the “fleet that never was” by wayne smith consultant to alnavco series_2_2016.pdf ·...

1

THE “FLEET THAT NEVER WAS”

By Wayne Smith

Consultant to Alnavco

“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 D1/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 6-16” , 20-5”

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”

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

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

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

3

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

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”

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”,24-37mm

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 PA so the NEW MEXICO’S were only slightly improved PA. In March 1914

characteristics for BB 1916 were submitted but Daniels ruled in July, 1914 (month prior to the

16” test firing) that the TENNESSE 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 MARYLANDs.

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

6

would have proven formidable opponents even though they weighed 5,000 tons less than the

largest of the British and Japanese ships.

A120A is predicated on SOUTH DAKOTA being rebuilt in WWII, similar to the WEST

VIRGINIA. Modern fire control, radar, 16x5” guns, massive 40mm battery 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 A120A (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”

A202/202A/203/204 LEXINGTON 1921/1916/Fast BB ‘D’

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

the Washington Treaty. Designed (Design # 169) as scouts able to overwhelm a screen of light

ships, they started as battlecruiser equivalents 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 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.

7

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.

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? 202A is the LEX 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. Having these

ships would have eliminated the need for the IOWAs.

8

LEX 1921 LEX 1916 Design D

Displacement 43,500 33,500 54,500

Length 874’ 874’ 874’

Width 106’ 92’ 106’

Draft 31’ 30’ 32’

Speed 33.75 knots 35 knots 29

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

16-6”/53 (16x1) 18-5” 16-6”/53

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

Deck: Main 2”, upper 1.5” 1.5” 2” main, 2-3” upper

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

A126 Tillman IV-2

A143 Tillman D1

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. McBride used “off-the-shelf” plans and figures

to extrapolate the scantlings used in the SOUTH DAKOTA and the LEXINGTON power plant.

9

Displacement 60,000 tons (65,000 tons)

Length 975’

Speed 32(30) knots on 180,000 EHP

Armament 10-18”/50 (5x2)

16-6”/50 (16x1)

4-21” TT

Armor belt: 10” (18”)

Cost $39,150,000

An extra 5,000 tons bought more armor but cost 2 knots. The contemporary HOOD and

NAGATO were in serious trouble.

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. Like McBride’s design all were built around the

LEXINGTON power plant that had known weights and dimensions. 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).

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.” Her characteristics were:

D-IV D 1 D4

Displacement 80,000 tons 70,000 80,000

Length 975’ 975’ 975’

Width 108’ 108’ 108’

Draft 33’ 33’ 38’

Speed 25 knots on 180,000 EHP 26.5 kts 28 kts

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

21-6”/50 (21x1) 21-6” 16-6”

4-3”/50 AA 4-3” AA 4-3” AA

4-21” TT 4-21” TT 4 -21” TT

Armor belt: 16” 18”

Deck: 5” main deck, 2.5” upper deck 5”

Turrets: 21” face, 12” sides, 8” roof 20” face

These exceptional ships had very complete underwater protection due to her 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 21-6” secondaries but many were

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

10

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.

The 18” version would replace the triple funnels with LEXINGTON style funnels and

superstructure. There actually is insufficient upper deck space for the 01 level as in the

LEXINGTON due to the fifth turret. Backing Q turret against X turret grouped the barbettes

together and leaves the engineering ventilators underneath Q turrets barrels. Compare the

ventilator and funnel layout to the LEXINGTON and you will find them the same. This also

meant that the after 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! Further imagine these ships modernized with

twin 5”/38 and 40mm mounts. 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 it 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 #1 or #2. D2’s 24 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.

11

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 hull. 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 another 10,000 tons on

at least an 800 foot hull. Machinery spaces and funnels configured as the SOUTH DAKOTAs

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.

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”).

It is more likely that a new design 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

Displacement 44,500 tons 52,000 tons 35,000 48,750

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”

12

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

13

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”

14

A209 CC1933

A137 BB1934-2

A138 BB1937 XVI

A146 BB1937 IX-E

BB1934-2 BB1937 XVI CC1933 IX-E


Length 728’ 728’ 775’ 728’

Width 102’ 108’ 92’ 106’

Draft 31’ 32’ 32’ 32’

Speed 30 knots 27 knots 31.5 knots 30 kts

Armament 8-16”/45(4x2) 12-14”/45 (3x4) 9-14”/50 (3x3) 6-16”/45 (2x3)

14-5”/38(7x2) 16-5”/38(6x2, 4x1) 16-5”/38 (8x2) 20-5”/38 (10x2)

Armor belt: 12.75” 11” 12” 13.1”

Deck/Splinter: 4.75/1” 5.6” 6”/5” (mag/mach) 5.5”

These four 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” 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. This model is one of an

“American VANGUARD” where enough triple 14” of the NV and PA existed to build four of

these battlecruisers. This would have been a distinct improvement to the American battle line to

replace 4 NV/PA with these ships. Ten years later ALASKA filled the role envisioned for these

ships. We need to note that 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.

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 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

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

15

were flush mounted and not superfiring, similar to the original NC design. This model follows

the life cycle of the NC with the quadruple 14” turrets replaced with triple 16” (A146B), widely

separated turrets to prevent a single hit from crippling both turrets, and #2 turret super-firing over

#1. 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.

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

4)

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 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.

16

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.

17

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 YAMATOs (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 (2/40)

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

18

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 YAMATOs.

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 YAMATOs 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

19

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

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

turbogenerator 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

20

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

21

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.

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

22

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 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 of these

configurations were sketch designs considered by the General Board.

A141A/A1441B BB65-8

BB65-8 BB65-8B

Displacement 67,000 ~75,000

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.

23

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 TILMAN. 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. turret. 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.

24

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, DERRFLINGER, KIRISHIMA, BISMARCK

and SCHARNHORST was that 20 hits maximum render’s 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

25

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,

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.

26

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

27

four 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 BALTIMOREs

and 19 CLEVELANDs. 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.

28

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 BALTIMOREs 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 #2 plus 3 Cleveland completed as CVLs #3 plus 4 Cleveland completed as CVLs #4 replaces 7 Clevelands with CL1 and caps the Clevelands 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

29

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.

\

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”

30

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 WORCESTER 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

Displacement 44,500 tons 38,500 tons 45,000

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

31

ESSEX were laid 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.

32

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

(INVINCIBLE, 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.

33

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 battleships 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.

34

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 BISMARCKs.

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 LIONs 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

35

they could be 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/B111A 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.

36

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. B111A 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

37

STRASSBOURG to be part of this battlecruiser squadron while the French battleships engaged

the Italian fleet.

38

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 Displacement 44,750 tons

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

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

39

B205 HOOD 1944

HOOD prowling the sea lanes for the new German fleet

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 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

40

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

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

41

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). It is more likely that the cruiser would have had 9x8”.

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.

42

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!

43

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”

44

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.

45

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

46

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”

47

Germany

G925 Mackensen 1916

G906 L20 1918

Mackensen L20a Tosa South Dakota Displacement 31,000 tons 43,800 38,500 42,500

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 in 1910.

All of 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 overmatched at long ranges with steeply diving shells penetrating her thin decks and

diving under her shallow armor.

48

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 the 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 Displacement 52,600 tons 62,800 63,000 88,600

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

G207/G203/G208 Kreuzer P/ OPQ Battlecruisers/KW45

49

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.

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.

Kreuzer P OPQ KW45 KW50

Displacement 19,679 tons 31,142 45,000 50,000

50

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)

51

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

52

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 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.

53

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.

54


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

55

J114 BB Fujimoto

J115 BB Hiraga

J114 J115 Displacement 35,000 tons 35,000 tons

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

56

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?

57

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.

58

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.

59

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 Displacement 68,000 tons 70,000 tons

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.

60

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 (iKONGO)

J204 iFUSO

J205 iISE

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 iKONGO. 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 heavy cruisers,

16,000 more than the rebuilt KONGOs. 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

iKONGO. This refit is when the original engines and boilers were replaced and marks the

appropriate but awkward time to save the turrets for the iKONGO. ISE and HYUGA were rebuilt

from 1934-1937 and this is the perfect time to remove the turrets and build an iKONGO.

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.

61

For the wargamer and campaigner, if you combine this idea with other Japanese innovations, you

can build a formidable fleet without the YAMATO and keep within the treaties.

1. Modify the Circle 5 Program of October 1938 of two B65 battlecruisers, ten 8” cruisers,

four AGANO light cruisers as destroyer squadron flagships, three AGANO light cruisers

as submarine flagships and 8 AA cruisers (24-3.9” (12x2)).

2. Build 4 HIRAGA 1937 -1941

3. 2 iKONGO 1938-1942; rebuild the iFUSOs (1930-33) and iISEs (1934-37)

in lieu of the two B-65s

4. 2 SHOKAKU 1937-1941

5. 1 TAIHO 1941-1944

6. Lay down 4 IBUKI to replace the AOBA/FURUTAKA

7. Don’t build the AGANOs as submarine flagships. Convert the FURUTUKA and AOBA

to carry 9x6” with the MOGAMI turrets. Additional crew and command space can be

added because the ships weigh less. This allows you to still be within the treaty.

8. Don’t lay down the AA cruisers.

9. Convert the two TENRYU’s as planned to AA cruisers by replacing the 4x5.5” with 4x2

8cm AA and remove the torpedoes.

10. Convert 5 KITIKAMI to torpedo cruisers having 7x4 TT and 4x2 5”/40. 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 and can carry torpedo

reloads.

11. 6 AMAGI carriers starting in 1941 and completing late 1943

This gives the Japanese14 BBs to start the war and 2 new ones 1 year later, matching the US

battleline. The 18 CAs by treaty are stronger than the 18 US, the 21 CLs less 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.

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

62

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”

63

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”/50 (2x3, 1x4)

20-5” DP (10x2)

16-1.1” (4x4) AA

Armor belt: 13” inclined at 15°

Deck: 5”

Turrets 16”

CT 15”

This was the final conventional study done with the request of American assistance. This design

was finalized in March 1939 and reflected one of the IOWA configurations. After the invasion of

Poland, the US terminated further assistance and refused any technology transfer. A very solid

design, armor and firepower are superior to the IOWA with only the loss of 2 knots of speed.

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.

64

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.

65

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 18938, 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 also 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

there was consideration for 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.


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”

66

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.

67

Now that you have reviewed these possible additions to your fleets, let’s look at some historical

possibilities.

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 the F3 and 15B giving them ten 15” ships capable of at least 28 knots.

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 AZ has not

exploded, the OK not turned turtle, the NV not beached. The leftover 2x14” turrets are

mounted in Oahu as shore defense batteries. With only four BBs 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

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

68

2. 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

The original US General Board recommendations were to keep many of the new US ships under

construction, allow the British to complete the four “Super-Hoods” (G3 – INVINCIBLE) and

Japan to complete 7 new ships. Even this was 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, Japan insists on keeping the TOSA’s since they have been launched. The US

demands a minimum displacement of 43k tons to keep some of their new ships. The British must

build G3s reduced to 43k tons which is an improvement over building the NELSONs reduced to

34k tons. The US decides to keep 4 LEXINGTONs instead of the SOUTH DAKOTAs to have a

fast wing capable of defeating the KONGOs or the HOOD. The remaining two LEX’s become

carriers. Fleets are as of 1927.

US (17) British (17) Japanese (12) France (6) Italy (4)

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

168 guns 136 guns 116 guns

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.

Loser: Japan! 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.

69

3. Washington Treaty signed, Japanese do not withdraw in 1936.

In this fascinating scenario, BBs continue to be limited to 35k tons. The SOUTH DAKOTAs

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.

70

4. Washington treaty fails, is revived under President Coolidge and signed in 1926.

With larger ships completed, new standards are now in place. 48k (with two exceptions)

becomes the limit 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.

US (25) British (26) Japanese (16) France (6) Italy (4)

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

288 guns 216 guns 154 guns

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.

5.

71

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 80 years.

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 Stribling, Dick Pattee, Jack

Rowe and Jack Jamieson 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. One of the best features of the Framburg's were the 40mm and 20mm

mounts which soon appeared on all the Authenticast originals.

72

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.

The first thing Pete and Wayne did was to concentrate on upgrading the ships by removing

secondaries of 5" and greater from the models and casting them separately. This was quickly

completed, 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 continue to release Marus at regular intervals and have focused on detailing the

latest offerings. 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.

73

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 M Wayne Smith 2016

A209 CC 1933 Wayne Smith 2006

74

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

A145 IOWA as TILLMAN Wayne Smith 2015

Destroyer Escorts Model Maker Upgraded/Rebuilt? Released

A618 BUCKLEY Authenticast

A619 RUDDEROW Authenticast

Destroyers Model Maker Upgraded/Rebuilt? Released

A601 BENHAM Authenticast

75

A602 BENSON Authenticast

A603 BROOKS Authenticast

A604 FARRAGUT Authenticast

A605 FLETCHER Wayne Smith

A606 GEARING Authenticast Upgraded by W.Smith

A607 GRIDLEY Authenticast

A608 LIVERMORE Authenticast

A609 MAHAN Authenticast

A611 PORTER 1942 Authenticast

A613 SIMS Authenticast

A614 SOMERS Authenticast

A615 SUMNER Authenticast

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

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

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

76

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

J513 JUNYO Wayne Smith 2016

J514 UNRYU Wayne Smith 2016

J515 TAIHO John Carter Upgraded by W.Smith 2015

J516 SHINANO Wayne Smith 2016

Auxiliaries Model Maker Upgraded/Rebuilt? Released

J801 JINGEI (AS) Authenticast

J802 KAMOI, (AV) Authenticast

J803 MIZUHO, (AV) Authenticast

J804 NOTORO (AV/AO) Authenticast

J805 KAMOI (AV/AO) Authenticast


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 H. Kephart/J.Carter

Detailed by W. Smith 1973

J107 YAMATO* Wayne Smith 1975

J108 TOSA 1921 Wayne Smith 1980

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 Yanato A140B2 Wayne Smith 2005

J114 Fujimoto Wayne Smith 2007

J115 Hiraga Wayne Smith 2007


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 Model Maker Upgraded/Rebuilt? Released

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

J611 TERUTSUKI John Carter

J612 WAKATAKE Authenticast

J613 YUGUMO Wayne Smith

77


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

J309 MOGAMI w. Flight Deck Wayne Smith 2007

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 AGANO 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

78

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 Freighter

Oct-03

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

M103 South Salem #3 Passenger - Old Detailed by W. Smith 2010

M106 South Salem #6 Standard Freighter – Old


M107 South Salem #7 Modern Freighter (split superstructure)


M114 South Salem #14 Amerikaland Detailed by W. Smith 2010

79

(Norwegian Collier)

M115 South Salem #15 Trawler Detailed by W. Smith 2010

GERMANY

Armoured Ship Model Maker Upgraded/Rebuilt? Released

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


G101 BISMARCK* John Carter Upgraded by W.Smith 2005

G102 TIRPITZ* Authenticast Upgraded by W.Smith 2005

G103 H39 15" guns* Herb Kephart

G104 H39 16" guns* Herb Kephart

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


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


G402 KOELN Authenticast

G403 LEIPZIG Authenticast

G404 NURNBERG Authenticast

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

80

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

B508 EAGLE Comet Upgraded by W.Smith 2003

B509 HERMES Wiking Upgraded by W.Smith 2003

Auxiliary Model Maker Upgraded/Rebuilt? Released

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 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 2015

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


B601 H CLASS Authenticast

B602 J CLASS Authenticast

B603 L & M CLASS Authenticast

B604 SZ CLASS Authenticast

81

B605 TRIBAL Authenticast Rebuilt by W.Smith


B301 CUMBERLAND Authenticast Upgraded by W.Smith 2002

B302 DORSETSHIRE Wayne Smith 2007

B303 HAWKINS Authenticast Upgraded by W.Smith 2009

B304 LONDON Authenticast


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

Monitor Model Maker Upgraded/Rebuilt? Released

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 2017

F901 NORMANDIE Wayne Smith 2002

F902 LYON Wayne Smith

F903


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

82

ITALY


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


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 Rebuilt by W.Smith 2004

I405 CIANO Wayne Smith

RUSSIA


R101 SOVIET SOYUZ Wayne Smith 2014

R102 GIBBS AND COX 'D' Wayne Smith

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

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

W106 BROOKLYN NA .

83

W107 OLYMPIA NA

84

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

20”/47 Germany H44

18.9”/45 Japan #13 3410

18.1”/45 Japan Yamato 3220 19.5” (meters) 7.4” (meters)

18”/48 US 3850

18”/45 Britain N3 2837

16”/50 US Iowa 2700 20.0” 6.7”

16”/50 Germany H39 2272 18.8” 5.0”

16”/45 US S.Dakota 2700 17.6” 7.6”

16”/45 Britain Lion 2375 15.3” 5.7”

16”/45 Britain Nelson 2048

16”/45 Japan Nagato 2249 10.6” (meters)

16”/45 US Colorado 2240

15”/42 Britain Vanguard 1938 11.7” 5.7

15”/50 Italy Littorio 1951 20.1” 5.1”

15”/50 France Richelieu 1949 15.5” 5.4”

15”/47 Germany Bismarck 1764 16.5” 5.0

14”/45 Britain King George V 1590 11.2” 4.8”

13”/52 France Dunkerque 1235 13.5” 4.3”

12”/50 US Alaska 1140 12.7” 5.1”

11”/55 Germany Scharnhorst 728 11.5” 3.0”

Statistics gathered from Dulin/Garzke, Raven/Roberts, Lacroix, and Friedman

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,

85

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

86

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

87

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

the “fleet that never was” by wayne smith consultant to alnavco series_2_2016.pdf ·...

Documents