Norman_E
Well-Known Member
Also from the National Anthem. Let us have HMS Wade, just to upset the Scots. I believe we have previously had an HMS Cumberland.
/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
New Aircraft Carriers
- Thread starter richardabeattie
- Start date
Kilter
Well-Known Member
bobgoode
Well-Known Member
Beg to differ Talbot but the hood was not one of the QE class (fast division) dreadnoughts. She was in fact a follow on class designed later.
rhumlady
Well-Known Member
In the 60's and early 70's they had the 'Wall Flower' class otherwise known as the County Class guided missile destroyers. I believe they had dotted lines painted on the side so they could get the generators out easily;-)
Billjratt
Well-Known Member
Re: New Aircraft Carriers -Norman E
or the HMS Calcuttakup perhaps
or the HMS Calcuttakup perhaps
whisper
Well-Known Member
You are indeed correct. What nerds we are /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
DaveS
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Also from the National Anthem. Let us have HMS Wade, just to upset the Scots. I believe we have previously had an HMS Cumberland.
/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
Most Scots rather approve of Wade. He wasn't much good at "crushing rebellious Scots" as the Anthem urges, but he (and his lesser known successor, Caulfield), did build some rather good military roads. It was unfortunate that the first army to use them was BPC's... /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
"If ye'd seen these roads afore they were made
Ye'd throw up yer hauns an bless General Wade"
Also from the National Anthem. Let us have HMS Wade, just to upset the Scots. I believe we have previously had an HMS Cumberland.
/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
Most Scots rather approve of Wade. He wasn't much good at "crushing rebellious Scots" as the Anthem urges, but he (and his lesser known successor, Caulfield), did build some rather good military roads. It was unfortunate that the first army to use them was BPC's... /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
"If ye'd seen these roads afore they were made
Ye'd throw up yer hauns an bless General Wade"
john_morris_uk
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Also from the National Anthem. Let us have HMS Wade, just to upset the Scots. I believe we have previously had an HMS Cumberland.
/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
[/ QUOTE ]We still have HMS CUMBERLAND - known by those who serve in her as 'The Mighty Sausage'. Type 22 Batch 3 Frigate.
Also from the National Anthem. Let us have HMS Wade, just to upset the Scots. I believe we have previously had an HMS Cumberland.
/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
[/ QUOTE ]We still have HMS CUMBERLAND - known by those who serve in her as 'The Mighty Sausage'. Type 22 Batch 3 Frigate.
Talbot
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Beg to differ Talbot but the hood was not one of the QE class (fast division) dreadnoughts. She was in fact a follow on class designed later.
[/ QUOTE ]
Quibble
Yes follow-on based heavily on the Queen Elizabeth class, and with the same major design defects on the anti-flash systems down to the magazines - hence meeting with Bismark and boom!
Beg to differ Talbot but the hood was not one of the QE class (fast division) dreadnoughts. She was in fact a follow on class designed later.
[/ QUOTE ]
Quibble
Yes follow-on based heavily on the Queen Elizabeth class, and with the same major design defects on the anti-flash systems down to the magazines - hence meeting with Bismark and boom!
mobeydick
Well-Known Member
Sorry Talbot, but the Queen Elizabeth class didn't go boom. They all survived Jutland very well.
It was the battle cruisers that tended to go pop, and Hood was a battlecruiser, not a battleship.
(recent evidence seems to suggest is was more RN custom and practice of cordite handling rather than design that caused the explosions)
It was the battle cruisers that tended to go pop, and Hood was a battlecruiser, not a battleship.
(recent evidence seems to suggest is was more RN custom and practice of cordite handling rather than design that caused the explosions)
dedwards
Well-Known Member
So actually, its not as off the wall as it sounds. We have a Victorious, Glorious was a WW1 carrier and according to Wikipedia there was a HMS Happy Return so its not much of a stretch to call the two new carriers Happy and Glorious. Maybe someone should start a petition.
Andrew_Fanner
Well-Known Member
A significant influence on the failure of anti flash precautions in British ships was the quite understandable desire of those on board, pursuant to instructions, to achieve a high rate of fire. The rate of fire could be increased if antiflash shutters were kept open("Jammed Sir. Battle damage.") (or even discreetly removed) ths allowing faster charge and shell handling. Large, nay, excessive, quantities of ready use might be held close to guns such as in Malaya's 6" casemate which nearly took the whole ship with it at Jutland. The large fire on the upper deck seen by many on board Hood was also rpobably caused by a great quantity of ready use ammunition and of itself would have done significant damage to the ships' habitability.
The corollary of this bypassing of antiflash precautions was seen in the 14" turret on the KGVs. Extreme attention was paid to the antiflash systems, and the result of this slowed the rate of fire and indeed could jam the turret.
It is also fair to say that British propellant was not the most stable compared to some.
The corollary of this bypassing of antiflash precautions was seen in the 14" turret on the KGVs. Extreme attention was paid to the antiflash systems, and the result of this slowed the rate of fire and indeed could jam the turret.
It is also fair to say that British propellant was not the most stable compared to some.
rhumlady
Well-Known Member
"It is also fair to say that British propellant was not the most stable compared to some"
We always seem to get into these sort of problems. In my time it was Seacat missiles which had to be tested when taken onboard at an armament depot. We would spend the afternoon and evening going through the latest batch then go back to trade in the failures next day. We never did sail with a magazine full of known good working missiles. We could have failure rates of around 70% IIRC.
We always seem to get into these sort of problems. In my time it was Seacat missiles which had to be tested when taken onboard at an armament depot. We would spend the afternoon and evening going through the latest batch then go back to trade in the failures next day. We never did sail with a magazine full of known good working missiles. We could have failure rates of around 70% IIRC.