Iowa class designs A and C. What would they've looked like?

A

Arizonafan2003

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
25 November 2023
Messages
3
Reaction score
1
I was just thinking recently about a couple of the designs that were being considered when the Iowa's were just designs being considered against the threat of the Imperial Japanese Navy's Battlecruisers. And I recall that design A, the largest of the selection, was designed to carry four three-gun turrets, top speed being at 32 knots, with design C being capable of 35 knots with 300,000 horsepower and required somewhere around 590+ feet of belt armor. I think in the end Design B was chosen? But the reason I ask since I really don't know if anything was put down as to what A and C would've looked like, other than specifications of those design studies
 
Try this site:

warshipprojects.com

Warship Projects 1900-1950

All about uncompleted major warships
warshipprojects.com warshipprojects.com

The author of the site has done a lot of work on the Montana's and other never-were's and you might find some renditions of the Iowa versions you are looking for. As part of the lead-up to the Montana's, many of these prelimninary designs were covered (It's been a while since I looked, myself, so I'm not certain but there is a lot of good material there.)

Hope this helps.
 
This is the 35knot version with 4 triple turrets and only 8in armour:
ddaob9s-8a7890ab-b566-4ab2-ae45-c69c422618db.png

 
For some of the preliminary designs, particularly that one, I don't understand why the Navy wouldn't use the battlecruiser (CC) designation. Such a ship is entirely adhering to the original definition of a battlecruiser.
 
M. A. Rozon said:
Try this site:

warshipprojects.com

Warship Projects 1900-1950

All about uncompleted major warships
warshipprojects.com warshipprojects.com

The author of the site has done a lot of work on the Montana's and other never-were's and you might find some renditions of the Iowa versions you are looking for. As part of the lead-up to the Montana's, many of these prelimninary designs were covered (It's been a while since I looked, myself, so I'm not certain but there is a lot of good material there.)

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...
Ty btw! I appreciate it!
 
Scott Kenny said:
Very cool as always, Tzoli!

I wonder why they didn't use the South Dakota-style superstructure with a single funnel instead of two? That probably would have saved 75-100ft of belt length!
Click to expand...
I suspect the machinery space required for 300,000 shp would have been massive.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom