

And I understand that the sliding breech mechanism, requires the cartridge (for gas check).
But does it require the full cartridge as historically used? Or could it have been a 'wafer' which wouldn't have needed the elaborate ejection ports

Click to expand...

I think the Germans used a two part system. Two powder charges. The base charge (rear charge) was in the cartridge case and depending on type of powder was 111.5kg in a 900mm long cartridge case that weighed 70kg ( lot of brass). The Fore charge was 99.5kg and was contained in a silk bag. Both the fore charge and rear charge (cartridge case) were rammed together.
The Germans also thought the cartridge case offered some sort of protection from propellent fires. I don't know if it did or if was just wishful thinking. It is supposed to have slowed the flame travel, a bit more time for the flooding to take effect?
The British after Jutland had gone to storing their charges in metal cannisters and only taking them out of the cannisters at some point in the travel from magazine to gun (might depend on exact gun and mount?) KGV class used 4 powder bags and stored two bags per case/cannister.

I have read that during the Battle of Dogger Bank, when the Seydlitz's rearmost turret and magazine burned out, none of the powder in casings burned. Then again, the German powder was very different then Cordite.