Improve a historical battleship

[HoratioNelson]

There's been many a fumble in the history of naval design, and battleships have not been exempt. I thought it would be interesting to explore some of the possibilities if we were in charge of the development of historical battleship classes, and still had the benefit of hindsight to guide us.

Now, if I was a Royal Navy designer of the 1930s, in charge of the King George V class, I would've tried to pay attention to the fact that the Germans and Japanese were most definetely breaking the limits of the Washington Naval Treaty, and seeing that I wouldn't not have held our designs to those limits which greatly weakened Britain as a battlefleet power. Most likely, I would've armed the KGVs with nine BL 15 inch/42 Mk I naval guns, the same used on the Queen Elizabeths and on HMS Hood, and possibly the Royal Navy's best battleship gun, certainly the most balanced and longest lasting in service. On the Allied side, the King George V class was already the best protected overall (the armour belt was 2 inches thicker than on the Iowas), and the extra firepower would've greatly benefitted the class, and increased their potency against German and Italian 15 inch ships like Bismarck and Vittorio Veneto. Additionally, the extra range of the 15 inch/42 would've been of great use in the longer ranged engagements of the Pacific Theatre, if the Royal Navy was called upon to take a larger battlefleet role in the Pacific in this slightly alternate reality.

[Dreadnought]

For starters:

Lengthen her hull out to 800-850 feet, make her beamier then 103 feet atleast to 108 or 110 without bulging the hull and make her draft deeper and increase tonage to atleast 45,000 tons-48,000 tons..
Remove the propulsion system and the props and improve the boilers size and output further increasing her range. (Range at 18 knots 5,400 +-, Iowas range approx 4,800+- at 33-35 knots) In other words shes a gas hog like Bismark was and range is an important issue. Go with either 4 or 5 blade props instead.
Truncate both funnels.
Remove the single reduction gearing turbines and go with double reduction as prop shafts favor low rpms for both availability and repairs on bearing and such.
Increase rudder square footage to accomidate the faster speed aquired.
Remove Turrets and scrap them. Never put another 4,4,2 mount on another ship again.:)) Either go with 3 15" triples or 3 16" triples instead.
Replace the 14" guns with either the British 15" or the American 16"/45 whichever better suites the hull and turret design with improved handling machinery.
Improve secondary armament and definately replace the "pom poms" with 40mm Bofors or better.
Increase armor on turret faces and around the steering gear.
*And above all get rid of the "block" style bridge its ugly and appears very small.

[Dreadnought]

[QUOTE=Dreadnought;622355]For starters:

Lengthen her hull out to 800-850 feet, make her beamier then 103 feet atleast to 108 or 110 without bulging the hull and make her draft deeper and increase tonage to atleast 45,000 tons-48,000 tons..
Remove the propulsion system and the props and improve the boilers size and output further increasing her range. (Range at 18 knots 5,400 +-, Iowas range approx 4,800+- at 33-35 knots) In other words shes a gas hog like Bismark was and range is an important issue. Go with either 4 or 5 blade props instead.
Truncate both funnels.
Remove the single reduction gearing turbines and go with double reduction as prop shafts favor low rpms for both availability and repairs on bearing and such.
Increase rudder square footage to accomidate the faster speed aquired.
Remove Turrets and scrap them. Never put another 4,4,2 mount on another ship again.:)) Either go with 3 15" triples or 3 16" triples instead.
Replace the 14" guns with either the British 15" or the American 16"/45 whichever better suites the hull and turret design with improved handling machinery.
Improve secondary armament and definately replace the "pom poms" with 40mm Bofors or better.
Increase armor on turret faces and around the steering gear and certainly the bridge itself since it barely has any.
*And above all get rid of the "block" style bridge its ugly and appears very small but the structure itself is very large ergo an easy target to aim for by an opponent who knows much about ship to ship battles.

[HoratioNelson]

Aesthetically speaking, I don't know about the block-style bridge tower, the Queen Elizabeths received a similar tower after their refit before WWII, and they were very pretty ships:

[gunnut]

Why did the RN stay with the 15" guns rather than moving to 16" guns?

[HoratioNelson]

They did move to 16" guns on their Nelson class, but were prohibited from constructing more ships like that due to Treaty limits. Thus the 15", built mostly before the Treaty, was their most numerous of the larger calibre guns. They did plan on using an improved 16" for their Lion class, which was planned, laid down but never completed.

The 15"/42 was still an excellent naval weapon, powerful and accurate at ranges up to 23km (14 miles), as demonstrated by Warspite at Calabria. The loading system was also a bit quicker and more efficient than on American battleships like the Iowas, at least in my opinion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xsp0Mr5Lcl8 This video exhibits it.

[Dreadnought]

They did move to 16" guns on their Nelson class, but were prohibited from constructing more ships like that due to Treaty limits. Thus the 15", built mostly before the Treaty, was their most numerous of the larger calibre guns. They did plan on using an improved 16" for their Lion class, which was planned, laid down but never completed.

The 15"/42 was still an excellent naval weapon, powerful and accurate at ranges up to 23km (14 miles), as demonstrated by Warspite at Calabria. The loading system was also a bit quicker and more efficient than on American battleships like the Iowas, at least in my opinion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xsp0Mr5Lcl8 This video exhibits it.

*Negative, The RN utilized the "cage" system which required three rammings. The Iowas required two rammings and the Iowas were faster loading projectiles from an upright position as compared to the RN horizontal position.
There is a post on this in the other BB threads which show the Brit method against the US method.;)

[Dreadnought]

*Even as late as December 1943 the 14" of the KGV mounts remained troublesome for the RN and it reduced its potential to 2/3's of its potential volume of fire.

Firing cycle for HMS Rodney

Design= 30 secs
Practice= 35-40 secs.
Sustained (As in fight with Bismark) 60-65 secs.

*Lion would have been designed in the 20-25 second area from what I have read about them.

IJN Yamato

35-40 secs Firing cycle.

USN Iowa

30 sec Firing cycle.

[Dreadnought]

Aesthetically speaking, I don't know about the block-style bridge tower, the Queen Elizabeths received a similar tower after their refit before WWII, and they were very pretty ships:


Past examples have shown the bridge to be a major target to any gunnery officer.
Examples:

HMS Prince Of Wales whose bridge was hit in the fight with Bismark loosing approx 15 officers.

KM Bismark whose bridge was ripped apart by a 16" hit from Rodney killing everyone on the bridge including the Captain.

These are just two examples. The USN and Japan shared quite a few hits to bridges by either naval gunfire or aerial dropped bombs.

It takes alot of skill gunnery wise to hit such places in the superstructure of a war ship so the better armored they are the safer the officers are to continue giving battle. And you can tell by how many times ships bridges were hit that they certainly were aiming for it as well as the FCR etc.

Please dont get me wrong I do like the ships but these are just changes we are discussing.:)

[maximusslade]

I don't think this thread is limited to UK ships, so I will go with the Iowas. I chose this class as opposed to other classes of US ships becauce previous to the Iowas each ship class was simply an improvment upon the previous class (this though does not include the "standard type" dreadnaughts of the WWI period). I would not consider the Montana class to be an improvment per se, merely a more traditional US design that favored armor over speed.

Improvements I would make on an Iowa include: upgraded armor so as to protect against the 2700lb shell, more effective torpedo protection system, length and beam would probably be needed to maintain her fast speed with the above improvments.
Lastly I would change her bow. I would give her a more traditional bow at the weather deck (a la Colorado class) that would taper down to the waterline (I would suggest keeping the current Iowa class waterline shape at the waterline since that does improve her speed). My reason for suggestion this change is that the Iowas had notoriously wet bows. I think the above stated idea would dry them up some.
Lastly I would give her a bulbous underwater bow; this would decrease her wake making and improve her hydraulic efficency.

[gunnut]

How about instead of the 9 12" guns on the Alaska class, equip them with 6 tubes of tried-and-true 16" guns? That would have saved time and money on developing a brand new system of 12" gun and simplified the logistics in parts and ammo.

I know the Alaska class wasn't really a battleship, nor even a battlecruiser, but it would be fun to put battleship guns on them.

[looking4NSFS]

You almost have to wonder............ if the Alaska's were not scrapped but in mothballs would they have been candidates for reactivation in the eighties? Along that line, were the DeMoine and Salem considered? Sorry, not exactly what this thread was about.

[Dreadnought]

I don't think this thread is limited to UK ships, so I will go with the Iowas. I chose this class as opposed to other classes of US ships becauce previous to the Iowas each ship class was simply an improvment upon the previous class (this though does not include the "standard type" dreadnaughts of the WWI period). I would not consider the Montana class to be an improvment per se, merely a more traditional US design that favored armor over speed.

Improvements I would make on an Iowa include: upgraded armor so as to protect against the 2700lb shell, more effective torpedo protection system, length and beam would probably be needed to maintain her fast speed with the above improvments.
Lastly I would change her bow. I would give her a more traditional bow at the weather deck (a la Colorado class) that would taper down to the waterline (I would suggest keeping the current Iowa class waterline shape at the waterline since that does improve her speed). My reason for suggestion this change is that the Iowas had notoriously wet bows. I think the above stated idea would dry them up some.
Lastly I would give her a bulbous underwater bow; this would decrease her wake making and improve her hydraulic efficency.

They were wet ships forward due to her design. Chantry (PNSY) did not design them along typical battleship lines they were to be in theory a combination battleship/battlecruiser design. Unlike the South Dakota class she was given a very sleek clipper style bow and does not reach her maximum beam until almost three quarters aft. With the length and flare of the bow and where it meets the hull there is no doubt they were/are wet ships forward starting at Turret one forward however required to be some what wet having to meet the speeds they were designed for. The Post treaty battleships all shared the heavy cruiser stern or "bowl" type design getting away from the WWII dreadnoughts and their fine stem sterns. Iowas design is also the reason for having the expansion joint incorporated in order to keep her superstructure somewhat fluid at such displacement and speeds.

*The Iowas do have a bulbous bow maybe your thinking of enhancing that?

[Dreadnought]

They were wet ships forward due to her design. Chantry (PNSY) did not design them along typical battleship lines they were to be in theory a combination battleship/battlecruiser design. Unlike the South Dakota class she was given a very sleek clipper style bow and does not reach her maximum beam until almost three quarters aft. With the length and flare of the bow and where it meets the hull there is no doubt they were/are wet ships forward starting at Turret one forward however required to be some what wet having to meet the speeds they were designed for. The Post treaty battleships all shared the heavy cruiser stern or "bowl" type design getting away from the WWII dreadnoughts and their fine stem sterns. Iowas design is also the reason for having the expansion joint incorporated in order to keep her superstructure somewhat fluid at such displacement and speeds.

*The Iowas do have a bulbous bow. Maybe you are stating an enhanced bulbous bow?

[Johnny W]

The Bunks on the Iowa's would be longer. I am 6 ft 4 inches tall, and I never did fit into the bunk very well. :)