HOME | DD

Tzoli β€” Fast Battleship Design 8in

#battleship #class #design #fast #iowa #navy #preliminary #states #united #usn
Published: 2019-07-01 20:30:57 +0000 UTC; Views: 15179; Favourites: 111; Downloads: 94
Redirect to original
Description Some time ago, before the various Lion preliminary and post designs I've posted a few Montana pre-designs, now before I continue with the Lions after I gather any new data on the 1944 and 45 versions I post a few other Montanas I've not yet put up here.
So I continue:
This proposal was labelled as a 8in "Fast Battleship" design from 1938, part of the Iowa design process. But in reality this what you call the battlecruiser version of the Montana class battleships, sacrificing armour for much of extra speed with the same armament and layout!
It was part of a 4 unit design series of a Fast Battleships from which this was the fastest and most lightly armoured and comparatively the "smallest" displacement, the other three featured 6" DP-AA guns as their secondary armament rather the 5"/38 ones. This 6" DP-AA gun was the predecessor of the ones used in the Wichita and intended for some of the Cleveland preliminaries but difficulties in developing the system as well as the lack of appropriate technology meant a long developing time eventually culminating in the Worcester class light cruiser of late/post war.
The other unique choice is the usage of the older Mark 2 16" cannons originally intended for the Lexington class battlecrusiers.
The were a series of 4 design studies for a comparative slow battleship armed with either 16"/45 Mark 6, 16"/50 Mark 2 or 18"/48 Mark 1 cannons.

The designs had these characteristics:

Dimensions: 298,7 (wl) x 32,92 x 10,67m
Displacement: 50.950tons (standard), 62.700tons (full load)
Armour: 58mm deck and 203mm belt over machinery and magazines
Engines: 285.000shpΒ General Electric Steam Turbines, 6 shafts
Speed: 65km/h (35knots)
Armaments:Β 

4x3 16"/50 (406mm) Mark 2 Cannons,

10x2 5"/38 (127mm) Mark 12 Guns,
4x4 1,1"/75 (28mm) Mark 1 AA Guns,


Original sketch drawing:
i.imgur.com/N55BlyL.jpg

official data table:

i.imgur.com/ORufE0c.png

Related content
Comments: 40

sweepea14 [2021-03-10 19:14:34 +0000 UTC]

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

Tzoli In reply to sweepea14 [2021-03-10 20:04:34 +0000 UTC]

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

sweepea14 [2021-03-10 17:09:44 +0000 UTC]

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

Tzoli In reply to sweepea14 [2021-03-10 17:43:08 +0000 UTC]

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

MightyJoeP [2019-12-05 20:25:52 +0000 UTC]

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

Tzoli In reply to MightyJoeP [2019-12-05 20:35:53 +0000 UTC]

You need it much longer. Look at the space between the funnels!

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

MightyJoeP In reply to Tzoli [2019-12-05 20:57:19 +0000 UTC]

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

Karmack67 [2019-10-24 19:45:28 +0000 UTC]

This is an interesting concept, but I am not sure it would be better at the counter-cruiser mission than the Alaska-class BCs.Β  And your AA fit is extremely weak.Β  If you're going for 44/45 era, you should have a ton of quad 40mm Bofors mounts on this thing.Β  Β Β Β  Otherwise you're going to be vulnerable to air attack.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

Tzoli In reply to Karmack67 [2019-10-24 19:56:42 +0000 UTC]

You see the upper right corner? This was an 1938 design. No one would expect the next war to be a carrier based battle mostly with aircrafts.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

MacPaul [2019-08-28 19:19:37 +0000 UTC]

Basically a nonsense design.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

Tzoli In reply to MacPaul [2019-08-28 19:34:30 +0000 UTC]

Why do you think so?

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

MacPaul In reply to Tzoli [2019-08-31 17:12:36 +0000 UTC]

It cannot fight other battleships without exposing itself to massive danger with only 8 inch armour, it's way too heavy for its armour, and with a length of 300 meters it'd have difficulties manoeuvring in harbour.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

Tzoli In reply to MacPaul [2019-08-31 17:19:23 +0000 UTC]

When you seen a warship manoeuvre in harbour with it's own power??? That what Tugboats are for.

It's not designed to against battleships I think, with that high speed it could run down heavy cruisers.

Displacement isn't a factory of ONLY ARMOUR it also comes from armament, their armour, engine and overall ship size.

Also you don't take into consideration that 8" armour's length! It's like 200m long between the barbettes! That is a very long part of the ship requiring armour!

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

MacPaul In reply to Tzoli [2019-09-01 05:56:02 +0000 UTC]

The length of a ship determines how well it can be handled in harbours and dry docks, that is not a question of it manoeuvring on his own, ships of such length are a nightmare.

If it's not designed to fight battleships, what is it designed for then? To hunt down enemy heavy cruisers and fight them with 16 inch shells? Come on!

You make cool drawings my dear, but your military knowledge as such is limited. Anyway, I don't intend to follow this further, cause it is basically just art and a drawing; I just wanted to mention that cause this design is too far away from being practically.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

Tzoli In reply to MacPaul [2019-09-01 09:30:54 +0000 UTC]

The Forrestal class with was longer then this design surely have no problem with docking facilities. The USN economy have the strength to extend it's facilities so again limited issue with construction. Warships were not designed for Harbour movement, they were yes restricted by depth of harbours.

You seem to forget that apart from the USA there was only 4 16" armed battleships afloat in 1938 the Two Nelsons and the two Nagatos of which both can be easily outrun by this ship and both carried 45 calibre cannons which could be outranged by this vessel even using the old Lexington type weapons.

Yes 8" armour is limited but it has to be to achieve the lower displacement for the speed required.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

MacPaul In reply to Tzoli [2019-09-02 12:23:46 +0000 UTC]

So what? This is all highly theoretically, as many other things in (naval) warfare have been. You sound like Fisher to me. Fact remains that such ships serve almost no purpose and never would have been build.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

Tzoli In reply to MacPaul [2019-09-02 16:39:24 +0000 UTC]

Then my dear sir, never-were warships isn't for you I think.

There is a Universe, an alternative universe out there where these ships were built rather the Iowas.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

MacPaul In reply to Tzoli [2019-09-04 13:01:47 +0000 UTC]

No, your drawings deal with could have been or planned ships, not with alternative universe ships.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

Tzoli In reply to MacPaul [2019-09-04 15:11:27 +0000 UTC]

No a could had been as described was a could had been they would had been chosen if history takes a different turn hence different universe

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

MacPaul In reply to Tzoli [2019-09-07 10:23:16 +0000 UTC]

You cannot be helped…

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

Tzoli In reply to MacPaul [2019-09-07 10:59:34 +0000 UTC]

Maybe you do not understand the concept of the multiverse and alternative realities?

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

MacPaul In reply to Tzoli [2019-09-10 14:37:42 +0000 UTC]

Yeah, maybe∞  

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

leovictor [2019-07-13 02:20:37 +0000 UTC]

Jackie Fisher would have loved this ship.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

Tzoli In reply to leovictor [2019-07-13 09:38:10 +0000 UTC]

Most likely

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

GotterJager [2019-07-09 05:21:47 +0000 UTC]

Longtana

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

Tzoli In reply to GotterJager [2019-07-09 16:06:14 +0000 UTC]

No, this is the Longtana:

Montana Preliminary Design BB65-8

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

GotterJager In reply to Tzoli [2019-07-09 19:44:18 +0000 UTC]

That is long long man.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

cosmoflanker [2019-07-02 19:32:53 +0000 UTC]

I think you mean "Fast" Battleship in the title.Β  Also the link for the original sketch is no good.Β  But oh boy am I happy you are doing these!

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

Tzoli In reply to cosmoflanker [2019-07-02 20:24:45 +0000 UTC]

Fixed I don't know why DA screw that up I'm sure I've put the right name. As for the link imgur somehow did not saved the original image...

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

uglygosling [2019-07-02 00:07:55 +0000 UTC]

Looks like an updated version of the Lexington class CCs, not well protected by BB standards but potentially formidable AA escorts with 40mm Bofors and 20mm Oerlikons added.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

Tzoli In reply to uglygosling [2019-07-02 15:22:39 +0000 UTC]

IT's a long and fast ship plenty of space for such equipment

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

AngelisGoodwen [2019-07-01 20:52:39 +0000 UTC]

It looks like it would have devastating broadside but a skilled torpedo bomber would have and easy time taking it out.Β  Still a nice ship.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

Tzoli In reply to AngelisGoodwen [2019-07-02 15:22:23 +0000 UTC]

Underwater defence I do not know but an 1938 slow Devastator would had issues with the 5"/38 guns

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

AngelisGoodwen In reply to Tzoli [2019-07-02 15:52:38 +0000 UTC]

Perhaps, but I don't think four dedicated AA guns it enough...

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

Tzoli In reply to AngelisGoodwen [2019-07-02 16:03:44 +0000 UTC]

This was the standard suite until WW2 even the CA2-D had this kind of armament, rembmer the Yamato as designed in 1936/37 had only 8 triple 25mm guns, the French were even worse!


πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

AngelisGoodwen In reply to Tzoli [2019-07-02 16:19:08 +0000 UTC]

Fair point.Β  I forgot the time frame...

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

Tzoli In reply to AngelisGoodwen [2019-07-02 17:31:58 +0000 UTC]

Tends to happen a lot

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

AngelisGoodwen In reply to Tzoli [2019-07-02 18:19:32 +0000 UTC]

Yeah.............I really need to brush up on my ship history......

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

Tzoli In reply to AngelisGoodwen [2019-07-02 20:20:02 +0000 UTC]

That or just check the date I state of the design on the image.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

AngelisGoodwen In reply to Tzoli [2019-07-02 20:27:03 +0000 UTC]

Fair point.......

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0