--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 6/20/14, Richard Aiken <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [TML] Ship Design & the 'Plankwells'
 To: xxxxxx@simplelists.com
 Date: Friday, June 20, 2014, 3:43 AM

 On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 1:17
 AM, Rupert Boleyn <xxxxxx@gmail.com>
 wrote:

 On 20/06/2014 07:42, Kurt Feltenberger
 wrote:

 On 6/19/2014 3:32 PM, Phil Pugliese (via tml list) wrote:

 Hadn't read that, thanks for the info.

 So, in the end, we're back to the old axiom that
 there's no precaution

 that a dedicated human being can't bypass!

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

 Pretty much so.  In the end, it was a training and doctrine
 issue; the

 doctrine focused on firing as fast as possible as opposed to
 accuracy

 and then ignoring the safety training that they had all been
 trained to

 follow.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Given director control and automated firing (to allow for
 the ship's roll), highest loading speed possible would
 have a negligible effect on accuracy ('merely' on
 safety).
 I suspect that blocking open the doors and
 hatches might also have been a consequence of insufficient
 manpower. Following the proscribed safety rules with small
 loading crew (one too small to delegate someone to stand by
 each door and hatch, to open/close it in a timely manner)
 would have certainly impacted rate of fire.

 And . . . I just have to say this . . .
 weren't the French picked on by the British, for
 regarding high speed [sufficient to dodge - e.g. run away
 from - incoming rounds] as equivalent to heavy armor?
 :P

 --
 Richard Aiken

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I recall reading somewhere, the French apparently stuck w/ the idea, & the Italians copied it up from them, w/ the designs of their 'Treaty' BB's 'tween the 'Wars'.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------