MVictorP wrote:
Huh? This makes no sense. Are ou sure you're not being just overly argumentative here?
It makes a great deal of sense.
At the epoch we talk about (after WWI), added bulges were revealed as non-efficient, not so much against torpedoes but even as such, its was a form of TDS that was retrofitted to existing ships, that couldn't afford a contemporary TDS (that is, bulkheads built into the hull).
Topedo bulges were fitted because in many cases it simply wasn't possible to refit a TDS into a battleship that wasn't designed with one. However you will note that the Ganguts had torpedo bulkheads fitted before the torpedo bulges and on more of the class. By itself a torpdo bulkhead doesn't really prevent torpedo damage it may tend to moderate it. As part of an overall TDS they do indeed play a role but they don't constitute a TDS in and of themselves.
Oh, not all TDS were equal, no doubts about that. But still, in WWII torpedo bulkheads were still the best defense a ship could afford against fish.
That may be but that doesn't mean they were a TDS. Again look at the article and what TDS were designed to do. I'll even quote it for you:
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-047.htm
Designers also determined a TDS needed to fulfill the following basic requirements:
A) It must absorb the overpressure of the gas bubble generated by the explosion.
B) It must arrest the fragments of the warhead and the ship’s own structure formed by the explosion.
C) It must prevent the protected compartment inboard of the system from flooding.
Note that it goes on to say:
...
C) Armored bulkheads were required to prevent fragments from penetrating the system. Also, a properly elastic armored bulkhead acted as a tough membrane for depleting the gas overpressure bubble.
...E) Inboard flooding was best prevented by placing an unpierced holding bulkhead as far as possible from the side shell.
...
I.e. a torpedo bulkhead doesn't comprise a TDS. It will be part of most TDS's but by itself it simply doesn't cut it. In particular it doesn't meet the defition of the third word abbreviated in the term TDS, it's not a system.
The twins would have required extensive modification to allow them to carry 15" guns and note that that would mean that they had the same number and caliber guns as the British Battlecruisers Renown and Revenge.
Yeah, well, I always kind of figured that the twins' weight would go up when modified with 15-inchers, but I figured ship's design permitted the switch more easily, a bit like some US BBs could switch from triple 14-inchers to twin 16.
Which US ships were those?
The Scharnhorsts which are more like enlarged Panzerchiffen than miniature Bismarcks, and it shows here.
???? How so?
Their armor scheme was closer to Bismarck.
Their propulsion was closer to Bismarck.
They had real TDS's.
Their displacement was closer to Bismarck.
They were rated battleships like Bismarck.
The only thing I can see that they had much in common with the German cruisers was the caliber of the armament and the number of guns in the turret although they didn't even use the same guns or turrets.