Matthew Warwick

The King George V class were the most modern British battleships of the Second World War. They are perhaps best known for their actions against Bismarck in 1941 and Scharnhorst in 1943, as well as the sinking of Prince of Wales in December 1941. (1/x)

@thinkdefence Ha. You will get your 12 F-35A to drop American gravity nukes and like it.

I hope the extra money will be spent on logistics, support, sustaining existing programmes, and people in defence, not shiny gizzits and pipe dreams.

HMS Vanguard, Britain's last battleship, alongside in Portsmouth. Note she's already been laid up - the STAAG mounting on 'B' turret is missing, and her directors and 5.25-inch guns have been cocooned.

@Ubique2078 @capedjoosader I would have thought that Babcock made promises on programme, and part of their methodology to deliver (or recover) that programme required out of sequence working. This then had follow on complications, and therefore is a contractor issue rather than a Client issue.

@capedjoosader @mpwarwick My thoughts too, but if that's the case why is Babcock taking the hit and not MOD on a contract change?

... has the Telegraph really interpreted out-of-sequence construction activity as being the ships "built in the wrong order" ...?

How many prime ministers do we need to go through to get the DIP?

Sums up two decades of defence policy by multiple governments. It’s never enough, and it’s always about politics or as a job creation scheme. Actual national security requirements never seem to come into it.

A Royal Navy today without the carriers would still be in a sorry state. It just wouldn't have carriers. (17/17)

@TomSharpe134 @thinkdefence 100% this, in my opinion.

@thinkdefence I reckon we’d be in exactly the same place, just without two carriers.

From October 2024, what is the answer today?

I appreciate that Think Defence is asking this question to pose a discussion, and it is a fair question to ask. But the answer is a resounding "no". It is easy to blame the carriers for the navy's woes - but I really don't think it stands up to any scrutiny. (1/17)

So long Iron Duke, you’ll always have a special place in my heart.

@simonharley Technically named after the battleship which was named after the 16th century queen, is my understanding.

Isn’t it named after the queen who died 423 years ago?

Lots of chat about the Falklands on the Twitter today. Always surprises me with how many people are willing to put their loathing of Britain above things like "democracy" and "self-determination".

@almurray @ttrevellers @hawchcf1 @HiddenHistoryYT @WeHaveWaysPod @James1940 Late to this but thanks for sharing your source - does explain your narrative! Would maintain that Grove's emphasis on torpedoes is strange, particularly given the BoE conclusion. The 4,000 lb of torpedo warheads sounds a lot, but the aft magazines had 252,000 lb of propellant!

@ttrevellers @mpwarwick @hawchcf1 @HiddenHistoryYT @WeHaveWaysPod @James1940 usni.org/magazines/nava…

HMS Hood (pennant number 51) was the lead ship of her class of four battlecruisers built for the Royal Navy during World War I. Returning to the Home Fleet in August 1940, Hood sortied that fall in operations intended to intercept the "pocket battleship" and heavy cruiser Admiral Hipper. In January 1941, Hood entered the yard for a minor refit, but the naval situation prevented the major overhaul that was needed. Emerging, Hood remained in increasingly poor condition. After patrolling the Bay of Biscay, the battlecruiser was ordered north in late April after the Admiralty learned that the new German battleship Bismarck had sailed. Putting into Scapa Flow on May 6, Hood departed later that month with the new battleship HMS Prince of Wales to pursue Bismarck and the heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen. Commanded by Vice Admiral Lancelot Holland, this force located the two German ships on May 23. Attacking the next morning, Hood and Prince of Wales opened the Battle of the Denmark Strait. Engaging the enemy, Hood quickly came under fire and took hits. Approximately eight minutes after the action began, the battlecruiser was hit around the boat deck. Witnesses saw a jet of flame emerge near the mainmast before the ship exploded. Most likely the result of a plunging shot which penetrated the thin deck armor and struck a magazine, the explosion broke Hood in two. Sinking in around three minutes, only three of the ship's 1,418-man crew were rescued. Outnumbered, Prince of Wales withdrew from the fight. In the wake of the sinking, many explanations were put forward for the explosion. Recent surveys of the wreck confirm that Hood's after magazines did explode.

@matabele_ant That plate is apparently about 44 tons. Barbette plates were 11", 12" or 13" thick depending on which direction it faced, and for 'B' barbette (like this one) were 20 ft 5 in high.

@mpwarwick Blimey! Those sheets of armoured steel are, what? 13" thick? 12' wide and 30' long (by the size of the dockers)? What do they weigh? The crane that can lift that is a beast

Barbette armour being installed on the battleship HMS Duke of York.

@munter_p The French four gun turret was divided into pairs, with a bulkhead down the middle. This was to prevent damage to one half disabling the entire turret. In theory each gun was individually sleeved, but in practice the relative elevation of each 'pair' was limited.

@mpwarwick How does it compare to the French four gun turret? :)

14-inch fun facts time: This gun was the 14-inch Mark VII [seven], but was the first 14-inch gun designed for the Royal Navy. Each gun weighed approximately 79 tons. With the balance weight attached, this increased to 91 tons. They fired a 1,590 lbs (721 kg) projectile. 1/5

@Paul_Bestwick1 The short answer is that the 1936 London Naval Treaty reduced the maximum permitted battleship calibre from 16" to 14". The aim of this was to prevent a rapidly spiralling arms race like that of 1906-14.

@mpwarwick Matthew who came up with the idea for the RN to move to a 14" main battery ? What was the reasoning behind the reduction in calibre from 15" and 16" on the NelRods.

@Mark1_1984 No, I don't believe so.

@mpwarwick Matt are these at full recoil?

A full load of ammunition and propellant was in excess of 861 tons. The quadruple mounting had a total crew of 107, including those in the magazines. The twin 'B' turret had a crew of 60. 5/5

At the maximum elevation of 40 degrees shells could reach about 38,500 yards (19nm, 35km) At this elevation the shells would reach a maximum height of 28,000 ft. The revolving weight of the three turrets was 4,110 tons. 4/5