phantom fleets of the twentieth century© by wayne … series_2_2020.pdf · 2020. 10. 6. · i can...

1

© 2001 – 2020 All Rights Reserved by Wayne Smith V. 202009Sept

PHANTOM FLEETS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY©

By Wayne Smith

“The Special Edition Collector’s Series” consists of models of ships that were proposed and

planned but were never built (“Never-weres”). Almost all have a historical background even if it

was just on paper. It's interesting to imagine how these ships would have performed against ships

that were built or against each other. These Superior 1:1200 scale models will be made available

from time to time on a limited "Special Production Run" basis. A short history follows for most.

The names of those in bold are models that have been produced and made available.

Ships that never existed elicit a certain fascination for ship lovers. In many cases they were larger

than existing ships and were cancelled for artificial reasons (materials, costs, higher priorities,

treaties) rather than being technically impossible. Even these large ships prove the triple

constraint of firepower, protection and speed. On any given displacement, increasing one

requires the decrease of one or both of the others. To paraphrase:

I can make it fast and powerful, but it won’t have any armor (battlecruiser)

I can make it fast and well protected, but it cannot sink another battleship (e.g. Scharnhorst)

I can make it powerful and well-protected but it will be slow (battleship)

Every ship suffers from these design constraints and even the largest of the never weres had some

limitations. These limitations are noted in the text. The largest of the completed battleships also

had design issues. Yamato was well armed and armored but had inferior torpedo protection and

was slower than desired. Bismarck was fast and relatively well armored but had inadequate

firepower and poorly protected turrets. Iowa traded suspect torpedo protection and heavy weather

handling for excellent fire-power, good protection and speed. If you want it all, the ship must be

very large and very expensive. In general, for the price of the very large ship, two adequate ships

could be built which have a better chance of winning the engagement. Suggested Seapower

values for many of these ships have been created by Bob Weymouth and are tabulated at the end

of the document. Some of the more well-known ships (e.g. Montana, H) are already in the

Seapower directory. The pictures scattered through the document are also courtesy of Bob

Weymouth. The drawings are those of the official US and German design bureaus. At the end of

the article are some thoughts on fleet dispositions given some changes in historical decisions.

These are the ‘What Ifs’ that are so fascinating.

BB Battleship Dimensions are length x width x depth under water

CC Battlecruiser 5x 2 means five twin mounts

CB Large Cruiser 4x3 means four triple mounts

CA Cruiser (Armored, later Heavy) DP means Dual Purpose (Anti-surface and anti-air)

CL Cruiser, Light

2


Type Name Tons Dimensions Armament

A107 BB Montana 60,500 921x121x36 12-16”/50, 20-5”/54

A120 BB South Dakota

1921

42,500 684x105x33 12-16”, 16-6”, 8-5”

A125 BB BB65D 60,600 921x121x36 12-16”/50(quad), 12-6”/47

A126 BB Tillman IV-2 80,000 975x108x33 15-18”, 12-6”, 8-5”

A127 BB Georgia (MT II) 60,500 921x121x36 8-18”/50, 12-6”/47 DP

A128 BB Virginia (MT III) 60,500 921x121x36 9-18”/50, 12-6”/47 DP

A130 BB BB 1922 44,500 684x108x33 8-18”, 18-6”, 8-5”

A131 BB BB 1923 52,000 800x108x33 12-18”, 12-6”, 8-5”

A132 BB BB65A 45,000 888x108x38 12-16”, 20-5”/38

A133 BB BB65(I) 45,000 888x108x38 9-18”, 20-5”/38

A134 BB Maximum BB

1934

66,000 975x107x33 8-20”, 20-5”/38

A135 BB BB1917 35,700 644x100x30 10-16”, 22-6”, 4-3”

A136 BB BB65C 43,800 888x108x36 12-16”, 20-5”

A137 BB BB1934-2 35,000 745x102x31 8-16”, 14-5”, 16-1.1”

A138 BB BB1937 XVI 35,000 740x108x32 12-14”, 16-5”, 16-1.1” A141A BB BB65-8 67,000 1050x120x35 12-16”, 20-5” A141B BB BB65-8B 75,000 1050x122x36 12-18/48”, 12-6” DP

A142 BB Iowa Flight Deck 45,000 888x108x36 6-16”, 4-5”, 122 missiles

A143 BB Tillman D2/D4 80,000 975x108x38 24-16/50”, 16-6”,

A144 BB BB1926 35,000 625x106x31 10-16”/50, 16-6”, 8-5”

A145 BB Iowa – Tillman 59,000 975x108x38 15-16”, 16-5”,

A146 BB BB1937 IX-E 35,000 625x106x32 8x14” or 6x16”, 20-5”

A147 BB S. Dakota WW2 42,500 684x105x33 12-16”, 16-5”/38, 40mm

A148 BB Tillman IV-2 WW2 80,000 975x108x33 15-18”, 20-5”/38, 40mm

A149 BB BB65-1 (Jan,1940) 45,000 840x113x36 10-16”/50, 20-5”/54

A150 BB Kentucky (BBAA) 45,000 888x108x38 12-8”/55, 10-5”/54,24-3”/50

A151 BB Iowa (CIP) 45,000 888x108x38 9-16”/50, 20-5”/38, 24-3”/50

A152 BB Illinois BBG 45,000 888x108x38 6-16”, 12-5”/38,Talos, Tartar

A202 CC Lexington 1921 43,500 874x106x32 8-16”/50, 16-6”, 8-5”

A203 CC Lexington 1916 33,500 874x92x30 10-14”/50,18-5”

A204 BB Design D, 1918 54,500 874x106x32 12-16”/50,16-6”,

A205 CB CA2D 38,700 888x104x31 12-12”/50, 16-5”

A206 CB CA2 Super Baltimore 15,750 716x72x24 12-8”/55, 12-5”

A207 CB CAC 20,000 808x77x25 12-8”/55, 12-5”

A208 CB CA, Scheme 3 17,300 710x74x25 6-12”/50, 12-5”

A209 CC CC1933 33,500 775x92x32 9-14”/45, 16-5”/38

A210 CB CA Scheme M 22,500 735x82x26 10-10”/50, 12-5”

A211 CC Lexington WW2 Rig 43,500 874x106x32 8-16”/50, 20-5”/38

A313 CA Scout Cruiser C-1 10,000 620x57x18 7-8”/55, 4-5”, 4-3”, 6 TT

A411 CL CL1 Super Cleveland 13,300 680x68x22 12-6”/47, 12-5”/38 A510A CV CV-A 44,500 900x111x32 9-8”/55,8-5” A510B CV CV-B 38,500 900x104x32 16-6”/47

B103 BB Lion 40,550 793x105x33 9-16”, 16-5.25”, 84 2pdr

B110 BB Vanguard 42,300 814x108x34 8-15”, 16-5.25”, 73 2pdr

B111 BB Super Lion (16E-38) 48,500 850x108x34 12-16”, 16-5.25”, 84-2pdr

B112 BB N3 (1922) 48,500 815x106x32 9-18”, 16-6”, 6-4.7”

B113 BB BB1935 15A/B 35,000 770x104x31 9-15”, 20-4.5”, 32-2pdr

3


B114 BB Lion Hybrid 44,750 800x112x30 6-16”, 16-5.25”, 14 AC

B115 BB Rodney-modernized 35,000 710x106x30 9-16”, 20-4.5”, 48-2pdr

B116 BB Super Lion with Vanguard superstructure See B111

B204 CC Invincible 1921(G3) 48,400 856x106x36 9-16”, 16-6”, 6-4.7”

B205 CC Hood 1944 41,200 860x104x32 8-15”, 16-5.25”, 56 2pdr

B206 CC F3 35,000 740x106x32 9-15”, 8-6”, 32 2pdr

B306 CA Admiral 16,500 670x80 9-8”, 16-4”, 6x21”TT

D201 CC Dutch 1047 28,000 778x98x26 9-11”, 12-4.7”, 14-40mm

F105 BB Gascogne 40,270 813x108x32 8-15”, 9-6”, 16-3.9”

F106 BB Alsace 45,000 900x108x31 12-15”, 12-6”, 16-3.9”

F307 CA St. Louis 14,470 662x66x19 9-8”/50, 10-3.9”

F901 BB Normandie 1916 25,230 578x89x30 12-13.4”, 24-5.5”

G103 BB H 39, 12x15” 56,200 873x121x33 12-15”, 12-5.9”, 16-4.1”

G104 BB H 39, 8x16” 56,200 873x121x33 8-16”, 12-5.9”, 16-4.1”

G105 BB H44 128,930 1200x169x44 8-20”, 12-5.9”, 16-4.1”

G203 CC OPQ 31,152 814x98x29 6-15”, 6-5.9”, 8-4.1”, 12 TT

G925 CC Mackensen

G906 BB L20 43,800 780x110x30 8-16.5”, 12-5.9”, 8-88mm,

G207 CB Kreuzer P 19,679 755x89x28 6-11”, 4-5.9”, 8-4.1”

G208 CC KW45 45,000 984x111 8-15”, 12-5.9”, 8-4.1”, 8 TT

G405 CL Kreuzer M 7,800 600x56x18 8-5.9”, 4-4.1”, 8-21” TT

I405 CL Ciano 10-6”/55, 10-90mm

J108 BB Tosa 38,500 768x100x31 10-16”,20-5.5”,8-24” TT

J109 BB Super

Yamato(798)

64,000 863x127x36 6-20”, 6-6.1”, 20-3.9”

J110 BB Number 13 47,500 900x101x31 8-18.9”, 16-5.5”, 8-24” TT

J111 BB A-140A 68,000 935x132x34 9-18”, 12-6.1”, 12-5”

J112 BB A-140/A2 68,000 935x132x34 8-18”, 12-6.1”, 12-5”

J113 BB A-140/B2 70,000 935x132x34 8-20”, 12-6.1”, 12-5”

J114 BB Fujimoto BB 35,000 762x105x28 9-16”, 12-6”, 8-4.7”AA

J115 BB Hiraga BB 35,000 761x105x29 10-16”, 16-6”, 8-4.7”AA

J201 CC Amagi 40,000 820x101x31 10-16”, 16-5.5”, 8-24” TT

J202 CC B-65 (795) 31,400 808x89x29 9-12”, 16-3.9”, 8-24” TT

J203 CC Japanese Vanguard 35,000 808x89x30 8-14”, 16-3.9”, 8-24” TT

J204 BB iFUSO 34,700 698x10x30 8-14”, 14-6”, 8-5”

J205 BB iISE 35,340 700x104x30 8-14”, 16-5.5”, 8-5”

J310 CA IBUKI 11,200 658x63x20 10-8”, 8-5”, 25-24” TT

J411 CL Improved AGANO 8,520 613x50x19 8-6”, 8-3”, 8-24” TT

R101 BB Sovetskii Soyuz 59,150 889x127x33 9-16”,12-6”,8-3.9”,32-37mm

R102 BB Gibbs & Cox ‘D’ 45,000 845x113x33 10-16”, 20-5”, 16-1.1”

R103 BB Project 24, (XIII) 72,950 925x132x38 9-16”, 16-5”, 48-45mm

R104 BB UP 41

R201 CC Kronstadt 35,240 813x103x28 9-12”, 8-6”, 8-3.9”,28-37mm

R202 CC Stalingrad 38,540 897x105x30 9-12”, 12-5.1”, 24-45mm

4


The following is a table showing the construction of the completed and some incomplete or

projected battleships in WWII. Note that 11 of 28 completed ships were sunk, only 1 Allied.

Also note that the US ships were completed more quickly than any other countries.

Laid down to launching Launching to commissioning In service xxx Projected ♦ Sunk 1933 ‘34 ‘35 ‘36 ‘37 ‘38 ‘39 ‘40 ‘41 ‘42 ‘43 ‘44 ‘45

Fr Dunkerque ♦

Fr Strassburg ♦

Fr Richeliue

Fr Jean Bart

Fr Clemenceau x x x x x x x x x x x

Fr Gascogne x x x x x x x x x x x x

It Vittorio Veneto

It Littorio

It Roma ♦

It Impero x x x x x x x x x x x x

Ge Scharnhorst ♦

Ge Gneisnau ♦

Ge Bismarck

Ge Tirpitz ♦

Ge H x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Ge J x x x x x x x x x x x x x

GB King George V

GB Prince of Wales ♦

GB Duke of York

GB Anson

GB Howe

GB Lion x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

GB Temeraire x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

GB Vanguard

Jp Yamato ♦

Jp Musashi ♦

Jp Shinano ♦

Jp #111 x x x x x x X

SU Sovetzky Soyuz x x x

SU Sov Ukraina x x x

SU Sov Rossiya x x x x x x

SU Sov Belorussiya x x x x X

US N Carolina

US Washington

US S Dakota

US Massachussetts

US Indiana

US Alabama

US Iowa

US New Jersey

US Wisconsin

US Missouri

US Kentucky

US Illinois

US Montana x x x x x x x x x x

US Ohio x x x x x x x x x x

US Maine x x x x x x x x

US N Hampshire x x x x x x x x

US Louisiana x x x x x x x x

5


A135 BB 1917

The story of many un-built US battleships starts with the story of BB 1917 and is tied to Secretary

of the Navy Josephus Daniels. Daniels tried to control the growth of battleships by restricting

them to incremental changes instead of significant growth. This is a study in futility where the

US could have had the best individual battleships in the world but were hamstrung by politics.

The 16” gun was approved by the General Board on 11/22/1911 but Daniels restricted the study

to blueprints only. On 10/22/1912 he authorized a secret prototype which was successfully fired

in August 1914. It was superior to both the British and German 15” guns.

Battleship 1915 (becoming the New Mexico class) could mount either 12-14” or 8 of the new

16”. In September 1913 (one year before the gun was successfully fired), the board voted for a

larger ship with 10-16”. By October 6 sketch designs were available with 3 presented below.

One of these alternatives was the Pennsylvania armed with 8-16”. All of these were more

expensive than the Pennsylvania so the New Mexico’s were only slightly improved

Pennsylvanias. In March 1914 characteristics for BB 1916 were submitted but Daniels ruled in

July 1914 (month prior to the 16” test firing) that the Tennessee would duplicate the New Mexico.

In May 1915 the fiasco was repeated. Previous arguments had centered on the merits of the 14”

vs. 16” when it was not appreciated that battle ranges would increase significantly and at shorter

ranges, the more numerous 14” was a better weapon. The increased battle ranges in the North

Sea and longer range torpedoes proved the efficacy of Scheme #3 of 1913. It now became the

basis of BB 1917. The Superior model of BB1917 is represented by Scheme 166 which mounted

their guns in a Texas arrangement. It is unfortunate that New Mexico was not a Pennsylvania

with 8-16”, disappointing that BB1917 was not the basis of the Tennessee and a crime they were

not built in place of the Maryland’s.

Oct 1913 #1 Oct 1913 #3 Oct 1913 # (PA hull) 166

Displacement 39,500 tons 35,500 tons 35,700 tons

Length 695’ 650’ 644’

Width 99’ 96’ 100’

Draft 31’ 30’ 30’

Speed 21 knots 21 knots 20.5

Armament 10-16”/45(5x2) 10-16”/45 (5x2) 10-16:/45 (5x2)

22-5”/51(22x1) 22-5”/51(22x1) 22-6”/53

4-3” AA

Armor belt: 16” 13.5” 13.5”

Deck/Splinter: 3.5” 3” 3”/ 1.5”

A120/ A120A SOUTH DAKOTA 1921

These were the last of the US dreadnoughts begun with the Nevada. Secretary of the Navy

Josephus Daniels finally relented on the size of US battleships with this design. These

represented a 30% increase in size from the Colorado, a 50% increase in firepower and 2 knots

more speed. Final designs were completed in January 1917 (same time frame as the Tillman IV-

2!) with 3 to be laid down in the fall of 1917 and the next three in 1918. The declaration of war

fatally delayed construction with them being scrapped under the terms of the Washington Treaty.

These ships represented the ultimate in US dreadnoughts and continued the American innovation

of thick deck armor, four turrets and endurance for Pacific warfare. World War II experience

demonstrated that early hits on fire control (Bismarck, Scharnhorst), steering positions (Hiei) or

overwhelming numbers of shells (Fuso) were more frequent and important than penetrating hits.

Mounting more guns than any of their contemporaries, having better ballistics with the 16”/50,

with adequate armor, excellent underwater protection and decent speed, they would have proven

6


formidable opponents even though they weighed 5,000 tons less than the largest of the British and

Japanese ships.

A147 is predicated on South Dakota being rebuilt in WWII similar to the West Virginia. Modern

fire control, radar, 16x5” guns, massive 40mm batteries would have made these very formidable

ships that anything less than a Yamato could not handle. The 16”/50 Mk1, guided by Mk 8 fire

control, would have been just as lethal to most other battleships as the West Virginia was at

Surigao when she scored hits with her FIRST salvo at 22,000 yards in the dead of night.

A120 A147 (WWII)

Length 684’ same

Width 106’ same

Draft 33’ same

Speed 23 knots same

Armament 12-16”/50 (4x3) same

16-6”/53 (16x1) 16-5”/38 (8x2)

Armor belt: 13.5”

Deck: Main deck 3.5”, upper deck 1.25”, splinter deck 1.25”

Turrets: face 18”, roof 8”

A202/203/204/A211 LEXINGTON 1921/1916/Fast BB ‘D’/LEX WWII

These ships had a long conceptual stage, were interrupted by WWI and were finally cancelled by

the Washington Treaty. Prior to the Russo-Japanese War the US launched ten large armored

cruisers armed with four 8” or four 10” guns. The same size as current battleships, they traded

smaller guns and less armor for 4 knots more speed. By 1904 the Naval War College was calling

for armored cruisers with battleship guns and armor with cruiser speed by deleting all the lighter

guns. By 1906 this type was being heavily advocated, particularly in light of the battle of

Tsushima. The existence of 10 recently completed armored cruisers prevented any serious

decisions. By 1908 the battle cruiser was considered worth building that were the same size as

battleships with the same armament but 20% more speed.

In November 1909 several schemes were sketched by C&R by lengthening the ARKANSAS by

100 feet and eliminating the two central turrets leaving eight 12” guns at 25.5 knots. The

suppression of the two turrets allowed enough weight to carry battleship armor, similar to the

German DERFFLINGER. By July 1912, a series of battlecruiser designs were presented to the

Naval War College twelve different designs having light, medium or heavy armor and capable fo

26, 29 or 32 knots. All had eight 14” guns. The smallest of these was 29,300 tons (marginally

larger than KONGO), had an 8” belt and 26 knots while the largest was 79,000 (!) tons with a 14”

belt and 32 knots speed. Since all would compete for battleship funding, these remained design

studies only.

By April 1915, the GB was asking for “battle scouts” fast ships with protection against 6” guns

and mounting as many as four 16” guns. By September 1915, the ship had grown to 32,000 tons

with eight 14” guns and 35 knots speed. In April 2016 firepower was increased to ten 14”.

Design #169 started as the battlecruiser equivalent to the Nevada with 10-14” guns, 7 funnels and

capable of 35 knots (A203). High speed required voluminous machinery space and a high

freeboard to maintain speed. Turbo electric machinery was introduced in these ships and then

adopted for the Colorado and South Dakota. Heavy machinery, a large hull and powerful guns

left little displacement for armor. Half of the 24 boilers were above the armor deck which raised

concerns over their protection. The ends were so fine that the original turret arrangements called

for triples over twin like the Pensacola. The original armor scheme provided protection only

7


against the light cruisers they were expected to encounter in an enemy screen. Design 169 was

approved on June 30,1916, only weeks after the battle of Jutland.

By January 1917 (same month the preliminary designs for the Tillman were completed), BuOrd

wanted to replace the main armament with at least 6-16”/50s and the 18-5” with 16-6”/53. While

the General Board was rejecting this, boiler and machinery design improved so that fewer boilers

consumed less space. Now only five funnels were required and new plans were completed in

May, 1917. Entry into WWI delayed construction and provided an opportunity to modify the

ship once again. By September 1917 the updated plans called for 16” and 6” guns, 8 torpedo

tubes and 4 aircraft. Design work was completed by October 1918.

While the design work was being completed, C&R obtained copies of the plans for HOOD and

battle damage assessment at Jutland and Dogger Bank. By June 1918, a new concept in US

battleships was ready. Design D combined the Lexington machinery in a fuller hull with the

South Dakota armament with a 12” belt and 3” upper deck capable of 29 knots. There was no

armor deck at the main deck level but a 2” splinter deck at mid-belt completed the deck armor.

These ships also had a 10” casemate belt similar to German ships that provided complete

protection up to the main deck. If the casemate belt was eliminated, 1.75” of deck armor could be

added to the splinter deck or the main deck. This would have also improved the structural

strength of a long, narrow ship with heavy turrets at the ends.

Unknown at the time, Design D was significantly superior to all the British and Japanese ships.

The General Board disapproved because they were worried that these ships would cause a

revolution like the Dreadnought and render the entire battle fleet obsolete. What they did not

recognize is that the Hood already did this and the Japanese were sure to follow the British lead.

The other major issue was cost. Four South Dakota 1921s or four Lexingtons could be built for

three Design D’s. It is interesting that Bywater’s book on “The Great Pacific War” contemplated

building battlecruisers mounting 18” guns; simply replace the main turrets of Project D with twin

18” and you have Bywater’s battlecruiser.

There was much vacillation in the General Board about what kind of war would be fought and

what type of ships would be required. Design D foreshadowed the future change in US

philosophy, which was embodied in all the fast BBs of WWII. Unlike the dreadnoughts,

firepower and speed were emphasized over protection. Foreshadowing the South Dakota /Iowa

evolution, 10,000 tons was required to improve the speed of the SD 1921 by 6 knots. Like

Project D, four South Dakota 1942s could be built for three Iowas. If the Washington treaty had

not intervened, either BB1923 or these ships would have been very likely South Dakota 1921

successors because both would have been cheaper than the Tillman. The choice would lie

between a powerful, slow BB carrying 18” guns or a fast BB with slightly less firepower and

armor.

The battlecruisers were slightly redesigned with the knowledge that no armor greater than 9” in

thickness was pierced at Jutland and this became the new protection standard. As finally

designed, Lexington had a sloping 7” belt that was the equivalent of the 9” ‘Jutland Standard’.

This paled in comparison with both the Japanese and British fast capital ships. Deck armor was

spread over 4 decks to contribute to hull strength. The upper deck was 2.25” with an armored

deck (splinter deck) of 2” at the waterline. The two decks in between had 1.5” of armor over the

outer 18 feet. Shells penetrating the side above the armor belt or penetrating the outer edge of the

upper deck would be fused and explode with the armored or splinter deck containing the

fragments. The angle of descent would have ensured that shells hitting the center of the decks

would also penetrate the outer deck on the far side of the ship and also be fused. Given what we

now know about spaced armor, this armor schema may not have been as bad as many critics

believed.

8


If her armor was weak, her underwater protection was superb. Post WWI capital ships mainly

succumbed to underwater damage from submarine or aerial torpedo. Belts were rarely penetrated

and the most serious loss in a gun action was centralized fire control. In this respect, perhaps the

combination of high speed and powerful 16” guns would have served them well as it did in the

fast BBs of WWII. They were capable of escaping any other capital ship ever built. Lexington

and sister Saratoga were converted to aircraft carriers whose contribution to the US Navy was

even more important than the stillborn battlecruisers.

What might have these ships looked like if they served in WWII? A211 is the Lexington rebuilt

with the Iowa superstructure and massive 40mm batteries. These become very handsome ships

with a balanced main armament fore and aft and the elegant, clean lines of both ships. One

option as outlined in the table below is to replace the heavy turbo-electric drive with much more

efficient and lighter engines giving enough weight to increase the main deck and turret armor.

Having these ships would have eliminated the need for the Iowas. Since the plans for Iowa were

completed in 1938, a reasonable rebuilding schedule of 9 months (similar to Tennessee in 1942-

43) each could have started in June 1939 with the last completed in June 1942.

9


LEX 1921 LEX 1916 Design D Lex WW2

Displacement 43,500 33,500 54,500 44,000

Length 874’ 874’ 874’ 874’

Width 106’ 92’ 106’ 106’

Draft 31’ 30’ 32’ 32’

Speed 33.75 knots 35 knots 29 33

Armament 8-16”/50 (4x2) 10-14”/50 12-16”/50 (4x3) 8-16”/50

16-6”/53 (16x1) 18-5” 16-6”/53 20-5”/38

Armor Belt: 7” sloped at 10 degrees 5” 12” 7”

Deck main/upper:2”/1.5” 1.5” 2”/ 2-3” 4”/1.5”

Turrets: face 11”, roof 5” face 6” face 16”, roof 6” face 16”,roof 7”

A126 Tillman IV-2

A143 Tillman D2 A148 Tillman WW2 Rig

Concentrated Firepower in the Pacific

Nicknamed after Senator Benjamin Tillman, SC, of the Senate Naval Affairs Committee, these

were the most powerful battleships ever designed by the United States. Noting that battleships

were increasing in size by 20-30% per year, he introduced a resolution in 1912 for the Navy to

report on the maximum size ship that could be built based on harbors and the Panama Canal.

Rather than build to this size ship incrementally, what would it cost to build it immediately?

Despite this request, US battleships remained roughly the same size through the Nevada,

Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Tennessee and Colorado classes. Secretary of the Navy Josephus

Daniels only relented on the size and expense of battleships with the South Dakota. In 1916

Tillman again repeated his request.

Congress created some initial characteristics of 60,000 tons mounting 10-18” guns. And they

gave the Navy one day to come up with a design! Fortunately, the Bureau of Construction and

Repair (BuC&R) was able to turn this over to naval constructor McBride who was responsible for

the contemporary South Dakota battleships. The following is not well understood by the layman:

1. McBride used the known Lexington power plant layout, weight and dimensions which

dictate funnel location and engineering space ventilation.

10


2. While the original plans showed three funnels, the model is given two funnels reflecting

Lexington since it is the SAME engineering plant. If you compare the Superior

Lexington and Tillman, you will see that funnel spacing and engineering hatches are

exactly the same on both models.

3. McBride also extrapolated the scantlings used in the South Dakota and the Lexington to

calculate the hull strength.

BuC&R created four studies finishing in January 1917. Limitations were the Panama Canal

(1000 x 110x 40 feet) and US harbors with a depth of 34 feet. The studies represented a different

combination of armor, speed and armament emphasizing one above the others with the fourth one

allocating each characteristic equally. Using the South Dakota as the baseline, everyone was

appalled that just increasing speed to 30 knots required an increase to 63,500 tons (similar to the

abortive Montana’s 20 years later).

A126 A143 A143

Congress* D IV-2** D 2 D 4**

Displacement 60,000 tons 80,000 tons 70,000 80,000

Length 975’ 975’ 975’ 975’

Width 108’ 108’ 108’ 108’

Draft 33’ 33’ 38’

Speed 32 knots 25 knots 26.5 kts 25.2 kts

Armament 10-18” (5x2) 15-18”/50 (5x3) 24-16” 24-16”

16-6” 21-6”/50 (21x1) 21-5”/51 21-5”/51

4-3”/50 AA 4-3” AA 4-3” AA

4-21” TT 4-21” TT 4 -21” TT 4-21” TT

Armor belt: 10” 16” 13” 18”

Deck: main/upper 5”/2.5” 3” 5”

Turret face/side/roof: 21”/ 12”/ 8” 18”/10”/9” 20”/14”/ 6”

*Increasing the size to 65,000 tons reduced the speed by 2 knots (30 knots now) but increased the

belt to 18” thick. The contemporary Hood and Nagato were in serious trouble.

** If the draft is increased to 38 feet, the hull can be made finer with a speed of 28 knots.

Four sextuplet 16” turrets were considered which provided overwhelming firepower. However,

no practical drawings were completed showing how the superimposed guns should be arranged.

This impractical arrangement was replaced with five triple 18” turrets arranged as in the Texas.

The largest of the theoretical designs was the IV-II submitted January 30, 1917. Writing in “Sea

Power” in 1917 Commander William Moffett (killed in the Akron crash in 1933) wrote, “Is it not

fair to assume, nay, is it not certain, that if battleship displacement has increased from 10,000

tons in 1896 to 32,000 tons in 1916, that it will continue to do so until the limit has been

reached?” Why not go to the limit at once? By doing so, we scrap every battleship in the world.

Other navies would have to follow our example and build ships like ours or give up the

competition. We could stand the cost better than any other nation. It is therefore an advantage

to us to make navies cost as much as possible. We have more money than any other nation, and

we will have more, comparatively, at the close of the war, when most of them will be bankrupt. In

this way we will scrap England’s navy, as well as all others. In no other way can we hope to

overtake Great Britain.”

11


These exceptional ships had very complete underwater protection due to turbo electric drive.

This eliminated the steam lines around the middle turret that had proved so troublesome in all US

battleships until the Nevada. The original plans called for 21-5” secondaries but many were

mounted in the hull. Hull casements had proven impractical and were being dismounted from

existing ships. It was noted that if harbors were dredged, the hull could be made deeper and finer

resulting in an increase in speed to 28 knots (D4). It was also estimated that they would cost $50

million compared to $30 million for a Tennessee. Size and firepower had a steep price although

the Iowa of 1940 cost $100 million.

The 24-16” (A143) version has sufficient deck space for the triple funnels with a Lexington style

upper deck. The sextuple turret looks enormous on the ship because it is 60 feet wide compared

to 40 feet for an Iowa turret. Increasing the width by 50% allows you to double the number of

guns in the turret. These would have created huge holes in the deck reducing the girder strength.

A126 replaces the triple funnels with Lexington style funnels and superstructure due to the

identical funnel and ventilator layout. There is insufficient upper deck space for a Lexington 01

level due to the fifth turret. Backing Q turret against X turret grouped the barbettes together and

leaves the engineering ventilators underneath Q turrets barrels. The after funnel MUST be at the

very end of the superstructure meaning the aft cage mast would have to be mounted between the

funnels. Sufficient space could be secured for only 12-6” with three being able to bear on any

quadrant. Eight 5”/25s complete the AA armament. If the Washington Treaty had not

intervened, these would have been very likely candidates to succeed the South Dakota and

Lexington. The construction of these ships was very feasible unlike the large German designs of

WWII and represents the most powerful, reasonable battleships ever designed. Imagine the

impact of having a squadron of these ships mounting 60-18” guns in your war games! One

further note, while the US Navy preferred firing broadsides, the impact on the hull and

superstructure of this many guns would have required salvo fire which may have reduced the rate

of fire for the entire ship.

All variants could have had deeper hulls and refined hull shapes that could have allowed up to 28

knots but would have required dredging in such places as the Brooklyn Navy Yard. In the early

1920’s the Naval War College (NWC) created a sophisticated method of evaluating the worth of

individual ships to wargame them. By their calculations, Colorado, Nagato and HOOD could

each sustain 18 penetrating 14” shells while the D-IV could withstand 36, twice the amount.

When gamed, a single Colorado is overwhelmed by either D1 or D2 and even two Colorado’s

are sunk by a single D2 or D4. The 24 16” guns allows her to smother her opponents and actually

take less damage than the more heavily protected D1. It is interesting to note that the US WWII

ships emphasized fire power and speed rather than the traditional protection although one could

hardly call them under protected. Perhaps they were the beneficiaries of wargames between

design concepts prior to WWII.

A148 is a modernized Tillman with a WWII style superstructure, twin 5”/38s and 40mm AA.

The continued challenge is that the after funnel must be on the extreme end of the superstructure

due to the trunking of the boilers from the boiler rooms underneath the gun barrels of ‘Q’ turret.

This model reflects some of the early North Carolina designs (E.g. IX) to ensure that two

elevated fire control stations are available in addition to the two funnels, in a manner reminiscent

of the original cage masts which is similar to the Delaware layout.

12


A130, 131, and A144, BB1922, BB1923, BB1926

Concept sketch designs in March and August, 1919 postulated the characteristics of the

successors to South Dakota 1921. The March design showed that increasing the speed of South

Dakota by only 2 knots cost 5,000 tons and another 100’ in length. It featured the quadruple

funnel of the S DAKOTA.

BB1922 could carry 8-18” and 18-6” mounts (6 triple turrets) on a South Dakota sized hull.

Replacing 12-16” with 8-18” would not have been much of an improvement over the South

Dakota, particularly in pattern ‘fatness’ and would have been less than the British N3 (9-18”).

Increasing the main armament from 12-14” on the Tennessee to 12-16” on the South Dakota

cost 10,000 tons. Increasing to 12-18” (4x3) for BB1923 would have required at least 10,000

tons more than South Dakota on at least an 800-foot long hull. Machinery spaces and funnels

configured as the South Dakota s would drive them at 21 knots. To maintain the 23 knots of the

South Dakota would have required more efficient boilers such as were planned for the

battlecruisers. Additional boilers could not be installed because their space would have further

increased hull length and, proportionally, armor and weight.

It is more likely that a South Dakota successor would have contained either 10 or 12 – 18” guns

in either a Nevada or 4x3 configuration. Given the slow pace of US turret development for

secondary armament, it is also likely that single 6”/53s would have been retained for the

secondary armament. Deck armor would have to be increased to resist an 18” shell, probably to

the 5” as designed in the Tillman. These battleships would have displaced more than the N3 and

trade deck armor (8” in the N3) for an additional triple 18” turret. These studies of incremental

improvements in battleship design show just how farsighted Senator Tillman was in asking why

not build the biggest ship we could and be done with it.

BB1926 reflected the changes imposed by the Washington Treaty of 1922. Now limited to

35,000 tons, designers sought to squeeze in as many features as possible. Despite the 10 year

break in constructing new ships, all countries continued to design them (e.g. Japanese Hiraga and

FUJIMOTO). Preliminary design #165 in March 1916 placed 10-16” guns on a 33,200 ton hull

making 21 knots. BB1926 shortened the South Dakota hull by 35 feet, mimicked the 1916

design with two triple and two twin turrets, replaced the heavy turbo electric drive with lighter

geared turbines, increased speed by 2 knots and eliminated a torpedo bulkhead decreasing hull

width by two feet. Shockingly, the estimated cost was $38 million, giving you much less

battleship than the $50 million Tillman. Bigger is better and cheaper in the long run.

BB1922 BB1923 BB1926 3/4/19 Plan


Length 684’ 800’ 625’ 774’

Width 108’ 108’ 106’ 106’

Draft 33’ 33’ 31’ 31’

Speed 23 knots 23 knots 23 knots 25 knots

Armament 8-18”/48 (4x2) 12-18”/48 (4x3) 10-16/50” 12-16/50

18-6”(6x3) 12-6”(12x1) 16-6” (16x1) 16-6

8-5” (8x1) 8-5” (8x1) 8-5” (8x1) 8-5

Armor belt: 13.5” 13.5” 11” 12”

Deck: 5” 5” 3.5” 3”/2”

13


A313 US Projected Cruiser C-1

US cruisers during and after WWI were subjected to the same design vacillation as the

battleships. The major difference was that at least some of the battleships were built. Cruiser

design ran the gamut from the small scout through medium sized ships with a small number of

large guns to the Lexington 1916 which was designed to overwhelm the cruiser and destroyer

screen of an opposing fleet. Smaller ships such as cruisers and destroyers were not pressed

forward with the same vigor as the capital ships because it was felt they could be built quickly in

any wartime scenario. Only the battlefleet would truly be, ‘come as you are’.

The Omaha represented the first successful cruiser design in over a decade. Fast, maneuverable

and relatively powerful, it compared well with any other country’s cruisers. Cruisers more

powerful than the British Hawkins with sufficient range for Pacific operations were required.

Range required size resulting in sufficient displacement for a wide range of armament and

protection. The 6” gun was well liked with the pedestal mounts yielding rapid fire. Its maximum

effective range was far less than an 8” gun. The 8” gun was not particularly well liked. It was

mounted in the first battleships as the largest available ‘rapid’ fire gun and the same twin mount

was installed in the early cruisers. While the new 8” gun had an effective range over the horizon,

it only fired at 3 rounds per minute. The 10” gun was preferred because it fired just as fast and

the shell was twice as heavy. It had been mounted in the last large US armored cruisers.

US designs had always emphasized protection against the armament carried. As can be seen from

some of the immune zones, this was not possible on these displacements, particularly against the

8” gun. It was proposed that these ships at least be protected against destroyer fire so they could

break up attacks while serving as a screen.

As shown in the table, the designs moved through many stages with 8-8” being a common

armament. The existence of these designs provided the technical weight the US needed to argue

for a 10,000-ton cruiser at the Washington treaty. Original designs asked for a silhouette similar

to the battlecruisers to create confusion. The model presented has a single triple turret forward

and two twins aft, reminiscent of the Tre Kroner many years later. This was chosen to give a

one-gun superiority over the Hawkins in bow, stern and broadside arcs. The US cruiser was

much faster than Hawkins with a greater radius. Actual development led to the Pensacola, which,

like the fast BBs of WWII, favored speed and firepower over protection. If you like to build a

fleet based on no Washington Treaty, you will need these cruisers to screen your carriers and

Lexingtons while the Omahas screen the battlefleet.

Oct, 1919 Jan, 1921 March, 1921 April, 1921 PENSACOLA

Displacement 10,000 tons 12,000 tons 11,250 tons 10,000 tons 9,111 tons

Length 620’ 635’ 625’ 600’ 585’

Width 57’ 57’ 57’ 57’ 65’

Draft 18’ 21’ 21’ 21’

Speed 36 knots 34.5 34.5 34 33

Armament 7-8”/ 6-8” 6-8” 8-8” 10-8”

4-5”/51 4-5”/25 4-5”/25 4-5”/25 4-5”/25

4-3” AA

6-21” TT 6-21” TT 6-21” TT 6-21” TT 6-21” TT

Armor belt 3” 5” 4” 1.5” 2.5”

deck: 3” 2.5” 1.0” 1”

Imm Zone 6” 11k-21k

Imm Zone 8” 16k-21k

14


A134A US Maximum BB 1934A 8x20” (4x2)

A134B US Maximum BB 1934B 12x18” (4x3)

A134C US Maximum BB 1934C 16x16” (4x4)

The WNT expiration date was 1931 but was then extended for another 5 years. In 1934 planning

began for the construction of new battleships in 1936, the General Board requested a study for the

maximum sized battleship that could transit the Panama Canal. The designers started with the

basic Tillman hull keeping the turbo-electric drive. Q turret was suppressed and 12 boilers fitted

in its space in a Yamato configuration of 3 rows of 4 boilers. These powered the generators

forward of the boiler room. The generators in turn fed four motor rooms grouped around the after

turrets in the same configuration as other US TED battleships. This seemed to be a step

backwards in concentrating the boilers and taking risk against a single unlucky hit. The narrow

hull precluded a more robust anti-torpedo system such as was designed into the wider Montana.

The superstructure was based on that of the remodeled New Mexico with aircraft facilities

amidships and a single large funnel aft. The 5”/38 were configured in a cruiser arrangement with

midships mounts fore and aft to supply coverage over those arcs. Armor was increased over the

Tillman with a 6.5” armor deck, a 1.5” upper deck and a 1.5” splinter deck. Speed was 25 knots.

The designers noted that if the displacement was increased to 72,000 tons, the hull could be made

fuller, nearly triple the horsepower could be installed and the ship could make 30 knots. It is not

clear if the boiler arrangement would have been altered but there is sufficient centerline space

between the barbettes to arrange the boilers inside the torpedo bulkhead and provide two funnels.

It is clear that the Americans had a significant advantage in their machinery compared to the

Japanese and British who required more hull length and volume for comparable speeds with

comparable fire power.

The outstanding feature of the design was 8-20” guns (24” was originally requested!). If they

were equipped with the oversize shells as represented by the 2700lb 16” or the 3850lb 18”, these

shells would have weighed over 5,000 pounds! In contrast to this design, the Japanese finished

their estimates on a maximum battleship at the same time to ensure that the Yamato would be

individually superior. Their estimates are displayed here also. The Japanese estimates did not

take account for the length of the Panama Canal nor the benefits of a parallel hull. They basically

traded off 7 knots of speed from their #13 for an additional pair of 18” guns. This US design

represents a capability that was only considered as part of the German design studies nearly 10

years later. Please note that the same size turret could mount twin 20”(A), triple 18”(B) or

quadruple 16”(C). You can order your Maximum BB with any of these options.

TILLMAN US Max BB Max Fast BB Japanese Estimates

Displacement 80,000 tons 66,000 72,500 63,000

Length 975’ 975’ 975’ 900’

Width 108’ 107’ 107’ 108’

Draft 33’ 33’ 36’ 34’

Speed 25 knots 25 knots 30 knots 23 knots

Armament 15-18”/50 (5x3) 8-20” (4x2) 8-20”(4x2) 10-18”

21-6”/50 (21x1) 20-5”/38 (10x2) 20-5”/38 (10x2)

4-3”/50 AA 16-1.1” 16-1.1”

4-21” TT

Armor belt: 16” 16” 16” 17”

Main/upper Deck: 5”/1.5” 6.5”/1.5” 6.5”/1.5” 8.8”

Face/roof Turrets: 21/8” 18”/7” 18”/7”

A209 CC1933

15


A137 BB1934-2

A138 BB1937 XVI

A146 BB1937 IX-E

A149 BB VIA

CC1933 VIA BB1934-2 IX-E BB1937 XVI

Displacement 33,500 tons 35,000 tons 35,000 tons 35,000 tons 35,000

Length 775’ 725’ 728’ 728’ 728’

Width 92’ 108’ 102’ 106’ 108’

Draft 32’ 32’ 31’ 32’ 32’

Speed 31.5 knots 30 knots 27 knots 30 knots 27 kts

Armament 9-14" (3x3) 8-14" (4x2) 8-16”/45(4x2) 8-14”/50 (2x4) 12-14”/50 (3x4)

16-5” (8X2) 16-5” (4x2) 14-5”/38(7x2) 20-5”/38 (10x2) 20-5” (10x2)

Armor belt: 12” 10” 12.75” 13.1” 11”

Deck/Splinter: 6”/5”(mag/eng) 5.5”/4”(M/E) 4.75/1” 5.5” 5.6”

Estimated cost $60 million $63 million $75million $70 million $75 million

These five designs marked important milestones in the development of the fast US battleship

culminating in the construction of the North Carolina. By June of 1933, Preliminary Design

delivered two battlecruiser designs (e.g. cruiser killers) to Admiral Pratt. The 12-12” design had

inferior armament, inferior armor but better torpedo protection. The 14” (CC1933) version’s

armor was mounted externally outside the machinery spaces and hung on the third torpedo

bulkhead over the magazines. This foreshadowed the SD/Iowa schema. She also suffered from a

‘wooded’ Q turret and an A turret with limited depression over the bow. This was the same

turret, machinery and aircraft arrangement as Scheme G of the proposed Brooklyn design. In a

stern chase, A turret would be firing at long range negating the limitations of the raised forecastle

while at short range, all 9 guns would be in action. Nevertheless, it could escort carriers, defeat

the pocket battleships and Japanese cruisers and were 5 knots faster than the Kongo.

In a displacement limited treaty environment and rapidly improving engineering plants, CC1933

was an excellent design, only potentially countered by the Hood. These models reflect a

continuing treaty environment limiting displacement. Any ‘Vanguard’ type rebuilds are only

viable in a treaty environment which freezes technology to that of 1920. Massive ships such as

Yamato and Montana eliminate much of the usefulness of rebuilds unless they have specified

functionality such as these cruiser killers.

Two models are “American Vanguards” where the four NV and PA ships are decommissioned to

contribute their triple 14” turrets to build four of these battlecruisers, a distinct improvement to

escort carriers or to intercept the Kongos. VIA allows you to build 3 more fast battleships with

four twin turrets from the Texas, New York and the leftover turrets from Oklahoma and Nevada.

Combined with building four of the A208 CA Scheme 3 Armored Cruisers with the turrets from

Wyoming and Arkansas, you will have replaced 7 old, less capable battleships with 11 fast, well-

armed, well armored ships that can defeat the Kongo’s. Ten years later Alaska filled the role

envisioned for these ships. This avoids the need to build the Alaskas saving $460m which should

nearly pay for the 11 new ships because of the savings on turrets and barbettes. It also means that

fast Iowas are not needed at $100m apiece.

By September 1934, US designers were able to use the new light-weight power plants, welding

and tightly constrained hulls to match the Hood. Scheme 1934-2 used a lengthened South

Dakota 1921, two WASP power plants and sufficient protection to provide an immune zone of

21,000 – 29,000 yds against a 16”/50 (a more powerful gun than any mounted by other navies).

These studies provided the US with detailed information to resist the British attempt to reduce

battleships to 25,000 tons. The Japanese announcement on March 1934 that she was abandoning

16


the treaty also served notice that small capital ships were not viable. This was an excellent design

that served as the basis for continuing studies. This author finds this a compelling ship matching

Bismarck in speed and armor and having a superior armament with 16” shells weighing 500

pounds more than Bismarck’s 15” shell.

IX-E created a ‘Kongo killer’ within the 35,000-ton limit. Like XVI, she had quadruple 14”

turrets (A146A), both mounted forward. The after turret was suppressed for additional machinery

space to enable her to achieve 30 knots as well as heavier armor than NC. Both forward turrets

were flush mounted and not superfiring, similar to the original NC design. You have your choice

with this model, install the original quad 14” turrets or follow the life cycle of the NC with the

quadruple 14” turrets replaced with triple 16” (A146B). The stack is mounted abaft two widely

separated rangefinder towers to give unhindered fire control coverage. The stern area is

completely cleared for aircraft operations and she could carry 6 planes similar to the July, 1934

design (9-14” guns at 30 knots). Despite the loss of a turret, this ship is fast, well armored and

with the super-heavy 16” shell could take on any of the Japanese treaty battleships including the

Nagato’s. You can also convert this model to either the IX which had one quad turret forward

and one aft or X which had 9x14” in 3 three-gun turrets.

XVI was the final scheme in the North Carolina design. The key design factor for XVI and the

NC, was the quadruple 14” turrets that could be replaced by triple 16” guns. This allowed for the

escalation of the firepower of this ship without changing the rest of the design. This also allowed

the ships to be ordered with 14” guns before the national elections and then converted to 16” after

the elections. Once the 16” were placed on the ships, the armor was insufficient to protect her

against her own size guns. Underwater protection was also suspect due to weight limitations and

the lack of knowledge of the size of the Japanese torpedo warheads. This used the same single fat

funnel as the Max BB and had mixed single and twin secondaries. Nevertheless, these were

successful ships which could hold their own against all other opponents with the exception of the

Yamato.

By December 1938, the Rainbow plan called for the following numbers of ships to support three

different strategic scenarios. The US ended up fighting the third one:

BB CV CA CL

Two Ocean Offense 40 18 41 67

Pacific offensive/Atlantic defensive 32 12 29 55

Pacific defensive/Atlantic Offensive 27 12 26 43

Built and saw significant war service 27(1) 21(2) 24 48 (3)

US ships lost during the war 2 5 7 3

Japanese ships lost during the war 11 10 18 21

1) Includes the two Alaskas, these could be counted the equivalent as 4 CAs

2) 9 CVLs counted as equivalent to 3 Essex class

3) 10 OMAHA, 9 BROOKLYN, 8 CLAA, 21 Cleveland

In summary, more carriers and fewer battleships and cruisers were needed. Since the Japanese

lost virtually their entire fleet, the largest of the US plans had roughly a 2.5/1 margin.

The following table estimates the composition of the US battleline had the battlecruisers been

built and/or WWII delayed. They have reduced building times because of the use of existing

turrets and barbettes and the fact that the tower assembly plans built for the New Mexico were

available. We assume that we will start by laying down the CCs in 1934 so they are completed

after 1/1/1937 thus keeping within the Washington Treaty. Totals available reflect

decommissioning and commissioning ships (including rearming Wyoming) and planned Japanese

17


ships; historical reflects Pearl Harbor losses. The 27 BBs by 1946 matches the minimum number

needed in a two-ocean war. American planners would have been worried between 1936-1939

where the margin would have been reduced but the Japanese were rebuilding also, thus

maintaining the US margin. The Japanese battlecruisers and Alaskas are not included.

Decommissioned ships are in red and rebuilds in green. We have speculated on the Montana

follow up design with our choice of the 65-8B. This plan exactly matches the number of

battleships needed was 27 for an Atlantic Offensive/Pacific Defensive war plan.

His

tori

cal

US

/Jap

an

Cap

ital

ship

s

To

t B

/CC

Av

aila

ble

Yea

r

21

kt

27

kt

31

+ k

ts

15/10 15/10 1934 WY CC7 15

15/10 15/10 1935 AZ CC8 15

15/9 14/9 1936 OK CC9 14

15/9 14/9 1937 PA

NC

WA

CC10 13 1

15/9 14/9 1938 NV SD

MA

12 2

15/9 15/9 1939 AL

IN

12 3

15/10 16/10 1940 IA

NJ

12 4

15/10 17/10 1941 CO

MT

NH

MO

WI

11 2 4

13/12 18/12 1942 MD

WV

OH

LA

ME

10 4 4

19/9 22/13 1943 TN

CA

Two-

65-8B

10 6 6

23/5 23/15 1944 MI

NM

ID

Two-

65-8B

9 6 8

25/4 24/17 1945 TX

NY

AR

WY

8 8 8

27/17 1946 8 11 8

29/17 1947 8 11 10

31/17 1948 8 11 12

. Decommissioned ships are in red and rebuilds in green.

18


A132 BB65A

The initial 1938 designs for a heavier, slower battleship to follow the Iowas substituted a South

Dakota power plant (130,000 shp) in an Iowa hull which allowed enough space for an additional

16” turret. The first two schemes kept the displacement the same as Iowa with the same

inadequate immune zone against the 2700 lb shell. This was fixed in Scheme 3 by increasing the

beam 6 feet and fitting heavier armor. This quickly grew to the Montana design because once the

beam exceeded that of the Panama Canal, there was no reason not to make it completely adequate

for torpedo protection.

These were important evolutionary designs for the Montana. They also represent an opportunity

for wargamers who build campaigns through the ‘purchase’ of ships based on tonnage. The 1939

schemes are fast, well-armed and adequately protected against any gun except the 18”/45 of the

Yamato. You can build almost three of them for two Yamato s (64,000 tons); 36 guns against 18,

72 rounds per minute against 27. These are winners in the light heavy-weight division.

BB65A (7/39) BB65A (9/39) BB65-Scheme 3 (1/40)

Displacement 45,435 tons 46,668 tons 52,500

Length 888’ 888’ 888’

Width 108’ 108’ 114’

Draft 36’ 36’ 36’

Speed 27 knots 27 knots 27 knots

Armament 12-16”/50 (4x3) 12-16”/50 (4x3) 12-16”/50 (4x3)

20-5”/38 (10x2) 20-5”/38 (10x2) 20-5”/38 (10x2)

Armor belt: 12.1” 12.1” 14.2

Deck: 5” 5” 5.5”

Immune Zone 24k – 28k 24k – 28k 18k-30k yds

19


A149 BB65A The American ‘D’

The debate surrounding the preliminary Iowa designs must have included some knowledge of the

recently completed Gibbs&Cox battleship design for the Russians. Gibbs served on the General

Board giving him access to preliminary designs and operational requirements. BB65C-6 (p.331

Garzke) had similar gun and armor characteristics but was narrower to pass through the Panama

Canal. Her shorter, narrower hull could not contain the same size power plant as the ‘D’ and she

was slower. She did have better armor than the Russian BB. BB65-Scheme 3 (p.334 Garzke)

was similar in protection and beam but slower and with a fourth turret. The wider hull can mount

the armor on the outside rather than the internal armor of the Iowa.

Captain Chantry, chief of Preliminary Design and architect of the South Dakota, was trying to

achieve increased firepower over that offered by the Iowa. The General Board was not

particularly happy that the extra 10,000 tons over the South Dakota only bought 6 knots of speed

and longer barrels with increased range. By keeping the number of turrets to three and reducing

hull length, Chantry was able to provide 10 or 11 guns on a 45,000-ton ship (weight preferred by

Admiral King) but all required at least one quadruple turret. The quadruple turret was not well

liked due to its’ weight and size. The General Board preferred four turrets which immediately

began escalating into the Montana design. Once you exceeded the Panama Canal limitations, you

might as well build a ship 120’ wide compared to 114’ and gain the extra torpedo protection.

This model is a is a formidable opponent for a Bismarck, Littorio and even the Yamato. You can

build it with either 3-3-4 or 4-3-4 (BB65C-4) turret configurations. It is entirely reasonable that if

you find 31 knots acceptable, better placed armor, but too wide a ship to fit through the Panama

Canal, you can build a well-balanced ship with increased firepower on 45,000 tons. Is the gain of

one or two 16” guns worth the loss of 2 knots?

Gibbs&Cox Project D BB65C-6 (7/39) BB65-Scheme 3 (1/40)


Length 840’ oa 800’ wl 800’ wl

Width 114’ 108’ 114’

Draft 33’ 36’ 36’


Armament 10-16”/50 (2x3,1x4) 10-16”/50 (2x3,1x4) 12-16”/50 (4x3)

20-5”/38 (10x2) 20-5”/38 (10x2) 20-5”/38 (10x2)

Armor belt: 13” 14.3” 14.2

Deck: 5” 5.5” 5.5”

Immune Zone 20k – 30k 18k-30k yds

20


A133 BB65(I)

Alright, you insist that you MUST have 18” guns on an Iowa hull. You don’t care that the 16”/50

is ballistically equal to the Japanese 18”/45. You want the 18”/48, 3850 lb shell and bragging

rights to be the baddest thing around. Question, why didn’t the Montana mount this weapon?

Designed at the same time as BB65A, this Iowa variant is a compelling ship. Thicker armor,

heavier main guns and the South Dakota power plant allow you to confidently sail against all

enemies. Your only drawback is the slower speed expected by trading heavier guns and armor

for engineering space and weight. Go get the Yamato! You can still build three of these for only

two Yamato’s.

But wait, there is more! BB65C had the same hull layout but 3 quadruple 16” turrets. The

advantage over BB65A was that she had a shorter armored citadel and less weight at the bow

making her more weatherly. This gives us 5 different Superior versions of the Iowa hull. If you

were responsible for the building program and could only build one variant, which would you

choose?

BB65(I) BB65A CA2D BB65C IOWA

Displacement 45,495 tons 45,435 tons 38,700 tons 43,800 t 45,000 t

Length 888’ 888’ 888’ 888’ 888’

Width 108’ 108’ 104’ 108’ 108’

Draft 35’ 36’ 36’ 38’

Speed 27.5 knots 27 kts 33 kts 27 kts 33 kts

Armament 9-18”/48 (3x3) 12-16”/50 (4x3) 12-12”/50 (4x3) 12-16”/40 (3x4) 9-16”/50

20-5”/38 (10x2) 20-5”/38 (10x2) 16-5”/38 (8x2) 20-5”/38 (10x2) 20-5”/38

Armor belt: 14.75” 12.1” 13” 14.75” 12.1”

Deck/upper:5.1”/1.5” 5.1” 5.1”/1.5” same

Immune Zone 16”/45 12k – 30k yds

16”/50 16k – 32k yds

18”/45 20k – 29k yds

A107 MONTANA 1944

The 1940 Vinson-Trammel Act authorized five 59,000-ton battleships. This must have terrified

the Japanese who were secretly building four 64,000-ton Yamato’s which they expected to be the

biggest and most powerful in the world. In a single bill, the US negated the Japanese advantage.

The Japanese already knew that the US had laid down ten treaty battleships giving the US 15 new

battleships, overwhelming Japan’s limited building capacity.

Arguably the most powerful battleships that had a reasonable chance to be built, these ships were

the culmination of US design. Even ships of this size were subject to limitations in speed,

gunnery or protection. Reverting to the slower speed of the earlier South Dakota and North

Carolina, Montana emphasized firepower and protection. Beam was increased with the

understanding that new 140-foot wide locks for the Panama Canal would be built allowing her to

transit from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Dozens of potential designs were considered before five

ships were authorized in 1940. Two were to be laid down in January 1941 but were suspended

due to a lack of steel.

The twelve 16”/50s allowed her to fire twice as many shells as the Yamato over any given time

period. They had equal ballistics to the Japanese 18”/45 so they gave nothing away in terms of

armor penetration. It was highly desired to carry a secondary armament of 12-6”/47 automatic

guns as mounted in the Worcester but this gun was not well enough developed. The battle of

Crete illustrated the danger of high-level bombing and a six-inch shell provided a better long

21


range solution to AA fire. The automatic 6”/47 was not well enough developed by 1941 so 20 -

5”/54 guns were substituted with 6 twin turrets mounted on the main deck to reduce top weight.

Numerous 40mm and 20mm guns would have completed her armament.

Armor protection was extremely complete. The wide beam allowed a 16” external belt sloped at

19º that did not reduce the water plane area below acceptable limits. An 8” internal belt on top of

the torpedo bulkhead provided additional protection against underwater hits. A 2” upper deck

would fuse any penetrating bombs or shells and the 6.2” main deck would prevent their

penetration. Explosions would have been contained outside the armor citadel. The immune zone

for these ships was 18,000 to 32,000 yards. The total weight of all protection including STS

splinter protection was a staggering 31,650 tons, more than half the displacement.

The broad beam allowed for additional anti-torpedo depth and departed from the other US fast

battleships that had large compartments spread across the entire breadth of the hull. The

machinery was now arranged in four boiler rooms against the outside bulkheads separated by

turbo generator compartments. Two engine rooms in the middle of the ship, similarly arranged as

in the older US turbo-electric battleships, drove the forward screws. Abaft the boiler rooms were

the two engine rooms driving the rear screws. Protected between the aft boiler and engine rooms

was one of the distillation plants plus other auxiliary machinery. Five torpedo bulkheads

separated the machinery from the hull.

Stern Bow

Port Aft

Engine

Boiler Boiler Dynamo

Turbogenerator

Boiler Boiler

Electrical

Space

Condenser

Dynamos

Distiller Port Inner

Engine

Distiller Starb Inner

Engine

Starboard

Aft Engine

Boiler Boiler Dynamo

Turbogenerator

Boiler Boiler

Despite her increased dimensions over the Iowa, there was insufficient space to install more

powerful machinery that would propel her beyond 28 knots. It would have been a challenge to

rearrange machinery to provide space for the large magazines had the automatic 6”/47 been

available.

War experience led to some redesign in 1942. A 3” upper deck would prevent 500-lb bombs

from penetrating while a reduction in the belt could provide enough additional deck armor to

prevent larger shells and bombs from penetrating. It seems odd that the Illinois and Kentucky

were laid down so late in the war when a superior design was available. Instead, the hull and

machinery layout was used to build the Midway class carriers that were a better long-term

investment.

Displacement 60,500 tons standard, 71,000 full load

Length 921’

Width 121’ (over the bulges)

Draft 36’

Speed 28 knots

Armament 12-16”/50(4x3)

20-5”/54 (10x2)

Armor belt: 16” + 8”

Deck: 6.2” + 2”

Turrets: 18” on 4.5” STS

22


A125 BB65D

This version of the large battleships that became the Montana conserved space and weight by

mounting the 16” rifles in quadruple turrets. Originally desired on an Iowa hull, it lacked the

volume necessary to support the firepower and protection desired. An Iowa hull did not provide

enough displacement to provide protection against her own battery. Moving to the larger

Montana resolved this problem. This also provided the space and weight necessary to mount the

6”/47 desired as a long-range AA battery.

Displacement 60,500 tons standard, 71,000 full load

Length 921’

Width 121’ (over the bulges)

Draft 36’

Speed 28 knots

Armament 12-16”/50(3x4)

12-6”/47 (6x2)

Armor belt: 16” + 8”

Deck: 6.2” + 2”

Turrets: 18” on 4.5” STS

A127 GEORGIA (MT II)

Only the three New Mexico’s and ‘Big Five’ were suitable for rebuilding to keep in the fleet. As

such, perhaps configured to a Maryland standard, they would have been invaluable for supporting

island hopping or convoy defense. This would mean at a minimum 19 new battleships would

need to be built. Either additional Montanas would need to be built or a successor designed.

Conjecture is that Montana successors would have mounted 18” guns. The 18”/48 was last

considered in April 1938 for the preliminary design of the Iowa (see A133 BB65(I)). American

designers were reluctant to build ships much larger than the Montana due to the cost and

consumption of resources needed for other ships. One way to mount 18” guns would be to

replace the triple 16” with twin 18”. Up-gunning to twin 18” would have been resembled the

Tennessee/Colorado situation in 1920. The 3850 lb shell and superior US shell design would

have made these battleships irresistible. It would have also meant a 33% reduction in number of

shells in a pattern compared to the 12-16”/50s.

It was felt that much longer-range AA fire was needed to counteract high level bombing. The

automatic twin 6”/47 being designed for Montana may have been finished for the follow-on class.

Volume of fire from the twin 6” was equivalent to the triple 6” using semi-cased ammunition.

The advantage was that it was suitable for long-range heavy AA fire. The twin 6”/47 are

considerably heavier than the 5”/54 which would have contributed to a displacement problem.

Replacing 3-16” barrels with 2-18” barrels would have saved marginal turret weight which would

not have compensated for the secondary armament. One incomplete study in March 1940 would

have been twin over triple turrets (Nevada style) giving her 10-18”, which would have been

considerably superior to the Yamato. Once again, for this to be effective, the hull would have to

be longer and/or wider.

An issue for all the do-it-yourself designers is that none of the above combinations would have

allowed enough remaining weight to upgrade the armor to resist the 18” shell. This would be

particularly true of the deck armor. Additional displacement for the armor would once again

require the ship to be longer or wider. Nevertheless, this version is packed with 4-twin guns and

12-6”/47 DP mounted on the main deck. As an alternative, you can combine the triple 16” from

Montana with the 6”/47 DP which resembled design 65B of September 1939.

23


A128 V IRGINIA (MT III)

If Virginia had been British, she would be named ‘Irresistible’

Preliminary Iowa (65I) designs included a 27 knot ship with 9-18” guns and sufficient armor for

an immune zone of 20k – 29k yards against the 18” shell. The requirement for high speed

eliminated the 18” gun as a potential weapon in the Iowa. As the Montana design matured,

BuOrd stuck with the 16”/50 because of the number that could be carried and the penetrating

power of the 16”/50 shell. However, BB65D with three quadruple 16” turrets were completely

interchangeable with triple 18” turrets. This model moves the entire superstructure aft to work in

three triple 18” turrets arranged as in Iowa. This would make it easier to free up centerline space

for auxiliary machinery thus creating space for the 6” magazines. It is far more likely that this

version could be built within the original Montana dimensions than the twin 18”.

The triple 16” turret weighed 1622 tons while a quad 16” weighed in at 2,064 tons. A triple 18”

turret would have been close to the quad 16” in weight. In addition to saving 400 tons in direct

turret weight, barbette and supporting structures would have been reduced. This would have

saved weight making it possible to use the same dimensions as the Montana while improving the

secondary guns and armor.

This ship makes an interesting contrast to the super-Yamato. Like the Montana vs. Yamato,

Virginia retains a considerable edge in number of shells in the broadside while giving away

nothing in armor penetration. Instead of increasing the upper deck by 1” as in the Montana 1942,

the main deck could be increased to 7.2 inches in an effort to protect against the 20” shell. In

24


addition, the reduction of the secondary belt could also be used to further strengthen vertical

protection.

The exciting news for the do-it-yourself designers is that with these proposed models, you can

mix and match hulls and parts to create a variety of Montana successors. Another variation is the

quadruple 16” which would resemble Design 65D of September 1939 (available as A125). When

considering all the issue surrounding compromise in armament, speed and armor, the original

Montana design stands up well to all these versions and foreign battleships. While impossible to

accurately predict what battleship successors may be have been built, all these configurations

were sketch designs considered by the General Board.

A141A/A1441B BB65-8

BB65-8 BB65-8B

Displacement 67,000 ~77,000

Length 1050’ 1050’

Width 120’ 122’

Draft 35’ 36’

Speed 33 knots 32 knots

Armament 12-16”/50 (4x3) 12-18”/48 (4x3)

20-5”/54 (10x2) 12-6”/47 DP (6x2)

Armor Belt: 15.75” @ 19 degrees 16” @ 19 degrees

Deck: Main 6.2”, upper 1.5” Main 6.2”, upper 1.5”

BB65-8 was designed in January 1940 along with the other Montana variants which resulted in

the smaller Montana design. This incredibly large ship was designed with the new canal locks in

mind. Their extraordinary length was required because of the size of the machinery

compartments needed to generate 366,000 shp to achieve 33 knots. This would be essentially

TWO (!) Montana power plants driving 4 shafts requiring much more hull volume than was

available. Instead, this would have been a turbo-electric drive installation that would have had

the further advantage of extensive subdivision similar to the earlier TED battleships and

battlecruisers. This was considered much too expensive and the smaller MT was finally approved

although never laid down.

Conjecture and extrapolation lead to BB65-B. If there was to be a successor to Montana, what

would they have looked like? Once foreign capabilities such as Yamato or “H” are discovered,

would an expensive battleship like Montana be approved without an apparent increase in

firepower? The next class would need to be far superior in capability. A minimum 30 knots was

needed and there were many objections that all of the designs only gained one 3x16” turret and

some extra deck armor over the Iowa. BB65-8 is the starting point for a proposed successor;

BB65-8B is the obvious next step in the design of these ships. Ten 65-ton 5”/54 turrets are traded

for six 240 ton automatic 6”/47 turrets, consistent with alternate Montana designs by the navy.

The main battery is upgraded to 18”, two feet more beam, another foot of draft, and reduced main

battery shell count yields an incredibly powerful and fast battleship. Two of these would

certainly be enough to contain an H44, if they can find a place to dock for provisioning.

25


A150 A151 A152

Kentucky BBAA Iowa (CIP) Illinois (BBG)


Length 888’ 888’ 888’

Width 108’ 108’ 108’

Draft 36’ 36’ 36’

Speed 33 knots 33 kts 33 kts

Armament 12-8”/55 (3x4) 9-16”/50 (3x3) 6-16”/50 (2x3)

10-5”/54 (10x1) 20-5”/38 (10x2) 12-5”/38 (6x2)

Armor belt: 12.1” 12.1” 12.1”

Deck/upper: 5.1”/1.5” 5.1”/1.5” 5.1”/1.5”

These models represent further modification of the Iowa class battleships. Iowa (CIP)

reflects the King/Nimitz board CIP (Class Improvement Plan) recommendations to

modify the ships to have continuous AA coverage over the bow and stern with 5” fire,

similar to US cruisers. This would have required moving the superstructures, ‘trunking’

the funnel, and moving the 5” guns. This model also reflects the replacement of the

40mm AA with twin 3”/50 (Project SCB-74E) such as those on the Des Moines and

Worcester class cruisers.

Kentucky was finished with respect to machinery, barbettes and armor. As such,

converting her to something else would have required an extensive rebuild. However,

she is the perfect candidate for the SAM-N-8 Zeus, also known as Zeus I, a project by the

Naval Ordnance Laboratory to develop a guided anti-aircraft artillery shell fired from

8”/55 smoothbore rifles. This would have negated the possibility of shore bombardment

with conventional rounds.

Zeus was a 4-inch, 72-pound shell fitted with stabilizing fins, a course-correction rocket

and fired as a sabot from the 8-inch gun. It was estimated that it had twelve times the

probability of destroying a target at 5,000 yards as a 5” shell and what the 5” shell could

destroy at 5,000 yards, the Zeus could destroy at 15,000 yards. This was a weapon built

with the Kamikazes in mind.

Test firings began in 1948 but it was overtaken by advances in guided missile technology

and cancelled in 1950. Project SCB19 replaces Kentucky’s 3x16” guns with 4x8”

automated turrets using the technology of the Des Moines. In addition, she carries the

single 5”/54 used in the Mitscher class DLs, planned in the late 1940’s.

Illinois represents a missile armed battleship which was planned on-and-off again from

1955 to 1958. Similar to cruiser conversions of her era, her larger size allows for more

rounds to be carried and more spacious handling rooms to prepare the missiles for launch.

Two Talos launchers aft (320 missiles) and four Tartar missile launchers amidships (168

missiles) are configured with a reduction in 5”/38. In 1956 the BBG was to be armed

with Regulus II missiles and by 1958 these were replaced by Polaris. The unfinished hull

of the Illinois lingered until 1958 and could have been more easily modified for missiles

than the Kentucky.

26


A145 IOWA with a TILMAN layout

Iowa/Tillman Tillman 1938A (3/38) BB65-5


Length 975’ 975’ 988’ 958’

Width 108’ 108’ 108’ 118”

Draft 36’ 33’ 38’ 35’

Speed 28 knots 25 knots 32.5 knots 28 knots

Armament 15-16”/50 (4x3) 15-18”/50 (5x3) 12-16”/50 (4x3) 12-16 »/50 (4x3)

16-5”/38 (8x2) 21-6"/50 12-6"/47 (6x2) 20-5"/54 (10x2)

Armor belt: 12.1” 16” 12.6” 15.75”

Deck: 6.2” 5” 5.0” 6.2”

Turrets: 19” 21” 18”

Immune Zone 24k – 32k 24k – 28k 18k-30k yds 18k-32k

At Nauticus in Norfolk, you can attend an interactive session where you decide if you will build

another Iowa or a more desired Montana. Due to the requirement to utilize the Panama Canal,

you must artificially choose the Iowa. But, could you build something more powerful than Iowa

and still transit the canal? An updated version of the Tillman? If BB65A (model A132, an early

Iowa) required 10,000 tons to add a fourth turret to an expanded South Dakota, could another

10,000 tons add a FIFTH turret? Unfortunately, proposed sketches do not adequately consider

the limitations of building such a ship. Despite the original Tillman and your ship being of the

same rough dimensions, there are significant differences with weight, hull volume and buoyancy.

There are at least two proposed sketches that will serve as the starting point for our design, 1938A

(Friedman, p. 310), nearly the exact hull size we need and BB65-5 (Friedman, p. 336).

• Iowa’s hull form is significantly different than Tillman. It is finer at each end to maximize

speed. Tillman has a blunter form to support her turrets and heavier armor and 8 knots less

speed as a consequence.

• Tillman’s turrets are closer to the end of the ship due to her blunt form and have adequate

buoyancy to support them.

• Iowa’s forward turret cannot be moved any further forward due to the narrowing of the bow.

• Iowa’s stern turret cannot be moved further astern because of the sloping of the hull between

the turret and the stern.

• To maintain the capability of traversing the Panama Canal, only 100 feet of hull can be added

between these existing turrets and no wider than 108’

We are attempting to add 3-16” guns in a 1700-ton turret to the same sized hull as 1938A.

Adding a turret consumes deck space requiring the ship to have a South Dakota superstructure.

The distance between Iowa’s Iowa/Tillman’s #2 and #3 turrets is identical meaning there is

sufficient space for the Iowa power plant. However, there is probably not sufficient weight.

Either Alaska/Essex 150,000 shp power plant or the 172,000 shp power plant could be utilized

which would enable this ship to maintain 28 knots. Reducing the 2.5” splinter deck to 5/8” (as in

the other US battleships) provides 1.2” to increase the deck armor from 5” to 6.2” increasing the

immune zone from 24k-28k to 24k-32k. The other 5/8” is used to compensate for ammunition.

Compared to the larger Montana, this ship is 54 feet longer, 13 feet narrower, has roughly the

same speed and gains an extra turret at the expense of armor. It is unlikely to weigh much less

than the Montana.

This is the WWII version of the Agincourt; long, majestic, overwhelming fire power and less

armor than her contemporaries. This ship would drop thirty (!) shells/minute on a target. It is not

unreasonable to expect 10% hits which could mean 20 hits in 7 minutes. Experience with

Lutzow, Seydlitz, Derfflinger, Kirishima, Bismarck and Scharnhorst was that 20 hits maximum

27


renders the ship ‘hors de combat’ even if not sunk. For the wargamer, do you want the armor of

the Montana or the firepower of the Iowa, Tillman style?

A142 IOWA with Flight Deck

Displacement 45,000 tons

Length 888’

Width 108’

Draft 36’

Speed 33 knots

Armament 6-16”/50 (2x3)

4-5”/38 (2x2)

2 Mk41 61 cell VLS totaling 122 missiles

4 CIWS

Armor belt: 12.1”

Deck: 5”

No other capital ships have survived as long or have had as many ideas on how to be used as the

Iowas. Their size, speed and survivability have generated variations to be used as troop

transports, missile carriers and hybrids with a flight deck. Six different Phase II plans were

created with one having a flight deck and 12 AV-8B Harriers. Challenges to configuring an Iowa

in this fashion have been:

• Blast pressure from the 16” guns interferes with missile launchers and life rafts

• The proposed missile farms don’t take into account the location of X barbette nor the

compartments below the farm. In many cases this placed the farm in the middle of the

proposed hangar!

• A Mk 41 61-cell VLS measures 29’ x 27’ x 25’ deep. It weighs 230 tons with missiles and

requires pumping facilities of over 1000 gallons/minute for fire suppression. The existing

ABL with four missiles weighs 33 tons trading off sufficient topweight of 8 ABLs for one

VLS.

• Replacing the twin 5”/38 with 5”/54, 6”/55 or Mk48 8”/55 is difficult without substantial

changes and costs to the barbettes or magazines

• Limited missile guidance capability considerably reduces AA effectiveness

• Trunking of the funnels would be expensive while offsetting the after funnel would clear the

flight deck

Our model attempts to take all of these ideas into account by

1. Providing Aegis for the weapons system, including Mk51 Guidance

2. Providing a missile farm that doesn’t interfere with the flight deck or X Barbette. Mimicking

the Peripheral Vertical Launch System, their location eliminates the use of hull space,

increasing the safety of the ship from the loss of the missile battery and the loss of the ship in

the case of a magazine explosion. Located above the main deck amidships, and armored to

direct the force of the explosion outward, vital ship systems are protected.

3. Reducing bow trim and displacement by the removal of the armored control tower. This

helps offset the removal of X turret

4. Removing four 5”/38 mounts saving a total of 240 tons, the weight of the second VLS

5. Providing a longer flight deck by eliminating the after control positions

6. Providing Landing Craft for a company of Marines

7. Assumed to be equipped with AV8-B Harriers, SH60 and V-22 Osprey. With the 85’ wing

spread of the Osprey, insufficient flight deck width would exist for a rolling take off,

28


reducing her lift capacity by 7,500 lbs. However, if you want to offset the after stack to

starboard, you will create the necessary flight deck width.

8. While not visible on a model but relatively cheap, add to the 60lb STS main deck sufficient

thickness of STS to make up the difference between the loss of X turret and the addition of

the flight deck. This would provide protection to the ship below the hangar in case of any

hangar explosions.

Incorporating extensive flight operations in an Iowa is possible but it does reduce the protected

nature of the obsolescent battleship by introducing flammable aviation fuel and an unprotected

flight deck and hangar area. On the other hand, you achieve what the Russians were not able to

do with their large flight-deck cruisers and heavily armed carriers; create a single ship that can be

independent, self-sufficient and irresistible. And no matter what, this is cheaper than any of the

Navy’s current CG(X) which are expensive, vulnerable, under-armed and ugly.

29


A205 CA2D

A206 1940 Sketch #2, ‘Super Baltimore’

A207 CAC

A411 CL Scheme 1, ‘Super Cleveland’

The collapse of the Washington treaty allowed US designers free reign to design adequate sized

cruisers to meet the fleets’ needs. This led to the ‘unlimited’ designs of the Alaska, Worcester,

and Des Moines. There existed the very definite need for a super cruiser to provide an effective

counter to the treaty cruisers, particularly as carrier escorts. This required a larger ship with

overwhelming firepower, high speed and effective armor. Dozens of designs were studied and all

of them had ‘Spring Style’ design sketches presented to the General Board. All of the Superior

ships are built to the design sketches.

Also at this time the US developed their new 12”/50 with a heavy 1140 lb shell. This was an

excellent weapon with superior ballistics and penetration than the German 11”/55, the British

15”/42 and 14”/45, and the Japanese 14” and 16” guns. (Imagine the Vanguard with 12-12”?!)

At the high end of the spectrum was CA2D of January 1940. This heavy battlecruiser was built

on an Iowa hull and power plant with an external armor belt. Fast and well-armed, it would have

overwhelmed any cruiser and most battleships. Unfortunately, it cost nearly the same as an Iowa

(@$100 million) and required the same building resources. It simply could not be afforded. As

originally designed it contained the lower fire controls associated with cruiser design and not the

tower fore mast of the Alaska. The Superior model is built with the tower fore mast which

provided long range fire control consistent with the long range 12” gun. CA2D was originally

thought to cost $80 million but the smaller Alaska cost $74 million, 15% more than originally

projected, thus making the projected CA2D cost about $90 million.

The fall of France finally created a sense of urgency with the Navy and Congress. Remember

that the minimum cruisers needed were 26 CAs and 43 CLs. This meant that at least 8 CAs and

26 CLs needed to be built and this assumes the ten Omahas from 1920 were still effective. Hull,

machinery and turret weights and volumes were all well known, leading to many similar designs

in a ‘mix and match’ process. The May 1940 program prior to the fall of France funded four

30


Clevelands (laid down in 1940) with another twelve laid down in 1941 (5 were completed as

carriers). The first 4 Baltimores were ordered in July 1940 but not laid down until between May

1941 and October 1941. Much of the fleet that defeated the Japanese was laid down BEFORE

Pearl Harbor.

Prior to the Clevelands and Baltimores being laid down, the General Board wanted their

successors to be faster, better protected ships; they did not want to perpetuate barely adequate

designs based on the treaty cruisers. The Clevelands were still built to the prewar 10,000-ton

limit and lacked weight capacity for additional AA guns, machinery or radar. The 30% increase

in the 13,000-ton Baltimores was the minimum needed. CL Scheme 1 (Springstyle S-511-19)

and CL Scheme 2 of July 1940 placed a Cleveland armament on a Baltimore hull and returned

torpedoes to a cruiser armament. Light cruiser Scheme 1 had the aircraft arrangements aft while

Scheme 2 had the aircraft arrangements amidships and hull cut down aft like CA-B and CA-C.

Deck and hull armor was thicker than the Cleveland and the design in general was more robust.

She could fire 8 rounds/min/barrel of the new 141lb shell.

Better heavy cruiser designs preceded and paralleled CL Scheme 1 and 2. The February 1940 CA

Scheme #2 (S-511-14, Spring Style (flush deck and aircraft aft) and Type M (10-10” and favored

by the General Board) were replaced in July 1940 with a new CA-A, B, and C, all having the

same protection scheme and 8 torpedo tubes. The 1940 CA Scheme #2 was financially attractive,

increasing the Baltimore main battery by 1/3 while only being 2,000 tons heavier. This was a

well-balanced ship that had reached the hull limits of utilizing the 120,000shp power plant to

maintain 33 knots. As you can see on the model, this is a very crowded ship.

The July 1940 CA-A was similar in size to the April version but had only 9-8” guns compared to

the earlier ship’s 12-8” but better protection as can be seen in the table comparing A206 and

A207. CA-B’s hull had midship’s aircraft arrangements and a cut-down hull aft. Designed on an

Alaska sized hull was the CAC with 12-8” guns. This was a powerful ship with a good immune

zone against cruisers, but the armament was not overwhelming. Like CA-B the hull was stepped

abaft the third turret and aircraft arrangements were amidships. This was a downsized design of a

March 1938 24,100-ton cruiser which had 13’ more beam, torpedo bulkheads, aircraft aft and 35

knot speed.

Despite the desire by the General Board to build bigger and better ships, the 70% expansion

funded by the Two Ocean Navy program after France fell called for four more Baltimore’s and 19

Cleveland’s. The 690 ship FY43-44 programs approved in August 1942 provided 17 more CAs

and 16 CLs. Quantity was now more important than quality. In total, 27 Cleveland/Fargos (and

9 CVLs) and 16 Baltimore/Oregon City were completed, many of them remaining in service for

30 years.

The outcome of all these studies was that a very large ship (CA2D) was unaffordable. A 20,000 –

24,000-ton ship with 12-8” or 6-12” would not be as good as adding 3,000 tons and giving her 9-

12” (Alaska), particularly in weight of fire. For cruisers, by building automatic 8” guns, you

could fire 2.5 times as many 8” shells with Des Moines compared to the 20,000-ton CA-C. By

comparison, an Iowa could fire 48,600 lb/minute and Baltimore 9,045 lb/minute.

Despite their expense, these studies led to the conclusion that the Alaska and Des Moines

represented the best value for the tonnage and money. If the war in Europe had not been raging,

perhaps the expensive Alaska or Des Moines would not have been built. Only the US had the

luxury of affording very expensive ships. As a comparison, Brooklyn cost $25 million and

Cleveland cost $34 million. CL1 and CA Scheme #3 have been built with improved 40mm AA

as they might have appeared in the Pacific. In addition, they take into account the increased

topweight of AA and radar and have the waist 5” guns lowered to the main deck.

31


A205 A206 A207 A411 A201 A312

CA2D CA 1940 #2 CAC CLScheme1 Alaska Des Moines

Date Jan, 1940 Feb, 1940 July, 1940 July, 1940 Jan, 1941 Nov, 1943

Displace tons 38,700 15,750 20,000 13,300 27,500 19,930

Length 888’ 716’ 808’ 680’ 808’ 716’

Width 104’ 72’ 77’ 68’ 90’ 26’

Draft 24’ 25’ 22’ 31’ 32’

Speed 33 knots 33 knots 33 knots 34 knots 32 knots 32 knots

Armament 12-12”/50

16-5”/38

16-1.1”

12-8”/55

12-5”/38

8-21”TT

12-8”/55

12-5”/38

8-21”TT

12-6”/47

12-5”/38

8-21”TT

9-12”/50

12-5”/38

56-40mm

9-8”/55

12-5”/38

24-3”/50

Armor belt 13” 5.7” 7.6” 5.7” 9.5”@10° 6”

Deck(up/main) 1.2”/2.5” 1.2”/3” 1.2”/2.5” 1.4”/4.25” 1”/3.5”

Immune zone 18k-

26k*12”

15k-24k*8” 12k-30k*8”

19k-

23k*12”

Rounds/Min 36 36 36 96 27 90!

Weight/Min 41,040 12,060 12,060 18,036 30,780 30,150

Cost $ 90 million 74 million 48 million

This is an alternative building schedule for the CLs and CAs built by the US. The same number

of CL #1 and CA #2 replace the follow-on Cleveland and Baltimore but creates more survivable

ships. Clevelands are capped at 15 and Baltimores capped at the initial production run of 4.

‘40 ‘41 ‘42 ‘43 ‘44 ‘45

4 Cleveland

2 Cleveland (#1)

5 Cleveland (#2)

1 Cleveland (#3)

3 Cleveland

7 Cleveland (#4)

2 Cleveland (#5)

2 Fargo (#5)

4 Baltimore

4 Baltimore (#6)

6 Baltimore (#7)

3 Baltimore (#7)

7 CL #1 (#4)

4 CL #1 (#5)

4 CA #2 (#6)

6 CA #2 (#7)

#1 plus 2 Cleveland completed as CVLs



#4 replaces 7 Cleveland s with CL1 and caps the Cleveland s at 15 built

#5 replaces 2 Cleveland and 2 Fargo with 4 CL1

#6 replaces 4 Baltimore laid down in 1943 but take an extra 3 months to complete

#7 replaces 6 Baltimore but take an extra 3 months to complete. Due to the larger size of

CA2, the last 3 Baltimores are not replaced.

Total built now include 4 Baltimores, 8 CLAA (not depicted), 15 Clevelands, 11 CL1, and 10

CA2 totaling 48 cruisers plus 37 prewar cruisers, 18 more than the minimum needed for a Pacific

defensive campaign

32


A208 CA, Scheme 3, A210 CA ‘M’

This fascinating look at cruisers envisioned ‘convertibles’ where ships like CAC would substitute

twin 12” for 8” turrets 1,2 and 4. If other countries started building ‘super cruisers’, this

accommodated the possibility of growth while not starting a spiraling cruiser race. However, it

was not really convertible without rebuilding the ship. One issue is that the cruisers would trim 2

feet at the bow because of the lack of a fourth turret aft.

Scheme ‘M’ was preferred by the General Board because it would have been able to put 5-10”

guns on two different targets. It completely outclassed the German pocket battleships and was

thought to be a match for the feared Japanese pocket battleships. The 660lb 10” would have also

been a threat to the lightly armored Kongo’S. Armor was proof against the 8” shell and she had

an immune zone of 15k-24k yards against the German 11” shell. Unfortunately, the 10” gun only

existed on the drawing boards.

Scheme #3 with a dedicated 6-12” would be an effective ‘cruiser killer’ with two having an

excellent chance against Scharnhorst. It would also be effective against the feared Japanese

‘pocket battleships’. The choices were between a large, balanced 12” gun ship (CA2 series which

became the Alaska), a balanced CA with 12 8” guns making many hits (CAC), and this

compromise which had the 12” guns but only protection against the 8” shell. It would have been

possible to build 4 of these using the 12” guns of the ARKANSAS and Wyoming. The barbettes

for both the 2x12” of the AR and the 3x8” of Des Moines wer24’ in diameter and the AR turret

weighed 491 tons against the Des Moines 451 tons, very interchangeable.

CAIII CA3 CA M

Date March, 1940 June, 1940 June, 1940

Displacement 20,000 tons 17,300 tons 22,500 tons

Length 735’ 710’ 735’

Width 78’ 74’ 82

Draft 25’ 24.5’ 26’

Speed 34.4 knots 33.2 33.5

Armament 6-12”/50” 6-12” (3x2) 10-10” (2x2,2x3)

12-5”/38 12-5”/38 12-5”/38

16-1.1” 16-1.1”

33


A410 CL Scheme C, August 1941 and Scheme H January 1943

Scheme C & H Scheme IX 1938 Cleveland

Displacement 12,200 tons 8,200 10,000

Length 620’ 575 608’

Width 66’ 59 64’

Draft 23’ 20

Speed 33 knots 33knots 32 knots

Armor Belt 4” 5”

Armor Deck 1.5” upper, 5” main 2”

Armament 8-6”/47 DP (4x2) 10-6”/47DP 12-6”/47 (4x3)

44-40mm 12-5”/38 (6x2)

The genesis of this design was the 2nd London Treaty that restricted cruisers to 8,000 tons and 6”

guns. Concurrently with the Atlanta design, an automated twin 6” turret was proposed that would

allow an 8,000 ton cruiser to be built mounting four of the twin turrets. Eventually a fifth mount

was added and the gun mount design was completed in September, 1937. Two cruisers were

ordered under the 1940 program but WWII caused their cancellation with more Clevelands built

instead. However, the gun mount continued to be developed since it was also being considered

for the secondary battery of the battleships. The Worcesters designs starting in May 1941

included this smaller version built on a Cleveland sized hull. The automatic 6” guns would be

able to produce as many shells per minute as a Cleveland and be able to provide heavy AA fire at

a much longer range and height than the standard 5”/38. More than 250 crew could be eliminated

with the automation and lack of 5” guns. The most important aspect of the design was the thick

decks to protect against 1600lb bombs. Weight could be saved by moving the aircraft

arrangements amidships (like the Alaska) and gaining freeboard with a broken main deck aft.

However, this weakened the girder although it provided for better subdivision aft instead of the

large aircraft hanger. Scheme H of 1943 restored the aircraft aft on a flush deck hull aft like the

Brooklyn, Cleveland, and Baltimore. Scheme H was more costly on a gun-per-ton basis than the

Worcester, and since we were at war, money was no object. The gun designers finally got their

mount to sea after 10 years of work.

A510A/A510B August to December 1940 Armored Carriers

Date CV-A CV-B Midway


Length 900’ 900’ 900’

Width 111’ 104’ 113’

Draft 32’ 32’

SHP 172,000 150,000 212,000


Armament 9-8”/55 16-6”/47 (4x2, 8x1) 18-5”/54

8-5”/38 84-40mm

Aircraft 112 91 144

Armor FD 1” 1” 3.5”

HD 3.5” 3.5” 2”

AD 2” 2” 2”

Belt 7.6” 5” 7.6”

These were two of the competitors for the Midway design. As a group, these were fully armored

carriers evolved from the CV-9F of the ESSEX. Designed just after the first four Essex were laid

34


down, the focus was on a ship that could protect herself against cruisers as well as aircraft.

Several significant factors contributed to each design.

Power plants were only available in three sizes; Essex (150,000), Montana (172,000) and Iowa

(212,000). These ships approached a size where the Essex power plant was insufficient to

guarantee 30 knots wind over deck if there was any hull fouling. This essentially eliminated the

Essex plant requiring a much larger engine room. The Midway finally adopted the Iowa plant but

with far greater subdivision than even the Montana giving her very complete underwater

protection.

TB TB TB TB TB TB TB TB TB

ER PR BR BR BR BR BR BR Evap

AMR Evap SSTG ER PR SSTG ER Bow

ER PR BR BR BR BR BR BR AMR

TB TB TB TB TB TB TB TB TB

AMR – Aux Motor Room BR – Boiler Room Evap – Evaporators ER- Engines

SSTG Turbo Generators TB – Torpedo Bulkheads

Heavier aircraft required a thicker flight deck; the heavy deck armor led to a wider beam and

lower flight deck to the water to preserve stability. Armor was required to protect against bombs

and shell fire to prevent the loss of the ship like the Glorious. The lowered flight deck would

allow spray and even green water to sweep the bow eliminating the preference to use the forward

end of the flight deck as an aircraft park. This problem would not be fully resolved until the

advent of the angled flight deck. Finally, the experience of the Illustrious surviving six bombs

from the Luftwaffe a month later in January 1941 proved the value of armor. The bomb hit

locations were matched to similar locations to an Essex with the surprising conclusion that the

Essex would have survived. It was recommended that the hanger deck be divided by 1” STS

bulkheads to restrict the spread of damage. Further studies with increased armor lead to the final

design of the Midway.

An 8” armament was preferred but it led to a lighter 5” AA armament. This was felt acceptable

since the fighters should be her main defense against aircraft. It was not until 2 years later that

the battles in the Solomons revealed the inadequacies of the slow-firing 8” cruisers which led to

the design of the Des Moines with automatic 8” guns.

The automatic 6” gun was still in an early stage of development (not operational until 1949!) and

CVB could not mount it and transit the Panama Canal unless the single 6” guns in the deck

galleries were Single-Purpose. This model is predicated on having DP single and twin 6”/47,

hence the larger hull. Not only is this a superior anti-surface weapon due to the rounds-per-

minute but in an AA mode, they have 50% greater range than the 5”/38 and a 50% greater lethal

radius. The Midway’s 18 -5”/54 gave her both a good anti-surface and AA capability. Finally,

CV-A’s hull lead directly to the Midway design.

35


GREAT BRITAIN

B204 INVINCIBLE 1921 (G3)

Financially exhausted by the expenses of WWI, Britain began feeling pressed by her two allies’

plans for greatly expanded fleets. The new ships of the United States and Japan would dwarf

even the enormous Hood. Designed during 1920 and laid down in October 1921, all work

stopped after 3 weeks on the ways due to the Washington Treaty.

Unlike earlier British capital ships, their dimensions were only limited by the Panama and Suez

canals. Designs ranged from 43,750 to 53,100 tons. Eventually the G3 was approved in

December 1920 and unofficially assigned the “I” names of the first four British battlecruisers

(Invicible, Inflexible, Indomitable, Indefatigable). Design characteristics were:


Dimensions 856 x 106 x 33 feet

Speed 31 knots

Armament 9-16:/45 (3x3)

16-6”/50 (8x2)

6-4.7”/43 AA

40 2pdr (4x10)

2 – 24.5” Torpedo Tubes

Armor Belt: 14”/12” inclined at 18º over the magazines/machinery

Deck: 8”/4” over magazines/machinery

Turret 17” face, 8” roof

These ships were the first British dreadnoughts designed without any stern arcs of fire. X turret

was located between the bridge and after superstructure with only a 40º blind spot at the stern.

This allowed the belt and deck armor over the magazines to be maximized over a minimum

distance. The belt was internally sloped which allowed the beam to be maximized. Deck armor,

particularly over the magazines, was better than any of her contemporaries.

Compared against the Japanese and American ships, this design was better balanced. Triple

turrets saved weight, which was utilized for armor. Secondaries in turrets were an enormous

improvement over the casemate mounts. AA was exceptionally complete although the 2pdr

mount took 10 years to develop. Speed was only marginally less than the Lexington. This ship

introduced the tower superstructure that was used on subsequent new and rebuilt battleships.

Although cancelled, the turrets and general design were used as the basis of the Nelson class, the

only 16” battleships ever completed in Britain.

If an Achilles heel existed for these ships, it was in the deck armor over the machinery or the

shorter length of the belt. Experience with the Yamato and Musashi showed that extensive

flooding of unarmored spaces, particularly in the bow, could lead to loss of speed and

maneuverability and subsequently the ship. Nevertheless, these were arguably the best ships of

their time and would have held their own against any ships built in WWII.

36


B112 N3

Approved in November 1921, the N3 was the battleship companion to the Invincible G3) laid

down the previous month. Less than 50 feet shorter than their battlecruiser cousins, the N3 would

have a heavier main battery, heavier armor and be capable of 23 knots so they could operate with

the existing battle fleet. Armor arrangement was similar but the machinery arrangement was

switched with the boiler rooms aft of the engine rooms. This meant long shaft lengths which

could pose the same problems of opening the entire hull if hit by a torpedo as happened with the

Prince of Wales.

However, in July 1921 the Five Powers were invited to a disarmament conference that

commenced on November 12, 1921, the same month these ships were approved. On February 6,

1922 the Washington Conference confirmed the new treaty restrictions and the G3s were

cancelled a week later. The N3s were never ordered or laid down. Design characteristics were:


Dimensions 820 x 106 x 33 feet

Speed 23 knots

Armament 9-18:/45 (3x3)

16-6”/50 (8x2)

6-4.7”/43 AA

40 2pdr (4x10)

2 – 24.5” Torpedo Tubes

Armor Belt: 15”/13.5” inclined at 18º over the magazines/machinery

Deck: 8” over magazines/machinery

Turret 18” face, 8” roof

B113 BB1935 15A/B

B206 F3

Numerous design studies to replace the G3 (cancelled by the Washington Treaty) had been

completed in 1921 as part of the Nelson preliminary design. Design F3 envisioned a 15” armed

ship that could be reasonably well protected and achieve 28 knots. Alas, the “mine is bigger than

yours” syndrome in battleship guns dictated that the British had to accept 16” guns for the Nelson

condemning them to only 23 knots. This was unfortunate because the British lost the opportunity

to have a post-Washington Treaty fleet of 14 BBs (5 QE, 5 R, 4 Iron Duke) screened by a fast

wing of 28 knot ships (2 F3, Hood, 2 Renown, Tiger). This would have caused much angst

among the Japanese (Kongos at the time were only 26 knot) and the US (cancelled Lexingtons).

More importantly, the existence of a fast BB in 1936 could have allowed the British to take the

time to produce the 15A/B which would result in a total of 10 (5 15A, 2 F3, Hood, Renown,

Repulse) high speed 15” battleships broadly comparable but more numerous than Bismarck and

Littorio.

By the mid-1930s, the British were convinced they had to rearm due to increasing world tensions.

Unable to convince anyone that smaller battleships should be built, they studied the differences

between 30 and 27 knot ships armed with 14”, 15” or 16” guns. It was clear from the studies that

on either the 30 or 27 knot hulls, an armament of 15” guns provided the best balance of fire

power and left enough weight for good protection. Despite having 15 years to accept the best

balanced battleship design, the British still did not get it right; time constraints and the treaty

restrictions prompted hasty decisions leading to the inferior KGVs. An improvement to the KGV

would have been to use the quadruple 13” guns of the Dunkerque built under license or with a

trade agreement with the French. The public would have been convinced the 13” gun was

inferior despite it having better penetration powers than the British 14”, 15” or 16” guns.

37


Due to treaty considerations and the run-down condition of the armaments factories, the KGV

class was fitted with 14” guns. By contrast the Americans waited and were able to escalate to 16”

guns but at the expense of North Carolina being service ready a year after the KGV. The British

position proved correct; they didn’t have a year and needed the KGVs even sooner than they

became available. It is not clear if torpedo tubes were planned for these ships. They were for the

12” gunned small BBs. Therefore, they have been included but can be removed if you desire.

This ship happens to be a personal favorite of this author. A well balanced 30 knot ship could be

built on 35,000 tons. And you can build 6 of them for 5 Bismarck s.

F3 15A 15B Bismarck Littorio

Displacement 35,000 35,000 35,000 41,200 40,500

Dimensions 740 x106 x 29 770 x 104 x 31 770 x 104 x 31 820x118x31 780x108x34

Speed 28 30 27 30 30

Armament 9-15”/50 (3x3)

8-6”/50 (4x2)

32 – 2pdr (4x8)

9-15:/45 (3x3)

20-4.5” (10x2)

32- 2pdr (4x8)

10-21” TT

4 aircraft

9-15:/45 (3x3)

20-4.5” (10x2)

32- 2pdr (4x8)

10-21” TT

4 aircraft

8-15”/47(4x2)

12-5.9” (6x2)

16-4.1” (8x2)

16-37mm AA

4 aircraft

9-15”/50 (3x3)

12-6” (4x3)

12-3.5” (12x1)

20-37mm AA

3 aircraft

Armor belt

Armor deck*

Turret

12”

7”/3.25”mag/mac

16”

12.5”

5.25”

15”

14”

6”

15”

12.6”

5.7” (total)

14”

14.2”

6.7” (total)

15”

Hull weight

Machinery wgt

Armor wgt

Armament wgt

Gen Equipmnt

Fuel

Margin

13,500

4,100

9,970

5,400

850

4000

180

13,500

2,875

11,155

6,270

1,200

4,000

13,200

2,375

11,955

6,270

1,200

4,000

11,506

2,756

17,263

5,960

1,815

8,167

10,441

2,267

13,451

6,462

4,583

4,161

* German and Italian deck armor was in multiple layers and in the case of Littorio thinned at the

edges. British deck armor was in a single layer but lacked an upper deck layer (American design)

that would fuse shells or bombs.

B102 LION

These ships proved that less is not better. The British deliberately chose to limit displacement to

40,000 tons in a futile attempt to convince other powers to limit the size of their ships. Every

other power had already broken this limit on ships building or planned. However, this limit did

allow the Lion s to be able to be docked in additional ports compared to larger ships. Despite

these faults, they would have been valuable additions to a fleet that lost 5 capital ships during the

war with several more permanently crippled.

Successors to the King George V, they corrected the issue of an insufficient main armament. The

protection and propulsion scheme was nearly identical to the KGV, which proved to be

inadequate under war conditions. The armor scheme was good with the armor estimated to be

equivalent to American armor 25% thicker. Unfortunately, the planned underwater protection

scheme proved disastrous for the Prince of Wales. Despite being designed to withstand a 1000 lb

torpedo warhead, the POW’s hull was breached by a smaller warhead. Hatches between

bulkheads were warped causing massive flooding across the ship and loss of power. The

machinery was not as advanced as the Americans or Germans and they carried less than half the

fuel of the Americans or Germans. The lack of sheer at the bow meant that these ships would

have shipped a lot of water lowering their effective maximum speed in heavy weather.

Lion and Temeraire were laid down in 1939 with Conqueror and Thunderer to be laid down later

that year. Construction was not significantly advanced because it was not felt they could be

38


finished in time for the war and because of other more pressing construction. Two more were

projected under the 1940 estimates. Lion was redesigned in 1942 to improve underwater

protection, reducing belt armor over the machinery, increasing endurance and improving AA

defense. The most important change was to increase the bow height from 28 to 37 feet.

Superiors model of Lion 1942 can be converted to the earlier design by bending the bow down

until there is no sheer and then filing the waterline flat.

Battleships were still considered as part of a balanced fleet late in the war. The final design of the

Lion was significantly larger than previous ships. The turrets in particular were larger and

capable of faster firing.

Lion 1939 Lion 1942 Lion 1944 Super Lion

Displacement 40,550 tons 42,550 tons 56,500 48,500 tons

Length 793’ 793’ 830’ 850’

Width 105’ 108’ 115’ 110’

Draft 30’ 30’ 35’ 33’

Speed 30 knots 28.25 knots 26 knots

Armament 9-16”/45 (3x3) same same 12-16”/45 (4x3)

16-5.25”(8x2) same same 16-5.25” (8x2)

92 2pdr AA (10x8,3x4) 72 2pdr AA (9x8) same 84-2pdr

Armor belt: 14.7” 14.7” same 14.7”

Deck: 5.9” 5.9” same 5.9”

Turrets: 14.7” face, 6” roof same same

Lion and Super Lion engaged!

B111/B116 Super Lion (16E-38)

This was one of the Lion variations investigated in 1938. While it may have been too large and

expensive in 1938, it represents a logical next step in 1942. Two Lions each were programmed

for 1938, 1939 and 1940. By this time the trends in German, Japanese, French and Russian ships

were becoming known. Britain would have to increase the size of her ships to remain

competitive. This would have meant new docks while the beam would have precluded passing

through the Panama Canal.

39


These ships matched the size of the cancelled Invincibles of 1921. They had superior armament

at the expense of speed and to some extent, protection. Speed could not be improved without

increasing the size of the ship to house more powerful machinery.

These ships gave up 12,000 tons to the comparable Montana. On 80% of the Montana

displacement, they had an inferior main and secondary armament, speed, underwater protection

and armor. Despite this, superior numbers of shells would have leveled the playing field against

the Germans. However, they also represent the maximum effort an impoverished Britain could

afford to maintain her empire. It is also interesting to compare their characteristics against Lion

as redesigned in 1944 which was a larger ship with less armament. Improved weapons could

only be matched by increasing the proportion of the ship devoted to protection. B116 has the

superstructure replaced by a Vanguard style superstructure and suppresses the aircraft equipment.

B110 VANGUARD 1946

Last of the British battleships, desired before the war started but not finished until after the war

ended, Vanguard was the largest, best protected ship produced by Britain. Built with ‘off-the-

shelf’ components, she could have been finished much more quickly if needed.

Vanguard was first proposed in March 1939 using the turrets from the Glorious and Courageous.

Using the machinery, protection and endurance of the KGV, a new battleship could be made very

quickly. If this concept ship was successful, sisters could be built around the turrets of the

Revenge class battleships that were due for replacement. Like the Lion, Vanguard had the same

propulsion and radius issues and the torpedo bulkhead still had a step in it that reduced its

effectiveness. However, watertight and damage control effectiveness was considerably enhanced

by eliminating the many watertight hatches in the bulkheads and replacing them with watertight

scuttles in the overheads.

Displacement: 42,300 tons

Length 814’

Beam 108’’

Draft 34’

Speed 29.5 knots

Armament 8-15” /42 (4x2)

16-5.25” (8x2) dual purpose

73 – 40mm (10x6, 1x2, 11x1)

Armor Belt: 13.73/ 12.75” (magazines/machinery) tapered to 4”

Deck:5.9”/4.9” (magazines/machinery)

Turrets 12.75”/10.8”/6.9”/5.9” (face/side/back/roof)

Superior’s Vanguard is also built with ‘off-the-shelf’ components. This upgraded out-of-

production model uses the QE 15” turrets, KGV 5.25” turrets and new sextuple and single 40mm

AA. The hull has been upgraded with hatching, rafts and a visible armor belt.

As part of the ‘What-If?’ scenario of WWII starting five years later than it did, how would

Vanguard be used? A likely scenario would be a battlecruiser squadron based in Gibraltar where

it could help the French against the Italians or sortie into the Atlantic. Vanguard, a rebuilt Hood,

Renown and Repulse were individually superior to the German surface raiders including the OPQ

battlecruisers. As a squadron with air cover, they would have overwhelmed single German

battleships and provided a fast squadron to locate the H/Graf Zeppelin battle groups. It would

also have been logical for the Dunkerque and Strassbourg to be part of this battlecruiser squadron

while the French battleships engaged the Italian fleet.

40


B114 LION Hybrid

If the original Lion design proved that less is not better, this concept reduced her battleship

qualities even further. By definition, a hybrid attempts to combine the functions of two different

types of ship, one usually being an aircraft carrier, at the expense of not being as powerful as a

ship with ‘pure’ functions. The thinking was that for 1/3 of a BB you could get ½ of a CV. This

ship was proposed in 1941 as a way of providing fighter coverage and very limited strike

capability totaling only 14 aircraft. This ship was seen as very inferior to a battleship with an

unarmored hanger, unprotected uptakes and potential damage to the flight deck from the gun

blast. She sacrificed 1/3 of her firepower, gained virtually no strike capability, and offered a

larger target to the enemy. Since she could not be finished until 1945 at the earliest, and the

return on investment dubious, the idea was shelved.

Lion Hybrid


Length 800’

Width 112’

Draft 30’

Speed 28 knots

Armament 6-16”/45 (3x3)

16-5.25”(8x2)

64 2pdr AA (8x8)

12 fighters, 2 torpedo bombers

Armor belt: 13”

Deck: 5.9”

Turrets: 14.7” face, 6” roof

41


B115 RODNEY (planned rebuild 1936)

As with all the British battleships, plans were drafted for rebuilding Rodney and Nelson as well as

Hood (B205). Alternatives included replacing the 6” with either 5.25” or 4.5” secondaries and a

catapult either on ‘X’ turret or on the aft shelter deck (Raven & Roberts, p. 264). These 1936

plans could not have been carried out until 1940 at the earliest and by that time they were

desperately needed for the war. The 5.25” turret was in short supply for both the DIDO’s and

KGV’s leaving the 4.5” as the most likely armament. This model shows her with hangers on

either side of the funnel similar to Warspite or QE as rebuilt with boats and cranes on the hanger

and the DIV catapult aft of the hanger. The 4.5” guns are arranged as in QE as rebuilt. Replacing

the engines as in the other British battleships may not have been effective since she only had two

screws, limiting her to 60,000 SHP, probably not enough to increase speed

Displacement 35,000

Length 710’

Width 106’

Draft 30’

Speed 23 knots

Armament 9-16”/45 (3x3)

20-4.5” DP (10x2)

48 2pdr AA (5x8, 2x4)

Armor belt: 14”

Deck: 6.25” (magazines), 3.75” (machinery)

Turrets: 16” face, 7.25” roof

B205 HOOD 1944

HOOD prowling the sea lanes for the new German fleet

42


WWII interrupted Britain’s plans to modernize her battle fleet. For the Nelson and Rodney, this

meant that their careers would be cut short because they could not be spared for extensive

modernization. For the Hood, the results were far more tragic. It was originally thought that

inadequately armored magazines and exposed torpedo warheads led to her rapid destruction by

the Bismarck. Recent dives on the wreck suggest that her after magazines were pierced by a

diving shell (similar to the PRINCE OF WALES in the same action). The forward magazine

could have exploded when the rapid list and potential electrical fires ignited the powder in the

trays.

No plans exist of the proposed changes to the Hood. Proposals developed in 1938 called for the

following:

1. Install new main and auxiliary machinery; Weight saved would be used to increase

the deck armor.

2. Remove the conning tower and install new bridges

3. Rearrange the protection. The best of the schemes was to delete the upper 5” belt,

leave the 12” and 7” belts in place, and increase the deck armor to 5” over the

magazines and 4” over the machinery.

4. Replace the secondaries with 16 – 5.25” (8x2)

5. Increase the AA armament to 6 octuple 2pdr

6. Install a cross deck DIIIH catapult similar to the KGV

7. Remove the torpedo tubes

Several proposed drawings have appeared in Breyer’s Battleships and Battlecruisers and in

Warship International. None of these is completely satisfactory because they don’t take into

account the machinery and magazine arrangements or the need for secondary fire on fore and aft

(four-corner) bearings. Superior’s Hood 1944 is modeled on British practice with their most

recently modernized ships, the Queen Elizabeth and Renown, and the features of the KGV class.

As completed, she bears a superficial resemblance to the Vanguard with twin funnels, modern

superstructure and two main turrets fore and aft.

The forward and aft control towers have been replaced by structures that resemble the KGV.

Aircraft hangers have been installed next to the after funnel as in KGV and Renown. A DIIIH

catapult is located on the main deck between the hangers and after superstructure.

The 24 boilers located in four boiler rooms would have been replaced with 8 Admiralty 3-drum

boilers. The boiler rooms would have been reduced in size to provide more extensive

subdivision. The engine rooms would have also been subdivided as in Warspite, Renown and

Queen Elizabeth to provide better subdivision and reduce vulnerability to single hits. This

reclaiming of space was vital for installing the new secondary armament while the new

machinery would have improved Hood’s speed to that of when she was first commissioned.

Lying between the forward boiler room and 15” magazines were the 5.5” magazines. Space

gained from the boiler room and the 5.5” magazines would have been used as the forward 5.25”

magazines. The forward 5.25” guns would have been mounted forward of the first funnel directly

over boiler room one to take advantage of this magazine space. The after 5.25” turrets would

have been located in the area vacated by the 4” AA. The 4” and 5.5” magazines would have been

converted to serve the 5.25”.

The length and size of the Hood would have provided additional opportunities for AA gun

emplacement. Four 8x2pdr are mounted in the standard arrangement abreast the funnels. Length

aft would have allowed an 8x2pdr to replace the twin 4”AA while retaining the aft 8x2pdr on the

bandstand. Two 4x2pdr on the bridge wings would have given good coverage forward as in the

43


Howe and Anson. Twin 20mm would have completed the light armament. This would have

given Hood the best AA coverage of any of the British Battleships.

Tired of losing the Hood to the Bismarck in your war games? Take Bismarck on with the rebuilt

version as the British planned! See what 5” decks, higher speed; modernized 15” guns and new

fire control equipment do for you in the Battle of the Atlantic.

B306 British Planned Heavy Cruiser (Admiral Class)

At the outbreak of the war new large cruisers were desired. Free of treaty restrictions, the British

wanted ships that could catch and destroy the large German cruisers. The 9.2” (380lb) gun was

initially suggested but this would have created lead-time design problems and supply issues with

these being the only ships of this caliber. An immune zone of 14,600 to 24,000 yards against 8”

shell was sought. Another significant issue was that 2 Vanguards could be built instead of three

9.2” cruisers, a far better investment. Designs were off and on for several years with the

following characteristics.

Sept, 1939 Jan,1940 Jan, 1941 Mar, 1941 Oct, 1941

Displacement 22,000 tons 15,500 tons 15,000 tons 16,100 16,500

Length 700’ 670’ 650’ 670’ 670’

Width 84 77.5’ 77’ 79’ 80’

Speed 33 kts 33 knots 30.5 knots 32 32

Armament 12-9.2” (3x4) 9-8”/50 (3x3) 9-8”/50 (3x3) 9-8”/50 (3x3) 9-8”/50 (3x3)

12-4.5”(6x2) 12-4”(6x2) 12-4” (6x2) 8-4.5”(4x2) or 16-4” (8x2)

16 2pdr AA 16 2pdr AA 16-2pd (4x4) 16-2pdr (4x4) 40-2pdr (5x8)

Armor belt: 7” 6” 4.5” 4.5” 4.5”

Deck: 4” 3” 4” 4” 4”

Turrets: 6” face, 3” roof

The British laid down only 11 new cruisers after the beginning of the war. Construction of

destroyers, aircraft carriers and landing craft had a higher priority. This model is the 3x3 design

which was to mimic the KGV in appearance to cause misidentification. Design and construction

of a 9.2” design meant a five-year lead time which meant that the cruiser would probably not be

available before the end of the war. Compared to the slightly smaller Des Moines, the 9.2” design

could only fire half the number of shells with no greater penetration capability than the heavy US

8” (335lb). In addition, only 12 9.2”/50 naval barrels still existed although the British Army used

a similar weapon for coast defense. It is more likely that the cruiser would have had 9x8”. For

the very speculative naval architect, the Brits had 9 twin 13.5” turrets from the TIGER and IRON

DUKE in storage. This could have produced 3 fast armored cruisers with 6x13.5” each.

The final question in the design was one of secondary armament. The final 8” designs could

carry either 8-4.5” or 16-4”. The 4.5” was more effective against destroyers but the more

numerous 4” was superior against aircraft. Given the heavy losses to aircraft, the 4” would be

mounted in the four-corner arrangement similar to the British BBs. By the end of January 1942,

the question of building large 8” cruisers was shelved forever. An interesting alternative

suggested in November 1941 was to build repeat Belfasts with 8” armament. Finally, given that

the British requested plans for Cleveland as potential cruisers, one wonders why they also would

not pursue the Baltimore which was a superior design? One reason both US cruisers were able to

achieve their combination of armor and armament was the compact, light and powerful

machinery which was beyond British capabilities at that time.

44


D201 Dutch Battlecruisers 1047

Dutch naval power had ebbed considerably since her bitter rivalries with England in the 18th

century. Her colonial empire in the Pacific had survived but the light forces stationed there were

inadequate to resist the Japanese. Banking on the United States and British battle fleets to tie

down the Japanese battleships and battlecruisers, it seemed best to design ships that could defeat

the numerous Japanese heavy cruisers.

Development of three battlecruisers was begun in February 1939. German assistance was

requested in April 1939. Invasion of the Low Countries in May 1940 halted a year of design

studies that had produced plans for a battle cruiser with the following characteristics.

Displacement: 28,000 tons

Length 778’

Beam 98’

Draft 26’

Speed 34 knots

Armament 9-11” (3x3)

12-4.7” (6x2) dual purpose

14 – 40mm (7x2)

3 aircraft, one catapult

Armor Belt: 9.8” inclined at 10”

Deck:5.1” (total)

Sufficient to provide protection to 8” shells at ranges greater than 10,000 yds

Dimensionally equivalent to the Scharnhorst, these twin-funneled ships traded armor for speed.

The main armament would have been the superb German 11” gun but a low control tower would

have limited their effective range. Similar in size to the Alaska, the 1047 had significantly less

firepower, equivalent protection and superior speed. These would have been highly effective

against Japanese light forces but lacked the protection to take on even the modernized, elderly

Kongo’s. Given the history of the Pacific, the torpedo equipped Japanese cruisers would have

stood an even chance against these ships in a night action. Assuming the absence of air cover, if

the Dutch did manage to catch the Japanese during daylight hours, these ships would be highly

effective “cruiser killers”. Tired of trying to stem the Japanese tide with the De Ruyter and Java?

Try these proposed battlecruisers against the Japanese heavy cruisers!

45


France

F901 French NORMANDIE 1916

Plagued by the lack of large docks, the French navy examined innovative ways to increase the

firepower of their battleships yet maintain the same basic hull size. Only 35 feet in length

separated the Courbet, Bretagne and Normandie classes. The use of a quadruple turret would

give the NORMANDIE’s a broadside of 12-13.4” compared to 10-13.4” for the BRETAGNE and

10-12” for the Courbet. In addition, arcs of fire were improved with no restricted central or wing

turrets. Despite four of the class being launched by 1915, none were completed. However, their

machinery saw service in destroyers, the main guns mounted on rail cars and one, the Bearn,

became the first French aircraft carrier. Perhaps their most important legacy was the existence of

construction drawings for quadruple turrets that were used in both the DUNKERQUE and

RICHELIEU classes.


Length 578’

Width 89’

Draft 30’

Speed 21 knots

Armament 12-13.4”/45 (3x4)

24-5.5”/55 (24x1)

Armor belt: 11.8”

Deck: 4.7”

Turrets: 13.4”

46


F105 GASGOGNE

Alsace leads Gascogne in the North Atlantic

In 1926, the French navy began considering a battlecruiser capable of destroying the Washington

Treaty Cruisers. By 1930, these designs evolved into the DUNKERQUE class mounting two

quadruple 13” turrets forward. Design time was saved by utilizing the existing drawings for the

quadruple 13.4” turrets of the NORMANDIE class battleships of WWI. Four Richelieu class

battleships followed the DUNKERQUE’s with 8-15” guns in quadruple turrets. These excellent

ships were technically superior to the Littorio and Bismarck causing the British much anxiety

should they be captured by the Axis.

The fourth and last unit of the RICHELIEU was modified to improve firepower aft, reduce

vulnerability of the forward turrets and improve the AA arcs. Machinery and superstructure were

moved forward and B turret relocated aft. An outstanding feature of this ship was that all nine 6”

guns could bear on the broadside offering very heavy resistance to attacks by light cruisers and

destroyers. Considered by many to be superior to the Bismarck, the RICHELIEU class was an

outstanding combination of protection, firepower and speed. GASGOGNE was not laid down

due to the invasion of France.

47


F106 French ALSACE

Early in 1940, the French began design studies for a new class of ships. The escalation clause of

the Washington treaty was now in effect with the United States planning the 45,000-ton Iowa

while the British had laid down the 40,000 ton Lion. The French considered three different

designs:

40,000 tons, 9-15” (3x3) 42,500 tons, 9-16”(3x3) 45,000 tons, 12-15”(3x4)

These represented ship sizes based on both the British and US plans as well as a compromise ship

of 42,500 tons. However, since the French had not built a triple gun turret of such size before, a

considerable delay would have ensued. By using the existing quad 15” turret, the ALSACE

would have been able to be built more quickly. This was particularly important since existing

docks limited them to building no more than two battleships simultaneously. Secondary

armament could have included forward and aft mounted 3x6” turret and two wing turrets

allowing 9-6” to bear on any destroyers or cruisers. Additional boilers would have been added to

a lengthened engine room. This would have resembled the original engineering spaces for the

RICHELIEU that could allow for either a single or twin funnels.

The invasion of France eliminated any possibility that the ALSACE, NORMANDIE, FLANDRE

or BURGOGNE would ever be completed. These ships would have been more than a match for

the Bismarck or Littorio while the ‘H’ would have been outgunned 12 heavy guns to 8.

Compared to the Iowa, these ships saved precious centerline space by using ‘macks’ integrated

with fire control equipment. The French ships had a broader bow giving them better rough

weather capability than the Iowa. By contrast, they also had a narrower stern allowing less

complete torpedo protection around the aft turrets, propellers and rudders. Given the dimensions

of this ship and previous French experience with overweight ships, it is likely they could have

displaced about 48,000 tons.


Length 900’

Width 108’

Draft 31’

Speed 30 knots

Armament 12-15” (3x4)

12-6” (4x3)

16-3.9” (8x2)

32 – 37mm AA (8x4)

Armor Similar to RICHELIEU

48


F307 St. Louis

The French began studying replacements for the three PRIMAGUET class in 1939-40. They

wanted 3 cruisers that were superior to the HIPPER class in speed, armor and armament. This

necessitated a 50% increase in size over the ALGERIE, the last heavy cruiser completed, and one

of the best treaty cruisers built by any country. Several designs were suggested with some having

superior AA fire at the expense of catapults and aircraft. This model is of the C5 A3 with

somewhat reduced AA capability to add aircraft facilities. These ships would have introduced the

twin 37mm ACAD mounting with separate directors. Replacement of Duguay Trouin was

approved on 1 April 1940, but construction was never ordered.

Displacement: 14, 470 tons

Length: 662’

Width 66’

Draft 19’

Speed: 34 knots

Armament: 9-8” (3x3)

10-3.9” (5x2)

3 planes

Suggested Armor: belt 7.4”,

deck 3.4”,

turrets 3.8”

49


Germany

G925 Mackensen 1916

G906 L20 1918

Mackensen L20a Tosa South Dakota


Length 732’ 781’ 768’ 684’

Width 100’ 110’ 100’ 106’

Draft 30’ 30’ 31’ 33’

Speed 27 knots 26 knots 26.5 knots 23 knots

Armament 8-13.8”/45 (4x2) 8-16.5” (4x2) 10-16” 12-16”

14-5.9”/45 (14x1) 12-5.9” (12x1) 20-5.5” 16-6”

8-3.5” AA 8-3.5” AA 4-4.7”AA 4-5”AA

5-24” TT 3 24” TT 8-24” TT

Armor belt: 11.8” 13.8” 11” inclined 13.5”

Deck: 3” 2.4” 4” 6” total

Turrets: 11” 13.8” 14” 18”

Conning Tower: 11.8” 13.8” 18”

Germany built the world’s first fast battleship with the battlecruiser Von Der Tann (VDT) in 1910.

All the early German battlecruisers had armor reduced by 15% compared to the traditional

German battleships, slightly reduced armament (number of guns or size of guns) and speed was at

least 27 knots. Germany did not realize their potential advantage with this near perfect

combination of features. VDT was as well armored as the Dreadnought, had the same 8-gun

broadside with 8-11” compared to 8-12” and was 6 knots faster. In retrospect, they would have

been better off building a squadron of Seydlitz’s replacing the Kaiser’s and a squadron of

Derfflingers to replace the Konigs. A dozen of these fast ships could have operated with

impunity in the North Sea unless the British developed more and better battlecruisers.

By 1912 the Germans planned to build battleships and battlecruisers in equal numbers resulting in

four BADENs and four Mackensens. All four Mackensens were laid down in 1915 but none were

ever finished. 3 more improved Mackensens were approved in 1916 as the ersatz-Yorck class but

were never laid down. Mackensen would have a significant improvement in fire power compared

to her predecessor Derfflinger, firing a 1323lb shell compared to the 894lb 12” shell. They were

more than a match for the QE battleships and substantially better than the TIGER.

The British responded with the Admiral class of 42,000 ton battlecruisers armed with 8-15” guns

and capable of 32 knots. Only the Hood was completed.

After the Battle of Jutland, a new battleship was desired with much heavier guns and high speed.

Like all German capital ships, they were designed with heavy side armor and thin deck armor

expecting combat to feature shallow trajectory shells at 16,000 yards in the misty North Sea. The

L20 series was designed in 1917 but never laid down as hoped in 1918. They unsuccessfully

competed for the same resources as the U-Boats.

Compared to contemporary Japanese and US battleships, and despite their size, the Germans had

lost their edge in quality and features. Both Japanese and US ships had superior firepower, both

had superior deck armor for long range engagements and the Tosa matched L20 in speed. L20

would have been overmatched at long ranges with steeply diving shells penetrating her thin decks

and diving under her shallow armor.

50


G103/104 H Class

Successors to the Bismarck, this class of six ships formed the backbone of the Z Plan. Formed

into two divisions of 3 ships and supported by a carrier and cruisers, these ships were intended for

long ocean deployments and convoy destruction. Two H39 were laid down in 1939 but

construction was halted after the start of the war.

Beginning in 1940, successive improvements to the design were suggested with the H41 the last

practical designs produced. H42, 43 and 44 were successively larger with no possibility of being

built because they would not have fit in any of the shallow German harbors. These were

theoretical studies only that were never presented to the German naval staff.

These ships were significantly different from the Bismarck in propulsion with 12 diesel engines

providing power to 3 shafts. Each stack held the exhausts and mufflers for 6 of the diesels.

Radius of action was to be 16,000 miles or similar to Iowa. Protection was similar to the

Bismarck and the armament arrangement was identical. The Germans preferred four twin turrets

for fire distribution even if three triple turrets provided more firepower, less weight and less hull

length. This arrangement consumed excess weight that could have been devoted to better aircraft

facilities, secondary armament or protection.

Only 7-16” were completed with 3 becoming railway guns, 3 installed in Norway and one lost in

shipment. The 16” shell weighed 1130kg, similar to the US 16” shell. The 16.5” gun was the

16” gun bored out. The H43 and H44 were designed to carry 8-20” (4x2).

Another consumer of weight was the installation of an upper casemate belt to protect against

cruiser and destroyer fire. This was unique to all German capital ships and also consumed weight

that could be better applied to armament or better-protected vitals. Another unique feature of

German capital ships was the bow armor to prevent loss of buoyancy as happened with the

Lutzow at Jutland.

Despite design choices that did not optimize the displacement, these would have been formidable

ships with good speed, protection against gunfire and firepower. Underwater protection was

excellent as would be expected in any German ship. These models can be converted into any of

the H class by mounting the superstructure on the appropriate size hull. The model with 12-15”

guns provides the wargamer an alternate gunnery arrangement that would have been possible on

this displacement. Superior numbers of shells hitting the target may be more important than

fewer penetrating hits.

H39 H40 H41 H42


Length 873’ 942’ 901’ 1,000’

Width 121’ 129’ 128’ 140’

Draft 33’ 33’ 36’ 39’

Speed 30.4 knots 30.4 knots 28.8 knots 32.2

Armament 8-16”/50 (4x2) same 8-16.5”/48 (4x2) same

12-5.9”/55 (6x2) same

16-4.1”(8x2)

6-21” TT

Armor belt: 11.8” same same 15”

Deck: 4.7 lower slope 13” total

Turrets: 16” face same

51


G207/G203/G208 Kreuzer P/ OPQ Battlecruisers/KW45

These ships proved that everyone designed a stinker once in a while. The Germans lost sight of

their strategic focus in the late 1930s choosing to build a small, balanced fleet instead of

concentrating on interdicting their enemy’s sea lanes. The pocket battleships were designed for

long range disruption of trade with very few single ships capable of catching and sinking them.

The original design of Kreuzer P was an improvement on this concept.

The design needed to account for high speed to escape cruisers, long range for raiding, protection

from 8” guns and a powerful armament. The diesels needed for long range required significant

hull length which reduced the maximum speed. The displacement could only be limited if armor,

armament and torpedo protection was deliberately reduced. A 6” belt and 4” deck was required

to protect against 8” shells which was not possible on this displacement. The lack of a good DP

secondary armament consumed more weight. Despite an operational requirement for 12 of these

ships, the designers gave up and designed a much larger battlecruiser. Reports from the Naval

Technical mission to Germany indicate that a Kreuzer P was laid down at Germania Werft on

May 24, 1938. Breyer’s book shows the layout of model 1. This model is built to version 3 of

the proposed design (Appendix L) which is attached. Note that the date of this design is 1934.

The OPQ rate as the worst capital ships ever designed for the German navy. On a displacement

similar to the Scharnhorst, OPQ had a better main armament, slightly higher speed, significantly

greater range, inferior armor and suspect torpedo protection. The center shaft was a steam turbine

to allow the OPQ to gain high speed. Speed on diesels alone would reach 25 knots. The boilers

were all in a single boiler room making them vulnerable to a single hit. The thin deck armor and

thinner turret roofs made OPQ vulnerable to heavy cruiser fire much less STRASSBURG’s 13”

shells. The fast battleship replaced the battlecruiser concept with an Iowa matching their speed

and crushing them with 16” shells while ignoring any hits by the OPQ. Compared to the similar

sized B65, OPQ reduced deck armor to gain speed and endurance.

Despite all the things wrong with both these ships, 5 KREUZER P could have been built instead

of the HIPPER class cruisers. This would have helped the Germans at the beginning of the war

but airpower eliminated the usefulness of surface raiders.

More intriguing were projects KW45 and KW50 designed between June and September 1939.

These plans were found by Capt (Ret) Ken Johnson and placed in the National Archives. Reports

issued by the Director of Naval Intelligence on 8/29/45 contained capture documentation of

submarines, cruisers, destroyers, battleships and carriers. Discussed by the “Neubauausschuss”

during the 1939 time period, no other previous or subsequent mention of these ships have been

found in the German archives. Immense, fast, under-armed and under-armored battlecruisers had

advanced designs completed but were never approved. These would have suffered from the same

design defects as the OPQs but remain intriguing ships.

Bearing the same family resemblance to all other German capital ships, these twin funneled ships

basically mounted a Bismarck armament on an H sized hull. The triple 5.9” resembled the

Littorio layout while the 4.1” AA was completely inadequate. 16-37mm completed the AA

armament.

A five shaft power plant consumed enormous hull space and provided 36 knot speed with

300,000 shp. Special tunnels housed the shafts and towing tests revealed at least a 10% increase

in efficiency with co-efficients ranging between 0.42 and 0.48. Three different power plant

arrangements were being considered. Proposal A had 4 diesel shafts and 1 steam turbine while

Proposal C had 2 diesels and 3 steam turbines. All had three rudders in the aft 3 propeller races.

52


Kreuzer P OPQ KW45 KW50


Length 755’ 814’ 984’ 984’

Width 89’ 98’ 111’ 121’

Draft 28’ 29’

Speed 34 knots 33 knots 36-37 knots 35 knots

Armament 6-11/”/55 (2x3) 6-15”/47(3x2) 8-15”/47 (4x2) same

4-5.9”/55 (2x2) 6-5.9”/55 (3x2) 12-5.9”/55 (4x3) same

8-4.1”(4x2) 8-4.1” (4x2) 8-4.1” (4x2) same

6-21” TT 12-21” TT 8-21” TT same

Armor belt: 4.7” 7.5” 8” 11.8”

Deck: 3.5” (total)

53


G405 Kreuzer M

German light cruisers suffered from being designed to a 6,000 ton limit which severely impacted

their military qualities. Five years had passed since the NURNBERG had been built to this limit.

The new cruiser needed to be capable of long-range commerce raiding, high speed, a respectable

armament and light protection. This translated into a requirement for 12 cruisers at three per

year. M was laid down on 11/1/38 in Kiel, cancelled on 9/19/39 and scrapped in 1942. Equipped

with both diesels and steam turbines, she was designed for 35 knots with a radius of 8,000m at 19

knots. As escorts to the H class battleships, they would have had less than half their combat

radius. The main guns were similar to the twin 5.9” turrets on the German battleships and the AA

armament was inadequate, being less than half that of other nations cruisers.


Length 600’

Width 56’

Draft 18’

Speed 35.5 knots on 116,500 EHP

Armament 8-5.9” (4x2)

4-4.1”AA (2x2)

8-21” TT

Armor belt: 2”

Deck: 1”

Turrets: 3” face

54


J108 TOSA

These improved Nagato’s were both launched in late 1921 prior to the signing of the Washington

treaty. With the Nagato’s and other planned battleships, their high speed would have allowed

them to engage the slower American fleet at will. Tests on the Tosa yielded information that was

used to construct Yamato while KAGA was converted into an aircraft carrier after the AMAGI

was destroyed on the building slip by the 1923 earthquake in Tokyo.

All ships represent compromises and these were no different. Five turrets used more weight and

yielded fewer guns than the South Dakota. Armor was generally thinner than US ships but the

belt was sloped. Deck armor was comprised of 2.5” armor with 1.5” high tensile steel on top.

This equates to an effective thickness of 3.5”. Turret armor was inadequate. A central bulkhead

split the ship in two and proved disastrous to every Japanese ship with this feature that suffered

torpedo damage. Most Japanese ships capsized from those hits because the water could not be

dispersed quickly enough across the ship. A narrow beam contributed to speed but not torpedo

protection. On the other hand, they had more armor and firepower than the Lexington but were 7

knots slower. It would be fair to say that in any engagement between these likely adversaries, the

ship with the higher speed should prudently use it to avoid an engagement.

TOSA AMAGI

Displacement 38,500 tons 40,000 tons

Length 768’ 820’

Width 100’ 101’

Draft 31’ 31’

Speed 26.5 knots on 91,000 EHP 30 knots on 131,000 SHP

Armament 10-16”/45 (5x2) 10-16”/45 (5x2)

20-5.5”/50 (20x1) 16-5.5”/50 (16x1)

4-3”/50 AA 4-3”/50 AA

8-24” TT 8-24” TT

Armor belt: 11” inclined at 15º 10”, inclined at 15º

Deck: 4” 4”

Turrets: 14” face 14” face

J201 AMAGI

Near classic battlecruiser versions of the Tosa, these ships sacrificed additional armor for

increased speed. With the four KII and four #13 class, Japan would have a dozen 30 knot capital

ships that could engage or disengage the US fleet at will. The same general armor and armament

comments made about Tosa apply to these ships. This model has the “S” shaped forward funnel

as mounted on the Nagato’s to keep smoke away from the bridge and range finders. AMAGI

and AKAGI were selected to be converted to aircraft carriers but the earthquake of 1923

destroyed AMAGI on the slip.

55


J110 Number 13

Unnamed, perhaps not designed much beyond the concept stage and never laid down, these four

ships represented the final and most powerful ships of the 8-8 plan. Many different

configurations and sketches (similar to US Springstyle) were proposed with some carrying up to a

dozen 18” guns. The larger ships were not possible at this time due to constraints in building

facilities. It is important to note that Japan could build 4 capital ships simultaneously, Britain 8

and the United States 13. As in WW2, it was important for the Japanese to have individual ship

superiority because their potential adversaries could easily out-build them.

These are the examples of what was proposed and it is interesting to compare them with the US

Project D. Note that on the same tonnage the Japanese ships purport to carry more guns, thicker

armor and more speed. Were they able to suspend the laws of physics?

Displacement main guns spd armor

E 46,400 12-16” (3x4) 30 12” belt, 4.5” deck

F 48,400 12-16” (2x4,2x2) 30 12” belt, 4.5” deck

H 50,600 14-16” (3x4,1x2) 30 12” belt, 4.5” deck

I 54,000 16-16” (4x4) 30 12” belt, 4.5” deck

K 49,000 8-18” (4x2) 30 12” belt, 4.5” deck

L 56,500 10-18” (5x2) 30 12” belt, 4.5” deck

M 57,200 12-18” (4x3) 30 12” belt, 4.5” deck

Sketches by Jentshura and Beyer (too much beam, both superstructures are too high) are similar

showing them with the classical pagoda structure and a single, fat, trunked, raked funnel. It

appears that Hiraga’s pupil, Shizuo Fukui, made the initial sketches of #13 after WWII. One

immediate issue is that the previous two classes with 19 boilers had two funnels; tremendous

trunking would be necessary to carry 22 boilers to a single funnel. More detailed sketches of

design H show two funnels like AMAGI and KII. The model maker’s dilemma is that if the

model does not meet what is accepted to be the truth, it is rejected regardless of objective reality.

Therefore this model has a single funnel but this model maker believes they would have had two.

Scheduled to be finished by 1927, they had the same strengths and weaknesses as the other 8-8

ships. The main battery was actually the Type 5 (5 Nen Shiki) 48cm (18.9”)/45 gun firing a 3410

lb shell propelled by a 750 lb powder charge. The reported muzzle velocity is suspect since it

was higher than the Yamato 18.1” yet fired a heavier shell with a smaller powder charge. This

‘36cm’ gun was tested in November and December, 1920 at the Kamegakubi proving grounds,

was damaged but was later used in November 1935 to test the armor scheme of the A140

(Yamato) designs. Given the armor thicknesses in the sketches noted above, the oft quoted 13”

belt/5” deck are suspect. Fast due to their length and narrow beam, well armed and relatively

well armored, they would have sparked a reaction from the US that must have included either the

Tillman, BB1923 or, more probably, Project D which had the armor, armament and speed

necessary to successfully engage them.

56



Length 900’

Width 101’

Draft 31’

Speed 30 knots on 150,000 SHP

Armament 8-18.9”/45 (4x2)

16-5.5”/50 (16x1)

4-3”/50 AA

8-24” TT

Armor belt: 13” inclined at 15º

Deck: 5”

Turrets: 14” face

It is interesting to conjecture exactly what the building schedule for all the 8-8 fleet would be

considering that only four building slips were available (Compare this with the US which had 13

capital ships on the construction ways simultaneously). Italicized are conjectured. It would take

at least 18 months after launching to commissioning. It seems impossible that #13-16 would have

been able to be completed as early as 1927. The earthquake of 1923 would have destroyed KII

on the slip and possibly accumulated equipment for #13..

Kure Nagasaki Kobe Yokosuka laid down launched

Nagato 11.28.17 11.9.19

Mutsu 6.1.18 5.31.20

Tosa 2.16.20 2.11.21

Kaga 7.19.20 12.11.21

Amagi 12.6.20 12.22

Akagi 12.6.20 12.22

Atago 11.22.21 11.23

Takao 12.19.21 12.23

Kii 12.22 12.24

Owarii 12.22 12.24

#11 11..23 11.25

#12 12.23 12.25

#13 12.24 12.26

#14 12.24 12.26

#15 12.25 12.27

#16 11.25 11.27

57


J114 BB Fujimoto

J115 BB Hiraga

J114 J115


Length 762’ 761’

Width 105’ 105’

Draft 28’ 29’

Speed 26 knots 26 knots

Armament 9-16” (3x3) 10-16” (2x3, 2x2)

12-6”/60 (6x2) 16-6”/60 (4x2, 8x1)

8-4.7” (4x2) 8-4.47” (4x2)

These preliminary designs of 1931 have been described as weird and ugly without much thought

placed behind the genesis of their design. Hiraga (Nagato, Tosa, Amagi, Yubari, Furutaka) was

the foremost Japanese designer with Fujimoto (Takao, Mogami, Amagiri, Hatsuharu) his

assistant and later chief designer. Like their American and British counterparts restricted by the

WNT, they needed to design ships to meet the 35,000-ton treaty limit yet try to gain some

superiority over their potential opponents. They needed to maintain 26 knots for compatibility

with the Nagato and Kongo. A Tosa -sized hull was chosen which meant that 4,000 tons needed

to be pared from the design. In both cases this was accomplished by using fewer turrets and a

shorter armored citadel, the same approach as Yamato. With roughly the same speed and

armament as the contemporary North Carolina or KGV, their armor would be limited to perhaps

the 11” inclined belt of the Tosa with a 4” deck. They would have also been overweight as were

the Japanese cruisers.

Japanese plans of May 1929 called for four replacement 35,000-ton battleships which would be

effective in 1931. The 1930 London Treaty extended the battleship moratorium 5 more years

until 1936. Only sketch designs of these ships are available, no “spring style” plans exist that

would give us a better idea of their looks. The Superior models are predicated on the FUJIMOTO

and Hiraga layouts with the beauty and symmetry that characterized their cruisers and

battleships. Both have the Yamato style tower with Hiraga having the swept style funnel that

characterized the first rebuild of the Nagato. The Hiraga layout is triples over twins like

Pensacola and the 14” Lexington, reflecting the fineness of the hull both forward and aft. Both

ships have very limited waterline protection meaning the ends are excessively ‘soft’, particularly

against shell fire. The narrow hulls would have also had less torpedo protection than the much

wider Yamato. Both ships would have been improved if they deleted the 6” guns and added two

more twin 5”/40s abreast the superstructure.

These ships represent a very viable alternative for the Japanese navy. Since these ships retain the

35,000-ton limit, it also means that the existing 14” guns remain viable weapons. By keeping the

treaty in force, the Japanese could have built a larger, more diverse battle force. There would

have been no Yamato, Iowa, H or Lion classes if the Japanese had not abrogated the treaty. By

December 1941 over 180,000 tons of material had been built into Yamato, Musashi, Shinano and

111. The same expense could be invested in at least 4 of these ships plus two ‘Japanese

Vanguard’s, an improved Kongo using the FUSO and ISE turrets, would have been a viable

capital ship. A strong case can be made that by the following years, a battleline would be

58


1941, December

4 Kongo

2 iFUSO (rebuilt with 4x2 14”)

2 iISE (rebuilt with 4x2 14”)

2 Nagato

4 Hiraga /FUJIMOTO

1942, August

2 Improved Kongo (‘Japanese Vanguard’)

1944, December

4 additional Hiraga /FUJIMOTO

This gives a battle line of ten 26 knot/16” battleships and ten 30 knot/14” gunned escorts for the

carriers without the need to build the six 33 knot ships (B65) that were not scheduled to complete

beginning in 1945 at the earliest. The pessimistic US estimates in December 1941 of 4 new

battleships completed, four nearing completion and 4 more on order would not have been far off

the mark if smaller ships were built. Which is the better choice?

59


J109 Super YAMATO

The original design for the successors to the Yamato called for 8 or 9-20” main guns and a speed

exceeding 30 knots. Calculations indicated that these ships would have exceeded 90,000 tons,

which was too large and expensive to build. Still desiring to keep individual ship superiority, the

Japanese revised the plans to produce an upgraded Yamato. Design A150 was completed in 1941

and hulls 798 and 799 were ordered as part of the 1942 program. Midway brought a halt to these

ships before they could be laid down. 798 would have been laid down after Shinano (Yokosuka)

was launched and 799 after 111 (Yamato class, 30% completed) was launched at Kure. 111 was

being built on the Yamato’s vacated building slip.

The Japanese had constructed a 48cm gun in 1920 and a 51cm gun was being built at Kure before

the program was halted. The barrel would have been 75 feet long, the longest single barreled gun

ever built. Shell weight would have been approximately 4290 lbs compared to 3240 for the 18.1”

gun and required a staggering 1,056lb powder charge. A significant issue with this ship would

have been a 1-minute interval between salvos and only 6 shells in a pattern. The ‘fatter’ pattern

and more numerous guns of the US battleships would have stood an early shot at hitting critical

fire control areas eliminating the super Yamato as an effective fighting unit.

There is some question about whether or not the two 6” turrets would have been mounted.

Lengthening the superstructure would have provided additional space for AA guns. The general

trend for Japanese battleships was to carry some defense against cruisers and destroyers and the

3.9” gun would have been inadequate for this task. The 3.9” guns, as mounted on the Terutsuki,

would have provided better AA fire than the standard 5”/40 mounted on other Japanese ships.

The 3.9” had twice the rate of fire and a ceiling of 42,000 feet but a relatively short barrel life of

350 rounds. The short citadel would have precluded mounting more than 20 guns in twin mounts.

60


Despite conjecture of double plated belts, armor could not have been significantly different than

Yamato on the same size hull. Nevertheless, these would have been powerful ships and a single

hit from the 4200 lb projectile would have pierced anything built or planned. Replacing the twin

20” turrets with triple 18.1” turrets on this model will also give you the Shinano and 111

configurations with 3.9” AA.


Length 863’

Width 127’

Draft 36’

Speed 27 knots

Armament 6-20”/45 (3x2)

6-6.1”/60 (2x3)

20-3.9” AA (10x2)

numerous 25mm AA

Armor belt: 16” inclined at 20º

Deck: 8”

Turrets: 25” face

J111 A140/A

This was one of the earliest Yamato designs completed on 4/1/35. It featured mixed diesel/steam

propulsion to extend the endurance to 9,200 miles (Yamato was only 7,200). The main armament

was located entirely forward of the superstructure with the entire secondary armament located

abaft the superstructure. This main armament arrangement was embraced in 16 of the 24

preliminary designs. Fukuda was responsible for 8 designs in the A, B and C series. All were too

large which lead to the J (16”), K (8-18”, 9-6”), G (low displacement and speed) and F (Yamato)

series. The 18”/50 was too heavy so all designs featured the 45 caliber rifles. This ship provides

the speed necessary to escort your carriers and evade the American and British 35,000 tonners.

This model is faithful to the design of the Yamato herself and not the sketch designs which

formed preliminary estimates.


Length 935’

Width 132’

Draft 34’

Speed 30 knots on 200,000 SHP

Armament 9-18”/45 (3x3)

12-6.1”/60 (4x3)

12-5” (6x2)

Armor immune zone 20,000 to 27,000 meters against 18.1 shells

J112 A140/A2 with 18”

J113 A140/B2 with 20” guns

This Yamato predecessor (J112) had 8-18” guns equally mounted fore and aft on the same size

hull as the A140/A. This configuration had the secondary armament located aft between the main

battery and the superstructure. This maximized protection to the armament and resolved issues

of trying to fit magazines in the machinery spaces. It too featured mixed diesel/steam propulsion

to extend the endurance to 9,200 miles and provided sufficient space for 30 knot machinery.

Design A140/J3 substituted triple 16” for the twin 18”, reminiscent of the Montana. Once again,

this model is faithful to the armament layout and the Yamato’s beautiful lines as built.

61


With J113, the armament and superstructure have a “typical” A-A-O-A-A arrangement. Unless a

much larger ship was built, the 20” version must give up engineering space and weight to

accommodate the fourth turret. This provides the armament necessary to engage the heavy US

battleships with some chance of success. It is interesting to note that the US “Maximum

Battleship” design of 1934 mounted 8-20” guns on a 66,000 ton hull capable of transiting the

Panama Canal. To increase speed on the US ship from 25 to 30 knots required a fuller hull of

72,500 tons, duplicating a similar problem with which the Japanese had already wrestled. The

downside of either US or Japanese ships of this side would be the lack of armor to resist a 20”

shell.

J112 J113


Length 935’ 935’

Width 132’ 132’

Draft 34’ 34’

Speed 30 knots on 200,000 SHP 27 knots

Armament 8-18”/45 (4x2) 8-20”/45

12-6.1”/60 (4x3) 12-6.1”/60 (4x3)

12-5” (6x2) 12-5” (6x2)

Armor immune zone 20,000 to 27,000 meters against 18.1 shells

J202 B-65 (Projects 795-796)

These ships grew out of the ‘battlecruiser gap’ of the late 1930s paralleling the ‘bomber’ gap and

the ‘missile’ gaps of the 1950s and 1960s. Justification for these ships was based on the Alaska

class. Interestingly enough, the Alaskas were being justified based on ‘knowledge’ that the

Japanese were building large cruisers!

Passage of the ‘Two Ocean Navy Programs’ on June 14, 1940 and July 19,1940 prodded the

Japanese into advanced planning for building 28 new cruisers of various sizes by 1950. The

Alaskas were intended to operate with the carriers and provide protection against any raiding 8”

cruisers for which they were well designed. The Japanese plans were to use a special Night

Battle Force comprised of four Class A cruiser squadrons (fifteen-8” gunned cruisers), three

torpedo cruisers (KITIKAMIs), and 62 destroyers supported by the four Kongos to launch a

devastating torpedo attack against the US battle force. The remaining US ships would be

attacked in daylight by Japanese battleships, midget submarines launched from the MIZUHOs

and by the cruiser (junsen) and fleet (kaidai) submarines.

The Kongos were to be replaced by Super A cruisers with preliminary designs finished in

September 1940. Two were to be built under the ‘Circle 5’ program and four under the ‘Circle 6’

program of January 1941. The two ‘Circle 5s’ were to be laid down at Kure following each other

in the same building slip with completion in 1945 and 1946. More urgent work occupied the

planning staffs as they geared up for war and ‘Circle 6’ was cancelled along with most of the

Super As.

General appearance would have been similar to the Yamato with an undulating deck, swept

funnel, tower foremast and three main turrets. The 12.2” gun fired a 1265 lb shell to a range of

36,000 yards. Four of the superb 3.9” turrets would have been mounted on each side of the main

deck forward of the catapult. Eight 24” torpedo tubes in quadruple mounts completed her

armament. There was some thought to replacing the triple 12.2” turrets with twin 14” turrets but

this would have required additional load balancing for which there was neither staff nor time.

62


Displacement 31,400/34,447 tons std/full load

Length 808’

Width 89’

Draft 29’

Speed 34 knots

Armament 9-12.2”/50 (3x3)

16-3.9” AA (8x2)

numerous 25mm AA

8-24” TT (2x4)

Armor belt: 7.5” inclined at 20º (9.5” equivalent with an immune zone of 22,000 to

33,000 yards against a 12” shell)

Deck: 5” (resist a 2200 lb bomb)

Turrets: unknown

J203 Japanese VANGUARD (i-KONGO)

J204 i-FUSO

J205 i-ISE

Some have postulated that a superior Japanese plan would have removed the turrets from the ISE

and/or FUSO class and create 6 fast battleships with 8-14”guns (ala Vanguard). This could be

done by completely scrapping the ISE and FUSO’s or removing their midships turrets and adding

extra boilers to add a few knots to their speed. The midships turrets could then be mounted in i-

Kongo. For the alternate history buff, either is a reasonable choice.

Both ISE and FUSO, as rebuilt, are 30 feet shorter than the Kongo. Removal of the midships

turrets would create the space needed for the 152,000 shp plant found in the Mogami cruisers.

This is identical to the replacement of KAGA’s original two forward engine rooms generating

45,500 shp with two Mogami units generating 76,000shp. The smaller engine rooms of the ISE

and FUSO would have required gaining space by removing the central turrets. Removing the

heavy turrets and barbettes would have allowed increased deck armor. Finally, their drafts would

have not increased 3 feet, keeping their original belt and deck armor at optimum height. Both

would have had cruiser type aircraft handling arrangements similar to the latest heavy cruisers.

The major problem is that FUSO and YAMASHIRO were rebuilt from 1930-33 which would

have been too early to lay down the i-Kongo. This refit is when the original engines and boilers

were replaced and marks the appropriate but awkward time to save the turrets for the i-Kongo.

ISE and HYUGA were rebuilt from 1934-1937 and this is the perfect time to remove the turrets

and build an i-Kongo.

The combination of heavy shells, the formidable torpedoes and the excellent 3.9” AA guns would

have made a superb ship for supporting the carrier forces and striking US forces in the contested

islands. This approach was the US vision of a Pacific war, fast gunships with mutually

supporting carriers and light forces striking deep and with overwhelming strength.

Unfortunately for the Japanese, their flawed vision was that the cruiser and carrier forces would

be used in attrition against the US and the Japanese battleline would prove the coupe-de-grace in

the ‘decisive battle’. Hence the various building plans calling for individual ship superiority.

This is a slightly reconfigured B65 with an additional turret aft. The aft hull would be fuller and

these ships would have weighed 2000 tons more that then B65. The engineering space is more

than sufficient for the 152,000 SHP engines of the heavy cruisers if sufficient hull length is not

available for the 170,000 SHP engines designed; this should be sufficient for 32 knots. A

significant advantage of the Vanguard was that the 15” shell is 25% larger than the Japanese 14”

and better able to stand against the 16” gunned ships of her potential adversaries.

63


iKONGO (J203) iFUSO (J204) iISE (J205)

Displacement 35.000 tons std 34,700 35,350

Length 808’ 698’ 700’

Width 89’ 108’ 104’

Draft 30’ 32’ 30’


Armament 8-14”/45 (4x2) 8-14”/45 (4x2) 8-14”/45 (4x2)

16-3.9” AA (8x2) 14-6” (14x1) 16-5.5” (16x1)

numerous 25mm AA 12-5”/40 (6x2) 8-5”/40 (4x2)

8-24” TT (2x4)

Armor belt: 7.5” (1) 12” 12”

Deck: 5” (2) 6” 6”

Turrets: 12” 12” 12”

(1) inclined at 20º (9.5” equivalent with an immune zone of 22,000 to 33,000 yards

against a 12” shell)

(2) resists a 2200 lb shell

64


J410 AGANO, J411, Improved AGANO, J412 CLAA, J310 IBUKI, J413 TENRYU AA

The abrogation of the WNT proved to be disastrous for Japanese strategy and for cruiser

development. Their innovative mindset went from using superior torpedo technology (Long

Lance) and delivery systems (cruisers, destroyers and the torpedo cruisers) to investing in the

Yamato class battleships. For every ton of battleship that is not built, you can build a ton of

something else. This tradeoff can be successfully reflected in wargame campaigns to build a

formidable fleet without the Yamato and keep within the treaties. This also prevents the US,

Britain and France from building large battleships.

✓ The old light cruisers didn’t have the speed to keep up with the new 35 knot destroyers

resulting in the Agano (C-39) class.

✓ The new SHIMAKAZE DDs (15 TT!) were capable of 39 knots requiring an improved

Agano (C-44) as a flagship (p.607 LaCroix).

✓ In December 1942, the IBUKI design was modified to have her aircraft facilities removed

and replaced with five quintuple TT mounts, one on the centerline, reflecting the recent

successes at Guadalcanal (LaCroix p. 545).

✓ The KITIKAMI original design (noted here) reflects an excellent repurposing of an older

platform to deliver an overwhelming number of torpedoes plus capabilities as an AA cruiser.

However, they did not have enough money or capability to build all the TT or 5”/40 guns for

the cruisers! Thirty 4x24” TT mounts were required for KITIKAMI, OI and KISO and only

20 mounts were available. There were insufficient 2x5” mounts to upgrade the heavy

cruisers so there were none for the torpedo cruiser conversions.

✓ The Japanese also had plans to convert the TENRYU and TATSUTA to AA cruisers similar

to the British C class. The 21 ton single 5.5” mounts would be replaced with the 20 ton twin

5” mounts. While not planned, there is sufficient weight to replace the two 3x21” TT with a

Mk 92 4x24” TT mount. If so desired, you can remove it from the model.

✓ Finally, the Japanese planned to develop a dedicated AA cruiser either modifying the

improved Agano hull with 24-3.9” or later proposing a 5,800 ton ship (V-18) with only 8-

3.9”. This is the same size as the KATORI training cruisers and were no better armed than

the TERUTSUKI class AA destroyers making it difficult to understand why it was proposed.

✓ It should be noted that another possibility is to replace the aircraft arrangements of the Oyodo

with a third 3x6.1” turret (There are a total of 20 available from the Mogami’s) giving the

Japanese an alternative CL design with 9-6.1” and high speed. There is no record that this

was considered but it would have save considerable development time and less cost over the

improved Agano.

AGANO iAGANO IBUKI CLAA KITIKAMI TENRYU

Displacement 6,700 tons 8,520 12,200 8,500 5,500 3,200 tons

Length 572’ 613’ 658’ 613’ 535’ 468’

Width 50’ 50’ 63’ 50’ 55’ 41’

Draft 19’ 19’ 20’ 19’ 16’ 13’

Speed 35 knots 37.5 knots 35 knots 35 knots 31 knots 31 knots

Armament 6-6”/ (3x2) 8-6”/ (4x2) 10-8” (5x2) 24-3.9” 8-5” DP (4x2) 8-5” DP

4-3” (2x2) 8-3” (4x2) 8-5” (4x2)

8-24” TT 8-24” TT 25-24” TT 44-24” TT (11x4) 4-24”TT

Armor belt: 2”same 2” 4” 2” 2”

Deck: 1” 1” 1.5” 1” 1”

Turrets: 1” 1” 1”

65


Here is an alternative Pacific Campaign for the Japanese campaigner:

1. Do not abrogate the Washington treaty with respect to size limits. No Iowas to catch

your Kongos! However, you exercise your right to build as many ships as you want.

2. Remember that battleships were still being thought of as the ultimate weapon so your

building program will reflect that.

3. Modify the 1937 3rd Replacement Program.

4. Do not build the Yamato and Musashi and you also don’t need the KASHINO saving

140,000 tons

5. Build 4 Hiraga 1937 -1941 using the weight saved.

6. Build 2 SHOKAKU 1937-1941 as planned

7. Modify the 1939 4th Replacement Program.

8. Save 128,000 tons by not laying down the Shinano and 111.

9. Build the 1 TAIHO, 4 Aganos and two Oyodos as planned.

10. Lay down 2 Hiraga expending 70,000 tons. They will have been launched before the

Midway debacle and could be completed as carriers, if desired, around the same time as

TAIHO. You have plenty of carriers for the Philippine Sea but still have a dearth of

pilots.

11. Lay down 4 IBUKI instead of two expending an additional 25,000 tons

12. Build 11 additional SHIMAKAZE DDs to give a total of 12 (28,000 tons) headed by 1 i

Agano (8,500 tons). This consumes the SHINANO/111 savings.

13. Convert the two TENRYU’s as planned to AA cruisers by replacing the 4x5.5” with 4x2

5”/40 DP and install four 24” TT.

14. Convert 5 KITIKAMI to torpedo cruisers having 7x4 TT and 4x2 5”/40 DP. This AA

armament was originally planned along with 11x4 TT with one mount on the stern. In

this variant, you put 5 CLTT at sea with 35x4 TT instead of 3 CLTT with 30x4 TT. They

are less weight dependent, have a significant AA capability, can carry torpedo reloads

and by not building the Yamatos you have enough manufacturing capability to complete

this program. This is similar to KITIKAMI being re-armed with 24 TT and 2x2 5”/40s

later in the war.

15.

This gives the Japanese 14 BBs to start the war, matching what the US can use in the Pacific.

The 18 treaty cruisers plus 4 IBUKIs are stronger than the 18 US heavy cruisers, the 21 CLs less

capable than the US 19 CLs but the 5 CLTT are an equalizer. This building plan is well within

Japanese capabilities if the Yamatos are not built. As an alternative, you can create the iFUSO

and iISE to create 4 i-Kongos saving even more weight to add another squadron of

SHIMAKAZEs led by an additional improved Agano.

66


Russia and the Soviet Union

R203 BORODINO

All four of these powerful battle cruisers were launched in 1915 or 1916 but were not completed

due to other pressing needs in WWI. After the war, several suggestions were made to complete

them (increased armament by replacing 12x14” with 8 or 10x16”, an aircraft carrier, an oil barge,

passenger liners) but all came to naught and they were scrapped.

Thirty percent larger than the preceding GANGUT, they mounted 12x14” guns in triple turrets in

the same linear arrangement as other Russian WWI battleships. No turrets were superfiring but A

turret was mounted a deck higher on the increased forecastle. This was necessary for the ships to

maintain their high speed (designed for 26.5 knots)

Armor arrangements were similar to other Russian designs with thinner armor covering a larger

portion of the ship. This was a response to damage inflicted by the Japanese in the Russo-

Japanese War and was felt that a small hole in the armor was better than thinner or unprotected

areas blown out by shells. This was in sharp contrast to the US ‘all or nothing’ approach without

any true historical evidence which is better in combat.

Underwater protection was weak with a thin anti torpedo bulkhead and inadequate space to

contain a torpedo explosion. More dangerous was the storage of secondary ammunition against

that torpedo bulkhead which caused the loss of several ship in WWI when the torpedo detonated

the ammunition and blew out the bottom of the ship.

The Soviets considered completion of these ships while the rest of the world was building ships

50% bigger armed with 16” guns. They were considered obsolete and cancelled 3 days before the

Washington treaty was signed. This was unfortunate because they would have been fast,

powerful ships of roughly the same size allowed by the other nations.

Displacement 32, 500 tons std

Length 730’

Width 100’

Draft 29’

Speed 26.5 knots (66,000 SHP)

Armament 12-14”/52 (4x3)

24x5.1/55 (24x1)

4-2.5” AA

Armor belt: 9.3”

Deck: 3.8” total

Turrets 12”

67


R102 Gibbs & Cox D

Displacement 45,000 tons std

Length 845’

Width 113’

Draft 33’

Speed 31 knots (200,000 SHP on 4 shafts)

Armament 10-16”/45 (2x3, 1x4)

20-5” DP (10x2)

16-1.1” (4x4) AA

Armor belt: 13” inclined at 15°

Deck/splinter: 5”/1.75

Turrets 16”

CT 15”

This was the final conventional study done with the request of American assistance. An

extensive and excellent chapter on this ship appears in the book Russian and Soviet Battleships by

Stephen McLaughlin. The statement on p.371 that “no sketches survive of this design” is no

longer true. This author has the original G&C plans, will publish them in Warship International

and then donate to the USNI as part of the Robert F Sumrall collection.

The Soviets first started seeking American assistance with armor in May 1936. The US Navy

was generally apathetic to the Soviet proposal, even though the Soviets wanted to build at least

one ship in the US. Bethlehem was willing to build the ship but the Navy was unwilling to

approve ships that incorporated the latest thinking in US designs. The Soviets next approached

Gibbs & Cox in August 1937. By this time, political pressure from Navy Secretary Edison

backed by President Roosevelt limited Navy objections. Gibbs initial design was a massive

hybrid that combined either 8-18” or 12-16” guns in four turrets with central aircraft carrier

hangers and islands to carry up to 36 planes. This 62,000-ton design would not be legal under the

Washington Naval Treaty even with the escalator clause raising the limit to 45,000 tons. The

Russians were surprised because they asked for a 35,000-ton battleship, not this monster.

The following pictures chronicle the building of the master.

The after quadruple turret with

the guns mounted in pairs.

Cross section of the

forward superstructure

We start with the hull, the most difficult part of the ship due to multiple curves.

If possible, we use an existing hull and modify it. Each of the superstructure

pieces is cut from brass. These pieces will be shaped with a file, soldered

together and then glued to the hull or cast separately. Note that we already

have built and cast the quadrapod mast.

The after deck section has been attached to the hull and epoxy used to

fill out the rounded stern. More work is necessary to shape the forward

hull. Superstructure parts are shaped except for multiple levels that

have a common and layered shape.

If deck levels have

common shapes, only

one layer is finished.

The others are soldered

to the master layer and

the excess material filed

off so that all levels are

flush.

68


Gibbs and Cox Design D Profile

R101 Sovetskii Soyuz


Length 889’

Width 127’

Draft 33’

Speed 29 knots (220,000 SHP on 3/4 shafts)

Armament 9-16”/50 (3x3)

12-6” (6x2)

12-3.9” AA

40-37mm (10x4) AA

Armor belt: 16.7” inclined at 8°

Deck: 8.9” total (1” main, 6” armor, 2” splinter)

Turrets 19”

CT 16.7”

The penultimate of the Russian battleships, four were authorized on 1/21/1938. Laid down prior

to the war, the two building at Molotovsk near Archangel were not well advanced. SOYUZ

(Leningrad, hull construction completed) and UKRAINA (Nikolayev, 75% ready for launching)

were suspended in 1940 to transfer resources to other industrial construction. Turrets for the

Soyuz were completed but only one gun which was fired at the Germans throughout the war.

Heavily influenced by Italian technology transfer, the armor was inclined with a 2.5” decapping

plate on the outer hull. Underwater protection by the Pugliese system would withstand 3 torpedo

hits. Despite the official models showing round funnels, every other Russian destroyer, cruiser

and battlecruiser had sleek, swept, elegant funnels which is what is depicted on this model. There

is some disagreement about the propulsion plant. Other Russian plants were limited to about

55,000 hp/shaft, if only three shafts were to be installed, insufficient power would be available to

make 29 knots; 27 knots would have been more likely. If 70,000 shp were truly available as

planned, this would match the output of the US super carriers. The wide hull at the bow that

provided good torpedo protection also reduced her speed. Well-balanced designs, only the

Montana had a clear edge over these ships.

69


R103 Project 24, Variant XIII


Length 925’

Width 132’

Draft 38’


Armament 9-16”/50 (3x3)

16-5”/58 (8x2)

48-45mm (12x4) AA

48-25mm (12x4)

Armor belt: 16/17.7” (machinery/magazine). inclined at 20°

Deck: 9.6” total (2.4” upper, 6.5” middle, 0.8” splinter)

Turrets 20”

CT 20”

Preliminary designs for a successor to the Sovetskii Soyuz began in 1939 and was completely

interrupted by WWII. Post war designs were framed by the misinformation about the Iowa (19”

belt, 35 knots) and the completion of the Vanguard and Jean Bart. The size of the Montana was

well known and these ships were intended to be superior to her. The original requirements in

1945 were to complete 10 new 75,000 ton battleships in the next 10 years.

Project 24 was 60% larger than the Iowa and 20% larger than Montana. Compared to the

Montana, these ships were beamier, slightly faster, had superior protection and an improved

secondary battery arrangement at the cost of one less main turret. A reduced (6”) armor belt was

extended forward to the capstans and then reduced to 2” to the bow to provide very complete

splinter protection to the waterline. A 6” upper belt similar to Bismarck protected the upper hull

up to the main deck. The 16” guns were the same as the Sovetskii Soyuz and the 5”/58 were the

same new model as STALINGRAD.

These ships superstructure resembled the contemporary STALINGRAD’s. The bow’s

exaggerated sheer and flare were adopted to improve seaworthiness. Compared to the

STALINGRAD, the machinery was arranged in the ‘unit’ system similar to US ships with each

compartment containing 3 boilers, an engine and two turbo-generators. This ‘unit’ was further

divided longitudinally into three separate compartments to provide extensive anti-torpedo

protection. This allowed the machinery to take up less hull length than the narrower

STALINGRAD. It would also mean that the massive funnels would be placed closer together

than the STALINGRAD. Emergency diesel generators were mounted forward and aft outside the

machinery spaces. Taking a cue from the captured German aircraft carrier GRAF ZEPPELIN,

two retractable propellers were located by the forward diesel generators to provide emergency

propulsion.

The last real battleships designed by any country, these would have been formidable warships

outclassing all other ships existing in other navies.

70


R201 Kronshtadt

This design originated in the mid-1930s capable of destroying 10,000-ton ‘treaty cruisers’ built

under the Washington Treaty limitations, to which the Soviets were not a signatory. The ships

grew during the design process, expanding from 10” to 12” guns. After numerous starts and stops

including the purging of some of the design team, Project 69 was approved with 9x10” guns on

23,000 tons. By mid 1938, the German Scharnhorst characteristics were becoming known and

they would be superior to Project 69. The design was revised to the final dimensions and

approved in 1939. They were to outgun the Scharnhorst and outrun the Bismarck.

Armor was designed to be proof against the German 11” shell and an 1100 lb bomb. The

underwater protection was the American-type multiple bulkheads intended to withstand a 1,100lb

warhead. It was particularly narrow abreast of the forward and after turrets which was a problem

for most capital ships. Under the Soviet-Nazi agreement of 1939, Stalin asked for the German

11” turrets and guns because the Soviet guns and turrets were well behind schedule. Since the

3x11” turrets were out of production, Stalin then asked for the twin 15” Bismarck turrets. Krupp

had six incomplete turrets that were going to rearm the GNEISNAU and SCHARNORST and a

preliminary purchase agreement was made. The Germans deliberately stalled deliveries on these

and many other items until the invasion on 6/22/41.

Installing the 15” twin turrets would not have been easy. Pictures of the KRONSHTADT show that

the barbettes were not installed pending the decision on what size turret would be used. The 15”

turrets required a larger and taller barbette meaning that superstructure line of sight was affected

and used more electricity than the original 12” turrets. This meant changes to the turbo

generators and the final impact was adding 1000 tons to the weight of the ships.

KRONSHTADT was built in Leningrad and was 11% complete when the Germans invaded. Her

building slip was too short for her entire length so her stern was built separately. After the war it

was considered converting her to an aircraft carrier but she was scrapped from 1947-1948.

Sevastopol was built in Nikolayev and was 12% complete when captured by the Germans in late

1941. Partially dismantled for material, the Germans damaged her building slip and hull with

explosives when the evacuated the city. She too was finished scrapping in 1948.

It is difficult to understand where the weight was consumed compared to the Alaska which has

comparable speed, firepower and armor on 7,000 tons less displacement.


Length 813’

Width 103’

Draft 28’


Armament 9-12”/56 (3x3) or 6-15”/47 (3x2)

8-6”/50 (4x2)

8-3.9” AA


Deck: 3.5”

Turrets 12”

71


R202 Stalingrad


Length 897’

Width 105’

Draft 30’


Armament 9-12”/62 (3x3)

12-5.1” DP (6x2)

24-45mm (6x4) AA

40-25mm (10x4)


Deck: 4”

Turrets 9.5”

CT 8”

There is an excellent article on these ships in Warship 2006 by Stephen McLaughlin. The

following information is a summary from that publication.

Successors to the ill-fated KRONSHTADTs of WWII, these were pet projects of Stalin. Classic

examples of project mis-management (this writer is a PMP), the designs had to be approved by

every technical and political bureau in the Soviet Union resulting in their never being completed.

Despite Admiral Kuznetsov wanting to construct heavy cruisers with 9” guns, Stalin held out for

12” guns and wanted 35 knots to outpace the Iowas. It was intended that these ships form part of

a mix of coastal naval and air forces to disrupt the American carrier battle groups to prevent them

from launching atomic weapons against the USSR. In the words of historian Vitallii

Kostrichenko, “These cruisers were capable only of a prolonged and heroic loss….These ships

could not have resisted attacks by dozens, or indeed hundreds of aircraft from enemy aircraft

carriers, and they would have been sunk.”

These ships originally had a superstructure similar to 24-XIII with fewer AA guns but the same

5” layout. After they were substantially designed, Stalin demanded that the speed be increased to

outrun an Iowa. The only way to add the necessary boiler space was to redesign the stern

superstructure eliminating the rangefinders and secondary armament with their attendant

magazines. Machinery was arranged in echelon with alternating boilers and engines extending

into the previous aft 5” magazines since the ship lacked the width to place them together as in

Project 24. This was a 280,000 shp power plant, the same as Project 24 and similar to the much

larger US super carriers. Armor was less than the smaller Alaska but she had a complete set of

torpedo bulkheads against 500 kg warheads. Design started in 1946 with her being laid down in

November, 1951. 19% complete (43% planned) at Stalin’s death in March 1953, the center

section of the hull was launched and used for ordnance trials being finally dismantled in 1962.

Two sisters were scrapped on the ways.

72


Now that you have reviewed these possible additions to your fleets, let’s look at some

possibilities of fleets being constructed of different ships than historically chosen.

1. Washington Treaty signed, Japan still resigns effective 1936. Different ships are built than

were historically chosen.

This is the most likely scenario because it involves the fewest political changes.

• The British build two F3 and five 15B instead of Nelsons and KGVs giving them ten 15”

ships capable of at least 28 knots (Renown, Repulse, Hood, two F3, Five 15B).

• The US builds Admiral Pratt’s battlecruisers using the triple turrets from the Arizona’s and

Nevada’s. The battlecruisers are with the carriers on December 7 and the Arizona has not

exploded, the Oklahoma not turned turtle, the Nevada not beached. The leftover 2x14”

turrets are mounted in Oahu as shore defense batteries. With only four battleships in Pearl,

perhaps the Japanese concentrate on the fuel farms causing tremendous delay in the US

counterattack across the Central Pacific.

• The US builds four armored cruisers using the 12” guns of the Wyoming and Arkansas. They

are laid down in 1941 and finished at the end of 1943. With four battlecruisers and four

armored cruisers, the Alaskas are not necessary.

• The Germans build 3 Kreuzer P instead of 2 Scharnhorst and 3 more instead of the Hippers.

• Bismarck is the first true battleship built in Germany with 6 more replacing the too large H.

Perhaps if the Germans eliminate the upper 6” casemate, enough weight exists to mount 16”

guns.

• Japan builds some variant as outlined in the iKongo in addition to the Yamatos or they

embrace the building program outlined in the alternative Pacific campaign.

Winners: Britain, Germany, US, Japan, all receive more effective ships

Losers Britain, Kreuzer Ps prey on shipping despite the loss of one of them in Norway

73


2. Washington Treaty signed, Charles Hughes accepts the initial reductions reluctantly

recommended by the General Board (GB)

A series of General Board memos and documents was generated in response to a request from

Hughes of September 1, 1921. Edwin Denby, Secretary of the Navy, responded, with many of

the subsequent memos coming from Admiral Richards. Analysis was extensive including

budgets, supply of raw material, quality of personnel, world markets, national policies, governing

traditions, naval strategies, fortifications, a history of naval policies since 1900, and the General

Board assumptions as to guidelines including protecting the US from any dangers in the proposed

treaty. Perhaps the most interesting comments pertinent to today are about ‘race dissimilarities

and relations’. It is astonishing how globally the GB thought, particularly recognizing ‘our days

of political isolation is over’ and ‘A nation must advance or retrocede in world position’. They

noted that their 3-year building program as a supplement to the 1916 program would give the US

‘A Navy second to none’ by 1924. The goal was to have a 2:1 ratio of capital ships with Japan.

The GB defended the completion of the 1916 building program and the particular value of the

battle cruiser. As such, it is bewildering that by October 10, 1921, the GB recommended, “2. (a)

Seven of the vessels already largely completed are to be continued, (because not only are they

better military units, but in addition such action is essentially economical as the upkeep of older

vessels is disproportionately great, and the cost of abrogating the construction contracts is

considerable). Vessels, on the other hand which have not been laid down, are eliminated.”(1)

Under paragraph 4, it calls for completion of the four Colorado and four of the South Dakota

class while scrapping Montana and Massachusetts and the six battlecruisers! Their view of naval

power by January 1, 1928 would be

US (23) British (34) Japanese (14) France (6) Italy (4)

4 SD 5 R. Sovereign 2 Tosa 3 Bretagne 2 Doria

4 CO 5 QE 2 Nagato 3 Courbet 2 Cavour

2 TN 4 Iron Duke 2 Ise

3 NM Agincourt* 2 Fuso

2 PA 3 KGV` 4 Kongo

2 NV 4 Centurion Settsu*

2 TX 3 Neptune* Aki*

2 AR Hood

2 FL* 2 Renown

Tiger

2 Lion

2 Australia*

731,000 tons 882,000 tons 440,000 tons

248 guns 292 guns 140 guns

A follow-up memo the very next day calls for the completion of all US battleships and

battlecruisers under construction plus the four “Super-Hoods” (G3 Invincible, assumed to be

43,000 tons) for the British and the Atago and Takao for the Japanese, essentially all ships with

keels laid or initial funding already spent on the ships as of Nov 11, 1921. The GB sought “a

fair, just, unbiased ratio of strength” and was adamant about completing the 1916 plan. The *

ships in the above table are likely candidates to be scrapped to reduce costs but maintain ratios.

A GB memo responding to Japanese concerns rejected the Japanese position that ships under

construction had no naval strength and should not be used to calculate the ‘sacrifice’ of each

nation, thus reflecting both the Japanese and British building situations and short-changing the

enormous cost and sacrifice to the US. A communication from the GB on Oct 21, 1921 rejected

74


the proposal that all US ships not 100% completed or even less than 60% completed should be

scrapped. They wanted them all for good economic reasons. The total cost of the remaining 15

ships (Maryland was already complete) was $243m compared to the $332m already spent plus

the cost of scrapping of $60m. The $183m ‘saved’ would be offset by the $20m/year higher costs

of maintenance for the older ships. In addition, the new ships did not have to be replaced for 20

years.(1). Any ‘savings’ disappeared when the older ships would have to start to be replaced in ten

years. The issue with discontinued programs and ‘savings’ continues to this day.

Unlike other published measures of completion, given the money spent procuring material as well

as working it into the ship, the least advanced battle cruiser was the United States at 34% while

Lexington was considered 62% complete. Four of the Montanas were over 50% complete. The

GB considered Kaga and Tosa 66% completed and Amagi and Akagi 35% complete.

A key measure was that the Japanese had 49% of the US capital ship tonnage built or building

which played well to the US plan to have twice as many capital ships. This meant that a

concession to 60% for the Japanese was significant. The GB reluctantly settled on 1.6:1 instead

of 2:1, reflecting the 60%. All of these facts and possibilities were too much for Secretary of

State Hughes who bypassed their recommendation and stunned the assembly with his bold plan to

scrap virtually everything that the major powers were constructing.

In this scenario, four Lexington’s are substituted for Montana’s to give the US a fast ‘wing’.


4 Lexington 4 G3 Reduced 2 Tosa 3 Bretagne 2 Doria

4 CO Hood, 2 Nagato 3 Courbet 2 Cavour

2 TN 2 Renown 2 Ise

3 NM 5 QE, 2 Fuso

2 PA 5 R 4 Kongo

2 NV 4 Iron Duke

2 TX

1 AR

661,000 tons 666,000tons 397,000 tons


Winners: US, Britain. US has eight 16”-gun-ships including the fastest in the world.

Without the Lexingtons in the battleline, they still have a clear superiority in the

number of guns over the Japanese. The British reduced G3s are no longer a

vastly superior vessel since they must combine a reduction in speed and armor or

revert to 15” guns. They are an improvement over the Nelson. The British could

create a powerful Pacific Squadron with the G3 and Hood. This would make the

US nervous because of the British and Japanese treaty meaning the US may have

to fight both nations on two oceans.

Loser: Japan! Their 8-4 fleet is outgunned by both the US and Britain with the four

Kongos unable to stand in the line of battle.

(1) Tables X and XI from G.B. 438, Serial No. 1088-O dated October 26, 1921

75


3. Washington Treaty signed, General Board recommendations due to financial

considerations are accepted

The entire 1916 program is kept with the older ships scrapped. Concessions to the British are

four Super-Hoods and the Atago and Takao (interesting the GB didn’t name the Amagi and Akagi

already laid down) to the Japanese. The 5/5/3 ratio is kept with the British having more ships to

offset the US superiority in size. The US was willing to have fewer, larger ships than the British

because they thought them superior. (GB 438, Serial No. 1088-o, dated October 26, 1921,

attachment Table X, c) the armor of the United States ships is greater, being in general 16 and 18

inches as against 13 inches. e) The 14” guns of the United States are generally speaking equal to

the 15” of the British ships and outclass the 13.5” f) “Though the weight of metal thrown at a

broadside may be greater for British ships, the number of guns of the United States ships is

greater, and in the majority of cases the rate of fire should be greater.

The GB documents do not reflect any discussion about the advantage that the US had in having

thirteen building slips compared to Britain and Japan’s four each. While building yards are

required to replace lost units, the GB also does not comment on the loss of skilled labor with the

shutting down of the yards.


6 SD 5 R. Sovereign 2 Tosa 3 Bretagne 2 Doria

4 CO 5 QE 2 Nagato 3 Courbet 2 Cavour

2 TN 4 Iron Duke 2 Ise

3 NM Erin 2 Fuso

2 PA 3 KGV` 4 Kongo

6 Lexington 4 Super-Hood 2 Atago

Hood

2 Renown

Tiger

2 Lion

784,000 tons 824,000 tons 483,000 tons (tonnages are those listed in memos)


Winners: US. The US keeps their entire 1916 fleet of 16 modern capital ships while the

British have only four G3s and Japan has 6 modern ships. The preponderance of

16” guns gives the US a significant advantage and she has met her goal of having

‘A Navy second to none’.

Loser: Japan! Their 8-6 fleet is outgunned by both the US and Britain with the four

Kongos unable to stand in the line of battle. The GB emphasis was to make sure

the US could prevent or win a war with Japan, “21…She will use every occasion

to advance when interested powers are engaged elsewhere, as in 1915, but will

yield when opposition is sufficiently powerful.”

Status Quo The British are now equal to their Colonial rivals. The GB noted under national

policies, “17. The Anglo-Japanese alliance is the most prominent political and

commercial alliance affecting interests in the Far East. The purpose of this

alliance of two racially and politically dissimilar nations is obscure and appears

antagonistic to interest of the other nations.” The GB noted of Great Britain,

“18. We are bound to Great Britain by laws, customs, a common ancestry and

literature, and similar ideals.” The fact that our navies worked closely together

in WWI and would work together in the future pointed us towards a partnership

and not a war with Great Britain.

76


4. Washington Treaty signed, Japan argues and receive 70% or 5/5/3.5 ratio similar to the

cruiser ratio in the London Treaty in 1930

In this scenario, we follow the original US General Board recommendations in Scenario 2 but

substitute four Lexington’s for four South Dakota’s. Japan insists on keeping the Tosa’s since

they have been launched but do not get the Atago and Takao (Amagi and Akagi?). The US

restricts displacement to 43,000 tons meaning the British must build G3s reduced to 43,000 tons

which is an improvement over building the Nelsons at 34,000 tons. The Lexington’s provide a

fast wing capable of defeating the Kongos or the Hood. The remaining two Lexington’s become

carriers. Severe overall tonnage restrictions (originally the GB asked for 1 million tons for both

the US and Britain) eliminate older units. Fleets are as of 1927.


4 Lexington 4 G3 Reduced 2 Tosa 3 Bretagne 2 Doria

4 CO Hood, 2 Nagato 3 Courbet 2 Cavour

2 TN 2 Renown 2 Ise

3 NM 5 QE, 2 Fuso

2 PA 5 R 4 Kongo

2 NV

580k 580k 405k tonnage


A significant issue is that for every 1000 miles that a fleet operated from it’s base, it was thought

to lose 10% effectiveness. If your fleet had to leave Hawaii and sail for 3000 miles to fight for

Eniwetok to create a forward base, it would lose 30% of its effectiveness meaning that 17

battleships would only be equal to 12 in fighting strength, which would be equal to that of Japan.

This is why the US fought so hard for a 2:1 advantage and reluctantly settled on 60%. It is also

why it took 2 years after Pearl Harbor to attack the Gilbert Island to start the ‘Island Hopping’

Campaign. The Gilberts were 2000 miles from Hawaii which could be expressed as a 20%

reduction in effectiveness. From there, it was much shorter jumps to the Marshalls, the Carolines

and the Marianas.

Another factor was the N2 law where the ratio of the lesser fleet squared represented its’ combat

effectiveness. 70% squared would be 49% (or 172 vs 122 is 289 vs 144 or 2:1) giving the US their

2:1 IF their fleet was intact when taking on Japan. The Japanese counted on their submarines and

air power to whittle down the US fleet until it could be met with equal numbers of Japanese ships.

It was always thought the Japanese would husband their fleet for the ‘decisive battle’ in Japanese

home waters whereas it really occurred in the Philippines.

77


Winners: Toss Up!

And Losers? US has eight 16”-gun-ships including the fastest in the world. Assuming the four

Lexington’s are chasing the four Kongo’s, it leaves 13 US battleships against 8

Japanese battleships with a clear superiority in the number of guns over the

Japanese.

The British reduced G3s are no longer a vastly superior vessel since they must

combine a reduction in speed and armor or revert to 15” guns. They have the

most combat experience of any of the potential three adversaries and that cannot

be measured nor ignored.

Despite the Japanese having a higher ratio of ships, the US traded 6 old FL, AR,

TX class for 5 new 16” ships far superior in capability. The British have enough

fast ships to hunt down and sink the Kongos if they are used for raiding. Perhaps

this is why the Japanese were finally content with the 5/5/3 ratio.

5. Washington Treaty signed, Japanese do not withdraw in 1936.

In this fascinating scenario, BBs continue to be limited to 35k tons. The South Dakota s now

become the best BBs of any country. Bismarck, Littorio and Richelieu become the largest ships

built. The Germans must compromise to get 16” guns on a Bismarck size hull, perhaps going to

triple turrets and eliminate the useless upper casemate armor. Cruiser killers are needed which

means that some 35k ton battlecruisers will be built. 14” guns remain viable meaning that some

‘Vanguard’ type ships might be built as cruiser killers. Some alternate ships in scenario 1 are

included. Here is my summary of the fleets as of December, 1941 without taking into account

ship losses. Many are building (2/3 = 2 built/3 building). Japanese national will counteracts the

US industrial base as the US remains pacifist.

US (26) British (24) Japanese (18) German (14) French (6)

0/8 SD 5/4 15B 4/4 Fujimoto 2/6 BISMARCK 2/2 Richelieu

2 NC 2 F3 2 Nagato 6 Kreuzer P 2 DUNKERQUE

3 CO HOOD 2 ISE

2 TN 2 Renown 2 FUSO

3 NM 5 QE 4 Kongo

2 TX 5 R you can replace 4 ISE/FUSO with 2/4 Improved Kongo

2 AR

4 CC1933

Winners: Everyone! Costs are reduced. More ships can be built. The French, Italian and

German ships have a size edge and speed advantage over the British but the

British ships are still effective. Superior US technology, particularly machinery,

give the US a significant edge with the SD class which now is expanded to 8

ships because the Iowas are illegal at 45k tons.

Japan: With only 10% of the industrial base of the US, the Japanese have a fleet

guaranteed to be 60% the size of the US. This is a priceless advantage.

78


6. Washington treaty fails, is revived under President Coolidge and signed in 1926.

With larger ships completed, new standards are now in place. The General Board gets its million

tons of capital ships. The limit becomes 48,000 tons (with two exceptions) to accommodate the

G3 and #13. The US is allowed to complete her 4 Design D which were laid down in pairs in

1923 and 1924. Britain is allowed to build four 54k ton ships to replace the Iron Dukes to match

the US. Amagi is destroyed in the 1923 earthquake as is the #13 material. The treaty is still set at

5/5/3 based mostly on tonnage. It is assumed the French and Italians cannot afford new ships.

The 4 Tillmans laid down in 1925 are scrapped. Many of the older dreadnoughts are also

scrapped. Fleets are as in 1930 as completed.


4 D 4 new BBs 3 #13 3 Bretagne 2 Doria

6 South Dakota 4 G3 7 Amagi/Kii 3 Courbet 2 Cavour

6 Lexington 4 N3 2 Tosa

4 CO Hood, Tiger 2 Nagato

2 TN 2 Renown 2 Ise (Kongos converted to CVs)

3 NM 5 QE, 5 R

1060k 1052k 640k tonnage


Winners: No one. Fleets are larger but still proportional with more expensive but more

capable units. Japanese retain a speed edge while US has gunnery edge.

7. War Planning for your never-were ships

The ships any nation builds are only useful if they meet their strategical and tactical needs when

war breaks out. The next four pages provide a summary of two excellent books on the subject of

combat in the Pacific and invading Japan. If you were in charge of the General Board, what ships

would you want to build and why? If you were responsible for the IJN, what ships would you

build to try to counteract the superior building capacity of the US? If you were the British, what

ships would you consider to try to maintain your empire?

79


War Plan Orange by Edward Miller

This is a synopsis, perhaps more of a book report, on one of the most comprehensive books on the

subject. No matter what the outcome of any treaties, the Navy was responsible for planning in

case war broke out between the US and any other country (e.g. War Plan Black was Germany,

War Plan Red was England). War Plan Orange planning against Japan went through many peaks

and valleys depending on the quality of the personnel assigned to War Plans, the interest or lack

thereof of the politicians and the economic conditions of the world.

Beginning in 1907, two major approaches ebbed and surged depending on the assumptions and

personalities of the planning personnel. One assumption was that Japan would make a sudden

strike and capture much of the South West Pacific and the Philippines. ‘Thrusters’ believed that

the fleet should be prepared to make a dash through the German held Central Pacific to a base in

the Philippines to counter-attack the Japanese. When the Japanese were awarded the former

German colonies after WWI, the fleet could be under continuous attack until they reached the

Philippines. After travelling 5,000 miles from Pearl Harbor, too many ships would have been lost

with the remainder not be in adequate material shape to prevail against a fresh Japanese navy.

‘Cautionaries’ believed in a “gradual step by step advance”, with “sequential occupation of

islands” to avoid attrition in the Japanese Mandate.

The limitations of aircraft and ships figured into the plans. It was felt the US voter would only

support a two-year war meaning that there would not be time to build new battleships and aircraft

carriers (3 years required) but enough time to build cruisers, destroyers and auxiliaries. The 1928

Cautionary strategy preserved the capital ships, predicted we would need 18,000 planes per year

and called for a massive increase in the army. Naval launched planes could not carry bombs or

torpedoes large enough to cripple a battleship so a Jutland type engagement was envisaged as the

climactic battle. With the 5:3 ratio in battleships from the Washington Naval Treaty, and the N2

law (p.74) making it 25:9 or a 2.8:1 advantage, the US was guaranteed to win the decisive battle.

Land based air cover was required to advance through the Japanese Mandate and the 1920s-1930s

planes were limited in range. Many islands would have to be taken as air bases to provide the air

cover for the next invasion. During WWII, land-based air had a longer range but more

importantly, the availability of so many escort carriers for air support meant that strong islands

were skipped to wither on the vine. “Island Hopping” was one major change from War Plan

Orange that could not have been foreseen.

WP Orange had three phases with almost all the planning focused on Stage 2. It was not until the

US was involved in the war that a comprehensive Stage 3 was planned.

Stage 1 Initial Japanese attack

Stage 2 US counterattacks and advances to Japan

Stage 3 Siege of Japan

Destruction of the US battle fleet at Pearl Harbor completely disrupted the Plan Orange time-table

(see following table of planned vs actual events). The Japanese threat against Australia required

the US to maintain the southern supply chain through Samoa, consuming aircraft and troops.

Guadalcanal represented an opportunity to prevent Japanese expansion, once again threatening

communications with Australia. The next deviation was to seize the Gilberts, the first set of

islands to be taken as part of the drive across the Japanese Mandate. Taking the Gilberts directly

protected the southern supply lines and brought land-based air within range of the Marshalls.

Note that it took much longer than planned to implement Stage 2, particularly when you compare

the original time frame to seize the Marshalls (M105!) slipped to M780. It took nearly two years

to implement the island-hopping campaign by invading Tarawa on November 10, 1943, almost

two years after Pearl Harbor.

80


Unforeseen and unplanned was the simultaneous South Western Campaign led by General

McArthur. This provided two axis of advance complicating Japanese defensive moves. Both

drives met at Leyte Gulf and Luzon, undesired before the war but a better choice than Formosa.

The small islands off Japan did not need to be taken because air power and sea projection could

occur from Okinawa and Guam to seal off the Japanese islands and prepare to invade Japan itself.

Stage III was not well defined by War Plan Orange but was embraced by the General Staff. The

projected invasion, Operation Olympic, for November 1, 1945 was superseded by the use of the

atomic bomb. Kyushu was to be invaded first to provide air bases and then the Kanto Plain and

Tokyo would be assaulted as the final act of Stage 3.

The following chart depicts the difference in the 1928 Cautionary plan to move through the

Mandate to what actually transpired in the Pacific campaign. Since the Allies, mostly US, only

allocated 15% of the total war effort to Japan, the pre-war timetable was optimistic. While the

Battle of the Philippine Sea may have been the final decisive battle, Midway halted the Japanese

advance and the Japanese fleet blew their final opportunity at Leyte Gulf. B1 and B2 are the

advanced fleet supply and repair bases needed so that ships did not have to sail from nor return to

Pearl Harbor between campaigns. Looking at Plan Orange globally, the only major deviations

from pre-war planning was the seizure of the Gilberts and the substitution of Luzon for Formosa.

Ladder to Japan, Joint

Planning Committee 1928

Time Line

1928

Actual Events Timeline Date

M is mobilization day. M30 is 30 days after mobilization.

Concentrate Fleet M to M+30 Pearl Harbor M Day 12/7/41

Move to Western Base (B1) M30-M60

Occupy B1 M60-M90

Reinforce Corregidor M60-M90 Corregidor Falls M150 5/6/42

Midway M180 6/4/42

Guadalcanal M240-M420 8/7/42

Seize Gilberts M713-M717 11/10/43

Seize Marshalls M105-M135 Seize Marshalls M780-M790 1/31/44

Establish Eniwetok

(B1)

M795-M800 2/17/44

Seize Sakishima Islands M120-M150 Skipped for Okinawa

Seize Pescadores Islands M150-M180 Replaced by Leyte,

Luzon and Ormoc Bay

Caroline and Marianas

Operations

M180-M240 Seize Marianas, Isolate

and cripple Truk

M795-M830 2/17/44

Decisive Battle M300-M570 Decisive Battle in

Philippine Sea

M920-M950 6/19/44

Establish Ulithi (B2) M1020 9/23/44

Seize Northern Formosa M240-M300 Recapture Philippines M1050-

M1110

10/23/44

-1/1/45

Occupy Okinawa M300-M360 Occupy Okinawa M1200-

M1280

4/1/45-

6/22/45

Seize Amami Oshima M450-M540 Redundant to Okinawa

Seize Osumi Islands M540-M570 Part of Operation

Olympic

11/1/45

planned

Begin Air attacks against

home islands

M540-End B29s based on Tinian M1080-End 11/24/44

– End

Seize Goto Islands M570-M600 Part of Olympic 11/1/45

Seize Tsushima Island M600-M690 Not part of Olympic

Control seas around Japan M690-End Submarines and Air M1100-End 1/1/45

81


The Invasion of Japan by John Ray Skates

As noted in War Plan Orange, the final stage of invading Japan was not well defined in pre-

WWII planning. This book clearly defines what the US would have to do to invade Japan to end

the war.

The story starts in January 1943 at Casablanca where the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) declared that

the Allies could defeat Japan through blockade, bombing and finally, assault resulting in

‘unconditional surrender’. They were hoping invasion would not be necessary. Pre-war planning

wanted to avoid invasion due to the known ferocity of the Japanese army, rugged terrain, poor

roads, heavily defended ports and scarcity of good landing beaches.

In August 1943 before the US had invaded a single Central Pacific island, it was determined that

Japan must be defeated within twelve months of Germany’s surrender. It was felt that the both

the US civilians and troops would be too war-weary to fight any longer. By July 1944, after the

decisive battle of the Philippine Sea, the JCS re-iterated the plan to conduct air and sea blockades,

air bombardment and destroy Japan’s air and naval strength followed by invading and seizing

objectives in the industrial heart of Japan.

In April 1945, during the invasion of Okinawa, MacArthur and Nimitz were ordered to begin

planning for Olympic, the invasion of Kyushu. MacArthur wanted to attack Kyushu directly

rather than establish further bases in China, Korea or Formosa to mount the attack on Kyushu.

Okinawa already provided the air bases needed to assault Kyushu. Nimitz favored the Navy’s

plan to defeat Japan solely through blockade and bombardment but didn’t foresee the end of the

war before mid-1946. Nimitz worried that providing the shipping and supplies for invading

Kyushu before the end of 1945 would be difficult.

The next issue, who is in charge? The Pacific had been mostly a Navy war with the seizure of

islands and the destruction of Japanese naval and air power. The seizure of Leyte and Luzon

merged MacArthur’s SW Pacific campaign and Nimitz’s Central Pacific campaign. Marshall

(army) and King (navy) in the JCS finally agreed that Nimitz would control the naval and

amphibious phase while MacArthur would have control after landing and, “in case of exigencies,

the actual amphibious assault through the appropriate naval commander”.

All the combat troops needed for Kyushu were already in the Pacific. The main issue was there

were not enough service troops in the Pacific and they needed to be redeployed from Europe.

Operation Coronet, the invasion of the Kanto plain where Tokyo was located, would require

redeployed troops from Europe. Retraining was necessary because Europe emphasized

mechanized tactics over open ground while Japan required small teams to reduce caves and

bunkers manned by suicidal defenders.

By August 1945, the Japanese increased their troop strength in Kyushu from 150,000 troops in 3

divisions to 545,000 troops in 13 divisions with 60% in the landing areas. MacArthur dismissed

the joint planner’s concerns noting the estimates resembled the inaccurate ones of Luzon. US air

and naval bombardment limited the ability to move or support troops, fuel, ammunition and other

supplies in southern Kyushu.

The US planned to land 353,000 combat soldiers organized in 13 divisions supported by 230,000

service troops including the engineers needed to build the supporting airfields, barracks, mess

halls and other infrastructure. The naval support for the invasion was unprecedented and

exceeded that of Normandy and Okinawa combined: 22 battleships, 27 fleet carriers, 36 escort

carriers, 50 cruisers and 458 destroyers protecting over 3,000 transports and landing craft.

82


On X-Day minus 5, offshore islands would be

seized to provide radar facilities, emergency

anchorages and seaplane bases. Five days

later three different beaches would be

assaulted by 3 divisions each as seen on the

map. Miyazaki, the northernmost assault on

the east coast, was desired for its airfields and

the north-south highway with its crucial

bridge across the Oyodo river. Driving west

and south, I Corps was to link up with XI

Corps at Ariake Wan 32 miles southwest of

Miyazaki.

Three veteran divisions supported by eleven

independent battalions of tanks, anti-aircraft

guns and artillery was the strongest corps of

the three corps assaulting what was

considered to be the most difficult target.

Driving north would link them with I Corps

driving south from Miyazaki. More

importantly, driving west secured the port

facilities in Ariake Bay, existing air bases and

the flat, interior plains where more airfields

and support facilities could be built. Japanese

planners considered this to be the most

dangerous area to be lost.

The V Marine Corps landing on the west

coast had the most difficult task. Narrow

beaches backed by 80-foot cliffs with no

corridors other than ravines could be bloody defended by small numbers of Japanese. Within a

mile the Marines would have to cross a river and then 600-foot high hills. Dirt roads provided the

only easy egress through rice paddies and would have created more kill zones for the Japanese

defenders.

Post war assessments by the same corps that were to conduct the assault confirmed the difficult

terrain and obstacles for the Marines. Roads were unimproved, bridges were lashed together

logs, rail bridges and tunnels could be easily closed to the invaders. However, the US also

discovered that the Japanese build-up had been done with poorly trained, ill-equipped troops

whose reinforcement would have also been impossible due to the same conditions. Defensive

positions were unprepared, no mines existed to lay mine fields, fuel was unavailable and they

were short of munitions. Overwhelming naval gunfire and air support made a US victory

inevitable.

Landing on November 1, 1945, it was estimated that 60-90 days would be required to defeat the

Japanese and build the Kyushu airbases needed to assault the Kanto plain and Tokyo, if

necessary. Sometime in the spring 1946, Coronet, the plan to assault Tokyo, needed 23 divisions

including First Army redeployed from Europe. Naval and support plans were incomplete when

the Japanese surrendered in August,1945 eliminating the need for both Olympic and Coronet.

These invasion plans could represent what wasn’t completely planned in Stage 3 of War Plan

Orange.

83


History of Superior Models

This section is dedicated to the memory of Ian ‘John’ Carter (1937 – 2002) who founded

Superior, continuing and improving on the Authenticast tradition.

Abraham Slonim founded Comet Metal Products in 1919 as a die-casting company. In 1935 his

sons, Joseph and Samuel joined the company. Originally located in Richmond Hills, Queens,

New York, the company produced 10,000,000 models during WWII at a cost to the Federal

Government of $5,000,000. Their patented centrifugal casting process was registered as

‘Authenticast’ to indicate the accuracy of the models that were produced. The first thing required

in the process is a ‘master’ model. In most cases, the actual building plans are used to make the

models. Authenticast had access to all the US plans as well as the plans to British ships refitted in

the US. Once the master is created, it is placed between two rubber or silicone disks. The disks

are placed in a frame and then placed in a vulcanizer, a press that contains heating elements. The

disks are squeezed together and heated. (This same process can also be used to make a grilled

cheese sandwich!). The squeezing forces the rubber into all the nooks and crannies of the master.

Heating the rubber hardens it to the consistency of a tire. The disks are now a mold; they are

separated and gates or channels carved from the center to the cavities. The mold is then placed in

a centrifugal casting machine where it is spun. Molten metal poured into the mold is forced into

the cavities. The mold is allowed to cool for several minutes and the models removed. This

‘Authenticast’ process has been used for over almost a century.

Before WWII, the services tried producing their own recognition models to train observers and

lookouts. Three days after Pearl Harbor, the Navy ordered 50,000 models and the other services

soon followed. The factory ran 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Armed guards patrolled

the area to protect the classified work. By 1950, Comet was a $250,000 per year business

employing 50 people. Commercial contracts were filled to make railroad models, parts for

washing machines, dryers, safes, and automobile batteries. Special contracts were filled

including replicating the 2,000,000 square foot plant of the Republic Aviation Corporation on

Long Island. Built in ¼” scale, it included the vending machines. The original wall-type can

opener was first made as a model in the Slonim factory for $200. The inventor won the contract,

paid $1500 to Comet to produce 1500 copies and then distributed them as a promotional device.

Over the years, rumors exist, that instead of creating all the masters themselves, Authenticast

would exchange castings for masters and continue to produce the castings. Despite rumors that

they took over production from South Salem, whose most notable models were Japanese

merchant ships, there does not seem to be any evidence that they did so. Indeed, 11 of the 16

South Salem ships are also included in the Authenticast Marus. The thinking that the SS ships

were generic ships is not true.

In the 1950's the U.S. government ceased using models as a means of recognition training, and

Comet concentrated on the hobby market. In 1962 Comet was sold to Jeff Bowen of Industrial

Models who hired Ian 'John' Carter from New York to produce the models. John was born on the

island of Granada and came to the US when he was nine. He attended school through 9th grade

and entered the world of mold making under the tutelage of Bill Vollheim. John moved to

Delaware and built the company over the next several years by concentrating on the ship models.

Collectors such as Bill Nailes (John married his daughter Susie), Tom E.S. Stribling (d.1991),

Richard S. Pattee (contributor to Morrison’s “History of USN Operations), Jack Rowe and Jack

Jamieson (d.1981) helped determine what new ships should be added to the line. Permission was

received from H.A.Framburg to reproduce their ships, several of which are still in the Superior

line. Originally a lamp company, Framburg of Chicago, Ill. also obtained a government contract

to make recognition models as they were configured in 1943 from the ONI Recognition Manuals.

84


One of the best features of the Framburg's were the 40mm and 20mm mounts which soon

appeared on all the Authenticast originals.

In 1965 Alnavco became the major distributor of the ship models. Model makers were in short

supply then and now. (In 1950, Comet’s top model makers earned $17,000 per year!) Ed

Schwam built wooden models from plans supplied by Chris Beilstein. These were sent to Taiwan

where brass originals were made from the wooden models. The 'Taipei Brass' program produced

the base models for the WWI ships and many others but required substantial rework. Wayne

Smith began working for John in 1969 while in high school. He went looking for turrets for balsa

wood ships he was making and instead got a job completing ships for collectors who preferred

not to paint their own. Wayne began making ‘conversions’ at which point John began teaching

him to work on masters. The first was detailing Nagato, followed by the rebuilding of the New

Mexico. More followed including the 1:2400s in 1975.

The Authenticast planes and tanks were sold to Duke Siegfried in the early 1970s. Around this

time, Superior branched out into military miniatures, pewter, space ships, and figures for the

fantasy collector and wargame market. Each of these markets was larger than the ship market,

which produced proportionately less income. The complexity and detail of all of Superior's

castings became quickly appreciated in the industry and John was recognized as THE master

mold maker.

Examples of complex models included the 54mm scale Skoda Mortar (cast with rifling!) and the

1:35 Sheridan Tank for Chrysler and General Motors. With a small number of model makers and

the size of the line and other ventures, the number of 1:1200s that could be produced decreased.

The large Superior line of 1:2400 WWII and modern models was created quickly from 1975-85

and used the model maker’s time. The last new 1:1200s produced in 1981 included the best of

the conversions done by the collectors and wargamers that supported Superior. In 1983 Wayne

Smith 'retired' to raise a family. In 1999 John retired from Superior due to health reasons and

sold the ship models to Pete Paschall of Alnavco. With his family substantially raised, Wayne

Smith agreed to come out of ‘retirement’ to upgrade the models and create new ones.

Over the years, we have continually upgraded the ships by removing secondaries of 5" and

greater from the models and casting them separately. Many of the older models were upgraded

and Superior issued models out of production by other companies. Superior has created the vast

“Fleet that Never Was”, planned ships that were never completed. We have embarked on Special

Edition Destroyers but casting separate masts and twin guns. Marus are released at regular

intervals and have been upgraded. The following list is an attempt to catalog the entire line along

with the names of the model makers who produced the masters as well as the year they were

released.

85


Authenticast models have been upgraded with AA guns from the Framburg line or newer AA guns created by John Carter or Wayne Smith. Those noted as upgraded have additional features. Rebuilt models have had deck hatching, ventilators, AA gun directors and in many cases, deck planking. Released is the year in which the ship was built or last updated. We are indebted to the late Mike Musser who contributed out of production models from his extensive collection so that others could enjoy their new availability. Mike also made many conversions whose patterns have been used to make new models.

Model # Name Model Maker Upgraded/Rebuilt? Released

A501 CARD (CVE) Authenticast

A502 CASABLANCA (CVE) Framburg Rebuilt by J.Carter

A503 SANGAMON (CVE) Framburg Rebuilt by J.Carter

A504 ENTERPRISE 1942 Ed Schwam

A505 ENTERPRISE 1944 Framburg

A506 ESSEX 1944 Authenticast New model built by J.Carter

A507 HORNET 1942 Ed Schwam

A508 INDEPENDENCE (CVL) Framburg

A510 MIDWAY 1945 Authenticast Rebuilt by W. Smith 2014

A510A CV-A Wayne Smith

2009

A510B CV-B Wayne Smith

2009

A511 RANGER Wayne Smith

2008

A512 WASP 1942 Wayne Smith

2008

A513 SARATOGA 1944 Framburg Rebuilt by W.Smith 2008

A514 LEXINGTON 1942 Wayne Smith Rebuilt by W.Smith 2008

A516 YORKTOWN 1942 Ed Schwam

A517 LANGLEY (CV-1), U.S. CV John Carter Rebuilt by W.Smith

A518 Wasp 1966 Rebuilt by W.Smith

Amphibious Ships & Craft Model Maker Upgraded/Rebuilt? Released

A821 ELDORADO AGC Authenticast Rebuilt by W.Smith 2005

A822 LST Authenticast Rebuilt by W.Smith 2005

A823 LCI (4) Authenticast Rebuilt by W.Smith 2005

A824 LCT (4) Authenticast Rebuilt by W.Smith 2005

Auxiliaries & Miscelleneous Model Maker Upgraded/Rebuilt? Released

A801 BARNEGAT (AVP) Authenticast

A802 CIMARRON (AO) Authenticast

A803 CURTISS (AV) Authenticast Rebuilt by W.Smith 2004

A804 DIXIE (AD) Authenticast Rebuilt by W.Smith 2004

A805 FULTON (AS) Authenticast Rebuilt by W.Smith 2004

A806 HENDERSON (AP/AH) Authenticast Rebuilt by W.Smith 2004

A811 LIBERTY SHIP Authenticast

A812 VICTORY SHIP Authenticast

Battlecruiser Model Maker Upgraded/Rebuilt? Released

A201 ALASKA 1944* Wayne Smith

A202 Lexington 1922 Wayne Smith

2002

A203 Lexington 1916 Wayne Smith

2004

A204 Project D 1918 Wayne Smith

2003

A205 CA2D Wayne Smith

2003

A206 CA2, Super Baltimore Wayne Smith

2016

A207 CAC Wayne Smith

2003

A208 CA Scheme #3 Wayne Smith

2016

A209 CC 1933 Wayne Smith

2006

86


A210 Scheme M Wayne Smith

A211 Lexington WW2 Rig Wayne Smith 2017

Battleships Model Maker Upgraded/Rebuilt? Released

A101 ARIZONA 1941 John Carter

1966

A102 ARKANSAS 1944 Authenticast Rebuilt by W.Smith 2003

A103 COLORADO 1941 Authenticast

A104 COLORADO 1944 Authenticast Rebuilt by W.Smith 2015

A105 IOWA 1945* Wayne Smith

1975

A106 MASSACHUSETTS 1945* Bob Duhadaway

A107 MONTANA(planned)* John Carter

1970

A108 NEVADA 1944* John Carter

A109 NEW MEXICO 1944 Authenticast Rebuilt by W.Smith 1973

A110 IDAHO 1945 Wayne Smith

2001

A111 MISSISSIPPI 1945 Wayne Smith

2001

A112 NORTH CAROLINA ‘44* Authenticast Rebuilt by J.Carter

A113 PENNSYLVANIA ‘44* Authenticast Rebuilt by W.Smith 2000

A114 COLORADO 1944 Authenticast Rebuilt by W.Smith 2004

A115 TENNESSEE 1941 Authenticast

A116 TENNESSEE 1942 Authenticast Rebuilt by W.Smith 2004

A117 TENNESSEE 1944* Authenticast Rebuilt by J.Carter

A118 TEXAS 1945 Authenticast Rebuilt by W.Smith 2001

A119 WEST VIRGINIA ‘44* Authenticast Rebuilt by J.Carter

A121 SOUTH DAKOTA ’21 12-16” guns

Wayne Smith

1974

A122 NEW JERSEY 1984 Scott Spicer

A123 MARYLAND 1945 Wayne Smith

2001

A124 OKLAHOMA 1941 Wayne Smith

2001

A125 BB65D* (12-16”, 3x4) Wayne Smith

2005

A126 Tillman IV-2 Wayne Smith

2002

A127 Georgia (Mont II)* Wayne Smith

2002

A128 Virginia (Mont III)* Wayne Smith

2002

A130 BB 1922* Wayne Smith

2003

A131 BB1923 Wayne Smith

2003

A132 BB 65A Wayne Smith

2004

A133 BB 65(I) Wayne Smith

2005

A134 US Maximum BB Wayne Smith

2005

A135 BB 1917 Wayne Smith

2005

A136 BB65C Wayne Smith

2005

A137 BB1934-2 Wayne Smith

2006

A138 BB1937 XVI Wayne Smith

2006

A139 South Dakota 1942 Wayne Smith

2007

A140 New Jersey 1968 John Carter

1969

A141A Montana BB65-8 (12-16”) Wayne Smith

2009

A141B Montana BB65-8 (12-18”) Wayne Smith

2009

A142 Iowa Flight Deck 1984 Wayne Smith

A143 Tillman IV 24-16” Wayne Smith 2014

A144 BB1926 Wayne Smith 2015

A146 BB1937 IX-E Wayne Smith 2017

A145 IOWA as TILLMAN Wayne Smith 2015

A147 S. DAKOTA 1921 WW2 Rig Wayne Smith 2017

A148 TILLMAN WW2 Rig Wayne Smith 2019

87


A149 BB65-1 American ‘D’ Wayne Smith 2021

A150 Kentucky (BBAA) Wayne Smith 2020

A151 Iowa (CIP) Wayne Smith 2020

A152 Illinois (BBG) Wayne Smith 2021

Destroyer Escorts Model Maker Upgraded/Rebuilt? Released

A618 BUCKLEY Authenticast

A619 RUDDEROW Authenticast

Destroyers Model Maker Upgraded/Rebuilt? Released

DA01 The SULLIVANS (14-40mm) Wayne Smith Square Bridge AA Rig 2019

DA02 KIDD (10-40mm) Wayne Smith Round Bridge AA Rig 2019

DA03 PRINGLE Wayne Smith Fletcher w catapult 2019

DA04 SUMNER Wayne Smith Upgraded 2019

DA05 SIMS Wayne Smith Upgraded 2019

DA06 FARRAGUT Wayne Smith Upgraded 2019 DA07 GRIDLEY Wayne Smith Upgraded 2019 DA08 BENHAM Wayne Smith Upgraded 2019 DA09 LIVERMORE Wayne Smith Upgraded 2019 DA10 PORTER 1944 Wayne Smith Upgraded 2019 DA11 MAHAN Wayne Smith Upgraded 2020

DA12 BAGLEY Wayne Smith Upgraded 2020

DA13 BENSON Wayne Smith Upgraded 2020

DA14 GEARING Wayne Smith Upgraded 2020

A601 BENHAM Authenticast

A602 BENSON Authenticast

A603 BROOKS Authenticast

A604 FARRAGUT Authenticast

A605 FLETCHER Wayne Smith

1975

A606 GEARING Authenticast Upgraded by W.Smith 1976

A607 GRIDLEY Authenticast

A608 LIVERMORE Authenticast

A609 MAHAN Authenticast

A611 PORTER 1942 Authenticast

A613 SIMS Authenticast

A614 SOMERS Authenticast

A615 SUMNER Authenticast Upgraded by W.Smith 1976

A616 Hull Nos. DD66-347 Authenticast

Gunboats

Model Maker Upgraded/Rebuilt? Released

A840 ERIE (PG) (2) Authenticast

A841 TACOMA (PF) (2) Authenticast

Heavy Cruisers Model Maker Upgraded/Rebuilt? Released

A301 BALTIMORE 1944* Wayne Smith

1976

A302 PITTSBURGH 1944* Wayne Smith

2001

A303 INDIANAPOLIS 1945 John Carter Rebuilt by W.Smith 2001

A304 LOUISVILLE 1945 Wayne Smith

2012

A305 NEW ORLEANS 1942 Authenticast Rebuilt by W.Smith 2001

A307 NORTHAMPTON 1942 Authenticast Rebuilt by W.Smith 2001

A308 OREGON CITY 1945 Authenticast Rebuilt by W.Smith 2004

A309 PENSACOLA 1943 Authenticast Rebuilt by W.Smith 2001

A310 WICHITA 1945 Authenticast Rebuilt by W.Smith 2001

A311 MINNEAPOLIS 1945 Wayne Smith

2001

A312 DES MOINES* Wayne Smith

2003

88


A313 US Cruiser 1920 Wayne Smith

2006

Light Cruisers Model Maker Upgraded/Rebuilt? Released

A401 ATLANTA (CLAA) 1942* Wayne Smith

1976

A402 BROOKLYN 1945 Wayne Smith

1974

A403 CLEVELAND 1944* Wayne Smith

1974

A404 VINCENNES 1944* Wayne Smith

2001

A406 OMAHA 1943 Authenticast Rebuilt by W.Smith 2001

A407 WORCESTER 1946 Wayne Smith

1975

A408 ST, LOUIS 1945* Wayne Smith

2001

A409 SAVANNAH 1945* Wayne Smith

2001

A411 CL1, Super Cleveland Wayne Smith 2016

A412 HELENA 1943 Wayne Smith 2018

A413 FARGO Wayne Smith 2020

A414 OAKLAND Wayne Smith 2020

Mine Warfare Ships Model Maker Upgraded/Rebuilt? Released

A831 TERROR (CM) Authenticast

A832 RAVEN (AM) (2) Authenticast

A833 BIRD (AM) (2) Authenticast

Submarines Model Maker Upgraded/Rebuilt? Released

A701 BALAO (2) Bob Duhadaway

A704 S-22 (3) Authenticast

JAPAN

Aircraft Carrier Model Maker Upgraded/Rebuilt? Released

J501 HOSHO Comet Rebuilt by W.Smith 2012

J502 AKAGI 1942 John Carter Upgraded by W.Smith 2003

J503 KAGA 1942 Clydeside Rebuilt by W.Smith 2001

J504 SORYU 1942 Clydeside Rebuilt by W.Smith 2001

J505 HIRYU 1942 Clydeside Rebuilt by W.Smith 2001

J509 RYUJO Authenticast Upgraded by W.Smith 2015

J510 TAIYO Authenticast Rebuilt by W.Smith 2015

J511 SHOHO 1942 Wayne Smith

1975

J512 SHOKAKU Authenticast John Carter 1970

J513 JUNYO Wayne Smith 2020

J514 UNRYU Wayne Smith 2020

J515 TAIHO John Carter Upgraded by W.Smith 2015

J516 SHINANO Wayne Smith 2020

Auxiliaries


J801 JINGEI (AS) Authenticast

J802 KAMOI, (AV) Authenticast

J803 MIZUHO, (AV) Authenticast

J804 NOTORO (AV/AO) Authenticast

J805 KAMOI (AV/AO) Authenticast

J806 KASHINO MARU Wayne Smith 2017


J101 FUSO Authenticast Rebuilt by W.Smith 2001

J102 ISE Authenticast Rebuilt by W.Smith 2001

J103 ISE w/Flight Deck Authenticast Rebuilt by W.Smith 1981

J104 KONGO John Carter

1972

J106 NAGATO 1945 Kephart/Carter Detailed by W. Smith 1973

J107 YAMATO* Wayne Smith

1975

J108 TOSA 1921 Wayne Smith

1980

89


J109 Super Yamato (798)* Wayne Smith

2002

J110 Number 13 Wayne Smith

2004

J111 Yamato A140A Wayne Smith

2004

J112 Yamato A140A2 Wayne Smith

2005

J113 Yamato A140B2 Wayne Smith

2005

J114 Fujimoto Wayne Smith

2007

J115 Hiraga Wayne Smith

2007

J116 Haruna 1944 Wayne Smith 2019

J117 Hiei 1942 Wayne Smith 2019

J118 Yamato 1942 Wayne Smith 2019


J201 AMAGI 1921 Wayne Smith

1981

J202 B65 Wayne Smith

2005

J203 iKONGO (Japan Vanguard) Wayne Smith

2014

J204 iFUSO Wayne Smith 2015

J205 iISE Wayne Smith 2015

Destroyer


DDJ01 AMAGIRI upgraded Wayne Smith Upgraded 2018

DDJ02 KAGERO upgraded Wayne Smith Upgraded 2018

DDJ03 YUGUMO upgraded Wayne Smith Upgraded 2018

DJ04 HATSUHARU upgraded Wayne Smith Upgraded 2019

DJ05 SHIRYATSUYU upgraded Wayne Smith Upgraded 2020

DJ06 AKIZUKI upgraded Wayne Smith Upgraded 2020

J601 AMAGIRI Authenticast

J602 ASASHIO Wayne Smith

J603 HATSUHARU Authenticast

J604 HIBIKI Authenticast

J605 KAGERO Bob Duhadaway Detailed by W. Smith

J606 SHIRYATSUYU Wayne Smith

J607 MATSU Authenticast

J608 MINEKAZE Authenticast

J609 MUTSUKI Authenticast

J610 SHIRYATSUYU Wayne Smith

J611 TERUTSUKI John Carter

J612 WAKATAKE Authenticast

J613 YUGUMO Wayne Smith

J614 SHIRYATSUYU Wayne Smith 2017

J615 SHIMIKAZE Wayne Smith 2020


J301 AOBA Authenticast Rebuilt by W.Smith 2011

J302 ATAGO 1944 Authenticast superstructure

Rebuilt by W.Smith 2012

J303 CHOKAI 1944 Authenticast superstructure


J304 MAYA AA 1944 Wayne Smith

2012

J305 SUZUYA 1944 Wayne Smith

1975

J306 FURUTAKA 1942 Wayne Smith 2012

J307 NACHI 1944 Authenticast Rebuilt by W.Smith 2011

J308 TONE 1944 Wayne Smith

2011

90


J309 MOGAMI w. Flight Deck Wayne Smith

2007

J310 IBUKI Wayne Smith 2018

Light Cruiser Model Maker Upgraded/Rebuilt? Released

J401 KATORI Authenticast

J402 NATORI Authenticast

J403 KUMA Authenticast Upgraded by W.Smith 2002

J404 ISUZU Wayne Smith

2002

J405 SENDAI Authenticast Upgraded by W.Smith 2002

J407 YUBARI Authenticast Upgraded by W.Smith 2002

J408 TENRYU Authenticast

J409 KITIKAMI Wayne Smith

2007

J410 YAHAGI Wayne Smith

2020

J411 C44 Improved AGANO Wayne Smith 2018

J412 CLAA Wayne Smith

Mine Warfare Ship Model Maker Upgraded/Rebuilt? Released

J831 ITSUKUSHIMA Authenticast

J832 OKINISHIMA Authenticast

J833 SHIRATAKA Authenticast

J834 YAEYAMA Authenticast

Marus Name (# in classl) Authenticast Label

Upgraded/Rebuilt? Released

M1 ASAMA (2) Modern Passenger-Large

Oct-01

M2 HEIAN (3) Transport, Large Rebuilt by W.Smith Jun-08

M3 BUENOS AIRES (2) Combat Trans’t

M4 OMUROSAN (2) Modern Tanker

M5 SHINSEI #17 (7) Old Coast Freight

Rebuilt by W.Smith Mar-06

M6 ARIMISAN (3) Modern Passngr-Freighter

M7 HIROKAWA (5) Modern Passngr Freighter

Rebuilt by W.Smith Mar-06

M8 AKAGI (4) Modern 3 Island Cargo

M9 AFRICA (4) Combat Load Transport

Rebuilt by W.Smith Jun-08

M10 DIA-ITI OGURA (5) Old 3 Island Tanker

Rebuilt by W.Smith Jun-08

M11 NEKKA (2) Transport, Small

Nov-00

M12 KOKURYU (2) Modern Passenger Small

M13 HOYO (2) Navy Petrol Carrier

Jun-76

M14 LIMA (18) Old 3 Island Freighter

Dec-05

M15 SINKO (8) Modern 3 Island Cargo

M16 HAKUSAN (4) Old Passenger-Cargo

M17 ASUKA (2) Cargo Ship

M18 MONTEVIDEO (3) Old Passenger-Cargo

Oct-03

M19 KASHIMA (2) Freighter, Large

M20 BIYO (17) Old 3 Island

Oct-03

91


Freighter

M21 AKIURA (8) Modern Freighter-Large

Dec-05

M22 NISSHIN (3) Authenticast

M23 NAGISAN (2) Modern Coastal Freighter

M24 ADEN (43) Store Ship

Oct-03

M25 BANGKOK (2) (Freighter, small)

M26 NIPPON (2) Authenticast

M27 TATUKAMI (2) Authenticast

M28 YASUKUNI (2) Authenticast

M29 HOKKAI (6) Authenticast

M30 KINPOSAN (2) Authenticast

M31 KASHII (5) Authenticast Rebuilt by W.Smith Jun-08

M32 TEIYO (1) Authenticast

M33 MONTREAL (6) Authenticast

Jun-00

M34 KAMAKURA (1) Authenticast

M35 KANO (1) Authenticast

M36 KINRYU (3) Authenticast

Oct-01

M37 AMAKUSA #1 (40) Authenticast

Oct-03

M38 KORYU (5) Authenticast

M39 NAGARA (6) Authenticast

Jun-76

M40 TAKATIHO (1) Authenticast

M41 BENGAL (11) Authenticast

Dec-05

M42 TYOKO (3) Authenticast

Oct-01

M43 AMAGISAN (2) Authenticast

M44 FUSHIMI (2) Authenticast

M45 DAIGEN (8) Authenticast Rebuilt by W.Smith Mar-06

M46 PEKING (20) Authenticast

Dec-05

M47 SANTEN (13) Authenticast

Oct-03

M48 AWAZISAN (2) Authenticast

M49 KYOKOTU (3) Authenticast

M50 GENYO (6) Authenticast

M51 Siretoka Authenticast

M52 KURAMA Authenticast

M77 KANZYU Authenticast

M78 KAMOGAWA Authenticast

M80 KASHINO Wayne Smith

M103 South Salem #3 Passenger – Old Detailed by W. Smith 2010

M106 South Salem #6 Standard Freighter – Old

Detailed by W. Smith 2010

M107 South Salem #7 Modern Freighter (split superstructure)


M114 South Salem #14 Amerikaland (Norwegian Collier)


M115 South Salem #15 Trawler Detailed by W. Smith 2010

GERMANY

Armoured Ship Model Maker Upgraded/Rebuilt? Released

92


G204 ADMIRAL SCHEER Authenticast Upgraded by W.Smith 2007

G205 GRAF SPEE John Carter Upgraded by W.Smith 2007

G206 LUTZOW Authenticast Upgraded by W.Smith 2012

G207 Kreuzer P Wayne Smith

2005


G201 GNEISENAU* Authenticast Upgraded by W.Smith 2005

G202 SCHARNHORST* Authenticast Upgraded by W.Smith 2005

G203 OPQ Wayne Smith

2004

G208 KW45 Wayne Smith

2005

G920 DERFFLINGER 1914 John Carter

G921 SEYDLITZ 1914 John Carter

G922 VON DER TANN 1914 John Carter

G923 MOLTKE 1914 John Carter Upgraded by W.Smith

G924 BLUCHER Wayne Smith

G925 MACKENSEN Wayne Smith

2021


G101 BISMARCK* John Carter Upgraded by W.Smith 2005

G102 TIRPITZ* Authenticast Upgraded by W.Smith 2005

G103 H39 15” guns* Herb Kephart

1973

G104 H39 16” guns* Herb Kephart

1973

G105 H44 Wayne Smith

2005

G901 NASSAU 1914 John Carter

G902 HELGOLAND 1914 John Carter

G903 KOENIG 1914 John Carter

G904 BADEN 1916 Wayne Smith

G905 KAISER 1914 Wayne Smith

G906 L20 Wayne Smith 2020

Destroyer


G601 GALSTER Authenticast

G602 MAASZ Authenticast

G603 NARVIK Authenticast


G301 HIPPER Authenticast Upgraded by W.Smith 2007

G302 PRINZ EUGEN Authenticast Upgraded by W.Smith 2003


G401 EMDEN Authenticast

G402 KOELN Authenticast Upgraded by W.Smith 2018

G403 LEIPZIG Authenticast Upgraded by W.Smith 2018

G404 NURNBERG Authenticast Upgraded by W.Smith 2018

G405 Kreuzer M Wayne Smith

2006

Submarine Model Maker Upgraded/Rebuilt? Released

G701 TYPE VII (3) Authenticast

G702 TYPE XIV (3) Authenticast

G703 TYPE XXI (3) Bob Duhadaway

GREAT BRITAIN

Aircraft Carrier Model Maker Upgraded/Rebuilt? Released

B501 UNICORN Authenticast

B504 FURIOUS Authenticast

B505 ILLUSTRIOUS Authenticast

B506 ARK ROYAL Wiking Upgraded by W.Smith 2003

B507 COURAGEOUS Wiking Upgraded by W.Smith 2003

93


B508 EAGLE Comet Upgraded by W.Smith 2003

B509 HERMES Wiking Upgraded by W.Smith 2003

Auxiliary


B803 ABDIEL DM Authenticast Upgraded by W.Smith 2007

B804 TYNE AD Authenticast

B805 QUEEN MARY Triang John Carter


B201 HOOD John Carter

B202 RENOWN Authenticast Rebuilt by W.Smith 2003

B203 REPULSE Wayne Smith

2003

B204 INVINCIBLE 1921 Wayne Smith Replace model from 1983 2005

B205 Hood 1944 Wayne Smith

2001

B206 F3 Wayne Smith

2005

B920 INVINCIBLE 1914 John Carter

B921 INDEFATIGABLE 1914 John Carter

B922 LION 1914 John Carter Upgraded by W.Smith 2002

B923 TIGER 1915 John Carter


B101 KING GEORGE V* Authenticast Upgraded by W.Smith 2005

B102 LION* Wayne Smith

1974

B103 MALAYA Authenticast Rebuilt by J.Carter

B104 NELSON* Authenticast Rebuilt by J.Carter 2004

B105 PRINCE OF WALES ‘41* Framburg Rebuilt by J.Carter 2005

B106 QUEEN ELIZABETH Authenticast Rebuilt by J.Carter/Upgraded by W.Smith

B107 ROYAL SOVEREIGN Authenticast Rebuilt by J.Carter/Upgraded by W.Smith

B109 WARSPITE Authenticast Rebuilt by W.Smith

B110 VANGUARD* Triang from Musser


B111 Super LION (16E/38)* Wayne Smith

2002

B112 N3 (1922) Wayne Smith

2004

B113 BB1936 15A Wayne Smith

2004

B114 LION Hybrid Wayne Smith

2008

B115 RODNEY (modernized) Wayne Smith 2017

B116 Super Lion, Vanguard style Wayne Smith 2017

B901 DREADNOUGHT 1914 John Carter Upgraded by W.Smith 2002

B902 IRON DUKE 1914 Authenticast Upgraded by W.Smith 2002

B903 KING GEORGE V 1914 John Carter

B904 BELLEROPHON Wayne Smith

2003

B905 COLLINGWOOD Wayne Smith

2003

B906 NEPTUNE Wayne Smith

2003

B908 QE WWI Wayne Smith

2003

Destroyer


B601 H CLASS Authenticast

B602 J CLASS Authenticast

B603 L & M CLASS Authenticast

B604 SZ CLASS Authenticast

B605 TRIBAL Authenticast Rebuilt by W.Smith


B301 CUMBERLAND Authenticast Upgraded by W.Smith 2002

B302 DORSETSHIRE Wayne Smith

2007

94


B303 HAWKINS Authenticast Upgraded by W.Smith 2009

B304 LONDON Authenticast

B305 EXETER Wayne Smith 2020


B401 ARETHUSA Authenticast Upgraded by W.Smith 2009

B402 BELFAST Authenticast Upgraded by W.Smith 2002

B403 DIDO Authenticast Upgraded by W.Smith 2002

B405 FIJI Authenticast Upgraded by W.Smith 2009

B406 LEANDER Authenticast Upgraded by W.Smith 2012

B407 SOUTHAMPTON Authenticast Upgraded by W.Smith 2009

B408 HOBART Wayne Smith

2007

B409 BLACK PRINCE Wayne Smith

B410 Colony AA Wayne Smith

B411 EMERALD Authenticast Upgraded by W. Smith 2018

Monitor


B801 ABERCROMBIE Authenticast

B802 ROBERTS Authenticast

FRANCE


F102 COURBET Authenticast Rebuilt by W.Smith 2015

F103 DUNKERQUE* John Carter Rebuilt by W.Smith 2003

F104 RICHELIEU* Authenticast Upgraded by Carter/Smith 2004

F105 GASCOGNE* Wayne Smith

2001

F106 ALSACE* Wayne Smith

2002

F107 BRETAGNE Wayne Smith

2003

F109 CLEMENCEAU Wayne Smith

2005

F110 JEAN BART Wayne Smith

2021

F901 NORMANDIE Wayne Smith

2002

F902 LYON Wayne Smith

2021

F903

Destroyer


F601 FANTASQUE Authenticast John Carter

F602 MOGADOR Wayne Smith

F603 Le Hardi Wayne Smith

2004


F301 TOURVILLE Authenticast John Carter

F303 SUFFREN Mike Musser Collection

Rebuilt by W.Smith

F304 FOCH Mike Musser Collection


F305 DUPLEIX Mike Musser Collection


F306 ALGERIE Wayne Smith

2005

F307 St LOUIS Wayne Smith 2016


F401 GEORGES LEYGUES Wayne Smith

F402 EMILE BERTIN Framburg Rebuilt by W.Smith 2005

F403 PRIMAGUET Comet Rebuilt by W.Smith 2004

F404 DeGRASSE Wayne Smith

ITALY


95


I101 ANDREA DORIA Authenticast Upgraded by W.Smith 2015

I102 CONTE DE CAVOUR Authenticast Upgraded by W.Smith 2015

I103 LITTORIO* Authenticast Upgraded by W.Smith 2004

Destroyer


I601 SOLDATI Wayne Smith


I301 TRENTO Star New hull and upgraded by W.Smith

2004

I302 ZARA Authenticast

I303 BOLZANO Wayne Smith


I401 DUCA D'AOSTA Authenticast Rebuilt by W.Smith 2002

I402 GARIBALDI Authenticast

I403 BANDE NERE Star,Mike Musser collection


I404 CADORNA Star,Mike Musser collection


I405 CIANO Wayne Smith

RUSSIA


R101 SOVIET SOYUZ Wayne Smith

2014

R102 GIBBS AND COX 'D' Wayne Smith

2019

R103 PROJECT 24 (XIII) Wayne Smith

2008

R104 UP41 Wayne Smith

Battlecruisers Model Maker Upgraded/Rebuilt? Released

R201 Kronstadt Wayne Smith

2016

R202 Stalingrad Wayne Smith

2008

Light Cruisers Model Maker Upgraded/Rebuilt? Released

R401 Kirov Authenticast Rebuilt by W.Smith 2007

R402 Chapayev Viking Rebuilt by W.Smith 2007

R403 Sverdlov Viking Rebuilt by W.Smith 2007

NETHERLANDS

N201 Battlecruiser 1047 Wayne Smith 2002

N401 DeRUYTER Wayne Smith 2020

N402 JAVA Wayne Smith 2020

GREAT WHITE FLEET ERA

JAPAN

T101 MIKASA NA .

T102 KASUGA NA .

T103 YAKUMO NA .

T104 ZUMA NA .

UNITED STATES

W101 ALABAMA 1898 NA .

W102 CONNECTICUT 1905 NA .

W103 INDIANA NA .

W104 MAINE 1898 NA .

A129 MICHIGAN NA Rebuilt by W.Smith 2003

96


W106 BROOKLYN NA .

W107 OLYMPIA NA

97


Penetration Table at Normal Battle Range of 20,000 yds (m indicates meters instead of yds)

Gun Country Ship AP Shell

Weight

(lbs)

Belt Penetration at

20,000 yds (meters)

Deck Penetration at

30,000 yds (meters)

20”/45 Japan 798 4200 Not built

21"Gerät Germany H44 4850 Not built

18”/48 US 3850 24” calculated 8.1” calculated

18.9”/45 Japan #13 3410

18.1”/45 Japan Yamato 3220 19.5” (meters) 7.4” (meters)

18”/45 Britain N3 2837

16”/50 US Iowa 2700 20.0” 6.7”

15”/50 Italy Littorio 1951 20.1” 5.1”

16”/50 Germany H39 2272 18.8” 5.0”

16”/45 US S.Dakota 2700 17.6” 7.6”

15”/47 Germany Bismarck 1764 16.5” 5.0

15”/50 France Richelieu 1949 15.5” 5.4”

16”/45 Britain Lion 2375 15.3” 5.7”

14”/50 US NM, TN classes 1500 13.8” 5.3”

13”/52 France Dunkerque 1235 13.5” 4.3”

12”/50 US Alaska 1140 12.7” 5.1”

16”/45 Britain Nelson 2048 12.2” 5.1”

15”/42 Britain Vanguard 1938 11.7” 5.7

16”/45 US Colorado 2240 11.5”

11”/55 Germany Scharnhorst 728 11.5” 3.0”

14”/45 Britain King George V 1590 11.2” 4.8”

16”/45 Japan Nagato 2249 10.6” (meters)

Statistics gathered from Dulin/Garzke, Raven/Roberts, Lacroix, Friedman, and Navweps.com

Bibliography

Battleships, Allied, William Garzke and Robert Dulin, Naval Institute Press, 1985

Battleships, Axis and Neutral, William Garzke and Robert Dulin, Naval Institute Press, 1985

British Battleships of WWII, Raven and Roberts, Naval Institute Press, 1976

Japanese Cruisers, Eric Lacroix, Naval Institute Press, 1997

U.S.Battleships, Norman Friedman, Naval Institute Press, 1985

U.S. Cruisers, Norman Friedman, Naval Institute Press, 1984

U.S. Carriers, Norman Friedman, Naval Institute Press,

98


Seapower Values by Bobby Weymouth.

United States

Tillman IV-II 1917 24 K DV 0.25 Deck:5.0" AA:.5Red

15-18"/48 SRM:7.5 2950 lbs 1350 rds 47,000 yds TT:4-

21"(12)

12-6"/53 SRM:25 105 lbs 2400 rds 26,500 yds

8-5"/25AA SRM:60 55 lbs 2880 rds 14,500 yds

Tillman Design 4 24 K DV 0.25 Deck:5.0" AA:.5Red

24-16"/50 SRM:7.5 2100 lbs 2160 rds 43,500 yds TT:4-

21"(12)

22-6"/53 SRM:25 105 lbs 4400 rds 26,500 yds

6-3"/50AA SRM: 60 13 lbs 2280 rds 14,500 yds

BB65C Plan 27 k DV: 1 DK:5.1" AA:Blue

12-16"/50R SRM:10 2700lb 1440 rd 42,500 yds TT: 0

20-5"/38DP SRM:75 55lb 9000 rd 17,500 yds AC:4 C:2

BB-65D Plan 27 K DV:0.5 DK: 12.0" AA:Blue

12-16"/50R SRM:10 2700 lb 1440 rd 42,500 yd TT:0

12-6"/47DPA SRM:100 141 lb 9600 rd 26,000 yd AC:3 C:2

BB65(I) Plan (1938) 27 K DV:1 Deck: 5.1" AA:Blue 9-18"/48R SRM:10 3850 lb 1080 rd 44,500 yds AC:3 C:2 20-5"/38DP SRM:75 55 lb 9000 rd 17,500 yds

BB65(A) Plan (1939) 27 K DV:1 Deck:5.1" AA:Blue 12-16"/50R SRM:10 2700 lb 1440 rd 42,500 yds AC:3 C:2 20-5"/38DP SRM:75 55 lb 9000 rd 17,500 yds

Georgia Plan 27 K DV:0.5 Deck:12.0" AA:Blue

8-18"/47R SRM:10 3850 lbs 960 rds 44,500 yds AC:3 C:2

12-6"/47DP SRM:100 141 lbs 9600 rds 26,000 yds

Virginia Plan 27 K DV:0.5 Deck:12.0" AA: Blue


12-6"/47 DP SRM:100 141 lbs 9600 rds 26,000 yds

BB 1922 Plan 24 K DV:1 DK: 5.0" AA:.5 Red

8-18"/48 SRM:7.5 2950 lb 720 rd 47,000 yd TT:4-21"

(8)

18-6"/53 SRM:25 105 lb 3600 rd 26,500 yd AC:3 C:2

8-5"/25AA SRM:60 55 lb 2880 rd 14,500 yd

BB 1923 Plan 24 K DV:1 DK: 5.0" AA:.5 Red

12-18"/48 SRM:7.5 2950 lb 1080 rd 47,000 yd TT:4-21"(8)

12-6"/53 SRM:25 105 lb 2400 rd 26,500 yd AC:3 C:2

8-5"/25AA SRM:60 55 lb 2880 rd 14,500 yd

Lexington 1916 Values in Seapower Directory

Lexington 1921 Values In Seapower Directory

99


Design D 1918 30 K DV:1 DK: 4.0" AA:.5 Red

12-16"/50 SRM:7.5 2100 lb 1080 rd 43,500 yd TT:4-21"(8)

16-6"/53 SRM:25 105 lb 3200 rd 26,500 yd AC:3 C:2

8-5"/25AA SRM:60 55 lb 2880 rd 14,500 yd

CA2D 1940 33 K DV:6 DK: 5.0" AA:Blue

12-12"/50R SRM:15 1140 lb 1800 rd 37,000 yd TT:0

16-5"/38DP SRM:75 55 lb 7200 rd 17,500 yd AC:4 C:2

Scheme 2 Plan 1940 33 K DV:15 DK:3.0" AA:Blue

12-8"/55R SRM:20 335 lb 1920 rd 30,500 yd TT:8-21"(8)

12-5"/38DP SRM:75 55 lb 5400 rd 17,500 yd AC:3 C:2

CAC 1941 33 K DV:14 DK:3.5" AA:Blue

12-8"/55R SRM:20 335 lb 1920 rd 30,500 yd TT:8-21"(8)

12-5"/38DP SRM:75 55 lb 5400 rd 17,500 yd AC:3 C:2

Scout Cruiser

C-1 1921 36 K DV:20 DK:1.0" AA:.5Red

7-8"/55 SRM:20 260 lb 1120 rd 28,000 yd TT:6-21:(6)

4-5"/51 SRM:40 60 lb 960 rd 12,500 yd AC:1 C:0

BB 1917 Plan 21k DV:3 DK:7.2" AA:.25 Red

10-16"/45 SRM:7.5 2100 lb 900 rd 34000 yrds TT:2-21"(8)

22-6"/53 SRM:25 105 lb 6600 rd 26,500 yds AC:0 C:0

4-3"/23AA SRM:60 13 lb 1440 rd 7,500 yds

MAXIMUM BB

BB 1934 Plan 27k DV:0.5 DK:6.5 AA:Red

8-20"/50 SRM:7.5 4450lb 960 rd 47,000 yd TT: 0

20-5"38DP SRM:75 55lb 9000 rd 17,500 yd AC:4 C:2

BB1934 Counter to the HOOD

BB 1934 Plan 30k DV:5 DK:5.0 AA:Orange

8-16"/45 SRM:10 2240lb 960 rd 40,500 yd TT: 0

14-5"38DP SRM:75 55lb 6300 rd 17,500 yd AC:0 C:0

Scheme XVI BB 1937 Plan 27k DV:4 DK:6.0 AA:Orange

12-14”/50 SRM:10 1500lb 1440 rd 36,500 yd TT: 0

16-5"38DP SRM:75 55lb 7200 rd 17,500 yd AC:3 C:2

CC 1933

CC 1934 Plan 30k DV:5 DK:6.0 AA:Orange

9-14”/45 SRM:7.5 1500lb 1080 rd 36,500 yd TT: 0

16-5"38DP SRM:75 55lb 7200 rd 17,500 yd AC:4 C:2

Germany

OPQ Values in Seapower Directory

Kreuzer P Values in Seapower Directory

KW45 Plan (1939) 36 K DV:9 Deck:4.5" AA:Orange 8-15"/47R SRM:10 1764lb 960 rd 39,500 yds AC:4 C:1 12-5.9"/55 SRM:30 100 lb 1800 rd 25,000 yds TT:8-

21"(24) 8-4.1"/65AA SRM:70 35 lb 3200 rd 16,500 yards

Great Britain

100


HOOD Plan 1942 33 K DV:3 Deck:5.5" AA:Blue


16-5.25"/50 SRM:40 85 lbs 4320 rds 22,500 yds

Super LION 16E38 27 K DV:2 Deck:6.0" AA:Blue


16-5.25"/50 SRM:40 85 lbs 4320 rds 22,500 yds

BB1935A Plan(1935) 30K DV:4 Deck:5.25" AA:Orange 9-15"/45R SRM:10 2050 lb 1080 rd 40,500 yds AC:4 C:1 20-4.5"/DP SRM:75 55 lb 9000 rd 17,500 yds TT:10-

21"(10)

BB1935B Plan (1935) 27 K DV:3 Deck:6" AA:Orange

9-15"/45R SRM:10 2050 lb 1080 rd 40,500 yds AC:4 C:1 20-4.5"/DP SRM:75 55 lb 9000 rd 17,500 yds TT10-

21"(10)

F3 Plan 30 k DV:5 DK:7.0" AA:0.25 Red

9-15"/50 SRM: 7.5 1950 lb 1080 rd 35,000 yd TT:0

8-6"/50 SRM: 30 100 lb 1920 rd 24,500 yd AC: 0

Admiral CA Plan(4) 33 k DV:14 DK:4.0" AA:Blue

12-9.2"/45R SRM:20 380 lb 1920 rd 34,500 yd TT8-21"(16)

16-4"/45 SRM:75 30 lb 7200 rd 17,500 yd AC:4 C:1

N-3 Values in Seapower Directory

G-3 Values in Seapower Directory

France

Alsace Plan 1944 33 K DV:1 Deck:8.0" AA"Blue


12-6"/55DP SRM:25 120 lbs 3000 rds 28,000 yds

16-3.9"/45 SRM:100 30 lbs 4800 rds 16,000 yds

St Louis Plan 33 k DV:17 DK:3.5" AA:Orange

9-8"/50 SRM:20 270 lb 1400 rd 30,000 yd TT6-21"(12)

12-3.9"/50AASRM:100 35 lb 5400 rd 20,500 yd AC:3 C:2

Japan

A-140A Plan (1934) 30K DV:0.5 Deck:8.9" AA:Red 9-18"/45(R) SRM:7.5 3220 lb 810 rd 46000 yards AC:6 C:2 12-6.1"/60 SRM:25 125 lb 3600 rd 30,000 yards 12-5"/40AA SRM:60 50 lb 4320 rd 16000 yards

A-140A2 Plan 1935 30 K DV:0.5 Deck: 8.0 AA:Red 8-18"/45(R) SRM:7.5 3220 lb 810 rd 46.000 yds AC:6 C:2 12-6.1"/60 SRM:25 125 lb 3600 rd 30,000 yds 12-5"/40AA SRM:60 50 lb 4320 rd 16,000 yds

A-140B2 Plan 1935 27 K DV:0.5 Deck:8.9" AA:Red 8-20"/45(R) SRM:7.5 4200 lb 810 rd 52,500 yds AC:6 C:2 12-6,1"/60 SRM:25 125 lb 3600 rds 30,000 yds 12-5"/40 AA SRM:60 50 lb 4320 rds 16,000 yds

phantom fleets of the twentieth century© by wayne … series_2_2020.pdf · 2020. 10. 6. · i can...

Documents