BB-72 to BB-78, post-Montana battleships ?

[Grey Havoc]

How the United States Navy perceived the likely post-War line up (pre-Truman and Attlee):

History, Politics And Current Affairs • View topic - Post War Navies, March 16, 1945

Very interesting, especially the mention of the 60000 ton battleship design to be possibly built after Illinois and Kentucky. The displacement figure is consistent with Montana class but it is referred as a Gibbs private venture so it could be something completely different. The only post-Midway USN battleship's design activity I've ever heard of is the 106000 ton "super Iowa" conceptual study.

And, pray tell, can you please provide any sources or images related to this study?

There are scarce notes about it in Garzke and Dulin "Battleships: US battleships in WW2". If the memory assist me, it was a 1944 contemplating a battleship of 1160 feet in length and 140 feet wide, approximately the maximum dimensions permitted by the planned '40s enlargement of Panama canal. The study combined main armament equal to Montanas (12*16") and speed equal to Iowas while I don't remember any mention regarding armor. As Tzoli said, the drive to dimensional increase was anti torpedo protection. There never were any intention to build battleships of such scale, especially at the end of the war, but the study reflects an ongoing internal debate on the future role of battleships.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Actually there was another post Montana study made by two University Students for a small Battleship from around 1942.

But this Gibbs & Cox proposal is new to me as well! This firm did produced battleships designs for the Soviets in 1936-39 so it's not impossible they continued to propose such for the USN when war broke out. Question is does this firm had any archives which survived the past 75 years?

That 106.000ton Super Iowa study you referring are a qucijk study of how large should the Iowa be to be basically unsinkable by torpedoes. Most of the extra tons went into underwater protection.

I'm intrigued by the funnels. That's either a lot of internal ducting or an unusual location for the engines.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Here is the armour layout:
View attachment 630514

There is an article about this design somewhere but I have to find it first.

 

[drwells42]

The BB72-78 “battleships” were and still are the product of the media. Firstly the wartime press who, in the absence of any authorised data, speculated on what could possibly follow the Montana designs. Currently the BB72-78 “design” is enjoying a second lease of life courtesy of the internet – notably Wikopedia which has an unreferenced entry on this topic. This data appears, with the same wording, on a number of other sites which do not appear to have any interest in the authenticity of their information. It is interesting that many of the naval history web-sites that deal with authenticated warship designs and projects make no mention of the BB72-78 battleships.

There is no mention of the BB72-78 in Friedman’s “US Battleships a Design History” nor in Dulin & Garzke’s “Battleships - United States battleships of in World War II”, but Polmar in “Ships and Aircraft of the US Fleet” (P128/129) does mention the speculation that took place in regard to this “design” during the war years.

The reality is that other than a small number of design studies that were not intended for production the Montana class design was the end of the US Navy's battleship designs.

While I strongly agree that BB-72 through 78 were products of media speculation, I would be quite interested in knowing what media sources did the original speculation. I suspect that there's a magazine article somewhere, (Popular Mechanics???) but I haven't found anything so far. If anyone has a source, please let me know.

I'm gathering data for an eventual webpage debunking the "Super Montana" class.

David R. Wells

 

[любитель военных кораблей]

There are mentions of it in Friedman's book about U.S. battleship design history. It was a project to adapt Montana's armor and torpedo defence design to the lessons of the war. Hull form was the same but expanded to the dimensional limit of the new panama locks (1200 ft. long and 142 ft. wide). It was never intended for production, you can consider it the american equivalent of german H design series from H-42. Armament was the same while speed was greater thanks to the better length-beam ratio. A real but short lived Montana follow on project was instead for 8 new battleship with same dimensions and main armament of BB67 but with an increased AA armament, a slight decrease in speed (to the same of South Dakota, so from 28-29 knots to 27) and some minor modification to armor. Sorry for my bad english

Hi, did I understand you correctly? A battleship with a displacement of 106500 tons should be armed with 4/2 457 mm guns and with a speed of 27 knots

 

[drwells42]

Hi, did I understand you correctly? A battleship with a displacement of 106500 tons should be armed with 4/2 457 mm guns and with a speed of 27 knots

The table in Dulin & Garzke does indeed say twelve 16" guns in four triples, but it also notes that this is the authors' estimate. Since the purpose of the design, (to the extremely limited extent that there was a design) was to explore torpedo protection, main armament (except for turret position) might not have been a consideration. FWIW, D&G did not mention speed.

On the one hand, four twin 18" turrets would certainly fit, and the weight would not have been a problem, but the USN was very pleased with the 16"/L50 Mk 7 at the time, and even the large Montana ancestors such as BB65-8 still had 16" guns.

From my reading of D&G, this 106,000 ton ship from July 1944 barely qualifies as a design study, and certainly was not considered for production.

DRW

 

[любитель военных кораблей]

The table in Dulin & Garzke does indeed say twelve 16" guns in four triples, but it also notes that this is the authors' estimate. Since the purpose of the design, (to the extremely limited extent that there was a design) was to explore torpedo protection, main armament (except for turret position) might not have been a consideration. FWIW, D&G did not mention speed.

On the one hand, four twin 18" turrets would certainly fit, and the weight would not have been a problem, but the USN was very pleased with the 16"/L50 Mk 7 at the time, and even the large Montana ancestors such as BB65-8 still had 16" guns.

From my reading of D&G, this 106,000 ton ship from July 1944 barely qualifies as a design study, and certainly was not considered for production.

DRW

thank you for answering my question so quickly

 

[Tzoli]

That study was for studying what is required for an Iowa or Montana hull to become "unsinkable" by torpedoes. The extra displacememt went into mostly the TDS.

 

[Dilandu]

That study was for studying what is required for an Iowa or Montana hull to become "unsinkable" by torpedoes. The extra displacememt went into mostly the TDS.

I wonder what the initial assumptions were. Had they assume 21-inch torpedoes only, or they already took Japanese super-heavies into consideration?

 

[Tzoli]

More like an extended West Virginia type layout (I think that ship had the best TDS) maybe a 5-7 layered one, West Virgina had 5 if I remember.

 

[YourChair]

Hi, did I understand you correctly? A battleship with a displacement of 106500 tons should be armed with 4/2 457 mm guns and with a speed of 27 knots

Note that the 457mm guns used would be the 457/48 Mark 2, not the 457/47 Mark A.
The difference is that the Mark A is just a modified version of the 1920s 457/48 meant as an experimental gun, and the Mark B would be the modern gun (just as the old 406/50 became the Iowa's gun), with a muzzle velocity increased to 762 m/s. The gun itself would be lighter.

More like an extended West Virginia type layout (I think that ship had the best TDS) maybe a 5-7 layered one, West Virgina had 5 if I remember.

The TDS would probably resemble Montana more, seeing as her underwater protection actually accounts for diving shells

 

[YourChair]

There are mentions of it in Friedman's book about U.S. battleship design history. It was a project to adapt Montana's armor and torpedo defence design to the lessons of the war. Hull form was the same but expanded to the dimensional limit of the new panama locks (1200 ft. long and 142 ft. wide). It was never intended for production, you can consider it the american equivalent of german H design series from H-42. Armament was the same while speed was greater thanks to the better length-beam ratio. A real but short lived Montana follow on project was instead for 8 new battleship with same dimensions and main armament of BB67 but with an increased AA armament, a slight decrease in speed (to the same of South Dakota, so from 28-29 knots to 27) and some minor modification to armor. Sorry for my bad english

A bit of a necropost, but this is actually true, unlike what was asserted before -- except the 32 guns was based on a misunderstanding. Because of frustrations ealrywar with heavy AA control, it seems the plan was actually to reduce the battery (though better firing arcs would have been bought). The 32 guns comes from mistaking the "16 guns" figure as 16 turrets.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

The ways they were reviewing the AAA battery is interesting, although the wisdom of option (c) seems very questionable even when considering the difficulties with fire control being experienced in early 1942.

Given experience later in the war I think a more ideal layout would look similar to the suggestion by Admirals King and Nimitz for BB-65/66 to be finished to a modified design. A more compact superstructure, perhaps with just one larger funnel, and two of the 5"/54 caliber twin turrets moved from the sides to the centerline, superfiring over the main battery similar to the design of many wartime USN cruisers.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Given experience later in the war I think a more ideal layout would look similar to the suggestion by Admirals King and Nimitz for BB-65/66 to be finished to a modified design. A more compact superstructure, perhaps with just one larger funnel, and two of the 5"/54 caliber twin turrets moved from the sides to the centerline, superfiring over the main battery similar to the design of many wartime USN cruisers.

The "cruiser style" secondary battery is definitely better arranged than the "battleship style".

If you assume 8 turrets for 16x guns (used on the BBs with squadron command spaces added), the battleship style only lets you put 4 turrets into each broadside while the cruiser puts 6 turrets into either broadside. 50% improvement in firepower.

It's less of an improvement if you're using 10 turrets, though. 10 turrets battleship style means 5 turrets on each broadside, while 10 turrets cruiser style still means 6 turrets on each broadside. 20% improvement.