This was interesting, and it made me realize something that applies even today: Every time Greece and Turkey went at it since Greece got its independence in 1820, large or small, both sides were largely using other people's weapons. Except...now Turkey is making a concentrated effort to make its own weapons, whether it is guns, drones, planes, or ships.
Certainly an all forward design is going to be better than a conventional layout if it gets its 'T' crossed. But whether it really inverts the advantage would seem to depend on whether fire control and shot dispersion was more accurate in bearing or range (once you factor in 'danger space'). The ship getting its 'T' crossed is certainly the narrower target -- but it's also a longer target -and so if most errors are likely to be in range it might well be the effectively larger target despite its narrow profile. (With shots that would have been "overs" against a broadside target actually hitting its aft areas)
All a possibility, but in the end it was the targeting system and the engagement ranges which made this all moot... but hey, it was still the most efficient for providing armour thickness & coverage under the early treaty system.
During WW1 Germany decided not to arm the completed hull of Salamis. The stated reason was because it would require a rebuild of the barbettes. What was the difference between the barbette size required for a twin US style 14" gun and a, for the sake of argument, German 11" or 12" gun? I suspect the problem was that the US, and British, turrets were much more compact and as a result the Germans didn't have a turret, bigger than 8.2", small enough to fit on a barbette that could accept a US twin 14" gun turret.
Clarke you need to add a fourth to winning war keys. The political will to actually win and make that win count. The US has failed in that after WWII as yes we can knock of the enemy but too often squander it. Look at Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan as prime examples of winning the fight but failing to secure any lasting gains or peace.
The Turkish actions towards their admiral sadly reminds me of the actions by several major cities in the US toward police officers when things were at least questionable.
The ships are second hand, old, and there are so few of them, along with the fact the nations involved were at their weakest in their histories and it was a one off, it was never going to have much if any impact on naval arms. Russia in 1905 is significantly more powerful, technologically advanced, and larger in manpower, landarea and military power than the Ottomans. The Japanese were richer, larger in land area, population and military capabilities, and they were more technologically advanced and ended up having a much more dramatic effect on the world as a whole, not just militarily in comparison to modern-day Greece.
Thanks Dr. Clarke. Very interesting.😎
It was Colin Chapman, founder of Lotus, thar said "add lightness"
This was interesting, and it made me realize something that applies even today: Every time Greece and Turkey went at it since Greece got its independence in 1820, large or small, both sides were largely using other people's weapons. Except...now Turkey is making a concentrated effort to make its own weapons, whether it is guns, drones, planes, or ships.
Admiral Pavlos would love the SAS motto: Who Dares Wins.
Ah, the superhero’s kid sidekick.
Certainly an all forward design is going to be better than a conventional layout if it gets its 'T' crossed. But whether it really inverts the advantage would seem to depend on whether fire control and shot dispersion was more accurate in bearing or range (once you factor in 'danger space'). The ship getting its 'T' crossed is certainly the narrower target -- but it's also a longer target -and so if most errors are likely to be in range it might well be the effectively larger target despite its narrow profile. (With shots that would have been "overs" against a broadside target actually hitting its aft areas)
All a possibility, but in the end it was the targeting system and the engagement ranges which made this all moot... but hey, it was still the most efficient for providing armour thickness & coverage under the early treaty system.
During WW1 Germany decided not to arm the completed hull of Salamis. The stated reason was because it would require a rebuild of the barbettes. What was the difference between the barbette size required for a twin US style 14" gun and a, for the sake of argument, German 11" or 12" gun? I suspect the problem was that the US, and British, turrets were much more compact and as a result the Germans didn't have a turret, bigger than 8.2", small enough to fit on a barbette that could accept a US twin 14" gun turret.
Wait ... Was the character in This Is Spinal Tap named after this British admiral?
One wonders how the Mediterranean Campaign of WWII would have changed if Salamis had been finished and given some sort of modernization
How about "Custer Fudge Pie"? 🥧
I've always been partial to Fustercluck, personally.
Clarke you need to add a fourth to winning war keys. The political will to actually win and make that win count. The US has failed in that after WWII as yes we can knock of the enemy but too often squander it. Look at Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan as prime examples of winning the fight but failing to secure any lasting gains or peace.
The Turkish actions towards their admiral sadly reminds me of the actions by several major cities in the US toward police officers when things were at least questionable.
I hope that wasn't too political.
The ships are second hand, old, and there are so few of them, along with the fact the nations involved were at their weakest in their histories and it was a one off, it was never going to have much if any impact on naval arms.
Russia in 1905 is significantly more powerful, technologically advanced, and larger in manpower, landarea and military power than the Ottomans. The Japanese were richer, larger in land area, population and military capabilities, and they were more technologically advanced and ended up having a much more dramatic effect
on the world as a whole, not just militarily in comparison to modern-day Greece.