Talk:N3-class battleship

Untitled

Do we know what they would have looked like? Drutt 00:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

something like this Emoscopes ^Talk 06:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Do we know how much ammo they were to carry? #torpedoes? Trekphiler 01:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• FWIW at this late date: Antony Preston and John Batchelor, "Battleships 1855-1977," Chartwell Books (Phoebus Publishing Co., London, 1977) has some line drawings of the deck and side views of the G3 BC and N3 BB classes. (N3 and N4 drawings on page 69, chapter 'Cut Down By Washington') Apparently they would have looked like large versions of the Nelson and Rodney. Naaman Brown (talk) 14:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

N₃ Malarkey

There should really be a source for the subscripting of the "3". I've never seen a source name the class in such a manner, and the same goes for all the planned designs Harlsbottom (talk) 13:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The subscript may be like some anomalous spellings: an artifact of the word processor used by a poster. Some software automatically subscripts numbers after letters (G₃ and N₃ ship class) and superscripts letters after numbers (125^th Precinct) irregardless of preferred usage. One example was an article on cavalry hero 'Lighthorse' Lee posted elsewhere as 'Lighthouse' Lee at the whim of the spell checker software. It is better for the BP to be amused rather than annoyed.Naaman Brown (talk) 14:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Armament

In the table of general characteristics the BL 6 inch guns are linked to the page about the BL 6 inch Mk. XII. These ships would have been fitted with the same weapons as the G3's/Nelson class. ie. BL 6 in Mk. XXII. Additonally the guns were a true 6" 152.4mm and not 150mm as shown in the table.

The 4.7 inch is linked to the page for the BL (bag loading) 4.7 inch Mk. I & Mk. II guns. The 4.7 inch guns planned for these ships were specially designed as anti-aircraft guns and were quick-firers QF Mk. VIII as fitted in the Nelson class. (By the time these ships were being designed the Royal Navy denoted cased propellant as being QF and propellant in cloth bags as BL) It's not possible to operate a bag loading gun at high angles as the bags of cordite will fall out of the breach before it is closed, that is why all high angle AA guns have cartridge cases and are described as QF. The only way to get around this would be to depress the gun after firing and elevate it again after loading - this would greatly reduce the rate of fire.

The Mk. 'M' pom-poms are shown on the plans of the G3's as 4 moounts each with 10 barrels. The legend for both the G3's and N3's make allowance for sufficient ammunition for 40 barrels. Although the Mk. 'M' pom-pom went into service with 8 barrels at the time these ships and the G3's were designed the plan was for each mount to have 10 barrels.

I corrected this table previously but someone decided to alter it back to the incorrect details! 86.112.42.34 (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Background

From line 10 of the background - "A pair of designs were prepared in June 1920, derived from the U-4 battleship design of 1914"

I have no idea where the author found this information. As is published by Campbell and others, the cover for the G3 at Woolwich and the papers at Kew all start in 1919 and the very first reference is to a design described as 'I' (I think letter I was intended - but Campbell in his article in Warship describes them as 1 as in number one). (The armament papers do start at the very end of 1918 but more as a discussion of what they were likely to be up against rather than what they actually intended to build).

The U4 was a design for an improved shallow draft 'Queen Elizabeth' which was eventually developed into the Hood or as they have been called more recently Admiral class. Everything I have seen in the papers for the G3s and N3s suggests that the Hood was seen as the end of one line of development and the 1919-1922 designs as a fresh start. I have NEVER seen any reference in those papers to the U4 design, only numerous references to Hood, all of which suggest how outdated it was considered even in 1919.

The only major carry overs from Hood were the machinery plant (only because the Engineer in Chief managed to block the Constructors) and the sloping armour belt (which the Constructors did not like but could not come up with a better solution). There were a lot of shared smaller details with the Hood class, rudder, ventillators, masts etc. But everything I have seen (over a very long period of research) suggests that this was considered as, and was, a completely fresh start. Perhaps even more than the Dreadnought in 1906. 81.102.117.235 (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)