You are not logged in.

61

Thursday, May 29th 2008, 5:48pm

Yes... I will make a separate thread for that instead of polluting the US battleship thread.

62

Saturday, January 3rd 2009, 6:39pm

USS South Dakota, United States Battleship laid down 1937

Displacement:
55,749 t light; 58,973 t standard; 63,460 t normal; 67,050 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(962.00 ft / 925.00 ft) x 115.00 ft x (36.00 / 37.65 ft)
(293.22 m / 281.94 m) x 35.05 m x (10.97 / 11.47 m)

Armament:
8 - 18.00" / 457 mm 47.0 cal guns - 3,850.00lbs / 1,746.33kg shells, 100 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1937 Model
4 x 2-gun mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
2 raised mounts - superfiring
20 - 5.00" / 127 mm 38.0 cal guns - 55.18lbs / 25.03kg shells, 360 per gun
Dual purpose guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1937 Model
10 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
4 raised mounts
56 - 1.10" / 27.9 mm 89.0 cal guns - 0.77lbs / 0.35kg shells, 900 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1937 Model
12 x Quad mounts on sides, evenly spread
6 raised mounts
2 x Quad mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
1 double raised mount - superfiring
16 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm 90.0 cal guns - 0.07lbs / 0.03kg shells, 1,200 per gun
Machine guns in deck mounts, 1937 Model
8 x Twin mounts on side ends, evenly spread
8 double raised mounts
Weight of broadside 31,948 lbs / 14,491 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 17.0" / 432 mm 575.35 ft / 175.37 m 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Upper: 3.00" / 76 mm 575.35 ft / 175.37 m 4.00 ft / 1.22 m
Main Belt covers 96 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
3.00" / 76 mm 575.35 ft / 175.37 m 33.95 ft / 10.35 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 108.00 ft / 32.92 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 22.0" / 559 mm 9.00" / 229 mm 17.5" / 445 mm
2nd: 2.00" / 51 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 2.00" / 51 mm
4th: 1.00" / 25 mm 0.50" / 13 mm -

- Armoured deck - single deck:
For and Aft decks: 6.75" / 171 mm
Forecastle: 2.00" / 51 mm Quarter deck: 4.00" / 102 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 18.00" / 457 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 141,612 shp / 105,643 Kw = 28.00 kts
Range 12,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 8,078 tons

Complement:
1,998 - 2,598

Cost:
£27.084 million / $108.334 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 5,014 tons, 7.9 %
- Guns: 5,014 tons, 7.9 %
Armour: 23,506 tons, 37.0 %
- Belts: 6,948 tons, 10.9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 2,168 tons, 3.4 %
- Armament: 5,237 tons, 8.3 %
- Armour Deck: 8,536 tons, 13.5 %
- Conning Tower: 617 tons, 1.0 %
Machinery: 3,925 tons, 6.2 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 22,935 tons, 36.1 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 7,711 tons, 12.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 370 tons, 0.6 %
- On freeboard deck: 220 tons
- Above deck: 150 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
95,668 lbs / 43,394 Kg = 32.8 x 18.0 " / 457 mm shells or 18.0 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
Metacentric height 7.4 ft / 2.3 m
Roll period: 17.8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 52 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.71
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.12

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.580 / 0.586
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.04 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 30.41 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 43 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 46
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 45.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 5.00 ft / 1.52 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 19.90 %, 32.00 ft / 9.75 m, 26.00 ft / 7.92 m
- Forward deck: 30.10 %, 26.00 ft / 7.92 m, 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
- Aft deck: 32.10 %, 16.00 ft / 4.88 m, 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
- Quarter deck: 17.90 %, 16.00 ft / 4.88 m, 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
- Average freeboard: 19.97 ft / 6.09 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 60.3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 134.1 %
Waterplane Area: 76,357 Square feet or 7,094 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 115 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 242 lbs/sq ft or 1,181 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.01
- Longitudinal: 0.99
- Overall: 1.00
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room

100 tons reserved for aircraft
50 tons reserved for radar
60 tons reserved for flag quarters
50 tons reserved for growth

Belt armor is composed of a 3" decapping plate, carried to main deck height as upper belt armor, backed by a 14" main belt.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Hrolf Hakonson" (Jan 3rd 2009, 6:40pm)


63

Saturday, January 3rd 2009, 8:36pm

Looks good but I'm not sure it's wise.

The US hasn't designed and built a battleship since the mid 1910s and this design is twice as big. Its rather a large jump up. It would be nice to go straight to the large design but I think it would be wiser to go for a 35-45000ton design first. Iowa with 6x18" guns?


64

Saturday, January 3rd 2009, 9:16pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
The US hasn't designed and built a battleship since the mid 1910s...

Chile's Almirante Gideon may be small, but I think she qualifies as being built in the USA...

65

Saturday, January 3rd 2009, 9:18pm

I have to agree with RA. No reason for that jump; maybe if good background information information is presented it could make sense. Maybe a four ship series armed with 16" guns will be better for now, with the last two cancelled and replaced with this design after solid news of the Japanese developments are revealed and these ships are enlarged versions of those 16" armed ships. The Japanese has already started their 18" beast IIRC but that should be only rumors akin to the ones about Japanese supercruisers in OTL.

66

Saturday, January 3rd 2009, 10:23pm

There's solid reason to believe that the Russians are rebuilding their BBs with 42cm guns, the UK is building 16.5" guns (currently as coast guns, but how long will that last), and the US historically was developing the 18"/48 Mk 1 in the early 1920s, completing it after the Washington Treaty as a high-velocity 16". Also, given the relatively close relations between Washington and Berlin, it wouldn't be a bad assumption that the USN knows something about whatever's being built in Germany.

67

Saturday, January 3rd 2009, 11:16pm

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
but that should be only rumors akin to the ones about Japanese supercruisers in OTL.


And yet the rumors of Japanese supercruisers and pocket battleships are what got the Alaskas built

I'm falling short of the logic in requiring the USN to build 'medium' ships when it has a vested interest in producing ships capable of meeting it's contemporaries on equal or better footing; building a class of ships designed to deal with ships from 5 years ago instead of what's being built, or will be built doesn't seem to be the wisest course of action. The policy Canis went with and Hrolf followed of not building anything until now means that that kind of leapfrogging is what's needed, unless political considerations get involved.

it's also worth remembering that the 6 Tennesee/Colorados are getting a 16" upgunning and speed boost, filling that gap somewhat, in addition to the lexington's getting a similar modernization.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "ShinRa_Inc" (Jan 3rd 2009, 11:19pm)


68

Saturday, January 3rd 2009, 11:31pm

I don't see a problem with the USN going big; why not? All Hrolf's points are valid.

Let's not forget that even the rumors of the Japanese supercruisers tempted the USN to build two Alaskas, work on a third, and plan for three more! As to expertise, they've built the Almirante Gideon within the last ten years, giving them somewhat modern insights on armour, protection, etc; they've got even more recent experience from the 12x8" heavy cruisers for gun directors and such; and now they're regunning all of the Big Five. I don't see how that translates into an automatic loss of shipbuilding skill regarding battleships. Sure, new stuff has to be relearned, but that's true for any new warship.

(And ShinRa beat me to posting and covered all the points I wanted to touch on.)

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Brockpaine" (Jan 3rd 2009, 11:33pm)


69

Sunday, January 4th 2009, 12:21am

Its the size jump, i.e. doubling the previously build vessels from two decades ago more than the calibre. It makes no sense to develop a new 16" gun when the 18" is developed which is why I suggested a moderately sized ship with 18" guns. Either fast with not much armour, or slow with more armour.

If theres no problems in going to the larger ship then why not go further to 100,000tons with 12x20" guns in order to match anything possible?

70

Sunday, January 4th 2009, 1:22am

On the whole I don't see any issues with the U.S. seeking a battleship in the 50,000 ton range.

I do however agree that there is the possibility that some building knowledge would be lost due to the lack of experience. Almirante Gideon really only gains moderate experience over the Tennessee class on a smaller hull.

I'd expect the U.S. to go with numbers, both in hulls and guns, like they did historically but thats just me. I'd find more use in a 48,000 ton design with 9-12x16" and 30 knots speed.

71

Sunday, January 4th 2009, 11:28am

This is a monster! I can see justifications for 18in if that was Naval Intel thinks is being made in Japan for her new battleships. The time it takes to build a battleship means you can't afford to skimp and build a class of 16in gunned ships and then while they are building Japan's ships are completed and they trump yours by a large margin. Then you either modify the ships on the slips or finish them and build a new class which takes you into the late 1940s before you get any 18in armed ships at all.

Even so is an 18in gun really superior to a 16in? 18in has blast problems which influences the design further (ie I don't want to be the gunner in one of the those 1.1in AA guns when those 18in guns fire!)

The RN is looking at the possibilty of the 16.5in gun entering service on a replacement class for the QEs.

72

Sunday, January 4th 2009, 11:35am

Historically, US battleship doctrine emphasised firepower and armor over speed, the Iowas were, if anything, an aberration in US design philosophy. Think USS Montana, not USS Iowa.

Sure, a country could build a 100,000 ton ship, but since it wouldn't be completed for 9 years, there's little to no point. Given the lack of new ships in the USN inventory, such a delay is intolerable.

How difficult it would be for a country to make such a leap is also questionable: consider the historical IJN Yamato. She was almost twice the size of the preceding completed ships of the Nagato class, yet she was completed with no particular difficulties.

73

Sunday, January 4th 2009, 11:37am

Quoted

Even so is an 18in gun really superior to a 16in?


The RN and USN played around with the 18" a lot but both preferred the 16" as a better compromise. There are fairly hard limits to the thickness of vertical armour and you've also got to ask what happens when you don't hit armour?

74

Sunday, January 4th 2009, 11:41am

Is the 18" superior to the 16"? Yes, but by a decreasing amount than the 16" is superior to the 14". This is the reason that historically the Montana class design went with a 16" mounting rather than a 18" mount, along with the fact that the 16"/50 was already in the pipeline for the Iowas and would be available sooner.

Here in WW, there's an additional political consideration pushing the USN towards a larger gun: the USN went through the Cleito period with the smallest main battery of the major powers, using 14" guns rather than the 15" guns of the other powers. There's a strong push on political lines not to allow that to happen again.

75

Sunday, January 4th 2009, 12:54pm

Here's a proposed 18" Iowa....



USS Iowa, United States Battleship laid down 1937

Displacement:
49,253 t light; 51,852 t standard; 55,987 t normal; 59,295 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(937.00 ft / 900.00 ft) x 108.00 ft x (36.00 / 37.69 ft)
(285.60 m / 274.32 m) x 32.92 m x (10.97 / 11.49 m)

Armament:
6 - 18.00" / 457 mm 47.0 cal guns - 3,850.00lbs / 1,746.33kg shells, 100 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1937 Model
3 x 2-gun mounts on centreline ends, majority forward
1 raised mount - superfiring
16 - 5.00" / 127 mm 38.0 cal guns - 55.18lbs / 25.03kg shells, 360 per gun
Dual purpose guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1937 Model
8 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
4 raised mounts
48 - 1.10" / 27.9 mm 89.0 cal guns - 0.77lbs / 0.35kg shells, 900 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1937 Model
10 x Quad mounts on sides, evenly spread
6 raised mounts
2 x Quad mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
1 double raised mount - superfiring
16 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm 90.0 cal guns - 0.07lbs / 0.03kg shells, 1,200 per gun
Machine guns in deck mounts, 1937 Model
8 x Twin mounts on side ends, evenly spread
8 double raised mounts
Weight of broadside 24,021 lbs / 10,896 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 16.0" / 406 mm 585.00 ft / 178.31 m 15.00 ft / 4.57 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Upper: 3.00" / 76 mm 585.00 ft / 178.31 m 3.00 ft / 0.91 m
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
2.00" / 51 mm 585.00 ft / 178.31 m 33.63 ft / 10.25 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 101.00 ft / 30.78 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 20.0" / 508 mm 8.00" / 203 mm 16.0" / 406 mm
2nd: 2.00" / 51 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 2.00" / 51 mm
4th: 1.00" / 25 mm 0.50" / 13 mm -

- Armoured deck - single deck:
For and Aft decks: 6.25" / 159 mm
Forecastle: 2.00" / 51 mm Quarter deck: 4.00" / 102 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 16.00" / 406 mm, Aft 3.00" / 76 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 218,326 shp / 162,871 Kw = 32.00 kts
Range 12,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 7,443 tons

Complement:
1,819 - 2,365

Cost:
£24.137 million / $96.549 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 3,775 tons, 6.7 %
- Guns: 3,775 tons, 6.7 %
Armour: 19,149 tons, 34.2 %
- Belts: 6,119 tons, 10.9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,456 tons, 2.6 %
- Armament: 3,755 tons, 6.7 %
- Armour Deck: 7,220 tons, 12.9 %
- Conning Towers: 599 tons, 1.1 %
Machinery: 6,051 tons, 10.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 20,048 tons, 35.8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 6,734 tons, 12.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 230 tons, 0.4 %
- On freeboard deck: 180 tons
- Above deck: 50 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
79,552 lbs / 36,084 Kg = 27.3 x 18.0 " / 457 mm shells or 11.9 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.13
Metacentric height 7.1 ft / 2.2 m
Roll period: 17.0 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 51 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.71
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.10

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.560 / 0.566
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.33 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 30.00 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 50 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 46
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 45.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 5.00 ft / 1.52 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 32.00 ft / 9.75 m, 26.00 ft / 7.92 m
- Forward deck: 30.10 %, 26.00 ft / 7.92 m, 21.00 ft / 6.40 m
- Aft deck: 34.90 %, 21.00 ft / 6.40 m, 21.00 ft / 6.40 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 21.00 ft / 6.40 m, 21.00 ft / 6.40 m
- Average freeboard: 23.23 ft / 7.08 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 70.9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 158.9 %
Waterplane Area: 68,474 Square feet or 6,361 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 114 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 220 lbs/sq ft or 1,076 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.98
- Longitudinal: 1.19
- Overall: 1.00
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room

100 tons reserved for aircraft
50 tons reserved for radar
80 tons reserved for growth

Belt armor is composed of a 3" decapping plate, backed by a 13" main belt. The upper belt is an extension of the decapping plate

76

Sunday, January 4th 2009, 3:56pm

It was more of a rhetorical question! :P

I think 16in will suffice, too few 18in have been used or even fired (in WW as well as OTL) to really study the problems. Its not just a case of upsizing the calibre as the Admiralty found out. It worked going from 13.5 to 15in but not 15in to 18in.

NATO may well need the support of big battleships as part of a core force and thus politically there is a need for ships of this size. If the USN and RN built four or five 50,000 ton 18in armed ships each then NATO would lead the world.

77

Thursday, January 8th 2009, 1:47am

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
I agree, the USN needs to go back to organized naming conventions (And naming ships after living people is a no-no regardless....)

Luckily, they won't name a Sub after Clinton, so no poor sailor will have to go down on the Slick Willy....


I do not have anything meaningful to add. But this was just too funny, I did not laugh this hard in some time