Alternative Montana Class Design with 8in Secondaries

[MadRat]

USS Montana should have stayed with 3x3 16" guns and moved towards four pairs of rapid-fire 8" autoloaders on each quadrant of the main citadel. That would have meant cutting down the triples designed for the Des Moines (see USS Salem) class. These 8" guns had an alternative system that was a revolutionary development for fire control for its day and could be used for shore bombardment, ASuW, or AAW. Losing four 5" twins and three 16" was fine considering the high throw-rate of those 8's. You pick up about 100 tons but keep your high speed outer shape lost in the original Montana projections.

 

[Kingpin6100]

USS Montana should have stayed with 3x3 16" guns and moved towards four pairs of rapid-fire 8" autoloaders on each quadrant of the main citadel. That would have meant cutting down the triples designed for the Des Moines (see USS Salem) class. These 8" guns had an alternative system that was a revolutionary development for fire control for its day and could be used for shore bombardment, ASuW, or AAW. Losing four 5" twins and three 16" was fine considering the high throw-rate of those 8's. You pick up about 100 tons but keep your high speed outer shape lost in the original Montana projections.

I'll have what he's having

 

[Tzoli]

The 8" autoloader or 8" RF Mark 16 was started developing mid war when the Montanas were gone in around 1942 together with the 3rd iteration of the 6" RF or DP Mark 16, so if the mysterious 1944/45 Gibbs and Cox Battleship did not had them there was no way the Montanas would carry them.
On the other hand the 6" RF/DP Mark 16 started it's development in 1937 and intended for the Cleveland (then 8.000tons) class cruiser then abandoned. Somewhat later in 1940 some Montana preliminary studies featured these guns ( 6x2 on Design BB65B and BB65D ) but than again abandoned, finally in 1941 it was again revived as a future heavy AA weapon but the USA entering into the war slowed down the development and at one time it was parallel developed with the 8" Mark 16.
So the best you could get are the Worcesters 6" guns which was in case a better investment for a battleship as it was a very good anti cruiser and much better AA weapon than the guns in use at that time.

 

[that_person]

USS Montana should have stayed with 3x3 16" guns and moved towards four pairs of rapid-fire 8" autoloaders on each quadrant of the main citadel. That would have meant cutting down the triples designed for the Des Moines (see USS Salem) class. These 8" guns had an alternative system that was a revolutionary development for fire control for its day and could be used for shore bombardment, ASuW, or AAW. Losing four 5" twins and three 16" was fine considering the high throw-rate of those 8's. You pick up about 100 tons but keep your high speed outer shape lost in the original Montana projections.

What are you smoking? Also I want some.

 

[Dilandu]

USS Montana should have stayed with 3x3 16" guns and moved towards four pairs of rapid-fire 8" autoloaders on each quadrant of the main citadel.

Why?

What exactly those guns supposed to do, besides messing up the fire control? Against enemy battleships, they wouldn't be of much use.

P.S. USSR considered putting "intermediate" guns of 7-9 inches (180-220 mm) on "small battleships" projects of early 1950s, but those small (relatively) battleships were supposed to carry only 1 or 2 main turrets for a small number of heavy guns. So they actually required something more fast-firing to protect them against enemy light units.

 

[isayyo2]

USS Montana should have stayed with 3x3 16" guns and moved towards four pairs of rapid-fire 8" autoloaders on each quadrant of the main citadel.

Why?

What exactly those guns supposed to do, besides messing up the fire control? Against enemy battleships, they wouldn't be of much use.

I wonder if adding 8" secondaries would be seen as a return to the "Pre-Dreadnought" era? The last American "Pre-Dreadnought", the Mississippi Class, had 8 8" guns in four turrets as their Intermediate battery.

 

[MadRat]

USS Montana should have stayed with 3x3 16" guns and moved towards four pairs of rapid-fire 8" autoloaders on each quadrant of the main citadel.

Why?

What exactly those guns supposed to do, besides messing up the fire control? Against enemy battleships, they wouldn't be of much use.

P.S. USSR considered putting "intermediate" guns of 7-9 inches (180-220 mm) on "small battleships" projects of early 1950s, but those small (relatively) battleships were supposed to carry only 1 or 2 main turrets for a small number of heavy guns. So they actually required something more fast-firing to protect them against enemy light units.

It doesn't make sense to quickly walk steel onto a target?

And, oh btw, the 8's don't mess up fire control, they enhance what was already there for ASuW and provided a leap in accuracy over 5" guns for AAW. Maybe you should research the fact that 8" guns have quote deadly penetration on most every part of any battleship short of the main belt. When you can litetally strip the bridge off a ship at standoff ranges it gives you plenty of time to zero in your other main guns. And your main fire control unit can be re-directed to main guns if their predictor has problems, which was not uncommon You can happily do ASuW with your altetnative FCU used for AAW in the ASuW role, although you largely lose shore bombardment targeting. And your secondary FCU could be shared between multiple turrets when necessary. Like the main guns, these 8's also automatically maintained directional aim to compensate for ship movements. Your 5's do not. Although the 5's could be radar directed, ship movements threw their aim off of the target.

The rate of fire from each 8" barrel was rather incredible. They could put as much steel on target as a 16" barrel, but do it systematically to box in targets. And they could reach greater than 30,000 yards.

 

[CV12Hornet]

It doesn't make sense to quickly walk steel onto a target?

And, oh btw, the 8's don't mess up fire control, they enhance what was already there for ASuW and provided a leap in accuracy over 5" guns for AAW. Maybe you should research the fact that 8" guns have quote deadly penetration on most every part of any battleship short of the main belt. When you can litetally strip the bridge off a ship at standoff ranges it gives you plenty of time to zero in your other main guns. And your main fire control unit can be re-directed to main guns if their predictor has problems, which was not uncommon You can happily do ASuW with your altetnative FCU used for AAW in the ASuW role, although you largely lose shore bombardment targeting. And your secondary FCU could be shared between multiple turrets when necessary. Like the main guns, these 8's also automatically maintained directional aim to compensate for ship movements. Your 5's do not. Although the 5's could be radar directed, ship movements threw their aim off of the target.

The rate of fire from each 8" barrel was rather incredible. They could put as much steel on target as a 16" barrel, but do it systematically to box in targets. And they could reach greater than 30,000 yards.

While ballistically the 8" guns could reach out to over 30,000 yards in practice they lacked the fire control and long-range ballistic qualities to be effective past 24,000 yards or so. Given the abilities of latewar main battleship fire control, 24,000 yards is decidedly lacking.

As far as AAW work, while the 8" guns could nominally perform such fire in practice the usual bugbear of such large-caliber AAW weapons, training and elevation rates, kick in. Even the twin auto-8" was about the same weight as a triple 8" turret of conventional design, and that triple 8" did not have the train and elevation rates to be an effective anti-air gun, especially as aircraft get progressively faster.

The 5" guns did, in fact, have automatic directional aim, at least ships that had the Mark 37 director - which was everything from destroyers up.

This is a bad idea that in no compensates for the lost main battery turret.

 

[Tzoli]

By the time the 8" guns could effectively damage a Battleship that would be very bad time for both participants. At such ranges the Belt armour could not protect the ship from the main guns of the enemy vessel.
I think you expect the Americans to go German style close range brawling in ship to ship combat instead of their accepted doctrine to remain at around long or optimal main gun range.
Let's see the weapons discussed:
16"/50 Mark 7:
Shell: 1.225kg AP
MV: 762-739m/s (New/average gun)
Range optimal around 26km maximum 38,7km (20-45 degrees)
Armour Penetration:
30km: 380mm / 169mm (Belt/deck)
39km: 241mm / 357mm (Belt/deck)
RoF: 2rpm
RoE: 12degrees/s
RoT: 4degrees/s

8"/55 RF Mark 16:
Shell: 152kg AP
MV: 762m/s (New gun)
Range optimal around 23km maximum 27,5km (27,5-41 degrees)
Armour Penetration:
23km: 127mm / 76mm (Belt/deck)
26km: 102mm / 102mm (Belt/deck)
RoF: 10 rpm
RoE: 8,2 degrees/s
RoT: 5 degrees/s

6"/47 DP/RF Mark 16:
Shell: 59kg AP
MV: 762m/s (New gun)
Range optimal around 18km maximum 24km (22-47,5 degrees)
Armour Penetration: (No data)
RoF: 12 rpm
RoE: 14,8 degrees/s
RoT: 25 degrees/s

5"/54 Mark 16:
Shell: 31,38kg AAC
MV: 808m/s (New gun)
Range optimal around 17km maximum 23,6km with 15,7km AA ceiling (20-45-85 degrees)
Armour Penetration: (No data)
RoF: 15-18 rpm
RoE: 15 degrees/s
RoT: 30 degrees/s

5"/38 Mark 12:
Shell: 25kg AAC
MV: 792-762m/s (New/average gun)
Range optimal around 15km maximum 15,9km with 11,8km AA ceiling (35-45-85 degrees)
Armour Penetration: (No data)
RoF: 15-22 rpm
RoE: 15 degrees/s
RoT: 25 degrees/s

The train or rotation speed of the 8" gun makes it bad for AA role.

 

[Dilandu]

It doesn't make sense to quickly walk steel onto a target?

Not exactly. 8-inch guns are nowhere as accurate as 16-inch guns, so on compatible ranges, there would be relatively few hits. They may be useful, of course, but hardly useful enough to dedicate over 2000 tons of weight (four 8-inch RF turrets) to those "maybe useful" few hits.

And, oh btw, the 8's don't mess up fire control,

Actually they probably would. The additional vibration, the additional splashes, the air vibration from the rapid firing of 8-inch guns would most definitely not be welcomed by 16-inch fire control. And let's face it; 8-inch guns are nowhere as long-range as 16-inch guns.

and provided a leap in accuracy over 5" guns for AAW.

Actually no, they don't. Not without the guided shells of Arrow/Zeus design.

Maybe you should research the fact that 8" guns have quote deadly penetration on most every part of any battleship short of the main belt.

Okay:



This is "Sovetsky Souyz", project 23 battleship. Please show me, exactly which parts of its armor could be penetrated by 8-inch guns at 20.000-25.000 meters range?

When you can litetally strip the bridge off a ship at standoff ranges

What standoff ranges? 8-inch RF could barely reach 27.000 meters, and the probability of hitting on such range is low.

The rate of fire from each 8" barrel was rather incredible. They could put as much steel on target as a 16" barrel, but do it systematically to box in targets. And they could reach greater than 30,000 yards.

They couldn't hit at that range as reliably as 16-inch guns, that's the problem.

 

[Dilandu]

I wonder if adding 8" secondaries would be seen as a return to the "Pre-Dreadnought" era? The last American "Pre-Dreadnought", the Mississippi Class, had 8 8" guns in four turrets as their Intermediate battery.

Hard to say. Maybe technically, but 8-inch guns on 16-inch battleship would hardly play any significant role, being essentially an enlargement of anti-torpedo guns.

 

[Tzoli]

Indeed 8" could be useful on a WW1 Battleship say from 1913 which would introduce a new calibre say 16" and the expected rate of fire of such large cannons would be low and the ship requires something to backup the slow firing main weapons when the expected firing distance was in the 10-15km range.

Or for a fleet which have few cruiser escorts or have different doctrines for cruisers eg Italy, Japan or Germany which could had expected to fight both battleships and cruisers. And against cruisers the 8" guns are better choice.
But we are talking the United States Navy here, with plenty of cruisers to escort their fleets and provide protection.

 

[Dilandu]

Indeed 8" could be useful on a WW1 Battleship say from 1913 which would introduce a new calibre say 16" and the expected rate of fire of such large cannons would be low and the ship requires something to backup the slow firing main weapons when the expected firing distance was in the 10-15km range.

Hm, I think for WW1 era, the 8-inch gun would not be powerful enough. 9-10 inches (like on the last semi-dreadnoughts) would be more efficient intermediate size. Of course, fire control would still be enormous headache...

 

[Tzoli]

Depends on the nation's preference but yes that would be better.
For example, Armstrong's offer to Brazil in 1911 was 4x2 16" 3x2 9,2" and 14x1 6"

 

[Dilandu]

For example, Armstrong's offer to Brazil in 1911 was 4x2 16" 3x2 9,2" and 14x1 6"

Yep, quite interesting design it was. Albeit Brazil clearly thought that it's too much for their limited funds.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

The 8"/55RF was probably actually better than the 16" for shore bombardment as long as the target was in range. However I'd think if you removed one of the 16" turrets it would make more sense to put two 8" triples on the centerline in superfiring positions.

Of course the real issues are that the 8"/55RF was still a few years out when it was projected to actually be building the Montana class. Such a change also defeats the primary purpose of the ships which was to face down the enemy's battle line.

As for the accuracy of the 8" gun I've never heard that it was inaccurate, it's just that the bigger guns are more accurate as a rule presuming similar shell design, muzzle velocity, etc.

 

[Dilandu]

The 8"/55RF was probably actually better than the 16" for shore bombardment as long as the target was in range.

Arguably yes, unless range & weight of shell became important.

However I'd think if you removed one of the 16" turrets it would make more sense to put two 8" triples on the centerline in superfiring positions.

I'm not exactly sure they would fit, but yes, it's more sensible than square arrangement at the corners of citadel.

Of course the real issues are that the 8"/55RF was still a few years out when it was projected to actually be building the Montana class. Such a change also defeats the primary purpose of the ships which was to face down the enemy's battle line.

Yep. More likely, they may be designed with DP 6-inch guns in consideration.

As for the accuracy of the 8" gun I've never heard that it was inaccurate, it's just that the bigger guns are more accurate as a rule presuming similar shell design, muzzle velocity, etc.

Exactly.

 

[Dilandu]

Speaking about post-war US battleships... I once toyed with the idea "what could be USN response, if USSR actually commissioned Project 23 battleships after war?" Even with deficiences in armor quality, the "Sovetsky Soyuz" would be extremely tough opponent for "Iowa"'s, with comparable guns, fire control and massive armor.

My idea was to complete two remaining "Iowa"'s - "Illinois" and "Kentucky" - using the Italian idea of two-layer armor belt. By sacrificing part of boilers (limiting new battleships to 28-30 knots), theoretically enough weight could be salvaged to add 100 mm inclined outer plate in front of "Iowa"'s main belt. Which would made new battleships reasonably well protected against penetration power of Soviet 16-inch naval guns.

 

[BB1984]

I'm not sure anyone was seriously looking at 8" or higher as an AA weapon. The Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine wish listed 21cm and 24cm guns, but even Rheinmettal and Krupp couldn't seem to take the idea seriously and focused on their 15cm designs instead.

There seem to be three issues:

• The first is that the advantage of super heavy AA is higher and higher effective ceilings, which is presumably less of an issue for warship defense. It's not clear to me that a heavier AA gun with a lower rate of fire has any advantage over a 4" or 5" gun with a higher rate of fire at altitudes below 25,000-30,000 feet.
• The second is that even the super heavy guns that did get built, 15cm Flak and Green Mace, emphasized a combination of high velocity and high rate of fire (both for improved hit probability) over shell weight. The naval 8" fails on high velocity.
  • 15cm Flak program started aiming for 960m/s and upped it to 1120m/s later, Green Mace was at 1200 m/s
• The desired combination of high rate of fire with high velocities can lead to very short barrel life in large caliber weapons (probably one of the reasons the German 21cm/24cm projects fell by the wayside).

So, based on Tzoli's list of gun characteristics, from a practical AA perspective I think the larger number of 5" guns makes a lot of sense.

For use as a secondary battery, 5" is smaller than desirable, but, as others have pointed out, the need for any secondary battery at all assumes that the enemy has "gotten past" your longer ranged, primary battery. Even battlecruisers, which were specifically designed (originally at least) to defeat an enemy cruiser screen, went with fewer, bigger guns for a range advantage instead of a profusion of 8" guns to overwhelm enemy cruisers via rate/weight of fire.

For shore bombardment, I can see the argument for 8", but that's a specialized use case and, if you're seriously optimizing for it, you might be better off switching out high velocity 8" for lower velocity, heavier shell 240mm in some old cruisers.

 

[Dilandu]

I'm not sure anyone was seriously looking at 8" or higher as an AA weapon.

Actually. USN did after war. But they wanted a 8-inch gun that would fire Zeus/Arrow munition: sub-caliber, fin-stabilized, radar beam-riding guided shell. It was viewed as backbone of short-range air defense for mid-1950s (the long-range was supposed to be handled by RIM-8 Talos SAM)... but then the RIM-2 Terrier appeared as sudden byproduct of Talos project, and it was clearly superior to Zeus/Arrow. So the guided shells and 8-inch DP guns to fire them were abandoned.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

I think if you were looking to incorporate the 8" gun onto a battleship I think something more along the lines of the proposed AA conversions of Kentucky (BB-66) makes sense. But even on that design the main anti-aircraft firepower would still be provided from the 5" battery. Regarding that particular conversion I also think it would be worthwhile to keep at least one 16" turret.

I've read that the Soviets considered adapting their 220mm naval gun from the early '50s as an anti-aircraft weapon on some cruiser designs. I imagine they came to the same conclusions everyone else did about the viability of guns that large in the role. While they have some use against bombers they simply aren't that effective against the sort of fighters and attack aircraft that would represent a greater danger to the fleet.

Speaking about post-war US battleships... I once toyed with the idea "what could be USN response, if USSR actually commissioned Project 23 battleships after war?" Even with deficiences in armor quality, the "Sovetsky Soyuz" would be extremely tough opponent for "Iowa"'s, with comparable guns, fire control and massive armor.

My idea was to complete two remaining "Iowa"'s - "Illinois" and "Kentucky" - using the Italian idea of two-layer armor belt. By sacrificing part of boilers (limiting new battleships to 28-30 knots), theoretically enough weight could be salvaged to add 100 mm inclined outer plate in front of "Iowa"'s main belt. Which would made new battleships reasonably well protected against penetration power of Soviet 16-inch naval guns.

I'd have to imagine it would take a pretty significant redesign in order to support the weight of 100mm outer hull plating versus 38mm on the completed Iowas. The hull of Kentucky was essentially complete so it's unlikely for that ship. Doing such a significant redesign just for Illinois probably wouldn't happen.

The Soviets would have to be commissioning a lot of battleships to make it happen but you'd probably be better off with a new design at that point or an update of the Montana class design. Kentucky and Illinois might be completed as modestly improved Iowa class battleships but I think the real focus would appear a few years later with the fielding of heavy anti-ship missiles.

 

[MadRat]

Once you get into the 50's, heavy SAM projects doubled as the big cannon for attacking surface warships and prominent landmarks that could be painted. The fleet AAW missiles often made battleship shells look small in comparison, and were likely to hit on the first shot.

Dilandu,

The 8's were quantity over quality. The typical modern battleship of that era was vulnerable to plunging fire from 8's except in some well armored spaces. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

Monolithic designs reduced overall fleet assets. Building more big battleships would cut down on screening and support assets. Battleships tended to be the core unit of a surface group, and did not fight one-on-ones. And by the time the ships got off the first big gun shots the enemy destroyers would be making torpedo runs. The 8's were multi-purpose and had much better effect than 5's for screening. Once the screen was turmed back they could dump the remaining load at max rate of fire. The Montana in this layout would have the equivalent throw weight of five turrets broadside or four from the fore.

 

[CV12Hornet]

You may as well of put Space Battlesip Yamamoto up as your fictional argument. Its no less ludicrous than some fantasy idea that never existed from the Soviets. The 8's were quantity over quality. The typical modern battleship of that era was vulnerable to plunging fire from 8's except in some well armored spaces. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous. You seem to believe armor is applied like paint.

If you look at that diagram that "well-armored space" encompasses probably over 80% of the hull. Yes, even the extension in the bow - that 100mm deck is proof against even super-heavy 8" AP almost to 30,000 yards. Which, as I noted earlier, is well beyond the effective range of 8" guns.

 

[MadRat]

Twin 8's were not equal in size or weight to triple 8's. Saying the autoloader system required it ignores the dimensions of the mechanism. I don't know where that idea came from. The proposed autoloader didn't suddenly materialize in 1943. The idea of autoloaders in that caliber using mechanical solutions just hadn't been built prior to that. The USN prior to the war stuck to conservative designs. During the war the mood changed due to the feeling they needed superior designs and there was a sense of urgency.

I also realize the 8's did not articulate as well as the 5's, but they had much superior range and altitude. Plus the change I suggested still retained 5's amidships.

 

[Dilandu]

To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

The only battleship that could validate such extravagant idea - the Soviet Project 23 battleship - was actually nearly completely invulnerable to 8-inch guns. You see, USSR actually paid a lot of attention toward protection against cruiser-grade weapons, since it was assumed that potential opponents would bring their heavy cruisers in support of battleline.

 

[CV12Hornet]

Twin 8's were not equal in size or weight to triple 8's. Saying the autoloader system required it ignores the dimensions of the mechanism. I don't know where that idea came from. The proposed autoloader didn't suddenly materialize in 1943. The idea of autoloaders in that caliber using mechanical solutions just hadn't been built prior to that. The USN prior to the war stuck to conservative designs. During the war the mood changed due to the feeling they needed superior designs and there was a sense of urgency.

I also realize the 8's did not articulate as well as the 5's, but they had much superior range and altitude. Plus the change I suggested still retained 5's amidships.

Regarding point #1, the weight of the mountings for the autoloading 8" guns:

The drawback to the 8in gun was its relatively slow rate of fire, which had proved a distinct handicap in the close-quarters night actions fought in the Solomon Islands. This had led to the diversion of the heavy cruisers to the Aleutian campaign, leaving the fast-moving islands campaign to the destroyers and light cruisers. To redress this defect, a new rapid-fire 8in gun was designed, employing a sliding wedge breech and brass cartridge case. This gun was expected to fire seven rounds per minute, as against three for current guns, and to be fully automatic. Proposed in the spring of 1943, this gun did not become available until towards the end of 1945, eventually emerging as the 8in 55cal Mk 16. Plans to mount this weapon in the Oregon City design came to naught as a result of the extensive design changes found necessary, probably fortunately as it turned out, because the estimated weights of the new triple mounting had been greatly underestimated. Alternative plans to fit a twin turret in four of the CA122 to CA138 series and all of CA139 to CA142 also foundered. Instead, a new design specifically for the rapid-fire triple turret was prepared.

https://www.world-war.co.uk/US/desmoines.php

Regarding point #2: This idea that the autoloading 8" could have been done before the actual date it was achieved is deeply suspect. The timeline goes something like this: proposals come in late 1942 after experience in the Solomons. Design work - but not the guns themselves - is completed in 1943. The actual guns themselves only arrive in late 1945. And the US Navy sticking to conservative designs resulted in Baltimores over even bigger cruisers with regular 8" guns, not Baltimores over Des Moines or other designs with autoloading 8" guns.

Regarding point #3: handwaving the train and elevation issues by saying "oh, they had superior range and altitude" doesn't actually address the problem. You could say that about a lot of efforts at dual-purpose guns, most notably the French 6" guns and the earlier attempts by the British and Japanese at dual-purpose 8". As it turned out, that extra range and altitude was wasted by the lack of training and elevation speed.

One more thing: good job ignoring my point about armor above.

 

[MadRat]

Last time I checked the Montanas never completed. And back then there were several ships that shifted designs mid-way through the build. Maybe the first Montana was too far along to redesign. But most of the planned hulls never quite reached work on the citadel. This is a theoretic exercise, not a demand to rewrite history.

As to why 5's kept in the design, because they had purposes, too. The 5" could be hand-loaded whereas the 6" wasn't really meant for that. By the time you go to 8's its mechanical loading of the projectile at a minimum. The autoloaders kept the projectile attached to the charge, simplifying the mechanical process. I think it was Des Moines that cooked off a turret, so it wasn't perfect. But the other 8's would have been much worse had they had a similar accident as the silk bags would have been involved, creating a problem much lower in the turret. The 5's were very good at anti-destroyer work and for aircraft that were closer in. If the 5's were perfect then they would have never looked at 3's, 40's, and 20's. But each option formed complimentary protection that was the philosophy in that age.

 

[Firefinder]

Last time I checked the Montanas never completed. And back then there were several ships that shifted designs mid-way through the build. Maybe the first Montana was too far along to redesign. But most of the planned hulls never quite reached work on the citadel. This is a theoretic exercise, not a demand to rewrite history.

As to why 5's kept in the design, because they had purposes, too. The 5" could be hand-loaded whereas the 6" wasn't really meant for that. By the time you go to 8's its mechanical loading of the projectile at a minimum. The autoloaders kept the projectile attached to the charge, simplifying the mechanical process. I think it was Des Moines that cooked off a turret, so it wasn't perfect. But the other 8's would have been much worse had they had a similar accident as the silk bags would have been involved, creating a problem much lower in the turret. The 5's were very good at anti-destroyer work and for aircraft that were closer in. If the 5's were perfect then they would have never looked at 3's, 40's, and 20's. But each option formed complimentary protection that was the philosophy in that age.

It was the Des Moines middle sister, the Newport News that had a cook off.

That was actually cause by a in bore explosion of a HE Shell due to a faulty fuse. Which is basically one of the worse things to happen to any ship. This shot the barrel out of the turret and ignited several of the powder casings in the hoist. What kept it from being worse was the fact that the navy powder burned instead of exploded when not under pressure, which the busted upper flash protection and missing gun allowed for venting off. The entire center line of turret two became a rocket engine basically for a few minutes before the 720 odd pounds of powder burnt out in the hoist.

It a interesting if sad to note that only a few people died in the turret explosion itself, the rest of the 20 dead was from the noxious smoke left by the burning powder. Which travel throughout the ship when the damcon crews opened up the turret to find hotspots and the like. Turned out that the old powder used had underwent an interesting chemical reaction that made incomplete burning of the powder to produce war crime chemicals. Like chlorine and phosgene gases, it was noted by the crew that the smoke had a particular greenish tint to it. Afterwards the navy did an audit of all store powder and got rid of the batches that hand under went similar reactions, and change the recipe to ensure it didnt happen again.

At the end of the day the Newport survival was down to good design of the turrets and good training of the crew.

 

[Jemiba]

Not sure, you may regard it otherwise, but this discussion seems to be moving away from actually drawn designs
to ".. they could have built ..." , so leaping into What-If. Maybe we should split the discussion about fitting 8' to
16' main armament BBs and make a new thread in the Alternative section ?

BTW, about Zeus guided shells, I looked up Friedmann again. He describes it as having been able to alter its course
just once, so improving SSPK, of course, but hardly a sufficient AA solution .

 

[Dilandu]

BTW, about Zeus guided shells, I looked up Friedmann again. He describes it as having been able to alter its course
just once, so improving SSPK, of course, but hardly a sufficient AA solution .

I didn't find any comprehensive description yet, so I can't add much. But generally yes, it is assumed that Zeus/Arrow was supposed to carry just one "deflection charge" that was supposed to be fired as soon as shell deviate too far from equisignal zone. Considering the limited range and high speed of the shell, more than one correction was probably not needed to drastically improve the ability to hit subsonic planes.

 

[Archibald]

Should we call such ship a Cruisebattler ? or a Cruistroyer ? LMAO
- It's a new kind of battleship / battlecruiser
- just like them it can reduce ennemy light & heavy cruisers into scrap metal
- EXCEPT without even firing its 16-inch guns... since its secondaries ARE heavy cruiser guns: 8-inch ones !

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22battler%22+meaning&client=firefox-b-d&sxsrf=ALiCzsbFjnK2E7ZKC84IHDVAJVKdim-gNw%3A1652543726541&ei=7tB_YrzPIMnolwTalbCIDA&ved=0ahUKEwi8_q6Ord_3AhVJ9IUKHdoKDMEQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22battler%22+meaning&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyBQgAEMsBMgUIABDLATIFCAAQywEyBQgAEMsBMgUIABDLATIGCAAQFhAeMgYIABAWEB4yBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQFhAeMggIABAPEBYQHjoHCAAQRxCwAzoECAAQQzoFCAAQgAQ6BwgAELEDEAo6BwgAEAoQywE6BwguEAoQywE6CAgAEBYQChAeSgQIQRgASgQIRhgAUOgCWKEOYKoUaAFwAXgAgAFfiAHrBJIBATiYAQCgAQHIAQjAAQE&sclient=gws-wiz

 

[MadRat]

U.S. Battleships were 'cruisers' in the sense of being able to function alone.

The USS Indiana was an example of why they should not.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It doesn't make sense to quickly walk steel onto a target?

Very different ballistics compared to 16". If you already have radar ranging, there's no reason for smaller caliber rapid firing guns to find the range.

And the USN had the best naval gunfire control system in the world in WW2.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Very different ballistics compared to 16". If you already have radar ranging, there's no reason for smaller caliber rapid firing guns to find the range.

Also, missing more doesn't help destroy the target: you need to fire, observe the fall of shot, and correct accordingly.

In the case of the 16-inch Mark 7 gun, beyond about 20,000 yards, the loading cycle would be quicker than the time of flight of the shell. There wouldn't actually be an advantage to higher rate of fire, given that the USN planned to fight long range.

 

[MadRat]

Because its always better to fight with a lower rate of fire. Someone should have told musketeers they should have never traded their long barrel muskets for lever-action rifles. Range is everything... But actually it is not.

Prinz Eugen severely damaged HMS Prince of Wales with 8" armament. No modern warship could weather a barrage of 8 inch shells. There is comparison from a single hit, true, but its all about concentration of effort. Secondary batteries did not remain idle in battle. The 5-inch batteries would also engage once within range.

The whole point of adding a fourth turret to Montana was to up the overall firing rate. Otherwise battleships would have simply devolved into modern ironclads and shot wildly at each other in vain. The reality is your big guns on the battleship melt away armor with a single square hit on target. Smaller shells require more hits but likewise will melt away the enemy's armor.

 

[1635yankee]

USS Montana should have stayed with 3x3 16" guns and moved towards four pairs of rapid-fire 8" autoloaders on each quadrant of the main citadel. That would have meant cutting down the triples designed for the Des Moines (see USS Salem) class. These 8" guns had an alternative system that was a revolutionary development for fire control for its day and could be used for shore bombardment, ASuW, or AAW. Losing four 5" twins and three 16" was fine considering the high throw-rate of those 8's. You pick up about 100 tons but keep your high speed outer shape lost in the original Montana projections.

Why?

The USN was especially concerned with long-range gunnery; going back to the sort of secondaries abandoned before WWI would be a retrograde step. Read the history of naval gunfire control to see why.

The USN's other concern was air defense, at which the 5" was just about infinitely better than the 8" could be.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Because its always better to fight with a lower rate of fire. Someone should have told musketeers they should have never traded their long barrel muskets for lever-action rifles. Range is everything... But actually it is not.

When you can have the next shots loaded before the first shots land (and see if you have any errors in your range, course, and speed estimates), there's no point in installing smaller caliber guns that can't shoot as far as your big guns.

Prinz Eugen severely damaged HMS Prince of Wales with 8" armament. No modern warship could weather a barrage of 8 inch shells. There is comparison from a single hit, true, but its all about concentration of effort. Secondary batteries did not remain idle in battle. The 5-inch batteries would also engage once within range.

Yes, so?

How would you arrange the secondaries for the 8" Montana? All on the sides? The 8"/55 Mk16 guns are too big and heavy for that. The Mk16 Triple Turrets weigh 450 tons each, 150 tons more than the manually loaded 8" guns.

Even the 8"/55 Mk71 MCLWG single barrel turret that they experimented with in the late 1970s weighed 86 tons, but that's only 1 ton heavier than the 5"/38 Mk28 Mod2 mounts as used on the Iowa class.

The whole point of adding a fourth turret to Montana was to up the overall firing rate. Otherwise battleships would have simply devolved into modern ironclads and shot wildly at each other in vain.

No, the point was to have a post-treaty battleship as soon as possible, because the London and Washington Naval Treaties had prohibited the development of battleship guns bigger than 16". So the Montanas were designed with 4x3 16"/50 Mk7 guns and were significantly longer and heavier than the Iowas as a result.

Without that clause in the treaties, the US probably would have equipped the Montanas with 3x3 18"/47 guns throwing 3850lb AP shells, max range of about 43,000 yards and capable of penetrating 6.25" deck armor at 25,000 yards or 16" belt at any range the shells could hit the belt. No "Immune Zone" at all for a ship armored with 16" belt and 6.25" deck armor!

Edit: the challenge is that the 18" triple turrets would likely weigh some 2425 tons, some 720 tons heavier than the Iowa turrets! So 3x3 18"/47s would weigh some 7275 tons, while 4x3 16"/50s would weigh about 6840 tons. Not counting armor, which I suspect would work out to about the same or lighter total system weight due to one less barbette and the armored citadel being a good 50ft shorter. I mean, it's only 435 tons heavier for the 3x3 18"s, and I'm pretty sure the barbette alone for a superfiring gun is more than that.

The reality is your big guns on the battleship melt away armor with a single square hit on target. Smaller shells require more hits but likewise will melt away the enemy's armor.

No, that's not how it works at all. You do NOT sandblast your way through armor like that. This is NOT battletech!

 

[Colonial-Marine]

By the time the Montanas were being designed in detail I think the treaties were pretty dead at that point. The USN had a good list of reasons for sticking with the 16"/50 caliber gun but I do wonder if knowing for certain about the tonnage, armor, and armament of the Yamato class would have changed any of their thinking. 3x3 18"/48 caliber guns on the same tonnage as the Montanas with the same armor, speed, etc. should be very doable I think.

I believe some of the post-war Soviet battleship designs had a smaller main battery of only 6 guns but their secondary armament included 180mm or 220mm guns which could also be used against aircraft at high elevations. I'm not sure how they intended to utilize them without coming across a "full sized" USN battleship which would outgun them.

 

[Dilandu]

I believe some of the post-war Soviet battleship designs had a smaller main battery of only 6 guns

There were "small battleship" project - essentially the idea was, that instead of one 60.000-70.000 ton superbattleship with three triple 16-inch turrets, several smaller, 25.000-35.000 ships, each with several 16-inch guns in one/two turrets could be produced. Several projects were prepared with different main guns arrangement - one dual turret, one triple turret, two dual turrets, one triple and one dual turret, one quadruple turrets.


(this is the design with one dual 16-inch turret and one quadruple 220-mm turret)

but their secondary armament included 180mm or 220mm guns which could also be used against aircraft at high elevations.

The super-heavy secondaries were planned because just one main turret simply could not provide volume of fire sufficient enough, to engage destroyers efficiently. So the idea was to put on a quadruple turret with four either 180-mm or 220-mm guns. As far as I know, it was not supposed to be dual-purpose; the "small battleships" were not supposed to carry long-range AA defenses (the bureau that designed them argued that battleships always operate under destroyers/cruisers escort, which could handle long-range air defense).

I'm not sure how they intended to utilize them without coming across a "full sized" USN battleship which would outgun them.

The idea was, that 2-3 "small battleships" would engage one USN battleship, using a next generation radar-based fire control system, that would allow them to coordinate fire as well as if all those guns were on single ships. The preliminary calculations showed that enemy battleship would be knocked out before it would manage to disable any one of "small battleships".

 

[Dilandu]

The reality is your big guns on the battleship melt away armor with a single square hit on target. Smaller shells require more hits but likewise will melt away the enemy's armor.

Er... no, they wouldn't. Unless the armor plate is seriously defective, small shells would only left a small dents on it.

Look; it's not a battleship, but you could see how hard the armor of this KV-1 heavy tank was dented by German small-caliber guns:



As you could see, despite numerous hits in the same area, the armor did not "melt". Poor-quality armor (like on German tanks) may develope cracks after numerous hits, but good-quality armor is plastic enough to avoid that.

In naval action, concentrating such amount of small shells on single armor plate would be simply impossible. Naval gunfire is simply not that precise: distances are greater, and both ship and targest are moving FAST. Even 20-knot elderly dreadnought actually is moving as fast as a car on good road. It's simply impossible to aim fire at the specific PLATE.