Favorite Battleship

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Favorite Battleship

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Favorite Battleship

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Favorite Battleship - 1/4/2003 12:59:30 PM

rlc27

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline

Okay, here's a great site to check out, for all your Imperial Japanese Navy needs...guy seems really nice, too.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/

Now, the ultimate question...what is your favorite class and/or specific ship, that can appear in UV? I don't mean, which is the baddest (but that's perfectly alright). Take into account aesthetics, coolness factor, etc.

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"

--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.

Post #: 1

- 1/4/2003 4:46:26 PM

denisonh

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline

How about the Iowa class? The class of ship on which the official documents ending the conflict in the pacific were signed?

Not that it is my favorite, but for completeness I would guess it should be on the list.

_____________________________

"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 2

- 1/4/2003 11:29:27 PM

rlc27

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline

Iowa didn't appear till later in the war than the UV timeframe covers.

My last two choices are a self-admitted fudge--but they *could* appear in UV, if they hadn't been sunk 3 days after Pearl harbor was attacked.

:)

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"

--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 3

- 1/4/2003 11:31:14 PM

rlc27

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline

Sorry, item number nine shouldn't be Prince of Wales, but the Repulse BC. Typo...moderator?

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"

--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 4

- 1/6/2003 12:20:43 AM

rlc27

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline

Soooo,

As we have it right now (shameless self-bump), the North Carolina is barely eking out a victory over the Yamato. Funny-I thought it would be a hands-down victory for Yamato. I'm wondering why people gobbled up the N. Carolina but seemingly have shied away from the SoDak?

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"

--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 5

- 1/6/2003 1:35:39 PM

rlc27

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline

Yamato and NoCal are almost running neck and neck...it's a close race. Okay, the big question then--which one would win in a fight? Not as one-sided as you might think--NoCal had some very very good fire control radar in later days...plus I think the quality (if not the quantity) of her armor would be better.

I know this is a kind of stupid question, "who'd win in a fight," but let's assume a daytime 1 on 1 confrontation with commanders of equal aptitude.

:)

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"

--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 6

- 1/7/2003 3:46:13 AM

panda124c

Posts: 1692
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Houston, TX, USA
Status: offline

How about the Nelson, three forward turrets firing forward. No crossing the T here. :D

Fuso--old and slow, GIANT super-high Pagoda mast (why didn't we have those?!)

Because we had the Bird Cages. :D

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 7

- 1/7/2003 4:21:19 AM

rlc27

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline

Gosh, I hate those things. And I would have hated even more to have been the lookout or whoever would sit up in those things. But I guess it's a convenient place to put the brig ;)

It looks like the Yamato class is taking the lead...
for those who prefer the NoCal, I'm wondering, what is it exactly about that ship that is so attractive? Personally I voted for it because I like the shape, and the straightness of the accoutrements.

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"

--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 8

- 1/7/2003 7:52:07 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pbear
[B]How about the Nelson, three forward turrets firing forward. No crossing the T here. :D[/B][/QUOTE]

The oddly-designed Nelsons (and those who sailed in them should be thankful they never got into any serious sh*t) could fire forward only with the A and B turrets. The C turret was mounted flush with the main deck and could only fire to the port or starboard broadside.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 9

- 1/8/2003 11:55:26 AM

rlc27

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline

Someone has got to break this tie between NoCal and Yamato...

:)

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"

--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 10

Will not break! Will not... - 1/8/2003 1:31:43 PM

CynicAl

Posts: 327
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: Brave New World
Status: offline

... It broke!

North Carolina, in a heartbeat. Yamato was a fine-looking ship, but not as pretty as the Showboat. The North Carolina class also contributed more to the US war effort than the Yamato class did to Japan's. I give Showboat short odds vs Japan's biggest stick, though - 3:7 at best, and that mostly on the strength of her electronics. Yamato would only have to get lucky once...

_____________________________

Some days you're the windshield.
Some days you're the bug.

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 11

- 1/9/2003 5:02:27 AM

rlc27

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline

I just love the NoCal's shape--compared to the later SoDak it's a beautiful ship.

But I think you're right, one hit from the badass 18"ers in the right place and she would have been on the bottom.

Weren't the NoCal ships the first ones to drop the "all or nothing" armor principal?

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"

--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 12

- 1/9/2003 11:24:29 AM

CynicAl

Posts: 327
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: Brave New World
Status: offline

"All or nothing" was never really dropped. What happened was the Triumph of the Offense. Over the course of WW2, hitting power increased dramatically - torpedos carried larger warheads, the British developed the "Tallboy" bombs for busting hard targets, and Japan and the US deployed the 18" and the "superheavy 16" shells on their BBs. By the end of the war, naval architects were looking around and realizing that it just wasn't possible to armor a ship to protect against threats like these (graphically illustrated by the design studies carried out in Germany for the "H Class" and in Britain for the "Lion Class", both of which grew until it simply wasn't possible to build them). Since "All" was no longer possible on a realistic displacement, designers chose to save weight and volume by going with "Nothing" everywhere. "Protection" began to mean ways to avoid being hit, rather than ways to survive taking hits.

Specifically, the North Carolina class were adequately armored against 14" shells. Since she was originally planned to carry 12 X 14" (3 quad turrets) due to treaty restrictions, she would have been a "balanced" design in that respect - if she had completed as planned. Since the same treaty restrictions applied to the other nations capable of building modern battleships, it was assumed that 14" would be the largest weapons her armor would have to be able to defeat - and again, if things had gone according to plan (i.e., if everyone had adhered to the treaties) her armor would have been considered sufficient. Shortly after it became too late to make radical changes to the design, though, the soon-to-be-Axis nations started abandoning the treaty structure, and the gloves came off. Because the Bureau of Ships had had the foresight to design a triple 16" turret to be identical (in size and weight distribution terms, at least) to the quad 14" turrets North Carolina was supposed to carry, it was possible to change the armament to 9 X 16" - but there was no hope of similarly increasing her armor, as that would have caused serious structural issues. Far easier to just design and build a whole new ship, with the increased armor in from the start.

_____________________________

Some days you're the windshield.
Some days you're the bug.

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 13

- 1/9/2003 12:32:10 PM

rlc27

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline

By All or Nothing I meant the principal that certain areas of the ship should be protected to the point, such as boilers, bridge, etc., but other areas could get by with little protection. I had read that the NoCals were the first ships to dispense with this idea and attempt to cover the whole ship--I think when you refer to the "nothing" principal you're talking about the post-war years, when few ships except the Russian Kirov class had any armor at all.

And Iowa was still carrying armor during ww2, as were many other ships--which meant that the idea wasn't dropped until later.

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"

--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 14

- 1/9/2003 11:33:24 PM

rlc27

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline

I'm wondering if people would be interested in describing *why* they voted for a certain ship.

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"

--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 15

- 1/10/2003 1:07:08 PM

CynicAl

Posts: 327
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: Brave New World
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rlc27
[B]By All or Nothing I meant the principal that certain areas of the ship should be protected to the point, such as boilers, bridge, etc., but other areas could get by with little protection. I had read that the NoCals were the first ships to dispense with this idea and attempt to cover the whole ship--I think you're talking about the post-war years, when few ships except the Russian Kirov class had any armor at all. Iowa, for instance, was still carrying armor--which meant that the idea hadn't been dropped. Or am I misunderstanding you? [/B][/QUOTE]
Heh. What were you reading that gave you a strange idea like that? ;)

For starters, you've got the evolution of armor philosophies backward. "Protect Everything" was the original idea, going back to the first armored ships in the mid-19th century. "All or Nothing" was a new concept that was developed in the US in the first decade of the 20th century, and first put into practice on BB36 USS Nevada (laid down in 1912). Your description is basically accurate, though: "All or Nothing" proposed concentrating armor over the systems that the ship simply could not afford to lose - like propulsion and main armament. This would allow increased protection to critical areas, while actually saving weight. But all armored ships built for the USN after 1912, including the North Carolina, South Dakota, and Iowa classes of fast battleships, followed the "All or Nothing" philosophy.

In the days of the armored dreadnaughts, a "balanced" battleship design was one that was, in theory at least, reasonably well-protected against its own weapons. The armor scheme of the North Carolina class sometimes gets some flak because it was no match for that ship's (extremely powerful) main battery; the ship as built was not a balanced design (though as I posted before, it would have been had it completed to the original plan). Not because it was not "All or Nothing," because it was.

You also have the timeline for the Iowa class wrong. They were commissioned during WW2, then de- and re-commissioned several times in later decades before they finally left service for what is almost certainly the last time in the 1990s. The armor was never stripped out because there was no reason to do so - it was already in, and it would have been expensive (and structually unsound) to remove it. But they were not postwar ships, which is what you seem to be saying; and their design was most certainly not contemporary with the Soviet Project #1144 (NATO "Kirov") "large nuclear-powered rocket cruisers" which were laid down almost 35 years after the first steel was cut for BB-61.

Also, the 1144s were not armored ships. Compare the dimensions and displacement of the 1144 and the Iowa - 1144's length and beam are only about 10% less than Iowa's, but displacement (weight) is barely one-third that of the older ship. Therefore, 1144's construction is much lighter than Iowa's. Therefore 1144 does not carry heavy armor.

_____________________________

Some days you're the windshield.
Some days you're the bug.

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 16

- 1/10/2003 1:31:09 PM

rlc27

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline

No, I wasn't implying that Iowa was built after WWII :rolleyes:
(gee, after all these years of study, I hope not!). What I was saying is that the navy seems to have gone to the 'nothing' approach after the advent of guided missiles; even aircraft carriers were armored right up till the end of ww2, but now it appears that even the heaviest ships carry *no armor at all,* with the exception of Kirov.

I was confused because in the first post of yours that I read, you stated that "all or nothing" meant a choice between trying to protect the ship with armor (all), or trying to protect it so that it wouldn't be hit in the first place (nothing)--as if it was an evolutionary trajectory, however I was referring instead to the design scheme that you're talking about in this last post--that certain vital components are sufficiently protected but others are not at all. My original question was, weren't the NoCal's the first ships to have used the 'all or nothing' principal in their design? It appears that the answer is "si;" I double-checked my favorite sourcebook--the David Miller handbook "Warships of the World."

I realize that there was an earlier "cover everything" stage in armor design evolution--perhaps going all the way back to the Monitor & Co., weren't both those ships so well protected that all of the shot they fired at each other simply bounced off?--but I hadn't intended to go into a long history of ship armor ;) But I guess that's what's fun about these boards...

never know where something will lead.

Oh, I went back and re-read that other post, and I saw where I was unclear about my ship/armor chronology (3 AM drinkin' post). Anyway, fixed it.

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"

--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 17

- 1/10/2003 3:39:59 PM

XPav

Posts: 550
Joined: 7/10/2002
From: Northern California
Status: offline

From what I understand, while modern ships use kevlar to protect from fragments, the "armor" nowadays is the electronics and self defense weaponry.

I also don't know of Kirov having any major armor to speak of (tell me if I'm wrong, of course). Sure, it was big, but it wasn't a battleship, more of a really large cruiser with an extremely heavy missile battery.

And you know, I don't know if the Iowa's armor could have handled an SS-N-19 Shipwreck coming in at over Mach 1 with about a ton of explosives in it.

_____________________________

I love it when a plan comes together.

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 18

- 1/11/2003 1:10:08 AM

rlc27

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline

From David Miller's "Warships 1860 to the Present."

Kirov class Battlecruiser.

Armor: Nuclear Reactor, 3.9 in. sides, 1.4 in ends. Steering compartment 2.8 in sides, 2.0 in roof, conning tower 3.2 in.

Granted that's not very complete protection, but still it's better than the tincan-ness of most warships nowadays.

:)

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"

--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 19

- 1/11/2003 2:10:07 AM

XPav

Posts: 550
Joined: 7/10/2002
From: Northern California
Status: offline

Interesting.

_____________________________

I love it when a plan comes together.

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 20

- 1/11/2003 7:26:52 AM

rlc27

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline

I was wondering what they were thinking about with that arrangement; it seems that their primary concern was to protect the propulsion and navigation systems. Notice that there is nothing (published, anyway), covering the magazines, bridge, etc.

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"

--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 21

- 1/11/2003 2:27:28 PM

CynicAl

Posts: 327
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: Brave New World
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rlc27
[B]No, I wasn't implying that Iowa was built after WWII :rolleyes:
(gee, after all these years of study, I hope not!).
Sorry! I really don't try to come off like I'm trying to teach my grandmother to suck eggs - but it's like the little green guy said: "Do, or do not - there is no try." In my defense, I was confused by your original question: "Weren't the NoCal ships the first ones to drop the "all or nothing" armor principal?", and also by your later statement: "I had read that the NoCals were the first ships to dispense with this idea". I think my confusion on this point is understandable - though naturally I'm biased. :cool:

quote:

What I was saying is that the navy seems to have gone to the 'nothing' approach after the advent of guided missiles; even aircraft carriers were armored right up till the end of ww2, but now it appears that even the heaviest ships carry *no armor at all,* with the exception of Kirov.

And now I'm about to do it again. Sorry, I guess it just comes naturally. :D The US postwar-designed CVs, from Forrestal on, are so stoutly built (even beyond what would be absolutely necessary to stand up to the massive stresses on so massive a structure) that they might as well be armored. They'd be extremely hard to kill, short of a nuke (and even that would have to be big, or close, or both, to put them under).

quote:

I was confused because in the first post of yours that I read, you stated that "all or nothing" meant a choice between trying to protect the ship with armor (all), or trying to protect it so that it wouldn't be hit in the first place (nothing)--as if it was an evolutionary trajectory, however I was referring instead to the design scheme that you're talking about in this last post--that certain vital components are sufficiently protected but others are not at all. My original question was, weren't the NoCal's the first ships to have used the 'all or nothing' principal in their design? It appears that the answer is "si;" I double-checked my favorite sourcebook--the David Miller handbook "Warships of the World."

Woe is me! I'm so misunderstood! :(

Ahem.

What I meant was that as the lethality of weapons increased, and the fragility of critical equipment (particularly sensors and communications) also increased, even the heaviest armor was no longer capable of protecting vital systems. Postwar, the very same factors that had earlier driven designers to concentrate the thickest armor possible over the smallest area they could get away with led them inevitably to skip the "All" portion of "All or Nothing" - so new designs got "Nothing." Weight and volume were better spent on new electronics and other active defenses that might be able to protect a ship from being hit, since no amount of armor could keep the ship in the fight once it was hit.

Oh - and I still say [URL=http://www.warships1.com/USbb36_Nevada.htm]Nevada[/URL] was the first [URL=http://www.warships1.com/W-Tech/tech-070.htm]"All or Nothing"[/URL] battleship.

quote:

I realize that there was an earlier "cover everything" stage in armor design evolution--perhaps going all the way back to the Monitor & Co., weren't both those ships so well protected that all of the shot they fired at each other simply bounced off?

More or less - Monitor probably could have punched through Virginia's armor, but her guns were a new design, and her captain was leery of using full charges of powder in them lest they blow up in his face. :eek:
quote:

--but I hadn't intended to go into a long history of ship armor ;) But I guess that's what's fun about these boards...

never know where something will lead. [/B][/QUOTE]
Ain't that the truth! And now, speaking of 3AM posts, I think it's past time to put this one to bed. :o

_____________________________

Some days you're the windshield.
Some days you're the bug.

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 22

- 1/12/2003 1:39:13 AM

rlc27

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline

:)[B]And now I'm about to do it again. Sorry, I guess it just comes naturally. :D The US postwar-designed CVs, from Forrestal on, are so stoutly built (even beyond what would be absolutely necessary to stand up to the massive stresses on so massive a structure) that they might as well be armored. They'd be extremely hard to kill, short of a nuke (and even that would have to be big, or close, or both, to put them under). [/B]

Wow, I did not know that. I'd always thought that the planes and electronic countermeasures were considered the CV's primary protections, but I guess it makes sense that their structure itself doubles as protection. Could it also be that certain compartments are protected from fragging by kevlar (that is classified?)

I knew that the ww2 era CV's were built with at least some armor, but then again, when you look at the likes of Essex-class carriers, it seems as if, with their 8" guns, the navy still wasn't quite sure whether they were building a cruiser or a new kind of ship. When I visited the Intrepid in NYC with my dad a couple of years ago, we both noticed how, if you replaced the 8"ers and cut off the flightdeck, what you have left basically stills has the profile, length, width, etc., of a cruiser. The point is, it would make sense if post-war designers designed the ships so that the structure itself served as armor--wasn't there a battleship that was famous for its pioneering design in that respect (can't remember which, but think it was US).

:)

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"

--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 23

- 1/12/2003 3:47:30 PM

walk70

Posts: 16
Joined: 1/7/2003
From: Florida
Status: offline

I got one that wasn't listed on your list. Correct me if I am wrong.
Didn't the HMS Rodney have 10 x 16" 45 caliber main guns. She was extremely slow and actually obsolete, but she is credited with getting the first hits in the final confrontation with the Bismarck. I don't think she would have gotten my vote because of her ungamely appearance and I have never been a fan of the quad gun turret, it just looks ungamely.:D
On the post concerning the use of heavy armor in todays warships. The Nimitz class carrier still has armor around vital areas such as the reactor rooms and below deck control areas. I think I read somewhere that the still have a small but considered affective torpedoe belt. I know they are double hulled below the waterline. The Nuclear powered Cruiser USS Longbeach had 1" armor plating main deck and below. The last true heavy cruiser ever built at 17,400 tons.
On the SS-N-19, according to Jane's weapons system the bird flys between Mach 2 and 2.5 and the warhead is capable of penetrating upto 17 cm's of Plate armor, so it may take a couple to take down the Iowa's The Iowa class biggest weakness in modern combat would be the modern naval torpedoe which is designed as a water displacement weapon like a bottom influence mine, (USS Princeton hit during the Gulf War). which negates the belt armor protection the Iowas had. There AAW defense systems were also weak knee'd but a little money could have corrected that. The biggest reason for their final demise is cost of operation. Big fuel guzzlers without a lot of bang for the buck. Imho

One more interesting thing, that might make a good poll. Which reference is the best. David Millers, warships 1860 to the present or Norman Pulmar's Janes Fighting Ships (released on a yearly basis and very expensive!) I kinda favor Janes fighting ships myself but that is because of the 20 years I spent wearing U S Navy Blue. There was a copy at just about every command I was stationed at.

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 24

- 1/13/2003 12:37:50 AM

rlc27

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline

The reason I like the David Miller is that it's portable, and it's not expensive, and it has all the details laid out; I do like Jane's as well but have found the quality of their various publications varies.

As for why Rodney wasn't included, originally this poll was going to be about ships that *could* be in UV given the theatre and historical timeframe...but with subsequent polls it's gotten to be a bit bigger. ;)

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"

--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 25

- 1/13/2003 7:25:52 AM

XPav

Posts: 550
Joined: 7/10/2002
From: Northern California
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rlc27
I knew that the ww2 era CV's were built with at least some armor, but then again, when you look at the likes of Essex-class carriers, it seems as if, with their 8" guns, the navy still wasn't quite sure whether they were building a cruiser or a new kind of ship.

According to Friedman's US Aircraft Carriers:

Protection:
Flight Deck/Gallery Deck -- none
Hangar Deck -- 1.5in
Protective Deck(s) -- 1.5in
Belt -- 4in-2.5in (508x10ft)
Bulheads -- 4in
Conning Tower -- 1.5in STS top, 1in STS side of pilot house
Steering Gear -- 2.5in

The text says this is basically armored against light cruiser (6in) gunfire.

Also, they carried 5"/38, not 8" guns. Lex and Sara did carry the 8", though.

quote:

When I visited the Intrepid in NYC with my dad a couple of years ago, we both noticed how, if you replaced the 8"ers and cut off the flightdeck, what you have left basically stills has the profile, length, width, etc., of a cruiser. The point is, it would make sense if post-war designers designed the ships so that the structure itself served as armor--wasn't there a battleship that was famous for its pioneering design in that respect (can't remember which, but think it was US).
:) [/B][/QUOTE]

If you're saying what I think you're saying, you're right. The Midways were the first class where the flight deck was the "strength" deck, that is, essential to keeping the ship together. You could basically cut off the flight deck of the earlier ships and still go sailing around.

edit: whoops, Midway, not Forrestal as the first class with the flight deck as the strength deck...

_____________________________

I love it when a plan comes together.

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 26

- 1/13/2003 8:49:40 AM

rlc27

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline

Now I did not know *that*. While I was at the Intrepid I bought this book they had on sale in the gift shop--and it shows a cutaway of the ship as originally constructed. It really does look like a cruiser with a flightdeck, and if you consider the USN's penchant for refitting cruisers as A/C's--well, that's definitely something interesting.

I wonder if, like the Nipponese navy with the Shinano (I think?) the USN ever considered building an A/C on a battleship's hull? Perhaps there was no need considering the industrial output of the US naval shipyards?

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"

--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 27

- 1/13/2003 10:45:25 AM

XPav

Posts: 550
Joined: 7/10/2002
From: Northern California
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rlc27
[B]Now I did not know *that*. While I was at the Intrepid I bought this book they had on sale in the gift shop--and it shows a cutaway of the ship as originally constructed. It really does look like a cruiser with a flightdeck, and if you consider the USN's penchant for refitting cruisers as A/C's--well, that's definitely something interesting.

Now I'm not implying that anyone ever thought about cutting off the flight deck and sailing around, but its just illustrates that as you say, the flight deck is very lightly built on top of the hangar deck.

quote:

I wonder if, like the Nipponese navy with the Shinano (I think?) the USN ever considered building an A/C on a battleship's hull? Perhaps there was no need considering the industrial output of the US naval shipyards? [/B][/QUOTE]

Friedman, pg 190 again (good book, pricey though)

"Light carriers were not the only hulls considered for carrier conversion during the President's carrier panic. A BuShips reference sheet shows a preliminary study of Alaska-class conversions (six hulls under construction or on order) of 3 January 1942 and even a premilinary study (June 1942) of an Iowa-class conversion, although a 12 June note stated that the conversion would not take place. At about the same time the conversion of a Baltimore-class heavy cruiser full was also considered. The original Saipan design would have been similar, although it would have been built from the keel up as a carrier. The Alaska-class conversion was particularly attractive, given the close afinity between that design and the one of the Essex. Compared with an Essex-class conversion (XPav: conversion? huh?), the Alaska-class conversion would show about 10 percent less aircraft capacity due to a shorter flight deck. That is, the heavily armored Alaska was both shorter and lower int he water, with three fulld decks rather than four, a different of 11 feet in freeboard to the main deck. Cruising radius was 12,000 rather than the 20,000 nautical miles at 15 knots. Moreover, the large cruiser (XPav: Not a battlecruiser! Hah! :D) had inferior underwater protection (a triple sking rather than the carrier's layers of protective compartments) because so much of her displacement had gone into protection against shellfire. BuShip expected to reduce that belt armor from 9 to about 4.5 inches, but even so could provide only two elevators and no hangar-deck catapult; about a thousand tons of ballast would be required. The lengthy delats inherent in such a project made it impractical, and work stopped on 7 January 1942."

That answer your question? :D

_____________________________

I love it when a plan comes together.

(in reply to rlc27)