Standard-type Battleship

[Robert9670]

The standard-type battleship was a production line of twelve battleships across five classes ordered for the US Navy between 1911 and 1916 and commissioned between 1916 and 1923.  These ships were considered super dreadnoughts, and the final two classes incorporated many lessons from the Battle of Jutland and were known as the "Big Five".  The standard-type, by specifying common tactical operational characteristics between classes, allowed these ships to operate together as a tactical unit against enemy battleships.  By contrast, other navies had both fast and slow battleship classes which could not operate together unless limited to the performance of the ship with the slowest speed and widest turning circle.  Otherwise, the battle line would have to be split into separate "fast" and "slow" wings.  These ships were optimised for the battleship-centric naval strategy of the era of their design.

 

A major drawback in having a fleet of very similar ships is block obsolescence - a situation where all the similar ships become obsolete and need to be replaced at the same time.  This is a particular problem for capital ships, due to the great expense and the time that it takes to build replacement vessels.  For example, one uniform characteristic of the standard-type battleships was a uniform speed of 21 knots.  This was to become a major tactical and strategic handicap by the late 1930s as the major naval powers began building fast battleships.  But the US Navy had no capital ships with an interim speed of 25 knots which could be usefully modernized and used in conjunction with the new capital ships, and so they had to build large numbers of new fast battleships from scratch.  The Yamato - class developed by Japan, and armed with 18" guns, was built largely around the concept that they would render the US standard-type battleships obsolete in one stroke.  The next US battleship classes, which began with the North Carolina - class, introduced the fast battleships needed to escort the aircraft carriers that came to dominate naval strategy and marked a departure from the Standard-type battleship design.

 

Standard type battleship classes

 

Nevada - class battleships:  USS Nevada (BB-36), USS Oklahoma (BB-37)

 

Pennsylvania - class battleships:  USS Pennsylvania (BB-38), USS Arizona (BB-39)

 

New Mexico - class battleships:  USS New Mexico (BB-40), USS Mississippi (BB-41), USS Idaho (BB-42)

 

Tennessee - class battleships:  USS Tennessee (BB-43), USS California (BB-44)

 

Colorado - class battleships:  USS Colorado (BB-45), USS Maryland (BB-46), USS Washington (BB-47), USS West Virginia (BB-48)

 

Note:  USS Washington (BB-47) was not completed

 

Sources used:  Wikipedia

[Robert9670]

USS Nevada (BB-36), a Nevada - class battleship

 

USS Pennsylvania (BB-38), a Pennsylvania - class battleship

[Robert9670]

USS New Mexico (BB-40), a New Mexico - class battleship

 

USS Tennessee (BB-43), a Tennessee - class battleship

[Robert9670]

USS Colorado (BB-45), a Colorado - class battleship

[PrototypeRewired]

BACON>

[Krieg]

Nice post Rob.

 

When you speak about obsolescence one thing has always struck me as extra scary. Think about this. Take a person who was born in the last 1/4 of the 19th century and lived a full life. They grew up when horses were still a staple of transportation and lived through the creation of the atomic bomb. At no time in human history was there so many technological leaps forward as in that one persons lifetime.

[Jagdzeit]

the tennesee is such a sexy ship

[Commanderjoebob]

Jagdzeit, on 07 February 2013 - 01:01 AM, said:

the tennesee is such a sexy ship

never thought of that..... man we sure have come a long way

[Jagdzeit]

Commanderjoebob, on 07 February 2013 - 02:09 AM, said:

never thought of that..... man we sure have come a long way

we sure have

[Wunderwaffen1945]

aye  :Smile_izmena:

[Azumazi]

Krieg, on 06 February 2013 - 09:55 PM, said:

Nice post Rob.

When you speak about obsolescence one thing has always struck me as extra scary. Think about this. Take a person who was born in the last 1/4 of the 19th century and lived a full life. They grew up when horses were still a staple of transportation and lived through the creation of the atomic bomb. At no time in human history was there so many technological leaps forward as in that one persons lifetime.

Not to mention Krieg, they might have lived long enough to witness the space race and to the Moon. Say they were born in 1890, most cars weren't in wide spread use till the Ford Model T made them affordable in mass in 1908, so that person would be an adult when that happened or close to one. So they would grow up having their world change drasically within that time period of having cars, air flight, breaking of the sound barrier, nuclear weapons, and then to the moon before they died if they made it to 70+

Kinda scary when you think about it.

[Robert9670]

The idea behind this thread was my thought that the standard-type battleship concept needed to be discussed.  I think these ships don't get as much attention as US Navy battleship classes like the Iowa - class get.

[Azumazi]

You could say the same for a lot of BB's that don't get discussed that much, the main reason the Yamato and Iowa get talked about a lot is because both of them didn't get to be used for their true purpose and pretty much ended up without their glory.

 

Rodney, KGV, and a few other British BB's get a lot of attention due to the Bismarch.

 

What little action most of the standard type saw was against WWI battlecruisers aka Kongo class, or against outdated designs like the Fuso, so they are over shadowed a lot due to those issues.

 

They were good ships for their time, and I do see them being fun to play in the game. Personally I see the Penn and Tenn getting a lot of attention.

[Robert9670]

Illustration of the Colorado - class design created in 1917

[Robert9670]

An article on the Standard-type battleship concept

http://www.navweaps....ch/tech-071.htm

[Sonoskay]

Intresting read.  though  though consistant upgrades i thought i read that the Nevada  was still a fairly advanced warship even towards the end of the war.

[Tricericon]

Sonoskay, on 19 March 2013 - 05:34 AM, said:

Intresting read.  though  though consistant upgrades i thought i read that the Nevada  was still a fairly advanced warship even towards the end of the war.

They lacked only speed. Protection was far ahead of the curve, and while firepower was starting to fall behind due to the age of the guns it was more than offset by advances in fire control... If Tirpitz had run across Colorado, I'd have much rather been on the latter!

The standards are some of my favorites, and not just because of the too-cool lattice masts. Here's some more reading:
http://www.navweaps....ch/tech-070.htm
http://www.navweaps....ch/tech-071.htm

[Capcon]

While the faster newer battleships got a lot of press, every time we played naval wargames with models, 1/1200 and 1/2400 scale, we would always end up with an unhappy axis BB player who had been pummeled by a Colorado or a Tennessee or even a Pennsylvania. "But its old, and small, and slow!" they would cry. It is also mean and tough. These ships back down from nobody ever.

 

Being faster is great but running away feels like crap even in a game. I'll have standard type BBs for sure and play them a bunch if what I do in WoTs is any guide for WoWs.

[StarWars1981]

If you play like any tank on WoT or ship on WoW is supposed to be played, you can explode your success out of proportion to the size of your ship and its weapons. I mean, scouting is useful for a light and destroyer; mediums and cruiser-size ships are flanking ships, and battleships and heavy tanks are used to crush resistance in head-on charges. You either have all these working together or your team is the one that goes down the drain. In WoW, literally. I think that a LOT of BB players that get a blown-up head of how "invincible" their ships are will say hello to Davy Jones' Locker, after a couple mediums come up and smoke their bridge. Or the targeting systems. I mean, they do the same thing- you're not going to shoot back very well if those are blown off. And lol, those shells for the BBs are gonna cost a lot. I've seen some of those 16" shells, not something to mess with.

[Tricericon]

StarWars1981, on 01 April 2013 - 07:30 PM, said:

If you play like any tank on WoT or ship on WoW is supposed to be played, you can explode your success out of proportion to the size of your ship and its weapons. I mean, scouting is useful for a light and destroyer; mediums and cruiser-size ships are flanking ships, and battleships and heavy tanks are used to crush resistance in head-on charges. You either have all these working together or your team is the one that goes down the drain. In WoW, literally. I think that a LOT of BB players that get a blown-up head of how "invincible" their ships are will say hello to Davy Jones' Locker, after a couple mediums come up and smoke their bridge. Or the targeting systems. I mean, they do the same thing- you're not going to shoot back very well if those are blown off. And lol, those shells for the BBs are gonna cost a lot. I've seen some of those 16" shells, not something to mess with.

Yeah, that's Nishimura thought, too.

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

More seriously, I'm skeptical as to the notion of "flanking" being a primary job description for cruisers, at least IRL.

[thehelmsman]

I love the Standards, as well as their New York-class predecessors. Magnificent fighting ships, all. They were remarkably ahead of their time in design and construction, but unfortunately even the far-sightedness of the Standard concept could not redeem them from the rise of naval air power.

 

Even more unfortunate, none of them survive. In fact, the world's only remaining pre-40s battleship is one of the New Yorks: USS Texas, BB-35, the last of the dreadnoughts.

 

 

--Helms

[Tricericon]

thehelmsman, on 05 April 2013 - 08:35 PM, said:

I love the Standards, as well as their New York-class predecessors. Magnificent fighting ships, all. They were remarkably ahead of their time in design and construction, but unfortunately even the far-sightedness of the Standard concept could not redeem them from the rise of naval air power.

Even more unfortunate, none of them survive. In fact, the world's only remaining pre-40s battleship is one of the New Yorks: USS Texas, BB-35, the last of the dreadnoughts.

--Helms

Mikasa would like a word.

[Windhover118]

Tricericon, on 05 April 2013 - 09:20 PM, said:

Mikasa would like a word.

Make that, last of the US Dreadnoughts.

[ATCVenom]

Man..... the solidarity of the modernized 'standard' US battleships never ceasea to impress me.  Although I'm sure I'm wrong with this assessment, it really does seem like these particular battleships coulda gone toe to toe with some of the best BB's afloat come the end of the war -  particularly at close range.

[Daltron]

I love the standards. It's like Jean Claude Van Damme: he's epic when he's younger, and he may start looking older as he ages, but he can still pack a huge punch.

 

That's what I love about these. They can lay the hurt down on anyone, even to the end of the war. If only they had a faster speed, they'd rival even the Iowas, in my mind.

 

In my opinion, I'd take any pre-war battleship over a 'fast battleship' any day of the week.