Ideal battleship design

[Bgile]

You're thinking of frigates. The corvettes were an extension of a whaler design.

I stand corrected. :)

I was just trying to think of a relevant British equivalent that that's what popped into my head.

[Ramius]

I think 12- 16"/50's may be overkill though

I believe the Montana's main scheme was perfect. Four turrets give more target possibilities and the triple turrets give more UMPH for every punch. Bismarck had the four turrets right, but no triple guns. And KGV had 10 guns, but in only three turrets, not many options if four targets are coming for you.
PS: no offense to Mr. Saxon for making the comment

[Ramius]

to the previous question to why diesels are not used in our navy, is because jet engines are substantially more powerful and can accelerate quicker than boilers. I am not sure on diesel acceleration. Other countries use diesels today though. Modern submarines of smaller countries use AIP (Air Independant Propulsion) or diesel engines instead of Nuclear for cost and political reasons.

[Bgile]

I believe the Montana's main scheme was perfect. Four turrets give more target possibilities and the triple turrets give more UMPH for every punch. Bismarck had the four turrets right, but no triple guns. And KGV had 10 guns, but in only three turrets, not many options if four targets are coming for you.
PS: no offense to Mr. Saxon for making the comment

The realistic number of simultaneous targets that can be engaged is limited to two, because there are only two main battery directors. Other means of directing the main battery aren't as effective.

I like the Montana design a lot. The one unfortunate thing is the new 5"/54 secondary battery, which turned out to be somewhat of a failure on the carriers, with some of the same problems the British 5.25" had ... heavy shells and powder and therefore inability to sustain designed rate of fire. They did have a good train rate of 30 deg/sec. The 5"/54 wasn't really successful in service until it was auto loaded.

[lwd]

... And KGV had 10 guns, but in only three turrets, not many options if four targets are coming for you.

I'm not sure you really want to be engaging 4 targets at once with your primary. I think I've read somewhere that 6+ guns were favored for primary engagmenets. This would mean that Montanas could reasonably engage 2 opponents at once. As for the KGV's they could engage one and harras another. Interestingly even if they had the original 12 guns they are in the same boat.

[Ramius]

Yes, which is what i was trying say earlier. They had only three turrets either way meaning one target got most of the punishment while the possible second could aim almost unharassed.
No offense

[Terje Langoy]

In a old thread there were mention to Schanhorst boiler problems. When I asked about them the answer was that the boilers were installed as an emergency option because the original design call for the use of diesels.
But they never explained to me which were the problems with Schanhorst boilers.

The boilers were by no means an emergency option (I interpret this as a last-minute decision) but a calculated choice made with basis in a single design parameter, the desired speed of the design. For the Scharnhorst-class to even the score with the Dunkerque's thirty knots, they were in need of a higher output than the diesels could deliver. It was basically just a trade of range to add a few more knots on the top.

Whitley states that as early as with Panzerschiff C, discussions had been held upon the choice of propulsion plant. Thus one might argue that the Scharnhorst never actually was intended to have diesels but that this was one of the alternatives right up to the time when the decision was made, September 1933, on the grounds of sufficient power production. By this time, the first keel had not yet been laid down.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Terje:

The boilers were by no means an emergency option (I interpret this as a last-minute decision) but a calculated choice made with basis in a single design parameter, the desired speed of the design. For the Scharnhorst-class to even the score with the Dunkerque's thirty knots, they were in need of a higher output than the diesels could deliver. It was basically just a trade of range to add a few more knots on the top.

Whitley states that as early as with Panzerschiff C, discussions had been held upon the choice of propulsion plant. Thus one might argue that the Scharnhorst never actually was intended to have diesels but that this was one of the alternatives right up to the time when the decision was made, September 1933, on the grounds of sufficient power production. By this time, the first keel had not yet been laid down.

Thanks for your points.

[als_pug]

As far as an ideal bb design for the atlantic . 1941/45. i would like to build a completely new class of battleship incorporating the lessons of both the nelson and the King George V . the british 15 inch triple turret proposed for the KGV and not used would make a good starting point . i would look at the design for the vanguard and hood and build a ship in the middle to mount 4 triple 15 turrets . figure a displacement of around 55000 ton and ensure a clipper bow . i hate the twin 5.25 with a passion ( i think it was useless as an aa gun ) mount 5 twin 4.5 turrets and as many bofors as you can fit. add high speed good sea keeping . and good electronics . ie RADAR . and you are on the right track . if i had to use a bb that actually existed then i would go an iowa . nothing else is close. except the vanguard and her main guns hold her back

[Legend]

Vangaurd with her Grandmother's teeth? She was a good ship, but do we want to make a BB based on emergency and available supplies the model for our ideal BB of WWII? I am almost leaning toward the 16in more than the 15in. English and American versions fire at about the same rate, and the 16in is much heavier and can penetrate much thicker armor, not to mention a longer range to boot. I'm not going to dispute the AA, I'm no expert on secondaries.

[als_pug]

i really have to add links to my posts as i am not explaining myself sufficently . their was a trip;le 15 mk 11 designed i will find a link for it . it could have used existing stocks of 15 inch shells. the performance was quite well improved apparently.

[Legend]

You're trying to say 15in was better than 16in? Try comparing any 15in BB to a 16in BB...

15in BB's:
Hood
Bismarck
Vittorio Veneto
Richelieu

16in BB's:
Iowa
Nelson
Douth Dakota

I believe many on here will agree with me that a 16in gun had so many advantages over the 15in design...

[RF]

Now the Bismarck had 15 inch guns, yet is still the star of the show so far as this website is concerned. Even if Rodney had its 16 inch guns.

Is 16 inch really that better than 15 inch?

[Bgile]

Now the Bismarck had 15 inch guns, yet is still the star of the show so far as this website is concerned. Even if Rodney had its 16 inch guns.

Is 16 inch really that better than 15 inch?

It depends. All guns of a different size are not equal. Obviously a more powerful gun tends to give one an advantage if you don't have to sacrifice too much to get it.

[lwd]

It also depends on how you plan to fight. If you are going to stay at long range and go for deck hits 16 is definitly better than 15 and a "super heavy" 16 is better than a regular 16 (and a 45 caliber may be better than a 50 caliber gun). If you plan on close range engagements muzzle velocity and belt penetration become key facotors and a high velocity 15 may actually be better than a 16. Then there's things like the British 15 not being particularly high in muzzle velocity but being accurate and dependable and comparitivly common (ie logisitically simpler to support).