Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length.

[Akira]

Having read and re-read John Robert's supreme work on British cruisers, as well as Friedman's in depth work, I am still puzzled as to  why the Suffolk and the Cumberland, and perhaps others, had cut away quarterdecks compared to the other ships in the County sub- classes whose main decks extended completely to the stern.Can anyone shed some light on this for me, please?Thank youJonathan

[deadbeat]

One of my reference books state the stern was cut down to save weight to enable extra protection to be added and also an aircraft hangar.

[Netleyned]

The Hangar was a big box quite high up.
Just aft of the seaplane crane.
They would have needed to cut down on
topweight, to add that and any extra
armour around the turrets.

[Akira]

Yes the hanger was fairly standardly located on the County/Kents, as was the amidships catapult. As to saving weight for better armour, what cofuses me is that some of her sisters were built without the cut away, while some were. The armour did very, but not sifnificantly that I can see. 

[Colin Bishop]

As stated in Friedman, although the Counties all looked very similar originally there were significant constructional differences between the sub classes and within that the displacement of individual ships.

The earlier modernisations were also subhect to the 10,000 ton treaty limits and cutting down aft in most cased saved 200 tons or so for use elsewhere. The later modernisations were not subject to the treaty limit and overall displacement could be increased. It seems that every ship had to be looked at individually.

Colin

[Geoff]

I also believe that the original treaty cruisers came in under weight (experienced British yards) so there was extra tonnage available. As above it was a weight saving measure.


I think I'm right that the first set had very limited armour protection but the later set had box protection round the magazines and some had thin anti torpedo bulges as well so whilst superficially almost identical the internals were very different.


In practice these ships were very good as their high freeboard made them ideal for the Russian convoys and their high speed and good armament and good endurance were very successful.


I read an article in "Warship" some years ago which questioned the protection of the treaty cruisers and actually concluded that the "Counties" were the best solution on the tonnage available.


Generally the side armour most 8" gun cruisers carried could not resist an 8" shell and only really proof against destroyer guns of 4" so was largely wasted so the best solution was subdivision and an armoured box around the magazines.


I
Whilst looking old fashioned I've always thought the Counties were very good looking ships. Its worth reflecting that when compared to their foreign contemporaries the Counties really were 10,000 tons where the enemy in many cases were 13,000 tons and a naval architect can do a lot with an extra 30%.


Cheers


Geoff

[Akira]

Armour aside, there were 7 ships, including two paid for by Australia, built to the same design in the 1925 budget. They, all seven, included the same armour sceme as well as armament. They all came in displacing within 100 tons of the design goal, most were +- 50 tons. That said, at least two of them had the quarterdeck one deck lower than the rest. I can not find that they were or were not completed as flag vessels and there does not appear to be any evidence of such in photographs of the bridge structures...I agree that the County's were good cruisers, as is borne out by their war service. The answer is out there somewhere...

[Colin Bishop]

I'm not quite sure what the mystery is. All ships were originally completed with flush hulls. Only Suffolk and Cumberland were cut down aft during their 1935/36 refits. Friedman explicitly states that in Suffolk's case it was to keep within th 10,000 ton treaty limit. Apparently Cumberlantd's refit overlapped the expiry of the treaty by a small margin so maybe it was expedient to treat the two ships similarly.

Colin

[Akira]

"I'm not quite sure what the mystery is. All ships were originally completed with flush hulls. Only Suffolk and Cumberland were cut down aft during their 1935/36 refits. Friedman explicitly states that in Suffolk's case it was to keep within th 10,000 ton treaty limit. Apparently Cumberlantd's refit overlapped the expiry of the treaty by a small margin so maybe it was expedient to treat the two ships similarly."Colin, I think you are being too modest. Clearly your eyes are better than mine and yours are still connected to your brain! Thank you. The timing of her re-fit in relation to the expiration of the Treaty does make a lot of sense.Good thing that I am not a proof reader.........

[deadbeat]

This site may be of interest:
https://www.world-war.co.uk/Kent/cumberland.php

[Akira]

Excellent find! Thank you

[dodes]

Many years ago, too many to count, I remember reading it was all to do with the aircraft hanger, the others never had one, my father was on the Norfolk and you tell her apart from the other three funnel jobs by her shorter funnels and bridge arrangement. My father told me two interesting tales about her, one was when she was detached to proceed at all possible speed to the River Plate. The M.E.O. had all the boiler safety valves screwed down shut and put on all the boiler burners, he said at the back of the boiler room he could swear her boilers were pulsating, apparently she out did her acceptance build trials. The other was she was going along inside the Artic circle (she did do 18 months solid there) the sea was reasonable, when out of no where with no warning she hit a massive wave from nowhere. It wiped off all deck fittings forward including breakwaters, anchor capstans, anchors and cable. The barrels on A turret bent back so pointing at B turret, A turret was cracked and the barrels on B turret bent 90 degrees up. As he said the wave did more damage than the Germans did to her in the entire war.

[Colin Bishop]

That is interesting Dodes and I can well believe it. The power of green water coming over a ship can cause an incredible amount of damage.

Colin

[ballastanksian]

Crikey! It is lucky she was facing the wave or she might have capsized or suffered much worse damage to funnels, bridge light weapons etc.


When did she suffer the wave damage?

[dodes]

He left her mid 1943 to go to the Woodcock new from the builders. But he did say, when she was far North his mess used to slope water against the bulkheads when she moved up to 6 inch's, they tried a few times to dry it out, but to no avail, said it was due to condensation. When she did come south back to England a huge number of the crew contracted TB due to living so long in damp conditions. Another tale he told me was that the Captain gave the order for steam leaks on deck not to be repaired, as the de 'icing squad used to stand over them to let the steam warm them up on deck.