WesWorld

USN 1942

Capital Units

With the Montana's nearing completion, the USN once again in 1942 began thinking on capital units, specifically for its Atlantic Fleet. Upon completion, the USN was planning on moving the Montana's to the Pacific Fleet, and moving the New Mexico's to the Atlantic Fleet, thereby keeping all the 14in ships and 16in ships together.

However, USS Texas, would be 14 years since her last refit when the Montana's completed, and the Nevada's and Pennsylvania's would both be 12 and 11 years since their previous refits. The USN therefore could either build 3 new battleships of the type below over the following 8 years of the 1940's and refit the New Mexico's, selling or scrapping the Texas, Nevada's and Pennsylvania's or refit the ships she currently has. However, other considerations were deemed more important, namely that an the current USN battleline was more than sufficient for the task set before it, so instead of a new battleship or refitted one the USN would get another carrier.

Carriers

With the laying down of the Bonhomne Richard, the USN more or less formally annouced to the world her plans of abandoning the big gun battleship in favour of the new, untried weapon of the aircraft carrier. No more battleships were likely to be build though several promising designs had been brought forward. In the end, it was budgetary considerations that would make the USS Essex Class the most hated ships of all time in the USN, for they would be forced to settle for a lesser ship rather than the ship they really wanted.

USS Essex, United States Aircraft Carrier laid down 1941

Displacement:
28,484 t light; 29,342 t standard; 32,775 t normal; 35,523 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
871.74 ft / 820.00 ft x 93.00 ft x 27.50 ft (normal load)
265.71 m / 249.94 m x 28.35 m x 8.38 m

Armament:
8 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns (4x2 guns), 55.18lbs / 25.03kg shells, 1941 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns in single mounts, 55.18lbs / 25.03kg shells, 1941 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
48 - 1.10" / 27.9 mm guns (6x8 guns), 0.66lbs / 0.30kg shells, 1941 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
48 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm guns (6x8 guns), 0.06lbs / 0.03kg shells, 1941 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 917 lbs / 416 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 350

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 4.00" / 102 mm 535.28 ft / 163.15 m 11.57 ft / 3.53 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
2.75" / 70 mm 535.28 ft / 163.15 m 26.18 ft / 7.98 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 3.00" / 76 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 2.00" / 51 mm
2nd: 3.00" / 76 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 2.00" / 51 mm
3rd: 1.00" / 25 mm 0.50" / 13 mm -
4th: 1.00" / 25 mm 0.50" / 13 mm -

- Armour deck: 2.50" / 64 mm, Conning tower: 3.00" / 76 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 159,075 shp / 118,670 Kw = 33.00 kts
Range 15,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 6,181 tons

Complement:
1,217 - 1,583

Cost:
£10.473 million / $41.892 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 129 tons, 0.4 %
Armour: 5,211 tons, 15.9 %
- Belts: 1,044 tons, 3.2 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,426 tons, 4.4 %
- Armament: 119 tons, 0.4 %
- Armour Deck: 2,555 tons, 7.8 %
- Conning Tower: 66 tons, 0.2 %
Machinery: 4,204 tons, 12.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 10,440 tons, 31.9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4,292 tons, 13.1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 8,500 tons, 25.9 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
56,041 lbs / 25,420 Kg = 896.7 x 5.0 " / 127 mm shells or 8.0 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.12
Metacentric height 5.6 ft / 1.7 m
Roll period: 16.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 67 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.08
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.48

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.547
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.82 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 32.83 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 45
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 30.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 35.00 ft / 10.67 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 29.00 ft / 8.84 m
- Forecastle (30 %): 29.00 ft / 8.84 m
- Mid (50 %): 29.00 ft / 8.84 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 29.00 ft / 8.84 m
- Stern: 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Average freeboard: 28.55 ft / 8.70 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 94.3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 250.8 %
Waterplane Area: 55,249 Square feet or 5,133 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 142 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 128 lbs/sq ft or 627 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.97
- Longitudinal: 1.25
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

91 aircraft carried

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian
In the end, it was budgetary considerations that would make the USS Essex Class the most hated ships of all time in the USN, for they would be forced to settle for a lesser ship rather than the ship they really wanted.

Looks like an excellent design to me. I approve of it.

The Essex looks to be a good balanced design, and one that can be in service in little more than thirty four months. The essence of good design is compromise.

I still hate it though.

Maybe I shall just go chop some big hole in her to prove how awful they are.

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian
Maybe I shall just go chop some big hole in her to prove how awful they are.

That won't prove anything aside from establishing that you're willing to chop a big hole in a brand new ship just to show your spite.

More like my intense dislike of the Essex Class.

If you hate it so much, then build something else you won't moan about. Nobody's twisting your arm to build the historical ship.

Its all in how you see it, Brock. I get told " you can't build this, you can't build that you must build this."

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian
Its all in how you see it, Brock. I get told " you can't build this, you can't build that you must build this."

For crying out loud.

You're the American player. You're the one responsible for them. Not me, not anyone else - YOU. Put some steel in your spine and take responsibility for yourself. If people tell you "You must build this or that", say "Thank you for your advice, but this is my responsibility and I have determined to do things this way." Stop throwing a five year old's snit-fit and be a man.

Might not be the nicest way to say this, but tough love, baby.

Exactly, Im the American player so if I want to ram my brand spanking new carrier which is a piece of crap full tilt into Long Island full tilt I can darn well do so!

Hmm, my pet peeve button got pushed...

I understand the Canadian's POV. I've both experienced, and seen others say "you can't build that, you want to build something like this..." which tends to be immensely frustrating advice, and is oft poorly supported.

However, simply ignoring that advice and plowing ahead also can lead to issues because it's often based in something.

Examples of all sorts are easy to put forward :
From RA's comments on my sloops and their hull str/Armanent, also on those were the arguments if they could use the 0.5 rule- despite pointing to the rule.... but there have been others - Foxxy's multirole carrier/cruisers- RA's hydrofoils and forward throwing ASW mortars, Persia's B-17 copies, Several of the HEBCO discussions.

In short, if folks complain about the feedback they are getting, perhaps the proper response is for the rest of us to try to be more definitive as to why a potential design is flawed or not advisable, while recognizing that ultimately, it's the player's perogative to build something inherently flawed.

Well speaking for myself (theres only one hybrid ccarrier btw), I like building deliberately flawed ships, because the real world is not perfect. No ship in real life was ever perfect.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
Well speaking for myself (theres only one hybrid ccarrier btw), I like building deliberately flawed ships, because the real world is not perfect. No ship in real life was ever perfect.

Perhaps some news items highlighting the lack of perfection would be good for the sim.

Thanks for volunteering! (:

You can build something you hate, but it seems a waste to do so. And if you hate it so much, then Japan's willing to buy the class from you.

You should just look at the aspect(s) you dislike and change that. Maybe you'll end up with something like the USS Midway...
... or you'll end up with something like the USS Fletcher.

You mentioned "91 aircraft carried:. Is that 91 operational planes or are there spare planes in that number as well?

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian
Its all in how you see it, Brock. I get told " you can't build this, you can't build that you must build this."

I don't think anyone has laid it down in those stark terms. My comments tend to fall into a few areas; pointing out potential problems in designs, comparing with historical ships when SS is giving duff results, and trying to understand the rationale for designs.

It's probably the last that is one of the most important. If this is just a game then people can build whatever they want. If this is more like (very) alternate history, then there really have to be drivers for why things are different. Personally, I'm more in the latter camp; which is why there tends to be rationale and explanation behind Italian developments.

A common area for multiple countries is the development of large calibre automatic weapons. I'm sorry chaps but they simply didn't work in this period. Embarking on a lengthy development process with occassional news items isn't going to change that. It's late 50s before any reasonable reliability rates happen - and yet various weapons have been in service in various Navies for years here without issues.

Second comment is on the USN approach and the choice of not building any further battleships; this actually seems to make quite good sense. Deploying the Montana Class to the West coast nicely firms up that fleet and gives ten powerful battleships. The ships left on the East coast are rapidly approaching obsolescence, or past it, but what's the threat in that direction? Rapprochement with Iberia, Alliances with Canada, Britain and Atlantis - it's difficult to see the arguement for expensive spending on a new class of battleships for the task.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
and yet various weapons have been in service in various Navies for years here without issues.

None have seen combat yet, either, which is where those issues would really be born out.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
A common area for multiple countries is the development of large calibre automatic weapons. I'm sorry chaps but they simply didn't work in this period. Embarking on a lengthy development process with occassional news items isn't going to change that. It's late 50s before any reasonable reliability rates happen - and yet various weapons have been in service in various Navies for years here without issues.

While not exactly what you're referring to, I find the use of heavy DP mounts (>5") kind of wonky as well. I got stuck with the Greek 6" DP mounts on the Lysandros class, but they're the only class that will carry them, and when refit they will be removed and replaced with 5" DP. History shows, even if we wouldn't know it yet, that 1940's tech cannot support larger caliber DP mounts.

Quoted

You can build something you hate, but it seems a waste to do so. And if you hate it so much, then Japan's willing to buy the class from you.

I am quite sure they are, but I don't dislike the class that much.

Quoted

You mentioned "91 aircraft carried:. Is that 91 operational planes or are there spare planes in that number as well?

Its based off the numbers I got out of Conway's therefore there are 36 fighters, 37 dive bombers, and 18 torpedo bombers.

Quoted

If this is more like (very) alternate history, then there really have to be drivers for why things are different. Personally, I'm more in the latter camp; which is why there tends to be rationale and explanation behind Italian developments.

And thats the problem, the drivers in my opinion point either to Essex as an improved Yorktown/Hornet or to some sort of psuedo Midway clone, with the armour of Illustrious and the airgroup of Essex. The latter would be if the US wishes to expand its influence in the Far East, and forsees a potential conflict of interest with a power that has large amounts of land-based air and the carrier in question is required to operate far from its own base. That carrier is expensive though-too expensive, so I either get carriers in 44 which I don't like, or carriers in 46 which I do. For practical reasons I am going to go with the carriers I don't like now, and build the carriers I do like later.

Quoted

A common area for multiple countries is the development of large calibre automatic weapons.

And you can add the US to that list, I am going to go with the historical dates on those ones though, with development beginning in 37, and being placed on a Des Moines clone in 45, though I may push that ahead if everyone and their grandmother has auto 8in being laid down in 43.

Quoted

Second comment is on the USN approach and the choice of not building any further battleships; this actually seems to make quite good sense. Deploying the Montana Class to the West coast nicely firms up that fleet and gives ten powerful battleships. The ships left on the East coast are rapidly approaching obsolescence, or past it, but what's the threat in that direction? Rapprochement with Iberia, Alliances with Canada, Britain and Atlantis - it's difficult to see the arguement for expensive spending on a new class of battleships for the task.

Well, the Class I was considering for the Atlantic weren't anything spectacular, nor where they all that expensive. And things aren't totally set in stone, I may reenter the battleship game just at a later date.

If we go from the beginning of the refit, and presuming its 15 years, then Texas begins downgrading in effectiveness in 1943, the Nevada's in 1945, the Pennsylvania's in 46, and the New Mexico's in 49. Thats close enough to the presumed end of the game that I can hold off on replacing all of them save Texas, and if we decide to move on then I may even stick 10in on the last 4 Los Angeles Class Cruisers that have yet to be laid down and have them replace the old battleships, or I could build them as they were originally designed and build 3 of the ships posted below, I am leaving options open at the moment until I see what everyone else does, the drivers for refitting the old ships, replacing them with 10in cruisers, or 3 of the ships below, and selling the old Five are in my mind more or less the same.

By the way, the following is the ship that got axed in favour of 2 Essex's instead of 1 of these and an Essex.

New Jersey, United States Battleship laid down 1942

Displacement:
30,009 t light; 31,507 t standard; 34,320 t normal; 36,570 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
717.36 ft / 700.00 ft x 98.00 ft (Bulges 104.00 ft) x 33.00 ft (normal load)
218.65 m / 213.36 m x 29.87 m (Bulges 31.70 m) x 10.06 m

Armament:
9 - 14.00" / 356 mm guns (3x3 guns), 1,500.00lbs / 680.39kg shells, 1942 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
16 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns (8x2 guns), 55.12lbs / 25.00kg shells, 1942 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
48 - 1.10" / 27.9 mm guns (6x8 guns), 0.67lbs / 0.30kg shells, 1942 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 14,414 lbs / 6,538 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 100

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 15.0" / 381 mm 414.54 ft / 126.35 m 11.88 ft / 3.62 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 91 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges:
2.50" / 64 mm 414.54 ft / 126.35 m 29.04 ft / 8.85 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 14.0" / 356 mm 8.00" / 203 mm 14.0" / 356 mm
2nd: 2.00" / 51 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 2.00" / 51 mm

- Armour deck: 5.50" / 140 mm, Conning tower: 15.00" / 381 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 89,379 shp / 66,676 Kw = 28.00 kts
Range 12,500nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 5,063 tons

Complement:
1,259 - 1,638

Cost:
£17.704 million / $70.817 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,672 tons, 4.9 %
Armour: 12,255 tons, 35.7 %
- Belts: 3,236 tons, 9.4 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,114 tons, 3.2 %
- Armament: 2,728 tons, 7.9 %
- Armour Deck: 4,836 tons, 14.1 %
- Conning Tower: 341 tons, 1.0 %
Machinery: 2,335 tons, 6.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 13,546 tons, 39.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4,311 tons, 12.6 %
Miscellaneous weights: 200 tons, 0.6 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
53,449 lbs / 24,244 Kg = 39.0 x 14.0 " / 356 mm shells or 9.9 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.09
Metacentric height 5.8 ft / 1.8 m
Roll period: 18.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 62 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.55
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.23

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.500
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.73 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 31.23 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 51 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 19.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 6.00 ft / 1.83 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 33.00 ft / 10.06 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Mid (50 %): 19.00 ft / 5.79 m
- Quarterdeck (20 %): 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Stern: 24.00 ft / 7.32 m
- Average freeboard: 21.71 ft / 6.62 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 75.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 143.8 %
Waterplane Area: 47,531 Square feet or 4,416 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 113 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 198 lbs/sq ft or 965 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.95
- Longitudinal: 1.66
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Quoted

And thats the problem, the drivers in my opinion point either to Essex as an improved Yorktown/Hornet or to some sort of psuedo Midway clone, with the armour of Illustrious and the airgroup of Essex. The latter would be if the US wishes to expand its influence in the Far East, and forsees a potential conflict of interest with a power that has large amounts of land-based air and the carrier in question is required to operate far from its own base.

I would remain to be convinced on that issue. In the Pacific, the US is faced with the IJN as the only major naval power. Sure, China and the Philipines have some capital ships, but Japan is the only one with significant power projection capability. One would say that the IJN here isn't really that different to the historical one in makeup although the ships are different and there's more of them. Alongside this, the allied (or semi-allied) navies of Canada, Australia, France, Netherlands in the region are considerably more powerful than historical.

I don't believe Japan has much larger or more potent land-based air than OTL and these units are constrained by distance. The Pacific is a big place and naval units are going to dominate a campaign.

So really, it's difficult to see the drivers for not going to the historical (or near that) Essex Class. Sure, the ships are a compromise, but everything is. I wouldn't expect the USN to churn out 20-odd of the class over the next few years, but would expect that design generation to happen before moving onto the next generation of ships.

I'm not convinced by the 9x14" ship. It's fairly cheap in terms of tonnage, but in reality almost as much as Montana to build, crew and run.