Ideal battleship design

Warship design and construction, terminology, navigation, hydrodynamics, stability, armor schemes, damage control, etc.
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Ideal battleship design

Post by Bgile » Tue Apr 12, 2011 1:34 am

I see. 5" were too light to use against Kamikazes, but 3" weren't.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Ideal battleship design

Post by lwd » Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:57 pm

In terms of light AA 40mm is better than 20mm especially against kamikazis.
For heavy AA 5" is better than 3". The 5"54 did have some advantages over the 5"38 but didn't have the rate of fire and due to the extra weight couldn't maintain what it did have for as long. Either would probably be a good choice and better than the 3". 6" was a bit too much for effective AA use so going that way precludes having a dual purpose gun that worked well in both catagories.

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Ideal battleship design

Post by Bgile » Tue Apr 12, 2011 4:10 pm

lwd wrote:In terms of light AA 40mm is better than 20mm especially against kamikazis.
For heavy AA 5" is better than 3". The 5"54 did have some advantages over the 5"38 but didn't have the rate of fire and due to the extra weight couldn't maintain what it did have for as long. Either would probably be a good choice and better than the 3". 6" was a bit too much for effective AA use so going that way precludes having a dual purpose gun that worked well in both catagories.
The US and UK both designed a dual purpose 6" gun which appeared postwar. The US weapon was overly complex and mechanically troublesome. Both weapons far exceeded the range at which aircraft could be effectively engaged, so they weren't especially successful in their intended role.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7529
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Ideal battleship design

Post by RF » Tue Apr 12, 2011 5:54 pm

Post war up to 1960 I don't think there has been much of aircraft engagement of ships so far as the US and UK were concerned; the obvious conflict to think of would be Korea but that was largely a land war.

I would have thought therefore that radar and an open sea would allow a six inch gun to be deployed against formations of aircraft at long range? - but that there was no conflict at which that idea could be tested?
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Ideal battleship design

Post by Bgile » Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:17 pm

RF wrote:Post war up to 1960 I don't think there has been much of aircraft engagement of ships so far as the US and UK were concerned; the obvious conflict to think of would be Korea but that was largely a land war.

I would have thought therefore that radar and an open sea would allow a six inch gun to be deployed against formations of aircraft at long range? - but that there was no conflict at which that idea could be tested?
The impracticality of very long range gunnery vs aircraft was one of the reasons given for the withdrawal from service of the US ships. I believe it had to do with the fact that a jet aircraft which makes even a small course change isn't going to be close to the predicted impact point when a long range shell gets there. Combine that with the fact that everyone was developing surface to air missiles and you have a system obsolete almost before it was introduced. The 8" version lasted much longer in US service due to it's greater utility at surface combat and shore bombardment. It was also simpler and more reliable than the 6" version.

Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 672
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Ideal battleship design

Post by Thorsten Wahl » Tue Apr 12, 2011 7:27 pm

german standard procedure for heavy AA was to start with 28 sec calculated projectile-flighttime with 3-5 sek intervalls between following salvoes depending on caliber
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 668
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Ideal battleship design

Post by paul.mercer » Tue Apr 12, 2011 8:18 pm

Gentlemen,
This is a facinating subject and one which could run for a long time.
My question is this, we have seen from the Bismarck and even the Scharnhorst battles that it would be very difficult for one battleship to sink another by shellfire alone in a one to one encounter of ships of equvilent size and power, most certainly it would not happen without the winning ship being severely damaged.
The main danger to battleships came from torpedoes, either from aircraft or submarines; now supposing that our hypothetical battleship had enough AA to see off attacking aircraft that leaves submarine launched torpedoes, which I believe were generally larger than those carried on a plane, so my question is, would it be possible to design a ship that was impervious to any WW2 torpedo as well as having enough firepower to deter any potential opponent?

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7529
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Ideal battleship design

Post by RF » Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:24 am

Wasn't such a design part of the thinking in the genesis of the Bismarck?
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 668
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Ideal battleship design

Post by paul.mercer » Thu Apr 14, 2011 6:57 pm

RF wrote:Wasn't such a design part of the thinking in the genesis of the Bismarck?
It might have been, but despite what some people say I believe that it was the torpedoes from the Dorsetshire that finally sank her. If submarine torpedoes are the same size then no doubt they would have the same effect.
After all, PoW, Yamoto & Musashi all succumed to torpedoes, it seems little point in designing an enorous ship with huge guns if she can be sunk by a sub a fraction of her size.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Ideal battleship design

Post by lwd » Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:32 pm

Look how many torpedoes it took to sink Yamato and Musashi. POW likely wouldn't have sunk from the hits she did recieve if they hadn't powered up the warped shaft. Submarines could indeed sink battleships as could torpedoes from destroyers but it wasn't a trivial exercise especially if the battleship was well escorted. Combined arms will usually beat a force that's overly dependent on a single system.

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2973
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Ideal battleship design

Post by Dave Saxton » Fri Apr 15, 2011 2:41 am

paul.mercer wrote:Gentlemen,
, would it be possible to design a ship that was impervious to any WW2 torpedo as well as having enough firepower to deter any potential opponent?
In my opinion no, it was not possible to design torpedo resistant battleships and the Germans never considered the Bismarck to be. The best that could be done was to minimize the risk of receiving hits and to minimize the damage if one did receive a hit. A lot of the torpedo damage inflicted on battleships and cruisers during the war came more toward the ends of the ships, and really not much but compartmentation could be done there. A torpedo stiking a major warship torward the middle was still likely to cause much damage. These ratings of a TDS being able to handle more than 1000lb of high explosive are rather questionable. Even the torpedos which doomed Prince of Wales were relatively small and weak ariel torpedoes. Had they been more powerful and/or magnetic trigger torpedoes exploding under the keel they would have been even more effective.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7529
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Ideal battleship design

Post by RF » Fri Apr 15, 2011 8:38 am

paul.mercer wrote:
It might have been, but despite what some people say I believe that it was the torpedoes from the Dorsetshire that finally sank her.
The problem with that evaluation is that Dorsetshire only obtained two hits, one on either flank.

Most battleship sinkings from torpedoes were from strikes concentrated on one flank, often accompanied by bomb damage. Precisely what effect the Dorsetshires two torpedo hits had on Bismarck is rather difficult to identify; the ship was almost certainly slowly foundering anyway, perhaps the only certainty is to say that they didn't impede the process.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Ideal battleship design

Post by lwd » Fri Apr 15, 2011 7:26 pm

paul.mercer wrote:... , would it be possible to design a ship that was impervious to any WW2 torpedo as well as having enough firepower to deter any potential opponent?
Not one that looked at all conventional at least IMO.
It's possible that something like the proposed iceburg carrier could instead be made into an iceber battleship and as such while it wouldn't be impervious it would be extremely resistent to torpedos and could have the important parts armored with steel as well. The problem of course would be that it would tend to melt over time, this would be a very serious problem in tropical waters. Even without it I'm not sure how practical it would be. I can see other possiblities that might work against torpedoes but could have sever impacts on things like speed. For instance there could be a "curtain" on standoffs that went from the surface down to say 30 feet or so. There would however be a huge impact on speed I suspect and possiblly on other characteristics (it certainly wouldn't fit the the Panama Canal). Just how you define "deter any potential opponent" is rather important as well as there were a fair number of attacks by smaller ships on battleships during the war.

User avatar
neil hilton
Senior Member
Posts: 334
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:31 pm

Re: Ideal battleship design

Post by neil hilton » Sun Apr 17, 2011 12:00 pm

Seekanone wrote:US Battleship Design 65-8, approximately, 82,000 tons standard, 1,075 length x 120 x 38, four or five shafts, 330,000 SHP for 33 knots, 12-16inch Mark 7 50 caliber weapons (Re-equipped with the 18/47 if needed), 16-6inch/47 caliber weapons, multiple 3inch/50 AA guns, and some 20mm mounts for various light duties.
The ship is large enough and fast enough to defeat any known or hypothetical opponent (1940-46), with armored protection on a Montana scale or better (16-18inch belt, 20 inch turret faces, 18inch CT and 8inch decks). A better sea boat than Iowa, she can sail the Atlantic without shipping green water over the bow and have super speed to any known Axis battleship. :clap:
The only way a ship can sail the North Atlantic without ever 'taking it green' is if it is floating above the water. :wink:
The ship would have to be longer than the ocean swells or eventually it will dig in. The swells can be very long in the North Atlantic.

PS: I wouldn't like to be the taxpayers paying for this.
Last edited by neil hilton on Sun Apr 17, 2011 12:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Veni, vidi, verrimus!
I came, I saw, I swept the floor!

User avatar
neil hilton
Senior Member
Posts: 334
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:31 pm

Re: Ideal battleship design

Post by neil hilton » Sun Apr 17, 2011 12:04 pm

Seekanone wrote:40mm guns were too light to engage Kamikaze's and 5inch became so by the end of the war. Proximity fuzes were what made the 5inch so effective. Twin 3/50s were substituted for all quad 40mm mounts at wars end, witness the armament of the Worcester and Des Moines class cruisers. The Iowas only retained their 40mm quads because they had spend time in the reserve fleet and were badly needed on the gunline off of Korea.
Had the Montana or BB65-8 been completed, 5inch/54 might have been used but the 40mm would have been out :negative:
and 3/50 mounted in their place. :angel:
And yet no modern ships have such large calibre AAA guns. Nothing bigger than 40mm with proximity fused warheads. What goes around comes around eh?
Veni, vidi, verrimus!
I came, I saw, I swept the floor!

Post Reply