American militarism pre-WW2 and the Ultimate Battleship

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 918
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: American militarism pre-WW2 and the Ultimate Battleship

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 27 Oct 2019 01:45

T.A. Gardiner wrote:How many horsepower of motor would this monstrosity require to turn it? An Iowa turret had a 300 hp motor driving a hydraulic pump to turn it. Would this turret need like a 1500 hp motor? Maybe a 2000 hp motor?
At least 2,000hp because it's going to rotate (and elevate) significantly faster than Iowa's.
But again, if this ship needs 100k extra HP for its turrets to operate as sketched, that's a small percentage of its in-built propulsive generation capacity, which is a small part of its overall budget.
Auxiliary motors were a small portion of the expense of a BB. If they're somewhat more prominent on MegaBB it's no big deal.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 2932
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: American militarism pre-WW2 and the Ultimate Battleship

Post by Takao » 27 Oct 2019 01:47

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
27 Oct 2019 01:41
Takao wrote:Thank you for confirming my opinion.
Let's not pretend that your opinion being confirmed was ever in doubt.
I appreciate you as a foil for others reading along who might want to learn something.
I never doubted for once that you would confirm for me that the 16-inch guns would protrude into the electrical deck.

But, anyone can see that without complicated mathematics. But, is is always nice to be confirmed.

TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 918
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: American militarism pre-WW2 and the Ultimate Battleship

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 27 Oct 2019 01:55

Earlier in the thread someone mentioned that this ship's guns were tiny in comparison to displacement. True enough.

In launching this program, I'd expect the USN to develop both an 18in gun and a larger gun (24in?) to counter/preempt any enemy response to it.
The 24in gun wouldn't be industrialized until/unless an enemy justifying its use appeared.
The 24in gun could be inserted into any of the main - or even secondary - turrets.

High RoF would be more difficult to achieve with bigger guns, however. So long as another nation doesn't launch its own MegaBB (>200k tons), the MegaBB wouldn't need anything bigger than 18in guns to wreck an opponent with high-angle fire.

Should a potential enemy nation launch a MegaBB, then it's already served its purpose without firing a shot.
Only Japan would seriously consider the project but Japan can't really afford to do so.
She can't afford realistically afford to match the MegaBB.
A smaller MegaBB could - and would - be overwhelmed by the U.S.'s conventional forces.
Those conventional forces would face far weaker opposition besides the Japanese MegaishBB.
Japan might, for example, fold the resources of Shokaku/Zuikaku and heavy cruisers into Yamato/Musashi to make a MegaishBB that the U.S. can sink with carrier aircraft - not to mention MegaBB.

TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 918
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: American militarism pre-WW2 and the Ultimate Battleship

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 27 Oct 2019 02:15

T.A. Gardner wrote:The problem with that is the USN would have come to the same conclusion they did with the Midway class initially.
Notice that I said the Mega-Carrier would operate bigger planes, not that it would operate many times more. I'm well aware of the Midway class issues.
The square-cube principle works against CV's: They grow in weight cubically but airfield only grows quadratically [and practically far less than quadratically].

Nonetheless, for a USN planning ~20 CV's and CVL's, having a mega-carrier around would be a big boon:
  • Practically unlimited space to carry replacement carrier aircraft and pilots to replace those lost during a battle.
  • Practically unlimited space to carry aviation fuel in impregnable defenses, allowing longer operating times and/or reducing danger to conventional CV's
  • Practically unlimited space to refuel the CV's and supporting fleet.
  • The ability to operate, say, A-26's and drop-tank-equipped P-51's from the mega carrier would allow it to strike the enemy far from where he could hit back.
  • Ability strategically bomb, e.g., Japan, from the decks of the MegaCV using twin-engine medium bombers. With practically unlimited space for ordinance aboard, you could maybe run a dozen larger "Doolittle raids" per day over an extended period. Replacements for losses could be stored aboard or ferried to the ship, where they'd pick fuel and arm.
  • Fleet aerial reconnaissance range greatly extended with larger, faster planes.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 2932
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: American militarism pre-WW2 and the Ultimate Battleship

Post by Takao » 27 Oct 2019 03:01

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
27 Oct 2019 02:15

[*]Practically unlimited space to carry replacement carrier aircraft and pilots to replace those lost during a battle.
Done cheaper with CVEs.
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
27 Oct 2019 02:15
[*]Practically unlimited space to carry aviation fuel in impregnable defenses, allowing longer operating times and/or reducing danger to conventional CV's
[*]Practically unlimited space to refuel the CV's and supporting fleet.
Having an unsinkable supply ship and sinkable carriers is...Shall we say, absurd.
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
27 Oct 2019 02:15
[*]The ability to operate, say, A-26's and drop-tank-equipped P-51's from the mega carrier would allow it to strike the enemy far from where he could hit back.
Iwo, Okinawa, mainland China, Tinian, Saipan.
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
27 Oct 2019 02:15
[*] Ability strategically bomb, e.g., Japan, from the decks of the MegaCV using twin-engine medium bombers. With practically unlimited space for ordinance aboard, you could maybe run a dozen larger "Doolittle raids" per day over an extended period. Replacements for losses could be stored aboard or ferried to the ship, where they'd pick fuel and arm.
Medium bombers don't carry enough of a payload to be strategic bombers. For that matter, outside of range, there is little to set the A-26/B-25 apart from 2 TBFs or SB2Cs.

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
27 Oct 2019 02:15

[*]Fleet aerial reconnaissance range greatly extended with larger, faster planes.
About the only real benefit, but not for the $1 billion price tag.

TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 918
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: American militarism pre-WW2 and the Ultimate Battleship

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 27 Oct 2019 03:32

T.A. Gardner wrote:Then there's the space needed for the various hoists as well as passing powder, and moving (likely) one-and-a-half ton shells onto the shell hoists.

My view is that such details need be thought through before making a claim for an alternative history. All-too-often, the ideas presented were superficially thought through and no thought given to the details of how something would actually work.
Here's an earnest suggestion for making things more productive here: Instead of assuming that I haven't thought of something and assuming you're one step ahead, maybe ask, "Hey TMP, do you have space for all those shell/powder hoists? Won't they get tangled?"

Well thanks for the question, I have in fact thought about it.

First, some broad observations:

-Despite the spaghetti-looking layout of the Iowa turret from the side, an over-head view shows how little of the floor space is actually occupied by the powder/bag hoist channels, were they vertical. I've marked them in red below:

Image


...it should be obvious that very little of the turret floor space is taken up by hoist chutes. A little arithmetic confirms this: The turret pan floor area is ~1,000ft2. Three 4ftx2ft powder carriages, and 3 ~1.5ftx1.5ft shell hoists add up to ~31ft2 or ~3% of floor space.

-I'd estimate a ~67ft diameter for a 20-gun 18in turret. That's 4x the area of an Iowa turret's pan floor (remember no armored barbette so turret D <= working space).

-Multiplying 31ft2 by 20/3 and (18/16)^2 we have ~260ft2 of for the powder carriage shell chutes on a vertical plane. That's ~6% of the turret's floor area. About twice as much as in Iowa but still not much.

-Unlike the Iowa's turret layout which is constricted in its lower dimensions by torpedo bulges, the Mega's can use the full width all the way down if necessary - therefore all powder/ammo tracks are vertical, unlike Iowa's and every BB I've seen. These vertical chutes make the schema much simpler.

Here's a rough sketch of a possible layout:

Image

...this doesn't correspond to the 67 foot diameter I mentioned above but I didn't feel like doing a new drawing or doing the post over.
Nonetheless the basic principle should be easy to see: The rows of horizontal lines represent the top of the powder hoist, where bags load into the cradle. Forward of these rows are shell hoist columns (dual in this diagram due to laziness - i.e. one next to another) through which shells pass up to the shell handling deck for loading into the shell cradle.

This layout could represent the schema of the powder-to-gun loading deck and a lower, vertically-corresponding powder-hoist-loading deck.
Or you you view the orange circle as representing a separate, vertically-corresponding deck for powder-hoist loading.
Or the back row could represent a deck to which no hoists lead - the powder comes in from magazines on the same level as this deck (we're ~30ft below the armored deck at this point). That means only one row of hoists - the other cradles are loaded directly by cart from the magazines. Then the cradle is raised to ramming position (recall that the gun pit is separated from the powder cradle unlike in all designs I know - another benefit of practically unlimited space).

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 2932
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: American militarism pre-WW2 and the Ultimate Battleship

Post by Takao » 27 Oct 2019 03:33

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
27 Oct 2019 01:55
Earlier in the thread someone mentioned that this ship's guns were tiny in comparison to displacement. True enough.

In launching this program, I'd expect the USN to develop both an 18in gun and a larger gun (24in?) to counter/preempt any enemy response to it.
The 24in gun wouldn't be industrialized until/unless an enemy justifying its use appeared.
The 24in gun could be inserted into any of the main - or even secondary - turrets.

High RoF would be more difficult to achieve with bigger guns, however. So long as another nation doesn't launch its own MegaBB (>200k tons), the MegaBB wouldn't need anything bigger than 18in guns to wreck an opponent with high-angle fire.

Should a potential enemy nation launch a MegaBB, then it's already served its purpose without firing a shot.
Only Japan would seriously consider the project but Japan can't really afford to do so.
She can't afford realistically afford to match the MegaBB.
A smaller MegaBB could - and would - be overwhelmed by the U.S.'s conventional forces.
Those conventional forces would face far weaker opposition besides the Japanese MegaishBB.
Japan might, for example, fold the resources of Shokaku/Zuikaku and heavy cruisers into Yamato/Musashi to make a MegaishBB that the U.S. can sink with carrier aircraft - not to mention MegaBB.
Now, in my best Norman Friedman voice...

Well, now. If, the rest of the world let's this happen, and in 20 years, the USA has produced 4 Behemoths and the World becomes it's Porcelain Throne. However, the rest of the World sees this and decides to form the United Nations unite and defeat these American Nazis.

A.) Japan, which is barely capable, can and does build it's Behemoth, the Soviet Union builds it's Behemoth, the United Kingdom builds it's Behemoth, while France & Italy combine to produce theirs. German, meanwhile supplies it's Allies with 80-cm Schwerer Gustav guns. The 4 US Behemoths are literally rent apart under a rain of 80-cm shells, the 4 United Nations vessels sail off into the sunset, as their crew look in awe at the divots made in their armor by the harmless 18 & 24 inch US guns.

or

B.) Defeat the US before the Behemoths can be completed. The relatively small US Navy is easily brushed aside by the combined UN naval forces, and the UN land forces quickly move to expand their beachheads and soon overwhelm the US opposition.

Not quite the outcome TMP is expecting or planning on.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 2932
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: American militarism pre-WW2 and the Ultimate Battleship

Post by Takao » 27 Oct 2019 04:06

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
27 Oct 2019 03:38

And what relevance do these have to a carrier battle not near those places?

This is an obviously bad answer, obviously given in pique.
I think Takao and I have reached the point where he goes on ignore. I don't have time to address posters who are obviously desirous of being deferred to and obviously piqued when not so treated. The Takao was rightly known as unstable.

If anyone else wants to raise one of Takao's points to me they can do so, otherwise from here on out I'll pay scant attention.
The same relevance that strategic bombing of Japan has to a carrier battle.

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
27 Oct 2019 03:38
Ok this is too funny to ignore. The only other person I've ever known who seriously thought the US and British would go to war at that time was Hitler. Good company.
Cough...The United States was not Hell bent on World domination.

Your making the fatal mistake of confusing the ATL with the OTL. Please don't make me remind you again.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 2932
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: American militarism pre-WW2 and the Ultimate Battleship

Post by Takao » 27 Oct 2019 04:16

TMP,
I also not that you have not addressed the facts...
1. The CVE could replace aircraft and pilots at a far cheaper price.
2 The absurdity of having an unsinkable supply ship, but sinkable aircraft carriers.
3 That medium bombers were not strategic bombers.
4. That CV Behemoth would be an overly expensive recon platform.

Basically, what you have created in a overly large USS Shinano.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 5701
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

Re: American militarism pre-WW2 and the Ultimate Battleship

Post by Terry Duncan » 27 Oct 2019 11:59

A needlessly insulting post from TheMarcksPlan was removed by this moderator. Please avoid making personal comments, they are against the rules and will inevitably lead to a ban if repeated too often or are to personal. Everyone makes a mistake from time to time but two in the same post is unusual. Just ignore people if they are not saying things you like to hear.

Terry Duncan

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 1954
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: American militarism pre-WW2 and the Ultimate Battleship

Post by T. A. Gardner » 27 Oct 2019 18:28

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
27 Oct 2019 01:45
T.A. Gardiner wrote:How many horsepower of motor would this monstrosity require to turn it? An Iowa turret had a 300 hp motor driving a hydraulic pump to turn it. Would this turret need like a 1500 hp motor? Maybe a 2000 hp motor?
At least 2,000hp because it's going to rotate (and elevate) significantly faster than Iowa's.
But again, if this ship needs 100k extra HP for its turrets to operate as sketched, that's a small percentage of its in-built propulsive generation capacity, which is a small part of its overall budget.
Auxiliary motors were a small portion of the expense of a BB. If they're somewhat more prominent on MegaBB it's no big deal.
A 2000 hp motor is huge.

This is a Baldor 300 hp electric motor:

Image

A Westinghouse 2000 hp motor:

Image

The 2000 hp motor will also require it's own ship's service electrical generator as it takes about 3500 amps to run it at 450 VAC which is standard US Navy ship's electrical system voltage. I guess you could up the voltage to something non-standard, but it would still be a huge dedicated installation required for each turret.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 5701
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

Re: American militarism pre-WW2 and the Ultimate Battleship

Post by Terry Duncan » 27 Oct 2019 19:30

Having just run a very basic version of this into Springsharp I got the following returns for the basic hull with armour, no engines or guns at present;

Displacement: c2,000,000tons
Cost: $1,775,858 million.
It has a very high roll at 13.5 seconds, is an unsteady gunplatform at 14% (ave = 50%) and has the seaboat qualities of 0.08% where 1% is average.

Obviously these figures could be trimmed a fair amount, but on the positive side it will take 800k 6" shells or 1,800 torpedoes to sink!?

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 2932
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: American militarism pre-WW2 and the Ultimate Battleship

Post by Takao » 27 Oct 2019 21:51

Terry Duncan wrote:
27 Oct 2019 19:30
Having just run a very basic version of this into Springsharp I got the following returns for the basic hull with armour, no engines or guns at present;

Displacement: c2,000,000tons
Cost: $1,775,858 million.
It has a very high roll at 13.5 seconds, is an unsteady gunplatform at 14% (ave = 50%) and has the seaboat qualities of 0.08% where 1% is average.

Obviously these figures could be trimmed a fair amount, but on the positive side it will take 800k 6" shells or 1,800 torpedoes to sink!?
Query...Pertaining to the "to sink part.

Are the 800k 6" shells or 1,800 torpedoes what it will take to sink the ship by eliminating it's reserve buoyancy (a la Musashi), or is it the shells or torpedoes are focused on one side - capsizing her(a la Yamato)?

I'm guessing destroying all reserve buoyancy.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 2932
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: American militarism pre-WW2 and the Ultimate Battleship

Post by Takao » 27 Oct 2019 23:17

T. A. Gardner wrote:
27 Oct 2019 18:28
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
27 Oct 2019 01:45
T.A. Gardiner wrote:How many horsepower of motor would this monstrosity require to turn it? An Iowa turret had a 300 hp motor driving a hydraulic pump to turn it. Would this turret need like a 1500 hp motor? Maybe a 2000 hp motor?
At least 2,000hp because it's going to rotate (and elevate) significantly faster than Iowa's.
But again, if this ship needs 100k extra HP for its turrets to operate as sketched, that's a small percentage of its in-built propulsive generation capacity, which is a small part of its overall budget.
Auxiliary motors were a small portion of the expense of a BB. If they're somewhat more prominent on MegaBB it's no big deal.
A 2000 hp motor is huge.

This is a Baldor 300 hp electric motor:

Image

A Westinghouse 2000 hp motor:

Image

The 2000 hp motor will also require it's own ship's service electrical generator as it takes about 3500 amps to run it at 450 VAC which is standard US Navy ship's electrical system voltage. I guess you could up the voltage to something non-standard, but it would still be a huge dedicated installation required for each turret.
But, is that even enough to get the job done as TMP wants it?

For instance, it took a 300 HP motor to turn the Iowa's 1,200 ton turret at 4 degrees padre second. Howeverb it took a 200 HP motor to turn the 214 ton turret of the Worcester at 25 degrees per second.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 5701
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

Re: American militarism pre-WW2 and the Ultimate Battleship

Post by Terry Duncan » 28 Oct 2019 00:08

Takao wrote:
27 Oct 2019 21:51
Terry Duncan wrote:
27 Oct 2019 19:30
Having just run a very basic version of this into Springsharp I got the following returns for the basic hull with armour, no engines or guns at present;

Displacement: c2,000,000tons
Cost: $1,775,858 million.
It has a very high roll at 13.5 seconds, is an unsteady gunplatform at 14% (ave = 50%) and has the seaboat qualities of 0.08% where 1% is average.

Obviously these figures could be trimmed a fair amount, but on the positive side it will take 800k 6" shells or 1,800 torpedoes to sink!?
Query...Pertaining to the "to sink part.

Are the 800k 6" shells or 1,800 torpedoes what it will take to sink the ship by eliminating it's reserve buoyancy (a la Musashi), or is it the shells or torpedoes are focused on one side - capsizing her(a la Yamato)?

I'm guessing destroying all reserve buoyancy.
Probably to destroy all reserve bouyancy, the program is not clear on that sort of thing. I believe it is worked on the overall strength and size of the structure.

Return to “What if”