United States Navy ~ Evolution of the warship with 18" guns

[anonym_auUiRfWCi1jI]

Below is a storyboard by which the United States Navy conceptualized, designed, and though never built, remain a historical record of the evolution process.

 

(1936) A variant of the Tillman design with sextuple 16" turrets. (Below)

 

(1945) An early design of Iowa's evolution. Designed as a "Cruiser Killer", with 12x16" guns, 30" kts, but lightly armored. (Below)

 

The same design with twin 18" turrets. (Below)

 

(1944) An Iowa upgraded with 18" guns in twin turrets. (Below)

 

 

(1945) One of the larger design studies for the Montana Class.

 

(1948) Design for a Montana follow-on design. 12x18" 50 cal guns, with twin 6" automatic secondaries. 115,000 tons displacement, 18" belt, 12" deck.

 

Comments?

[JeeWeeJ]

Care to provide a source? Because i've seen drawings very much like these before, but those were fan made. :Smile_unsure:

[anonym_auUiRfWCi1jI]

U.S. Battleships: An Illustrated Design History by Norman Friedman.  While not an exhaustive reference, this is one of many books in my library.  Below are excerpts from within.

This is regarding the initial studies for fifteen 18-inch guns in triple turrets.

[anonym_auUiRfWCi1jI]

Regarding the U.S. interest in 18-inch application (same reference):

[JeeWeeJ]

t42592, on 23 October 2012 - 08:06 AM, said:

U.S. Battleships: An Illustrated Design History by Norman Friedman.  While not an exhaustive reference, this is one of many books in my library.  Below are excerpts from within.
This is regarding the initial studies for fifteen 18-inch guns in triple turrets.

Cool, thanks!  :Smile_smile:

[anonym_auUiRfWCi1jI]

Here, the table suggests the design using 9-18" guns in the year 1938

 

Contrary to what others perceive, my extensive military ordnance experience is not limited to my service in the US Army.  It spans the United States Armed Forces' past, and present armament delivery systems.

[Gigaton]

t42592, on 23 October 2012 - 07:11 AM, said:

(1945) One of the larger design studies for the Montana Class.

Just to make it clear (ie. to people who have not read Friedman's book for example) BB-65-8 was to have 4x3 16"/50 guns.

t42592, on 23 October 2012 - 08:21 AM, said:

Here, the table suggests the design using 9-18" guns in the year 1938

That particular one is somewhat optimistic, IMO. Not odd considering that it's practically one of the first studies on the way towards the Montana design. Compare it to the more mature 45,000 ton slow BB studies in the Montana chapter. Page 331 for the note that "Chantry was also able to rule out the 18-inch ship. On 45,000 tons he could provide for only 6 guns" which I mentioned in the other thread. Obviously this does not mean that more 18-in guns than 6 is flat out impossible on 45,000 ton displacement. But it does mean that it was deemed unrealistic in combination with the other chracteristics that were desired of these ships.

[anonym_auUiRfWCi1jI]

The Montana project in its early stage of development was a departure from fast battleships (pp. 338).  The consideration isn't the contention that the 18" was abandoned, only that it was a part of the conceptual designs.  In the context of the historical evidence given, inclusion of the 18" delivery system is feasible, if not as a standard for Tier X, perhaps as an optional main gun configuration.

[Wake_Island]

sextuple

:Smile_trollface:

No but I liked this thread great job.

I think 16 would work just fine though.

[Jager_Panther1]

t42592, on 23 October 2012 - 07:11 AM, said:

ow)

http://theoludens.co...ll-the-Guns.jpg

[Gigaton]

t42592, on 23 October 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

In the context of the historical evidence given, inclusion of the 18" delivery system is feasible, if not as a standard for Tier X, perhaps as an optional main gun configuration.

I don't disagree with the 18-in gun and potentially giving it to Iowa and/or Montana. It's the 4 triple 18-in turret config for Montana that you mentioned in the other thread that I disagree with. 4 twins would be reasonable. I guess I was rather roundabout about it.

[anonym_auUiRfWCi1jI]

One can only hope Wargaming.Net would be more ambitious and mount 4x18" on the Montana, they having the creative powers to do so with a prototype.   :Smile_glasses:

[Erebia]

If they give 8x18" to Montana, one (I specifically) can always hope for 6x20" Yamato.   :Smile_smile:

[Mermaid_Witch]

t42592, on 23 October 2012 - 04:41 PM, said:

One can only hope Wargaming.Net would be more ambitious and mount 4x18" on the Montana, they having the creative powers to do so with a prototype.   :Smile_glasses:

Putting a quad 18" gun on the Montana would be basically throwing reality out the window.  Might as well put Lazar's 35 knot submarines in at that point.

[anonym_auUiRfWCi1jI]

World of Warships is far from reality.  World of Tanks is far removed from reality.  What part of the Wargaming.Net resembles reality?  The games they produce are not reality-based simulations.  They are First Person Shooters, with a theme derived from an era.  Wargaming.Net has repeatedly stated that their games are FPS, with a feel for driving tanks of old.  That is the end of the connection.  Had this been reality-based game, WoT would be a short-lived game, where tanks would blow up on the first, even second shot.

 

Mini_Bolo, on 23 October 2012 - 06:09 PM, said:

Putting a quad 18" gun on the Montana would be basically throwing reality out the window.  Might as well put Lazar's 35 knot submarines in at that point.

[Mermaid_Witch]

t42592, on 23 October 2012 - 07:38 PM, said:

World of Warships is far from reality.  World of Tanks is far removed from reality.  What part of the Wargaming.Net resembles reality?  The games they produce are not reality-based simulations.  They are First Person Shooters, with a theme derived from an era.  Wargaming.Net has repeatedly stated that their games are FPS, with a feel for driving tanks of old.  That is the end of the connection.  Had this been reality-based game, WoT would be a short-lived game, where tanks would blow up on the first, even second shot.

While this is true, it's also true that they're trying to keep to actual design limitations to help set the theme of their games.  After all, you don't see KV-1s driving around with S70 guns and you don't see King Tigers mounting 128mm cannons.  They're trying to, whenever possible, keep to historical limits.  And while a few of the early design studies of the Montana did feature 18" guns, those ideas were dropped a long time before the design was finalized as the Montana.  Arbitrarily giving the Montana design as finalized twelve 18" guns is so far outside the realm of possibility that it's ludicrous.

If you want a Montana with that many 18" guns, it's not a Montana anymore.  It's a rejected spring sketch that has been given life.  The Montana was ready to be built.  They had the weights calculated, the hull form finalized, the fittings figured out, everything.  At the point the Montana was when it was cancelled, there is NO WAY to fit 18" gun on it short of trying to shoehorn a dual turret into the barbette.  And even that isn't a sure thing.  The Germans had plans to do something similar with the Gneisenau, but quickly found out that doing so would require an additional 15 meters of bow to be slapped onto the ship to keep it seaworthy.  The only reason the Japanese got away with upgunning the Mogami class was because the Mogami class was designed from the beginning to be up-gunned.  The Montana wasn't, neither was the Scharnhorst.

[Jracule]

Nice post Bolo, A ship has to built around its cannons, not building the cannons onto the ship. Up gunning Mogami and Gneisenau was basically trying to fit a quart into a pint mug. Not really worth it. It gets up into Yamato level, sure it has the firepower, but overall is it worth it?

 

Also to the topic poster, I have seen the website where a majority of your photos comes from. Many designs including the 18in Iowa and Montana designs

are the creator's own designs, not actual US Navy plans.

 

While the US Navy did briefly consider 18in guns for the Montana class, they knew that the 18in gun was only slightly superior to the Mark 7 16". The tiny increase in firepower performance was not worth the overall decrease of the ship's capabilties.

[Elouda]

If you're going to post things like this, at least have the courtesy of crediting where you took the art from, and what it actually depicts.

 

In this case its from Wolf's Shipyard, which had a lot of drawings of both real, but never built ships (marked NW) and completely original designs not studied in reality (marked OD).

 

4x2 18in/47 could probably have been fitted on the Montana hull without compromising the design, though it would have taken some work; anything more requires a redesign of the turret barbette and as a result most of the ship.

[anonym_auUiRfWCi1jI]

The topic is a storyboard, nothing more.  The images set the backdrop, a visualization of the references provided in the follow-on posts.  Without visual aides, many of the facts referenced have little to no context, and the readership glazes over the historical studies that provide the foundation for the development of the Montana.

[Mermaid_Witch]

What did he just say?  I'm reading it and re-reading it, but I can't make heads or tails of it.

 

By the way, how do you like the new "no neg reps" forum?

[Elouda]

Mini_Bolo, on 24 October 2012 - 10:04 PM, said:

What did he just say?  I'm reading it and re-reading it, but I can't make heads or tails of it.

By the way, how do you like the new "no neg reps" forum?

I have no idea what was said either, so you aren't alone. I think he was somehow trying to justify taking someone elses artwork without reference in his first post, an hour before he went on to supposedly use them as references after being asked for a source.

Not particularly impressed with the reputation system change to be honest.

[anonym_auUiRfWCi1jI]

There is no foul in posting images that support substantiated historical data.  The OP clearly states it is a storyboard.  The follow-on reference is given to the credibility of the excerpts--not to the source of the OP.  Obviously, there will always be opposition to posts in this forum.  However, the point made, the Montana had been considered to carry 18" guns, albeit in a redesigned configuration.  And while there are some here that obviously have an issue with this, "Don't shoot the messenger."  I didn't manufacturer these facts.

 

The references are up.  The facts stand on their own.

 

ADDEMDUM:

 

Isn't is curious certain people that take issue with my posts, are all too often the same people.  I'm sure it is not a coincidence, and there is sufficient evidence to support this observation.

 

Elouda, on 24 October 2012 - 10:38 PM, said:

I have no idea what was said either, so you aren't alone. I think he was somehow trying to justify taking someone elses artwork without reference in his first post, an hour before he went on to supposedly use them as references after being asked for a source.

 

Not particularly impressed with the reputation system change to be honest.

[Elouda]

I have no issue with the facts in your post regarding the Montana's configurations; Im fairly certain a lot of us are familiar with them anyway. Some of your claims are ludicrous (such as Quad 18"), but I've seen much worse here and elsewhere, and these kinds of things are easy to correct.

 

My issue is with you using somebody elses drawings depicting them, and not even bothering to acknowledge where they came from.

 

Ever consider that this sort of thing and (more importantly) the attitude behind it might be the reason people take issue with your posts?

[Mermaid_Witch]

t42592, on 24 October 2012 - 11:00 PM, said:

Isn't is curious certain people that take issue with my posts, are all too often the same people.  I'm sure it is not a coincidence, and there is sufficient evidence to support this observation.

Elouda, on 24 October 2012 - 11:22 PM, said:

My issue is with you using somebody elses drawings depicting them, and not even bothering to acknowledge where they came from.

Ever consider that this sort of thing and (more importantly) the attitude behind it might be the reason people take issue with your posts?

Nah.  It's obvious that I have a vicious and personal vendetta and won't stop until I personally destroy his life and force him to retreat in disgrace from these forums.  It's totally not him having a weird persecution complex and blaming others for his failures and mistakes.  Or an odd victim complex that manifests itself whenever someone uses facts to counter his arguments.  That'd be silly.

Nope, there's nothing wrong with T42592.  I'll admit it.  I'm trying to destroy his sanity and make him cry.  I picked him at random to subject him to this treatment because it's the closest thing I can get to entertainment in this day and age.  I don't know how you people can find this "reality television" so fascinating, it has nothing on the drama and tension of a gladiatorial fight.  Let me tell you, back when I was in charge "entertainment" was actually entertaining.

[anonym_auUiRfWCi1jI]

You mean to tell me, and everyone that will read this, that you provide original credit, acknowledging the original origin, citing the original poster, even the artist, model, or photographer, etc, etc, etc?  Every single image you do this?  Excuse me for a moment...  Okay, I'm back.  Okay, I'm ready for this answer, as is everyone reading this.   :Smile_amazed:

 

ADDEMDUM:

 

You do this in every forum you've ever participated in?