No Aircraft Carriers - How far do Battleships develop?

[Lancer]

For one reason or another, say that the aircraft supporters in maritime naval forces of past lose out in military development, but aircraft carriers are never developed or built. With no aircraft carriers, what will be future developments in battleships and battlecruisers without aircraft carriers to supplant them? Also, we can assume no Washington Naval Treaty to further stifle aircraft carriers and to allow some of the lethal surface vessels to get into production.

[tony_glazebrook]

For one reason or another, say that the aircraft supporters in maritime naval forces of past lose out in military development, but aircraft carriers are never developed or built. With no aircraft carriers, what will be future developments in battleships and battlecruisers without aircraft carriers to supplant them? Also, we can assume no Washington Naval Treaty to further stifle aircraft carriers and to allow some of the lethal surface vessels to get into production.

Close to the ultimate development of battleships, WW2 style, would have been represented by the largest of Germany's H class BBs -weighing in at around 130,000 tonnes full load.

The good news is that in the upcooming NWS: SAS WW2 game, you can do just what you are proposing to test - you can disable carrier and even land-based airpower, and you can also enable design-your-own ships, with the capacity to design BBs up to 130,000 tonnes!

Of course, only play testing can help determine the question whether they would have been good value for money. Personally, I think the answer depends on how many you could build compared to the expected need. The soft area of all BBs was the superstructure and fire control. A monster BB could be taken out of action almost as easily as one half it's size. Not sunk, just taken out of action with fire control damage. No BB could really armour all critical fire control areas due to metacentric heights. So, you have to plan to have them out of service for periods, being repaired. Without aircraft, they are most unlikely to be sunk. But 6 months or more in dry dock under repair is a very long time to have a very expensive piece of war machinery tied up.

That's my two cents worth anyway!

[old_pop2000]

Close to the ultimate development of battleships, WW2 style, would have been represented by the largest of Germany's H class BBs -weighing in at around 130,000 tonnes full load.

The good news is that in the upcooming NWS: SAS WW2 game, you can do just what you are proposing to test - you can disable carrier and even land-based airpower, and you can also enable design-your-own ships, with the capacity to design BBs up to 130,000 tonnes!

Of course, only play testing can help determine the question whether they would have been good value for money. Personally, I think the answer depends on how many you could build compared to the expected need. The soft area of all BBs was the superstructure and fire control. A monster BB could be taken out of action almost as easily as one half it's size. Not sunk, just taken out of action with fire control damage. No BB could really armour all critical fire control areas due to metacentric heights. So, you have to plan to have them out of service for periods, being repaired. Without aircraft, they are most unlikely to be sunk. But 6 months or more in dry dock under repair is a very long time to have a very expensive piece of war machinery tied up.

That's my two cents worth anyway!

I would remind everyone, that carriers were important in providing air cover against, not only opponent carrier aircraft, but land based attack aircraft like the Nell and Betty bombers. Both of which were used from bases near Saigon, to attack and sink two British battleships. In a typical scenario as depicted by WPO, if our battle fleet sortied across the Pacific to engage the Japanese fleet, they would have encountered squadrons of torpedo carrying bombers stationed on island chains like the Marshall's. We encountered those aircraft in Halsey's raids on Wake, Wotje etc. Our success in repulsing those attacks was only facilitated by carrier based aircraft. Without those carriers, that defense would not be possible. I would also remind everyone of the operations around Guadalcanal and the fact that Japanese battleships came down the slot at night, due to land based air, not carrier based air. While those planes were carrier air groups, most were MAG aircraft including SBD's. Eventually, army B-25's were supplied and life got real difficult around Rabaul.

Conclusion: I don't feel that much would have changed with the battleships even without carriers. With land based air, it was going to be difficult for battle fleets to move within 500 miles of any appreciable land mass that could be home to torpedo carrying twin engined or single engined bombers. A 130,000 ton battleship is just another floating target to torpedo bombers. It also makes a great target for dive bombers like the Stuka, Val and SBD. Without AA radar and fast firing guns, most AAA defenses on battleships was pretty anemic. In order to survive, they would have had to make substantial gains in both of those areas. Gains that I do not foresee without the presence of the carrier.

[Kyle Holgate]

I think that the monster battleships like the H44 were too impractical for logistics reasons, let alone for just expense. Armor and fire control technology would have conitinued to advance, and perhaps gunnery in general (meaning design of the weapons) but really, what more was there to do beyond about the Iowa or yamato types? Above 16-18" shell handling starts to get more and more problematical. Above roughly where Yamato was in size, you start to run into problems with port size and drydock size. Finally - and this was never really tested - how survivable are battleships, really - in a WW2 surface warfare enviroment? In a fleet action, would the BB screen be able to keep the destroyers and/or cruisers away? Would the BB secondaries be able to handle "leakers"? It's possible, that for all the money spent that come WW2 - even without aircraft - BB's had passed their day in the sun and Destroyers, cruisers, submarines and PT boats were the real keepers of the sea.

As for land based aircraft - Still not sure. Carriers eclipsed BB's largely due to their usefulness. Anything a BB could do, the could do better (well, argueably except shore bombardment). The BB wasn't rendered obsolete in my mind simply because aircraft could destroy them at fairly low cost. If Japan had installed AA guns and fire control like the US had - we may well have found that it took an incredible attack to destroy or mission kill a BB. As it was, the Japanese BB's we destroyed suffered from inferior FC and AA. We never had to attack anything like our own BB's.
So shore based bombers, though they could potentially kill a BB at sea would possibly still not have the range or capability to "rule the waves" in the sense that carriers did/do.

One piece of the puzzle I'm neglecting 'till now though is the guided missile or glide bomb sort of weapons. From the Betty with an Okha aboard to a He-177 with a Fritz-X technology was slowly dooming the BB. Even if for some reason physics prevented flight at all on earth though, I think the BB's days were numbered simply due to torpedo and submaring technology.

[old_pop2000]

I think that the monster battleships like the H44 were too impractical for logistics reasons, let alone for just expense. Armor and fire control technology would have conitinued to advance, and perhaps gunnery in general (meaning design of the weapons) but really, what more was there to do beyond about the Iowa or yamato types? Above 16-18" shell handling starts to get more and more problematical. Above roughly where Yamato was in size, you start to run into problems with port size and drydock size. Finally - and this was never really tested - how survivable are battleships, really - in a WW2 surface warfare enviroment? In a fleet action, would the BB screen be able to keep the destroyers and/or cruisers away? Would the BB secondaries be able to handle "leakers"? It's possible, that for all the money spent that come WW2 - even without aircraft - BB's had passed their day in the sun and Destroyers, cruisers, submarines and PT boats were the real keepers of the sea.

As for land based aircraft - Still not sure. Carriers eclipsed BB's largely due to their usefulness. Anything a BB could do, the could do better (well, argueably except shore bombardment). The BB wasn't rendered obsolete in my mind simply because aircraft could destroy them at fairly low cost. If Japan had installed AA guns and fire control like the US had - we may well have found that it took an incredible attack to destroy or mission kill a BB. As it was, the Japanese BB's we destroyed suffered from inferior FC and AA. We never had to attack anything like our own BB's.
So shore based bombers, though they could potentially kill a BB at sea would possibly still not have the range or capability to "rule the waves" in the sense that carriers did/do.

One piece of the puzzle I'm neglecting 'till now though is the guided missile or glide bomb sort of weapons. From the Betty with an Okha aboard to a He-177 with a Fritz-X technology was slowly dooming the BB. Even if for some reason physics prevented flight at all on earth though, I think the BB's days were numbered simply due to torpedo and submaring technology.

First, I would tend to believe that battleships had reached a practical limit with the Montana class ships, although they were never deployed. The improvements might be in the area of increased AAA support.

As for the question of land based aircraft, let's think about Okinawa. In that operation, the Japanese used land based aircraft as kamikaze's and regular attack aircraft. Even with forty carriers, most of which were Essex class, they still managed to damage and sink over 300ships, 36 sunk. I believe that land based air was still a potent weapon and would have been able to deal battleships some real deadly blows, had it been the only air defense.

[Kyle Holgate]

First, I would tend to believe that battleships had reached a practical limit with the Montana class ships, although they were never deployed. The improvements might be in the area of increased AAA support.

As for the question of land based aircraft, let's think about Okinawa. In that operation, the Japanese used land based aircraft as kamikaze's and regular attack aircraft. Even with forty carriers, most of which were Essex class, they still managed to damage and sink over 300ships, 36 sunk. I believe that land based air was still a potent weapon and would have been able to deal battleships some real deadly blows, had it been the only air defense.

Re: Okinawa - the Japanese attacks destroyed and badly damaged many ships, but how many were major warships - let alone heavily armored battleships? Off Okinawa many of the targets were troop ships and transports, much less capable of protecting themselves than even an old BB. That being said though, I think a more technologically advanced air force would have been able to deal even battleships a deadly blow - using radio guided AP bombs and what not.
What if a country had to project power into an enemy countries' air space in order to win a war? Japan is an example, even with P-51D's as long ranged fighters escorting bombers - could they have managed to protect transports well enough to allow for an inasion of Iwo or Okinawa? If there were no carriers, battleships would have to take up the slack and do the best they could. They would have been better capable of taking Kamikazi hits at least.

[old_pop2000]

Re: Okinawa - the Japanese attacks destroyed and badly damaged many ships, but how many were major warships - let alone heavily armored battleships? Off Okinawa many of the targets were troop ships and transports, much less capable of protecting themselves than even an old BB. That being said though, I think a more technologically advanced air force would have been able to deal even battleships a deadly blow - using radio guided AP bombs and what not.
What if a country had to project power into an enemy countries' air space in order to win a war? Japan is an example, even with P-51D's as long ranged fighters escorting bombers - could they have managed to protect transports well enough to allow for an inasion of Iwo or Okinawa? If there were no carriers, battleships would have to take up the slack and do the best they could. They would have been better capable of taking Kamikazi hits at least.
I agree about their failure to destroy major warships, but they did focus on the carriers. Had they not been present, the battleships would have been a high priority. But, battleships have that heavy armor to protect them, but even they can sustain mission critical damage.

At the start of the war, the large fleet carriers were not actually available to the Japanese move southward. It was the fleets of land based aircraft operating out of Indochina and Formosa that did most of the damage and provided most of the support. Even after Kido Butai had returned, it moved to the Indian Ocean then attacked Darwin, but did not actually support any major landings, IIRC. So, the Japanese proved the concept that long range aircraft can support a power projection into enemy airspace under the proper conditions.

[Kyle Holgate]

I agree about their failure to destroy major warships, but they did focus on the carriers. Had they not been present, the battleships would have been a high priority. But, battleships have that heavy armor to protect them, but even they can sustain mission critical damage.

At the start of the war, the large fleet carriers were not actually available to the Japanese move southward. It was the fleets of land based aircraft operating out of Indochina and Formosa that did most of the damage and provided most of the support. Even after Kido Butai had returned, it moved to the Indian Ocean then attacked Darwin, but did not actually support any major landings, IIRC. So, the Japanese proved the concept that long range aircraft can support a power projection into enemy airspace under the proper conditions.


Agreed. The A6M2, G4M and G3M aircraft did more to help spead the Japanese empire than did Kido Butai in many ways. Much can be said about their lack of armor and what not - but they had the advantage of being able to get where they were needed - something after all is said and done was more valuable by far than armor! Well armored aircraft that couldn't get to where they needed to be would have been useless.

Could long range aircraft do the job? If you look at air superiority over Germany in WW2 then the answer at least in that case is a yes. Over the expanse of the Pacific though It would be more difficult. Still - it's not open water than was important, it was the bases and such - concentrate the long range fighters and bombers there, gain and maintain air superiority. What next though, do you bring in the invasion fleet with or without battleships? I'd rather have the old gal's with my fleet, even if only to act as juicy targets so my more vulnerable transports can get through.

[old_pop2000]

Agreed. The A6M2, G4M and G3M aircraft did more to help spead the Japanese empire than did Kido Butai in many ways. Much can be said about their lack of armor and what not - but they had the advantage of being able to get where they were needed - something after all is said and done was more valuable by far than armor! Well armored aircraft that couldn't get to where they needed to be would have been useless.

Could long range aircraft do the job? If you look at air superiority over Germany in WW2 then the answer at least in that case is a yes. Over the expanse of the Pacific though It would be more difficult. Still - it's not open water than was important, it was the bases and such - concentrate the long range fighters and bombers there, gain and maintain air superiority. What next though, do you bring in the invasion fleet with or without battleships? I'd rather have the old gal's with my fleet, even if only to act as juicy targets so my more vulnerable transports can get through.
You have to use the battleships for shore bombardment, as long range bombers are just not that accurate and cannot provide the necessary, on call, fire support. The only safe strategy, without carriers is to use Port Moresby as a land base and invade and occupy Lae and Salamaua on the other side of New Guinea. If you occupy those airbases, you are only 550 miles from the two air bases and a good harbor at Rabaul. The bombers can fly from those bases, but your fighters will need to be closer. You will have invade, occupy the southern side of New Britain and build fighter bases along the coast to provide the necessary bomber escort and fighter cover for the bomber bases.

Once Rabaul has been reduced by an invasion from the sea and an overland operation, you have almost 1400 miles to Truk. That is too far for fighters. You will have to use the bombers to bomb Truk and make it untenable, but you cannot invade it without carriers. Best possible route is northeast from Rabaul through the Molukka Sea and hit the Phillippines from the south, working your way up the chain using a progression of airfields. Progression from there maybe fighter support from the mainland of China and bombers like the B-29 with an invasion of Formosa. After that, move all aircraft to Formosa and begin the long path up the Japanese home islands starting with Okinawa. It is over 400 miles from the northern tip of Formosa. You will have to think long and hard on that effort. As you can see, there will be little or no island hopping without the carriers. This effort will take longer and the Japanese will resist will land based air all the way.

[Ed Rotondaro]

You have to use the battleships for shore bombardment, as long range bombers are just not that accurate and cannot provide the necessary, on call, fire support. The only safe strategy, without carriers is to use Port Moresby as a land base and invade and occupy Lae and Salamaua on the other side of New Guinea. If you occupy those airbases, you are only 550 miles from the two air bases and a good harbor at Rabaul. The bombers can fly from those bases, but your fighters will need to be closer. You will have invade, occupy the southern side of New Britain and build fighter bases along the coast to provide the necessary bomber escort and fighter cover for the bomber bases.

Once Rabaul has been reduced by an invasion from the sea and an overland operation, you have almost 1400 miles to Truk. That is too far for fighters. You will have to use the bombers to bomb Truk and make it untenable, but you cannot invade it without carriers. Best possible route is northeast from Rabaul through the Molukka Sea and hit the Phillippines from the south, working your way up the chain using a progression of airfields. Progression from there maybe fighter support from the mainland of China and bombers like the B-29 with an invasion of Formosa. After that, move all aircraft to Formosa and begin the long path up the Japanese home islands starting with Okinawa. It is over 400 miles from the northern tip of Formosa. You will have to think long and hard on that effort. As you can see, there will be little or no island hopping without the carriers. This effort will take longer and the Japanese will resist will land based air all the way.

Dennis and Kyle:

With all due respect, your missing something here. If land based aircraft continue to develop their capabilities and lethality, then why not carrier based aircraft? You really can't have it both ways guys. Don't mean to be harsh, but one can't develop while the other remains a dead end. About all I will allow is that yes, land based aircraft certainly had an easier time of it, but you forgetting something. They didn't need long range. It was a rare land based design that had long range save perhaps four engined bombers which were pathetic at attacking ships.

BBs had already maxed out at the 45,000 to 60,000 ton size range. I'm not remotely convinced that anybody could have built and operated a 100,000 ton BB. Sorry, no docking facilities, no ports, nothing. As far as being able to fight off an opponent's light ships, trust me a full battleline with its own screen could keep DDs at bay at least during daytime. Even at Surigao Strait, the heavily outnumbered IJN forces made the USN make its torpedo attacks at much longer ranges than was optimal.

[old_pop2000]

I agree but I was only following the thread subject of no carriers. It is inconceivable that there would be no carriers and carrier aircraft commensurate with the development of land based airpower. So, with all due respect, I did not miss a thing.

As far as 100,000 ton battleships, I am working on a design in Springsharp that has a 1935 battleship in the British Royal Navy, of over 1000 feet long, 110 feet in beam, 30 ft freeboard and 30 knots of speed minimum. It is already at 57,000 tons. The draught is 30ft to keep it stable and that is to deep for most ports. It has a LTB of 9.0 which is just a little high, 8.35 being about the optimal. So, I find it hard to even conceive of a ship of 100,000 tons. I suspect that my ship will eventually, with armor, secondary and tertiary armament along tweaks to get the seakeeping adequate, will top 60,000 tons.

[old_pop2000]

I've put together using Springsharp 3.0 beta, my proposed Olympia class battleship


USS Olympia, USA battleship laid down 1935

Displacement:
120,323 t light; 125,268 t standard; 136,125 t normal; 144,811 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(1,510.72 ft / 1,500.00 ft) x 165.00 ft x (35.00 / 36.69 ft)
(460.47 m / 457.20 m) x 50.29 m x (10.67 / 11.18 m)

Armament:
12 - 16.00" / 406 mm 50.0 cal guns - 2,168.09lbs / 983.43kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1935 Model
4 x 3-gun mounts on centreline forward
2 raised mounts - superfiring
10 - 5.00" / 127 mm 45.0 cal guns - 63.03lbs / 28.59kg shells, 150 per gun
Dual purpose guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1935 Model
10 x Single mounts on side ends, majority forward
5 raised mounts - superfiring
40 - 1.10" / 27.9 mm 45.0 cal guns - 0.67lbs / 0.30kg shells, 150 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1935 Model
10 x 4 row quad mounts on sides amidships
10 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 26,674 lbs / 12,099 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 14.0" / 356 mm 750.00 ft / 228.60 m 14.45 ft / 4.40 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 77 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
4.00" / 102 mm 750.00 ft / 228.60 m 22.95 ft / 7.00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 8.00" / 203 mm 6.00" / 152 mm 6.00" / 152 mm
2nd: 2.00" / 51 mm 2.00" / 51 mm 2.00" / 51 mm

- Armoured deck - multiple decks: 4.00" / 102 mm For and Aft decks
Forecastle: 4.00" / 102 mm Quarter deck: 4.00" / 102 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 12.00" / 305 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 6 shafts, 310,542 shp / 231,665 Kw = 32.00 kts
Range 9,000nm at 20.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 19,543 tons

Complement:
3,542 - 4,606

Cost:
£41.761 million / $167.044 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 5,906 tons, 4.3 %
Armour: 26,154 tons, 19.2 %
- Belts: 6,636 tons, 4.9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 2,547 tons, 1.9 %
- Armament: 2,871 tons, 2.1 %
- Armour Deck: 13,415 tons, 9.9 %
- Conning Tower: 684 tons, 0.5 %
Machinery: 8,822 tons, 6.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 79,381 tons, 58.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 15,802 tons, 11.6 %
Miscellaneous weights: 60 tons, 0.0 %
- Hull below water: 60 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
406,789 lbs / 184,516 Kg = 198.6 x 16.0 " / 406 mm shells or 102.7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.32
Metacentric height 17.4 ft / 5.3 m
Roll period: 16.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 61 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.21
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.11

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and large transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.550 / 0.558
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.09 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 44.28 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 34 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 55
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 40.00 ft / 12.19 m, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m, 34.00 ft / 10.36 m
- Average freeboard: 31.10 ft / 9.48 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 46.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 290.1 %
Waterplane Area: 179,825 Square feet or 16,706 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 194 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 368 lbs/sq ft or 1,799 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.63
- Longitudinal: 0.94
- Overall: 1.08
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent




Eat your heart out, Yamato:cool:

[Ed Rotondaro]

I've put together using Springsharp 3.0 beta, my proposed Olympia class battleship



Eat your heart out, Yamato:cool:

Dennis:

I believe the word here is design exercise, because that's all this is. Sorry, I'm past the what if stage these days. With all due respect.;)

[old_pop2000]

To engineering types like myself, design exercises are learning tools. I am now able to design a ship and understand the different aspects of the process and end result. In the process, I understand and can assess actual ship designs like the Iowa class battleships and the Montana better. It all contributes to the mix, we call learning and understanding. I actually don't need books like Friedman's, because I can use my tool to make my own assessment. But, Friedman would be nice, make no mistake. When we close our eyes to different learning tools or methodologies, we close our mind to learning.

[Kyle Holgate]

Dennis:

I believe the word here is design exercise, because that's all this is. Sorry, I'm past the what if stage these days. With all due respect.;)

Then why are you buggin us other than to stick your nose up, you snob you.:p - if you can't say something nice, don't say nutthin at all. Things I learned from Bambi (but don't always follow myself either ;)).

[old_pop2000]

I've made some changes to, what I would call, the ultimate expression of a battleship if Carriers had not been developed. I've added the 18 inch 48 cal guns that were experimental but outlawed by the 1922 Treaty, I've added a stern overhang and increased the bow overhang to 20 ft. I am still getting the issue of a ship that is wet forward. However, upon research, the designers say that this figure is developed at maximum speed. Under normal operational cruising speeds, it still might not be wet forward and that a ship that is wet forward may be an excellent gun platform. Here is the result:


USS Olympia, USA battleship laid down 1935

Displacement:
119,437 t light; 125,268 t standard; 136,125 t normal; 144,811 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(1,539.56 ft / 1,500.00 ft) x 165.00 ft x (35.00 / 36.69 ft)
(469.26 m / 457.20 m) x 50.29 m x (10.67 / 11.18 m)

Armament:
12 - 18.00" / 457 mm 48.0 cal guns - 3,054.05lbs / 1,385.30kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1935 Model
4 x 3-gun mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
2 raised mounts - superfiring
10 - 5.00" / 127 mm 45.0 cal guns - 63.03lbs / 28.59kg shells, 150 per gun
Dual purpose guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1935 Model
10 x Single mounts on side ends, majority forward
5 raised mounts - superfiring
40 - 1.10" / 27.9 mm 45.0 cal guns - 0.67lbs / 0.30kg shells, 150 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1935 Model
10 x 4 row quad mounts on sides, evenly spread
10 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 37,306 lbs / 16,922 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 14.0" / 356 mm 750.00 ft / 228.60 m 14.45 ft / 4.40 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 77 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
4.00" / 102 mm 750.00 ft / 228.60 m 22.95 ft / 7.00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 8.00" / 203 mm 6.00" / 152 mm 6.00" / 152 mm
2nd: 2.00" / 51 mm 2.00" / 51 mm 2.00" / 51 mm

- Armoured deck - multiple decks: 4.00" / 102 mm For and Aft decks
Forecastle: 4.00" / 102 mm Quarter deck: 4.00" / 102 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 12.00" / 305 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 6 shafts, 310,542 shp / 231,665 Kw = 32.00 kts
Range 9,000nm at 20.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 19,543 tons

Complement:
3,542 - 4,606

Cost:
£46.428 million / $185.713 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 7,529 tons, 5.5 %
Armour: 26,691 tons, 19.6 %
- Belts: 6,636 tons, 4.9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 2,547 tons, 1.9 %
- Armament: 3,408 tons, 2.5 %
- Armour Deck: 13,415 tons, 9.9 %
- Conning Tower: 684 tons, 0.5 %
Machinery: 8,822 tons, 6.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 76,335 tons, 56.1 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 16,688 tons, 12.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 60 tons, 0.0 %
- Hull below water: 60 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
348,393 lbs / 158,028 Kg = 119.5 x 18.0 " / 457 mm shells or 78.1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.29
Metacentric height 16.8 ft / 5.1 m
Roll period: 16.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 61 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.30
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.11

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and large transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.550 / 0.558
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.09 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 44.28 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 34 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 55
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 25.00 ft / 7.62 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 40.00 ft / 12.19 m, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m, 36.00 ft / 10.97 m
- Average freeboard: 31.25 ft / 9.53 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 53.9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 290.1 %
Waterplane Area: 179,825 Square feet or 16,706 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 171 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 357 lbs/sq ft or 1,742 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.46
- Longitudinal: 0.89
- Overall: 1.01
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent



To many of you who have Friedman's books, check my secondary and tertiary armaments, turret facing armor and side armor along with conning tower armor. I don't have access to these books, as yet and want to make certain that I am in the ball park. I would like to hear some comments about whether you believe that a battleship of this dimension would ever be built. But keep in mind, when the Yorktown class was developed, did anyone believe that the carrier would grow to 100,000 tons of the current supercarrier. It is really hard to predict where ship design might have taken us.

Thanks to all of you for your patience in this design exercise. I am just trying to add something to our discussions.

[Pheonix]

Today, one could say that a very minimum, the gun cruiser is making a comeback with guns capable of firing guided munitions over 100 miles away. With electromagnetic rail guns, that range is increased to over 200 miles (possibly unlimited with a nuclear powerplant). I suppose a comeback of the battleship is possible these days.

[Kyle Holgate]

Today, one could say that a very minimum, the gun cruiser is making a comeback with guns capable of firing guided munitions over 100 miles away. With electromagnetic rail guns, that range is increased to over 200 miles (possibly unlimited with a nuclear powerplant). I suppose a comeback of the battleship is possible these days.


It depends on how a battleship is defined in current terms. What we now call destroyers are the same size as cruisers and often have virtually the same role(s) - look at the Arleigh Burke class compared to the newest version of the Tinconderogas.

One could argue that the BB concept returned with the arrival of the so called Kirov class missile ships the Soviets put to sea back in the 80's. I'd say they were more of a battlecruiser, but ship classification is not a science so you can call em what you you like.
As for the classic BB - with thick armor and heavy guns, I don't think it will be returning to the scene. They'd cost so much and still have limited capabilities compared to carriers and be vulnerable to attack compared to carriers. That being said, if you made them capable enough and had them well escorted you could possibly put them to use as a deterrant where you may not want to risk a CVN or may not have a spare CVN.

I think today's prime deterrant "battleship" is the new monster cruise missile sub like the recently re-comissioned Ohio. Over 100 T'hawks + a seal team + excellent stealth and speed. Were I any country making noise about mucking with the US I'd worry more about one of these "maybe" lurking off my coast than I would any new Battleship class.

[Kyle Holgate]

Dennis - your ship has very light armor for a BB. It may have quite a punch, but it strikes me more as an updated and much more heavily armed Glorious than a battleship like Yamato or Montana. I hope you at least have extra armor over and around the magazines - a 14" shell, let alone an 18.1" would be very dangerous.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Then why are you buggin us other than to stick your nose up, you snob you.:p - if you can't say something nice, don't say nutthin at all. Things I learned from Bambi (but don't always follow myself either ;)).

Don't make me fly out there!:p It's just that I see far too much of the ignore reality stuff with the never builts etc. It's real boring to have to consider things like where do you dry dock the ship, or is your port deep enough to handle the monster? All party pooper stuff, except they effected any design made. You know like the width of the Panama Canal limiting the size of US BBs?;)

[Ed Rotondaro]

I've made some changes to, what I would call, the ultimate expression of a battleship if Carriers had not been developed. I've added the 18 inch 48 cal guns that were experimental but outlawed by the 1922 Treaty, I've added a stern overhang and increased the bow overhang to 20 ft. I am still getting the issue of a ship that is wet forward. However, upon research, the designers say that this figure is developed at maximum speed. Under normal operational cruising speeds, it still might not be wet forward and that a ship that is wet forward may be an excellent gun platform. Here is the result:



To many of you who have Friedman's books, check my secondary and tertiary armaments, turret facing armor and side armor along with conning tower armor. I don't have access to these books, as yet and want to make certain that I am in the ball park. I would like to hear some comments about whether you believe that a battleship of this dimension would ever be built. But keep in mind, when the Yorktown class was developed, did anyone believe that the carrier would grow to 100,000 tons of the current supercarrier. It is really hard to predict where ship design might have taken us.

Thanks to all of you for your patience in this design exercise. I am just trying to add something to our discussions.


Dennis:

The proposed Montana class had a thicker belt on far less displacement. Also you run into the problem of the Panama Canal. Unless there was a clear and present threat to the USN to build such a ship, I doubt it would be more than a design exercise. It's not even armored against its own guns. Also as US admirals pointed out during the design process for the Iowa class, jumping to 18" guns gave the ship very little added advantage as the 16" super heavy shell could penetrate even Yamato's deck armor.

[old_pop2000]

You have reached the conclusion that I was hoping for. Any size bigger than the Montana's was totally impractical. I reduced the guns back to 16 inch 50 which I feel are more than adequate for any situation. The armour is heavier in the main belt than the Iowa's but less than the Yamato. A ship of that length is not going to be a maneuverable ship and that is an important quality, we learned that from the Lex and Sara. The lesson learned is that you cannot just scale up a design, because it just doesn't work. The answer to the question of where battleships design would go without carriers is simply, nowhere. They had reached the maximum practical size in the Montana's. In fact, they were not entirely practical. Here is a complete revision of my Olympia design. It is armoured better than the Iowa's, armed like the Montanas and a much more practical ship.... athough I still am not certain she would ever have been built.


USS Olympia, USA battleship laid down 1935

Displacement:
59,700 t light; 63,328 t standard; 70,230 t normal; 75,752 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(985.92 ft / 950.00 ft) x 110.00 ft x (38.00 / 40.38 ft)
(300.51 m / 289.56 m) x 33.53 m x (11.58 / 12.31 m)

Armament:
12 - 16.00" / 406 mm 50.0 cal guns - 2,168.09lbs / 983.43kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1935 Model
4 x 3-gun mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
2 raised mounts - superfiring
10 - 5.00" / 127 mm 45.0 cal guns - 63.03lbs / 28.59kg shells, 150 per gun
Dual purpose guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1935 Model
10 x Single mounts on side ends, majority forward
5 raised mounts - superfiring
40 - 1.10" / 27.9 mm 45.0 cal guns - 0.67lbs / 0.30kg shells, 150 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1935 Model
10 x 4 row quad mounts on sides, evenly spread
10 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 26,674 lbs / 12,099 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 617.50 ft / 188.21 m 12.59 ft / 3.84 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Upper: 6.00" / 152 mm 617.50 ft / 188.21 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
4.00" / 102 mm 617.50 ft / 188.21 m 36.11 ft / 11.01 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 17.0" / 432 mm 9.50" / 241 mm 12.0" / 305 mm
2nd: 2.00" / 51 mm 2.00" / 51 mm 2.00" / 51 mm

- Armoured deck - multiple decks: 7.00" / 178 mm For and Aft decks
Forecastle: 7.00" / 178 mm Quarter deck: 7.00" / 178 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 17.50" / 445 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 221,528 shp / 165,260 Kw = 32.00 kts
Range 9,000nm at 20.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 12,424 tons

Complement:
2,156 - 2,804

Cost:
£29.157 million / $116.627 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 5,906 tons, 8.4 %
Armour: 24,478 tons, 34.9 %
- Belts: 5,189 tons, 7.4 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 3,300 tons, 4.7 %
- Armament: 4,758 tons, 6.8 %
- Armour Deck: 10,589 tons, 15.1 %
- Conning Tower: 642 tons, 0.9 %
Machinery: 6,293 tons, 9.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 22,963 tons, 32.7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 10,530 tons, 15.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 60 tons, 0.1 %
- Hull below water: 60 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
97,706 lbs / 44,319 Kg = 47.7 x 16.0 " / 406 mm shells or 16.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.01
Metacentric height 5.9 ft / 1.8 m
Roll period: 19.0 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 62 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.98
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.13

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and large transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.619 / 0.628
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.64 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 35.14 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 50 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 55
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 25.00 ft / 7.62 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m, 25.00 ft / 7.62 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 25.00 ft / 7.62 m, 25.00 ft / 7.62 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 25.00 ft / 7.62 m, 25.00 ft / 7.62 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 25.00 ft / 7.62 m, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m
- Average freeboard: 25.78 ft / 7.86 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 80.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 179.1 %
Waterplane Area: 81,111 Square feet or 7,536 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 111 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 224 lbs/sq ft or 1,093 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.99
- Longitudinal: 1.11
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

[old_pop2000]

Ed:
The Bureau of ships had books for individual ships termed " The Spring styles Book". It was a collection of preliminary design plans for ships prepared by the Bureau of construction and repair. The purpose of the design book or Spring Styles book was to show the Navy's General Board a list of potential designs based on characteristics proposed by that body. In essence, they were brainstorming books, to illustrate possible designs to comply with the General Boards requirements for a new ship. The name was derived from Ladies fashion Catalogs. They represented only ideas as to possible directions the final drawings should follow. These books show the evolution of a particular design. From these preliminary drawings, the General Board would choose possible designs and request further study and more in depth designs and specifications. It was an iterative process

The program that I use and others are using, is called Springsharp. It is a derivative of another naval design program called Springstyle. Notice the name. The concept behind these programs is to duplicate on the computer, what the Bureau of Construction and Repair did on paper. To develop possible designs to satisfy a particular set of requirements.

As an example, there is a springstyles book for a proposed flight deck cruiser dtd 8 December 1939. The ship was of 12,000 ton displacement, armed with 3 8 inch 55 caliber guns, 640 ft in length. Its designation was to be CF.

The next design was dtd 14 December 1939. The preliminary design specifications were: for a 12,000 ton standard displacement ship (14,220 ton trial displacement) with a main battery of three 8"/55 guns, a secondary battery of eight 5"/38 guns and an aircraft complement of 24 to 36. Ship's dimensions are: waterline length 640'; waterline beam 67'; draft 21' 8". Powerplant has 100,000 horsepower for a speed of 33 knots.

The last design in the series was dated 31 January 1940, for a 12,200 ton standard displacement ship (14,560 ton trial displacement) with a main battery of six 6"/47 guns, a secondary battery of four 5"/38 guns and an aircraft complement of 36 scout-bombers. Ship's dimensions are: waterline length 640'; waterline beam 67'; draft 22'. Powerplant has 100,000 horsepower for a speed of 33 knots. The vessel was designated CF-2

This should give some understanding of the uses of preliminary designs like the ones that I produced and others create.

[tony_glazebrook]

Dennis:

The proposed Montana class had a thicker belt on far less displacement. Also you run into the problem of the Panama Canal. Unless there was a clear and present threat to the USN to build such a ship, I doubt it would be more than a design exercise. It's not even armored against its own guns. Also as US admirals pointed out during the design process for the Iowa class, jumping to 18" guns gave the ship very little added advantage as the 16" super heavy shell could penetrate even Yamato's deck armor.

Ed, Dennis, eta

I think the original question was much more of a hypothetical 'what if', ie assuming no airpower of any kind and ignoring practical constraint such as dockyard facilities, Suez/Panama canal constraints etc.

The Q he asked basically boiled down to, IMHO, is a 1 * 130000 tonne BB worth 2 * Montanas or Yamatos?

It is still an interesting question and deserving of some proper playtesting.

You can do this to a level in SAS. You would have to wait for NAW and support in it for designs such as these, to answer the question definitively, over a statistically significant number of tests/conditions.

Cheers mate

[old_pop2000]

Ed, Dennis, eta

I think the original question was much more of a hypothetical 'what if', ie assuming no airpower of any kind and ignoring practical constraint such as dockyard facilities, Suez/Panama canal constraints etc.

The Q he asked basically boiled down to, IMHO, is a 1 * 130000 tonne BB worth 2 * Montanas or Yamatos?

It is still an interesting question and deserving of some proper playtesting.

You can do this to a level in SAS. You would have to wait for NAW and support in it for designs such as these, to answer the question definitively, over a statistically significant number of tests/conditions.

Cheers mate
I suppose that we could debate what he meant, but his simple phrase seems to be adequate. How would battleships develop, if the carrier was not available to supplant them. Reading him literally, he never proposes no aircraft, just aircraft carriers.

We know that the Washington Naval Treaty reduced the size and numbers of carriers, what if they banned the development of them entirely.

Does that mean that they would have outlawed the flight deck cruiser such as the one the US was designing or the hybrids like Ise and Hyuga? Is it possible the future carriers were more like them than our future fleet carriers. I think it is possible, if the treaty did not explicidly ban them.

Interestingly, the springstyles book #3 of 1939-1945 contains preliminary designs that lead to the Essex class carriers. At least three of those preliminary designs were for the CF-2 Flight Deck Carrier, along with other light carrier designs.

This information on the Spring Styles book comes from a digital copy on the Naval Historical Center Online Resources- If you google "Spring Styles Book", you should go right to the page. I did use some of their language to explain the book.

[Kyle Holgate]

One thing we could do to put the discussion a 'little' less in the realm of pure make believe is to propose that WW1 did not happen for one reason or other. Yes, it was bound to - whether a shot rang out in Sarajevo or not - but let's just suppose nothing sparked direct conflict.
Without WW1 the naval race would have been able to continue, and we've seen some of the ships that were potentially going to be built - The N3 Battleships and G3 BC's for the UK, the South Dakota class for the US (not to be confused with the 1940's ship of the same name) and the Lexington BC's - and for the Japanese, the Kaga, Akagi, Owari and maybe an 18" gunned follow on. What the Germans may have come up with is an unknown.
In any case, we have some tenuous base in fact here with which to work. Carriers were certainly on the way even then, but aircraft would not really pose a major threat for some time yet.
Without WW1 the BB race may have had the financing to continue... does the US Navy bow to pressure to build 18" gunned ships (when IMO 16" guns were just fine)? If Germany responds to the RN, do the British up the size even more to larger ships with 20" guns or more? Maybe the US just decides it needs two navies - one each for the Pacific and Atlantic?

[old_pop2000]

One thing we could do to put the discussion a 'little' less in the realm of pure make believe is to propose that WW1 did not happen for one reason or other. Yes, it was bound to - whether a shot rang out in Sarajevo or not - but let's just suppose nothing sparked direct conflict.
Without WW1 the naval race would have been able to continue, and we've seen some of the ships that were potentially going to be built - The N3 Battleships and G3 BC's for the UK, the South Dakota class for the US (not to be confused with the 1940's ship of the same name) and the Lexington BC's - and for the Japanese, the Kaga, Akagi, Owari and maybe an 18" gunned follow on. What the Germans may have come up with is an unknown.
In any case, we have some tenuous base in fact here with which to work. Carriers were certainly on the way even then, but aircraft would not really pose a major threat for some time yet.
Without WW1 the BB race may have had the financing to continue... does the US Navy bow to pressure to build 18" gunned ships (when IMO 16" guns were just fine)? If Germany responds to the RN, do the British up the size even more to larger ships with 20" guns or more? Maybe the US just decides it needs two navies - one each for the Pacific and Atlantic?
That is another good approach, to the issue of the battleship without the carrier. If there is no demonstration of aircraft at Jutland, how would air enthusiast have proceeded? The anti-battleship pundits would only have had theory, not actual combat to prove their case that the battleship was a limited weapons system.

The real question is whether economics would have played a part? Would the economic downturn in the thirties have occurred earlier in the '20's and curtailed military spending. If it did, then the large oversize battleships like those that you alluded to, might never have been built.

What would the next generation after the QE class in GB or the Nevada, Oklahoma or the Pennsylvania and Arizona have looked like? Would we have built the Lexingtons as BC's and then an expanded version? Would the classes that were scrapped or terminated as a result of the WNT have been built?

So, we have three paths to explore: 1. No WWI and the Naval Arms Race continues. 2. WWI occurs but the Washington Naval Treaty outlaws carriers totally. 3. Same as #2, but the treaty allows Flight Deck Carriers.

But any of these paths still demands that we explore, not just in vague concepts, specific and concrete examples of how we believe battleship technology would have proceeded in any one of these paths. How will we know the limits of size of these ships, if we don't explore theoretical designs.

[Kyle Holgate]

Let's take a look at the ships that we know about.

USN - the Colorado with 8x16" guns followed the Tennessee class sporting 12x14" guns. The next step was to be the South Dakota class - bigger than these two with better armor and slightly more speed - and a main gun battery of 12x16" guns (4 tripple turrets).

RN - The fast battleships of the Queen Elizabeth class were followed by the more conventional Royal Sovereign class, and the BC's Repulse and Renown. Following these was the Hood - arguably a fast battleship at least as designed as she was armored (so they believed) as well as the QE class but had speed superior to the Repulse. Next on the planning paper was the G3 class BC's with 9x16" guns in a well armored and fast platform and the N3's with 9x18" guns - in an even better armored ship, but slower. The G3's on paper look to be excellent ships with a good balance of firepower, speed and protection. Fast battleships IMO - but you can call em BC's if you want.

IJN - The Nagato class was sort of a QE + 16" guns - speed being somewhat more important than protection. The next class would have been the Kaga, bit bigger than Nagato with 2 more guns but the same sort of ship. Owarii - similar again. The Japanese also planned BC's - the Amagi's which were on paper better ships than the Lexingtons, sporting better protection, more guns and only slightly less speed. Next things get harder to project, but the Japanese had plans for the so called "13" class. These would have been something like super- Nagato class ships with 18" guns instead of 16, and good speed and fair protection. It's clear the Japanese thinking, probably based on their win at Tsushama, still kept to the premise that speed was somewhat more important than armor/protection.

I would expect the various nations to continue their own somewhat unique design philosophies: US, armor+firepower at the expense of speed with BB's, Speed at the expense of armor and FP for their BC.
UK - balance, good bit of speed, FP and protection for the BC's (starting with Hood), and more or less USN thinking for their BB's - guns and protection.
Japan - speed first, then worry about firepower followed by protection. Even their 13 class as far as can be told, would have been under armored for such a ship - but would have had excellent speed (30 knots or so) and 8x18" guns!

[old_pop2000]

Let's take a look at the ships that we know about.

USN - the Colorado with 8x16" guns followed the Tennessee class sporting 12x14" guns. The next step was to be the South Dakota class - bigger than these two with better armor and slightly more speed - and a main gun battery of 12x16" guns (4 tripple turrets).

RN - The fast battleships of the Queen Elizabeth class were followed by the more conventional Royal Sovereign class, and the BC's Repulse and Renown. Following these was the Hood - arguably a fast battleship at least as designed as she was armored (so they believed) as well as the QE class but had speed superior to the Repulse. Next on the planning paper was the G3 class BC's with 9x16" guns in a well armored and fast platform and the N3's with 9x18" guns - in an even better armored ship, but slower. The G3's on paper look to be excellent ships with a good balance of firepower, speed and protection. Fast battleships IMO - but you can call em BC's if you want.

IJN - The Nagato class was sort of a QE + 16" guns - speed being somewhat more important than protection. The next class would have been the Kaga, bit bigger than Nagato with 2 more guns but the same sort of ship. Owarii - similar again. The Japanese also planned BC's - the Amagi's which were on paper better ships than the Lexingtons, sporting better protection, more guns and only slightly less speed. Next things get harder to project, but the Japanese had plans for the so called "13" class. These would have been something like super- Nagato class ships with 18" guns instead of 16, and good speed and fair protection. It's clear the Japanese thinking, probably based on their win at Tsushama, still kept to the premise that speed was somewhat more important than armor/protection.

I would expect the various nations to continue their own somewhat unique design philosophies: US, armor+firepower at the expense of speed with BB's, Speed at the expense of armor and FP for their BC.
UK - balance, good bit of speed, FP and protection for the BC's (starting with Hood), and more or less USN thinking for their BB's - guns and protection.
Japan - speed first, then worry about firepower followed by protection. Even their 13 class as far as can be told, would have been under armored for such a ship - but would have had excellent speed (30 knots or so) and 8x18" guns!
I think that, during the time frame, we are reaching a limitation of fire control systems. Without radar, just how far can you shoot and be accurate. Does it matter if I have 16 inch or 18 in guns, if I can't hit anything past 15,000 yards or thereabout. The 16 inch 50 cal Mark 2 of the proposed South Dakota's of the 1920's had a maximum range of 45,100 yards at 46 degrees. But I submit that the real limiting factor was the fire control equipment. How really good was US range finders and how accurate could I be. Why load down a ship with 16 inch and 18 inch guns when I can't actually hit anything beyond the range of a 14 inch gun. It is true that the 16 inch guns or 18 had the weight of shell advantage, but of what advantage is that, if I can't hit anything with regularity except to make bigger splashes in the water.

The 16 inch 50 cal of proposed South Dakota, BB-49 weighed with breech, 128.5 tons each.

The 14 inch 50's of the New Mexico's weighed 89 tons.

Based on a difference of 39 tons each, and twelve guns, that is 468 tons difference not including the ammunition is larger and heavier which adds that the mix. Also, the turret ring and barbette will have to be enlarged and adds more weight. We might add 1000 tons. Does not seem like much?

So, do I add over 1000 tons of weight above the waterline, which requires more weight below to keep the balance of the ship, for the extra weight of fire, even if I can't hit anything.

With 1920's fire control, what is the hit probability at 25,000 yards, 30,000 yards? I don't have the answer? But I will bet it is low. So, what is the decision by the different nations?

Again, we are talking about trade offs. But we cannot see the effects until we quantify them and place them in a real design.

[Kyle Holgate]

I am of the opinion that the US would have been better served with simply building more Tennessee class ships than they were with the change to the Colorado class. Having 12 chances of putting a 14" round on target each salvo vs 8 chances of planting a 16" round just appeals to me.
With aircraft spotting and really good range finders - there was a reason the Japanese made thos funny looking "pagoda" masts - there are claims of getting 4-5% hits at 30k yards or so. IIRC the longest ranged hits by BB's on enemy ships in WW2 were a near tie - Scharnhorst on HMS Glorious, and Warspite on the Italian BB Giulio Cesare - both were at around 26,000 yards.
At those ranges - perhaps the idea is to make what few hits you get really count. I can see this as important! If that 14" round bounces but the enemy hits you with an 18 inch shell that penetrates your belt and floods an engine room - I too would be longing for bigger guns. Even if you're slugging it out at "only" 5 miles - you want each hit to count.

[old_pop2000]

Ok, so is quantity better than quality. Are more numerous 14 inch guns better than less numerous 16 inch guns. Is smothering a target with a blizzard of 14 inch guns better than a few large snow balls of 16 inch shells?

[Kyle Holgate]

Ok, so is quantity better than quality. Are more numerous 14 inch guns better than less numerous 16 inch guns. Is smothering a target with a blizzard of 14 inch guns better than a few large snow balls of 16 inch shells?

Here is where ya got me. I've wondered myself. Not being a math whiz I don't know the answer. Maybe Willam will chime in here, he's much more math savy than I am and computes the firepower for the various NWS games.

[old_pop2000]

I ran the design of the South Dakota of 1922, using the information available. The difference between 16 in 50 and 14 inch 50 was 640 tons, based on Springsharp. It does modify the overall ships stability, due to the extra weight above the waterline. With the 14 in guns, the ship is a much more stable in rough seas. Seaboat quality goes from 1.23 to 1.14, with the higher number meaning a better seaboat. My overall normal displacement was 43,218 tons, the actual design was calculated on the drawings at 43,200 tons. My full load condition is 44,501 which is about 3000 tons lighter. I am not entirely certain, how full load is calculated, so I am not going to be concerned. It might be in the number of shells per gun for the 16 inch, 6 inch and 3 inch guns.

I agree about getting a good answer on the quantity versus quality idea. The real question for me, is whether it is better to have a good seaboat and 14 inch guns or lose that quality for 16 inch guns. My attitude is that with the fire control of the time, I would prefer to have a better seaboat with 14 inch guns than the extra weight of shell, since I can't reach out and touch anyone with the increasd range anyway. But I don't have good numbers to validate that.

[Warship NWS]

Here is where ya got me. I've wondered myself. Not being a math whiz I don't know the answer. Maybe Willam will chime in here, he's much more math savy than I am and computes the firepower for the various NWS games.

I will chime in if that is ok with you..;)

Much depends on the requirements of the guns and the target you are firing at -- example hitting power per shell vs volume of fire, an equation that holds true for all ordnance delivery weapon systems. Remember, the superstructure, where the fire controls are and other various critical functions are located, is still the achilles heel of any major ship armed with guns due to its low level of protection vs guns of ~3" or greater size. However, more guns requires more protection for the guns and ammunition but less guns means less of a salvo density at the target area. As it normally goes with weapon systems its all about balance of firepower and protection, this of course is not taking into account that more guns means more weight in terms of guns+turret systems/protection/magazines/fire control system complexities, etc.. which in turn requires more propulsion power to move the floating battery - which is what a battleship is - around.

The minimum guns for a reasonable salvo, as determined by the Royal Navy doctrines, around the early 1900s, was considered to be four barrels per salvo. Most capital ships had at least 6-12 guns throughout WW1 to WW2 spread out into 3 or more turrets. In the end however we come back to the balance of volume of fire vs hitting power per shell which is further determined by the targets the guns are intended to engage.

End result.. there is no clear cut equation of bigger guns vs more guns. There are several historical examples where bigger guns did not prove superior to slightly smaller guns with all other factors such as turret attributes, ROF, fire controls, quality of shells, etc. taken into consideration as a complete weapon system. Bottom line, the guns must be able to be used to their full effect vs the intended targets otherwise their overall size may be of little effect vs alternate sizes that might have better end results.

The biggest problem with discussions about naval gunnery is the often forgotten factor that a warship is required to act as a complete weapon system.

Thanks.

[old_pop2000]

I agree with your assessment and that is the reason that I would prefer a better seakeeping abilility to make the boat a better gun platform, improve the secondary armament and use the 14 inch guns. I believe that I don't lose that much in weight of fire, but gain in ship handing characteristics like a slower roll period which will make the gunnery more accurate overall. I believe that most people forget about the fact that the ship is a system and everything must contribute to the effective use of the weapons. In heavy seas, a ship that has better characteristics will be able to maintain speed and course, and maneuver better. Again, tactics are important, as much as weight of shell.

[Kyle Holgate]

I will chime in if that is ok with you..;)

Much depends on the requirements of the guns and the target you are firing at -- example hitting power per shell vs volume of fire, an equation that holds true for all ordnance delivery weapon systems. Remember, the superstructure, where the fire controls are and other various critical functions are located, is still the achilles heel of any major ship armed with guns due to its low level of protection vs guns of ~3" or greater size. However, more guns requires more protection for the guns and ammunition but less guns means less of a salvo density at the target area. As it normally goes with weapon systems its all about balance of firepower and protection, this of course is not taking into account that more guns means more weight in terms of guns+turret systems/protection/magazines/fire control system complexities, etc.. which in turn requires more propulsion power to move the floating battery - which is what a battleship is - around.

The minimum guns for a reasonable salvo, as determined by the Royal Navy doctrines, around the early 1900s, was considered to be four barrels per salvo. Most capital ships had at least 6-12 guns throughout WW1 to WW2 spread out into 3 or more turrets. In the end however we come back to the balance of volume of fire vs hitting power per shell which is further determined by the targets the guns are intended to engage.

End result.. there is no clear cut equation of bigger guns vs more guns. There are several historical examples where bigger guns did not prove superior to slightly smaller guns with all other factors such as turret attributes, ROF, fire controls, quality of shells, etc. taken into consideration as a complete weapon system. Bottom line, the guns must be able to be used to their full effect vs the intended targets otherwise their overall size may be of little effect vs alternate sizes that might have better end results.

The biggest problem with discussions about naval gunnery is the often forgotten factor that a warship is required to act as a complete weapon system.

Thanks.

I look at the WCDB game and still run into questions. For example the Fuso class has a firepower rating of 15, the Repulse has a FP of 14. One ship is firing twice as many guns at roughly the same ROF - so should have roughly twice as many chances to hit (speaking of Fuso here of course). Of course, fire control has a lot to do with hitting power in a game - all those 12 shells don't do crap unless they hit the target - but still, it's always baffled me a bit.
Moving away from the game side here - you have Colorado with 8x16" guns and Tennessee with 12x14. If you assume identical fire control, and equally accurate guns (yes, I know - the US 14" had problems but let's say they didn't) - it would seem that having 4 more chances of hitting in a given time period would be the better deal. As said, there are plenty of un-armored areas on a ship, and if you can plant a 14" round into the superstructure of the Colorado before she plants a 16" round into the Tennessee you're heading toward winning the battle in our little civil war.

[old_pop2000]

Without quantifying it, I would agree with your conclusions. However, a large, heavier round has better exterior ballistics so it might even out. That would take some heavy calculating but it might prove to be true. However, if a ship with smaller weapons can get on target and start attacking the superstructure first, then it can acheive a mission kill sooner. If it is more stable in turns, then it possibly can get better accuracy for longer periods of time. The real question is; how much bigger is the turret and associated equipment for a 16 inch gun as opposed to a 14 inch gun. I would guess that they are pretty close, although weight says different. Size might make a difference in the area of ammunition hoists, electric motors, ammunition storage areas etc. I wonder what Friedman says about the difference between the use of the 14 inch versus the 16 inch guns.

[Warship NWS]

I look at the WCDB game and still run into questions. For example the Fuso class has a firepower rating of 15, the Repulse has a FP of 14.

In WCDB there is a lot more involved in the FP ratings then just number of guns and shell weight .. for obvious reasons I will not go into specific calculations as they are proprietary to our internal research and combat mechanics, however, let us look at this;

Basic average maximum sustained broadside ROF,

Fuso = 15.24 tons per minute. Typical 14" AP shell weight of 1485lb.
Repulse = 11.62 tons per minute. Typical 15" AP shell weight of 1938lb.

However, WCDB firepower also takes into account a wide range of other variables such as shell and turret reliability, dispersion/ballistic considerations, explosive/damage power of the shells, various firing attributes of the fire controls and turrets, etc.. Point being, its not a simple set of firepower factors.. in the end they are just indicators that are not linear in calculation.

The Repulse/Renown fired a very reliable weapon system that could fire very dangerous 15" shells at enemy targets. Most BCs used smaller caliber guns but were armed with more of them.. the R/R designs stuck with an already tried and tested gun rather then going with a smaller caliber weapon but in turn they carried fewer guns. The classic trade off of less guns for harder hitting guns.

Thanks.

[Warship NWS]

ROF considerations per broadside,

Before the advent of RFC which allowed for faster, and usually more consistent and frequent, salvo target acquisition capital ship batteries (13" or larger guns) typically fired, on average, around the same ROF per barrel of around 1-2 RPM depending on range to target and loading cycle. Overall most capital ships held no real advantage in terms of sustainable salvos per minute in typical optical only combat conditions with all else being somewhat equal. However, naval gunnery was seldom continuously consistent or equal. ROF, which greatly determined the firepower of a warship in terms of numbers of shells fired, was also affected by gunnery stabilization, target acquisition, loading cycle reliability and consistency (which was often affected by the loading cycle complexity), crew training, elevation/traverse rates, loading angles, sea state, firing sequences/mechanisms, etc. In the end, the warship that could function more efficiently and effectively in combat could show an advantage over a warship with harder hitting guns.. especially if a mission kill was all that was required to determine the outcome of a naval battle.

Thanks.

[old_pop2000]

ROF considerations per broadside,

Before the advent of RFC which allowed for faster, and usually more consistent and frequent, salvo target acquisition capital ship batteries (13" or larger guns) typically fired, on average, around the same ROF per barrel of around 1-2 RPM depending on range to target and loading cycle. Overall most capital ships held no real advantage in terms of sustainable salvos per minute in typical optical only combat conditions with all else being somewhat equal. However, naval gunnery was seldom continuously consistent or equal. ROF, which greatly determined the firepower of a warship in terms of numbers of shells fired, was also affected by gunnery stabilization, target acquisition, loading cycle reliability and consistency (which was often affected by the loading cycle complexity), crew training, elevation/traverse rates, loading angles, sea state, firing sequences/mechanisms, etc. In the end, the warship that could function more efficiently and effectively in combat could show an advantage over a warship with harder hitting guns.. especially if a mission kill was all that was required to determine the outcome of a naval battle.

Thanks.
I think it is safe to say, that in the battleship's development, larger guns would be the norm for each successive class of ship. All things being equal, whether FC improves or not, larger shells have better exterior ballistics and a greater weight of fire. Without any examples like Jutland, the designers would have to go on theory.

If we assume this course, then we can assume that the ships will get larger. Ship designers will have no choice but to increase the beam and draught to accomodate the larger turrets, barbettes and ammunition rooms. Increasing the beam, will require increasing the length to maintain an optimal LTB ratio of 8.35 or thereabouts. All these changes will increase the displacement and this will require larger engines and more shafts.

However, we know that there is an upper practical limit to the size of the ship, so if this is true, there has to be a limit to the size of the guns. I would guess. Would 16 inches be the upper limit due to the factors I have just bought up? Or would a ship of the Yamato's size be the upper limit with 18 inch guns? How about a mix of BC, smaller battleships and a few monster ships?

What about perfecting quad turrets? Install two quad turrets on the deck with a triple in the superfiring position. This would allow for 14 x 16 inch. 50's. Is this approach better,instead of installing 18 inch guns. What about the same setup for 14 inch guns? Could a superfiring, quad turret layout with a reinforce barbette be an advantage or would more structural issues be introduced? This would allow for 16 guns, possibly using smaller 12 or 13 inch guns?

Note: On my design of BB-49 I have installed two quad turrets on the deck, with two triple turrets in the superfiring position. It does change the stability causing the ship to be a bad seaboat , but not enough require changes in dimensions drastically. So, this option is available. I see ammunition storage issues, quantity etc. To get the stability back and decrease the roll, more tweaks of the design would have to be made, but it is possible.

[Kyle Holgate]

Quads also require a bigger hole in the deck which impacts on structural integrety to some extent. It seems to me that if this isn't an issue, then putting the quad lower, with the tripple in the superfiring position would be much better for stability.
If the complications of quad turrets can be solved (everyone that made them had some level of problems with them) then they should be a valid way to put more guns on a ship. Are guns the deciding factor though? In the KGV for example they decided against the superfiring quad turret in favor of protection. As you know, at the very least we primary have 3 requirements - speed, firepower and protection. Whenever you raise one the others are impacted unless you raise weight.

[old_pop2000]

Quads also require a bigger hole in the deck which impacts on structural integrety to some extent. It seems to me that if this isn't an issue, then putting the quad lower, with the tripple in the superfiring position would be much better for stability.
If the complications of quad turrets can be solved (everyone that made them had some level of problems with them) then they should be a valid way to put more guns on a ship. Are guns the deciding factor though? In the KGV for example they decided against the superfiring quad turret in favor of protection. As you know, at the very least we primary have 3 requirements - speed, firepower and protection. Whenever you raise one the others are impacted unless you raise weight.
I am headed out for the day, but I will tweak on my SD-BB49 design when I return, I have got the basic ship design stabilized. It now has the four triple turrets, with 16 inch guns and a good slow roll, making it a good gun platform. It is still wet forward, but acceptable. I will move from here to see how far we can go with the quad turret idea and still stick with 16 inch guns. I can also vary the armor protection along with it. But I will only change one variable at a time and save each modified ship design.

It is a trade off between armor and firepower. Both add extra weight above the waterline and can affect ship's stability, roll rate etc. All these factors affect fire control and crew comfort, which cannot be minimized. The crew should be considered an asset and the better they can accomplish their tasks without rocking and rolling, the better our results will be. IMHO. Do you agree?

[Kyle Holgate]

I am headed out for the day, but I will tweak on my SD-BB49 design when I return, I have got the basic ship design stabilized. It now has the four triple turrets, with 16 inch guns and a good slow roll, making it a good gun platform. It is still wet forward, but acceptable. I will move from here to see how far we can go with the quad turret idea and still stick with 16 inch guns. I can also vary the armor protection along with it. But I will only change one variable at a time and save each modified ship design.

It is a trade off between armor and firepower. Both add extra weight above the waterline and can affect ship's stability, roll rate etc. All these factors affect fire control and crew comfort, which cannot be minimized. The crew should be considered an asset and the better they can accomplish their tasks without rocking and rolling, the better our results will be. IMHO. Do you agree?

I agree, though most BB's are going to have pretty benign seakeeping compared to smaller ships that managed just fine even in rough seas. Creature comforts too tend to depend on the nationality. The Japanese for example were used to farily sparse comforts as compared to us pampered Americans! Stuff US sailors into a Japanese ship and you're probably going to have some performance degradation for a bit. Stuff Japanese sailors into a US ship and you'll have the same - as they're sleeping in and not working! (kidding here). My point is - the crew is of course vital, but Sailors get used to pretty cramped conditions, and BB is going to be a reasonably good ride at sea in all but the worst weather. If sailors managed the flower class, there's nothing a BB is going to do to phase them!

[Warship NWS]

I think it is safe to say, that in the battleship's development, larger guns would be the norm for each successive class of ship. All things being equal, whether FC improves or not, larger shells have better exterior ballistics and a greater weight of fire. Without any examples like Jutland, the designers would have to go on theory.

Lets look at some very basic numbers; 12" gunned warships weighed in around 20,000 tons, 14-16" gunned warships had displacements ranging around 30-40,000+ tons depending on the number of guns/turrets they carried, the Yamato with 18" guns hit 70,000 tons. It is interesting to note that with each 1-2" increase in caliber of mounted guns, tied with an average of around 9 guns per battleship, the weight of the battleship increased by ~50-100%, with all other attributes such as protection and speed being somewhat balanced. The battlecruiser was the only exception to this basic rule.

Thanks.

[old_pop2000]

Lets look at some very basic numbers; 12" gunned warships weighed in around 20,000 tons, 14-16" gunned warships had displacements ranging around 30-40,000+ tons depending on the number of guns/turrets they carried, the Yamato with 18" guns hit 70,000 tons. It is interesting to note that with each 1-2" increase in caliber of mounted guns, tied with an average of around 9 guns per battleship, the weight of the battleship increased by ~50-100%, with all other attributes such as protection and speed being somewhat balanced. The battlecruiser was the only exception to this basic rule.

Thanks.
I designed a battleship and changed the dimensions. I changed just the length and beam, nothing else. Here are the results:

Length Beam Draught Max Displacement
650 90 30 28,485
750 100 30 36,450
850 110 30 45373

Yamato was 862 ft x 121.1x 34.1 with a displacement of 62,315 Tons Standard

I used those dimensions in my battleships and got a displacement of 57,266 tons Max with the same 12 inch guns. Adding 18 inch guns, did not change the displacement much. Even adding the proper armor, does not change the displacement much.

In looking over all the designs and the dimensions in the books and websites, it seems that the controlling functions for the total displacement were Length, beam and draught. I noticed in Jane's WWI Warships that battleships with 11, 12, 13,5 and 14 in. guns that were 650 to 700 ft in length, 88 to 90 ft in beam and 30 ft in draught were all 33,000 ton standard displacement ships. For an example:

KGV - 1912 - 597 x 89.7 x 29.7 with 13.5 inch guns- Total displacement was 25,700

QE- 1915 - 645.8 x 90.5 x 28.8 with 15 inch guns - Total displacement was 31,500

In comparison, the difference of 50 ft in length, 1 ft in beam and 1 ft in draught with guns that were 1.5 inches bigger only yielded a difference of less than 6000 tons. We don't see a real jump in displacement until we get to the later KGV class which was 745 x 103 x34.5 with the 15 inch guns but with a displacement of 44,460 tons. From the QE of 1915 with the same guns as the KGV of 1940, we gained over 13,000 tons. Armor belt increased from 13 to 15 inches. It appears the increase in displacements is almost a direct function of the length x beam x and draught. It did not matter which gun was on the ship nor how much armor. My question becomes then; how does the increased gun caliber change the barbette size, turret ring and the hole necessary in the hull structure and does it cause the ship's LWB to increase? Was it advances in hull design and materials that allowed for larger holes, heavier machinery and increased turret size without an increase in displacement? In other words, was it technology that caused the difference to be lower than what is intuitively thought.

[Kyle Holgate]

Revenge class - 28k tons, Nevada class 27.5k tons, Tennessee class 32.3k tons, Colorado 32.6k tons, Bayern 32.2k tons (all standard displacement). I didn't bother with the Japanese as it's unclear if the displacements I found were as built or after various refits.

Now WW1 ends...
South Dakota class (BB-54, not the later one that served in WW2) 43,200 tons. 12x16" guns, reasonably good armor, 23 knot speed.
The RN was planning on the N3 class - 48,000 tons - 9x18" guns, good armor, 23knots.
The Japanese - Battleship 13 (never got a class name) best estimate of displacement is 47,500tons. Speed was to be 30 knots, protection a bit light for a ship its size at 13"- 14" belt, 5inch main deck.

Things were obviously progressing to bigger and bigger ships with larger guns. The Japanese still were concerned with speed at the expense of armor while the other two nations here appear to have valued armor and guns over speed.

[Warship NWS]

KGV - 1912 - 597 x 89.7 x 29.7 with 13.5 inch guns- Total displacement was 25,700

QE- 1915 - 645.8 x 90.5 x 28.8 with 15 inch guns - Total displacement was 31,500


QE had 1 less turret but thicker belt armor, heavier gun barrels/mountings (on a per turret basis), thicker turret armor, and 6 more boilers. The added 50' of length was added to allow for more machinery and to possibly improve her length to width ratio. Again, I am being very generalized here but in most cases ships with bigger guns usually carried more armor and thus more machinery to push it all around so the typical pattern was as the desire for bigger guns continued the ships in turn ended up being heavier and heavier.

Thanks.

[Kyle Holgate]

QE had 1 less turret but thicker belt armor, heavier gun barrels/mountings (on a per turret basis), thicker turret armor, and 6 more boilers. The added 50' of length was added to allow for more machinery and to possibly improve her length to width ratio. Again, I am being very generalized here but in most cases ships with bigger guns usually carried more armor and thus more machinery to push it all around so the typical pattern was as the desire for bigger guns continued the ships in turn ended up being heavier and heavier.

Thanks.

agreed. My take on the original intent of this post was to spark a discussion of what battleships would look like, how they would evolved if left alone - little or no carrier or land based aircraft threat. Historically we did have this to some extent, though the progression was retarded by costs and finally virtually stopped by the Washington treaty. The question in my mind is - if the ships such as the N3, G3, South Dakota, Kii, "13" and such were built - would the various nations have continued the upward trend in size or would they eventually level out with a given ship type, and simply build more of them and improve on them. The US did this (more or less) with their 14" gunned battleships. They built the New York class, Nevada class, New Mexico class and Tennessee class. I think it was likely more politics that drove them to the Colorado to "one up" the British and match the Japanese Nagato - something the Tenness would have probably been able to do just fine.

[old_pop2000]

In looking at the initial thread statement, we can assume no carrier based aircraft and no Washington Naval Treaty. However, it never states there could not be maritime patrol or land based aircraft available to navies. So, which direction does the thread take? No aircraft of any sort, land based, maritime or carrier based or just carrier based.

Does the creator of the thread have any suggestions?

[Citadelvette]

I designed a battleship and changed the dimensions. I changed just the length and beam, nothing else. Here are the results:

Length Beam Draught Max Displacement
650 90 30 28,485
750 100 30 36,450
850 110 30 45373

Yamato was 862 ft x 121.1x 34.1 with a displacement of 62,315 Tons Standard

I used those dimensions in my battleships and got a displacement of 57,266 tons Max with the same 12 inch guns. Adding 18 inch guns, did not change the displacement much. Even adding the proper armor, does not change the displacement much.

In looking over all the designs and the dimensions in the books and websites, it seems that the controlling functions for the total displacement were Length, beam and draught. I noticed in Jane's WWI Warships that battleships with 11, 12, 13,5 and 14 in. guns that were 650 to 700 ft in length, 88 to 90 ft in beam and 30 ft in draught were all 33,000 ton standard displacement ships. For an example:

KGV - 1912 - 597 x 89.7 x 29.7 with 13.5 inch guns- Total displacement was 25,700

QE- 1915 - 645.8 x 90.5 x 28.8 with 15 inch guns - Total displacement was 31,500

In comparison, the difference of 50 ft in length, 1 ft in beam and 1 ft in draught with guns that were 1.5 inches bigger only yielded a difference of less than 6000 tons. We don't see a real jump in displacement until we get to the later KGV class which was 745 x 103 x34.5 with the 15 inch guns but with a displacement of 44,460 tons. From the QE of 1915 with the same guns as the KGV of 1940, we gained over 13,000 tons. Armor belt increased from 13 to 15 inches. It appears the increase in displacements is almost a direct function of the length x beam x and draught. It did not matter which gun was on the ship nor how much armor. My question becomes then; how does the increased gun caliber change the barbette size, turret ring and the hole necessary in the hull structure and does it cause the ship's LWB to increase? Was it advances in hull design and materials that allowed for larger holes, heavier machinery and increased turret size without an increase in displacement? In other words, was it technology that caused the difference to be lower than what is intuitively thought.

Just a minor correction here Dennis but the QE had 8x15"/42s and the KGV(1940) had 10 new design 14" guns. Now the HMS Vanguard had the 8 15"/42s from the Pre-Carrier "Light Battlecruisers" Courageous and Glorious.

[old_pop2000]

Just a minor correction here Dennis but the QE had 8x15"/42s and the KGV(1940) had 10 new design 14" guns. Now the HMS Vanguard had the 8 15"/42s from the Pre-Carrier "Light Battlecruisers" Courageous and Glorious.
You are correct, but if you notice, I did stipulate the 1912 version of the KGV, that had 13,.5 inch guns. What was more important was not the quantity of guns, but the dimensions and the fact that the 15 inch guns were used. I was attempting to illustrate how the displacement had change, with the dimensional change and the increase in naval rifle caliber.

[Citadelvette]

Dennis,

I got your point but I saw 1940 after KGV, must have a typo. ;)

[Kyle Holgate]

In looking at the initial thread statement, we can assume no carrier based aircraft and no Washington Naval Treaty. However, it never states there could not be maritime patrol or land based aircraft available to navies. So, which direction does the thread take? No aircraft of any sort, land based, maritime or carrier based or just carrier based.

Does the creator of the thread have any suggestions?

If we look at projected building between 1920 and 1930 we have an era where aircraft are not going to be too dangerous...yet. After that, even if carriers are banned by treaty or something - you're going to have more and more dangerous land based planes to deal with. My take - if we consider no treaty and no WW1 (so probably no great depression which arguably was a fall out of WW1) - we can have countries able to afford battleships.

[old_pop2000]

There was a 1940. I was attempting to say that both of those ships, the 1915 QE and the 1940 KGV, both had similar guns and the weight had gone up. The attempt was to illustrate the guns did not have as much to do with the weight gain as armor and hull size. It was the desire to add more armor and increase the speed of the vessel by increasing the length to beam ratio from 6.65 to 8, which would reduce frictional drag and reduce the power expended on overcoming the drag. Armor and hull dimensions occupy 80% of a ships displacement, armament only 10% on average.

I apologize for the awkwardly written post, it was bad.

[Ed Rotondaro]

You have reached the conclusion that I was hoping for. Any size bigger than the Montana's was totally impractical. I reduced the guns back to 16 inch 50 which I feel are more than adequate for any situation. The armour is heavier in the main belt than the Iowa's but less than the Yamato. A ship of that length is not going to be a maneuverable ship and that is an important quality, we learned that from the Lex and Sara. The lesson learned is that you cannot just scale up a design, because it just doesn't work. The answer to the question of where battleships design would go without carriers is simply, nowhere. They had reached the maximum practical size in the Montana's. In fact, they were not entirely practical. Here is a complete revision of my Olympia design. It is armoured better than the Iowa's, armed like the Montanas and a much more practical ship.... athough I still am not certain she would ever have been built.

Dennis:

That ship works for me, but I agree, probably not built unless carriers and naval aviation have a lengthy development cycle.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ed:
The Bureau of ships had books for individual ships termed " The Spring styles Book". It was a collection of preliminary design plans for ships prepared by the Bureau of construction and repair. The purpose of the design book or Spring Styles book was to show the Navy's General Board a list of potential designs based on characteristics proposed by that body. In essence, they were brainstorming books, to illustrate possible designs to comply with the General Boards requirements for a new ship. The name was derived from Ladies fashion Catalogs. They represented only ideas as to possible directions the final drawings should follow. These books show the evolution of a particular design. From these preliminary drawings, the General Board would choose possible designs and request further study and more in depth designs and specifications. It was an iterative process

The program that I use and others are using, is called Springsharp. It is a derivative of another naval design program called Springstyle. Notice the name. The concept behind these programs is to duplicate on the computer, what the Bureau of Construction and Repair did on paper. To develop possible designs to satisfy a particular set of requirements.

As an example, there is a springstyles book for a proposed flight deck cruiser dtd 8 December 1939. The ship was of 12,000 ton displacement, armed with 3 8 inch 55 caliber guns, 640 ft in length. Its designation was to be CF.

The next design was dtd 14 December 1939. The preliminary design specifications were: for a 12,000 ton standard displacement ship (14,220 ton trial displacement) with a main battery of three 8"/55 guns, a secondary battery of eight 5"/38 guns and an aircraft complement of 24 to 36. Ship's dimensions are: waterline length 640'; waterline beam 67'; draft 21' 8". Powerplant has 100,000 horsepower for a speed of 33 knots.

The last design in the series was dated 31 January 1940, for a 12,200 ton standard displacement ship (14,560 ton trial displacement) with a main battery of six 6"/47 guns, a secondary battery of four 5"/38 guns and an aircraft complement of 36 scout-bombers. Ship's dimensions are: waterline length 640'; waterline beam 67'; draft 22'. Powerplant has 100,000 horsepower for a speed of 33 knots. The vessel was designated CF-2

This should give some understanding of the uses of preliminary designs like the ones that I produced and others create.

Dennis:

I had a chance to look at some of the "Springstyles" many moons ago on another forum. Brooks Rowlett had posted them and explained the reasoning behind them. In Friedman's books on US warships, he frequently gives the stats on a wide range of designs for any particular class of warship to show again what the board had for options. I will have to test drive my copy of Springsharp, but today. I got homework from Chris!

[Ed Rotondaro]

One thing we could do to put the discussion a 'little' less in the realm of pure make believe is to propose that WW1 did not happen for one reason or other. Yes, it was bound to - whether a shot rang out in Sarajevo or not - but let's just suppose nothing sparked direct conflict.
Without WW1 the naval race would have been able to continue, and we've seen some of the ships that were potentially going to be built - The N3 Battleships and G3 BC's for the UK, the South Dakota class for the US (not to be confused with the 1940's ship of the same name) and the Lexington BC's - and for the Japanese, the Kaga, Akagi, Owari and maybe an 18" gunned follow on. What the Germans may have come up with is an unknown.
In any case, we have some tenuous base in fact here with which to work. Carriers were certainly on the way even then, but aircraft would not really pose a major threat for some time yet.
Without WW1 the BB race may have had the financing to continue... does the US Navy bow to pressure to build 18" gunned ships (when IMO 16" guns were just fine)? If Germany responds to the RN, do the British up the size even more to larger ships with 20" guns or more? Maybe the US just decides it needs two navies - one each for the Pacific and Atlantic?


Kyle:

You might be too generous here. Were these ships in response to existing ships and the combat experience of WWI? Or were they just an effort to stay ahead of the Jones?

[Ed Rotondaro]

If we look at projected building between 1920 and 1930 we have an era where aircraft are not going to be too dangerous...yet. After that, even if carriers are banned by treaty or something - you're going to have more and more dangerous land based planes to deal with. My take - if we consider no treaty and no WW1 (so probably no great depression which arguably was a fall out of WW1) - we can have countries able to afford battleships.

Kyle:

Keep in mind that land based planes except for strategic bombers didn't have ranges like carrier planes did. Unless the warship is operating within range of land based air, it's not under that much threat. Now the example of the Med shows that land based air could be devastating. We also see this in the Solomons campaign. But blue ocean operations would probably not see land based air. Of course in the Pacific, most operations revolved around seizing islands that could have airstrips. Don't you love my circular logic?;)

[Mart]

I don't have the knowledge that so many of you on the forum have, and it would be silly of me to even attempt to come at the problem as if I did. What did occur to me though is that war, and war machines tend to be driven by economics, and the economics of the time. If, for example, Aircraft Carriers were not permitted, or fell out of favour, or had never been invented, or indeed if nobody had ever learned how to fly in the first place, the economics of the situation would have been different. They would probably have cottoned on PDQ that big ships and big guns weren't all they were cracked up to be, and that even developing more ways to defend them might be a complete waste of time. If ships can't even find each other, they are completely useless, no matter how gorgeous they are.

Humans have a vast amount of ingenuity and it may well have been the case that all that money that went into big ships and into aircraft carriers might have gone into development of things like electronics. For all we know, given that necessity is the mother of invention, in 1945, we may have had desktop PC's, and the navy would be as well equipped with technological weapons and defences as we see today. Not the SAME PC's, or the SAME technology, but something that could perform those functions. In the absence of the carrier, the battleship might have been replaced with a "smart" ship 30 or 40 or 50 years ahead of what we now think of as "it's time".

A bit silly and exaggerated, I know, but it is amazing what happens when money, policy and research are focussed on a problem. Sometimes nothing much happens, but with a highly competitive technology race, rather than a ships race, the capitol ships of WW2 might well have been seriously cool. Does that make any sense?

Cheers,

Martin

[Ed Rotondaro]

I don't have the knowledge that so many of you on the forum have, and it would be silly of me to even attempt to come at the problem as if I did. What did occur to me though is that war, and war machines tend to be driven by economics, and the economics of the time. If, for example, Aircraft Carriers were not permitted, or fell out of favour, or had never been invented, or indeed if nobody had ever learned how to fly in the first place, the economics of the situation would have been different. They would probably have cottoned on PDQ that big ships and big guns weren't all they were cracked up to be, and that even developing more ways to defend them might be a complete waste of time. If ships can't even find each other, they are completely useless, no matter how gorgeous they are.

Humans have a vast amount of ingenuity and it may well have been the case that all that money that went into big ships and into aircraft carriers might have gone into development of things like electronics. For all we know, given that necessity is the mother of invention, in 1945, we may have had desktop PC's, and the navy would be as well equipped with technological weapons and defences as we see today. Not the SAME PC's, or the SAME technology, but something that could perform those functions. In the absence of the carrier, the battleship might have been replaced with a "smart" ship 30 or 40 or 50 years ahead of what we now think of as "it's time".

A bit silly and exaggerated, I know, but it is amazing what happens when money, policy and research are focussed on a problem. Sometimes nothing much happens, but with a highly competitive technology race, rather than a ships race, the capitol ships of WW2 might well have been seriously cool. Does that make any sense?

Cheers,

Martin

Martin:


Economics are a primary driving force in life. Even a rich and powerful empire like Great Britain had to take it into account when deciding on how large it's navy should be. If carriers don't develop as they did historically, then the capital ship remains the primary naval weapon. All governments would be looking to see what their rivals were doing/building. They would then have to decide based on their economic strengths, political stances and future aspirations as to what they could reasonably reply with. Some nations chose frugality, others chose unrealistic ambition. Does this make sense to you?;)

[Mart]

Martin:


Economics are a primary driving force in life. Even a rich and powerful empire like Great Britain had to take it into account when deciding on how large it's navy should be. If carriers don't develop as they did historically, then the capital ship remains the primary naval weapon. All governments would be looking to see what their rivals were doing/building. They would then have to decide based on their economic strengths, political stances and future aspirations as to what they could reasonably reply with. Some nations chose frugality, others chose unrealistic ambition. Does this make sense to you?;)

Hi Ed

Mmmm - a bit! I'm usually wrong, so it must mean I've been a git - right? :o


Martin :)

[Kyle Holgate]

Kyle:

You might be too generous here. Were these ships in response to existing ships and the combat experience of WWI? Or were they just an effort to stay ahead of the Jones?

The SD was a logical progression up from the Colorado class. I don't think this was a response to anything. The Kaga, Kii, Owarii were pretty logical progressions - evolution I guess of the BB's the Japanese liked. The 13 was probably the result of expecting the Jones's to field 18 inch guns soon - better have a ship with them ready to go too.
The G3's would have been (far as can tell) excellent, well armored and powerful ships. Personally I don't see any need for the RN to have the 18 inch gunned N3 BB's too - but they were apparently still thinking of a BB/BC force - even after WW1.

One thing that always strikes me about the battleship races - how much each side appears to know what the other is up to. Nagato - the first 16" gunned ship was known to be on the books early enough to react and have the Colorado class available quickly (or was it built indipendantly and would have been even without a Nagato class?).
Only with the Yamato does it appear that a ship was built largely without any knowledge outside the country building it. Even with Yamato though, some word got out that the Japanese were up to something. I often wonder - what and how would the US have reacted had they known the specs of Yamato?

[john964]

Only with the Yamato does it appear that a ship was built largely without any knowledge outside the country building it. Even with Yamato though, some word got out that the Japanese were up to something. I often wonder - what and how would the US have reacted had they known the specs of Yamato?

The secuity mesures that the japanese employed arround the Yamato class was draconian in the extream. I read about how an entire shift of designers was 'interviewed' by the Kempi Ti (over 100 personel) when a single drawing was misplaced. It was found 2 days after the interviews started. None of the workers were in any shape to return to work, ever!

[asnrobert]

The secuity mesures that the japanese employed arround the Yamato class was draconian in the extream. I read about how an entire shift of designers was 'interviewed' by the Kempi Ti (over 100 personel) when a single drawing was misplaced. It was found 2 days after the interviews started. None of the workers were in any shape to return to work, ever!

I also read they used alot of sisal matting to cover her construction, so much of it there was a sisal shortage in Japan.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The SD was a logical progression up from the Colorado class. I don't think this was a response to anything. The Kaga, Kii, Owarii were pretty logical progressions - evolution I guess of the BB's the Japanese liked. The 13 was probably the result of expecting the Jones's to field 18 inch guns soon - better have a ship with them ready to go too.
The G3's would have been (far as can tell) excellent, well armored and powerful ships. Personally I don't see any need for the RN to have the 18 inch gunned N3 BB's too - but they were apparently still thinking of a BB/BC force - even after WW1.

One thing that always strikes me about the battleship races - how much each side appears to know what the other is up to. Nagato - the first 16" gunned ship was known to be on the books early enough to react and have the Colorado class available quickly (or was it built indipendantly and would have been even without a Nagato class?).
Only with the Yamato does it appear that a ship was built largely without any knowledge outside the country building it. Even with Yamato though, some word got out that the Japanese were up to something. I often wonder - what and how would the US have reacted had they known the specs of Yamato?


Kyle:

The USN had designed and tested an 18" gun for study purposes. They eventually rejected the idea of an 18" gunned ship even before knowing what Yamato carried. The prevailing belief was that if they could not build a ship that was protected against its own gunfire and still fit through the Panama Canal, then the project was not worth it. It does make one wonder if the proposed plans to build a wider set of locks and the Montana class would have gone forward if knowledge of the Yamato's armament was known. Once carriers became the premier capital ship, it was amazing that the USN and the RN even bothered to build any further battleships, although in Britain's case, she at least had good reasons since the North Atlantic and the North Sea are not as conducive to carriers ops as was the Med or the Pacific.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Ed

Mmmm - a bit! I'm usually wrong, so it must mean I've been a git - right? :o


Martin :)

Martin:

I think you summed up the economics issue quite nicely. Also what becomes apparent when viewed with hindsight, is not always so clear at the time when decisions on weapons are made. Churchill would wet his pants every time a German surface raider had the potential to get into the open seas, yet a sober analysis would have shown that all the German surface raiders didn't sink a fraction of the tonnage that a few U-boats did. Yet look at some of the operations mounted to thwart the German surface navy:

1. The St. Nazaire raid to deny the large dry dock for the Tirpitz.
2. The efforts to sink the Tirpitz with mini-subs, bombers etc.
3. The hunt for the Bismarck and the Scharnhorst

To paraphrase Winston "Never have so many naval resources been used to defeat so few enemies".

Cheers.;)

[Kyle Holgate]

Martin:

I think you summed up the economics issue quite nicely. Also what becomes apparent when viewed with hindsight, is not always so clear at the time when decisions on weapons are made. Churchill would wet his pants every time a German surface raider had the potential to get into the open seas, yet a sober analysis would have shown that all the German surface raiders didn't sink a fraction of the tonnage that a few U-boats did. Yet look at some of the operations mounted to thwart the German surface navy:

1. The St. Nazaire raid to deny the large dry dock for the Tirpitz.
2. The efforts to sink the Tirpitz with mini-subs, bombers etc.
3. The hunt for the Bismarck and the Scharnhorst

To paraphrase Winston "Never have so many naval resources been used to defeat so few enemies".

Cheers.;)

I think it's a question of numbers: One BB could sink virtually an entire convoy in one shot if it gets a good intercept,conditions are right, etc. In contrast U-boats pick at convoys, nailing a ship here, another there.
Look at the number of people killed in Car accidents in the US per month. The public takes notice, but doesn't really do much. Now if the same number were killed all at once in a plane crash once a month - it's noticed and the public and govt. make a big deal out of it.
I think it's a similar effect with surface ship raiders vs subs. The single (or pair) of raiders is going to potentially do more than a single sub - so killing it or them technically can save a whole lot of ships. Killing a single sub in contrast saves a few enemy ships, but since a single sub is also easily replaced - yeah, killing them's nice but doesn't accomplish that much in the wider scheme of things.

[Mart]

Martin:

Cheers.;)

Thanks Ed! I don't feel QUITE such a dork now. :)


Cheers, Martin

[Ed Rotondaro]

Thanks Ed! I don't feel QUITE such a dork now. :)


Cheers, Martin

Martin:

Don't worry you're in good company on this forum.;)

[Kyle Holgate]

Martin:

Don't worry you're in good company on this forum.;)

Dork? No, not a dork. A Geek however, that's one I cannot deny. :D

[Ed Rotondaro]

Dork? No, not a dork. A Geek however, that's one I cannot deny. :D

Kyle:

You say that like its a bad thing.:D My boys were asking me about Mt. St. Helens today. How far are you from it?

[Kyle Holgate]

Kyle:

You say that like its a bad thing.:D My boys were asking me about Mt. St. Helens today. How far are you from it?

I'll answer over on the general forums in the geology & stuff thread Dennis started...

[sabre65]

Although, i agree with all the impracticalities of building such a large ship, it must be remembered that the british had a design for an aircraft carrier called HMS habbikuk, which was made from a revolutionary material called pykrete, the estimated weight of this ship was over 2 million tons, the ship would have been 2 thousand feet long. So i think an 130 thousand ton vessel kind of pales in comparison. I also think construction today of a super battleship would not be that much of a problem, money and logistics hampered their design originaly. There's no reason today why a battleship could not be built to any size they wanted, How about 50in guns, a million tons plus, over 2 thousand feet long, but again it would come down to money, {we certainly have the technology}. also logistics. And the biggest question of all who would have the will to build such a vessel.

[Kyle Holgate]

Although, i agree with all the impracticalities of building such a large ship, it must be remembered that the british had a design for an aircraft carrier called HMS habbikuk, which was made from a revolutionary material called pykrete, the estimated weight of this ship was over 2 million tons, the ship would have been 2 thousand feet long. So i think an 130 thousand ton vessel kind of pales in comparison. I also think construction today of a super battleship would not be that much of a problem, money and logistics hampered their design originaly. There's no reason today why a battleship could not be built to any size they wanted, How about 50in guns, a million tons plus, over 2 thousand feet long, but again it would come down to money, {we certainly have the technology}. also logistics. And the biggest question of all who would have the will to build such a vessel.

At some point you have to start thinking of the size of the thing - as in where are you going to dock it, or will it be continuously at sea as it can't fit in any harbor or will ground itself even if it could.
I'm sure with today's technology we could make superb fire control radar and shells with terminal guidance on them too. We could have battleships with Chobom (sp?) armor - laminated plates of steel and ceramic and God knows what (still secret). Unless physics changes though, we'd eventually figure out flight and how to drop bombs and all that fun stuff. Still (cue Space Battleship Yamato music)...

[sabre65]

At some point you have to start thinking of the size of the thing - as in where are you going to dock it, or will it be continuously at sea as it can't fit in any harbor or will ground itself even if it could.
I'm sure with today's technology we could make superb fire control radar and shells with terminal guidance on them too. We could have battleships with Chobom (sp?) armor - laminated plates of steel and ceramic and God knows what (still secret). Unless physics changes though, we'd eventually figure out flight and how to drop bombs and all that fun stuff. Still (cue Space Battleship Yamato music)...
HMS habbikuk was meant never to dock it was meant to stay out at sea and other ships and planes docked with it, you could do the same with a super sized battleship. and act more like a command centre, but able to take out the enemy from possibly hundreds of miles away, depeneding what kind of guns ,rockets, and god knows what else something that size would have, think about it. If it's nuclear powered. or say thirty years from now even fusion powered it would never need to go any where near land.

[old_pop2000]

At some point you have to start thinking of the size of the thing - as in where are you going to dock it, or will it be continuously at sea as it can't fit in any harbor or will ground itself even if it could.
I'm sure with today's technology we could make superb fire control radar and shells with terminal guidance on them too. We could have battleships with Chobom (sp?) armor - laminated plates of steel and ceramic and God knows what (still secret). Unless physics changes though, we'd eventually figure out flight and how to drop bombs and all that fun stuff. Still (cue Space Battleship Yamato music)...

A ship of 1200 feet in length, 110 feet in beam, 30 feet draught, with a freeboard of around 35 feet at the forecastle down to 30 feet at the stern, will weigh in excess of 100,000 tons. To get 25 knots, will require about 117000 hp from an oil fired, four screw, geared turbine. That does not include armor and guns. Fuel bunkerage on that monster would be enormous. It certainly would not be hard to find and probably sink. It would also have to stay in deep water. Once loaded, its draught could be over 40 feet.

[john964]

You guys are overlooking underway replenishment, some CV(N)'s have been underway continuously for as long or longer than 60 days. IIRC Nimitz did 80+ days during the Hostage Crisis. My ship a dinky destroyer did 54 strait days at sea. With UNREP you could concivably stay at sea indefantly. KMS Pinguin did nearly a year at sea (357 days) during WWII.

[sabre65]

I'm sorry to disagree but there are far larger ships afloat with a shallow draught {i.e. freedom of the seas} you rely to much on imperial measurements. try to think out of the box. you could quite easily design a ship using carbon composite materials and with modern v shaped hull, you would not encounter those problems

[sabre65]

I'm sorry to disagree but there are far larger ships afloat with a shallow draught {i.e. freedom of the seas} you rely to much on imperial measurements. try to think out of the box. you could quite easily design a ship using carbon composite materials and with modern v shaped hull, you would not encounter those problems the point I'm trying to make is if you can think it you can build it. and it merely comes down to having the will to build something that size

[sabre65]

A ship of 1200 feet in length, 110 feet in beam, 30 feet draught, with a freeboard of around 35 feet at the forecastle down to 30 feet at the stern, will weigh in excess of 100,000 tons. To get 25 knots, will require about 117000 hp from an oil fired, four screw, geared turbine. That does not include armor and guns. Fuel bunkerage on that monster would be enormous. It certainly would not be hard to find and probably sink. It would also have to stay in deep water. Once loaded, its draught could be over 40 feet. are you trying to say something only half i'ts size 600ft would be much harder to find

[sabre65]

For one reason or another, say that the aircraft supporters in maritime naval forces of past lose out in military development, but aircraft carriers are never developed or built. With no aircraft carriers, what will be future developments in battleships and battlecruisers without aircraft carriers to supplant them? Also, we can assume no Washington Naval Treaty to further stifle aircraft carriers and to allow some of the lethal surface vessels to get into production.It would have been difficult to build something much larger than the yamato {money logistics and technology, would have held something like the german h44 back}, but today I don't think it would be a problem. I really do think you could build a ship any size you wanted to.

[Kyle Holgate]

I'm sorry to disagree but there are far larger ships afloat with a shallow draught {i.e. freedom of the seas} you rely to much on imperial measurements. try to think out of the box. you could quite easily design a ship using carbon composite materials and with modern v shaped hull, you would not encounter those problems

My point is at some point physics will get in the way, even if cost does not. You can only go so big. Hundreds of thousands of tons - even with composit materials and weight savings is gonna be hard to hold together and manuver anywhere.

I have a pretty good imagination, but this is getting outside even my box! :cool:

[sabre65]

It would have been difficult to build something much larger than the yamato {money logistics and technology, would have held something like the german h44 back}, but today I don't think it would be a problem. I really do think you could build a ship any size you wanted to. I also think we should be glad the germans never actually built the H44 what a monster it would have been

[sabre65]

My point is at some point physics will get in the way, even if cost does not. You can only go so big. Hundreds of thousands of tons - even with composit materials and weight savings is gonna be hard to hold together and manuver anywhere.

I have a pretty good imagination, but this is getting outside even my box! :cool: yes i agree, the physics the size and all that, it would be like a pig on roller skates trying to manuver , but even at hundreds of thousands of tons what a monster it would be. awsome.

[asnrobert]

yes i agree, the physics the size and all that, it would be like a pig on roller skates trying to manuver , but even at hundreds of thousands of tons what a monster it would be. awsome.

Also, how effective would the 20" guns be- at some point wouldn't the law of diminishing returns have an effect? Sure, they could hurl a big shell a long distance, but the rate of fire would probably be fairly slow compared to 14-16" guns. Also, what about barrel wear? During WW1, the Germans had the Paris gun that could lob a shell 75 miles. However, the rate of barrel wear meant the accuracy was seriously degraded after a few rounds.

[sabre65]

Also, how effective would the 20" guns be- at some point wouldn't the law of diminishing returns have an effect? Sure, they could hurl a big shell a long distance, but the rate of fire would probably be fairly slow compared to 14-16" guns. Also, what about barrel wear? During WW1, the Germans had the Paris gun that could lob a shell 75 miles. However, the rate of barrel wear meant the accuracy was seriously degraded after a few rounds. the rate of fire would not have been that important, and as for how effective a 20in gun would be, well try to imagine a shell from a 20in gun hitting another ship, i think that will give you an idea how affective it would be.

[asnrobert]

the rate of fire would not have been that important, and as for how effective a 20in gun would be, well try to imagine a shell from a 20in gun hitting another ship, i think that will give you an idea how affective it would be.

Assuming you hit the target. With the 20" gun's slow rate of fire, there's a good chance that a battleship with regular caliber guns with a higher rate of fire could score several hits, possible knocking out the fire control, thus decreasing accuracy.

[sabre65]

the rate of fire would not have been that important, and as for how effective a 20in gun would be, well try to imagine a shell from a 20in gun hitting another ship, i think that will give you an idea how affective it would be.there are pros and cons to everything, a 16in gun will fire faster than 20in gun. It's just a bit of a problem when the shell from a 20in gun hits you

[djcyclone]

And you have to consider how fast does a ship that size travel.

I mean every Battle Ship in WW 2 drove around at 20 plus kts so that Subs could not get a descent fix on them.

As soon as a ship that size left the ramp, it would have been #1 target on everyones list. If the Planes cannot get it, then a Sub will find it, and if it cannot move fast enough, then it is a target.

Just like the Japanese Super Carrier. It barley made it out of harbor before eating 4 torpedoes in the side. It was a big deal, and so the U.S. made sure that there was a sub there to offer them a going away party.:D

I imagine the same would have happened with Germany's Super Battleship. That is under the assumption that they could have built it without Bombers destroying it while in Dry Dock. Even if you get past that, as soon as the baby hits the water, (BOOM).

[sabre65]

Assuming you hit the target. With the 20" gun's slow rate of fire, there's a good chance that a battleship with regular caliber guns with a higher rate of fire could score several hits, possible knocking out the fire control, thus decreasing accuracy.yes your right, you would not want several shots from a 16in gun hitting you, but you , REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY, don't want a 20in gun to hit you, even if it's only once.

[sabre65]

And you have to consider how fast does a ship that size travel.

I mean every Battle Ship in WW 2 drove around at 20 plus kts so that Subs could not get a descent fix on them.

As soon as a ship that size left the ramp, it would have been #1 target on everyones list. If the Planes cannot get it, then a Sub will find it, and if it cannot move fast enough, then it is a target.

Just like the Japanese Super Carrier. It barley made it out of harbor before eating 4 torpedoes in the side. It was a big deal, and so the U.S. made sure that there was a sub there to offer them a going away party.:D

I imagine the same would have happened with Germany's Super Battleship. That is under the assumption that they could have built it without Bombers destroying it while in Dry Dock. Even if you get past that, as soon as the baby hits the water, (BOOM). the yamato was built in absolute secrecy, so I don't see that much problem in getting out of harbour,

[asnrobert]

yes your right, you would not want several shots from a 16in gun hitting you, but you , REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY, don't want a 20in gun to hit you, even if it's only once.

Perhaps. But when comparing the rates of fire, odds are (also factoring radar, crew quality, etc.) the ship with the smaller and faster firing guns will be able to get on target first. Also consider that for the amount of steel it takes to build 1 H44, you can produce 2-3 Iowas or KGVs, which would be able to bury the H44 under a blizzard of 14-16" shells- even if the H44 isn't sunk, it's definitely going to be mission killed.

[sabre65]

Perhaps. But when comparing the rates of fire, odds are (also factoring radar, crew quality, etc.) the ship with the smaller and faster firing guns will be able to get on target first. Also consider that for the amount of steel it takes to build 1 H44, you can produce 2-3 Iowas or KGVs, which would be able to bury the H44 under a blizzard of 14-16" shells- even if the H44 isn't sunk, it's definitely going to be mission killed. the h44 was merely a design exercise in what it would take to be able to take any bombardment from any amount of ships and planes, and by the way the h44 would have had a sister ship so now your getting hit twice by a 20in gun ''OUCH''.

[asnrobert]

the h44 was merely a design exercise in what it would take to be able to take any bombardment from any amount of ships and planes, and by the way the h44 would have had a sister ship so now your getting hit twice by a 20in gun ''OUCH''.

War is often about the numbers (as Lenin said, "Quantity has a quality of its own."). For example, Japan managed to build two Yamato class BBs (a third was converted into a CV, a fourth was discontinued, and I think there was a 5th on the drawing board that never got started). In that time, the US built FOUR Iowa class battleships, with two more on the ways when the war ended, plus they had six NC/SoDak class BBs which were smaller but still packed a punch. Even if the Germans built two H44s, the US and UK would be able to crank out a bunch of Iowas and KGVs. Even if the H44s weren't sunk in such an engagement (although that's debatable- there's no such thing as an unsinkable ship), they would probably be mission killed once their superstructures were trashed. Odds are once they limped back home they would probably end up as bomb sponges before they could be made ready for sea.

[old_pop2000]

the h44 was merely a design exercise in what it would take to be able to take any bombardment from any amount of ships and planes, and by the way the h44 would have had a sister ship so now your getting hit twice by a 20in gun ''OUCH''.

I guess it never occurred to anyone, that the RAF would be watching Kiel and Wilhelmshaven shipyards. If they did see the H44s, what does anyone suppose they would have done? Send Hitler a congrats on building them. They would have bombed those ships and the attendent dock areas back to the stone age.

Another factor to consider. How much steel would one of those monsters have consumed? Let's put it into something more tangible. How many tanks would the wehrmacht have to give up, to build those ships. How much fuel?

[djcyclone]

the yamato was built in absolute secrecy, so I don't see that much problem in getting out of harbour,


I beg to differ. According to the Museum in Virginia Beach, Va. The reason the U.S. Navy decided to build the Iowas, was because they knew about the Yamoto, and therefore they where concerned that they needed a bigger and better ship.

I remember an attraction that they have at the museum where the Wisconsin is at. I went into this room, and they made us pretend that we where Ship Designers. Then the guy asked us what we would put on the ship, and how it would compare to what was known about the yamato.

It was fun, but kind of lame at the same time.

[old_pop2000]

I beg to differ. According to the Museum in Virginia Beach, Va. The reason the U.S. Navy decided to build the Iowas, was because they knew about the Yamoto, and therefore they where concerned that they needed a bigger and better ship.

I remember an attraction that they have at the museum where the Wisconsin is at. I went into this room, and they made us pretend that we where Ship Designers. Then the guy asked us what we would put on the ship, and how it would compare to what was known about the yamato.

It was fun, but kind of lame at the same time.

Actually, the Iowa's were built to escort the fleet across the Pacific in War Plan Orange. Specifically, they were meant to defeat the Kongo's.

[Saffron]

I'm going to chime in here, though I usually don't.

I think, perhaps, that we've actually witnessed the ultimate evolution of the battleship in the form of the Russian Kirov CGNs. A modern day BB might be a little larger than the Kirov and have better offensive gunnery, but by and large, the improved technology would shrink the size of BBs rather than enlarge them, and SAMs would've been developed regardless of carriers due to land-based aircraft - especially when ranges increased.

[Jittery]

The battleship has changed but still exists today. Just like the best infantry weapon was a bolt action rifle in WW1 it changed to a Semi-Auto or full auto gun towards the end of WW2. Today's battleships are the Tico CG's that escort the CVN's around the seas. Likewise could be said for the AB class. They don't have the huge guns anymore or armor (could all that armor DU with explosive panels stop anti ship missiles ??). Today's armor isn't steal but more guns/missiles to shoot down the incoming missiles and planes.

I don't know if you follow the drift, but the ultimate battleship is the Tico CG's or whatever replaces them. They are the most powerful ships out in the seas at present.

Question: What is the next evolution, what will dominate the CVN's/Tico's in the future? (already mentioned in the thread i believe)

[john964]

I beg to differ. According to the Museum in Virginia Beach, Va. The reason the U.S. Navy decided to build the Iowas, was because they knew about the Yamoto, and therefore they where concerned that they needed a bigger and better ship.

I remember an attraction that they have at the museum where the Wisconsin is at. I went into this room, and they made us pretend that we where Ship Designers. Then the guy asked us what we would put on the ship, and how it would compare to what was known about the yamato.

It was fun, but kind of lame at the same time.DJ, the USN new of the Yamatos but not the true size and armament. Most intell reports from 41 and 42 list Yamato in 40-45,000tn range with 16 inch or possably larger. IIRC the first time the Yamato's were even photograghed was during the Battle of Subyan Sea in Oct 44.

[Kyle Holgate]

An article about what the US knew about Yamato

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-084.htm

[sabre65]

I guess it never occurred to anyone, that the RAF would be watching Kiel and Wilhelmshaven shipyards. If they did see the H44s, what does anyone suppose they would have done? Send Hitler a congrats on building them. They would have bombed those ships and the attendent dock areas back to the stone age.

Another factor to consider. How much steel would one of those monsters have consumed? Let's put it into something more tangible. How many tanks would the wehrmacht have to give up, to build those ships. How much fuel?Sure, the germans would have had no security, no air cover, no heavy armament's in place to fire at the R.A.F, and let's of course assume they would have written an open letter to the british goverment telling them of their plans to build the largest battleship ever made, I think not

[sabre65]

War is often about the numbers (as Lenin said, "Quantity has a quality of its own."). For example, Japan managed to build two Yamato class BBs (a third was converted into a CV, a fourth was discontinued, and I think there was a 5th on the drawing board that never got started). In that time, the US built FOUR Iowa class battleships, with two more on the ways when the war ended, plus they had six NC/SoDak class BBs which were smaller but still packed a punch. Even if the Germans built two H44s, the US and UK would be able to crank out a bunch of Iowas and KGVs. Even if the H44s weren't sunk in such an engagement (although that's debatable- there's no such thing as an unsinkable ship), they would probably be mission killed once their superstructures were trashed. Odds are once they limped back home they would probably end up as bomb sponges before they could be made ready for sea.ok their is no substitute for numbers, granted, but if the H44 and a sister ship were made it could have only meant one thing, that the germans were winning and a were able to mass produce an absolutely demonic battleship.

[Christian Schwietzke]

ok their is no substitute for numbers, granted, but if the H44 and a sister ship were made it could have only meant one thing, that the germans were winning and a were able to mass produce an absolutely demonic battleship.

Even if they had been winning at that point, they still wouldn´t have the means to "mass-produce" such a battleship. Even the US with its fantastic industrial capacity built BBs equivalent to "only" four H44s in mass. Had Germany been winning the war in ´44, I still would be surprised if they could have finished even two H44s.

[sabre65]

I beg to differ. According to the Museum in Virginia Beach, Va. The reason the U.S. Navy decided to build the Iowas, was because they knew about the Yamoto, and therefore they where concerned that they needed a bigger and better ship.

I remember an attraction that they have at the museum where the Wisconsin is at. I went into this room, and they made us pretend that we where Ship Designers. Then the guy asked us what we would put on the ship, and how it would compare to what was known about the yamato.

It was fun, but kind of lame at the same time.yes the Iowas were produced because they thought they needed a bigger ship, so if the H44 were made I'm sure the allied forces would have come up with one just as big if not bigger, which means battleships, would have progressively got bigger and bigger, we just don't know how big and what the limiting factors would have actualy been.

[sabre65]

Even if they had been winning at that point, they still wouldn´t have the means to "mass-produce" such a battleship. Even the US with its fantastic industrial capacity built BBs equivalent to "only" four H44s in mass. Had Germany been winning the war in ´44, I still would be surprised if they could have finished even two H44s.perhaps, but If they had produced them ships, and no matter how many ships surrounded the H44, I still think that no one in their right mind would have wanted to be on the receiving end of an 20in guns,

[old_pop2000]

Sure, the germans would have had no security, no air cover, no heavy armament's in place to fire at the R.A.F, and let's of course assume they would have written an open letter to the british goverment telling them of their plans to build the largest battleship ever made, I think not

Let's see, they did not have trouble monitoring the Gneisenau in dry dock or finding Tirpitz. With human and signal intelligence being gathered, along with photographic information from photoreconnaissance aircraft, there would have been few problems detecting the flow of large amounts of materials to key locations like Kiel, Wilhelmshaven, Bremen or Hamburg.

Hamburg and the Blohm und Voss shipyard where Bismarck was built, is about 370 miles from eastern England where many bomber command air fields were located. Wilhelmshaven is about 292 miles from the same location. Kiel is 383 miles. Most of these targets are close to the coast and the North Sea. The shipyards at Hamburg would be the most difficult targets to strike, but not all together impossible. Would the German defense be difficult? Yes, but not impossible to deal with. A ship the size of the H44 would have been a very easy target to find, even with good camoflage and German defenses. On July 26, 1943, both the Klockner and Blohm Und Voss shipyards in Hamburg were struck by two bomb wings. This went on for about a day and half.

No, I don't think we need to send a note to the Allies about the H44s. Just watch the Elbe for large shipments of steel coming from Krupp, lots of workers congregating in the area of the large docks designed to build just such ships. The H44s might have been built on one of the four slipways, the other in Bremen.

One other target would have been the AG Weser shipyard in Bremen. That target is 327 miles from England, very close to Hamburg. Google shows where that shipyard used to be, although it closed in 1983.

[Kyle Holgate]

When would you be building your H44? If somehow the suggestion is that it's being built earlier then perhaps it has a chance. After all the Tirpitz & Bismarck were not bombed to smithereens while being built. The thing is - H44 implies building later, when British and American air power would have annihilated it. Only reason they may not have is if they'd wisely decided that the thing was a huge waste of time and materials and better they build the useless monster than to put the money into A-bombs, V2's or something actually useful.
I know, I'm being a bit sarcastic here - but even if the H44 somehow popped into existence from an alternate reality it would have been toast.

[sabre65]

[quote=old_pop2000;23946]Let's see, they did not have trouble monitoring the Gneisenau in dry dock or finding Tirpitz. With human and signal intelligence being gathered, along with photographic information from photoreconnaissance aircraft, there would have been few problems detecting the flow of large amounts of materials to key locations like Kiel, Wilhelmshaven, Bremen or Hamburg.

Hamburg and the Blohm und Voss shipyard where Bismarck was built, is about 370 miles from eastern England where many bomber command air fields were located. Wilhelmshaven is about 292 miles from the same location. Kiel is 383 miles. Most of these targets are close to the coast and the North Sea. The shipyards at Hamburg would be the most difficult targets to strike, but not all together impossible. Would the German defense be difficult? Yes, but not impossible to deal with. A ship the size of the H44 would have been a very easy target to find, even with good camoflage and German defenses. On July 26, 1943, both the Klockner and Blohm Und Voss shipyards in Hamburg were struck by two bomb wings. This went on for about a day and half.

No, I don't think we need to send a note to the Allies about the H44s. Just watch the Elbe for large shipments of steel coming from Krupp, lots of workers congregating in the area of the large docks designed to build just such ships. The H44s might have been built on one of the four slipways, the other in Bremen.

One other target would have been the AG Weser shipyard in Bremen. That target is 327 miles from England, very close to Hamburg. Google shows where that shipyard used to be, although it closed in 1983.[/quot


I must concede a few points, yes they could have blown them up, as you say hard but not impossible,but the actual design of these ships were started in 1937, and all were due for completion by 1944,two of the ships were actually started, Schlachtschiff H at Blohm & Voss, Hamburg on June 15th, 1939 and Schlachtschiff J at AG Weser, Bremen on August 15th, 1939. Construction was stopped on October 10th, 1939 as the focus in German naval construction switched to the construction of more U-boats instead of battleships. Although it was obvious that Germany would not be able to build a complete new battleship during wartime, the plans for the H-class battleships were further developed and improved, to study the design of a competitive battleship and increase sheer ship scale to counteract increasing bomb weights. Lessons learned in naval conflicts including German warships, like Norway, the sinking of the Bismarck and the loss of the Scharnhorst were used to upgrade the plans, so the size of the later H-class designs increased in a very spectacular way.


Ten soldiers wisely led will beat a hundred without a head.
Euripides.


The victor will never be asked if he told the truth.
Adolf Hitler.


There will one day spring from the brain of science a machine or force so fearful in its potentialities, so absolutely terrifying, that even man, the fighter, who will dare torture and death in order to inflict torture and death, will be appalled, and so abandon war forever.
Thomas. A. Edison.

[Kyle Holgate]

Sabre65 - I think perhaps you're mistaking the H44 class for the H class hulls. A couple of the H class which were more or less enlarged Bismarcks with 16" guns did start construction. None of the H44 class (100,000 ton+ ships with 20" guns) were started. They were design studies. The closest a 20" gunned ship came to being built was probably the planned follow-on ships to the Yamato class. The Japanese planned for what are basically Yamato with 6 20" guns in 3 twin turrets. It's remotely possible that had the war not gotten started in '41 that they 'could' have been built.

[sabre65]

Sabre65 - I think perhaps you're mistaking the H44 class for the H class hulls. A couple of the H class which were more or less enlarged Bismarcks with 16" guns did start construction. None of the H44 class (100,000 ton+ ships with 20" guns) were started. They were design studies. The closest a 20" gunned ship came to being built was probably the planned follow-on ships to the Yamato class. The Japanese planned for what are basically Yamato with 6 20" guns in 3 twin turrets. It's remotely possible that had the war not gotten started in '41 that they 'could' have been built.

The six battleships of the H-class were the projected successors of the battleships Bismarck and Tirpitz .
Those ships, which would have been the core of the fleet build according to the Z-Plan, were mainly enlarged and improved versions of their predecessors. In difference to them, those ships were planned with commerce war in mind, therefore diesel engines were selected instead of the usual high pressure steam engine used by the German navy in those days.
Design of these ships started in 1937, and a total construction time of 50 months was projected to complete a ship of this class. All ships were scheduled to be completed by 1944. Only two of the ships were actually started, Schlachtschiff H at Blohm & Voss, Hamburg on June 15th, 1939 and Schlachtschiff J at AG Weser, Bremen on August 15th, 1939. Construction was stopped on October 10th, 1939 as the focus in German naval construction switched to the construction of more U-boats instead of battleships. Up to this day, 1200 tons of steel was already used for the Schlachtschiff H , 3500 tons were in construction and another 12000 tons were already ordered. (Schlachtschiff J was still in an earlier phase of construction). In 1940, the used material was wrecked on the shipyard and used elsewhere.
Although it was obvious that Germany would not be able to build a complete new battleship during wartime, the plans for the H-class battleships were further developed and improved, to study the design of a competitive battleship and increase sheer ship scale to counteract increasing bomb weights. Lessons learned in naval conflicts including German warships, like Norway, the sinking of the Bismarck and the loss of the Scharnhorst were used to upgrade the plans, so the size of the later H-class designs increased in a very spectacular way.

There will one day spring from the brain of science a machine or force so fearful in its potentialities, so absolutely terrifying, that even man, the fighter, who will dare torture and death in order to inflict torture and death, will be appalled, and so abandon war forever.
Thomas. A .Edison.

[Ed Rotondaro]

yes i agree, the physics the size and all that, it would be like a pig on roller skates trying to manuver , but even at hundreds of thousands of tons what a monster it would be. awsome.

Sabre:

It would have been one fat target for Avengers and Helldivers.

[Ed Rotondaro]

there are pros and cons to everything, a 16in gun will fire faster than 20in gun. It's just a bit of a problem when the shell from a 20in gun hits you

Sabre:

Really large caliber German guns tended to be very inaccurate in service. The famed 80cm Gustav gun and the 60cm and 54cm self propelled mortars turned out to be less effective in service than on paper. The 28cm gun may have been the most accurate German artillery piece in history.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I'm going to chime in here, though I usually don't.

I think, perhaps, that we've actually witnessed the ultimate evolution of the battleship in the form of the Russian Kirov CGNs. A modern day BB might be a little larger than the Kirov and have better offensive gunnery, but by and large, the improved technology would shrink the size of BBs rather than enlarge them, and SAMs would've been developed regardless of carriers due to land-based aircraft - especially when ranges increased.

Saffron:

If you're not relying on complex heavy gun mountings, then yes, the ships could shrink in size while actually increasing their offensive capabilities. Although CVNs ain't getting any smaller from what I can see.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The battleship has changed but still exists today. Just like the best infantry weapon was a bolt action rifle in WW1 it changed to a Semi-Auto or full auto gun towards the end of WW2. Today's battleships are the Tico CG's that escort the CVN's around the seas. Likewise could be said for the AB class. They don't have the huge guns anymore or armor (could all that armor DU with explosive panels stop anti ship missiles ??). Today's armor isn't steal but more guns/missiles to shoot down the incoming missiles and planes.

I don't know if you follow the drift, but the ultimate battleship is the Tico CG's or whatever replaces them. They are the most powerful ships out in the seas at present.

Question: What is the next evolution, what will dominate the CVN's/Tico's in the future? (already mentioned in the thread i believe)

Jittery:

The Tico are the most powerful (albeit aging) escorts in the world. And what do they escort? Carriers. No cruiser or DDG or FFG is going to get in close to nail a CVN. The carrier, unless weather is really bad is going to know about the enemy and launch a anti-shipping strike at ranges well beyond anything the CG can hope for. I love big ships, but the bird farm and subs rule. Everything else is subordinate.

[Ed Rotondaro]

ok their is no substitute for numbers, granted, but if the H44 and a sister ship were made it could have only meant one thing, that the germans were winning and a were able to mass produce an absolutely demonic battleship.


Sabre:

You honestly think this class was proof against air power? If so, I have a bridge to sell you.:rolleyes:

[john964]

One thing to consider on the H44 ability to maneuver. Lets look at the supertanker some of the ones built in the early 70's had a loaded tonnage in H44 range 100,000-125,000 tons and these ship while being merchants had the handling of a iceberg IIRC it took a mile to make a turn and a crash stop from full speed to DIW to 3-4 miles.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Even if they had been winning at that point, they still wouldn´t have the means to "mass-produce" such a battleship. Even the US with its fantastic industrial capacity built BBs equivalent to "only" four H44s in mass. Had Germany been winning the war in ´44, I still would be surprised if they could have finished even two H44s.

Christian:

A very honest evaluation my friend. ;)

[Ed Rotondaro]

perhaps, but If they had produced them ships, and no matter how many ships surrounded the H44, I still think that no one in their right mind would have wanted to be on the receiving end of an 20in guns,

Sabre:

Don't confuse bigger with better. How many one shot kills have we got in naval history? HMS Hood and some poorly armored battlecruisers at Jutland? Even then that was due to bad doctrine. It was very rare to sink a capital ship with heavy gunfire alone. Check the records.

[sabre65]

Sabre:

Really large caliber German guns tended to be very inaccurate in service. The famed 80cm Gustav gun and the 60cm and 54cm self propelled mortars turned out to be less effective in service than on paper. The 28cm gun may have been the most accurate German artillery piece in history.



The Paris Gun.

As a military weapon the gun was not a great success: the payload was minuscule, the barrel had to be regularly replaced, and the accuracy was only good enough for city-sized targets. The German objective, {however, was to build a psychological weapon to attack the morale of the Parisians}; not to destroy the city itself.
Decades later, the gun was an inspiration to advanced artillery developer Gerald Bull (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Bull); he researched the history of the Paris Gun and published an extensive book about it.
TypeCannon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannon)Place of originGermany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany)Service historyUsed byImperial Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Germany)WarsWorld War I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I)Production historyDesignerKrupp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krupp)ManufacturerKruppSpecificationsWeight256 tons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ton)Length28 mCaliber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliber)210 mmElevation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevation_(ballistics))55 degreesMuzzle velocity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_velocity)1,600 m/sEffective range130 km

There will one day spring from the brain of science a machine or force so fearful in its potentialities, so absolutely terrifying, that even man, the fighter, who will dare torture and death in order to inflict torture and death, will be appalled, and so abandon war forever.
Thomas A. Edison (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasaed109007.html)

[Kyle Holgate]

The six battleships of the H-class were the projected successors of the battleships Bismarck and Tirpitz .
Those ships, which would have been the core of the fleet build according to the Z-Plan, were mainly enlarged and improved versions of their predecessors. In difference to them, those ships were planned with commerce war in mind, therefore diesel engines were selected instead of the usual high pressure steam engine used by the German navy in those days.
Design of these ships started in 1937, and a total construction time of 50 months was projected to complete a ship of this class. All ships were scheduled to be completed by 1944. Only two of the ships were actually started, Schlachtschiff H at Blohm & Voss, Hamburg on June 15th, 1939 and Schlachtschiff J at AG Weser, Bremen on August 15th, 1939. Construction was stopped on October 10th, 1939 as the focus in German naval construction switched to the construction of more U-boats instead of battleships. Up to this day, 1200 tons of steel was already used for the Schlachtschiff H , 3500 tons were in construction and another 12000 tons were already ordered. (Schlachtschiff J was still in an earlier phase of construction). In 1940, the used material was wrecked on the shipyard and used elsewhere.
Although it was obvious that Germany would not be able to build a complete new battleship during wartime, the plans for the H-class battleships were further developed and improved, to study the design of a competitive battleship and increase sheer ship scale to counteract increasing bomb weights. Lessons learned in naval conflicts including German warships, like Norway, the sinking of the Bismarck and the loss of the Scharnhorst were used to upgrade the plans, so the size of the later H-class designs increased in a very spectacular way.

There will one day spring from the brain of science a machine or force so fearful in its potentialities, so absolutely terrifying, that even man, the fighter, who will dare torture and death in order to inflict torture and death, will be appalled, and so abandon war forever.
Thomas. A .Edison.

Ok, ok, ok! You weren't getting the H44 and H class confused, I'm convinced! ;)

[sabre65]

Sabre:

Don't confuse bigger with better. How many one shot kills have we got in naval history? HMS Hood and some poorly armored battlecruisers at Jutland? Even then that was due to bad doctrine. It was very rare to sink a capital ship with heavy gunfire alone. Check the records.


The H44 design was the final result of the designs for a battleship which started with the H39. Again enlarged in size and armor protection, the armament and engines did not change compared with the previous design, the H43, reducing the maximum speed to 30 kn. It was never intended to build a ship like the H44, it was a design study to see how a battleship had to be designed to be protected against all known threats



There will one day spring from the brain of science a machine or force so fearful in its potentialities, so absolutely terrifying, that even man, the fighter, who will dare torture and death in order to inflict torture and death, will be appalled, and so abandon war forever.
Thomas A. Edison (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasaed109007.html)

The victor will never be asked if he told the truth.
Adolf Hitler (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/adolfhitle125450.html)

The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.
George S. Patton (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/georgespa102496.html)

[Ed Rotondaro]

The six battleships of the H-class were the projected successors of the battleships Bismarck and Tirpitz .
Those ships, which would have been the core of the fleet build according to the Z-Plan, were mainly enlarged and improved versions of their predecessors. In difference to them, those ships were planned with commerce war in mind, therefore diesel engines were selected instead of the usual high pressure steam engine used by the German navy in those days.
Design of these ships started in 1937, and a total construction time of 50 months was projected to complete a ship of this class. All ships were scheduled to be completed by 1944. Only two of the ships were actually started, Schlachtschiff H at Blohm & Voss, Hamburg on June 15th, 1939 and Schlachtschiff J at AG Weser, Bremen on August 15th, 1939. Construction was stopped on October 10th, 1939 as the focus in German naval construction switched to the construction of more U-boats instead of battleships. Up to this day, 1200 tons of steel was already used for the Schlachtschiff H , 3500 tons were in construction and another 12000 tons were already ordered. (Schlachtschiff J was still in an earlier phase of construction). In 1940, the used material was wrecked on the shipyard and used elsewhere.
Although it was obvious that Germany would not be able to build a complete new battleship during wartime, the plans for the H-class battleships were further developed and improved, to study the design of a competitive battleship and increase sheer ship scale to counteract increasing bomb weights. Lessons learned in naval conflicts including German warships, like Norway, the sinking of the Bismarck and the loss of the Scharnhorst were used to upgrade the plans, so the size of the later H-class designs increased in a very spectacular way.

There will one day spring from the brain of science a machine or force so fearful in its potentialities, so absolutely terrifying, that even man, the fighter, who will dare torture and death in order to inflict torture and death, will be appalled, and so abandon war forever.
Thomas. A .Edison.

Sabre:

Lots of things could have "theoretically been built" if WWII didn't start until 1944. Ever wonder how the Allies would have responded?

[Ed Rotondaro]

One thing to consider on the H44 ability to maneuver. Lets look at the supertanker some of the ones built in the early 70's had a loaded tonnage in H44 range 100,000-125,000 tons and these ship while being merchants had the handling of a iceberg IIRC it took a mile to make a turn and a crash stop from full speed to DIW to 3-4 miles.

John:

Good real world observation sir. Thanks as always.

[sabre65]

Sabre:

Lots of things could have "theoretically been built" if WWII didn't start until 1944. Ever wonder how the Allies would have responded?



The H44 design was the final result of the designs for a battleship which started with the H39. Again enlarged in size and armor protection, the armament and engines did not change compared with the previous design, the H43, reducing the maximum speed to 30 kn. It was never intended to build a ship like the H44, it was a design study to see how a battleship had to be designed to be protected against all known threats



There will one day spring from the brain of science a machine or force so fearful in its potentialities, so absolutely terrifying, that even man, the fighter, who will dare torture and death in order to inflict torture and death, will be appalled, and so abandon war forever.
Thomas A. Edison (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasaed109007.html)

The victor will never be asked if he told the truth.
Adolf Hitler (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/adolfhitle125450.html)

The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.
George S. Patton (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/georgespa102496.html)

[Saffron]

Although CVNs ain't getting any smaller from what I can see.

CVNs haven't, but all other carriers have. Though I admit much of that is due to national defense budget limitations rather than technology or need.

However, I bet they'd start getting small if the aircraft became smaller, fuel requirements became smaller, and weapons became smaller. I wouldn't be surprised to see "drone carriers" some time in the future. I'm rather surprised one isn't on the drawing board as we speak.

And speaking of all this (or not really), but could someone explain why no one has invented an anti-torpedo system other than decoys? I know this is not on topic, so if you want to explain it in a separate thread, I understand.

[sabre65]

The Z-Plan was Germanys fleet building program started shortly before World War 2.
In the mid 1930s a major discussion about a new fleet program started in Germany. There were two major opinions, what kind of program should have been chosen. One plan was focused on a large submarine fleet and a relatively small surface fleet for coast protection, this plan was preferred by the U-Boat fraction in the Kriegsmarine command. The other alternative was a mixed fleet of various surface ships and a much smaller U-Boat fleet, quite similar to the Imperial Navy in World War I or the British Royal Navy. In the end, this plan was chosen as the new fleet building program, after several modifications it was called the "Z-Plan".
According to this plan, the German Kriegsmarine should have grown to about 800 units, consisting of 13 battleships and battlecruisers, 4 aircraft carriers, 15 Panzerschiffe, 23 cruisers and 22 so called "Spähkreuzer" which were basically large destroyers. In addition to this many smaller vessels should have been build.
Those ships should have been build between 1939 and 1946, in this time, the personal of the Kriegsmarine should have been enlarged to 201.000 men and over 33 billion Reichsmark should have spend for building the new units.
This project never got reality. Its very questionable that the German industry would have had the resources for such a construction program and that the other European Nations would stood still and not react to this program. The realization of the Z-Plan started on January 29th, 1939. Two H-Class battleships were laid down, three months later Germany quit the the fleet treaty with England and the dream "No more war against Britain" was gone.
But only four months later Germany attacked Poland and work on all Z-Plan projects was stopped. During the next months, all incomplete ships of the Z-plan were scrapped and the material was used to build additional submarines.

[sabre65]

CVNs haven't, but all other carriers have. Though I admit much of that is due to national defense budget limitations rather than technology or need.

However, I bet they'd start getting small if the aircraft became smaller, fuel requirements became smaller, and weapons became smaller. I wouldn't be surprised to see "drone carriers" some time in the future. I'm rather surprised one isn't on the drawing board as we speak.

And speaking of all this (or not really), but could someone explain why no one has invented an anti-torpedo system other than decoys? I know this is not on topic, so if you want to explain it in a separate thread, I understand.

http://www.wass.it/WASSWEB/brochure/C303.pdf

[old_pop2000]

Let's see, they did not have trouble monitoring the Gneisenau in dry dock or finding Tirpitz. With human and signal intelligence being gathered, along with photographic information from photoreconnaissance aircraft, there would have been few problems detecting the flow of large amounts of materials to key locations like Kiel, Wilhelmshaven, Bremen or Hamburg.

Hamburg and the Blohm und Voss shipyard where Bismarck was built, is about 370 miles from eastern England where many bomber command air fields were located. Wilhelmshaven is about 292 miles from the same location. Kiel is 383 miles. Most of these targets are close to the coast and the North Sea. The shipyards at Hamburg would be the most difficult targets to strike, but not all together impossible. Would the German defense be difficult? Yes, but not impossible to deal with. A ship the size of the H44 would have been a very easy target to find, even with good camoflage and German defenses. On July 26, 1943, both the Klockner and Blohm Und Voss shipyards in Hamburg were struck by two bomb wings. This went on for about a day and half.

No, I don't think we need to send a note to the Allies about the H44s. Just watch the Elbe for large shipments of steel coming from Krupp, lots of workers congregating in the area of the large docks designed to build just such ships. The H44s might have been built on one of the four slipways, the other in Bremen.

One other target would have been the AG Weser shipyard in Bremen. That target is 327 miles from England, very close to Hamburg. Google shows where that shipyard used to be, although it closed in 1983.


I must concede a few points, yes they could have blown them up, as you say hard but not impossible,but the actual design of these ships were started in 1937, and all were due for completion by 1944,two of the ships were actually started, Schlachtschiff H at Blohm & Voss, Hamburg on June 15th, 1939 and Schlachtschiff J at AG Weser, Bremen on August 15th, 1939. Construction was stopped on October 10th, 1939 as the focus in German naval construction switched to the construction of more U-boats instead of battleships. Although it was obvious that Germany would not be able to build a complete new battleship during wartime, the plans for the H-class battleships were further developed and improved, to study the design of a competitive battleship and increase sheer ship scale to counteract increasing bomb weights. Lessons learned in naval conflicts including German warships, like Norway, the sinking of the Bismarck and the loss of the Scharnhorst were used to upgrade the plans, so the size of the later H-class designs increased in a very spectacular way.

The Zplan, of which these ships were a part, was terminated on the day the war started. Two of H class ships had been started, but were terminated on 10 October after 1200 tons of steel had been consumed. So, that is really the story of these ships.

As far as the difficulty in stopping the construction, I don't have to hit the ships, I only have strike the workships and railheads leading to the area of the yards. I can sow minefields near the slips and I can monitor with photo recon, the progress. The Germans did not have many destroyers and these ships would make great targets for British submarines.

Killing or delaying the construction of these ships, which was supposed to take 50 months, would have been very simple.

[Kyle Holgate]

Granted Tirpitz was much MUCH further along than the H's, but the British were unable to impact her construction or Bismarck's for that matter. She was Launched in April 1939 so wasn't quite a sitting duck as much as a ship in the building ways (or whatever you call them) is.
The British - at least in 1939-41 time frame were hard pressed to hit anything as relatively small as shipyards with any regularity. I'm not sure how effective they'd have been effecting the construction of the H class - at least at first. By 1943 and 44 things change. Daylight raids proved to be suicidal for the RAF - for quite a while at least.

Given the daring (somewhat suicida too, but daring) dam raid and some of the other things the plucky Brits did - I would bet that they'd find some way to snarl up construction of H class BB's if they wanted too though!

[old_pop2000]

Granted Tirpitz was much MUCH further along than the H's, but the British were unable to impact her construction or Bismarck's for that matter. She was Launched in April 1939 so wasn't quite a sitting duck as much as a ship in the building ways (or whatever you call them) is.
The British - at least in 1939-41 time frame were hard pressed to hit anything as relatively small as shipyards with any regularity. I'm not sure how effective they'd have been effecting the construction of the H class - at least at first. By 1943 and 44 things change. Daylight raids proved to be suicidal for the RAF - for quite a while at least.

Given the daring (somewhat suicida too, but daring) dam raid and some of the other things the plucky Brits did - I would bet that they'd find some way to snarl up construction of H class BB's if they wanted too though!

Bomber command was not really equipped or ready to attack such targets, as early as these ships were launched and outfitted. But H class would have taken a pounding from the re-equipped and much better Bomber Command after 1941.

[djcyclone]

Bomber command was not really equipped or ready to attack such targets, as early as these ships were launched and outfitted. But H class would have taken a pounding from the re-equipped and much better Bomber Command after 1941.


Even if the Germans mannage to defend them during construction, again they would be #1 on everyone's to do list.

They would not have made it far from the original port. Subs would have been targeting them, every Battleship that could be put in location.

Sure the British, and American Navy's would have taken losses while trying to take these ships out, but they would be taken out. One way or the other, these ships would have been sunk.

The only way that Germany can build these ships, is if they 1.) have enough steel to do it, and 2.) have suitable forces to launch and protect the other Units of this Class. We are talking about Recources that Germany never had, let alone after the war began.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The Paris Gun.

As a military weapon the gun was not a great success: the payload was minuscule, the barrel had to be regularly replaced, and the accuracy was only good enough for city-sized targets. The German objective, {however, was to build a psychological weapon to attack the morale of the Parisians}; not to destroy the city itself.
Decades later, the gun was an inspiration to advanced artillery developer Gerald Bull (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Bull); he researched the history of the Paris Gun and published an extensive book about it.
TypeCannon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannon)Place of originGermany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany)Service historyUsed byImperial Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Germany)WarsWorld War I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I)Production historyDesignerKrupp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krupp)ManufacturerKruppSpecificationsWeight256 tons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ton)Length28 mCaliber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliber)210 mmElevation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevation_(ballistics))55 degreesMuzzle velocity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_velocity)1,600 m/sEffective range130 km

There will one day spring from the brain of science a machine or force so fearful in its potentialities, so absolutely terrifying, that even man, the fighter, who will dare torture and death in order to inflict torture and death, will be appalled, and so abandon war forever.
Thomas A. Edison (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasaed109007.html)

Sabre:

Morale busting doesn't sink warships. Also I serious doubt that a single 20" hit sinks anything larger than a light cruiser. US DDs took 14" and 16" hits at Samar and stayed afloat.

[Ed Rotondaro]

CVNs haven't, but all other carriers have. Though I admit much of that is due to national defense budget limitations rather than technology or need.

However, I bet they'd start getting small if the aircraft became smaller, fuel requirements became smaller, and weapons became smaller. I wouldn't be surprised to see "drone carriers" some time in the future. I'm rather surprised one isn't on the drawing board as we speak.

And speaking of all this (or not really), but could someone explain why no one has invented an anti-torpedo system other than decoys? I know this is not on topic, so if you want to explain it in a separate thread, I understand.

Saffron:

There is talk about the proposed CVX class being smaller and more easily maintained. Scott or Mike D probably could expound further on this. Of course USN ship classes have a tendency to morph from original design concepts to whoever had the last say in the design.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The Z-Plan was Germanys fleet building program started shortly before World War 2.
In the mid 1930s a major discussion about a new fleet program started in Germany. There were two major opinions, what kind of program should have been chosen. One plan was focused on a large submarine fleet and a relatively small surface fleet for coast protection, this plan was preferred by the U-Boat fraction in the Kriegsmarine command. The other alternative was a mixed fleet of various surface ships and a much smaller U-Boat fleet, quite similar to the Imperial Navy in World War I or the British Royal Navy. In the end, this plan was chosen as the new fleet building program, after several modifications it was called the "Z-Plan".
According to this plan, the German Kriegsmarine should have grown to about 800 units, consisting of 13 battleships and battlecruisers, 4 aircraft carriers, 15 Panzerschiffe, 23 cruisers and 22 so called "Spähkreuzer" which were basically large destroyers. In addition to this many smaller vessels should have been build.
Those ships should have been build between 1939 and 1946, in this time, the personal of the Kriegsmarine should have been enlarged to 201.000 men and over 33 billion Reichsmark should have spend for building the new units.
This project never got reality. Its very questionable that the German industry would have had the resources for such a construction program and that the other European Nations would stood still and not react to this program. The realization of the Z-Plan started on January 29th, 1939. Two H-Class battleships were laid down, three months later Germany quit the the fleet treaty with England and the dream "No more war against Britain" was gone.
But only four months later Germany attacked Poland and work on all Z-Plan projects was stopped. During the next months, all incomplete ships of the Z-plan were scrapped and the material was used to build additional submarines.

Sabre:


Good description of the plan. The main problem facing Germany besides the industrial capacity was geography. We've had a running a discussion about Germany and its naval capabilities and you see that the country is easily bottled up as Britain did in both world wars. I coined a phrase (shameless ego plug for Ed) that "Geography is destiny". Germany was a land power foolishly trying to be a naval power. Norway had a better chance or exercising naval power than Germany did.

[old_pop2000]

According to most books and my calculations, the H class would have a full load draught of 41.7 feet. I believe that is deeper than most German ports along the her coast. I believe that the maximum depth on Hamburg was 35 feet. So, how do I berth this ship and where. If I am limited to one or two berthing ports, that certainly gives the opponent a much easier task of finding her.

[paladin5]

Sabre:

Morale busting doesn't sink warships. Also I serious doubt that a single 20" hit sinks anything larger than a light cruiser. US DDs took 14" and 16" hits at Samar and stayed afloat.


Ed keep in mind that Kurita's ships were firing AP rounds. Mostly those rounds just passed straight through the destroyers. The destroyers were for the most part simply not "meaty" enough set off the fuses on an AP round that was designed to penetrate the armor of enemy battleships. The only things on the destroyers that were solid enough to set off the 14, 16, and 18.1 inch AP rounds were the destroyers propulsion plants (like when one of the battleship rounds found one of Johnston's boiler rooms). Now if the Japanese had wised up and start firing large caliber HC round those destroyers would have been lucky to take 2-3 hits and still be mission capable. Now if a 20 inch HC round were to hit a destroyer it, well it wouldn't be pretty.

[john964]

Sabre:

Morale busting doesn't sink warships. Also I serious doubt that a single 20" hit sinks anything larger than a light cruiser. US DDs took 14" and 16" hits at Samar and stayed afloat.Ed, The DD and DE's at Samar survived being hit by large caliber shells mostly because the IJN was firing AP rounds and the US DD and DE's didn't have enough armor(like none) to cause the shells to explode. The IJN was basicaly violently installing 14, 16 and 18 inch portholes in the US ships.

[paladin5]

Ed, The DD and DE's at Samar survived being hit by large caliber shells mostly because the IJN was firing AP rounds and the US DD and DE's didn't have enough armor(like none) to cause the shells to explode. The IJN was basicaly violently installing 14, 16 and 18 inch portholes in the US ships.


I almost spit out the water I was drinking when I saw that last sentence.

[Kyle Holgate]

Ed, The DD and DE's at Samar survived being hit by large caliber shells mostly because the IJN was firing AP rounds and the US DD and DE's didn't have enough armor(like none) to cause the shells to explode. The IJN was basicaly violently installing 14, 16 and 18 inch portholes in the US ships.

The Japanese were firing the AP rounds designed to hit below the waterline (don't remember the designation right now) too - even if the fuze was initiated they fuze delay was such that they may pass through and out the other side before the BOOM.

[Kyle Holgate]

Bomber command was not really equipped or ready to attack such targets, as early as these ships were launched and outfitted. But H class would have taken a pounding from the re-equipped and much better Bomber Command after 1941.

I think that's basically what I said in the post you were responding to. ;) Time frames may differ - Bomber command got much more capable as time progressed and lessons were learned. Attacking specific targets that are comparatively small though wasn't their forte. Look at their bombing hit percentages earlier - rather poor, which is one of the reasons they were targeting whole cities as they were not able to hit specific factories and the like.
I'm not disagreeing with you Dennis, just thinking a bit how well the RAF may do vs a shipyard.

[john964]

The Japanese were firing the AP rounds designed to hit below the waterline (don't remember the designation right now) too - even if the fuze was initiated they fuze delay was such that they may pass through and out the other side before the BOOM.I think you are refering to Type 91 AP shell "Diving Shell". This shell only worked like it was supposed to once, when one hit between the forward magazines on USS Boise during the Battle of Cape Esperance.

[Kyle Holgate]

I think you are refering to Type 91 AP shell "Diving Shell". This shell only worked like it was supposed to once, when one hit between the forward magazines on USS Boise during the Battle of Cape Esperance.

Yep, that's the one. To work as planned they had a range at which they should be fire, depending on the firing ship shell size in order to get the diving effect. Since BB vs BB battles were few and far between, and the ones that they had were not at the distance that was ideal for diving shells - we'll never know how they may have actually worked.
My view is they put too much effort into the diving shell idea, and not enough into just making a good AP shell that goes boom when it hits - and hopefully penetrates some armor before it does.

[sabre65]

Ed keep in mind that Kurita's ships were firing AP rounds. Mostly those rounds just passed straight through the destroyers. The destroyers were for the most part simply not "meaty" enough set off the fuses on an AP round that was designed to penetrate the armor of enemy battleships. The only things on the destroyers that were solid enough to set off the 14, 16, and 18.1 inch AP rounds were the destroyers propulsion plants (like when one of the battleship rounds found one of Johnston's boiler rooms). Now if the Japanese had wised up and start firing large caliber HC round those destroyers would have been lucky to take 2-3 hits and still be mission capable. Now if a 20 inch HC round were to hit a destroyer it, well it wouldn't be pretty.

that's been my point about 20in shell, an Iowa class shell was about 2200 pounds the yamato's was about 3200, and believe it or not the shell from the H44 would have been about 5000 pounds, when the yamato's guns were fired a bugle was sound and the men had to cover there ears and duck, or run for cover, when the japanese were testing the yamato's guns they placed small rodent's in cages next to the 18in guns, after they were fired they were horrified to find the small rodents had completely disintigrated from the supersonic shock wave, I just don't think anyone realises how powerful a 20in gun would have been, anything those guns did manage to hit would have been. TOAST. reduced in one hit to a lump of burning cinder.

[steel_selachian]

Problem with that is that you're talking about the blast effects of the big guns on the firing ship. IIRC, the Yamato-class had serious problems because many of the AA stations had to be evacuated if the big guns were firing. 20-inch guns would have been a real bear; the ship would have had to have been built like the proverbial brick outhouse to remain undamaged by the shock of its own weapons. The crew would have to take shelter belowdecks in a surface action, meaning they couldn't be abovedecks manning light AA weapons.

[john964]

that's been my point about 20in shell, an Iowa class shell was about 2200 pounds the yamato's was about 3200, and believe it or not the shell from the H44 would have been about 5000 pounds, when the yamato's guns were fired a bugle was sound and the men had to cover there ears and duck, or run for cover, when the japanese were testing the yamato's guns they placed small rodent's in cages next to the 18in guns, after they were fired they were horrified to find the small rodents had completely disintigrated from the supersonic shock wave, I just don't think anyone realises how powerful a 20in gun would have been, anything those guns did manage to hit would have been. TOAST. reduced in one hit to a lump of burning cinder.The Iowa's 16in/50 shells weighed 2700lbs.

The 20in gun shells were projected to weigh 4850lbs, the propellant charge was 1750lbs and have a range of 52,000yds@50degrees.

[Kyle Holgate]

that's been my point about 20in shell, an Iowa class shell was about 2200 pounds the yamato's was about 3200, and believe it or not the shell from the H44 would have been about 5000 pounds, when the yamato's guns were fired a bugle was sound and the men had to cover there ears and duck, or run for cover, when the Japanese were testing the yamato's guns they placed small rodent's in cages next to the 18in guns, after they were fired they were horrified to find the small rodents had completely disintegrated from the supersonic shock wave, I just don't think anyone realises how powerful a 20in gun would have been, anything those guns did manage to hit would have been. TOAST. reduced in one hit to a lump of burning cinder.

The question is, would 20" guns be too big. You have to hit something besides water so you must have a fire control system and a rate of fire that is reasonable. Could a turret mechanism with guns of that size work effectively? Yamato's 18.1 inch guns had a rate of fire of a bit over 2 RPM (sources vary) - which isn't bad. So they didn't loose much going from 16.1" in Nagato to 18.1" and triple turret in Yamato. 20" with a ROF of 3 perhaps isn't impossible.
As for the shell size... who knows what it'd do? Back when 12" guns were typical the 15" gun seemed to be the omega of battleship guns and nothing could survive them. Ships and guns grew though, and 20" shells would be just one more step. I agree in any case, that whoever got hit would be hurting!

[sabre65]

The question is, would 20" guns be too big. You have to hit something besides water so you must have a fire control system and a rate of fire that is reasonable. Could a turret mechanism with guns of that size work effectively? Yamato's 18.1 inch guns had a rate of fire of a bit over 2 RPM (sources vary) - which isn't bad. So they didn't loose much going from 16.1" in Nagato to 18.1" and triple turret in Yamato. 20" with a ROF of 3 perhaps isn't impossible.
As for the shell size... who knows what it'd do? Back when 12" guns were typical the 15" gun seemed to be the omega of battleship guns and nothing could survive them. Ships and guns grew though, and 20" shells would be just one more step. I agree in any case, that whoever got hit would be hurting!


As Hitler wanted everything bigger and better, the firing rate could have been up to 3-4 rpm , although nobody will ever Know for sure.

here are some specs. German H44.

Displacement:110,696 long tons design./141,088 long tons fully laden.

Length:345.1 m (1,132 ft 3 in) (waterline)359 m (1,177 ft 10 in) (overall)

Beam:51.5 m (169 ft 0 in)

Draft:12.7 m (41 ft 8 in)

design
13.5 m (44 ft 3 in) fully loaded Propulsion:Inner shafts: 8 × 9-cylinder Man diesel engines, 120,000 shp
Outer shafts: 2 × steam turbines driven by 6 oil-fired boilers, 150,000 shp
Combined power: 4 shafts, 270,000 shpSpeed:30.1 knots (55.7 km/h) maximum Range:20,000 nautical miles (37,000 km) at 19 knots (35 km/h)Complement: Unknown, but not less than 2,600Sensors and
processing systems:Radar included, but not specified.

Armament:8 × 50.8 cm (20.0 in) guns in twin turrets
12 × 15 cm (5.9 in) guns in twin turrets
16 × 10.5 cm (4.1 in) in twin turrets
28 × 37 mm (1.5 in) in twin mounts
40 × 20 mm (0.79 in) in quadruple mounts
6 × 533 mm (21.0 in) underwater torpedo tubesArmor:Belt: 380 mm (15 in)

Armoured decks:
60 mm (2.4 in) top deck
140 mm (5.5 in) upper AD
130 mm (5.1 in)–200 mm (7.9 in) lower AD
Torpedo bulkheads:
45 mm (1.8 in) outer
30 mm (1.2 in) inner (depth of 11 m (36 ft 1 in))

Aircraft
carried the catapult with nine aircraft, probably Arado196 seaplanes.

The H-44 was the last of these large battleship studies, and it demonstrates the escalating demands, especially in armour, necessitated by the revolution in aerial warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_warfare) that accompanied the Second World War. Threats from torpedo attack were clearly a high priority; the H-44 featured a multiple-bulkhead defense whose transverse depth reached 11 metres (twice that of the Bismarck); the increased depth of this system was the main change relative to the H-43. Enhancements to upper-deck splinter protection, along with the multiple armoured decks, demonstrated a recognition of the threat posed by large aircraft bombs, such as those used to sink the Tirpitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_battleship_Tirpitz) in April 1944.
The end result of all of the design studies had been reached; no further battleship designs were contemplated by the Third Reich. The H-44 demonstrates the almost exponential growth of warship designs in the face of changing realities. Compared to the original H-39 design, the H-44 was 126 percent heavier, nearly 30 percent longer, and more than 38 percent beamier.

[Kyle Holgate]

The old (but still great) game Action Stations - WW2 surface ship warfare - had an expansion that had the H44 in it along with the super Yamato and others. I recall the H44 being particularly hard to sink using conventional little ships - like the Montana, but not too hard to disable. The gun turrets could be disabled, and it was a big target. I remember putting something like 10 long lances into one and having it sailing around still at 15 knots or so.
I found that game to probably be about as accurate a surface ship wargame as has been made so far. WC-NAW coming out may finally surpass it - we shall see!

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ed keep in mind that Kurita's ships were firing AP rounds. Mostly those rounds just passed straight through the destroyers. The destroyers were for the most part simply not "meaty" enough set off the fuses on an AP round that was designed to penetrate the armor of enemy battleships. The only things on the destroyers that were solid enough to set off the 14, 16, and 18.1 inch AP rounds were the destroyers propulsion plants (like when one of the battleship rounds found one of Johnston's boiler rooms). Now if the Japanese had wised up and start firing large caliber HC round those destroyers would have been lucky to take 2-3 hits and still be mission capable. Now if a 20 inch HC round were to hit a destroyer it, well it wouldn't be pretty.

Mike:

I agree completely. James Hornfischer's book "The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors" describes this in detail. It also mentions the horrific effects of ruptured steam lines in contained spaces.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ed, The DD and DE's at Samar survived being hit by large caliber shells mostly because the IJN was firing AP rounds and the US DD and DE's didn't have enough armor(like none) to cause the shells to explode. The IJN was basicaly violently installing 14, 16 and 18 inch portholes in the US ships.

John:

As I mentioned to Mike I agree completely. It does make one wonder if the IJN had encountered the 7th Fleet after smashing the Taffy task forces, would they have had enough AP to fight the US fleet which was already depleted of AP rounds? Of if instead they used HE against the Taffy task force and finally reached the beachs, would they have been able to do any real damage without HE rounds? AP rounds are not effective in the anti-personnel mission.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The Iowa's 16in/50 shells weighed 2700lbs.

The 20in gun shells were projected to weigh 4850lbs, the propellant charge was 1750lbs and have a range of 52,000yds@50degrees.

John:

I think he may have been referring to the HC shells of the 16" gun. Those weighed in at 1900 lbs with about 145lbs of explosive filler. But you already know that.;)

[Ed Rotondaro]

As Hitler wanted everything bigger and better, the firing rate could have been up to 3-4 rpm , although nobody will ever Know for sure.



Sabre:

No way you could get more than two rounds per minute with the technology of the times. We are wandering into fantasy here. Let's stay grounded in reality please?:rolleyes:

[steel_selachian]

I think if I recall, Admiral Lee had the crews on the Washington drilled to the point where they could reload her 16-inch guns in 15 seconds. Then again, that's a much smaller shell than a hypothetical 20-incher. And as I said earlier, the shock of the gunfire on the ship would have been tremendous. The US ditched plans to install Sea Sparrow SAMs on the Iowas in the 1980s because the force of the 16-inch guns going off would have rendered them useless.

[paladin5]

Mike:

I agree completely. James Hornfischer's book "The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors" describes this in detail. It also mentions the horrific effects of ruptured steam lines in contained spaces.

That is one of my favorite books. It is proof that history can be far more gripping then even the best fiction at times.

[old_pop2000]

Sabre:

No way you could get more than two rounds per minute with the technology of the times. We are wandering into fantasy here. Let's stay grounded in reality please?:rolleyes:

According to the NAVJAPTECHREP, the 18" guns of the Yamato class only managed 1.5 RPM at Max elevation. Max range was 46,000 yards with a 3220 lb shell. I have serious doubts that a 20" gun would do any better, even at 0 deg. elevation.

Of course, Fisher contemplated a ship about 1000 feet long, 40000 tons with 6x20" guns. When Fisher resigned over the Dardenelles issue, the project died. I've seen a drawing of the HMS Incomparable alongside the HMS Dreadnought and it certainly does dwarf it.

At the same time, there was a 22" gun being considered by Admiral Sir Sidney Eardley-Wilmot.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I think if I recall, Admiral Lee had the crews on the Washington drilled to the point where they could reload her 16-inch guns in 15 seconds. Then again, that's a much smaller shell than a hypothetical 20-incher. And as I said earlier, the shock of the gunfire on the ship would have been tremendous. The US ditched plans to install Sea Sparrow SAMs on the Iowas in the 1980s because the force of the 16-inch guns going off would have rendered them useless.

Steel:

The big factor is crew fatigue. While the shells are loaded from a mechanical hoist, the poweder bags have to be removed from the shuttle and then loaded into the hoist. After fifteen minutes of hauling around 100 pound bags of propellant, your arms are going to get tired.

[Ed Rotondaro]

That is one of my favorite books. It is proof that history can be far more gripping then even the best fiction at times.

Mike:

You could never make a movie out of it. People wouldn't believe the entire scenario.

[Ed Rotondaro]

According to the NAVJAPTECHREP, the 18" guns of the Yamato class only managed 1.5 RPM at Max elevation. Max range was 46,000 yards with a 3220 lb shell. I have serious doubts that a 20" gun would do any better, even at 0 deg. elevation.

Of course, Fisher contemplated a ship about 1000 feet long, 40000 tons with 6x20" guns. When Fisher resigned over the Dardenelles issue, the project died. I've seen a drawing of the HMS Incomparable alongside the HMS Dreadnought and it certainly does dwarf it.

At the same time, there was a 22" gun being considered by Admiral Sir Sidney Eardley-Wilmot.

Dennis:

Any attempts to speed up the firing cycle would require something along the lines of a sliding breech block design instead of using a screw breech with bagged charges. To their credit, the Germans did make excellent sliding breech guns in large calibers. But a 20" shell would be so bulky that I doubt it could manage more than the Yamato's rate of fire.

[john964]

John:

As I mentioned to Mike I agree completely. It does make one wonder if the IJN had encountered the 7th Fleet after smashing the Taffy task forces, would they have had enough AP to fight the US fleet which was already depleted of AP rounds? Of if instead they used HE against the Taffy task force and finally reached the beachs, would they have been able to do any real damage without HE rounds? AP rounds are not effective in the anti-personnel mission.Ed, AP rounds may not make as big a mess as HE but they will still do a considerable amount.

[john964]

John:

I think he may have been referring to the HC shells of the 16" gun. Those weighed in at 1900 lbs with about 145lbs of explosive filler. But you already know that.;)Ed, He may also be looking at the old 2250lbs shell that was replaced by the 2700lbs shell in the USN fast battleships. Remember the Colorado class could not fire the 2700lbs shell.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ed, AP rounds may not make as big a mess as HE but they will still do a considerable amount.

John:

I would only surmise that when used in the anti-personnel mode, you would suffer the same problems that have been discussed when firing on thinly hulled ships. What will set off the AP round? It's not designed with an airburst fuze. It would end burying itself in the ground and doing minor damages. The British found this out when Singapore was attacked and fell in 1941. The city was defended with at least six 15" naval guns. While the common myth they could only site out sea in reality at least four of them could traverse inland. But they were not provided with an HE shell since their mission was coastal defense. The guns did fire on the Japanese, but until they reached the city or the airfield, there was very little to set off those AP shells.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Any attempts to speed up the firing cycle would require something along the lines of a sliding breech block design instead of using a screw breech with bagged charges. To their credit, the Germans did make excellent sliding breech guns in large calibers. But a 20" shell would be so bulky that I doubt it could manage more than the Yamato's rate of fire.

On a size gun like a 20", interrupted screw is the only system that seals the breech adequately, for the size of powder charge. The firing rate is really dependent on the whole turret system from the magazines to the loading system. A shell that size just can't be moved and loaded that fast, its just basic physics.

[john964]

John:

It does make one wonder if the IJN had encountered the 7th Fleet after smashing the Taffy task forces, would they have had enough AP to fight the US fleet which was already depleted of AP rounds? Ed, Some would some were not, AP was about 25% of the ammo load for the old BB's. This is what they were carring and what they expended at Surigao.

WV 200/175 93
MD 240/445 48
CA 240/78 63
TN 396/268 69
MS 201/543 12
PA 360/93 DNF

They would have made real mess out of the IJN's ships. Don't forget all of the USN's ships were carring FC radar while only Yamato had a FC radar.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ed, He may also be looking at the old 2250lbs shell that was replaced by the 2700lbs shell in the USN fast battleships. Remember the Colorado class could not fire the 2700lbs shell.

John:

Correct of course, the lifts couldn't handle the shells.

[Ed Rotondaro]

On a size gun like a 20", interrupted screw is the only system that seals the breech adequately, for the size of powder charge. The firing rate is really dependent on the whole turret system from the magazines to the loading system. A shell that size just can't be moved and loaded that fast, its just basic physics.

Dennis:

Agreed, you preaching to the choir here my friend. I need to see what the Gustav 80cm gun used for a breach since most German guns favored sliding breechs.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ed, Some would some were not, AP was about 25% of the ammo load for the old BB's. This is what they were carring and what they expended at Surigao.

WV 200/175 93
MD 240/445 48
CA 240/78 63
TN 396/268 69
MS 201/543 12
PA 360/93 DNF

They would have made real mess out of the IJN's ships. Don't forget all of the USN's ships were carring FC radar while only Yamato had a FC radar.

John:

I've no doubt they could fight and do damage. Was there enough to critically damage the IJN or visa versa? Mostl likely Kurita would have retreated when facing a battleline no matter what ships there were.

[Sea Dragon]

Okay i only just noticed this debate. Not sure what has been read and what hasn't due to the fact there is 17 pages and i'm not sure i can read them all.

However the fact remains, the torpedo was a dangerous advesary to the battleship. There are reports today of ships surviving massive missile strikes and surviving. An Iranian was once reported to survive 2 Harpoon strikes, several smaller Helicopter missiles and multiple 1,000lbs bombs and still be floating and moving.

The battleship could take this punishment. Shells and Bombs damaged them but they could keep coming and fighting. Torpedos tended to hit things like rudders, important below deck systems. Flooding in a warship also removes manouverability and sea worthiness which is an issue for protracted deployment.

Consider then that Heavy Cruisers, Light Cruisers, Destroyers and Submarines could all carry Torpedos. Consider how quickly technology was advancing with the use of submarines and also in torpedo technology. The Japanese had developed some fairly long range torpedos for the time.

I think therefore that while the Carrier is the....killer blow to the battleship the reality was more complicated.

Battleship's were extremelly expensive, man hungry machines. All too often they were held back and chances missed due to the want to "save them for the important battle". War is loss. The opponent who makes the least mistakes, who losses the least wins. Simple fact and the result of that is the Battleship is difficult to use. It is in effect... To valuable due to money, time and manning values.

Then consider the time to build destroyers and cruisers, consider their versatility and ability to carry more rounded armaments. Torpedos, Guns for shore bombardment, better radar and sonar, Anti Submarine warfare. They are cheaper. You can build a high quality exceptional fighting cruiser and still be able to loss it. Its not brilliant but you don't think... "oh god".
Further more you can have more of them, so you can cover wider areas, launch multiple attacks, defend areas, swamp ships.
There are several instances of 2-3 Royal Navy Cruisers (I always feel the light and heavy cruisers of the RN don't get a big enough mention in History) taking on a battleship sized vessel and giving it a run for its money. Maybe not a hard kill but a mission kill. Damaging the Rudder, or Radar, or Weapons fire control, or Bridge, or Ops room... Too many ifs for the battleship captain.

Finally, the submarine. The submarine is the ultimate hunter killer in my opinion. It is a lethal killing machine, it can attack unseen, slink away and no one is the wiser. It almost defeated Britain twice in both world wars. It sank battleship after battleship.. The recently found Denton... submarine victim. The Royal oak... Submarine victim, i could go on.

The battleship is the ultimate in naval gunfire support. It is however, too vulnerable, too expensive, too limited to be continued... Even without aircraft carriers.

Heavy missile cruisers would be more likely, the Tigonderoga can do a multitude of tasks (ASW, ASuW, AAW and Patrol etc) for much less cost. May not be able to take on a battleship... but you just call in a SSN.

[djcyclone]

Yea right. A Tico could teach a Battleship how to become a submarine any day. All it would have to do is stay out of the range of those guns. Every Missle on a Tico is capable of reaching outside of the range of a BB's Guns.

A Battleship wouldn't stand a chance.

[old_pop2000]

Yea right. A Tico could teach a Battleship how to become a submarine any day. All it would have to do is stay out of the range of those guns. Every Missle on a Tico is capable of reaching outside of the range of a BB's Guns.

A Battleship wouldn't stand a chance.

If you have ever seen the results of the Bikini tests in 1946, you'll know that just about anything in the water, whether above or below, is just a target. Battleships, carriers, etc. left as junk. Harpoon's are just toys, compared to those things.

[paladin5]

Yea right. A Tico could teach a Battleship how to become a submarine any day. All it would have to do is stay out of the range of those guns. Every Missle on a Tico is capable of reaching outside of the range of a BB's Guns.

A Battleship wouldn't stand a chance.


I doubt a Tico with a typical late cold war load out (8 harpoons, and 8-16 TASM) would kill a WW2 battleship (the leftovers from WW1 may be a different story). Though I'll bet they could mission kill it.

[Warship NWS]

I doubt a Tico with a typical late cold war load out (8 harpoons, and 8-16 TASM) would a WW2 battleship (the leftovers from WW1 may be a different story). Though I'll bet they could mission kill it.

Plow a few thousand pounds of explosives combined with missile fuel into the superstructure and an Iowa would be little more then an expensive blind deaf and dumb noise maker. Every missile on a Tico, including the buckets of SM2s, could impact the battleship with the only defense on the BB being the CIWS guns or the babysitting SAM armed escorts. Note, RGM/BGMs could be set to pop-up and slam into the superstructure rather then splatting into the belt armor. She would not sink but she would likely be burnt to the deck line and turned into nothing more then a 30 knot blind armored box.

[djcyclone]

I am not so sure. If you plowed all of those missles into a single BB, there is a pretty good chance that the magazines on the ship would be set off at some point.

The missles themselves might not be able to sink her, but if you get the armament on the BB to do the job for you, then you have still done the job.

Also do not forget about torpedoes. The Tico generally carries ASROCS. Now I know they are meant for hunting subs, but you have to know they can be set to engage surface ships. Therefore, we are adding every missile, plus a couple of flying torpedoes that could be fired from a safe distance, then they hit the water with enough fuel to still catch the target.

On top of that, after every single missle has been expended, the BB is as you said going to be a blind bucket of steal just floating. The Tico can then move in and fire the on board torpedoes to finish the job.

I am not counting any escorts. Now the original remark was a single Tico against a BB. If you throw escorts into the equation, then you are figuring a Tico against a SAG. That is entirly different.

Way outside the Tico's ability by itself.

[paladin5]

Plow a few thousand pounds of explosives combined with missile fuel into the superstructure and an Iowa would be little more then an expensive blind deaf and dumb noise maker. Every missile on a Tico, including the buckets of SM2s, could impact the battleship with the only defense on the BB being the CIWS guns or the babysitting SAM armed escorts. Note, RGM/BGMs could be set to pop-up and slam into the superstructure rather then splatting into the belt armor. She would not sink but she would likely be burnt to the deck line and turned into nothing more then a 30 knot blind armored box.


Yep that is pretty well mission killed right there.

[Warship NWS]

However the fact remains, the torpedo was a dangerous advesary to the battleship. There are reports today of ships surviving massive missile strikes and surviving. An Iranian was once reported to survive 2 Harpoon strikes, several smaller Helicopter missiles and multiple 1,000lbs bombs and still be floating and moving.


Take care not to get hung up on "still moving and floating" .. was the ship still fighting? A single Exocet hit on 2 warships during FW1982 effectively put 2 ships out of action. AShMs are NOT designed to *SINK* warships, they are designed to knock them out of action - and in a modern naval war lasting only days or weeks that is all you need to accomplish. A ship that cannot fight is as good as dead for all intensive purposes on a tactical level in a modern naval war. Major repairs are not going to happen before the war ends - especially considering the complexities of modern naval warships. The best, and only effective, defense for a modern warship is to not get hit at all - thus the reason for all those fancy and expensive passive and active defenses.

[paladin5]

I am not so sure. If you plowed all of those missles into a single BB, there is a pretty good chance that the magazines on the ship would be set off at some point.

The missles themselves might not be able to sink her, but if you get the armament on the BB to do the job for you, then you have still done the job.

Also do not forget about torpedoes. The Tico generally carries ASROCS. Now I know they are meant for hunting subs, but you have to know they can be set to engage surface ships. Therefore, we are adding every missile, plus a couple of flying torpedoes that could be fired from a safe distance, then they hit the water with enough fuel to still catch the target.

On top of that, after every single missle has been expended, the BB is as you said going to be a blind bucket of steal just floating. The Tico can then move in and fire the on board torpedoes to finish the job.

I am not counting any escorts. Now the original remark was a single Tico against a BB. If you throw escorts into the equation, then you are figuring a Tico against a SAG. That is entirly different.

Way outside the Tico's ability by itself.

You have to be within 10-15 miles to launch a VLA. An Iowa can reach out to a bit past 20 miles with her main battery. No tin can captain is going to get that close unless he is put in a position where escape is impossible and he knows his ship is going to die no matter what he does. Also a modern destroyer might be easier for the battleship to hit that it's WW2 counterparts. Some modern destroyers (like the Arleigh Burke class) are the size of a WW2 light cruiser so they should be easier for a battle ship to hit.

[djcyclone]

You have to be within 10-15 miles to launch a VLA. An Iowa can reach out to a bit past 20 miles with her main battery. No tin can captain is going to get that close unless he is put in a position where escape is impossible and he knows his ship is going to die no matter what he does. Also a modern destroyer might be easier for the battleship to hit that it's WW2 counterparts. Some modern destroyers (like the Arleigh Burke class) are the size of a WW2 light cruiser so they should be easier for a battle ship to hit.

Yes, but we are talking after every Anti Ship Missile, aswell as the entire compliment of SM 2's.

Just how capable is the BB going to be after all those hits? Will he be able to even shoot?

Even if he can shoot, how accurate are those guns going to be? The Tico could get into range.

[paladin5]

Yes, but we are talking after every Anti Ship Missile, aswell as the entire compliment of SM 2's.

Just how capable is the BB going to be after all those hits? Will he be able to even shoot?

Even if he can shoot, how accurate are those guns going to be? The Tico could get into range.


It only needs a single 5 inch mount to still be in working order to complicate a tin cans life. Also keep in mind that the Mk-7 16 inch mount like most gun mounts can be operated under local control, and unless you knock out all the power good luck killing one of those turrets with a missile.

[Warship NWS]

Guys.. just because the guns MIGHT still be able to fire off a shell in some odd direction just to piss off fish in the water the crew will not be very happy working on a scorched hull with fires all around. Lit missile fuel and explosives can create an intense hell on a ship. If big guns could not change the course of WW2 how much do you think they will contribute in a rapid mobility and electronicaly driven missile, sub, and aircraft battlefield? Diddly squat. If your BB has no comms, no radar, no FCDs, and a superstructure melted to the deck your an armored box waiting to see who shoves a pair of heavyweight torps in your aft end. Do you all really think valuable CG/DDGs escort will stick around to cover for a mere target hulk? I seriously doubt it.

As to firing lightweight torpedos at her.. why? With that TPS system the torps would likely do squat with their pewny anti-sub sized warheads. Wreck her SS and let her float around on fire for the rest of the short naval war and bask in the fact you created a political fallout victory vs a mighty battleship. Game over.

[djcyclone]

Actually I think in the scenario that we are talking about, the 5 inches are going to be the first mission kills.

The 16 inchers, might be a little more difficult to take out, as they are more heavily armored. However, imagine how damaged Fire Control is going to be.

The Gunners would be firing blindly OTH, and the chances of them actually getting a hit are pretty slim.

The Tico only has to worry about the 16 inchers. A single hit from one of those, is game over for a Tico. The 5 inches on the other hand would take a considerable amount before finishing a Tico off.

[Sea Dragon]

Take care not to get hung up on "still moving and floating" .. was the ship still fighting? A single Exocet hit on 2 warships during FW1982 effectively put 2 ships out of action. AShMs are NOT designed to *SINK* warships, they are designed to knock them out of action - and in a modern naval war lasting only days or weeks that is all you need to accomplish. A ship that cannot fight is as good as dead for all intensive purposes on a tactical level in a modern naval war. Major repairs are not going to happen before the war ends - especially considering the complexities of modern naval warships. The best, and only effective, defense for a modern warship is to not get hit at all - thus the reason for all those fancy and expensive passive and active defenses.

Yes, but my point there was that our ships now a days can take such punishment and keep coming, i am sorry but the number of Harpoons it would take to even mission kill an Iowa would be a large amount... Just stick a couple of torpedos in it.

Its all a mute point. Surface ships opperate in task forces (even in WW2) an Iowa is not going to opperate without 2-3 Surface escorts. Its not as simple as "The aircraft carrier killed the battleship." or a "Tico could beat an Iowa" or even mentioning the two ships gutted by exocet in the Falklands..
It wasn't just the aircraft carrier that killed the battleship it was modern warfare, A tico could beat an Iowa if it picks it up, is at long range. Then again would Harpoon penetrate the belt armour? What if its in Visual range.
The two ships hit by exocet in the falklands.. Many more were hideously damage and the Captains and crew had them up and fighting again in under a day (Read Sandy's account of it... im fairly sure thats accurate ;) ).

There are so many ifs, buts, ors and ands.
I've watched a DVD of 7!! Hours recently on the RN between WW1 and the present day, obviously it talks about the end of the battleship and how that came about.. What would have happened if WW1 had continued for another year and the Navy had launched the joint strike with torpedos, bombs, planes, sub torpedo boats and the Big ships on the German fleet in harbour. (Contray to popular opinion Pearl Harbour was not the first aircraft based raid into a harbour, even if it is more well known.)
The end of the battleships is a topic that one could write a thesies on. I genuinely don't think its as simple as people think it is.

[Warship NWS]

Yes, but my point there was that our ships now a days can take such punishment and keep coming, i am sorry but the number of Harpoons it would take to even mission kill an Iowa would be a large amount... Just stick a couple of torpedos in it.


And the G. took a 15" scraping hit that cut the cables to her main FCD that crippled her gunnery accuracy by Renown - so do you have a warship now or a target? Lose your ability to communicate with other ships and/or the ability to use your weapons and your a target. If the SS was the achilles heel during previous wars where shells were lobbed around what makes you think that changed after WW2?

Note how the Iowa class evolved from an AA barge into a BGM/RGM barge - which was the most value she could offer in her modern configuration other then moving mud. Now, *IF* I was to be the one to bring back the Iowa put a VLS in her (as we did with the Spruance) and some RAM launchers and remove the rear 16" turret. If feasible add a reasonable AS/SS radar and some FCRs to allow for the ESSM. Another consideration would be to turn the aft deck into a ASW/helo hangar along with the RAM PDs. At least then you would have more then just a SSM/TLAM barge with big guns and add more of a contribution to the fleet then just a bird crap collector when the big guns or TLAMs (of which we have far cheaper platforms that can be used) are not being used and the USMC can have their mud mover.

[old_pop2000]

And Now, *IF* I was to be the one to bring back the Iowa put a VLS in her (as we did with the Spruance) and some RAM launchers and remove the rear 16" turret. If feasible add a reasonable AS/SS radar and some FCRs to allow for the ESSM. Another consideration would be to turn the aft deck into a ASW/helo hangar along with the RAM PDs. At least then you would have more then just a SSM/TLAM barge with big guns and add more of a contribution to the fleet then just collection bird crap when the big guns or TLAMs are not being used and the USMC can have their mud mover.

If I were to bring back the Iowa class, I would remove B turret and the rear, add the VLS to the forward turret and add a landing deck for a LAMPS helo for ASW. The extra guns would be handy to have around. IMHO, three 16" guns, on two Iowa's in Strike Group, with VLS and ASW helo's would make for a nice package.:D

Question: Could you add individual, standalone AshM launchers on the side in place of other weaponry or should you add Standard missile launchers.?

[Warship NWS]

If I were to bring back the Iowa class, I would remove B turret and the rear, add the VLS to the forward turret and add a landing deck for a LAMPS helo for ASW. The extra guns would be handy to have around. IMHO, three 16" guns, on two Iowa's in Strike Group, with VLS and ASW helo's would make for a nice package.:D

Question: Could you add individual, standalone AshM launchers on the side in place of other weaponry or should you add Standard missile launchers.?

There are plenty of possibilities with that amount of deck space.. just need to make sure you have all the cables and electronics to make it happen but the ship would be cut up a lot to allow for various configurations. Then it comes down to cost and manpower to refit and man the ship after which it might just be cheaper to build another AB.

[djcyclone]

Yea, but in order to bring the Iowas back, one would have to figure out the fuel problem.

They just have too poor of fuel milage to be any good. It cost to much to keep them out at sea.

I heard about a plan some years ago, to do exactly what you guys are saying. To only leave one turret for the 16" and keep all of the 5" for surface to surface action.

Then put VLS launchers in the place of the two removed turrets. Now you have an unbelieabale payload. They also wanted to take out the engines and replace them with Gas Turbines.

The price of such an action was way more than Congress was willing to pay, so it never happened.

[Warship NWS]

My primary point to the Iowa is that it needs self protection measures other then armor which can be circumvented by hitting the ship where it is not armored. No ship can afford to be constantly babysat in a serious modern naval engagement. Every warship needs to be able to contribute to the fleet and defend itself in a modern naval war. Anything else is an unnecessary drain on resources.

With the case of the Iowa, in her final configuration she cost more to operate per hour then 2-3 Ticos or 3-4 ABs and contributed the least to the fleet - not even counting the fact that she was a manpower hog.

[john964]

My primary point to the Iowa is that it needs self protection measures other then armor which can be circumvented by hitting the ship where it is not armored. No ship can afford to be constantly babysat in a serious modern naval engagement. Every warship needs to be able to contribute to the fleet and defend itself in a modern naval war. Anything else is an unnecessary drain on resources.

With the case of the Iowa, in her final configuration she cost more to operate per hour then 2-3 Ticos or 3-4 ABs and contributed the least to the fleet - not even counting the fact that she was a manpower hog.Manpower is an understatment you could crew those 2-3 Tico's and 3-4 Burkes with the crew of one Iowa. IIRC Tico's and Burkes have a crew of 300-350.

[paladin5]

If I were to bring back the Iowa class, I would remove B turret and the rear, add the VLS to the forward turret and add a landing deck for a LAMPS helo for ASW. The extra guns would be handy to have around. IMHO, three 16" guns, on two Iowa's in Strike Group, with VLS and ASW helo's would make for a nice package.:D

Question: Could you add individual, standalone AshM launchers on the side in place of other weaponry or should you add Standard missile launchers.?

But is there any situation where it might be economical to do so? Modifications like that would probably cost 1 billion dollars or more per ship and probably more then a year in a dry dock.

[djcyclone]

But is there any situation where it might be economical to do so? Modifications like that would probably cost 1 billion dollars or more per ship and probably more then a year in a dry dock.


Plus do not forget the lost income brought in by the museums. If you are working on them, then you cannot use them as show and tell attractions.

[paladin5]

Plus do not forget the lost income brought in by the museums. If you are working on them, then you cannot use them as show and tell attractions.


I forgot about that.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Take care not to get hung up on "still moving and floating" .. was the ship still fighting? A single Exocet hit on 2 warships during FW1982 effectively put 2 ships out of action. AShMs are NOT designed to *SINK* warships, they are designed to knock them out of action - and in a modern naval war lasting only days or weeks that is all you need to accomplish. A ship that cannot fight is as good as dead for all intensive purposes on a tactical level in a modern naval war. Major repairs are not going to happen before the war ends - especially considering the complexities of modern naval warships. The best, and only effective, defense for a modern warship is to not get hit at all - thus the reason for all those fancy and expensive passive and active defenses.

Chris et al:

I would only caution not to generalize. We have numerous examples of ships taking major damage in WWII that not only get their power plants back on line, but get enough sensors to at least have a fighting chance. The main problem is that shipyards don't crank out ships the way they did in WWII and that spare parts are maybe months on order and the war could be over as has stated well before then.

[sabre65]

And the G. took a 15" scraping hit that cut the cables to her main FCD that crippled her gunnery accuracy by Renown - so do you have a warship now or a target? Lose your ability to communicate with other ships and/or the ability to use your weapons and your a target. If the SS was the achilles heel during previous wars where shells were lobbed around what makes you think that changed after WW2?

Note how the Iowa class evolved from an AA barge into a BGM/RGM barge - which was the most value she could offer in her modern configuration other then moving mud. Now, *IF* I was to be the one to bring back the Iowa put a VLS in her (as we did with the Spruance) and some RAM launchers and remove the rear 16" turret. If feasible add a reasonable AS/SS radar and some FCRs to allow for the ESSM. Another consideration would be to turn the aft deck into a ASW/helo hangar along with the RAM PDs. At least then you would have more then just a SSM/TLAM barge with big guns and add more of a contribution to the fleet then just a bird crap collector when the big guns or TLAMs (of which we have far cheaper platforms that can be used) are not being used and the USMC can have their mud mover.

It is possible to make as many modifications as you so wish, But, how effective would an Iowa class be. once the ship has been taken away from it's original design, i.e. would having all those cables make it more of a fire hazard, and once cutting and drilling plus making various holes all over the ship, how effective would it's armour plus would any of it's superstructure be compromised.

[Warship NWS]

I would only caution not to generalize.


My response was not a generalization, it was a counter point. Ship designs and guided munitions since the age of the gun shell have changed considerably. The only armor on ships now, other then maybe some STS or kevlar, is the electronic and hard kill counter measures. Everything else is metal, men, ordnance, engines, and sensors heavily packed into as compact as possible hulls.

[john964]

It is possible to make as many modifications as you so wish, But, how effective would an Iowa class be. once the ship has been taken away from it's original design, i.e. would having all those cables make it more of a fire hazard, and once cutting and drilling plus making various holes all over the ship, how effective would it's armour plus would any of it's superstructure be compromised.If you remove the Iowa's aft turret you could fit the equivalant of nearly 5 Mk41 VLS launchers(300 launch tubes). Also the Navy is real good about running cables through cableways and as far as fire hazards are concerned the USN tries to prevent that by using fire resistant products.

[Ed Rotondaro]

If you remove the Iowa's aft turret you could fit the equivalant of nearly 5 Mk41 VLS launchers(300 launch tubes). Also the Navy is real good about running cables through cableways and as far as fire hazards are concerned the USN tries to prevent that by using fire resistant products.

John:

I wonder if you could retrofit either the 5"/60 gun in single mountings or the proposed 155mm Advanced Gun System (again in single mounts in place of the existing six twin 5"/38 DP guns on an Iowa class ship? Then add a few 57mm Bofors guns for small targets plus the existing CIWS. Then remove the number three turret and add those VLS launchers. Can Harpoon or Tomahawk be fired through them or only Standard missiles? Because if the could, that's more top weight that could be removed.

[Sea Dragon]

And the G. took a 15" scraping hit that cut the cables to her main FCD that crippled her gunnery accuracy by Renown - so do you have a warship now or a target? Lose your ability to communicate with other ships and/or the ability to use your weapons and your a target. If the SS was the achilles heel during previous wars where shells were lobbed around what makes you think that changed after WW2?

Many of the Type 21 and Leander class in the Falklands kept fighting after having lost sensors... Why? You talk about mission kill meaning you only need to take out sensors. That is i think simplifying things too much. If the mission requires getting another ship into a landing area, a bay, protecting another ship.. Well a mission kill is to stop the escort being able to protect it. To do that you have to cripple its engines and weapons. As the Type 21 and leander showed in the Falklands.. You can still put yourself in harms way, throw up flak and the like. Close and FORCE the enemy to engage YOU. Meanwhile your other ships are engaging the enemy and using that cover to good effect.

No i'm sorry, its not as simple as "Remove the sensors". That provides a good advantage true, if you manage to keep your Combat group, fleet or ship disiplined then yes perhaps you could "mission kill" but it just isn't that simple. A mission kill is a kill that stops the unit preforming its goal. Battleships soaked up fire and engaged other battleships. If that battleship has a cruiser or two nearby.. Well it can close with the enemy.. take a horrendus punishment and force them to engage that while the cruisers engage the enemy.


Finally you are as i said, assuming, that you have picked it up on radar, that you can engage it with harpoon and a number of other things.. What happens if it catches you off guard?
One last question... Can you actually target Sensors with a Harpoon? If you can't then its down to luck... Equally likely to fail as too succeed. Especially given that Harpoon might not penetrate a battleships armour and bulkheads so well so the ship will suffer less electronic damage (especially if the electronics were upgrades to todays standards!)

[Jittery]

If CV's didn't arrive at WW2 and dominate everything in their way Battleships for the most part would have stayed the same during WW2 (but been built) afterward however with the coming of age of guided missiles ships would have developed (personal opinion) much the same with a emphasis on weapons carriage capacity > armor.

The weapon that would have been the most deadliest in this scenario no longer would be the CV's or even air force's with massed attack from land bases as no commander of any naval group would approach a shoreline where he is doomed to being sported from the air first and having Buckley's.

The weapon system to dominate the seas for the latter part of the 20th century would have been the Sub. Much as it did in the first half of the century.

That is how i could see the force structure evolving if CV's hadn't come of age around WW2.

[Warship NWS]

SD, your missing my point.. modern missiles cannot hit the back end of a barn without something to detect, track, and engage the target - that requires sensors or datalinks to a another platform with sensors that can pass over targeting informatio. Sorry, but visual only weapons are darn near useless against anything except maybe a small boat at spitting range. Visual only targetting might have worked to some limited degree during WW2 but against kamikazees, as an example of guided ordnance, but vs missiles or jets flying at 300-500+ MPH that flat wont work. Note how I said "are you a fighting ship or a target?" -- what you described above is little more then a target.

BTW, during FW1982 flak didn't do squat.. most Argentine aircraft were swatted down by Sea-Darts and Sidewinders and flak - withour radar targeting - WILL NOT STOP AShMs. The the Argentines only had 3 AShMs available for combat.. imagine if they had 6 or more. The Argentines scored 2 hits out of 3, the third splashed - none were shot down and 2 ships were knocked out of the fight. The RN only had 2 weapons that could hit the AM39s.. SeaCat (TVM missile with very short range and incapable of having any reasonable chance vs a crossing or very small target) and SeaWolf (~3nm range - point defense only and only armed a few of the ships).

As to the Iowa-- sorry but the radars were NOT protected. We are not talking AEGIS here with multiple arrays around the SS. All radars on the Iowa were conventional rotating arrays and most concentrated above the bridge - nice ARM target with airburst fuzing. As to the SS, 1-2" of steel will not keep out the explosive blast of a missile detonating after impacting at around 400-500+ knots - not including the lit unexpended missile fuel being splattered around a bit - remember the kamikazees.. lets see, what caused the fires after impact? Very likely unspent AVGAS. Another part your forgetting - modern AShMs can be given different attack and/or radar targeting parameters and the SS on a big fat BB is going to make a nice pretty radar target - its mostly flat. Give the AShM a height of impact or pop-up attack pattern and you can go around the belt armor and slam the SS. Otherwise why did we escort them with heavily armed SAM ships? If the missiles at the end of WW2 could prove dangerous to BBs what makes you think they are any less dangerous by modern standards with programmable seekers and multiple terminal engagement profiles? BTW, do not forget that the Russians have built warheads as large as 1000-2000lbs and many are SAP capable and could do a screaming DIVE on a target - belt armor is worth what now? They may not make it through the armored deck but you would know you got hit.

Without effective comms and sensors a ship in a modern naval battlefield is little more then a target.. period. If your ship is scorched to the deck line your not going to fight anyone except maybe a boarding party - that is if the fires do not cause you to abandon ship first. Mission kill means not allowing the ship to do its job.. well what is the job of a modern warship if it cannot use its weapons effectively? Might as well be sailing a big expensive yacht. Now if all you want is a missile sponge.. well, I am sure the sailors on board the ship might have a problem with that.

Thanks.

[Ed Rotondaro]

SD, your missing my point.. modern missiles cannot hit the back end of a barn without something to detect, track, and engage the target - that requires sensors or datalinks to a another platform with sensors that can pass over targeting informatio. Sorry, but visual only weapons are darn near useless against anything except maybe a small boat at spitting range. Visual only targetting might have worked to some limited degree during WW2 but against kamikazees, as an example of guided ordnance, but vs missiles or jets flying at 300-500+ MPH that flat wont work. Note how I said "are you a fighting ship or a target?" -- what you described above is little more then a target.

BTW, during FW1982 flak didn't do squat.. most Argentine aircraft were swatted down by Sea-Darts and Sidewinders and flak - withour radar targeting - WILL NOT STOP AShMs. The the Argentines only had 3 AShMs available for combat.. imagine if they had 6 or more. The Argentines scored 2 hits out of 3, the third splashed - none were shot down and 2 ships were knocked out of the fight. The RN only had 2 weapons that could hit the AM39s.. SeaCat (TVM missile with very short range and incapable of having any reasonable chance vs a crossing or very small target) and SeaWolf (~3nm range - point defense only and only armed a few of the ships).

As to the Iowa-- sorry but the radars were NOT protected. We are not talking AEGIS here with multiple arrays around the SS. All radars on the Iowa were conventional rotating arrays and most concentrated above the bridge - nice ARM target with airburst fuzing. As to the SS, 1-2" of steel will not keep out the explosive blast of a missile detonating after impacting at around 400-500+ knots - not including the lit unexpended missile fuel being splattered around a bit - remember the kamikazees.. lets see, what caused the fires after impact? Very likely unspent AVGAS. Another part your forgetting - modern AShMs can be given different attack and/or radar targeting parameters and the SS on a big fat BB is going to make a nice pretty radar target - its mostly flat. Give the AShM a height of impact or pop-up attack pattern and you can go around the belt armor and slam the SS. Otherwise why did we escort them with heavily armed SAM ships? If the missiles at the end of WW2 could prove dangerous to BBs what makes you think they are any less dangerous by modern standards with programmable seekers and multiple terminal engagement profiles? BTW, do not forget that the Russians have built warheads as large as 1000-2000lbs and many are SAP capable and could do a screaming DIVE on a target - belt armor is worth what now? They may not make it through the armored deck but you would know you got hit.

Without effective comms and sensors a ship in a modern naval battlefield is little more then a target.. period. If your ship is scorched to the deck line your not going to fight anyone except maybe a boarding party - that is if the fires do not cause you to abandon ship first. Mission kill means not allowing the ship to do its job.. well what is the job of a modern warship if it cannot use its weapons effectively? Might as well be sailing a big expensive yacht. Now if all you want is a missile sponge.. well, I am sure the sailors on board the ship might have a problem with that.

Thanks.

Chris:

Outside of AA missiles, are any anti-shipping missiles equipped with heat seekers?

[Kyle Holgate]

Chris:

Outside of AA missiles, are any anti-shipping missiles equipped with heat seekers?

Yes, but the ones I'm thinking of are older ones that are not in such common use now, and belong to Russia. We're friends with Russian now, right? They shouldn't be flying our way though if they're exported...

[paladin5]

Yes, but the ones I'm thinking of are older ones that are not in such common use now, and belong to Russia. We're friends with Russian now, right? They shouldn't be flying our way though if they're exported...


What about the AGM-119 that can be carried by our helos? Doesn't it use infrared guidance. I've also read that the AGM-119 can be a real problem to kill because it is small, and also because it likes to weave all over the place during its terminal phase.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Yes, but the ones I'm thinking of are older ones that are not in such common use now, and belong to Russia. We're friends with Russian now, right? They shouldn't be flying our way though if they're exported...

Thanks Kyle. I know the Russians had a phase where they placed great emphasis on infra-red sensors for air to air combat to avoid using radar that could be detected.

[Ed Rotondaro]

What about the AGM-119 that can be carried by our helos? Doesn't it use infrared guidance. I've also read that the AGM-119 can be a real problem to kill because it is small, and also because it likes to weave all over the place during its terminal phase.

Mike:

Correct, the Norwegian designed Penguin was also the first anti-ship missile using passive IR for guidance.