American militarism pre-WW2 and the Ultimate Battleship

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: American militarism pre-WW2 and the Ultimate Battleship

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 26 Oct 2019 03:50

T. A. Gardner wrote:
26 Oct 2019 02:33
The superimposed gun thing was tried before by the USN. It was found to be a complex mess that really didn't work.

Image

The idea isn't new, but it also didn't work.
Yeah for the 15th time it isn't one gun on top of another. It's one gun behind another. Completely different concept from this picture. I really don't get how hard it is for folks to understand that. I mean I do get it - the most common reason for participation in this forum isn't to discuss interesting ideas but to try to pour cold water on ideas. I've been around the internet and alive for long enough to expect this kind of behavior. Even by those standards, however, the refusal to understand "one gun behind another" is exceptional.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: American militarism pre-WW2 and the Ultimate Battleship

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 26 Oct 2019 03:54

OpanaPointer wrote:You have one (1) ship.
Nah you'd probably build four. Maybe the last one as a super-carrier with the ability to operate land-based fighters and medium bombers, as well as an unlimited source of replacement planes and pilots to other carriers during battle. (as well as a source of strategic mobility, AAA defense, and fleet support).
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3528
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: American militarism pre-WW2 and the Ultimate Battleship

Post by T. A. Gardner » 26 Oct 2019 05:26

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
26 Oct 2019 03:54
OpanaPointer wrote:You have one (1) ship.
Nah you'd probably build four. Maybe the last one as a super-carrier with the ability to operate land-based fighters and medium bombers, as well as an unlimited source of replacement planes and pilots to other carriers during battle. (as well as a source of strategic mobility, AAA defense, and fleet support).
The problem with that is the USN would have come to the same conclusion they did with the Midway class initially. The carrier is simply too big to be efficient. That is, the size of a strike would be limited by cycle time for recovery of the last strike. What they'd figure out is that you can't use all the planes on the ship simply because there's too many and not enough time or space to spot them and launch strikes.
That nearly doomed the Midway. What saved that class was the prospect of heavier and larger jet planes, atomic bombers, and the need for an armored flight deck.
The only thing your design offers is the armored flight deck. There simply won't be enough time and space to spot strikes and cycle landings such that you can efficiently use all the planes. That means the carrier is too big to be efficient.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: American militarism pre-WW2 and the Ultimate Battleship

Post by Takao » 26 Oct 2019 10:54

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
25 Oct 2019 22:35
Takao wrote:Main armament was not given AAA elevation because the gears never held up to the stresses of elevating the guns to such angles and always failed. This is the problem run into by the British, Japanese, and Americans.

If you can't get 6- & 8-inch guns to reliably elevate that high, your not going to get 16- & 18-inch ones to do so.
Reference?
Obviously this was solved on the Worcester Class CL's with the their 78 degree elevation. http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_6-47DP_mk16.php
If you can solve it for 6in you can solve it for larger. Just requires more steel. Weight isn't a huge issue for this ship.
Friedman. They never worked well in practice. Same same for the British and Japanese eights that could elevate to 70-75 degrees. The Japanese redesigned their turrets with a limit of 55 degrees.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: American militarism pre-WW2 and the Ultimate Battleship

Post by Takao » 26 Oct 2019 11:01

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
25 Oct 2019 22:45
Takao wrote:If you look at the Iowa's turret schematic, increasing the gun angle to 75 degrees or even 85 degrees would only require an extra 8-10 feet. Weight increase would be minimal as it is still covered by barbette armor and the armored deck. The shell and powder flats would need some rearranging, but height increase and weight gain would be minimal at best.
That might be true of the center gun from looking at the cross section. I.e. if you're looking at this view: Image

But it's not true of the outer guns - the curvature of the barbette would prevent them elevating higher. Just visualize the barbette under this top-view and you can see that only #2 gun can use the full turret depth.
Image

And what do you mean "only require an 8-10ft"? Of barbette diameter? Then you're pushing into the already-thin torpedo bulge. Of turret wall height? That's several thousand pounds of armor and has huge stability implications. Of total magazine-turret depth? Then turrets one and two need a deeper hull or removal of the triple bottom - not a good safety idea under your magazines. As you can see, turrets 1&3 extend to near the hull bottom:

Image

You could probably do two triple 16in turrets on your lines if both were elevated. But not three, and not worth it. You need more hull depth and width, which you'd probably want to use for something other than high main gun elevation.
Actually, i was looking at the Floating Drydock's book of Missouri plans.

8-10 feet extra depth, the guns would protrude into the electrical deck of the turret. Rearrange that, and you would not need to expand the turret in any way shape or form.

From, your writing it is clear that you have no idea where the barbette is with reference to the turret.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6264
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

Re: American militarism pre-WW2 and the Ultimate Battleship

Post by Terry Duncan » 26 Oct 2019 11:45

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
26 Oct 2019 03:54
OpanaPointer wrote:You have one (1) ship.
Nah you'd probably build four. Maybe the last one as a super-carrier with the ability to operate land-based fighters and medium bombers, as well as an unlimited source of replacement planes and pilots to other carriers during battle. (as well as a source of strategic mobility, AAA defense, and fleet support).
You fail to understand his point. He means a ship is the sum of its parts to a total of 1. If you have mobility at 0.5 then you only have the remaining 0.5 to allow for armament and protection between them. This is sort of why I and Takao have suggested you try a ship design program like Springsharp as it makes it clear that making a huge ship is often still beset with problems. I would also bet the US doesnt have the budget in peacetime to build 4 such ships.

Also, this type of ship will be extremely vulnerable to Highball type weapons that can be dropped well out of range of most of the AA weapons, and in tials managed to go through HMS Malaya entirely. In this case they may well penetrate the armour but not come out the other side, or they will be stopped and work like a magnetic mine. Highball is a mid-war possibility, it was not prioritised as the only target was Tirpitz as range and location problems were major obstacles, but on the seas there is far less of a problem given such large targets may be around.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6264
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

Re: American militarism pre-WW2 and the Ultimate Battleship

Post by Terry Duncan » 26 Oct 2019 11:50

Takao wrote:
26 Oct 2019 11:01
Actually, i was looking at the Floating Drydock's book of Missouri plans.

8-10 feet extra depth, the guns would protrude into the electrical deck of the turret. Rearrange that, and you would not need to expand the turret in any way shape or form.

From, your writing it is clear that you have no idea where the barbette is with reference to the turret.
Barbette? She is the chick that serves the gunners their coffee isnt she? I think these two floor turrets are supposed to be like a single pair of superfiring turrets that have emerged as conjoined twins, making them even more interesting when it comes to weight issues? They certainly make the Tillman's sextuple turrets look simple though.

OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5607
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: American militarism pre-WW2 and the Ultimate Battleship

Post by OpanaPointer » 26 Oct 2019 12:29

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
26 Oct 2019 03:54
OpanaPointer wrote:You have one (1) ship.
Nah you'd probably build four. Maybe the last one as a super-carrier with the ability to operate land-based fighters and medium bombers, as well as an unlimited source of replacement planes and pilots to other carriers during battle. (as well as a source of strategic mobility, AAA defense, and fleet support).
I see you missed the point completely.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: American militarism pre-WW2 and the Ultimate Battleship

Post by Takao » 26 Oct 2019 13:39

Terry Duncan wrote:
26 Oct 2019 11:50
Takao wrote:
26 Oct 2019 11:01
Actually, i was looking at the Floating Drydock's book of Missouri plans.

8-10 feet extra depth, the guns would protrude into the electrical deck of the turret. Rearrange that, and you would not need to expand the turret in any way shape or form.

From, your writing it is clear that you have no idea where the barbette is with reference to the turret.
Barbette? She is the chick that serves the gunners their coffee isnt she? I think these two floor turrets are supposed to be like a single pair of superfiring turrets that have emerged as conjoined twins, making them even more interesting when it comes to weight issues? They certainly make the Tillman's sextuple turrets look simple though.
I thought her name was Barbarella...but I could be mistaken.

Yeah the turrets are conjoined, as those mounted on the Virginia class BBs. As opposed to the turret on turret of the Kersarge class.

However, the 8-10 foot bit, is our discussion on making the Iowa guns max elevation to 75 degrees. Which is pointless as the elevation rate for big guns is far too slow to make them effective. However he appears to make his 18-inch guns automatic and capable of loading at any angle, but his turret dimension do not take this into account.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: American militarism pre-WW2 and the Ultimate Battleship

Post by Takao » 26 Oct 2019 13:43

Not just highball, but the German guided weapons and Japanese Ohka become much more viable weapons systems, as the Behemoth has no aircraft carriers in support. It's AA defense is limited to the max range of the ineffective big guns.

OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5607
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: American militarism pre-WW2 and the Ultimate Battleship

Post by OpanaPointer » 26 Oct 2019 13:59

The coastal zone would increase significantly. However, I watch the yards install Armored Box Launchers on the Iowas. Eight ABLs with eight cells on each. The launchers could go erect in a X pattern, so there was no launching conflict between the adjacent launchers. Sixty-four cruise missiles could be launched in minutes. The plan to make the entire stern a honeycomb of launchers was scrapped, IIRC.

But then the ABLs were empty and had to be swapped out. I'm not sure how many rounds Halsey's 7th Fleet BBs dropped on Japan but I'm confident that it was more than sixty-four.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6264
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

Re: American militarism pre-WW2 and the Ultimate Battleship

Post by Terry Duncan » 26 Oct 2019 14:56

Takao wrote:
26 Oct 2019 13:39
However, the 8-10 foot bit, is our discussion on making the Iowa guns max elevation to 75 degrees. Which is pointless as the elevation rate for big guns is far too slow to make them effective. However he appears to make his 18-inch guns automatic and capable of loading at any angle, but his turret dimension do not take this into account.
Yeah, the British tried all angle loading for heavy guns, achieved it with the Hood, at thirty degrees, and then found that the effort wasnt worth it as trying to shove a heavy shell uphill took far more effort and time than to load at a very reduced angle. It was a strain on the hydraulics and didnt do much for the rate of fire over the standard mounts. The experiment was not repeated for Vanguard when her mounts were modernised.

User avatar
Robert Rojas
In memoriam
Posts: 2658
Joined: 19 Nov 2002 04:29
Location: Pleasant Hill, California - U.S.A.

RE:American "Militarism" Pre-WW2 And The Rise Of The U.S.S. Boondoggle.

Post by Robert Rojas » 26 Oct 2019 14:58

Greetings to both citizen Terry Duncan and the community as a whole. Howdy Terry! Well sir, in light of your installment of Saturday - October 26, 2019 - 2:45am, old yours truly came very close to going into cardiac arrest when I noted your comment of "I would also bet the U.S. doesn't have the budget in peacetime to build four such ships". Terry, never underestimate the scope of political influence that certain congressional constituencies have upon weapons procurement! And let us not forget about the inordinate representation of organized labor into this mix! There are a great many pork barrel jobs at stake here not to mention the crass opportunities for both a myriad of contracting kickbacks and inevitable cost overruns. Peacetime budget be damned! There will also be plenty of scheduled overtime work for the men and women of the United States Mint as they keep those printing presses churning out dead presidents! Yes, there is ALWAYS more to these things than readily meets the eye! Well, that's my latest two Yankee cents worth on this wanting topic of interest - for now anyway. In any case, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day over in your corner of merry old England. GOD SAVE THE QUEEN - not to mention everyone else!

Best Regards From The Upstart Colonies!
Uncle Bob :idea: :) :wink: 8-) :thumbsup:
Last edited by Robert Rojas on 26 Oct 2019 16:08, edited 1 time in total.
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it" - Robert E. Lee

OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5607
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: American militarism pre-WW2 and the Ultimate Battleship

Post by OpanaPointer » 26 Oct 2019 15:38

For a good read on the US mobilization (and the pissing contests that went with it) I recommend Maury Klein's A Call to Arms: Mobilizing the US for World War II. Eight hundred and ninety-seven pages. So pack a lunch.

EDIT: If you read Klein I suggest you keep a table of acronyms and their associated agencies. Klein mentions the full name once, includes the acronym and then doesn't repeat the full name again. As the book is just shy of nine hundred pages I suspect there was a full index of agencies in the original material but cost made it go away. :(
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6242
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: American militarism pre-WW2 and the Ultimate Battleship

Post by Richard Anderson » 26 Oct 2019 16:05

Terry Duncan wrote:
26 Oct 2019 11:45
I would also bet the US doesnt have the budget in peacetime to build 4 such ships.
Indeed. So far, if I'm keeping track, we have:

1. No place to build her...well, except Provincetown.
2. No place to base her...well, except Provincetown again.
3. No foundries capable of producing the weight of armor or number of guns required.
4. No money to build her or, more crucially, no political will to fund her. You might do well to look at the Congressional hearings on naval appropriations, between 1922 and 1926. On 8 February 1922, all work on the six South Dakota's was cancelled under the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty. From then until FY 1926 (1 July 1925-30 June 1926) there were no appropriations for new naval construction. It was not until the FY 1927 appropriations, that funding was provided for completing the former CC-1 and CC-2 as CV-2 and CV-3, and for building two "scout cruisers (CL/CA 24 and 25), the four V-class submarines, and six river gunboats, and to begin construction of CL/CA 26, 27 and 28. Including aircraft appropriations for CV-2 and CV-3 (nee CC-1 and CC-2), the total appropriation for FY 1927 was $107,790,000 with a proposed construction appropriation for FY 1928 of $74,415,000 for completion. From then until early 1933, when Roosevelt used monies appropriated for the general relief fund to build the Farragut-class DD, there was effectively zero appropriations for naval construction in the US.
5. No why for building her...well, except that apparently doesn't need to be discussed, because of the interest expressed by members in the idea of designing a ship that has no place it can be built or based, no foundries capable of producing the armor and guns required, and no money to build her.

All for a ship that might easily capsize while trying to get her from a location she probably can't be built in to a location where she has depth of water sufficient for her full load draft, which can be achieved by lightering out all the consumables and munitions to her, since she can't approach within miles of any naval ordnance or supply depot.

Aside from that? No problemo homey.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Return to “What if”