US Navy Battleship of the future design from the 1940s

[lordroel]

US Navy Battleship of the future design from the 1940s

So how would a warships of the future look like from a point of view in the 1940 to 1945 period, well, here are two examples, one is a  1940 design (image I) and the second is a Battleship-Carrier, design (image II), a battleship with extensive flight deck that could be "transformed" to a light aircraft carrier.

Image I,  Popular Mechanics magazine of September of 1940



Image II, from Popular Mechanics magazine of February of 1943

[stevep]

   lordroel ,

  I've seen the design for the 2nd type, combined battleship/carrier before but they never seemed that practical.  By definition those 16" guns are designed to be used close in [relatively] and your likely to see similar opposing fire.  As such a carrier with its vulnerable deck and highly flammable cargo of explosives and a/c fuel should not be anywhere near something like that.  Also I notice the suggested a/c load for the design would be only 15 fighters and some scouts.  While that provides some defence it wouldn't be a lot of good on its own against either a powerful carrier or land based air.

  The other design I've never seen a mention of before so don't know if it was a private design by someone?  It would be impractical for the UK due to the fact that we were exhausted by the end of the war and wouldn't really have the resources to build such an huge ship - let alone man and maintain it. Can't remember ever seeing anything like the suggestion for curved turrets and deck to maximise the chances of a bomb being defected.  Might also work with a shell despite the velocity of the latter.  However suspect it would be expensive to build ships with such curves and not sure how practical they would be for operations, when crew have to work on them. 

  Sorry reading it again the smaller of the two designs is mentioned as being by a Otto Kuhler, who I suspect is this guy.  He worked mainly in railway and other land transport designs but may well have come up with some naval designs.  Does seem to have favoured streamline designs so could fit.

  Steve

[lordroel]

Jun 27, 2020 12:18:14 GMT stevep said:

  Sorry reading it again the smaller of the two designs is mentioned as being by a Otto Kuhler, who I suspect is this guy.  He worked mainly in railway and other land transport designs but may well have come up with some naval designs.  Does seem to have favoured streamline designs so could fit.

  Steve

So a railway designer made the design of the the second design here, make sense as i doubt this design would work in real life.

[1bigrich]

Jun 26, 2020 13:48:37 GMT lordroel said:

US Navy Battleship of the future design from the 1940s

So how would a warships of the future look like from a point of view in the 1940 to 1945 period, well, here are two examples, one is a  1940 design (image I) and the second is a Battleship-Carrier, design (image II), a battleship with extensive flight deck that could be "transformed" to a light aircraft carrier.

Image I,  Popular Mechanics magazine of September of 1940

These concepts strike me as entertaining but somewhat unrealistic. I have to admit though, I think the Art Deco USN battleship really doesn't look that unconventional. Just streamlined like the Pennsylvania Railroad's Torpedo K-4, the New York Central's J3a Dryfuss Husdon or Mercury or the London, Midland and Scottish Railway's Duchess of Hamilton steam locomotives. I'm not sure streamlining helps a battleship, but that seems to be part of the whole page.

The other "British/English" battleship concept always intrigues me! Showing 18 14im guns in three quads and three twins. Why not just go with six triples and be done with it? Better weight distribution and the barbettes don't have to be so big.... Maybe it was because the RN already had a quad and a twin 14in turret designed for the KGVs?

and the AA is 5.25in and 4.7in. Why not go all 4.7in? It is a 70,000 ton design, the fire would be withering!

And the machinery exhausting into the sea means there isn't going to be any funnel draught. All air to the machinery will have to be forced.

and I always wondered where the machinery for six shafts was going to fit with that midships, Q turret...

Image II, from Popular Mechanics magazine of February of 1943

This one I haven't seen before but the concept of flight decks extending over turrets is not new to me. And actually, it isn't a bad looking ship. The wisdom of taking aviation fuel into battle on a battleship is questionable.
"Guard itself" or self-escorting isn't a new concept. We often talk about the vulnerabilities of ships as individual entities, but we should remember they will be acting as parts of fleets. Yes, as a ship, a US CVN or Royal Navy CVF has no anti-submarine or anti-ship capability without aircraft. But it will be part of a task force with ships that do, including nuclear submarines. It all comes down to 'properly escorted'. For a battleship, properly escorted means fighter cover, and destroyers and cruisers to be ASW and AA platforms, as well as part of the surface action group.

Regards,

[lordroel]

Jun 28, 2020 3:58:29 GMT 1bigrich said:

Jun 26, 2020 13:48:37 GMT lordroel said:

US Navy Battleship of the future design from the 1940s

So how would a warships of the future look like from a point of view in the 1940 to 1945 period, well, here are two examples, one is a  1940 design (image I) and the second is a Battleship-Carrier, design (image II), a battleship with extensive flight deck that could be "transformed" to a light aircraft carrier.

Image I,  Popular Mechanics magazine of September of 1940

These concepts strike me as entertaining but somewhat unrealistic. I have to admit though, I think the Art Deco USN battleship really doesn't look that unconventional. Just streamlined like the Pennsylvania Railroad's Torpedo K-4, the New York Central's J3a Dryfuss Husdon or Mercury or the London, Midland and Scottish Railway's Duchess of Hamilton steam locomotives. I'm not sure streamlining helps a battleship, but that seems to be part of the whole page.

The other "British/English" battleship concept always intrigues me! Showing 18 14im guns in three quads and three twins. Why not just go with six triples and be done with it? Better weight distribution and the barbettes don't have to be so big.... Maybe it was because the RN already had a quad and a twin 14in turret designed for the KGVs?

and the AA is 5.25in and 4.7in. Why not go all 4.7in? It is a 70,000 ton design, the fire would be withering!

And the machinery exhausting into the sea means there isn't going to be any funnel draught. All air to the machinery will have to be forced.

and I always wondered where the machinery for six shafts was going to fit with that midships, Q turret...

Image II, from Popular Mechanics magazine of February of 1943

This one I haven't seen before but the concept of flight decks extending over turrets is not new to me. And actually, it isn't a bad looking ship. The wisdom of taking aviation fuel into battle on a battleship is questionable.
"Guard itself" or self-escorting isn't a new concept. We often talk about the vulnerabilities of ships as individual entities, but we should remember they will be acting as parts of fleets. Yes, as a ship, a US CVN or Royal Navy CVF has no anti-submarine or anti-ship capability without aircraft. But it will be part of a task force with ships that do, including nuclear submarines. It all comes down to 'properly escorted'. For a battleship, properly escorted means fighter cover, and destroyers and cruisers to be ASW and AA platforms, as well as part of the surface action group.

Regards,

Surprise me nobody has done retractable turrets in the flight deck who when not use are part of the flight deck.

[stevep]

Jun 28, 2020 8:05:49 GMT lordroel said:

Jun 28, 2020 3:58:29 GMT 1bigrich said:

These concepts strike me as entertaining but somewhat unrealistic. I have to admit though, I think the Art Deco USN battleship really doesn't look that unconventional. Just streamlined like the Pennsylvania Railroad's Torpedo K-4, the New York Central's J3a Dryfuss Husdon or Mercury or the London, Midland and Scottish Railway's Duchess of Hamilton steam locomotives. I'm not sure streamlining helps a battleship, but that seems to be part of the whole page.

The other "British/English" battleship concept always intrigues me! Showing 18 14im guns in three quads and three twins. Why not just go with six triples and be done with it? Better weight distribution and the barbettes don't have to be so big.... Maybe it was because the RN already had a quad and a twin 14in turret designed for the KGVs?

and the AA is 5.25in and 4.7in. Why not go all 4.7in? It is a 70,000 ton design, the fire would be withering!

And the machinery exhausting into the sea means there isn't going to be any funnel draught. All air to the machinery will have to be forced.

and I always wondered where the machinery for six shafts was going to fit with that midships, Q turret...

This one I haven't seen before but the concept of flight decks extending over turrets is not new to me. And actually, it isn't a bad looking ship. The wisdom of taking aviation fuel into battle on a battleship is questionable.
"Guard itself" or self-escorting isn't a new concept. We often talk about the vulnerabilities of ships as individual entities, but we should remember they will be acting as parts of fleets. Yes, as a ship, a US CVN or Royal Navy CVF has no anti-submarine or anti-ship capability without aircraft. But it will be part of a task force with ships that do, including nuclear submarines. It all comes down to 'properly escorted'. For a battleship, properly escorted means fighter cover, and destroyers and cruisers to be ASW and AA platforms, as well as part of the surface action group.

Regards,

Surprise me nobody has done retractable turrets in the flight deck who when not use are part of the flight deck.

  I doubt you could use the turret roof as part of the flight deck as any minor mismatch would be likely to cause problems.  Plus if your doing that what happens to the barrels of the guns?  You would need to have some decking going over the top of them.  Much better if your going to do something like this would be to have some complete decking going over the entire turret. 

  Of course either way when the decks extended the guns can't be used so your got a weak carrier - as so much of the tonnage is taken up with big guns, armour etc which have no place on a carrier - and when withdrawn so the guns can fire you have a weakened BB.  As 1bigrich, says much better to have specialised ships working in a combined force.  Which of course as warships become larger and much more expensive reduces the number of nations that can have such forces.

[lordroel]

Jun 28, 2020 10:10:16 GMT stevep said:

Jun 28, 2020 8:05:49 GMT lordroel said:

Surprise me nobody has done retractable turrets in the flight deck who when not use are part of the flight deck.

  I doubt you could use the turret roof as part of the flight deck as any minor mismatch would be likely to cause problems.  Plus if your doing that what happens to the barrels of the guns?  You would need to have some decking going over the top of them.  Much better if your going to do something like this would be to have some complete decking going over the entire turret. 

  Of course either way when the decks extended the guns can't be used so your got a weak carrier - as so much of the tonnage is taken up with big guns, armour etc which have no place on a carrier - and when withdrawn so the guns can fire you have a weakened BB.  As 1bigrich, says much better to have specialised ships working in a combined force.  Which of course as warships become larger and much more expensive reduces the number of nations that can have such forces.

Well it seems then the method mention in design 2, with a extensible flight deck covering the 16-Inch turrets when there is flight operations is the best alternative then.

[1bigrich]

Jun 28, 2020 8:05:49 GMT lordroel said:

Jun 28, 2020 3:58:29 GMT 1bigrich said:

Surprise me nobody has done retractable turrets in the flight deck who when not use are part of the flight deck.

I'm not sure a retractable turret would be feasible with battleship-sized armament.    Nelson's turrets for example, weighed over 1400 tons.  That going to need some VERY powerful machinery to lift and lower.

 
If the turrets are staying at deck level to be raised above the flight deck, they would have to move the barbette as well, and also have protection for the area that is moved up.  At that point, we're also changing the metacentric height of the ship and threatening stability.    

If the turrets were to retract into the hull for flight operations, the turrets and barbetes don't have much room to retract.  Is the barbette two different diameters so it can be sleeved, on part over the other like a retractable radio antennae?

If the the whole turret barbette structure retracts, what happens to the shell and powder magazines when they do?

In either case, between the excess armor and lifting machinery, retractable turrets are going to take up a lot of weight that could probably be better used elsewhere.

My thoughts,

[lordroel]

Jun 28, 2020 23:17:51 GMT 1bigrich said:

Jun 28, 2020 8:05:49 GMT lordroel said:

Surprise me nobody has done retractable turrets in the flight deck who when not use are part of the flight deck.

I'm not sure a retractable turret would be feasible with battleship-sized armament.    Nelson's turrets for example, weighed over 1400 tons.  That going to need some VERY powerful machinery to lift and lower.

 
If the turrets are staying at deck level to be raised above the flight deck, they would have to move the barbette as well, and also have protection for the area that is moved up.  At that point, we're also changing the metacentric height of the ship and threatening stability.    

If the turrets were to retract into the hull for flight operations, the turrets and barbetes don't have much room to retract.  Is the barbette two different diameters so it can be sleeved, on part over the other like a retractable radio antennae?

If the the whole turret barbette structure retracts, what happens to the shell and powder magazines when they do?

In either case, between the excess armor and lifting machinery, retractable turrets are going to take up a lot of weight that could probably be better used elsewhere.

My thoughts,

Thanks 1bigrich , so my proposal for retractable turrets in the flight deck does not work, check.

One question i have in Image I is, what the heck is a Super destroyer, i have heard of destroyer flotilla leader (Tromp-class flotilla leader, sometimes classed as a light cruiser), Destroyer leader, Destroyer escort, but never a Super Destroyer as mentioned in the article. 

[1bigrich]

Jun 29, 2020 18:59:16 GMT lordroel said:

Thanks 1bigrich , so my proposal for retractable turrets in the flight deck does not work, check.

One question i have in Image I is, what the heck is a Super destroyer, i have heard of destroyer flotilla leader (Tromp-class flotilla leader, sometimes classed as a light cruiser), Destroyer leader, Destroyer escort, but never a Super Destroyer as mentioned in the article. 

"Super Destroyer" is a new one for me.   Destroyer Leader or Light Cruiser would seem to be more historically common.   Though as I recall, member DavidAAA from Warship Projects did an alternate RAN, and one of his destroyers was a larger RN class, with three twin 5.25in DP mounts.   Maybe something like that (cruiser sized guns, but fewer of them than a CLAA) might fit into 'Super Destroyer'?

Regards,

[lordroel]

Jun 30, 2020 12:53:49 GMT 1bigrich said:

Jun 29, 2020 18:59:16 GMT lordroel said:

Thanks 1bigrich , so my proposal for retractable turrets in the flight deck does not work, check.

One question i have in Image I is, what the heck is a Super destroyer, i have heard of destroyer flotilla leader (Tromp-class flotilla leader, sometimes classed as a light cruiser), Destroyer leader, Destroyer escort, but never a Super Destroyer as mentioned in the article. 

"Super Destroyer" is a new one for me.   Destroyer Leader or Light Cruiser would seem to be more historically common.   Though as I recall, member DavidAAA from Warship Projects did an alternate RAN, and one of his destroyers was a larger RN class, with three twin 5.25in DP mounts.   Maybe something like that (cruiser sized guns, but fewer of them than a CLAA) might fit into 'Super Destroyer'?

Regards,

Well that Super Destroyer in image I looks to me more to be a light cruiser than a destroyer.

[stevep]

Jun 30, 2020 12:53:49 GMT 1bigrich said:

Jun 29, 2020 18:59:16 GMT lordroel said:

Thanks 1bigrich , so my proposal for retractable turrets in the flight deck does not work, check.

One question i have in Image I is, what the heck is a Super destroyer, i have heard of destroyer flotilla leader (Tromp-class flotilla leader, sometimes classed as a light cruiser), Destroyer leader, Destroyer escort, but never a Super Destroyer as mentioned in the article. 

"Super Destroyer" is a new one for me.   Destroyer Leader or Light Cruiser would seem to be more historically common.   Though as I recall, member DavidAAA from Warship Projects did an alternate RAN, and one of his destroyers was a larger RN class, with three twin 5.25in DP mounts.   Maybe something like that (cruiser sized guns, but fewer of them than a CLAA) might fit into 'Super Destroyer'?

Regards,

  Could it be a reference to the large DDs that Nazi Germany were building with 6" guns IIRC?  Basically way over-armed so they suffered in stability and performance.  Plus of course being so large they could only build a few whereas it was generally better to have more lighter ones.

[lordroel]

Also funny to read that the Battleship-carrier is so cramped that a different ships would be needed to accommodate the crew while in port.

[1bigrich]

Jun 30, 2020 13:41:27 GMT stevep said:

  Could it be a reference to the large DDs that Nazi Germany were building with 6" guns IIRC?  Basically way over-armed so they suffered in stability and performance.  Plus of course being so large they could only build a few whereas it was generally better to have more lighter ones.

That's a good point, Steve.    And the 5.9in, especially in the twin turret version, really made them poor sea boats.   To your point, lighter ships with lighter armament, more weatherly ships with good range would have been better.   At least they could have escorted the bigger ships, even in a seaway.

Jun 30, 2020 13:42:56 GMT lordroel said:

Also funny to read that the Battleship-carrier is so cramped that a different ships would be needed to accommodate the crew while in port.

Barracks ships or shore quarters usually get used when ships are in maintenance.   But it wouldn't be unheard of in ships where habitability is low and quarters are tight.

Regards gents,

[lordroel]

Jun 30, 2020 14:03:52 GMT 1bigrich said:

Barracks ships or shore quarters usually get used when ships are in maintenance.   But it wouldn't be unheard of in ships where habitability is low and quarters are tight.

Well it seems the Battleship-carrier in order to be abbe fit in the planes in the hangers has to compromise on something, it seems it in this design is the conformable of the crew.