WesWorld

With the Montana's nearing completion, the USN in 1941 began looking at new Battleship designs. The first two designs were for a ship to replace USS Texas, as well as the Nevada's and the Pennsylvannia's in the fleet. A speed of 27 or 28 knots was considered the minimum, as well as protection against the 16in super heavy shell at ranges from 20,000 to 26,000 yards, the range envisioned by the USN naval planners for service in the Atlantic. The 16in gun was to be used, the 14in being thought to be too small against the various superbattleships being laid down, while the 18in would clash with the last requirement. Cost was also an issue, the USN had no desire to build another design similar to the Montana's, with a 5 year build time and costing 10% of its budget, so the USN would attempt to meet the speed, armament, and protection requirements while at the same time keeping the size and therefore the cost of the ship in the "reasonable" zone. Design A would use the triple 16in from the Montana's, while Design B would use the twin 16in from the Tennesse Class but it would use the super-heavy 16in shell instead of the lighter shell used in the Tennesse's.

Design A

USS Oregon, USA Battleship laid down 1942

Displacement:
40,704 t light; 43,655 t standard; 47,219 t normal; 50,070 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
814.94 ft / 801.00 ft x 104.00 ft (Bulges 108.00 ft) x 32.00 ft (normal load)
248.40 m / 244.14 m x 31.70 m (Bulges 32.92 m) x 9.75 m

Armament:
9 - 16.00" / 406 mm guns (3x3 guns), 2,700.00lbs / 1,224.70kg 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), 55.18lbs / 25.03kg shells, 1942 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships, 4 raised mounts - superfiring
40 - 1.10" / 27.9 mm guns (10x4 guns), 0.67lbs / 0.30kg shells, 1942 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, 5 raised mounts - superfiring
34 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns in single mounts, 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1942 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
16 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm guns in single mounts, 0.06lbs / 0.03kg shells, 1942 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, 8 raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 25,219 lbs / 11,439 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 142

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 13.0" / 330 mm 397.67 ft / 121.21 m 15.09 ft / 4.60 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 76 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges:
3.00" / 76 mm 379.63 ft / 115.71 m 24.54 ft / 7.48 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 17.0" / 432 mm 10.0" / 254 mm 17.5" / 445 mm
2nd: 2.00" / 51 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 2.00" / 51 mm
3rd: 1.00" / 25 mm 0.50" / 13 mm -

- Armour deck: 6.00" / 152 mm, Conning tower: 15.00" / 381 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 108,860 shp / 81,210 Kw = 27.00 kts
Range 12,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 6,415 tons

Complement:
1,601 - 2,082

Cost:
£24.608 million / $98.430 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,433 tons, 5.2 %
Armour: 15,854 tons, 33.6 %
- Belts: 3,537 tons, 7.5 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,034 tons, 2.2 %
- Armament: 4,118 tons, 8.7 %
- Armour Deck: 6,744 tons, 14.3 %
- Conning Tower: 422 tons, 0.9 %
Machinery: 2,844 tons, 6.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 19,312 tons, 40.9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 6,515 tons, 13.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 260 tons, 0.6 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
72,693 lbs / 32,973 Kg = 35.5 x 16.0 " / 406 mm shells or 11.8 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
Metacentric height 6.4 ft / 2.0 m
Roll period: 17.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 67 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.86
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.35

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.597
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.42 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 28.30 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 47 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 17.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 4.40 ft / 1.34 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 31.22 ft / 9.52 m
- Forecastle (21 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Mid (50 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Quarterdeck (22 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Stern: 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Average freeboard: 22.88 ft / 6.98 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 76.2 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 159.0 %
Waterplane Area: 60,757 Square feet or 5,644 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 114 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 225 lbs/sq ft or 1,096 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.97
- Longitudinal: 1.30
- 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

Design B

USS Oregon, USA Battleship laid down 1942

Displacement:
39,669 t light; 42,380 t standard; 45,874 t normal; 48,669 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
814.94 ft / 801.00 ft x 104.00 ft (Bulges 108.00 ft) x 32.00 ft (normal load)
248.40 m / 244.14 m x 31.70 m (Bulges 32.92 m) x 9.75 m

Armament:
8 - 16.00" / 406 mm guns (4x2 guns), 2,700.00lbs / 1,224.70kg shells, 1942 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
16 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns (8x2 guns), 55.18lbs / 25.03kg shells, 1942 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships, 4 raised mounts - superfiring
40 - 1.10" / 27.9 mm guns (10x4 guns), 0.67lbs / 0.30kg shells, 1942 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, 5 raised mounts - superfiring
34 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns in single mounts, 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1942 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
16 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm guns in single mounts, 0.06lbs / 0.03kg shells, 1942 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, 8 raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 22,519 lbs / 10,214 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 142

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 13.0" / 330 mm 377.26 ft / 114.99 m 15.09 ft / 4.60 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 72 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges:
3.00" / 76 mm 379.63 ft / 115.71 m 24.54 ft / 7.48 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 17.0" / 432 mm 10.0" / 254 mm 17.5" / 445 mm
2nd: 2.00" / 51 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 2.00" / 51 mm
3rd: 1.00" / 25 mm 0.50" / 13 mm -

- Armour deck: 6.00" / 152 mm, Conning tower: 15.00" / 381 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 106,281 shp / 79,285 Kw = 27.00 kts
Range 12,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 6,290 tons

Complement:
1,566 - 2,037

Cost:
£22.949 million / $91.794 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,177 tons, 4.7 %
Armour: 15,999 tons, 34.9 %
- Belts: 3,393 tons, 7.4 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,034 tons, 2.3 %
- Armament: 4,520 tons, 9.9 %
- Armour Deck: 6,637 tons, 14.5 %
- Conning Tower: 414 tons, 0.9 %
Machinery: 2,776 tons, 6.1 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 18,456 tons, 40.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 6,205 tons, 13.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 260 tons, 0.6 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
73,490 lbs / 33,335 Kg = 35.9 x 16.0 " / 406 mm shells or 12.5 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.07
Metacentric height 6.1 ft / 1.8 m
Roll period: 18.4 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 68 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.84
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.36

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.580
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.42 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 28.30 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 46 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 17.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 4.40 ft / 1.34 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 31.22 ft / 9.52 m
- Forecastle (21 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Mid (50 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Quarterdeck (22 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Stern: 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Average freeboard: 22.88 ft / 6.98 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 72.5 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 160.0 %
Waterplane Area: 59,797 Square feet or 5,555 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 117 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 217 lbs/sq ft or 1,061 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.97
- Longitudinal: 1.26
- 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

Altered slightly with 40mm Anti-aircraft guns in place of the 1.1in on reflection of foreign designs.

Design A


USS Oregon, USA Battleship laid down 1942

Displacement:
40,698 t light; 43,655 t standard; 47,219 t normal; 50,070 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
814.94 ft / 801.00 ft x 104.00 ft (Bulges 108.00 ft) x 32.00 ft (normal load)
248.40 m / 244.14 m x 31.70 m (Bulges 32.92 m) x 9.75 m

Armament:
9 - 16.00" / 406 mm guns (3x3 guns), 2,700.00lbs / 1,224.70kg 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), 55.18lbs / 25.03kg shells, 1942 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships, 4 raised mounts - superfiring
40 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (10x4 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.89kg shells, 1942 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, 5 raised mounts - superfiring
34 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns in single mounts, 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1942 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
16 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm guns in single mounts, 0.06lbs / 0.03kg shells, 1942 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, 8 raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 25,270 lbs / 11,462 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 142

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 13.0" / 330 mm 397.67 ft / 121.21 m 15.09 ft / 4.60 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 76 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges:
3.00" / 76 mm 379.63 ft / 115.71 m 24.54 ft / 7.48 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 17.0" / 432 mm 10.0" / 254 mm 17.5" / 445 mm
2nd: 2.00" / 51 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 2.00" / 51 mm
3rd: 1.00" / 25 mm 0.50" / 13 mm -

- Armour deck: 6.00" / 152 mm, Conning tower: 15.00" / 381 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 108,860 shp / 81,210 Kw = 27.00 kts
Range 12,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 6,415 tons

Complement:
1,601 - 2,082

Cost:
£24.641 million / $98.562 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,440 tons, 5.2 %
Armour: 15,860 tons, 33.6 %
- Belts: 3,537 tons, 7.5 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,034 tons, 2.2 %
- Armament: 4,123 tons, 8.7 %
- Armour Deck: 6,744 tons, 14.3 %
- Conning Tower: 422 tons, 0.9 %
Machinery: 2,844 tons, 6.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 19,295 tons, 40.9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 6,521 tons, 13.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 260 tons, 0.6 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
72,479 lbs / 32,876 Kg = 35.4 x 16.0 " / 406 mm shells or 11.8 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
Metacentric height 6.4 ft / 2.0 m
Roll period: 17.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 67 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.87
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.35

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.597
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.42 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 28.30 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 47 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 17.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 4.40 ft / 1.34 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 31.22 ft / 9.52 m
- Forecastle (21 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Mid (50 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Quarterdeck (22 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Stern: 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Average freeboard: 22.88 ft / 6.98 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 76.3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 159.0 %
Waterplane Area: 60,757 Square feet or 5,644 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 114 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 224 lbs/sq ft or 1,095 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.97
- Longitudinal: 1.30
- 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

Design B

USS Oregon, USA Battleship laid down 1942

Displacement:
39,736 t light; 42,455 t standard; 45,953 t normal; 48,752 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
814.94 ft / 801.00 ft x 104.00 ft (Bulges 108.00 ft) x 32.00 ft (normal load)
248.40 m / 244.14 m x 31.70 m (Bulges 32.92 m) x 9.75 m

Armament:
8 - 16.00" / 406 mm guns (4x2 guns), 2,700.00lbs / 1,224.70kg shells, 1942 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
16 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns (8x2 guns), 55.18lbs / 25.03kg shells, 1942 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships, 4 raised mounts - superfiring
40 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (10x4 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1942 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, 5 raised mounts - superfiring
34 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns in single mounts, 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1942 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
16 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm guns in single mounts, 0.06lbs / 0.03kg shells, 1942 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, 8 raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 22,570 lbs / 10,238 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 142

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 13.0" / 330 mm 377.51 ft / 115.07 m 15.09 ft / 4.60 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 73 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges:
3.00" / 76 mm 379.63 ft / 115.71 m 24.54 ft / 7.48 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 17.0" / 432 mm 10.0" / 254 mm 17.5" / 445 mm
2nd: 2.00" / 51 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 2.00" / 51 mm
3rd: 1.00" / 25 mm 0.50" / 13 mm -

- Armour deck: 6.00" / 152 mm, Conning tower: 15.00" / 381 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 106,432 shp / 79,398 Kw = 27.00 kts
Range 12,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 6,297 tons

Complement:
1,569 - 2,040

Cost:
£23.001 million / $92.006 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,184 tons, 4.8 %
Armour: 16,013 tons, 34.8 %
- Belts: 3,395 tons, 7.4 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,034 tons, 2.3 %
- Armament: 4,525 tons, 9.8 %
- Armour Deck: 6,644 tons, 14.5 %
- Conning Tower: 415 tons, 0.9 %
Machinery: 2,780 tons, 6.1 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 18,499 tons, 40.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 6,217 tons, 13.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 260 tons, 0.6 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
73,685 lbs / 33,423 Kg = 36.0 x 16.0 " / 406 mm shells or 12.5 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.07
Metacentric height 6.1 ft / 1.8 m
Roll period: 18.4 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 68 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.84
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.35

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.581
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.42 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 28.30 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 46 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 17.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 4.40 ft / 1.34 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 31.22 ft / 9.52 m
- Forecastle (21 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Mid (50 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Quarterdeck (22 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Stern: 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Average freeboard: 22.88 ft / 6.98 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 72.5 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 159.9 %
Waterplane Area: 59,853 Square feet or 5,561 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 117 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 218 lbs/sq ft or 1,063 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.97
- Longitudinal: 1.26
- 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

I see that in both proposals the USN is positing the adoption of a 20mm autocannon (Oerlikon or the like) while retaining the .50cal HMG. However, placing all these guns in single mounts is very space intensive and, for close in defense, somewhat wasteful.

Perhaps consideration might be given to a quad mount for both weapons - for the .50cal, something like a navalized Maxon mount, for the 20mm, something like a FlaK38.

The USN might also benefit from adoption of a heavier tertiary gun in the 37-40mm range. The General Board can consider such in the light of foreign developments. If desired, Germany would happily provide trials units of its 37mm Flak38 in dual or quad configuration, as well as the smaller 20mm Flak38 quad.

My one item of concern has to do with the main belt length. Its a bit short for defending the buoyancy of the ship, which could be an issue. I think lengthening the belt in exchange fro thinner barrettes would be a good option to at least look at. Digging the name

How about this one then?

USS Oregon, USA Battleship laid down 1942

Displacement:
40,819 t light; 43,805 t standard; 47,377 t normal; 50,234 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
814.94 ft / 801.00 ft x 104.00 ft (Bulges 108.00 ft) x 32.00 ft (normal load)
248.40 m / 244.14 m x 31.70 m (Bulges 32.92 m) x 9.75 m

Armament:
9 - 16.00" / 406 mm guns (3x3 guns), 2,700.00lbs / 1,224.70kg 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), 55.18lbs / 25.03kg shells, 1942 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships, 4 raised mounts - superfiring
16 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm guns (8x2 guns), 13.50lbs / 6.12kg shells, 1942 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
40 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (10x4 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.89kg shells, 1942 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, 5 raised mounts - superfiring
48 - 1.10" / 27.9 mm guns (12x4 guns), 0.67lbs / 0.30kg shells, 1942 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, 6 raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 25,509 lbs / 11,571 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 142

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 13.0" / 330 mm 399.62 ft / 121.80 m 15.09 ft / 4.60 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 77 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges:
3.00" / 76 mm 379.63 ft / 115.71 m 24.54 ft / 7.48 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 17.0" / 432 mm 10.0" / 254 mm 17.5" / 445 mm
2nd: 2.00" / 51 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 2.00" / 51 mm
3rd: 1.00" / 25 mm 0.50" / 13 mm -

- Armour deck: 6.00" / 152 mm, Conning tower: 15.00" / 381 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 109,164 shp / 81,436 Kw = 27.00 kts
Range 12,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 6,430 tons

Complement:
1,605 - 2,087

Cost:
£24.834 million / $99.336 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,470 tons, 5.2 %
Armour: 15,892 tons, 33.5 %
- Belts: 3,550 tons, 7.5 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,034 tons, 2.2 %
- Armament: 4,127 tons, 8.7 %
- Armour Deck: 6,757 tons, 14.3 %
- Conning Tower: 423 tons, 0.9 %
Machinery: 2,852 tons, 6.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 19,346 tons, 40.8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 6,558 tons, 13.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 260 tons, 0.5 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
72,316 lbs / 32,802 Kg = 35.3 x 16.0 " / 406 mm shells or 11.7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
Metacentric height 6.4 ft / 2.0 m
Roll period: 17.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 67 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.87
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.34

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.599
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.42 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 28.30 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 47 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 17.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 4.40 ft / 1.34 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 31.22 ft / 9.52 m
- Forecastle (21 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Mid (50 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Quarterdeck (22 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Stern: 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Average freeboard: 22.88 ft / 6.98 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 76.8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 158.9 %
Waterplane Area: 60,870 Square feet or 5,655 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 114 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 225 lbs/sq ft or 1,097 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.97
- Longitudinal: 1.30
- 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

The AA outfit of the revised design has much better balance - 3-in for long range controlled AA, 40mm for the mid-range and the 1.1 for close in; and the 5in DP can add its weight to the long range barrage.

I'd perfer a couple more inches on the belt myself.
The triple 16in is probably the best move for commonality with the Montanas and you don't need to change the turret design which would save development time.

Speed is slow but its nice to see someone with guts enough to shy away from the fast BB concept.

Not sure about the twin 3in mounts. RoF is likely to be an issue and its a too early to be thinking about automatic loaders etc. As pure AA HA weapons they make sense for long-range fire but then the DP 5in can be used for that. I'm wondering what combat experience or excercise lessons or theoretical advantages the USN feel justifies the weight of two secondary batteries. Having 5in, 3in, 40mm and 27.9mm makes for nice layers but does it really prove effective against dive-bombers and torpedo-bombers? It's a hard choice to make, the 3in probably does better against dive-bombers but the 5in has more long-range punch against torpedo-bombers. Close-in the 3in is going to shred an aircraft quicker than a 40mm mount. But then again you have no Kamikaze experience in WW to make that issue so important and besides without prox fuses etc a miss from a 3in isn't going to be any better than a miss from any other weapon.

I believe Kirk said the Dutch were already using proximity fuses (and FAR's waiting for someone else to definitively deploy it before we do), so by the time these ships are laid down, or at the very least by the time the ships are completed, the USN would probably have that technology.

I will Kirk comment on this in detail but I understood it is yet too early for small caliber prox fuses. About the smallest caliber possible is in the 4.5 to 5 inch range.

In about 5-6 years things may be different but would the USN bet on it when doing such a huge investment like laying down these new battle wagons?

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
I will Kirk comment on this in detail but I understood it is yet too early for small caliber prox fuses. About the smallest caliber possible is in the 4.5 to 5 inch range.

Actually, the smallest period proximity fuse is on the 3" - that's why so many navies shifted to using the 3" after WWII, with the USN leading the way with the 3" automatic.

Based at where we are radar-wise, however, proximity fuses for AA are no more than 1-3 years away - but I agree it's still just a tad bit early to use them yet.

Hoo has a point.
I'm more interested in what the USN think is a credible air threat and how it intends to protect itself rather than seeing them trying to keep up with the Joneses and using crystal balls.

IMHO the twin 3in have some uses but in my mind I'm not sure. Would the 5in be better for all-round DP work? After all the 3in isn't much use against surface targets and by the time a target gets into 3in range something has gone badly wrong. Against aircraft the 3in RoF might be too low against dive-bombers. Also there are issues of blast given the amount of guns and HA elevations etc, especially since the 40mm mounts are open. Personally I'd rather see the weight put into another couple of 5in mounts and some more armour or misc weight. I tend to see the intermediate calibre between 40mm and 127mm as laying more around the 57mm area which allows some more hitting power but not neccessarily sacrificing RoF. But each Navy makes its own choice.

Well the US could look to Mexico for some AA. I have a 47mm twin that would be similar to the 40mm Bofors.

Quoted

I'd perfer a couple more inches on the belt myself.

You realize that the OTL's South Dakota's actually had the same amount of armour, right? I will concede that I should probably lengthen the belt somewhat though. Still, 13in does provide protection for the ranges specified, 20,000 to 26,000 yards protected against her own guns. One thing I find about Wesworld is I feel we have too much armour on our ships and no real justification for it considering the fairly prevalent use of the 15in, and that the larger calibers are only coming into service.

Quoted

Speed is slow but its nice to see someone with guts enough to shy away from the fast BB concept.

Heh, its amusing to note that 27 knots is now considered "slow". That being said, the USN at present does not intend to operate these ships with the Fast Carrier Taskforces, they rather intend these ships to be the "fast" wing on the USN's Atlantic battlefleet, the Montana's going to the Caribbean, the Big Six to the Pacific, and the Standards being split amongst the Atlantic and Carribean Fleets.

Quoted

Not sure about the twin 3in mounts. RoF is likely to be an issue and its a too early to be thinking about automatic loaders etc. As pure AA HA weapons they make sense for long-range fire but then the DP 5in can be used for that. I'm wondering what combat experience or excercise lessons or theoretical advantages the USN feel justifies the weight of two secondary batteries. Having 5in, 3in, 40mm and 27.9mm makes for nice layers but does it really prove effective against dive-bombers and torpedo-bombers? It's a hard choice to make, the 3in probably does better against dive-bombers but the 5in has more long-range punch against torpedo-bombers. Close-in the 3in is going to shred an aircraft quicker than a 40mm mount. But then again you have no Kamikaze experience in WW to make that issue so important and besides without prox fuses etc a miss from a 3in isn't going to be any better than a miss from any other weapon.

The problem here is that as noted elsewhere so far the USN has had nothing between the 5in and the 1.1in. The USN isn't stupid, they realize this as well they also realize that their own aircraft are getting larger, heavier, and faster, and that the current 1.1in is too small to knock their own aircraft out of the sky never mind someone elses, and that the 5in simply doesn't have the RoF to keep up against an attack by one of their own Carrier Task Groups never mind someone elses. How do the USN know this without the "needed" combat experience? I could flip that around on the rest of you as well, but its a combination of stuff like Math, naval exercises, and the USN shooting one of their own planes out of the sky during one of said exercises. The USN looked to the past you might say in this instance, took out the old 3in AA dusted it off and gave it some new toys. Just like they did IOTL, and yes that was during the War, but is combat experience required when the USN feels it has a gap in its AA coverage which can be filled by guns they are familiar and have experience with?

Quoted

I will Kirk comment on this in detail but I understood it is yet too early for small caliber prox fuses. About the smallest caliber possible is in the 4.5 to 5 inch range.

Agreed, small caliber proximity fuzes will likely begin development around the time when this ship is laid down, and due to the length of time it takes to build a ship of this size will be entering service before 1946 when this ship is completed. The USN will therefore have to do a 25% rebuild on a brand new ship, or they could just halt construction partway through to simulate the changeover from the old AA guns to the new AA guns, or they just do like they did IOTL and fit the new guns on the ship.

Quoted

I'm more interested in what the USN think is a credible air threat and how it intends to protect itself rather than seeing them trying to keep up with the Joneses and using crystal balls.

The last part is a bit harsh James, I am calling you out for that but I will answer your query. The USN intends these ships to operate in the Atlantic and Carribbean during wartime, as well as the Pacific if needed. First, the USN tactical doctrine does not put battleships with carriers at present, in fact the USN does not put air cover over its battlefleet at all. Yet they expect their battlefleet to operate in the Carribean which has similar issues of hostile air cover as the Mediterranean does. Other navies have adopted to this by building battleships and carriers that can work together, the USN at present sees no need for a fast capital ship when it has two already as well as a number of heavy cruisers. Therefore, in the tactical doctrine of the USN, the carriers have air cover to protect them from hostile air attack and the battlefleet has its guns.

As for what the USN feels is a credible air threat, the USN sends a strike package of ~24 aircraft at present from each of its carriers except the Sacketts of course, while the USAAF can send a strike package of anywhere from 20 to 40 aircraft a strike. The USN feels therefore against its own aircraft it needs to withstand an attack of anywhere from 20 to 60 aircraft at a time depending on the situation.

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian

Quoted

I will Kirk comment on this in detail but I understood it is yet too early for small caliber prox fuses. About the smallest caliber possible is in the 4.5 to 5 inch range.

Agreed, small caliber proximity fuzes will likely begin development around the time when this ship is laid down, and due to the length of time it takes to build a ship of this size will be entering service before 1946 when this ship is completed. The USN will therefore have to do a 25% rebuild on a brand new ship, or they could just halt construction partway through to simulate the changeover from the old AA guns to the new AA guns, or they just do like they did IOTL and fit the new guns on the ship.

Don't need to do a refit at all to put more modern shells aboard.

I didn't aim that comment at you personally Jason. I was meaning that I wanted to hear what you had in mind before we jumped to conclusions. Brock, Kirk and Hoo were speculating on US developments in prox fuses and that because such tech was near also inferred that you added the 3in for that reason. You hadn't mentioned them in your intial post and so I assumed that you hadn't added the 3in with prox fuses in mind. I just wanted to make sure that we didn't get sidetracked into the whole prox fuse issue as that isn't important at this stage.

I see the logic in the 3in, it makes sense but its not to my own design tastes given the 5in already on board.
I could play devil's advocate and say what would this ship look like with the 5in replaced by more 3in? Given these ships will have CA and DD support do they need 5in guns for LA anti-surface work if 3in is superior for the AA role?

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
I will Kirk comment on this in detail but I understood it is yet too early for small caliber prox fuses. About the smallest caliber possible is in the 4.5 to 5 inch range.

In about 5-6 years things may be different but would the USN bet on it when doing such a huge investment like laying down these new battle wagons?

When the 5"/38 started using the proximity fuse, it was the smallest weapon which could. The 3"/50 came into wider use post war because the fuse had been scaled down for it by then, and the mix of ROF/range/Hit chance made it more theoretically lethal with adequate kill power.

Since I can't recall which book where I read up on this (could have been 20 years ago at college), I turned to the web and found a decent page.

I will note that these advances were during WWII, when a tremendous amount of effort was put into scaling these things down. I really think that in peacetime Wesworld you wouldn't see this rate of change. Which now that I'm thinking about it..we should probably start scaling down the +3 rule..but thats another topic. My point is... there should not be surety when these things will become available sufficient to design ships to them. Especially since months or years of design work go into warships before lay down date.

Proximity fuses started at the 5", they then had to progressively shrink down.
So the Mk32 fuse for 5"/38 was deployed November 1942 and downed an aircraft January 1943.
Mk 32 fuse with wave suppression features for low angle fire came into use in May 1944

The Mk33 for the 4.5" had some problems scaling down, but commenced deliveries September 1943.
Mechanical difficulties on the Mk 41 fuse for the 4" were resolved and deliveries started November 1943.
The Mk45 for the 90mm started gearing up for production September 1943, but due to security wasn't used until Dec 1944, so production and deployment dates are murky.
The Mk58 for the 3"/50 came into production in November 1944.

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq96-1.htm


Edit : Dutch Radar - Phillips Electronics was a world leader at the time. The first commercially available magnetron was made by Phillips, though there seems to be divided opinion if this was crucial to German radar development. Prior to the war, they had developed radar guided searchlights and had a prototype Firecontrol. The latter was brought to England and reportedly found to be better than the English at the time. Also, some shipments of specialty Phillips vaccum tubes were smuggled out, and wound up in a large number of British radars (again, don't know where the reference was, my recollection was 'most').

So in Wesworld, I wrote a story ages ago including a small radio controlled (i.e. small tubes) airplane crashing at a party. That was to foreshadow the then-+5 rule and my intent to role out prox fuses at +4 or so. So, I expect in 'current day' the Dutch are indeed have deployed these for the 125mm DP guns.

Thanks for the clarification, Kirk. I knew you'd mentioned some things about it before, but I ended up trying to go by memory of what you'd said.

Will this have any impact on OSN planning as presented above?

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk

So in Wesworld, I wrote a story ages ago including a small radio controlled (i.e. small tubes) airplane crashing at a party. That was to foreshadow the then-+5 rule and my intent to role out prox fuses at +4 or so. So, I expect in 'current day' the Dutch are indeed have deployed these for the 125mm DP guns.

I am slightly confused by reference to a “+5” rule, which I gather is now the “+3” rule, but you seem to imply that the Dutch navy now (mid-1941) deploys proximity fuses for its 127mm DP guns. If that is the case, when did the Dutch navy begin to deploy such? It’s not clear whether this is a new deployment or they have been in service for some time.

When i joined the 'future tech' rule was fuzzy. Something like +3 to +5, with the +5 being if you were a world leader. So I was planning on introducing in ~1938/39.

Some research on the prox fuse indicated that the critical tiny vaccum tube which got used came from a radio controlled aircraft, so I plopped one in a story as a sort of 'foreshadowing'.

Since that time, the +3-5 was redefined down to +3.
With the Mk32 deployed OTL in November 1942, that would be November 1939 is +3.

With Phillips apparently being above both German and British radar capabilities, that should mean around the USA. Considering that Dutch Fire Control - both Hazemejer and elsewhere was worthy of note by the Brits, being at the forefront with the prox fuse made sense. So I was going to have the Dutch be 3-6 months behind (not wartime urgency, not unlimited resources), so by that logic, the Dutch will have put the fuse into production for their 125mm DP guns and and it should have started arriving on the fleet warships Q1/2 of 1940.