"Ultimate battleship" designs

Tzoli said:
This looks like more of a journalist's proposal then a real design in 1908 as not even the Armstrong or Vickers proposed 16" armed designs by then! Hell not even 15" or 14" weapons were designed by that time though 14" might be in development!
Click to expand...
But I would like to see it in deviantart because of that mast.
 
"In the 2022 February issue of Naval History, Jack Russell reported on an imaginary ship released in an October 2021 update for the World of Warships online multiplayer game. Named the USS Kearsarge, this battleship/aircraft carrier hybrid, based on a 1937 plan developed for the U.S. Navy by the firm of Gibbs and Cox, could potentially have seen service during World War II (see Figure 1). The ship was originally commissioned by the Soviet government and the U.S. Navy only showed interest later to keep the Soviets from obtaining such a powerful warship. "


 
Byeman said:
"In the 2022 February issue of Naval History, Jack Russell reported on an imaginary ship released in an October 2021 update for the World of Warships online multiplayer game. Named the USS Kearsarge, this battleship/aircraft carrier hybrid, based on a 1937 plan developed for the U.S. Navy by the firm of Gibbs and Cox, could potentially have seen service during World War II (see Figure 1). The ship was originally commissioned by the Soviet government and the U.S. Navy only showed interest later to keep the Soviets from obtaining such a powerful warship. "


Click to expand...
What Aircraft would she historically have that isn't the Bearcats armed with Tiny Tims.
 
Byeman said:
"In the 2022 February issue of Naval History, Jack Russell reported on an imaginary ship released in an October 2021 update for the World of Warships online multiplayer game. Named the USS Kearsarge, this battleship/aircraft carrier hybrid, based on a 1937 plan developed for the U.S. Navy by the firm of Gibbs and Cox, could potentially have seen service during World War II (see Figure 1). The ship was originally commissioned by the Soviet government and the U.S. Navy only showed interest later to keep the Soviets from obtaining such a powerful warship. "


Click to expand...
The US Navy never showed interest and neither did the Soviet naval commission led by Isakov. I really wish USNI would stop spreading incorrect information about that design.
 
Kingpin6100 said:
The US Navy never showed interest and neither did the Soviet naval commission led by Isakov. I really wish USNI would stop spreading incorrect information about that design.
Click to expand...
Bet you beverage of your choice that USNI is just repeating what WeeGee wrote about the design.
 
I do not have direct evidence, but numerous indirect information suggests that the Gibbs and Cox project, like the Henry J. Gielow Inc. project, were developed in full accordance with the terms of the Soviets for a battleship/aircraft carrier, and not a pure battleship. In this part, the information in the article is true. But that was two years before the Isakov Commission began its work. It was preceded by the work of the Brzezinski Сommission - or rather, two different commissions with different participants, where later participants did not know about the reasons for the decisions of their predecessors.
 
Kresta II said:
I do not have direct evidence, but numerous indirect information suggests that the Gibbs and Cox project, like the Henry J. Gielow Inc. project, were developed in full accordance with the terms of the Soviets for a battleship/aircraft carrier, and not a pure battleship.
Click to expand...
I don't believe this to be true. Every document I reviewed at NARA specified that the Soviet commission asked originally for pure battleships. Enclosed are the original specifications that were to provided to Bethlehem and then Gibbs & Cox.

It is of course possible that the Soviets had internally discussed asking for other designs, but if so, they don't appear to have acted on that.

20231213_130123.jpg 20231211_111518.jpg
 
The formal specifications certainly represented the conditions for conventional battleships.

However, there is reason to assume that there were also informal specifications that Sam Carp presented to potential contractors verbally - or subject to their secrecy

The secrecy when trying to order battleships in the USA was paranoid, and Sam Carp was the only person who knew the terms of the specification from the Soviet side! (perhaps, except for Brzezinski).

Since Corp was a personal confidant of Soviet Prime Minister Molotov, he received these specifications directly from him. He began negotiations with American firms in 1936 before the Brzezinski Commission arrived in the United States.

The Soviet Commission did not know the specifications and did not participate in their development or correction. The Commission only assessed the possibilities of their technical implementation.

Hybrids of battleships and aircraft carriers were not popular in the US Navy, and, as far as I know, were not worked out in the 30s. Only the Scout cruiser/aircraft carrier project is known. At the same time, two American companies presented battleship/aircraft carrier designs for the Soviets that contradict the official specification. It can be assumed that in a single case it was the personal initiative of a designer who was passionate about this idea - but there were at least two who made these proposals

It is significant how the Soviet Commission evaluated the first of that battleship/aircraft carrier project:

"In March 1937, an offer was received from the design firm Gielow Inc. corporation to develop the project according to the tasks previously reported by the Broker (Sam Carp - K.), which he received in Moscow.

The proposal was as follows:

1. In order to accommodate up to 60 aircraft on the battleship and use the upper deck for them, the main artillery, located in 3 forward 3-gun 16” turrets, was shifted to the starboard side (it is unknown how the designer will eliminate the roll).
2. The battleship does not have funnels, the discharge of flue gases is planned under water (without any explanation).
3. The standard displacement of the battleship is 35,000 tons, the speed is 30 knots.
4. High—pressure boilers - 85 atmospheres, range — 5000 miles, side armor — 14".

By checking the design material, it was found that the design material is very schematic.

Errors were found in the calculations, such as: the armor weight was indicated as 12,000 tons, whereas according to preliminary calculations, the armor should weigh at least 20,000 tons.

In the course of further negotiations with the company, it was established that it was not suitable for the implementation of the battleship project, as a result of which negotiations were terminated."

So, the battleship/aircraft carrier project was developed "according to the assignment reported by broker in Moscow"

The commission has questions about the discharge of gases, the roll of the ship, the estimated weight of the armor. But no attention is paid to a small detail - 60 aircraft on board, contrary to the formal specification :)

After that, a similar offer from Gibbs & Cox in august-november 1937 does not look bizarre, but a new link in this chain.
 

Attachments

  • Gielow1.jpg
    Gielow1.jpg
    22.5 KB · Views: 122
  • Gielow2.jpg
    Gielow2.jpg
    31.8 KB · Views: 128
Last edited:
Now let's look at the background of the Soviet order of the battleship in the United States.

The Soviets had no experience building modern battleships and aircraft carriers. Therefore, in the first half of the 30s, the idea of a hybrid warship was quite popular in the Soviet Navy

The leading naval design bureau TsKBS-1, headed by Brzezinski, has developed several projects of hybrid warships:

In 1934, a cruiser /aircraft carrier: 8,300 tons, 126,000 hp, 35.5 knots, 9 180 mm, 12 aircraft.
Then, in mid-1935, a heavy cruiser/aircraft carrier: 17,400 tons, 126,000 hp, 33 knots, 9 254 mm, 33 aircraft
And at the end of 1935, during the preparation of preliminary ship designs for the future "Large Ocean Fleet Program", two versions of battlecruisers /aircraft carriers were developed: displacement 21,500 and 28,500 tons, 210,000 hp, 36 knots, 9 305 mm, 60 aircraft

It looks like a curiosity, but even in Soviet fiction of that time, hybrid warships could be found in the description of future naval battles: "battleships / aircraft carriers, an untested type of ships, with fifty aircraft on each, with nine to 18" guns, with 300 mm armor, with gas turbines that informed these Mastodons have a speed of 45 knots.". However, the consultant to the author of the novel, published in 1936, was Smirnov-Svetlovsky, an inspector of the Soviet Navy, and later, in 1937-39, the de facto head of the People's Commissariat of the Navy under nominal political leaders. It can be assumed that this is exactly what the daydreams of the Soviet Navy command looked like about the ideal battleship/aircraft carrier.

For their "Big Fleet" program, the Soviets initially envisioned the construction of 2 to 6 aircraft carriers, and in 1936, NIIVK designed an aircraft carrier in armored and unarmored versions. However, neither aircraft carriers nor hybrid warships were included in the first version of the 1936 shipbuilding program.

This did not mean that such ships would not be ordered in other countries. There were three countries where battleships and aircraft carriers were well built at the same time: Britain, Japan and the USA. Japan in the mid-30s was the most likely opponent of the USSR. Political relations with Britain were very cold, there were practically no military-technical relations. The United States was a potential ally against Japan, it had good technical cooperation with them (licenses for airplanes, tanks, cars, engines), they had advanced naval technologies and experience in the rapid construction of ships.

Therefore, it was in the USA that Molotov's personal agent Sam Carp began his activity as a broker in naval orders in 1936. And in 1937, a Soviet commission headed by Brzezinski, the main proponent of hybrid warships, arrived to interact with him.
 

Attachments

  • TsKBS-1_battlecruiser-carrier_9_305_60_planes.jpg
    TsKBS-1_battlecruiser-carrier_9_305_60_planes.jpg
    25.2 KB · Views: 81
The Soviet battleship that never was...
en.topwar.ru

Soviet battleship K-1000. Do not lie and make fear!

"The Strong Falcon Hides Claws" The Union did not boast about what it does not have. The union did not talk about what it has. And this silence, interrupted by a chorus of children's voices singing "May there always be sunshine," made the West numb with horror. Stronger than Hitchcock's...
en.topwar.ru en.topwar.ru
 
ceccherini said:
-1944 USN study: a concept of a battleship incorporating war lessons. 106000 tons displacement and an Iowa based hull nearly 1200" long. No data on armament and armour
Click to expand...
Some addendum:

It was more like based on the Montana with 4 triple turrets, Speed unknown but the extreme displacement growth was the result to make the ship "unsinkable" by torpedoes, so a heavy multi- probably 4-5 layered torpedo defence system. I guess heavier deck armour as well.
There is an article about this study in one of the Warship International issues, don't know which.
 
ceccherini said:
-1944 USN study: a concept of a battleship incorporating war lessons. 106000 tons displacement and an Iowa based hull nearly 1200" long. No data on armament and armour
Click to expand...
Honestly, the Iowa hull is kinda lousy. L/B ratio is way too high, but that was set by the Panama Canal requirements. Drop those, like the Midway-class carriers did, and you can get a much better hull shape like the SoDaks.

Iowa L/B: 7.96
SoDak L/B: 6.17
Midway L/B: 7.45

Also, the bow is just too thin forward, makes the bow rather wet. They added spray strakes, but those only reduced the amount of water over the bow slightly. What needed to happen was to add enough steel to make a classic, convex bow line instead of the concave line that the Iowas actually had:
800px-BB61_USS_Iowa_BB61_broadside_USN.jpg

Image from Wiki, you can see the concave lines of the bow quite clearly on the righthand side of the image (best image for seeing what I'm talking about). That whole area should have been built out a good 15ft at the deepest part of the concavity, and faired into the hull accordingly. Means that as the bow tried to dig into a wave, it would gain a lot of displacement as the waves got closer to the main deck.

In comparison, here's a picture of USS Massachutsets, also from wiki:
USS_Alabama_recognition_photo.jpg

You can see the much different shape on her starboard bow, upper side of the photo. You could probably use a single piece of wood or a bit of thin spring steel to make a single long curve from bow to stern, with the only support point being at the widest beam.

(Yes, the SoDaks are my favorite battleships. Very compact citadel, still capable of 27.5 knots.)
 
I would not say the Iowas was wet, they even have a high bow with a good sheer because they are designed to go at 33knots!
The better the length to beam ratio the smaller energy was required to reach a desired speed meaning smaller or lighter power plant.
As for the South Dakotas to be better? no. They actually lost speed despite having 10K more shp compared to the North Carolinas, that is what means a worse Length to Beam Ratio!

I too like the "chubby" shape of the South Dakotas, but the Iowas are a definite improvement of them.
 
Tzoli said:
Kaneda's Design was probably from 1922-23 when he was the director of the Kure Naval Yard.

You can add the last IJN Battleship proposal of a battleship with 51cm cannons on 100.000tons displacement (post "Super Yamato")

But define Ultimate battleship in your thinking.
Click to expand...
My questions for the kanade is how deep would it sit in the water, how much would it have cost to build, in the pictures I saw it had planes on a little run way looking things so how many planes would it hold, how tall was it from the water line to the top of the hull, how big where smoke stacks, what was the turn rate, how tall was the ship itself, How much extra weight could it theoretically hold before sinking or not being able to operate if anyone has some answers or theoretically answers I would really appreciate it thank you for your time
 
Tzoli said:
I would not say the Iowas was wet, they even have a high bow with a good sheer because they are designed to go at 33knots!
The better the length to beam ratio the smaller energy was required to reach a desired speed meaning smaller or lighter power plant.
As for the South Dakotas to be better? no. They actually lost speed despite having 10K more shp compared to the North Carolinas, that is what means a worse Length to Beam Ratio!

I too like the "chubby" shape of the South Dakotas, but the Iowas are a definite improvement of them.
Click to expand...
Mind if I ask you something in regards to the Tillman Maximum Battleships, how many Boilers would they get and would they have a geared steam turbine and turbo-electric drive hybrid?
 
Mera A Firewing said:
Mind if I ask you something in regards to the Tillman Maximum Battleships, how many Boilers would they get and would they have a geared steam turbine and turbo-electric drive hybrid?
Click to expand...

Assuming one of the designs with 180,000 SHP, they had planned for 24 boilers. They certainly would have had turbo-electric drive, and not any sort of hybrid. The electric drive system would have been very similar to the one on the Lexington-class battlecruisers/carriers.

DRW
 
drwells42 said:
Assuming one of the designs with 180,000 SHP, they had planned for 24 boilers. They certainly would have had turbo-electric drive, and not any sort of hybrid. The electric drive system would have been very similar to the one on the Lexington-class battlecruisers/carriers.

DRW
Click to expand...
So how many Turbo-electric Drive units would they have installed?
 
navel_guy21 said:
My questions for the kanade is how deep would it sit in the water, how much would it have cost to build, in the pictures I saw it had planes on a little run way looking things so how many planes would it hold, how tall was it from the water line to the top of the hull, how big where smoke stacks, what was the turn rate, how tall was the ship itself, How much extra weight could it theoretically hold before sinking or not being able to operate if anyone has some answers or theoretically answers I would really appreciate it thank you for your time
Click to expand...
Half of those questions you can measure yourself based on the drawings. Draft is based on my knowlede is 18 meters. For cost that is cannot be determined except if you find documents of the Nagatos costs, including hull, machinery and armament.
I would say 2-4 planes, those are for spotting.
Turn rate impossible to get except if you make a super realistic and very accurate 3D model with realistic water and physics effect.
Probably an extra 100-150.000tons it could hold before capsize is my guess.
 
Last edited:
Mera A Firewing said:
Mind if I ask you something in regards to the Tillman Maximum Battleships, how many Boilers would they get and would they have a geared steam turbine and turbo-electric drive hybrid?
Click to expand...
Check the original drawings: They would all be Turbo-Electric driven

18 small boiler rooms so I presume 18 boilers:

24 small boiler rooms so probably 24 boilers:

And before you ask, EHP=SHP/2 (EHP - Effective Horse Power)
 
Tzoli said:
Check the original drawings: They would all be Turbo-Electric driven

18 small boiler rooms so I presume 18 boilers:

24 small boiler rooms so probably 24 boilers:

And before you ask, EHP=SHP/2 (EHP - Effective Horse Power)
Click to expand...
So when will you be drawing the Tillmans, because those I would love to see on Deviantart.
 
I have other works to do. Currently not interested in the USN.
 
Mera A Firewing said:
So how many Turbo-electric Drive units would they have installed?
Click to expand...
I took a quick look at the Booklet of General Plans for the Saratoga, (and as I say, the engineering plant was quite similar to that for Tillman 3 and 4, IV-1 and IV-2) and there are four relatively small spaces labelled "Main Driving Motor Room", so I'd say four big electric motors.

DRW
 
drwells42 said:
I took a quick look at the Booklet of General Plans for the Saratoga, (and as I say, the engineering plant was quite similar to that for Tillman 3 and 4, IV-1 and IV-2) and there are four relatively small spaces labelled "Main Driving Motor Room", so I'd say four big electric motors.

DRW
Click to expand...
Thank you.
 
Tzoli said:
Half of those questions you can measure yourself based on the drawings. Draft is based on my knowlede is 18 meters. For cost that is cannot be determined except if you find documents of the Nagatos costs, including hull, machinery and armament.
I would say 2-4 planes, those are for spotting.
Turn rate impossible to get except if you make a super realistic and very accurate 3D model with realistic water and physics effect.
Probably an extra 100-150.000tons it could hold before capsize is my guess.
Click to expand...
ok thank you
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom