Mk16G = 12" / 50 mark 8 naval gun or 8"/55 RF Mark 16

Jonathan_S wrote:

runsforcelery wrote:The North Carolina class, with a design speed of 27 knots, was considered a very fast ship when she was laid down. (She was also originally designed around a main battery of twelve 12" guns, which became 16" guns only when FDR authorized it after the 1940 elections, since he didn't want to outrage isolationist sensibilities on the run-up to those elections.)
The South Dakotas were supposed to revert to a lower maximum speed, but that was changed during the design process about the time that ONI discovered that the Japanese Nagato-class ships, which they had previously assigned a 23-knot speed, were actually capable of at least 26. (Squeezing enough power to maintain the North Carolina's maximum speed into the stubbier South Dakota hull was a non-trivial challenge

Wasn't that twelve 14" guns, not twelve 12"?
My understanding is the North Carolina was designed for, and armored against, 14" guns and then FDR escalated her to 16" guns (same armor though; making her unbalanced).

South Dakota then kept the same guns but added armor to be "balanced" against her own 16" guns. (And then the super-heavy shell you mentioned came out and she was unbalanced again - hence the much larger Montana)[/quote]


You are correct. Typos creep in when I am posting late at night, and that is even easier with voice recognition software. In this case, though, it was probably a keyboard error… which is also easy to make when posting in a sleep deprived state.

runsforcelery wrote:


You are correct. Typos creep in when I am posting late at night, and that is even easier with voice recognition software. In this case, though, it was probably a keyboard error… which is also easy to make when posting in a sleep deprived state.

This is why you should not be posting while in a sleep deprived state.
It would be better for you to watch The Movie That Shall Not Be Named.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:I am compelledto concede Weber's point that the Iowas are BCs rather than BBs. However; I am also compelled to argue that they were the right shipnto build. The USN wanted the Iowas to be carrier escorts so they had to have the speed of carriers. The USN might not have figured it out yet, but surface ships NEEDED to have 30+ knot speed to successfully attack bases defended by aircraft. They needed to be able to close during the night when few aircraft could fly, launch a strike, then get out before they were counter attacked.

The Montanas were more powerful battleships but their lower speed would have made them LESS survivable in the Pacific war.

I don't think that Montana's lower speed would've made her less survivable. I do think it would have made her tactically less flexible. And I do agree that , in most ways, the Iowas were a better design for their actual function. On the other hand, let us remember that both South Carolina and North Carolina operated in the carrier escort roll quite often during World War II. And, on the OTHER other hand, the Montana was better suited to the tactical environment General Board assumed would apply when the parameters were specified. AT THAT TIME, the carrier had yet to prove itself as a decisive strike weapon. It was regarded as having some offenses potential, but as being even more valuable as a means of reconnaissance or of denying an opponent reconnaissance over your battleline. The attack on Taranto was seen as at best a fluke, and hadn't been fully digested anyway when Montana's requirements were written.


In point of fact, the carrier's critics (or those with reservations, at any rate) were probably right prior to Pearl Harbor. The Japanese invented several techniques for that attack, but they were made possible only because of recent — and I mean VERY recent – advances in carrier aircraft design, which gave them much greater capability. and while it is true that Montana's lower speed would have limited her ability to stay with the carries when they opened the taps all the way, that very seldom happened. A "high speed run in" would have been well with Montana's top speed; it simply would have been farther outside her ECONOMICAL top speed . Maintaining that sort of speed would have cut deeper (although scarcely critically so, given her enormous designed operating radius) into her fuel reserves, which is where Iowa would have the advantage. That would have imposed a limitation on Montana's utility, perhaps, but not on the class's SURVIVABILITY. No surface ship was going to out run air attack, however fast she might be , so eventually the strike planes were going to catch up. When that happened, Montana's heavier armor and even more powerful antiaircraft armament would have stood her in good stead.

Overall, though, I have to agree that the Iowa was the right design in the right place at the right time, however she came to be there.

Ever consider how warship designs might continued to evolve on a planet with a thinner atmosphere and may be higher gravity which would reduce the viability of aircraft?

runsforcelery wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:The USN might not have figured it out yet, but surface ships NEEDED to have 30+ knot speed to successfully attack bases defended by aircraft. They needed to be able to close during the night when few aircraft could fly, launch a strike, then get out before they were counter attacked.

I don't think that Montana's lower speed would've made her less survivable. I do think it would have made her tactically less flexible. And I do agree that , in most ways, the Iowas were a better design for their actual function. On the other hand, let us remember that both South Carolina and North Carolina operated in the carrier escort roll quite often during World War II. And, on the OTHER other hand, the Montana was better suited to the tactical environment General Board assumed would apply when the parameters were specified. AT THAT TIME, the carrier had yet to prove itself as a decisive strike weapon. It was regarded as having some offenses potential, but as being even more valuable as a means of reconnaissance or of denying an opponent reconnaissance over your battleline. The attack on Taranto was seen as at best a fluke, and hadn't been fully digested anyway when Montana's requirements were written.


In point of fact, the carrier's critics (or those with reservations, at any rate) were probably right prior to Pearl Harbor. The Japanese invented several techniques for that attack, but they were made possible only because of recent — and I mean VERY recent – advances in carrier aircraft design, which gave them much greater capability. and while it is true that Montana's lower speed would have limited her ability to stay with the carries when they opened the taps all the way, that very seldom happened. A "high speed run in" would have been well with Montana's top speed; it simply would have been farther outside her ECONOMICAL top speed . Maintaining that sort of speed would have cut deeper (although scarcely critically so, given her enormous designed operating radius) into her fuel reserves, which is where Iowa would have the advantage. That would have imposed a limitation on Montana's utility, perhaps, but not on the class's SURVIVABILITY. No surface ship was going to out run air attack, however fast she might be , so eventually the strike planes were going to catch up. When that happened, Montana's heavier armor and even more powerful antiaircraft armament would have stood her in good stead.

Overall, though, I have to agree that the Iowa was the right design in the right place at the right time, however she came to be there.

Also the historical evidence of surface ships being able to knock out airfields is mixed at best. The Japanese tried that night high-speed raid to bombard Henderson field on Guatalcanal multiple times with quite mixed success and that was little more than an improvised strip without any serious hardened/buried storage for fuel, ammo, or planes.

The USN's approach to suppressing an airfield didn't rely on high speed night rushes; and certainly not by the time a Montana would have been available. They showed up with overwhelming carrier airpower and suppressed the field from the sky. The battleships stayed back with the carriers to provide AA support (and as a final protection should an enemy surface force somehow sneak that close). If they were invading then after the carriers had knocked back the airfields the old, slow, battleships would wade in and perform shore bombardment in support of the landings.

Attempting to knock out an airfield by way of a high speed surface force, without adequate air cover, is really an act of desperation because if you don't pull it off your ships tend to end up crippled or sunk. So the USN wouldn't set a battleship's specifications around a need to do such a crazy thing.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Ever consider how warship designs might continued to evolve on a planet with a thinner atmosphere and may be higher gravity which would reduce the viability of aircraft?

I actually have the outline for an entire series where that's the case <he said in a small voice>.

runsforcelery wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Ever consider how warship designs might continued to evolve on a planet with a thinner atmosphere and may be higher gravity which would reduce the viability of aircraft?

I actually have the outline for an entire series where that's the case <he said in a small voice>.

do tell... he said in an innocent little voice

isaac_newton wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Ever consider how warship designs might continued to evolve on a planet with a thinner atmosphere and may be higher gravity which would reduce the viability of aircraft?

runsforcelery wrote:I actually have the outline for an entire series where that's the case <he said in a small voice>.

do tell... he said in an innocent little voice

Oh, no! You guys ain't getting me involved with another series!

Glad you are not interested in writing a new series.
That means that I can write it!

runsforcelery wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Ever consider how warship designs might continued to evolve on a planet with a thinner atmosphere and may be higher gravity which would reduce the viability of aircraft?

I actually have the outline for an entire series where that's the case <he said in a small voice>.

Well, the power required for a level flight can be approximated as:
P = sqrt (3.33*M^3*g^3/ρ*S*F^2)

where:
P = power in Watts
M = plane's mass in (kg)
g = planet's gravitational acceleration (m/s^2)
ρ = air density (kg/m^3)
S = wing area (m^2)
F = finesse (dimensionless: 5-25 for birds, 16 for a 747, 40-60 for advanced sailplanes)

See that doubling the planet's gravitational acceleration
increases the required power by 2.8, while doubling the planet's air density decreases the required power by 1.4.