US Navy "Spring Styles" ship designs Book 4 (1946-1954)

that_person

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
25 May 2021
Messages
244
Reaction score
399
I was on a Discord server and the topic of the Gibbs and Cox "60,000-ton monster" came up. I remarked how much I wanted to get my hands on Spring Styles Book 4. The guy I was talking to has a buddy who paid to have the entire book scanned, and he passed it off to me. With his permission, I uploaded it to my Drive and am trying to pass it around to relevant sites. Without further ado, here is the complete Spring Styles 4 collection: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/11_r4L-sMoiXH6aaSEbhLsOmzHfZGD9cq?usp=sharing
 
Neat! Do you know of a way to download the whole thing from Google drive in one go, or do you, as seems to be the case, have to dig through to each file and download individually?

Never mind, figured it out. FYI, left-click select all of the folders, then hit the three vertical dots just above tot he right, select "download," and it'll download one big ZIP file.

Many thanks!
 
That would be handy... if the interface actually looked like that. It doesn't... looks like this:

goooogle.png

Presumably the difference between "I own this stuff" and "this stuff was shared with me" formatting.
 
Thank you for doing this. I've seen renderings of ships from the other books, so it will be interesting to see what people come up with.
 
Soo few designs. :(
Thank you none the less!
Seems like this book to partially destroyed, soo many missing designs!
And not scans just photos with what looks like a mobile phone?
 
Does your friend maybe MAYBE had found the 2nd Book? The 1925-39 one?
 
Soo few designs. :(
Thank you none the less!
Seems like this book to partially destroyed, soo many missing designs!
And not scans just photos with what looks like a mobile phone?
Yeah, there’s not many. I do find that odd. Maybe later today I’ll file a FOIA request for actual scans. I doubt anyone has Book 2, from what I’ve read it was intentionally destroyed because apparently it’s not “essential to preserve”. Whatever that means…

Update: Filed a FOIA request for higher quality scans
 
Last edited:
Soo few designs. :(
Thank you none the less!
Seems like this book to partially destroyed, soo many missing designs!
And not scans just photos with what looks like a mobile phone?
Yeah, there’s not many. I do find that odd. Maybe later today I’ll file a FOIA request for actual scans. I doubt anyone has Book 2, from what I’ve read it was intentionally destroyed because apparently it’s not “essential to preserve”. Whatever that means…

I've heard that regarding the Montana design process as well...
 
For what it's worth, the 'High Speed Amphibious Transport' sketches were a revelation. I didn't know the ideas that ended up becoming the Iwo Jima Class started that close to WWII, even if the sketches are closer in appearance to the Japanese (JMSDF) Ōsumi Class LSTs than what emerged in the 1960s.

 
The heavy ASW Destroyer design shows an interesting AA armament consisting of 35mm mounts possibly twins. I'm not sure but maybe I vaguely remember a light gun development late or post war. Sutely the USN will not use the 40mm Bofors after the fiasco with them. (USA started producing the guns without agreeing to the licencing terms with Bofors when WW2 started)
 
The heavy ASW Destroyer design shows an interesting AA armament consisting of 35mm mounts possibly twins. I'm not sure but maybe I vaguely remember a light gun development late or post war. Sutely the USN will not use the 40mm Bofors after the fiasco with them. (USA started producing the guns without agreeing to the licencing terms with Bofors when WW2 started)
I don’t have a source for this, so I suppose it’s just hearsay from what someone else told me. Apparently during the late war we began studying a heavy 20mm replacement because they where useless against kamikazes, and it obviously never made it off the drawing board. Not sure if it has any relation to the pre-war designs, or how seriously the idea was.
 
I also remember hearing something like this. Pretty sure it was on this site, along with some mention of a 57mm gun.
 
The heavy ASW Destroyer design shows an interesting AA armament consisting of 35mm mounts possibly twins. I'm not sure but maybe I vaguely remember a light gun development late or post war. Sutely the USN will not use the 40mm Bofors after the fiasco with them. (USA started producing the guns without agreeing to the licencing terms with Bofors when WW2 started)
Friedman mentions a free-swinging 35mm gun which was meant to be replacement for the Oerlikon, in the context of the 1945 Fleet Carrier Design.

The Heavy ASW Destroyer seems to be a Mitscher (DL-1) preliminary design.
 
I also remember hearing something like this. Pretty sure it was on this site, along with some mention of a 57mm gun.
The US Navy contemplated two calibres of automatic anti-aircraft cannon: 35mm and 50 (fifty) mm.

The results of the studies conducted during 1949 and 1950 formed the basis for a mandate which Oerlikon received from the US Navy to develop naval guns in the calibres 35mm and 50mm. As a result, the 35mm twin naval turret was constructed and delivered to the US Navy. The ammunition and cannon then became the basis for the terrestrial Oerlikon twin AA gun with Contraves fire control system.
The 50mm project, which was designated 501 MK (50mm type 1 machine cannon), does not appear to have gone beyond internal ballistics testing in a pressure barrel.
Source: An article by Bob Gerber in April 2011 issue of the ECRA Bulletin (No.552)

Tony Williams says in another forum:
The 50 x 355 Oerlikon 501 MK of the 1950s (developed to meet a USN requirement) had a projectile weight of 1.52 kg.

Here you've got a drawing of the 50x355 cartridge from the ECRA Bulletin as well as a photo in which there is a replica of the cartridge (fourth from the left) (from https://www.quarryhs.co.uk/tankammo1.html).

EDIT: Additional photo showing the only two still existing 50x355 cartridges beside a 35x228 and some 40x364R Bofor (displayed at Schweizerischen Militärmuseum Full-Reuenthal).
 

Attachments

  • 50x355.jpg
    50x355.jpg
    58.8 KB · Views: 126
  • 42-60exp.jpg
    42-60exp.jpg
    279.6 KB · Views: 91
  • 50mm 35mm Oerlikon 40mm Bofors L70.JPG
    50mm 35mm Oerlikon 40mm Bofors L70.JPG
    308.6 KB · Views: 158
Last edited:
So the 35mm Oerlikon and its ammo has its basis in a USN requirement? That's pretty fascinating. I'm surprised its 50mm cousin recieved no interest, it might have been a somewhat lighter competitor to the 57mm Bofors.
 
Last edited:
Interesting that even ramps were considered for the USS United States when it was still under design!
But what is S.B.P? I know SCP is Ship Characteristics Board but what was the acronym of SBP?
 
SBP is 'Shipbuidling Project,' which is the same as an SCB number. So SCB 6A was the same as SBP 6A. I don't know why both were used, but you see SBP a lot, particularly on drawings. The reason for the ramps is that at least initially it was not all that clear that elevators could take the very heavy (over 100,000 lbs) aircraft envisaged, which were the whole point of the CVA 58 design (long-range nuclear bombers). I think the ramps were discarded after a while. The ramp idea came back in early concept sketches of the Enterprise, ca 1955.
 
For what it's worth, the 'High Speed Amphibious Transport' sketches were a revelation. I didn't know the ideas that ended up becoming the Iwo Jima Class started that close to WWII, even if the sketches are closer in appearance to the Japanese (JMSDF) Ōsumi Class LSTs than what emerged in the 1960s.

The 25 knot design is described in Norman Friedman's US Amphibious Ships and Craft as APA-M. This was in effect, a combination of an APA, AKA and Helicopter Carrier, and could accommodate an enlarge Battalion Landing Team of 2000 troops, and all of its associated equipment and cargo, with there being a total cargo capacity of 3500 tons. 21 Helicopters could be carried in total, in the hangar and on the flight-deck.

Interestingly the Friedman says the ship could carry 15 LCMs and an LCU. In the daigram, the ship carries an LCU and a pair of LCM(8)s? (They're larger than the LCM(6)s on the davits) in the well deck, with five LCM(6)s on davits, and another five LCVPs nested inside said LCM(6s). Perhaps the well-deck could carry enough LCM(6)s (stored three-abreast), at the expense of the LCU and LCM(8)s to get to the 15 LCM figure?

The Sketch design was produced by BuShips in November 1952, and suggested that the construction of a ship could be started in FY55 to supplement converted Mariners (I don't if they simply mean the SCB-77/C4-S-1A Mariners as converted to an AKA, or the Mariner-based SCB-77A Ro-Ro design, design work on which began around 1952).

In August 1954, PhibLant recommended the construction of what were now termed as AKA-Ms, instead of fast 20-knot LSTs that CinCLant wanted.

3 AKA-Ms and a pair of LSDs could carry an entire Regimental Combat Team, whereas the conventional alternative would consist of 9 LSTs, 3 APAs, 3 AKAs and 1 LSD.

The 5 ship group would cost 17% more than the more conventional 19 ship group, however these costs would be reversed if the LSTs were to be the new 20-knot type, with the 19-ship group now costing 23% more.

The AKA-M concept eventually evolved into the less ambitious LPD concept, which was intended to provide heavy cargo support and supplemental boats to LPHs, in much the same way as AKAs did for the APAs, but the LPDs had more substantial troop capacity, about half of that of the LPH.
 
Last edited:
Eventually, my Google Drive link will come down, and a decade from now someone will be looking through this thread. I hate when I find an interesting thread but all the files and links have since been taken down. Because of this, and for the sake of creating a permanent record, I'm uploading the actual files.
 

Attachments

  • 6-inch Cruisers.jpg
    6-inch Cruisers.jpg
    1,023.4 KB · Views: 191
  • CVE - Arrangement 1.jpg
    CVE - Arrangement 1.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 179
  • CVE - Arrangement 2.jpg
    CVE - Arrangement 2.jpg
    1,001.4 KB · Views: 174
  • ASW Ship (Heavy).jpg
    ASW Ship (Heavy).jpg
    680.9 KB · Views: 149
  • Destroyer -  Scheme J-5.jpg
    Destroyer - Scheme J-5.jpg
    863.8 KB · Views: 147
  • Destroyer -  Scheme J-7.jpg
    Destroyer - Scheme J-7.jpg
    825.3 KB · Views: 144
  • Destroyer - Scheme L-3.jpg
    Destroyer - Scheme L-3.jpg
    909.6 KB · Views: 143
  • Destroyer - Sumners Modernization.jpg
    Destroyer - Sumners Modernization.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 152
  • 1946 Carrier Study - C-1.jpg
    1946 Carrier Study - C-1.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 152
  • 1946 Carrier Study - C-2.jpg
    1946 Carrier Study - C-2.jpg
    872.1 KB · Views: 149
  • CVA-58 Preliminary - CVB-X.jpg
    CVA-58 Preliminary - CVB-X.jpg
    731.5 KB · Views: 142
  • CVA-58 Preliminary - A-4 - 1.jpg
    CVA-58 Preliminary - A-4 - 1.jpg
    686.5 KB · Views: 137
  • CVA-58 Preliminary - A-5.jpg
    CVA-58 Preliminary - A-5.jpg
    749.5 KB · Views: 140
  • CVA-58 Preliminary - Study NO-1.jpg
    CVA-58 Preliminary - Study NO-1.jpg
    608.8 KB · Views: 134
  • CVA-58 Preliminary - Study NO-2.jpg
    CVA-58 Preliminary - Study NO-2.jpg
    800.7 KB · Views: 134
  • CVA-58 Preliminary - Study NO-3.jpg
    CVA-58 Preliminary - Study NO-3.jpg
    636.3 KB · Views: 147
  • HSAT - 25 Knots.jpg
    HSAT - 25 Knots.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 148
  • HSAT - 25 Knots Scheme 3.jpg
    HSAT - 25 Knots Scheme 3.jpg
    1,012.6 KB · Views: 182
  • HSAT - 30 Knot Study.jpg
    HSAT - 30 Knot Study.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 151
  • Frigate - ASW Ship (Light).jpg
    Frigate - ASW Ship (Light).jpg
    791.5 KB · Views: 176
Last edited:
Eventually, my Google Drive link will come down, and a decade from now someone will be looking through this thread. I hate when I find an interesting thread but all the files and links have since been taken down. Because of this, and for the sake of creating a permanent record, I'm uploading the actual files.
Thx!
 
So I was doing some digging today, and came across something interesting; I may have a lead on the location of Spring Styles Book 2 (presuming it wasn’t destroyed). If you go on the NARA page and search for Spring Styles ( https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1696046 ), it shows that a total of 5 drawings have been digitized, all of which are CVA-58 preliminary sketches.

But, this is where things get interesting. The final image, “CV S.B.P. Project 6A Arrangement Study No. 5 ( https://catalog.archives.gov/id/12007719 ) is marked as coming from Point Isabel, Texas. This is odd because when I filed the FOIA for Book 4, I knew it was coming from College Park, Maryland, as ShipScribe ( https://www.shipscribe.com/styles/index.html ) said. I believe this is likely where the other books are, as this is where a lot of former Bureau of Ships stuff is kept. So, with that in mind, if I went looking for Book 2 in person, I’d go to College Park, and obviously it’s not there. I think this is why all prior expeditions to find the book have failed. But, if parts of Book 4 are in Texas, Book 2 might also be there.

On top of this, ShipScribe also has some additional info on Book 2:

“Records of past holdings at the Federal Records Center at Suitland, Maryland, include citation of an additional book in this series, presumably Volume 2, covering the years 1924-1933 (in two "packages"), included in Federal Records Center Accession # 13163 as of about 1970. This book currently is not on the shelf at the Federal Records Center and is unlocated, perhaps destroyed in the mid-1970s when large quantities of U.S. Navy preliminary and contract design files held there were destroyed, having been determined by the Navy as not essential for preservation.”

Again, this is where things get even more interesting. The NARA website lists them having stuff from 1929-1955. The 1929 date would be Book 2, and according to ShipScribe, the book covered 1924-1933, but was broken into two “packages”.

So that has me thinking, does NARA still have a portion of Spring Styles Book 2, covering 1929-1933, located down in Point Isabel, Texas? I know chances are it was destroyed, but the optimist in me hopes that it was misplaced. I know a guy going to College Park next week, and he plans on asking about it. Will have to see where this goes.
 
Last edited:
A friend of mine asked the author of Warship International and got this answer:

Akos,

Thank you for the message. All very interesting, but the truth is not so hopeful.

The five drawings of the CVB designs all come from Spring Styles Book No.4. I attach my list of all the drawings in Book No.4. I made this list by looking at each drawing at College Park. There is nothing from Book 2 in Book 4.

I have no idea why "Point Isabel, TX" is cited on the NARA form. It must be an artifact of some sort of their website process, if not a
mistake. Book 4 was sent by the NavSea Records Manager direct from NavSea to NARA at College Park back around 2008 or 2009. The Manager personally informed me of all that at the time. It is possible, however, that a "citizen archivist" from Texas prepared the website postings; that's just a hypothesis; NARA is eager to put volunteer
"citizen archivists" to work cataloguing things. None of this
material is located in, or ever came from, Point Isabel, whatsoever.
(The nearest NARA regional branch is in Fort Worth, TX.)

I wrote the paragraph on Book 2 that appears in the Shipscribe
website. Recall that I wrote the descriptions of all Book 2 drawings
for the Naval Historical Center when working there as a volunteer,
about 15 years ago. Shipscribe (Steve Roberts) copied the Naval
History website entry and reproduced it on his website. I have the
impression that Naval History no longer posts that Spring Style
material, but maybe they have restored it now. I did a lot of
research in Bu C&R records to write the captions (and the history of
battleship design) that appears in the Book 2 descriptions.

I searched for Book 2 at the Federal Records Center several times
between about 1980 and 2010, and it is shown as "unlocated." There
are several other such design file collections that have disappeared
there (e.g., 6487 with all the pre-war aircraft carrier design books),
in addition to those stated to have been destroyed.

NavSea sent Book 1 to Naval History in 2000, and it was then
transferred via NavSea to College Park in about 2009, together with
Book 3, which had been sent to Naval History in 1984 by another NavSea
employee. I am sure that Book 2 would have been included in 2000 if
NavSea had had it, however. The clear presumption is that Book 2 got
destroyed about 1975, when many other files there were destroyed.

It is curious, of course, that the Book 1 collection was titled
"1913-1918" on its binder when in fact the mass of loose drawings
included extended as late as 1925. I can't explain that. When we
received Book 1 it was an unorganized stack of loose drawings in no
order. I rearranged them into a single sequence in chronological
order. It had some drawings as early as 1911 and some as late as
1925. So it seems possible that someone at BuShips, probably back in
the 1940s, moved some Book 2 plans into the Book 1 stack. Or maybe
the added 1918-1925 material came from another file, and was not taken
from Book 2 at all. We will never know.

Of course, there were preliminary design books before 1915 as well
(when the PI 133 Entry 449 collection begins). All those disappeared,
with the sole exception of one BB38 volume (one of a series) that
accidentally got misfiled with weight books (much less important!)
that did survive. At my initiative the archivists down there refiled
it, placing it at the end of PI 133 Entry 1283, though 449 would have
been more appropriate.

So for the designs of ~1925 to 1938, we have to rely primarily on
those that got saved in General Board (RG 80) files, and that might
survive in a few other places, e.g., Naval War College files. As a
rule, such enclosures were not saved by NARA to Bu C&R (RG 19)
correspondence. Such enclosures--countless plans in particular--would
have vastly increased the volume of space needed. There are some very
valuable 1920s preliminary design books that did survive and that are
held now at College Park, such as for some Treaty Cruiser, gunboat,
and other designs (e.g., FRC 2727, later NARA UD 1021D). But it is a
small part of what originally existed.

I regret having such bad news to report, but that is the situation.

Good luck with your continuing research!

Best wishes, Chris
 

Attachments

  • Spring Styles Vol.4 drawings list.docx
    13.8 KB · Views: 53
Last edited:
A friend of mine asked the author of Warship International and got this answer:

Akos,

Thank you for the message. All very interesting, but the truth is not so hopeful.

The five drawings of the CVB designs all come from Spring Styles Book No.4. I attach my list of all the drawings in Book No.4. I made this list by looking at each drawing at College Park. There is nothing from Book 2 in Book 4.

I have no idea why "Point Isabel, TX" is cited on the NARA form. It must be an artifact of some sort of their website process, if not a
mistake. Book 4 was sent by the NavSea Records Manager direct from NavSea to NARA at College Park back around 2008 or 2009. The Manager personally informed me of all that at the time. It is possible, however, that a "citizen archivist" from Texas prepared the website postings; that's just a hypothesis; NARA is eager to put volunteer
"citizen archivists" to work cataloguing things. None of this
material is located in, or ever came from, Point Isabel, whatsoever.
(The nearest NARA regional branch is in Fort Worth, TX.)

I wrote the paragraph on Book 2 that appears in the Shipscribe
website. Recall that I wrote the descriptions of all Book 2 drawings
for the Naval Historical Center when working there as a volunteer,
about 15 years ago. Shipscribe (Steve Roberts) copied the Naval
History website entry and reproduced it on his website. I have the
impression that Naval History no longer posts that Spring Style
material, but maybe they have restored it now. I did a lot of
research in Bu C&R records to write the captions (and the history of
battleship design) that appears in the Book 2 descriptions.

I searched for Book 2 at the Federal Records Center several times
between about 1980 and 2010, and it is shown as "unlocated." There
are several other such design file collections that have disappeared
there (e.g., 6487 with all the pre-war aircraft carrier design books),
in addition to those stated to have been destroyed.

NavSea sent Book 1 to Naval History in 2000, and it was then
transferred via NavSea to College Park in about 2009, together with
Book 3, which had been sent to Naval History in 1984 by another NavSea
employee. I am sure that Book 2 would have been included in 2000 if
NavSea had had it, however. The clear presumption is that Book 2 got
destroyed about 1975, when many other files there were destroyed.

It is curious, of course, that the Book 1 collection was titled
"1913-1918" on its binder when in fact the mass of loose drawings
included extended as late as 1925. I can't explain that. When we
received Book 1 it was an unorganized stack of loose drawings in no
order. I rearranged them into a single sequence in chronological
order. It had some drawings as early as 1911 and some as late as
1925. So it seems possible that someone at BuShips, probably back in
the 1940s, moved some Book 2 plans into the Book 1 stack. Or maybe
the added 1918-1925 material came from another file, and was not taken
from Book 2 at all. We will never know.

Of course, there were preliminary design books before 1915 as well
(when the PI 133 Entry 449 collection begins). All those disappeared,
with the sole exception of one BB38 volume (one of a series) that
accidentally got misfiled with weight books (much less important!)
that did survive. At my initiative the archivists down there refiled
it, placing it at the end of PI 133 Entry 1283, though 449 would have
been more appropriate.

So for the designs of ~1925 to 1938, we have to rely primarily on
those that got saved in General Board (RG 80) files, and that might
survive in a few other places, e.g., Naval War College files. As a
rule, such enclosures were not saved by NARA to Bu C&R (RG 19)
correspondence. Such enclosures--countless plans in particular--would
have vastly increased the volume of space needed. There are some very
valuable 1920s preliminary design books that did survive and that are
held now at College Park, such as for some Treaty Cruiser, gunboat,
and other designs (e.g., FRC 2727, later NARA UD 1021D). But it is a
small part of what originally existed.

I regret having such bad news to report, but that is the situation.

Good luck with your continuing research!

Best wishes, Chris
That's... really depressing. Never mind then :(
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom