Forest Green
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 11 June 2019
- Messages
- 4,929
- Reaction score
- 6,194
Seems to say Quintuple to my eyes.
"Ultimate battleship" designs
- Thread starter ceccherini
- Start date
- Joined
- 1 February 2011
- Messages
- 2,615
- Reaction score
- 2,544
The torpedoes are a mystery, my friend who scanned the many Admirality papers regarding the Lion design does not mention the cause of the installation of the torpedoes or their mission.
There are two theories which are the most realistic:
A - Launchers for long range acoustic torpedoes something like the British equivalent of the Japanese Long Lances with a reliable guidance system
B - Launchers for self/fleet defence ASW torpedoes.
There are two theories which are the most realistic:
A - Launchers for long range acoustic torpedoes something like the British equivalent of the Japanese Long Lances with a reliable guidance system
B - Launchers for self/fleet defence ASW torpedoes.
DWG
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 11 February 2007
- Messages
- 1,754
- Reaction score
- 2,281
More likely, because it took torpedoes to finish both Bismarck and Scharnhorst (and factions in the RN had always been reluctant to remove torpedoes from the existing battleships).
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
If I recall correctly, there were efforts to put a "Trumper" active acoustic seeker on the standard Mark VIII/IX torpedoes in 1945.
- Joined
- 19 July 2016
- Messages
- 3,723
- Reaction score
- 2,679
According to the latest assessments in recent inspections, it took scuttling charges to finish the Bismarck.
- Joined
- 1 February 2011
- Messages
- 2,615
- Reaction score
- 2,544
The Torpedoes were present on the 1938, 1944 and some of the 1945 series of Lion designs
And while in the KGV space was allocated for an ASDIC, in the Lion it was intended to carry it from the beginning.
"In February 1938 Controller decided that the 1936 and 1937 battleships
and carriers should have space reserved, but that the 1938 and later capital ships
(e.g., Lion class battleships) should have more elaborate provision to fit Asdic."
And while in the KGV space was allocated for an ASDIC, in the Lion it was intended to carry it from the beginning.
"In February 1938 Controller decided that the 1936 and 1937 battleships
and carriers should have space reserved, but that the 1938 and later capital ships
(e.g., Lion class battleships) should have more elaborate provision to fit Asdic."
Bottleship
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 30 June 2019
- Messages
- 472
- Reaction score
- 1,176
Ultimate battleship (for 1890th), "Battleship forts":
And, bonus, British gun turret patent (need a 20-inch guns ):
And, bonus, British gun turret patent (need a 20-inch guns ):
- Joined
- 1 February 2011
- Messages
- 2,615
- Reaction score
- 2,544
That quad elevated turret are from Vickers from 1901-02.
Calibre not stated but I assume 12" Or it's a general elevated quad turret which could be prportinally resized to accept the calibres of that time (7,5", 9,2", 10", 12")
Calibre not stated but I assume 12" Or it's a general elevated quad turret which could be prportinally resized to accept the calibres of that time (7,5", 9,2", 10", 12")
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 19,748
- Reaction score
- 10,200
Very interesting indeed as always, thanks! Something like that (Mobile Battle Forts) might have proven useful in both WWI and WWII. The 'Battleship Exterminators' sound like an extension of the Torpedo Ram concept.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 19,748
- Reaction score
- 10,200
If they had been built, those vessels more than likely would have been more than likely ended up being manned by the Royal Garrison Artillery, probably with some assistance from the Corps of Royal Engineers and the Army Service Corps.
EDIT: Then again though, Major-General (later additionally Sir) John Frederick Crease was a retired but still highly respected Royal Marine Artillery officer, so they may have possibly gotten the job instead. Reinforced with personnel from the Royal Naval Reserve, perhaps?
EDIT: Then again though, Major-General (later additionally Sir) John Frederick Crease was a retired but still highly respected Royal Marine Artillery officer, so they may have possibly gotten the job instead. Reinforced with personnel from the Royal Naval Reserve, perhaps?
Last edited:
- Joined
- 1 February 2011
- Messages
- 2,615
- Reaction score
- 2,544
I doubt that. 8knots is only good for coastal defence or shore bombardment.
With proper design say 3 quad turrets on the centreline or even 2 and better hull shape you could get at least twice or a bit more, the speed which was what the normal Battleships were capable of at that time.
With proper design say 3 quad turrets on the centreline or even 2 and better hull shape you could get at least twice or a bit more, the speed which was what the normal Battleships were capable of at that time.
Were there any battleship designs for the Italian Navy after the UP.41 design? Maybe not quite "super battleship", but something that could go toe to toe with an Iowa or a Montana? There're rumours of a 4x4 406mm battleship design, but I don't know much beyond that
- Joined
- 1 February 2011
- Messages
- 2,615
- Reaction score
- 2,544
Italian capital ship design work sized to exist after the armistice. I know no other capital ships after the Roma conversion proposal or the Aquila/Sparviero. Battleship wise the same the last was UP-41 as it seems. Of course there was the Littorio's export version required by Spain from around 1939.
Don't you mix the Ferrati projected battleships from 1914 which featured quad turrets? Those were to be armed with 381mm Cannons and to my latest knowledge / findings not with the Caracciolo's 40 calibre but a different longer 45 calibre ones!
Don't you mix the Ferrati projected battleships from 1914 which featured quad turrets? Those were to be armed with 381mm Cannons and to my latest knowledge / findings not with the Caracciolo's 40 calibre but a different longer 45 calibre ones!
ceccherini
In war there is no substitute for victory
- Joined
- 26 February 2015
- Messages
- 160
- Reaction score
- 155
UP41 was a private export design for Russia, not a design by Regia Marina nor intended for Regia Marina. Before 1940 RM was working on the design of a battleship armed with 3x3 406mm guns and very long range, combining diesel engine and turbine on 5 or 6 shafts. It was studied in case of an escalation of the naval race that Italy was actively discouraging, hoping to maintain the very favorable power ratio obtained by the late '30 against the French Navy. Italy hoped in a third London naval conference to take place in 1940 and to tailor Treaty limits on Littorio' s specs. If so, two more Littorios after Roma and Impero were to be laid down before 1945. Never heard of a 4 quadruple turret design in the late '30 time frame and I think it is absolutely implausible: Regia Marina known very well she could never expect to match other great European navies in a race to built extremely large battleships and she had both interest and intentions to not escalate battleship's size. One must also consider that many in RM were quite dismissive regarding the prospect of a 16"gun, evaluating it not much more powerful than the very potent 15" already adopted. However larger battleship's building was considered realistic enough at a later time to start building very large dry dock in Taranto. I think that ultimately, had the war not intervened, had the hope of a new Treaty failed, having to counter a larger number of battleship than she could have built, not liking the 16" gun, Regia Marina would have taken the Japanese way of building a small number of superiorly armed battleships with guns larger than 16" but this is only an hypothesis based on the Italian strategic thinking and conditions of immediate pre war.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 1 February 2011
- Messages
- 2,615
- Reaction score
- 2,544
Yes the Cassone battlecruiser with 4x2 28" and a unique underwater defence system but again that was from the 1920's:
stefsap.wordpress.com
Cassone’s large battlecruiser proposal, 1921
As far as I know, this is the largest battleship ever discussed for the Regia Marina. The original article is included in Rivista Marittima’s October, 1921 issue, titled “La fase attual…
stefsap.wordpress.com
Last edited:
- Joined
- 1 February 2011
- Messages
- 2,615
- Reaction score
- 2,544
Italian capital ship design work sized to exist after the armistice. I know no other capital ships after the Roma conversion proposal or the Aquila/Sparviero. Battleship wise the same the last was UP-41 as it seems. Of course there was the Littorio's export version required by Spain from around 1939.
Don't you mix the Ferrati projected battleships from 1914 which featured quad turrets? Those were to be armed with 381mm Cannons and to my latest knowledge / findings not with the Caracciolo's 40 calibre but a different longer 45 calibre ones!
Neither the USN nor the IJN designed battleships post 1936 with that much firepower on basically a Yamato sized hull!
Both were maximum 12 barrels: 4x3 16" / 41cm
Don't you mix the Ferrati projected battleships from 1914 which featured quad turrets? Those were to be armed with 381mm Cannons and to my latest knowledge / findings not with the Caracciolo's 40 calibre but a different longer 45 calibre ones!
Neither the USN nor the IJN designed battleships post 1936 with that much firepower on basically a Yamato sized hull!
Both were maximum 12 barrels: 4x3 16" / 41cm
Starfleet1701
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 20 November 2021
- Messages
- 3
- Reaction score
- 0
Do you have sources for these?
Starfleet1701
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 20 November 2021
- Messages
- 3
- Reaction score
- 0
Do you have any sources. Because I'm unaware of any U.S battleship designs with 20 inch guns?
A Tentative Fleet Plan
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 9 April 2018
- Messages
- 916
- Reaction score
- 1,802
Starfleet1701
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 20 November 2021
- Messages
- 3
- Reaction score
- 0
I see the picture, specifically where is this photo from? I looked at the USN archives found no reference of this design. I'm not doubting you, just trying to get clarification.
ptdockyard
"Pick out the biggest and commence firing"
- Joined
- 19 January 2014
- Messages
- 113
- Reaction score
- 133
This is from Friedman's "US Battleships: A Design History.
Dave G
Dave G
- Joined
- 1 February 2011
- Messages
- 2,615
- Reaction score
- 2,544
Yes, Norman Friedman US battleships an illustrated design history book contains that drawing and data table. Naval Weapons of ww1 mentions the 20" cannon under development or consideration in 1920 before WNT and it's data was used to create this 1935-36 maximum battleship proposal. As the source of the original drawing? The book should contain a source for it. But as we stated in the Montana thread the USN Archives contains holes like an ementali cheese!
COLDOWN
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 12 November 2019
- Messages
- 211
- Reaction score
- 222
Maybe I can contribute.
We all know that since the launch of the battleship Dreadnought, the technology associated with these ships has evolved exponentially.
In 1908 M. Prendergast (a Jane's Fighting Ships editor) published the article "The Development of the Capital Ship" in The Navy League Annual 1908-1909 (by A.H. Burgoyne).
There he explores how battleships will evolve in the coming decades, considering the main armaments, their arrangement, anti-torpedo armament, displacement, dimensions, power and speed, and armor.
Among the perspectives is the present scheme that I share here and that would have the following characteristics:
10 * 18-inch (457 millimeter) and 45-caliber guns and a 15-inch (381 millimeter) belt.
At the bottom of the image you can see other alternatives.
Anyone who wants to read the full article can go here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Gll7hOhJaz4zPrRikRWs7KEqXP4WNDIj?usp=sharing
Regards
A 1908 british battleship scheme with 10x18in!
We all know that since the launch of the battleship Dreadnought, the technology associated with these ships has evolved exponentially.
In 1908 M. Prendergast (a Jane's Fighting Ships editor) published the article "The Development of the Capital Ship" in The Navy League Annual 1908-1909 (by A.H. Burgoyne).
There he explores how battleships will evolve in the coming decades, considering the main armaments, their arrangement, anti-torpedo armament, displacement, dimensions, power and speed, and armor.
Among the perspectives is the present scheme that I share here and that would have the following characteristics:
10 * 18-inch (457 millimeter) and 45-caliber guns and a 15-inch (381 millimeter) belt.
At the bottom of the image you can see other alternatives.
Anyone who wants to read the full article can go here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Gll7hOhJaz4zPrRikRWs7KEqXP4WNDIj?usp=sharing
Regards
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
!!! That's the real beast!
ceccherini
In war there is no substitute for victory
- Joined
- 26 February 2015
- Messages
- 160
- Reaction score
- 155
Actual plans far exceeded these prediction without recurring to the exotic gas turbine tecnology. Already by early '20s a well armored battleship with 10 18" gun and 30 knots speed was a practical proposition. By 1930, if the naval race had not broken the major powers finances, I would expect somewhat in the range of 24" guns and 35 knots speed. Interesting how the very same technology available in 1908 had a far larger growth margin than contemporaries expected and at the same time how slower the development of radically new technology such as gas turbine was to be. Already in 1905 Lord Fisher expected internal combustion turbines to be an imminent development slated to have massive applications in few years. Reality was more fascinating than expectations but in a much different way.Maybe I can contribute.
A 1908 british battleship scheme with 10x18in!
We all know that since the launch of the battleship Dreadnought, the technology associated with these ships has evolved exponentially.
In 1908 M. Prendergast (a Jane's Fighting Ships editor) published the article "The Development of the Capital Ship" in The Navy League Annual 1908-1909 (by A.H. Burgoyne).
There he explores how battleships will evolve in the coming decades, considering the main armaments, their arrangement, anti-torpedo armament, displacement, dimensions, power and speed, and armor.
Among the perspectives is the present scheme that I share here and that would have the following characteristics:
10 * 18-inch (457 millimeter) and 45-caliber guns and a 15-inch (381 millimeter) belt.
At the bottom of the image you can see other alternatives.
Anyone who wants to read the full article can go here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Gll7hOhJaz4zPrRikRWs7KEqXP4WNDIj?usp=sharing
Regards
Last edited:
- Joined
- 1 February 2011
- Messages
- 2,615
- Reaction score
- 2,544
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!
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
I take it that author means gas engine. I.e. ICE, or diesel.
As far as I read the article, its an attempt to predict the future battleship development, extrapolating size and characteristic from the past progress.
Roodbaard1958!
ACCESS: Confidential
- Joined
- 26 December 2019
- Messages
- 58
- Reaction score
- 70
Actual plans far exceeded these prediction without recurring to the exotic gas turbine tecnology. Already by early '20s a well armored battleship with 10 18" gun and 30 knots speed was a practical proposition. By 1930, if the naval race had not broken the major powers finances, I would expect somewhat in the range of 24" guns and 35 knots speed. Interesting how the very same technology available in 1908 had a far larger growth margin than contemporaries expected and at the same time how slower the development of radically new technology such as gas turbine was to be. Already in 1905 Lord Fisher expected internal combustion turbines to be an imminent development slated to have massive applications in few years. Reality was more fascinating than expectations but in a much different way.Maybe I can contribute.
A 1908 british battleship scheme with 10x18in!
We all know that since the launch of the battleship Dreadnought, the technology associated with these ships has evolved exponentially.
In 1908 M. Prendergast (a Jane's Fighting Ships editor) published the article "The Development of the Capital Ship" in The Navy League Annual 1908-1909 (by A.H. Burgoyne).
There he explores how battleships will evolve in the coming decades, considering the main armaments, their arrangement, anti-torpedo armament, displacement, dimensions, power and speed, and armor.
Among the perspectives is the present scheme that I share here and that would have the following characteristics:
10 * 18-inch (457 millimeter) and 45-caliber guns and a 15-inch (381 millimeter) belt.
At the bottom of the image you can see other alternatives.
Anyone who wants to read the full article can go here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Gll7hOhJaz4zPrRikRWs7KEqXP4WNDIj?usp=sharing
Regards
Roodbaard1958!
ACCESS: Confidential
- Joined
- 26 December 2019
- Messages
- 58
- Reaction score
- 70
Interesting, thank you
- Joined
- 6 September 2006
- Messages
- 4,306
- Reaction score
- 7,423
An interesting window on how dreadnought evolution was considered at the time.
The main striking points for me are; the ship's boats are well up out of the way of blast to ensure that all arcs were open; the provision of four range finding towers, none have a full 360 coverage on their own but together they do and presumably allowed multiple target engagement (2 per side) but still feels inefficient; the lack of any secondary battery even as an anti-TB battery.
The main striking points for me are; the ship's boats are well up out of the way of blast to ensure that all arcs were open; the provision of four range finding towers, none have a full 360 coverage on their own but together they do and presumably allowed multiple target engagement (2 per side) but still feels inefficient; the lack of any secondary battery even as an anti-TB battery.
David Chessum
ACCESS: Restricted
Hi Tzoli,March 1945 Admiralty of the Royal Navy:
Sorry for the long-delayed response. Do you know which file this document is from?
Regards
David
- Joined
- 1 February 2011
- Messages
- 2,615
- Reaction score
- 2,544
Original documents from The Royal Brass Foundry Archives, Woolwich, United Kingdom. They are part of DNC (Director of Naval Constructions) papers describing the Lion class development in 1945. Can check the document title later
- Joined
- 1 February 2011
- Messages
- 2,615
- Reaction score
- 2,544
Found the document.Hi Tzoli,March 1945 Admiralty of the Royal Navy:
Sorry for the long-delayed response. Do you know which file this document is from?
Regards
David
Official name:
1944-45 Lion BB Ships Cover ADM 730
Constructive Department 730
730 / New Battleship Design / Sec or Sea: I. - 22-3-45
ADM/SC/730
Mera A Firewing
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 26 February 2024
- Messages
- 30
- Reaction score
- 5
Now I really want see what these beauties look in Deviantart by Tzoli.From "Superlinkori Stalina" and "Flot, kotoriy unichtozhil Hrushchev":
1935-1936 concepts:
4x4x18" guns, 26 knots, belt 380 mm
3x3x20" guns, 24-28 knots, belt 500 mm
3x2x21" guns, 24-28 knots, belt 500 mm
1945-1955 project "Maximum" (huge variant of Project 24):
Diceplacement - 130 000 ton
Speed to 29-30 knots
Main guns - 4x3x18" L/55 guns: shell 1580-1720 kg, charge 620 kg, muzzle velocity 820-850 mps, range 55+ km, 2-3 rpm
Second guns, or, big universal caliber - 6x220 mm or 8x180 mm universal guns (3x2, or 2x3 220 mm, 4x2, or 2x4 180 mm) - based on Project 84 turrets - double-barrel 180 mm universal guns, 9-10 rpm
Universal guns, or "small" universal caliber - combination of 152 + 100 mm, or only 130 mm guns. 152 mm guns in triple turrets, to 16 rpm, 100 and 130 mm guns in quadriple turrets, to 18 rpm.
I haven't data about AA guns of "Maximum" - on standart Projects 24 it was 12x4x25 mm and 12x4x45 mm - and about armour - on standart Project 24 belt 420-450 mm, decks 245 mm.
...
And, Russian Imperial concepts (from "Posledniye ispolini Rossiyskogo Imperatorskogo flota", S. Vinogradov):
In 1914 projected two type of 16" L/45 guns, with standart 1116.3 kg shell, for Wickers-Armstrong, charge 320 kg, speed 766 mps, and more powerful, for Obukhov plant, charge 373 kg, speed 820-850 mps, range 40+ km.
Also, "by perspective", in 1914 on Obukhov plant projected powerful 18" L/45 gun - shell 1586 kg, charge 540 kg, muzzle velocity 890 mps, range 50+ km.
Engineer Izenbek projected special loading system for main guns, and, in Russian WW1 16 inch battleship projects used turrets with this system. Izenbek system is: feed without intermediate mechanisms, automatic lowering of barrel, and others - analog of Soviet Cold war tank "caroussel" loading system. Standart rate of fire, without extra loads - 4 rpm on barrel (!) in 16 inch caliber, but, "more if needed". And, one Russian 8x16" project - it's acually two 8x16" American or Britich battleship
Also, projected specal distance-operated systems for second caliber, with autoloading of guns. By this concept, second caliber was more lighter than standart - small armoured (only guns and systems). Builted 6" L/50 gun, shell 47.3 kg, 850 mps, and projected 6" L/52 gun, shell 47.3 kg, 914 mps. Also, worked at 7" and 7.1" guns, projected 183 mm L/52 gun - B-1, B-1-K and B-1-P was a Soviet reincornation of this project.
Also, projected armour for big battleship - huge belt by full lenght, 12 inch, 18 inch in center, two 2.5 inch decks. Armoured of turret - to 20 inch.
And, projected type of artillery, 2x4 and 2x2 guns turrets.
Also, projected many guns - special AA, or only automatic.
Based in Maxim gun projected 47 mm auto cannon. Also, created concept of 76.2 and 95 mm (!) Maxim cannons.
Engineer Rosenberg in 1901 (!) projected 57 mm 6-round automatic AA gun.
Brothers Sergey and Vasiliy Valitskiy in 1885 builted 87 mm automatic cannon, based on M1877 field cannon. Maybe, it was first Russian automatic gun ever built.
In 1915 knyaz Chegodayev was projected 19-barrel (Gatling?!) AA gun "in minimall artillery caliber" - in Russian Empire 37 mm.
Also in 1915 engineer Kraukle projected gas-operated revolving heavy machine gun.
Mera A Firewing
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 26 February 2024
- Messages
- 30
- Reaction score
- 5
Chunky Boi.
Similar threads
-
Japanese 'dream project' battleships and never built battleships
- Started by ceccherini
- Replies: 102
-
-
-
-