Naval what ifs and Neverwhere ships

[lordroel]

Here is something crazy from LIFE magazine dated December 17th 1945 with a image called "The Russian Navy is Reborn", Speculative Russian Navy Ships envisioned by US Naval Architects.

Here is the image in full:

[1bigrich]

Jul 31, 2020 11:44:27 GMT lordroel said:

So this thread is about what ifs in general ore ships that where never build from 1900 onwards.

So lets start with something crazy from LIFE magazine dated December 17th 1945 with a image called "The Russian Navy is Reborn", Speculative Russian Navy Ships envisioned by US Naval Architects.

This is why hard drugs are illegal.   You can substitute "Martian" for "Russian" and it would be just as valid.

Seriously, someone must ave gotten wind of the Gibbs & Cox BB/CV design and decided to take the concept to extremes.   And by 'extremes' I mean idea that could not be built!

Regards,

[lordroel]

Jul 31, 2020 13:13:29 GMT 1bigrich said:

Jul 31, 2020 11:44:27 GMT lordroel said:

So this thread is about what ifs in general ore ships that where never build from 1900 onwards.

So lets start with something crazy from LIFE magazine dated December 17th 1945 with a image called "The Russian Navy is Reborn", Speculative Russian Navy Ships envisioned by US Naval Architects.

This is why hard drugs are illegal.   You can substitute "Martian" for "Russian" and it would be just as valid.

Seriously, someone must ave gotten wind of the Gibbs & Cox BB/CV design and decided to take the concept to extremes.   And by 'extremes' I mean idea that could not be built!

Regards,

I do like the battleship design.

[1bigrich]

I just posted the link to this thread over on the NavWeaps design board.

www.tapatalk.com/groups/alltheworldsbattlecruisers/repost-from-bgire-on-warship-projects-alsace-and-r-t8870.html

When Warship Project 3.0 was alive, our member bgire (Bruno Gire) had posted some MN concepts pre-Richeliu, Clemencau, Gascogne and Alsace. Note that for Alsace, the 40,000 tons, 9 x 15in design was the one actually chosen. An interesting comparison with Royal Navy's self-limited 40,000 ton Lion...

Regards,

[1bigrich]

Another one. F2 and F3 battlecruiser concepts from the period just before the Washington Treaty. Thanks to David Murphin for providing the images.

www.tapatalk.com/groups/alltheworldsbattlecruisers/f2-and-f3-battlecruisers-t8627.html

An offline conversation with member irishopinion revealed that the RN wanted to build F3 for the two new capital ships it was allowed, but once the Treaty was signed, the felt they were bound to build a 16in armed ship. Imagine of Nelson and Rodney had been 29 knot, 9 x 15in gunned battlecruisers...

Regards,

[1bigrich]

One of my own creations, a line drawing of design 14L in the lead-up to King George V



14L was the design with 12 x 14in guns and 20 x 4.5in secondaries.

Design 14O subsequently replaced the 4.5in with the 5.25in. 14P was to be 9 x 14in but it was decided 10 main guns would be better and 14O had B Turret changed to a twin, becoming 14P, the design built. The citadel had to be extended a further 10ft forward for weight compensation. Details from Raven's and Robert's British Battleships.

Regards,

[lordroel]

Jul 31, 2020 13:21:23 GMT 1bigrich said:

Another one. F2 and F3 battlecruiser concepts from the period just before the Washington Treaty. Thanks to David Murphin for

The British come up with good names for the designs like N3 and G3.

Also what about this:

Pocket aircraft Carrier (Jun, 1936)

This design as proposed stands in opposition to the previous designs of bigger and larger warships. It illustrates the design trend after the WNT of pocket warships. Though once rearmament for WW2 started such concepts fell by the way side.

[1bigrich]

Jul 31, 2020 13:46:55 GMT lordroel said:

The British come up with good names for the designs like N3 and G3.

Also what about this:

Pocket aircraft Carrier (Jun, 1936)

This design as proposed stands in opposition to the previous designs of bigger and larger warships. It illustrates the design trend after the WNT of pocket warships. Though once rearmament for WW2 started such concepts fell by the way side.

3000 tons seems awfully small.   I wonder if they would have found any use as the size of aircraft grew?

Perhaps they would have been useful for someone like the interwar RAN, where a small seaplane carrier could fine uses at various island outposts.

Still, how useful would that flight deck be with a larger faster aircraft?

My thoughts. 

[lordroel]

Jul 31, 2020 22:47:55 GMT 1bigrich said:

Jul 31, 2020 13:46:55 GMT lordroel said:

The British come up with good names for the designs like N3 and G3.

Also what about this:

Pocket aircraft Carrier (Jun, 1936)

This design as proposed stands in opposition to the previous designs of bigger and larger warships. It illustrates the design trend after the WNT of pocket warships. Though once rearmament for WW2 started such concepts fell by the way side.

3000 tons seems awfully small.   I wonder if they would have found any use as the size of aircraft grew?

Perhaps they would have been useful for someone like the interwar RAN, where a small seaplane carrier could fine uses at various island outposts.

Still, how useful would that flight deck be with a larger faster aircraft?

My thoughts. 

It could replace HMAS Albatross (1928) but do not know if the design carry's more ore less than HMAS Albatross.

Looking at the image the planes used are most likely the Supermarine Seagull.



It seems to me that the aft of the carrier has some sort of system to tow the amphibious biplanes onto the carrier where they then fold their wings like this to get them into the hanger and then made ready for another flight.

[stevep]

Jul 31, 2020 13:21:23 GMT 1bigrich said:

Another one. F2 and F3 battlecruiser concepts from the period just before the Washington Treaty. Thanks to David Murphin for providing the images.

www.tapatalk.com/groups/alltheworldsbattlecruisers/f2-and-f3-battlecruisers-t8627.html

An offline conversation with member irishopinion revealed that the RN wanted to build F3 for the two new capital ships it was allowed, but once the Treaty was signed, the felt they were bound to build a 16in armed ship. Imagine of Nelson and Rodney had been 29 knot, 9 x 15in gunned battlecruisers...

Regards,

  Yes in hindsight they would have been better than the OTL Nelson and Rodney.  Would hopefully have avoided the OTL problems with weight saving causing problems with the guns and would still have substantial firepower while being fast enough to be able to force combat in many occasions that the OTL ships wanted.

[stevep]

Jul 31, 2020 13:29:44 GMT 1bigrich said:

One of my own creations, a line drawing of design 14L in the lead-up to King George V



14L was the design with 12 x 14in guns and 20 x 4.5in secondaries.

Design 14O subsequently replaced the 4.5in with the 5.25in. 14P was to be 9 x 14in but it was decided 10 main guns would be better and 14O had B Turret changed to a twin, becoming 14P, the design built. The citadel had to be extended a further 10ft forward for weight compensation. Details from Raven's and Robert's British Battleships.

Regards,

  I wish they had gone for three triples from the start.  It would probably have had better reliability and without the delay for the design of a twin turret when they decided to drop a couple of guns for more armour they would have been in service earlier.  Some 'lighter' BBs that could still have fought most new BBs as well as many older ones and filling in an important gap until the Lions - which probably wouldn't have appeared but as history showed may well not be needed.

[lordroel]

Also as you notice, i have made a separate sub board for General discussion about alternate developments in maritime technology, navies, ships, maritime, naval infrastructure, what ifs, naval battles and so on occurring after 1900 AD.

So for now the name is Naval what ifs and Neverwhere ships Cabin, but if anybody else has a good short name for this sub board, please let me know.

[stevep]

Jul 31, 2020 13:13:29 GMT 1bigrich said:

Jul 31, 2020 11:44:27 GMT lordroel said:

So this thread is about what ifs in general ore ships that where never build from 1900 onwards.

So lets start with something crazy from LIFE magazine dated December 17th 1945 with a image called "The Russian Navy is Reborn", Speculative Russian Navy Ships envisioned by US Naval Architects.

This is why hard drugs are illegal.   You can substitute "Martian" for "Russian" and it would be just as valid.

Seriously, someone must ave gotten wind of the Gibbs & Cox BB/CV design and decided to take the concept to extremes.   And by 'extremes' I mean idea that could not be built!

Regards,

  1bigrich,lordroel,

  Fully agree.  A battleship/carrier is neither fish nor fowl and can't do either task very well.  You don't want to get into big gun range while carrying a lot of a/c and the associated munitions and volatile fuel.  Which means anything committed to the battleship design, i.e. the tonnage spent on guns and associated armour.

  The floating base, depending on what its used for might have some uses but otherwise those designs are something that as a British or American admiral in ~1945 I would be very happy to see produced - by the Soviets - as it would be a huge resource sink for them.   Even assuming that despite their lack of previous experience they could construct such large ships without massive inefficiencies.

  Steve

[lordroel]

Aug 1, 2020 10:42:32 GMT stevep said:

Jul 31, 2020 13:13:29 GMT 1bigrich said:

This is why hard drugs are illegal.   You can substitute "Martian" for "Russian" and it would be just as valid.

Seriously, someone must ave gotten wind of the Gibbs & Cox BB/CV design and decided to take the concept to extremes.   And by 'extremes' I mean idea that could not be built!

Regards,

  1bigrich ,lordroel ,

  Fully agree.  A battleship/carrier is neither fish nor fowl and can't do either task very well.  You don't want to get into big gun range while carrying a lot of a/c and the associated munitions and volatile fuel.  Which means anything committed to the battleship design, i.e. the tonnage spent on guns and associated armour.

  The floating base, depending on what its used for might have some uses but otherwise those designs are something that as a British or American admiral in ~1945 I would be very happy to see produced - by the Soviets - as it would be a huge resource sink for them.   Even assuming that despite their lack of previous experience they could construct such large ships without massive inefficiencies.

  Steve

I also like the FOB desgins, it is even used by the US Navy as the expeditionary sea base



and even the Royal Navy has plans to build these, but called by the Royal Navy the Littoral Strike Ship

[1bigrich]

Aug 1, 2020 9:49:04 GMT lordroel said:

It could replace HMAS Albatross (1928) but do not know if the design carry's more ore less than HMAS Albatross.

Looking at the image the planes used are most likely the Supermarine Seagull.



It seems to me that the aft of the carrier has some sort of system to tow the amphibious biplanes onto the carrier where they then fold their wings like this to get them into the hanger and then made ready for another flight.

IIRC, the Seagull V became the Walrus. 

Albatross was 4,800 tons.   I was thinking a pair of these could cover more sea among the islands.   Albatross was probably a better bargain!