Top Ten Fighting Ships

[bigfngun]

Faster than the previous generation, eh? Now why on Earth would they have wanted that...

266457[/snapback]

 

The USN reaized that they were being totally outrun by the foreign BBs that were designed in the mid-30s so they had to speed up to some extent. They just didn't think it was worth outrunning the foreign fleets. With the exception of the Iowas the USN traded off some speed for more firepower and protection. The Bismarck class, the French BBs and the Littorio class all had 30 knot speeds.

Don't question me as far as how fast US ships should have been, I'm just the messenger.

[5150]

I don't think anyone will contend that the trend in BB design was towards heavier, faster, more powerfully armed ships. That trend wasn't the result of a desire to operate with carriers--it was because of BB developments. My point was that the Iowas weren't designed as carrier escorts and shore bombardment platforms, as pfcem contends. Those simply were not the primary roles for the design.

[bigfngun]

That trend wasn't the result of a desire to operate with carriers--it was because of BB developments. My point was that the Iowas weren't designed as carrier escorts and shore bombardment platforms, as pfcem contends. Those simply were not the primary roles for the design.

266462[/snapback]

 

I don't know what the foreign navies were planning I just know that the Iowa's speed(considered excessive by some) was for several reasons. Working with carriers WAS ONE OF THEM. Probably not the main reason, but a reason. No they were not designed with shore bombardment as a priority. The USN in the last few years of peace wanted a more combined arms type of fleet. Yes my friends there were officers in the USN who knew what an aircraft carrier was prior to Pearl Harbor. IIRC the USN had about SEVEN CVs in service or about to enter service by the time of 12/7/41.

 

Another USN urban legend that has to be buried: that no high ranking USN officer prior to 12/7 knew anything about carriers. Plain old bull.

 

The Trent Hone article I listed is a good place to start. The pre-WWII USN planners were a pretty shrewd lot. Don't believe me? Try this book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/087021759...glance&n=283155

Edited January 5, 2006 by bigfngun

[Guest pfcem]

I don't think anyone will contend that the trend in BB design was towards heavier, faster, more powerfully armed ships. That trend wasn't the result of a desire to operate with carriers--it was because of BB developments. My point was that the Iowas weren't designed as carrier escorts and shore bombardment platforms, as pfcem contends. Those simply were not the primary roles for the design.

266462[/snapback]

Given the US custom to design a "standard" BB design & then build a "long" line of virtually identical classes to that design, how do you explain the size/speed disperity between the Iowas & the previous North Carolina & South Dakota classes?

 

The South Dakotas were really not much more than a slight revision on the North Carolina design in order to provide protection against 16" shells as there was not enough time to incorporate that change into the North Carolinas without delaying them.

 

Following previous customs/trends, the Iowas would have been a virtual repeat of the South Dakotas. Maybe slightly larger (reverting back to the slightly longer North Carolina hull the South Dakotas having been mahe shorter to remain within treaty limits) to accomodatethe the new 50cal 16" guns & increased protection against the new 2700 lb AP shell instead of the the 2240 lb shell as with the South Dakotas. At most, given the suspicion that other Navies may have been exceeding the treaty limits & the expectation of the limits being lifted, they would have designed with protection against the 50cal 16" guns , 2700 lb shell & 30 kts.

 

Instead, they kept the South Dakota 2240 lb shell protection scheme & increased speed to 33+kts so as to be able to keep up with the carriers & operate along side them as oppose to the previous custom of operating as the centerpiece of the main task force with the carriers in a separate task force supporting them. They were still battleships & that meant that they were intended to bombard enemy warships (more specifically the Japanese Kongos) & ground targets but the big difference was for them to do so in support of the carriers as appose to the other way around as had been the case previously.

 

After planning for six Iowas, the next US BB design (Montana) returned the the "traditional" US battleship scheme of sacrificing a little speed for heavy armament & armor.

[FITZ]

If you read US Battleships by Garzke & Dulin Amazon book link, there is a section dealing with the USNavy's view of the fleet of the future pre-Pearl Harbor.  It envisioned a fleet of fast carriers AND fast BBs to provide fire support against enemy surface ships and to be protected by the carriers and vice versa.  It was a fleet that to an extent sacrificed some firepower (i.e. 18in guns) and protection for greater speed to keep up with carriers and great range for Pacific ops.

265578[/snapback]

 

I don't think that's really the case. If you read Friedman's U.S. Battleships you find that the Iowa's were designed very much to the requirements of War Plan Orange which anticipated a major, decisive fleet engagement in the western Pacific.

 

The speed of the Iowa's was not intended to allow them to operate as AAW escorts for carriers, as they were eventually demoted to do, but to both cover the vast distances of the Pacific quickly and to have the speed to bring the Japanese fleet to battle. The old 21-knot battlegroups it was felt could not bring the Japanese fleet to battle.

 

In other words, the Iowa's were built very much with the traditional fleet engagement in mind, not as second-fiddles to carrier battle groups. There carriers were supposed to be there to support the Iowa's by acting as scouts, not the other way around.

 

As both Friedman and Garzke & Dulin agree there were two parallel developments going on in US battleship design in the mid-1930's - a fast (33-35-knot) cruiser-killer, armed with nine 16-inch guns but lightely protected against only 8-inch shellfire due to treaty restrictions and a 12-gun, 27-knot development of the South Dakota.

 

The former were quickly abandoned as inadequate but the latter were plausible and development continued with the escalation clauses of the new treaty allowing it. The attraction of the cruiser-killer concept did not die however, and factions within the navy continued to persue it. The Iowa's eventually emerged from those studies but with South Dakota levels of protection, making them proper battleships not battlecruisers.

 

The cost of that extra 6 knots over the South Dakota's was a staggering 10,000 tons with very little else to show for it, which explains why the slow 12-gun ship continued in development.

 

The General Board seems to have regarded the Iowa's as a specialized type - almost like a battlecruiser in role - and continued to develop one of the alternative proposals as the standard battleship design. This became the 12-gun, 27 knot Montana. The Board only wanted 4 Iowa's with BB65-on being ordered to what became the Montana design. In the end Illinois and Kentucky were only ordered because the war was on and the Iowa was a finalized design already in production. These two ships could be produced more quickly as repeat Iowa's than as Montana's.

 

PS

 

The USN regarded the 16-inch/50 as ballistically superior to the 18-inch gun it had developed and 12 of the former could be accomodated for 9 of the latter - not really a hard decision.

Edited January 5, 2006 by FITZ

[Guest pfcem]

The USN reaized that they were being totally outrun by the foreign BBs that were designed in the mid-30s so they had to speed up to some extent.  They just didn't think it was worth outrunning the foreign fleets.  With the exception of the Iowas the USN traded off some speed for more firepower and protection.  The Bismarck class, the French BBs and the Littorio class all had 30 knot speeds. 

266460[/snapback]

I do not think that the US considered the 2 knot disadvantage of the N.Carolinas & S. Dakotas as much (if any) of a handicap. US battleships had traditionaly been ~2 kts slower than their foreign counterparts but no major effort was put forth to correct that.

 

The S. Dakotas were a match for any known foreign ships (the existence of the Yamatos was not known until after they had been launched - perhaps even completed, I don't remember which).

[FITZ]

I do not think that the US considered the 2 knot disadvantage of the N.Carolinas & S. Dakotas as much (if any) of a handicap.  US battleships had traditionaly been ~2 kts slower than their foreign counterparts but no major effort was put forth to correct that.

 

The S. Dakotas were a match for any known foreign ships (the existence of the Yamatos was not known until after they had been launched - perhaps even completed, I don't remember which).

266843[/snapback]

 

That the USN planned to revert back to the 27-knot battleship as the standard design in the Montana's is clear evidence that the speed of some foriegn ships was not a major cause for alarm.

[larrikin]

That the USN planned to revert back to the 27-knot battleship as the standard design in the Montana's is clear evidence that the speed of some foriegn ships was not a major cause for alarm.

267016[/snapback]

 

The Iowas were very much designed to operate with the carrier groups. Their intention was as part of the screen, to add the heavy surface punch in case the enemy got too close with surface forces.

 

The USNs battleline was intended to be able to go any where it wanted, when it wanted, which is why they weren't particularly fast. The idea being that they were going to be on the strategic offensive and the enemy battleline would have to come to them.

[JOE BRENNAN]

The Iowas were very much designed to operate with the carrier groups.  Their intention was as part of the screen, to add the heavy surface punch in case the enemy got too close with surface forces.

 

267308[/snapback]

The Iowa's were *useful* for that in the '40's, saying they were *designed* for that when the concept was formed is pretty clearly anachronistic. Look at the actual concepts of carrier use in the Fleet Problem "battles" of the late 30's. Maybe it occured to somebody forward looking that a very fast BB would be specially good at screening a main striking force of carriers, but it would have been a relatively idle thought before the Pacific War was actually underway.

 

The new BB's were relatively little used for shore bombardment in WWII (the clear implication of "naval gunfire support"). The New Jersey for example fired 700-some 16" rounds in combat in WWII (18 rounds against DD Nowaki at Truk) v. 13,000 in Korea and Vietnam. She did miss the bombardments of Japan though where around 4,500 16" were fired by 8 of the 10 fast BB's (the new BB's were all "fast battleships" speaking of terminology) bulk of WWII fast BB combat expenditure.

 

Screening of carriers against enemy heavy ships was a valid role of fast BB's in WWII, and esp super fast concepts, although like all post Treaty BB missions in the realworld of WWII was based on the existence of the ships (for their traditional role: main battle vessel) as a sunk cost. All-new BB construction, with no sunk costs from before the lessons of WWII, couldn't compete with other priorities and stopped. For AAW as mentioned CLAA's were much more efficient.

 

Debates about current/future naval gunfire systems v. other weapons have almost nothing to do with BB's either literally (Iowa resurrectionism is completely ridiculous, as most here seem to agree) or by analogy, apples and oranges. Naval gunfire support (as in shore bombardment) as primary BB role was also predicated on the ships' existence as sunk costs. Gunfire systems now may be justified (depends on which IMO) but little to do with lessons of BB's let alone resurrected ones.

 

Joe

Edited January 7, 2006 by JOE BRENNAN

[FITZ]

The Iowas were very much designed to operate with the carrier groups.  Their intention was as part of the screen, to add the heavy surface punch in case the enemy got too close with surface forces.

 

267308[/snapback]

 

 

No they weren't. I have not seen any evidence whatsoever that carrier screening was an Iowa requirement until they were actually in service. It was not a factor during the design phase.

[Fermi2]

No they weren't.  I have not seen any evidence whatsoever that carrier screening was an Iowa requirement until they were actually in service.  It was not a factor during the design phase.

267349[/snapback]

 

 

You're right. Garzke, Friedman, and Whitley and Sumrall all give the genesis of the Iowa Class.

 

It was designed to.

 

1: Provide a ship fast enough in order to contro, action against an enemy battleline

 

2: Engages fast raiders

 

3: Provide for INDEPENDENT surface action groups on an enemy coast.

 

Nowhere does it mention being a carrier escort. USN Doctrine at the time the Iowas were designed was for CAs to escort carriers not BBs.

 

When the Iowas were designed that had a pathetic AA armament, not much better than their foreign contemporaries.

 

Also the SoDaks were NOT an offshoot of the NC Class. The Iowas were an Offshoot of the SoDak class. The lineage is clearly laid out in Friedmans book.

 

 

Mike