Bruships 132: Questions till the Milk or Pancreas Runs Out

Indicated horsepower refers to theoretical engine output, while brake horsepower measures power delivered at the shaft.

Yes; peacetime functions formed part of the interior-design requirements for capital ships and flagships.

Fit it out as a spy ship for intelligence collection.

Probably Akagi, with the length of her career tied to Japan's ability to keep supporting its fleet.

Stereoscopic systems are more precise, while coincidence rangefinders acquire a rough range faster; using both would exploit each strength.

It would require a higher treaty limit or major cuts, probably losing a main turret and some secondary guns while carefully reducing armour.

The L3 battleship and K3 battlecruiser studies paired similar weapons with a large increase in machinery power for five extra knots.

Yes; a twin 5.5-inch battery could provide more dual-purpose barrels, though each would be less specialized.

Comparing the ships one-for-one misses the British independent-operation role and the American scouting role ahead of a battle fleet.

A Sabre-powered Barracuda-type strike aircraft and either a Seafire or Firebrand-type fighter are plausible choices.

The ideas are being explored, but no convincing delivered example comes to mind in this December 2023 assessment.

The treaty system would likely recognize a heavy-cruiser category, Britain might skip many 8-inch cruisers, and Admiral or Lion-class hulls would become carrier candidates.

References to Cammell Laird as a strike-carrier expert suggest design work before Ark Royal, with an Admiral-class hull as the proposed connection.

Lion and Princess Royal would be the more likely pair. Their wider, deeper hulls and replacement boilers could make useful carriers, although unfinished Admiral-class hulls would be easier to convert.

Potentially, though a guiding system is imagined as a way to help with the landing.

It would probably respond quickly, although the form of its new design is uncertain.

Yes; Lion had better existing underwater protection and more hull space available for additional protection.

Not really; the ships should have carried more main guns.

They would become much more accurate much sooner.

The weight and space could support more 88 mm weapons or other useful carrier equipment.

Probably slightly more likely, but the improvement would be small.

Earlier government decisions are blamed for the inconsistent airframes, without a numerical estimate of their contribution to MRA4's problems.

Covert cooperation is plausible given Canaris's concern for Germany's survival, but it remains speculation.

Yes; the Mulberry harbours used enormous floating concrete components, far beyond the scale of a canoe.

Naval constructors designed them, sometimes using forced perspective to make flagship spaces appear more imposing.

The build follows the detailed design much more closely than the initial sketch, but practical discoveries and changing requirements still force alterations.

Norman Friedman's work on British destroyers is the suggested starting point.

Plastic is the first suggestion. Animal-hide coracles are another example, though their effectiveness is left uncertain.

H3A offers six 18-inch guns and 33.5 knots, but G3 sacrifices only half a knot to gain three guns and a stronger rate of fire.

Some test construction is recalled, but it may have been a floating raft rather than a ship.

No. A 12-inch battery would put Lexington behind contemporary capital-ship armament and give the design a short useful life.

It would suggest that Russia had given up capabilities it could not replace, although retaining the ships also reveals that weakness.

Roughly 25,000 tons with 12-inch guns.

The tiny length difference is treated as measurement variation. The added beam is not explained confidently, although the second ship reflects attempts to improve the design.

Physically yes, but the Royal Navy's dislike of a six-gun main battery made the layout unlikely to survive.

The absence of triple 15-inch turrets from Renown and Repulse supports an 18-inch interpretation of the proposed Queen Elizabeth-class Agincourt.

Probably later in the war; Alaska would have been useful earlier, but Kentucky may have been the better late allocation.

Redesign it from the beginning for a 50- to 60-year life, possibly with nuclear power, catapults, and much better maintenance access.

India would have six carriers and could probably keep three active. Pakistan would likely seek more Chinese submarines, while a Chinese construction response is not specified.

Italy had the industrial base and design work to build a successor to the Littorio class, making an additional four battleships plausible if war were delayed.

Physically yes, though Admiral-class conversions may be likelier and Air Ministry resistance to naval twin-engine aircraft would be a major obstacle.

In the proposed treaty system, Britain would probably pair its 9.2-inch heavy cruisers with 6-inch cruisers, with 7-inch weapons another possibility.

Campaigns would be more connected, while the larger sea-like waters would support battles increasingly independent of land fighting.

Designers thought they would suffice and began from submarine-reactor concepts before recognizing that a surface ship needed a different plant.

Wingtip tanks are rejected, and a different engine offers no clear gain once the required airframe changes are considered.

Its wide deck is attractive, but the beam amplifies height variation across the flight deck and complicates landings.

They achieved less than hoped: Italian ships were often sunk by British submarines, while Japanese ships sometimes met full cruisers.

A single Allied battleship would cause little alarm; the response could change if Vanguard had sisters.

Destroyers might fire a long-range salvo, reload with faster short-range settings, then launch again while closing with guns.

Eight 16.5-inch guns are preferred for their probable range and heavier hits, although twelve 15-inch guns remain attractive.

Yes; a 16.5-inch treaty limit would likely carry the G3 triple-turret design forward into the Lion class.

Four completed 16-inch Mark II guns suggest an alternative Vanguard armament, while Nelson-class spare-barrel numbers reveal the maintenance burden behind capital-ship gunnery.

Yes; its extreme width can create large height differences across the deck in ocean waves, complicating landings.

Height remains worthwhile because it provides reliable direct views over the bow and flight deck despite modern electronic aids.

Roughly 750 to 800 is a broad guide, but charge, powder, and inspection condition make the real answer highly variable.

A larger 1943 Minotaur-type hull would probably help considerably because the Tiger conversions needed more space.

No; it consumed too much fuel and was designed for high-speed strike profiles rather than sustained low-altitude ocean patrol.

Vanguard's 15-inch guns could put Stanley airfield out of action from offshore, while also providing heavy fire support around San Carlos Bay.

They needed large yards; some cruiser yards might build the hulls, but limited facilities narrowed the practical choices.

The 15-inch guns would require rebuilding the turret rings, magazines, and turret spaces; adapting Tiger for King George V-type 14-inch guns would be more viable.

Patrol cautiously in Arctic waters, hide near or under ice, avoid aircraft and convoys, and engage only when unusually safe.

Not necessarily; Argentine planners might convince themselves Britain would not deploy the ship or that she was no longer combat-ready.

Four or perhaps five twin 6-inch mounts, paired with roughly four or five twin 3-inch mounts on a full-size hull.

Eight-inch guns might return; the suggested obstacle is presenting their reintroduction as a new development.

It could carry forward-mounted twin autoloading 8-inch or 9.2-inch guns backed by Mark 41 vertical-launch cells.

The 4.5-inch is more versatile, but the 3-inch/50 is the better anti-aircraft weapon and probably suits their self-defence role better.

The naming traditions differ: US carriers discussed here commemorate presidents, other individuals and historic ships such as Enterprise.

The crew knew they were surrounded and outgunned and that a disastrous encounter was imminent.

By their guns within a maximum displacement; the treaty set an upper limit, not a minimum.

Probably, if they had the time and wanted to examine the circumstances.

Richelieu, because Cardinal Richelieu was a formidable namesake and the ship achieved lasting fame.

They might become somewhat faster, but the overall change would probably be modest.

The large battery would require a somewhat longer hull, which might also make the ship slightly faster.

It is a strong historical name, but the ship's unlucky career leaves Richelieu as the preferred choice.

A Béarn designed to operate Blackburn Blackburn aircraft would need lifts suited to them.