Treaty battleships - The United States Navy - Warships1 and NavWeaps Discussion Boards - Warships1 and NavWeaps Discussion Boards - Message Board - Yuku

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Treaty battleships

Author	Comment
NoOneFamous	Treaty battleships	Lead	[-]
Posts: 1006 (23-Feb-2008 05:56:24) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Were there any serious US battleship designs after the Washington Naval Treaty and say 1935?
NewGolconda		#1	[-]
Posts: 3178 (29-Feb-2008 02:00:35) Commonwealth Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Yes, I am sure someone with Friedman to hand could give better dates but the design dates are something like. North Carolina 1936 South Dakota 1937 Iowa 1939 Alaska 1939 Montana 1940
NoOneFamous		#2	[-]
Posts: 1017 (29-Feb-2008 05:07:27) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Would there have been any around 1932?
Theodore		#3	[-]
Posts: 8434 (29-Feb-2008 05:54:13) Wheat Boss Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Under the Washington Treaty, the US could not lay down any new battleships until 1931. In anticipation of that, the US began studying treaty battleships in 1928. The Great Depression and the London Treaty pushed this back to 1937, which allowed US designers to explore various concepts for several years. Japan announced its withdrawal from the treaty structure in 1934, and in 1935 the US began serious work on what eventually evolved into the North Carolina class. The US also drew up some battle cruiser designs beginning in 1933, some closely resembling fast battleships and others approximating cruiser-killers. If the London Treaty had not been signed and the US had resumed battleship construction in 1931, the design would almost certainly have been a 35,000-tonner armed with nine 16-inch guns and driven by geared turbines at 21 to 23 knots. The secondary battery would have been the 5in/38, which was in development at the time and first went to sea in 1934, most likely in twin dual-purpose mountings.
NoOneFamous		#4	[-]
Posts: 1021 (29-Feb-2008 18:43:00) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Theodore, would Navy planners have simply dusted off the plans for the canceled South Dakota class and updated them?
Theodore		#5	[-]
Posts: 8435 ( 1-Mar-2008 00:09:42) Wheat Boss Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	No. The USN looked at the possibility as early as 1924, but it quickly became apparent that the BB49 design could not be cut down from its expected standard displacement of 41,400 tons to the treaty limit of 35,000 tons and still produce a satisfactory battleship. The turboelectric plant was too heavy and bulky, and the fourth turret added too much length and weight. (Note that no one built any four-turret 35,000-ton treaty battleships.) It was far better to start from scratch, which is what they did when they started serious work on new battleships in 1928. One 1931 design study is representative of US thinking at the time. It called for a 35,000-tonner that was 600 feet on the waterline and 106 feet on the beam; armament was three triple 16in/50, all forward, and six twin 5.3in DP (the weapon that became the 5in/38); protection was a 12in belt, 18in turrets, and a 6.25in deck, with five torpedo bulkheads; speed was 23 knots on 62,000 SHP geared turbines.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Quick Reply