WesWorld

(Adjusted the catapult tonnage)
I'm not entirely sure if I want to build these or not, consider them design proposals for post FY24 for the USN. The plan would be to build a pair of New Ironsides and six Passaics which would exactly equal 40,000 tons. This would use the twelve 12" turrets salvaged from the Arkansas (now a target) and the Wyoming (scrapped).

USS New Ironsides, United States Monitor laid down 1926

Displacement:
7,400 t light; 7,895 t standard; 8,023 t normal; 8,126 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
384.13 ft / 380.00 ft x 77.90 ft x 18.00 ft (normal load)
117.08 m / 115.82 m x 23.74 m x 5.49 m

Armament:
6 - 12.00" / 305 mm guns (3x2 guns), 864.00lbs / 391.90kg shells, 1911 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
10 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns in single mounts, 62.50lbs / 28.35kg shells, 1926 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships
4 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm guns in single mounts, 13.50lbs / 6.12kg shells, 1926 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships
Weight of broadside 5,863 lbs / 2,659 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 100
4 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 11.0" / 279 mm 188.00 ft / 57.30 m 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 76 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 11.0" / 279 mm 7.00" / 178 mm 10.0" / 254 mm

- Armour deck: 2.00" / 51 mm, Conning tower: 11.00" / 279 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 5,025 shp / 3,749 Kw = 15.00 kts
Range 2,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 231 tons

Complement:
423 - 551

Cost:
£3.099 million / $12.397 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 733 tons, 9.1 %
Armour: 2,733 tons, 34.1 %
- Belts: 1,008 tons, 12.6 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 882 tons, 11.0 %
- Armour Deck: 748 tons, 9.3 %
- Conning Tower: 95 tons, 1.2 %
Machinery: 161 tons, 2.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,723 tons, 46.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 623 tons, 7.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 50 tons, 0.6 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
8,958 lbs / 4,063 Kg = 10.4 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 2.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.01
Metacentric height 3.5 ft / 1.1 m
Roll period: 17.5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.46
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.01

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.527
Length to Beam Ratio: 4.88 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 19.49 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 37 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 70
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 16.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 14.40 ft / 4.39 m
- Forecastle (22 %): 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
- Mid (50 %): 9.50 ft / 2.90 m
- Quarterdeck (12 %): 9.50 ft / 2.90 m
- Stern: 9.50 ft / 2.90 m
- Average freeboard: 10.07 ft / 3.07 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 75.8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 79.3 %
Waterplane Area: 20,220 Square feet or 1,878 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 89 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 151 lbs/sq ft or 739 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.95
- Longitudinal: 1.60
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform


USS Passaic, United States Monitor laid down 1924

Displacement:
3,801 t light; 4,025 t standard; 4,091 t normal; 4,143 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
332.00 ft / 332.00 ft x 60.40 ft x 14.00 ft (normal load)
101.19 m / 101.19 m x 18.41 m x 4.27 m

Armament:
2 - 12.00" / 305 mm guns (1x2 guns), 864.00lbs / 391.90kg shells, 1911 Model
Breech loading guns in a turret (on a barbette)
on centreline forward
10 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns in single mounts, 62.50lbs / 28.35kg shells, 1924 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships
4 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm guns in single mounts, 13.50lbs / 6.12kg shells, 1924 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 2,407 lbs / 1,092 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 100
4 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm submerged torpedo tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 11.0" / 279 mm 156.00 ft / 47.55 m 9.00 ft / 2.74 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 72 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 11.0" / 279 mm 6.00" / 152 mm 10.0" / 254 mm

- Armour deck: 2.00" / 51 mm, Conning tower: 11.00" / 279 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 3,392 shp / 2,531 Kw = 15.00 kts
Range 1,500nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 119 tons

Complement:
255 - 332

Cost:
£1.240 million / $4.962 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 301 tons, 7.4 %
Armour: 1,551 tons, 37.9 %
- Belts: 748 tons, 18.3 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 244 tons, 6.0 %
- Armour Deck: 499 tons, 12.2 %
- Conning Tower: 61 tons, 1.5 %
Machinery: 111 tons, 2.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 1,788 tons, 43.7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 289 tons, 7.1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 50 tons, 1.2 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
5,286 lbs / 2,398 Kg = 6.1 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 1.7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.16
Metacentric height 3.1 ft / 0.9 m
Roll period: 14.5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.31
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.02

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.510
Length to Beam Ratio: 5.50 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 18.22 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 38 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 68
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 12.00 ft / 3.66 m
- Forecastle (24 %): 7.80 ft / 2.38 m
- Mid (50 %): 7.80 ft / 2.38 m
- Quarterdeck (20 %): 7.80 ft / 2.38 m
- Stern: 7.80 ft / 2.38 m
- Average freeboard: 8.20 ft / 2.50 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 71.9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 78.6 %
Waterplane Area: 13,483 Square feet or 1,253 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 97 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 108 lbs/sq ft or 528 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.96
- Longitudinal: 1.46
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK!

I'll have to skim through the treay again but I think the first design is not possible under the current CT rules because she has more than 4 main guns.

Otherwise I think they are neat designs!

The treaty only mentions maximum caliber of 12", not the number of weapons.

Another alternative would be five of these. They're capable of fleet speed, 21 kts, and are more seaworthy than monitors. I'd loose two turrets, but I think their speed will make up for it. They've got longer legs as well.

USS Oregon, United States Coast Defense Battleship laid down 1926

Displacement:
7,588 t light; 7,988 t standard; 8,161 t normal; 8,299 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
380.00 ft / 380.00 ft x 72.00 ft x 20.00 ft (normal load)
115.82 m / 115.82 m x 21.95 m x 6.10 m

Armament:
4 - 12.00" / 305 mm guns (2x2 guns), 864.00lbs / 391.90kg shells, 1911 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread
10 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns in single mounts, 62.50lbs / 28.35kg shells, 1926 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships
4 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm guns in single mounts, 13.50lbs / 6.12kg shells, 1926 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships
Weight of broadside 4,135 lbs / 1,876 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 100
4 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 12.5" / 318 mm 244.00 ft / 74.37 m 10.18 ft / 3.10 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 99 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
2.00" / 51 mm 244.00 ft / 74.37 m 18.08 ft / 5.51 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 6.00" / 152 mm 11.0" / 279 mm

- Armour deck: 2.00" / 51 mm, Conning tower: 12.00" / 305 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 18,047 shp / 13,463 Kw = 21.00 kts
Range 3,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 311 tons

Complement:
429 - 558

Cost:
£2.697 million / $10.787 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 517 tons, 6.3 %
Armour: 3,172 tons, 38.9 %
- Belts: 1,382 tons, 16.9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 326 tons, 4.0 %
- Armament: 670 tons, 8.2 %
- Armour Deck: 688 tons, 8.4 %
- Conning Tower: 105 tons, 1.3 %
Machinery: 578 tons, 7.1 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,291 tons, 40.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 574 tons, 7.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 30 tons, 0.4 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
10,866 lbs / 4,929 Kg = 12.6 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 2.8 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.04
Metacentric height 3.3 ft / 1.0 m
Roll period: 16.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.49
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.03

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.522
Length to Beam Ratio: 5.28 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 19.49 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 55 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 68
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
- Forecastle (22 %): 14.00 ft / 4.27 m
- Mid (50 %): 13.00 ft / 3.96 m
- Quarterdeck (19 %): 13.00 ft / 3.96 m
- Stern: 13.00 ft / 3.96 m
- Average freeboard: 13.54 ft / 4.13 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 98.8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 98.3 %
Waterplane Area: 18,602 Square feet or 1,728 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 96 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 131 lbs/sq ft or 642 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.92
- Longitudinal: 2.11
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

These are interesting designs.
If there was a issue with Canada they would make great ships to have in the Great Lakes.
I'm not sure where they would fit into a naval focused on extended operations.
They would be useful for amphibious operations.
(It would be interesting to see some of the Guadacanal actions with these monitors)

I think we all just got an education on what you can do on 8,000 tons....!!!


CD's right, the Treaty doesn't limit number of barrels for coast defense ships. Considering that the Oregon type is only slightly more seaworthy (.02-.03) than the New Ironsides and Passaic types, I'd go with the latter two classes.

The only problem I see is shared by all three designs - that should be 50t for the a/c+cat, so you need to squeeze 20t out of 'em somewhere.

I assume the dimensions of these ships are such that they can take the Mississippi River-Chicago River route from the Gulf to the Lakes? Might have to raise a few bridges...but I know they built subs in Milwaukee during WW2(!).


Remember that you can take 1 month off the building time, since you're re-using the turrets, and if the 5" guns were also "one careful owner" models, you can chop off a second month.


Oregon vs. Dagupan aka Panabo would be an interesting matchup. OTOH, New Ironsides would blow the Filipino ship outta the water...

I'll see about the catapult weight. Perhaps I can have the crew all go on a crash diet! They would be quite useful as fire support ships if I need to go Island Hopping. As for the Great Lakes, they've gotten much bigger ships up the Mississippi to Lake Michigan so it shouldn't be a problem. Also, if US-UK relations aren't as good its likely that the US has built a better canal system linking the river to the lakes.

I didn't think of this earlier - would you modify the turrets to allow higher elevation/longer range?
If these ships were not exactly what the US needed there would seem to be a market for a similiar vessel in many of the smaller navies.

They could probably be upgraded to have greater elevation. The original design was -5 to +15' with a maximum range of 23,900 yards.

Springsharp way overestimates the qualities of slow ships. The biggest problem with these vessles would be that they are horribly cramped. Thats a lot of 12" and 5" guns to crew. The range is also tiny.

I wonder if it woulld be possible (if the treaty would not allow for all the turrets to be used due to tonnage) that the United States might build one ship using the remaining turrets for sale?

Chile might be interested, if I can't free up a slip to build the currently envisioned coastal defense battleship.

Well, both SS and the pics indicate it's feasible, so I'd say "all systems go". Besides, they aren't as cramped as your average submarine - even a modern one. ^_^ (And the Oregons have "adequate" accomodations, anyway.)

As for range, these ships would have a large number of ports to fuel from - especially on the East Coast, and range isn't an issue at all on the Great Lakes...


Random thought: perhaps the US could build two of each of the three designs?

Also the Americans might "rebuild" the former pre-dreadnought Mississippi (that is the correct battleship?) for Mexico.

ex-Mississippi* is too big to fit under CDS rules.

She is scheduled to be rebuilt, by the US for the Mexicans, at least according to The Manila Times.



* - M, I, crooked-letter crooked-letter I, crooked-letter crooked-letter I, humpback humpback I! ^_^

A valid point. My main reason for adding them was for artillery spotting, especially if they are being used to support a landing. In that situation they might not have a base, carrier or other ship to provide a spotter. The US Navy is also quite short of cruisers in the 1920's. As of about 1925 we actually have more battleships than cruisers! So, I saw the need to have a built in capability instead of tying down a ship that could be out trying to intercept enemy forces that could be counterattacking.

My rational for building these would be officially as defensive units, but realistically they would be primarily for fire support of amphibious landings, primarily in the Pacific. Since I've had to scrap all my old Pre-Dreadnoughts and early Dreadnoughts I don't have heavy guns that I can spare from the battleline.

I put one on the French Petain class monitor for much the same reason. Effective aerial spotting requires a high degree of mutual training, and land-based aircraft might not have the chance to become effective in spotting for the ship when she moves into a new area. Carrying an airplane, pilot, and observer on board ensures the required performance when the big guns speak.

Great looking ships. Getting 6x305mm onto 8000 tons is impressive, and the eye candy is very nice too.

And what's even more impressive, they have a torpedo bulkhead, which our rules don't require for another 10,000 tons.

I'm suddenly reminded of another drawing you've done...the American Vangard....U.S.S. Kearsarge.

I wonder if there is room in the American Fleet Tonnage and capital ship numbers for fast battlecruisers reusing the turrets from New York and perhaps later Texas.

Possibly, but not till the early 1930's when Texas, Nevada, and Oklahoma are eligible for replacement.