| USN | the
Wells Brothers' Battleship Index
|
| British (RN) | |
| Japanese (IJN) | |
| German (HSF & KM) | |
| Russian & Soviet | |
| French | |
| Italian |
Siegfried Breyer's classic volume "Battleships and Battlecruisers 1905 - 1970", has become a staple in many libraries. Breyer's work has become remarkably influential in the Internet age, and seems to be regarded by many gamers and amateurs as a definitive source. While it is famously comprehensive and extensively illustrated, the book includes many errors. I do not wish to criticize Breyer too harshly. He was doing the best he could with the information available in 1970. However, today we have the advantage of considerable research that was not available to Breyer.
| Error | Page Number (Original German) | Page Number (English Translation) | Description of the Error | Better References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Renown's Hull Bulges | 180 | 160 | The profile shows hull bulges that extend too far forward, and are tapered at the front end. The Renown's bulges had a flat front end, and end slightly forward of the guns of "A" turret. | Norman Friedman "The British Battleship 1906-1946" pg 205 R. A. Burt |
| Incomparable Deck Plan | 193 | 173 | Breyer seems to have made up the entire deck plan, out of whole cloth. The profile is relatively close to Dr. Oscar Parkes' original drawing, (which Fisher used in his own book "Records", but also indicated that it wasn't completely accurate) but I have never been able to locate a matching deck plan. I suspect that Breyer never did either. Notice that the plan of the main turrets is rather rectangular, quite unlike any British turret. I also think that the plan of the superstructure is wrong. In many cases, it doesn't even line up with the profile. Given that the Incomparable design was roughly contemporary to HMS Repulse and HMS Courageous, I strongly suspect that the superstructure plan would have been more like that on those ships. | Admiral J.A. Fisher, "Records" pg 208-209 |
| 1921 Battlecruiser Armor Belt | 194 | 173 | Breyer shows a vertical, external armor belts. While most British battleships had such belts, the 1921 Battlecruiser design (G3) the 1921 Battleship design (N3) and HMS Nelson and HMS Rodney had angled internal armor belts. | Norman Friedman "The British Battleship 1906-1946" pg 211 Raven & Roberts "British Battleships of World War Two" pg 99 |
| 1921 Battleship Plan | 195 | 174 | Breyer states that there were only "sketchy" plans for the N3 battleship, and he provides no drawing of his own. Actually, original drawings do exist, and there are relatively good statistics for these ships.
Breyer says that his suggested Saint names are "very doubtful", but I think that they are less likely even than that. The Royal Navy, to the best of my knowledge, never used such names. I speculate that Breyer made them up. Nevertheless, since the ships were never named, these names have become widely used as the only names the N3 battleships ever have. | Norman Friedman "The British Battleship 1906-1946" pg 213 Raven & Roberts "British Battleships of World War Two" pg 105 |
| Florida Bulges | 220 | 200 | The cross section of the hull bulge is wrong. Breyer's is much too round. | Norman Friedman, "US Battleships: An Illustrated Design History" pg 193 |
| Tillman Battleship Speed | 252 | 232 | In discussing the South Dakota (BB-49) class, Breyer briefly mentions the Tillman Battleships, assuming that they were a preliminary design. Well, in a way, they sort of were, but that's a long story. Anyhow, Breyer says that the maximum speed was 35 knots. The actual plans suggest that they would have had a top speed of 25.2 knots. | Norman Friedman, "US Battleships: An Illustrated Design History" pg 152-153, original USN drawings, photo S584117. |
| South Dakota (BB-57) Class Cross Section, propeller arrangement | 264 | 244 | Breyer shows the armor belts in the wrong place. They are too far inboard, and vertical instead of sloped. Also, the propeller shaft arrangement on the Alabama drawing is wrong. Breyer shows the "twin skegs" on the inboard propellers. | Norman Friedman, "US Battleships: An Illustrated Design History" pg 284 has a much better cross section. Pg 288 shows the correct propeller shaft arrangement, with the "twin skegs" on the outboard propellers. Dulin & Garzke "Battleships: United States Battleships 1935-1992" has a good cross section on pg 99. |
| Iowa Class Cross Section | 268 | 248 | The hull cross section is completely wrong. It shows a vertical, external armor belt, with World War I style quintuple torpedo bulkheads. The real Iowa-class have an armor belt mounted internally, angled at 19 degrees, and tapered. The torpedo bulkheads are completely different as well. | Norman Friedman, "US Battleships: An Illustrated Design History" pg 284 has a much better cross section. Dulin & Garzke "Battleships" United States Battleships 1935-1992" has a good cross section on pg 145. |
| Battleship Riachuelo | 345-346 | 321-322 | There probably wasn't much information on the 1914 Riachuelo project available in 1970. Breyer was lead astray by an article in the Spring 1969 issue of "Warship International" by Dr. Alan Vanterpool. I've been trying to figure out the sources of Vanterpool's misinformation, but we can be sure that his drawings and data are completely wrong for the Riachuelo. | Ian Sturton sent a letter to the editor in the following issue of "Warship International" with a correct drawing and correct statistics. David Topliss' 1988 article in "Warship International" on Brazillian Battleships in has additional correct information. |
| Sovietsky Soyuz drawing | 425 | 401 | OK, Breyer didn't have good graphical information on this one. He admitted that his drawing was something of a guess. Nobody else (except some Soviet archives) had good data at that time either. That said, there are some parts of his text description that are remarkably accurate. | Stephen McLaughlin "Russian & Soviet Battleships" pg 386-387 has a pretty good profile drawing. There are Russian sources that have good deck plans as well. |
| Soviet Battlecruiser Description | 427 | 403 | In 1970, pretty much nobody except the Soviet archives had good data on the Project 69 battlecruiser. Breyer seems to have based his description on a model seen in Leningrad. Breyer certainly got the names wrong. | Stephen McLaughlin, "Project 69: The Kronshtadt Class Battlecruisers" Warship 2006, pg 99-117 |
The author would like to thank Larry Wells for his help with editing, and his other helpful suggestions. Thanks also to Alexei Sokolov for his help obtaining several rather obscure old articles.
| Version | Date | |
| Draft 0 | 0.1 | 23 June 2020 |
Copyright ©2020 David R. Wells. All rights reserved.