Mera A Firewing
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 26 February 2024
- Messages
- 41
- Reaction score
- 16
But I would like to see it in deviantart because of that mast.
"Ultimate battleship" designs
- Thread starter ceccherini
- Start date
"In the 2022 February issue of Naval History, Jack Russell reported on an imaginary ship released in an October 2021 update for the World of Warships online multiplayer game. Named the USS Kearsarge, this battleship/aircraft carrier hybrid, based on a 1937 plan developed for the U.S. Navy by the firm of Gibbs and Cox, could potentially have seen service during World War II (see Figure 1). The ship was originally commissioned by the Soviet government and the U.S. Navy only showed interest later to keep the Soviets from obtaining such a powerful warship. "
Mera A Firewing
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 26 February 2024
- Messages
- 41
- Reaction score
- 16
What Aircraft would she historically have that isn't the Bearcats armed with Tiny Tims.
The US Navy never showed interest and neither did the Soviet naval commission led by Isakov. I really wish USNI would stop spreading incorrect information about that design.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 8,780
- Reaction score
- 9,651
Bet you beverage of your choice that USNI is just repeating what WeeGee wrote about the design.
Which is?
I do not have direct evidence, but numerous indirect information suggests that the Gibbs and Cox project, like the Henry J. Gielow Inc. project, were developed in full accordance with the terms of the Soviets for a battleship/aircraft carrier, and not a pure battleship. In this part, the information in the article is true. But that was two years before the Isakov Commission began its work. It was preceded by the work of the Brzezinski Сommission - or rather, two different commissions with different participants, where later participants did not know about the reasons for the decisions of their predecessors.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 8,780
- Reaction score
- 9,651
The truth is that the USN was not interested in the design, and neither was the Soviet Union.
I don't believe this to be true. Every document I reviewed at NARA specified that the Soviet commission asked originally for pure battleships. Enclosed are the original specifications that were to provided to Bethlehem and then Gibbs & Cox.
It is of course possible that the Soviets had internally discussed asking for other designs, but if so, they don't appear to have acted on that.
Mera A Firewing
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 26 February 2024
- Messages
- 41
- Reaction score
- 16
It's a shame, the USN didn't realize that had they built the ship, she would've been even more useful in the early 1950s for early helicopters.
The formal specifications certainly represented the conditions for conventional battleships.
However, there is reason to assume that there were also informal specifications that Sam Carp presented to potential contractors verbally - or subject to their secrecy
The secrecy when trying to order battleships in the USA was paranoid, and Sam Carp was the only person who knew the terms of the specification from the Soviet side! (perhaps, except for Brzezinski).
Since Corp was a personal confidant of Soviet Prime Minister Molotov, he received these specifications directly from him. He began negotiations with American firms in 1936 before the Brzezinski Commission arrived in the United States.
The Soviet Commission did not know the specifications and did not participate in their development or correction. The Commission only assessed the possibilities of their technical implementation.
Hybrids of battleships and aircraft carriers were not popular in the US Navy, and, as far as I know, were not worked out in the 30s. Only the Scout cruiser/aircraft carrier project is known. At the same time, two American companies presented battleship/aircraft carrier designs for the Soviets that contradict the official specification. It can be assumed that in a single case it was the personal initiative of a designer who was passionate about this idea - but there were at least two who made these proposals
It is significant how the Soviet Commission evaluated the first of that battleship/aircraft carrier project:
"In March 1937, an offer was received from the design firm Gielow Inc. corporation to develop the project according to the tasks previously reported by the Broker (Sam Carp - K.), which he received in Moscow.
The proposal was as follows:
1. In order to accommodate up to 60 aircraft on the battleship and use the upper deck for them, the main artillery, located in 3 forward 3-gun 16” turrets, was shifted to the starboard side (it is unknown how the designer will eliminate the roll).
2. The battleship does not have funnels, the discharge of flue gases is planned under water (without any explanation).
3. The standard displacement of the battleship is 35,000 tons, the speed is 30 knots.
4. High—pressure boilers - 85 atmospheres, range — 5000 miles, side armor — 14".
By checking the design material, it was found that the design material is very schematic.
Errors were found in the calculations, such as: the armor weight was indicated as 12,000 tons, whereas according to preliminary calculations, the armor should weigh at least 20,000 tons.
In the course of further negotiations with the company, it was established that it was not suitable for the implementation of the battleship project, as a result of which negotiations were terminated."
So, the battleship/aircraft carrier project was developed "according to the assignment reported by broker in Moscow"
The commission has questions about the discharge of gases, the roll of the ship, the estimated weight of the armor. But no attention is paid to a small detail - 60 aircraft on board, contrary to the formal specification
After that, a similar offer from Gibbs & Cox in august-november 1937 does not look bizarre, but a new link in this chain.
However, there is reason to assume that there were also informal specifications that Sam Carp presented to potential contractors verbally - or subject to their secrecy
The secrecy when trying to order battleships in the USA was paranoid, and Sam Carp was the only person who knew the terms of the specification from the Soviet side! (perhaps, except for Brzezinski).
Since Corp was a personal confidant of Soviet Prime Minister Molotov, he received these specifications directly from him. He began negotiations with American firms in 1936 before the Brzezinski Commission arrived in the United States.
The Soviet Commission did not know the specifications and did not participate in their development or correction. The Commission only assessed the possibilities of their technical implementation.
Hybrids of battleships and aircraft carriers were not popular in the US Navy, and, as far as I know, were not worked out in the 30s. Only the Scout cruiser/aircraft carrier project is known. At the same time, two American companies presented battleship/aircraft carrier designs for the Soviets that contradict the official specification. It can be assumed that in a single case it was the personal initiative of a designer who was passionate about this idea - but there were at least two who made these proposals
It is significant how the Soviet Commission evaluated the first of that battleship/aircraft carrier project:
"In March 1937, an offer was received from the design firm Gielow Inc. corporation to develop the project according to the tasks previously reported by the Broker (Sam Carp - K.), which he received in Moscow.
The proposal was as follows:
1. In order to accommodate up to 60 aircraft on the battleship and use the upper deck for them, the main artillery, located in 3 forward 3-gun 16” turrets, was shifted to the starboard side (it is unknown how the designer will eliminate the roll).
2. The battleship does not have funnels, the discharge of flue gases is planned under water (without any explanation).
3. The standard displacement of the battleship is 35,000 tons, the speed is 30 knots.
4. High—pressure boilers - 85 atmospheres, range — 5000 miles, side armor — 14".
By checking the design material, it was found that the design material is very schematic.
Errors were found in the calculations, such as: the armor weight was indicated as 12,000 tons, whereas according to preliminary calculations, the armor should weigh at least 20,000 tons.
In the course of further negotiations with the company, it was established that it was not suitable for the implementation of the battleship project, as a result of which negotiations were terminated."
So, the battleship/aircraft carrier project was developed "according to the assignment reported by broker in Moscow"
The commission has questions about the discharge of gases, the roll of the ship, the estimated weight of the armor. But no attention is paid to a small detail - 60 aircraft on board, contrary to the formal specification
After that, a similar offer from Gibbs & Cox in august-november 1937 does not look bizarre, but a new link in this chain.
Attachments
Last edited:
Now let's look at the background of the Soviet order of the battleship in the United States.
The Soviets had no experience building modern battleships and aircraft carriers. Therefore, in the first half of the 30s, the idea of a hybrid warship was quite popular in the Soviet Navy
The leading naval design bureau TsKBS-1, headed by Brzezinski, has developed several projects of hybrid warships:
In 1934, a cruiser /aircraft carrier: 8,300 tons, 126,000 hp, 35.5 knots, 9 180 mm, 12 aircraft.
Then, in mid-1935, a heavy cruiser/aircraft carrier: 17,400 tons, 126,000 hp, 33 knots, 9 254 mm, 33 aircraft
And at the end of 1935, during the preparation of preliminary ship designs for the future "Large Ocean Fleet Program", two versions of battlecruisers /aircraft carriers were developed: displacement 21,500 and 28,500 tons, 210,000 hp, 36 knots, 9 305 mm, 60 aircraft
It looks like a curiosity, but even in Soviet fiction of that time, hybrid warships could be found in the description of future naval battles: "battleships / aircraft carriers, an untested type of ships, with fifty aircraft on each, with nine to 18" guns, with 300 mm armor, with gas turbines that informed these Mastodons have a speed of 45 knots.". However, the consultant to the author of the novel, published in 1936, was Smirnov-Svetlovsky, an inspector of the Soviet Navy, and later, in 1937-39, the de facto head of the People's Commissariat of the Navy under nominal political leaders. It can be assumed that this is exactly what the daydreams of the Soviet Navy command looked like about the ideal battleship/aircraft carrier.
For their "Big Fleet" program, the Soviets initially envisioned the construction of 2 to 6 aircraft carriers, and in 1936, NIIVK designed an aircraft carrier in armored and unarmored versions. However, neither aircraft carriers nor hybrid warships were included in the first version of the 1936 shipbuilding program.
This did not mean that such ships would not be ordered in other countries. There were three countries where battleships and aircraft carriers were well built at the same time: Britain, Japan and the USA. Japan in the mid-30s was the most likely opponent of the USSR. Political relations with Britain were very cold, there were practically no military-technical relations. The United States was a potential ally against Japan, it had good technical cooperation with them (licenses for airplanes, tanks, cars, engines), they had advanced naval technologies and experience in the rapid construction of ships.
Therefore, it was in the USA that Molotov's personal agent Sam Carp began his activity as a broker in naval orders in 1936. And in 1937, a Soviet commission headed by Brzezinski, the main proponent of hybrid warships, arrived to interact with him.
The Soviets had no experience building modern battleships and aircraft carriers. Therefore, in the first half of the 30s, the idea of a hybrid warship was quite popular in the Soviet Navy
The leading naval design bureau TsKBS-1, headed by Brzezinski, has developed several projects of hybrid warships:
In 1934, a cruiser /aircraft carrier: 8,300 tons, 126,000 hp, 35.5 knots, 9 180 mm, 12 aircraft.
Then, in mid-1935, a heavy cruiser/aircraft carrier: 17,400 tons, 126,000 hp, 33 knots, 9 254 mm, 33 aircraft
And at the end of 1935, during the preparation of preliminary ship designs for the future "Large Ocean Fleet Program", two versions of battlecruisers /aircraft carriers were developed: displacement 21,500 and 28,500 tons, 210,000 hp, 36 knots, 9 305 mm, 60 aircraft
It looks like a curiosity, but even in Soviet fiction of that time, hybrid warships could be found in the description of future naval battles: "battleships / aircraft carriers, an untested type of ships, with fifty aircraft on each, with nine to 18" guns, with 300 mm armor, with gas turbines that informed these Mastodons have a speed of 45 knots.". However, the consultant to the author of the novel, published in 1936, was Smirnov-Svetlovsky, an inspector of the Soviet Navy, and later, in 1937-39, the de facto head of the People's Commissariat of the Navy under nominal political leaders. It can be assumed that this is exactly what the daydreams of the Soviet Navy command looked like about the ideal battleship/aircraft carrier.
For their "Big Fleet" program, the Soviets initially envisioned the construction of 2 to 6 aircraft carriers, and in 1936, NIIVK designed an aircraft carrier in armored and unarmored versions. However, neither aircraft carriers nor hybrid warships were included in the first version of the 1936 shipbuilding program.
This did not mean that such ships would not be ordered in other countries. There were three countries where battleships and aircraft carriers were well built at the same time: Britain, Japan and the USA. Japan in the mid-30s was the most likely opponent of the USSR. Political relations with Britain were very cold, there were practically no military-technical relations. The United States was a potential ally against Japan, it had good technical cooperation with them (licenses for airplanes, tanks, cars, engines), they had advanced naval technologies and experience in the rapid construction of ships.
Therefore, it was in the USA that Molotov's personal agent Sam Carp began his activity as a broker in naval orders in 1936. And in 1937, a Soviet commission headed by Brzezinski, the main proponent of hybrid warships, arrived to interact with him.
Attachments
- Joined
- 27 September 2006
- Messages
- 6,074
- Reaction score
- 6,187
The Soviet battleship that never was...
en.topwar.ru
Soviet battleship K-1000. Do not lie and make fear!
"The Strong Falcon Hides Claws" The Union did not boast about what it does not have. The union did not talk about what it has. And this silence, interrupted by a chorus of children's voices singing "May there always be sunshine," made the West numb with horror. Stronger than Hitchcock's...
en.topwar.ru
- Joined
- 1 February 2011
- Messages
- 2,802
- Reaction score
- 3,164
Some addendum:
It was more like based on the Montana with 4 triple turrets, Speed unknown but the extreme displacement growth was the result to make the ship "unsinkable" by torpedoes, so a heavy multi- probably 4-5 layered torpedo defence system. I guess heavier deck armour as well.
There is an article about this study in one of the Warship International issues, don't know which.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 8,780
- Reaction score
- 9,651
Honestly, the Iowa hull is kinda lousy. L/B ratio is way too high, but that was set by the Panama Canal requirements. Drop those, like the Midway-class carriers did, and you can get a much better hull shape like the SoDaks.
Iowa L/B: 7.96
SoDak L/B: 6.17
Midway L/B: 7.45
Also, the bow is just too thin forward, makes the bow rather wet. They added spray strakes, but those only reduced the amount of water over the bow slightly. What needed to happen was to add enough steel to make a classic, convex bow line instead of the concave line that the Iowas actually had:
Image from Wiki, you can see the concave lines of the bow quite clearly on the righthand side of the image (best image for seeing what I'm talking about). That whole area should have been built out a good 15ft at the deepest part of the concavity, and faired into the hull accordingly. Means that as the bow tried to dig into a wave, it would gain a lot of displacement as the waves got closer to the main deck.
In comparison, here's a picture of USS Massachutsets, also from wiki:
You can see the much different shape on her starboard bow, upper side of the photo. You could probably use a single piece of wood or a bit of thin spring steel to make a single long curve from bow to stern, with the only support point being at the widest beam.
(Yes, the SoDaks are my favorite battleships. Very compact citadel, still capable of 27.5 knots.)
- Joined
- 1 February 2011
- Messages
- 2,802
- Reaction score
- 3,164
I would not say the Iowas was wet, they even have a high bow with a good sheer because they are designed to go at 33knots!
The better the length to beam ratio the smaller energy was required to reach a desired speed meaning smaller or lighter power plant.
As for the South Dakotas to be better? no. They actually lost speed despite having 10K more shp compared to the North Carolinas, that is what means a worse Length to Beam Ratio!
I too like the "chubby" shape of the South Dakotas, but the Iowas are a definite improvement of them.
The better the length to beam ratio the smaller energy was required to reach a desired speed meaning smaller or lighter power plant.
As for the South Dakotas to be better? no. They actually lost speed despite having 10K more shp compared to the North Carolinas, that is what means a worse Length to Beam Ratio!
I too like the "chubby" shape of the South Dakotas, but the Iowas are a definite improvement of them.
- Joined
- 16 December 2010
- Messages
- 3,291
- Reaction score
- 2,987
Drachenfiel on the post-WWII battleship plans...
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WStdZfpVyCY
The various Soviet post- Project 23 designs make for some 'interesting' viewing.
The various Soviet post- Project 23 designs make for some 'interesting' viewing.
navel_guy21
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 15 April 2024
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 0
My questions for the kanade is how deep would it sit in the water, how much would it have cost to build, in the pictures I saw it had planes on a little run way looking things so how many planes would it hold, how tall was it from the water line to the top of the hull, how big where smoke stacks, what was the turn rate, how tall was the ship itself, How much extra weight could it theoretically hold before sinking or not being able to operate if anyone has some answers or theoretically answers I would really appreciate it thank you for your time
Mera A Firewing
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 26 February 2024
- Messages
- 41
- Reaction score
- 16
Mind if I ask you something in regards to the Tillman Maximum Battleships, how many Boilers would they get and would they have a geared steam turbine and turbo-electric drive hybrid?
Assuming one of the designs with 180,000 SHP, they had planned for 24 boilers. They certainly would have had turbo-electric drive, and not any sort of hybrid. The electric drive system would have been very similar to the one on the Lexington-class battlecruisers/carriers.
DRW
Mera A Firewing
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 26 February 2024
- Messages
- 41
- Reaction score
- 16
So how many Turbo-electric Drive units would they have installed?
- Joined
- 1 February 2011
- Messages
- 2,802
- Reaction score
- 3,164
Half of those questions you can measure yourself based on the drawings. Draft is based on my knowlede is 18 meters. For cost that is cannot be determined except if you find documents of the Nagatos costs, including hull, machinery and armament.
I would say 2-4 planes, those are for spotting.
Turn rate impossible to get except if you make a super realistic and very accurate 3D model with realistic water and physics effect.
Probably an extra 100-150.000tons it could hold before capsize is my guess.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 1 February 2011
- Messages
- 2,802
- Reaction score
- 3,164
Check the original drawings: They would all be Turbo-Electric driven
18 small boiler rooms so I presume 18 boilers:
24 small boiler rooms so probably 24 boilers:
And before you ask, EHP=SHP/2 (EHP - Effective Horse Power)
Mera A Firewing
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 26 February 2024
- Messages
- 41
- Reaction score
- 16
So when will you be drawing the Tillmans, because those I would love to see on Deviantart.
Mera A Firewing
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 26 February 2024
- Messages
- 41
- Reaction score
- 16
But the Tillmans are on the list are they?
Mera A Firewing
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 26 February 2024
- Messages
- 41
- Reaction score
- 16
This isn't really an ultimate battleship, but it did have an unconventional triple barrel turret arrangement in 1907.
I took a quick look at the Booklet of General Plans for the Saratoga, (and as I say, the engineering plant was quite similar to that for Tillman 3 and 4, IV-1 and IV-2) and there are four relatively small spaces labelled "Main Driving Motor Room", so I'd say four big electric motors.
DRW
Mera A Firewing
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 26 February 2024
- Messages
- 41
- Reaction score
- 16
Thank you.
- Joined
- 1 February 2011
- Messages
- 2,802
- Reaction score
- 3,164
That was the New York Naval Yard's offer for the Russians at the time they were considering tge Ganguts. Note the elevated triple turrets.
navel_guy21
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 15 April 2024
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 0
ok thank you
navel_guy21
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 15 April 2024
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 0
was there anything bigger or heavier then the kaneda or is the kaneda the biggest
любитель военных кораблей
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 17 June 2024
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 0
In which book and on what page was information about the Project 24 battleship with 4x3-457 main caliber guns foundИз «Суперлинкори Сталина» и «Флот, который уничтожил Хрущев»:
Концепции 1935-1936 годов:
Орудия 4х4х18", 26 узлов, лента 380 мм.
Орудия 3х3х20", 24-28 узлов, лента 500 мм.
Орудия 3х2х21", 24-28 узлов, лента 500 мм.
1945-1955 гг. Проект «Максимум» (огромный вариант пр.24):
Водоизмещение - 130 000 тонн.
Скорость до 29-30 узлов.
Основное орудие - 4x3x18" L/55: оболочка 1580-1720 кг, заряд 620 кг, начальная скорость 820-850 м/с, дальность 55+ км, 2-3 в/с.
Вторые варианты, или большого универсального калибра - 6х220 мм или 8х180 мм универсальных орудий (3х2, или 2х3 220 мм, 4х2 или 2х4 180 мм) - на базе башни проекта 84 - двуствольные 180-мм универсальные пушки, 9-10 встр/мин.
Универсальные пушки, или «малый» универсальный калибр – комбинация орудий 152+100 мм или только 130 мм. 152-мм просветы в трехместных башнях - до 16 встр/мин, 100 и 130-мм просветы в четырехместных башнях - до 18 встр/мин.
Данных о зенитных площадках "Максимума" у меня нет - на стандартном пр.24 они были 12х4х25 мм и 12х4х45 мм - и о броне - на стандартном пр.24 пояс 420-450 мм, палубы 245 мм.
...
И, Российские Имперские концепции (из «Последние Исполины Российского Императорского флота», С. Виноградов):
В 1914 году были поставлены два типа 16-дюймовых орудий L/45 со стандартным воздухом 1116,3 кг для «Викерс-Армстронг», заряд 320 кг, скорость 766 м/с и более мощная, для Обуховского завода, заряд 373 кг, скорость. 820-850 м/с. дальность 40+ км.
Также «в перспективе» в 1914 году на Обуховском заводе спроектировали мощную 18-дюймовую пушку L/45 — габарит 1586 кг, заряд 540 кг, начальная скорость 890 м/с, дальность 50+ км.
Инженер Изенбек спроектировал беспроводную систему зарядки для основных устройств и в проектах русских 16-дюймовых линкоров времен мировой войны, использовавших башни с этой системой. Система Изенбека: подача без промежуточных принципов, минимальное опускание ствола и др. - аналог советской танковой «карусельной» системы зарядки времен Холодной войны. Стандартная скорострельность, без дополнительного оборудования - 4 выстр/мин на стволе (!) калибра 16 дюймов, но "при необходимости и больше". Один российский проект 8х16" - это на самом деле два 8х16" королевского или британского линкора
Также спроектировались специальные телескопические системы управления для второго калибра с механизмом автозарядки. По этой концепции второй калибр был более легким, чем стандартный – малобронированным (только пушки и системы). Построенное орудие 6" L/50, окружающая среда 47,3 кг, скорость 850 м/с, и проектируемое орудие 6" L/52, окружающая среда 47,3 кг, 914 м/с. Также работали над 7-дюймовыми и 7,1-дюймовыми окнами, проект 183-мм пушки L/52 - Б-1, Б-1-К и Б-1-П представлял собой советскую реинкарнацию этого проекта.
Также предоставляется бронирование для большого линкора — высокий пояс по всему виду, 12 дюймов, 18 дюймов в центре, две 2,5-дюймовые палубы. Бронирование башни – до 20 дюймов.
А, проектируемый тип артиллерии, орудийные башни 2х4 и 2х2.
Также проектируется множество орудий – специальных зенитных или только автоматических.
На пуш-базе Максима проектировалась 47-мм автоматическая пушка. Также создан концепт 76,2- и 95-мм (!) пушек Максима.
Инженер Розенберг в 1901 году (!) спроектировал 57-мм 6-зарядную автоматическую зенитную пушку.
Братья Сергей и Василий Валицкие в 1885 году сделали 87-мм автоматическую пушку на базе полевой пушки образца 1877 года. Возможно, это был первый российский автоматический пистолет.
В 1915 году князем Чегодаевым была предложена 19-ствольная (Гатлинг?!) зенитная пушка «в минимальном артиллерийском калибре» - в Российской империи 37 мм.
Также в 1915 году инженер Краукле спроектировал газовый револьверный крупнокалиберный пулемет.
Last edited:
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 8,780
- Reaction score
- 9,651
That's actually pretty easy to do. You have forced-draft boilers already, stick a sufficiently-large positive displacement low pressure blower into the exhaust to push the flue gases out under water. For example, the USN uses ~2500cfm (cubic feet per minute) blowers to push air into the ballast tanks of subs. This is on top of having the ability to just dump high-pressure air into them. The diesel engines have a 7500CFM blower installed for scavenging.
A battleship would need much larger blowers, of course, but the idea is well understood.
I should note that while the lack of funnel may have been part of the initial requirement from the Soviet side, it doesn't appear to be what was communicated to Bethlehem and then later Gibbs & Cox.
Attachments
Mera A Firewing
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 26 February 2024
- Messages
- 41
- Reaction score
- 16
Would this be considered an ultimate warship design?
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 8,780
- Reaction score
- 9,651
Maybe in terms of an "ultimate fail" design.
Battleships are short ranged combatants, relatively speaking. Carriers are long range combatants. Mixing the two does not work out. Such a ship would be incapable of air operations when using the main guns.
- Joined
- 5 May 2007
- Messages
- 1,272
- Reaction score
- 2,363
There was a British admiral (I think Cunningham) who - when someone was trying to push a hybrid warship - pointed out that on the same tonnage as five hybrids he could have three battleships and two aircraft carriers, with a larger total broadside and more total aircraft.
Or, to quote the Director of Naval Gunnery,
Mera A Firewing
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 26 February 2024
- Messages
- 41
- Reaction score
- 16
Even if it's mediocre, the ship would at least be useful to degree.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 8,780
- Reaction score
- 9,651
Not really.
- That's a very small flight deck to work from, it looks even smaller than a Bogue's 440ft flight deck. So maybe you're carrying 24x aircraft.
- The turret shape looks like 14" guns, not 16".
- The flight deck amidships means that the armored citadel/raft is much bigger than the Iowa or maybe the Montana. Which means that it's very heavy, probably accounting for the extra beam.
- It appears to be too wide to travel through the Panama Canal, which is a major operational limitation.
- 6x shafts means rather immense fuel consumption.
Similar threads
-
Japanese 'dream project' battleships and never built battleships
- Started by ceccherini
- Replies: 113
-
-
-
-
