8 Heavy US cruisers for the RN Battleship Duke of York!!!!!

[mescal]

Please realize that the Nouth Carolina/South Dakota class were the same ship design;

So far in error as to make it difficult to discuss things further as it exposes serious misconceptions from the outset and you compound this later with similar flaws in knowledge about other nations ships.

The same design except for the 48ft difference in hull length, the extra funnel, the 9,000SHP difference, the armour differences etc. You seem to be confusing the fact that South Dakota was built as a flagship from the South Dakota class and thus differed from the other members of that class as well as to the North Carolina and Washington which were indeed a very different class. Wikipedia gives enough detail and photos for people to spot the differences;

All that and the basic fact that the initial design of the North Carolina (many features of which were retained) was made under the LNT constraints before the escalator clause, whereas SoDaks were not subjected to the same set of constraints.
Which means that they differed from the very first draft of the first preliminary study ...

[Takao]

All that and the basic fact that the initial design of the North Carolina (many features of which were retained) was made under the LNT constraints before the escalator clause, whereas SoDaks were not subjected to the same set of constraints.
Which means that they differed from the very first draft of the first preliminary study ...

Actually, Mescal, that is incorrect. The preliminary design studies for the South Dakota were all 14-inch guns on 35,000 tons displacement. The initial design, "Design A", was essentially a North Carolina class battleship. However, no one in the USN was quite satisfied with the North Carolina design, so after looking at several designs, what eventually became the SoDaks was a radical departure from the North Carolinas.

The only "escalator clause" that effected the North Carolina & South Dakota classes was the 16-inch clause. The 45,000 ton "escalator clause" would only come into play for the Iowas.

[mescal]

Ooops,
I was sure SoDaks were designed from the start as 16"-gunned BBs.

I stand corrected.

[Takao]

Although the Treaty had been signed and ratified in 1936, and the US Navy General Board was all but begging for the 16-inch gun, politics were at work. The US public was still strongly isolationist, and considered to be against such instances of military escalation. So, while approving the Treaty was one thing implementing it was a different matter. Thus, FDR, for the most part, put off increasing the gun size until after the 1936 election. With the 1936 presidential election won, the next stumbling block was the Secretary of the Navy, Claude A. Swanson, whom was not convinced of the benefits of the 16-inch gun(politicians...go figure) and did not approve the increase in gun size until mid-July, 1937. As such, the designs for the South Dakota class, up to July, 1937, were for 14-inch guns.

[ChristopherPerrien]

Please realize that the Nouth Carolina/South Dakota class were the same ship design; Except, for one "flagship version" and the attendant small variation in SECONDARY armament for ONE of those 6 ships (2-5in gun mounts ). If you want to exclaim this hair-splitting difference as a totally different BB design class , no matter, please realize no other battleship design(s) did better in WWII , .

So far in error as to make it difficult to discuss things further as it exposes serious misconceptions from the outset and you compound this later with similar flaws in knowledge about other nations ships.

The same design except for the 48ft difference in hull length, the extra funnel, the 9,000SHP difference, the armour differences etc. You seem to be confusing the fact that South Dakota was built as a flagship from the South Dakota class and thus differed from the other members of that class as well as to the North Carolina and Washington which were indeed a very different class. Wikipedia gives enough detail and photos for people to spot the differences;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Caro ... battleship

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dako ... %281939%29

Norman Friedman, probably recognized as the leading naval design expert in the world today, manages to consider them two separate classes and list them as such in all his works. Then again, what does he know?

The US built enough BB"s to have "flagships", obviously the British could not afford such "variations".

The British did have ships fitted for flagship duties, have a look at their construction details and operational activities, the South Dakota was fitted as a fleet flagship in a manner to Friedrich de Grosse in WWI, a rather pointless concept that other navies operated perfectly well without taking, and which highlights the rather obvious question of what operates as fleet flagship when the 'special flagship' is having a refit or repair?

And also realize the QE class did far more for England than those dud ass KGV class ships.

Have I said otherwise? The QE's were probably the most successful battleships ever built, and this is usually the conclusion when the subject is discussed on the internet too. The KGV's were far from duds though.

If you want to laud the KGV BB class as giving the the best performance of any BB class in WWII

You may have trouble with the concept that most is not always best, but I actually said they gave more service than any other modern warship class and that is correct.

And yes , I know the SoDak class had an electrical problem at Savo island

Idiot crewmen can happen anywhere, it is not a design issue though.

IMHO, any trade for more than 2 US HVY CA's for one of those KGV's, would seem like a horrendous bs trade to me, even discounting for dealing with the massive operational problems/costs for both navies in supporting/operating logistically "alien" warships.

With the majority of the US Pacific Fleet's capital units either sunk or badly damaged, getting hold of a modern fast capital unit is not an unreasonable idea. A ratio of 3 -1 or 4 - 1 is the most often agreed on ratio when this is discussed, though many people cannot see the attraction of large numbers of heavy cruisers, a type the RN did not need as badly as other types.

And no, I am not bashing you or "limeys" in general . I just think the two(or three ) best classes of BB in WWII,as far service records go, were the US NC/SoDak class, followed by the UK QE class. I think the record bears this out.

Given you are so far out of your expertise area, 'bashing' would be ill advised. The record does bear out which class of modern warships performed the most service in WWII, even if you do not like it, but that has nothing at all to do with which ships were the 'best' ships or even the most effective. I know 'best' and 'most' must be hard for you to differentiate, but please do try as it will solve this misunderstanding easily!

If you actually look back through my posts you will see that I said that the South Dakota class had a very good claim to being the best class of modern warship in WWII, but that does not inflate their length of service operations and therefore qualify them as the ones who gave most service as a class.

Yes , yes, and I guess we mince words, and if course I know the minor differences between two BB classes(NC/SD), which I see as being related more to US Congressional appropriation battles, to the actual minor design/tech specs as per Friedman.

Still,,, you are deflecting from the initial issue of the topic at hand.

I don't think a KGV BB is worth 4 US HVY CA's , much less 8.

Sounds likes a drunken fantasy of WSC(Winston Spencer Churchill), of which he had many, every day, I gather.

And we(on both sides of the pond) should be happy; That he was not able to carry this hair-brained idea out. I gather Roosevelt, may well have entertained the issue, if it had not been shot down by more sensible elements in British Naval High Command.

Scotch can be dangerous when you are leading a nation to/in war.

[Andy H]

Hi All

Though I applaud robust discussion and some friendly banter, its very easy to slip across that line and play the man, and not his argument. When this happens, the snowball gathers speed as each responds to another's over the line post.

Please don't spoil what I've found to be, a most interesting read in relation to my initial post

Regards to all

Andy H

[Takao]

Yes , yes, and I guess we mince words, and if course I know the minor differences between two BB classes(NC/SD), which I see as being related more to US Congressional appropriation battles, to the actual minor design/tech specs as per Friedman.

I am interested if you have any proof or sources to back up this seemingly unsupported opinion, since Friedman makes quite the case that weight, not cost, was the overriding concern of the 35,000 ton US Battleships, especially the South Dakota class. Had cost been an issue, they likely would have retained their original 14-inch guns, and the SoDaks would not have had their high temperature, high pressure steam plant.

[ChristopherPerrien]

Yes , yes, and I guess we mince words, and if course I know the minor differences between two BB classes(NC/SD), which I see as being related more to US Congressional appropriation battles, to the actual minor design/tech specs as per Friedman.

I am interested if you have any proof or sources to back up this seemingly unsupported opinion, since Friedman makes quite the case that weight, not cost, was the overriding concern of the 35,000 ton US Battleships, especially the South Dakota class. Had cost been an issue, they likely would have retained their original 14-inch guns, and the SoDaks would not have had their high temperature, high pressure steam plant.

Yes, I will say my above post was worded not quite right.

And it has been 25-30 years since I really have been interested with detailed aspects of actual US Naval ship designs and the procurement process that was involved.



However , There was alot of interplay between what was bounced around between the Navy and appropriation and time/design issues related to these "classes" of ship. And of course these two "classes" were also the first US BB's built in relation to the ending of the Washington treaty so that further mucks up the design issues. Also IIRC the weight issues were more an issue with the design differences between the SoDak's and the Iowa class because of the escalator clause. Cost was more an issue between the NC's and the So/dak's, and some design happened were because the Nc's had some problems. I just look at the SoDaks as being an improved NC. They(all 6) were much more the same compared to the older "Standard" BB.

I'll dig around some and attempt to explain further, however it is not quite relevant to the topic overall.

Perhaps we would be better off discussing/weighing the tactical/operational "worth" of a number of US CA's(New Orleans class ) versus a singular KGV BB, and the attendant logistical problems with integrating and operating these ships by foreign navies . Simply put ,Would a KGV BB for 4 CA's have been a good trade, for either navy? I don't see that at all.

[mescal]

They(all 6) were much more the same compared to the older "Standard" BB.

That's like saying HMS Iron Duke was more comparable to SMS König than to HMS Lord Nelson ...