Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
EvyL

the BB-65 design studies

6 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Super Tester
1,677 posts

Note that this ain't the cancelled Iowa class USS Illinois which also had the designation of BB-65.

 

I miss BSing this place.

 

I didn't get an in-depth bit of this since I need the books on em and I'm a poor smuck, I kinda started digging around the weird parts of this "BB-65-2" iteration that was slated back at pre-alpha in NA three years ago as a faster Montana with a variable set of guns. Apparently, it wasn't just to end with Iowa since there were more scarier ships in the Asia Pacific with Japan allegedly having a really souped up battleship which they had little data of and the Battleship Committee started romping about in the design drawing board with newer ships and the Montana was one of the soon iterations, strange yet interesting iterations.

 

I PRESENT TO YOU THE BB-65 DESIGN STUDIES.

 

20avxa0.jpg

 

orq88g.jpg

 

 

9foc8w.jpg

 

Behold, glorious battleship design studies. The early iterations are of the 1939 plans however and BB-67 is the slotting for the Montana where BB-67-1 was selected as the final draft if I remember it right.

 

There should have been the limits for ship building such as canal width limitations and the escalation clause in the Second London Naval treaty where if anyone breached the treaty and the amendments it was laid in stone and ratified, then they could, by virtue of someone breaking that, bend the limits as to match the opposing ships. The North Carolinas and South Dakotas were already being drafted and keeled and so were the Iowas at the early point and they wanted to make an upstep for some of the ships that would come out that could match anything they faced in the water. One such particulars were the Iowas which were, at the time, the most modern ships stepped and this is not accounting to them wanting bigger and meaner battleships which could have culminated to the Montana and probably be upgunned as well.

 

2mxkfn7.jpg

 

 

qste6b.jpg

 

282fhc9.jpg

 

elb477.jpg

Here's one of the iterations with their profile.

 

One of the likely defining features of these BB-65's of the 1939-1941 iterations would be the strength of their powerplants as well as the superstructure and layout arrangement, two of which was a single large funnel rather than the two found on the North Carolinas and Iowas as well as the forecastle and foremast arrangement. Well, even there were prospects of them being wanted to be upgunned with bigger guns for that matter but some of the iterations were heavy as they were projected and had the max speed of about 27-28 knots at most they could crunch but would compensate for the sheer volume of 16 inch guns they were to have. Don't get me started on the Tillmann 'maximum battleships' because those were impractical as hell and could not fit into a canal lock such as the Suez or the Panama although the standing limit by then from what I can remember was chucking in the said canal width limit to their calculations.

 

nv351u.jpg

 

If my brain hasn't rusted yet, THIS thing was also taken into account for future battleship designs including the BB-65 prospects and yes, that is an American 18 inch gun. 

 

Interesting part is that the slated BB-65 scheme back then that was good for a tier 10 was the scheme 2 of the 1940 study which is likely why the BB-65-2 was projected as a viable tier 10 and I think it should be impressive for its day. It can churn speeds reaching 33 knots, is protected with 5.5 inches of deck and about 15 inches of belt with the same improved Mark 7/50 16 inch guns the Iowas were to start lugging around with a so-called "heavy shell" which should punch through the thickest theorized armor they could crunch along with several 6 inch secondaries. In all retrospects, this should throw off the spike for an improved Iowa since the armor was lessened so that the ship could output more speed but if in any case, this should be a sound thing to duly note. Its Japanese paper counterpart would be the Number 13 battleship and even on paper it should have been fairly marginal in terms of soft stats ever drafted to paper but to be fair, the No. 13 was to be fitted with 18 inch guns as well.

 

As a tier 10, it would fit a niche to the battleship split I've been advocating as well. the Colorado will remain as the jump-off point for the transition in tier 7 because she was the last dread the US ever made, the tier 9 for the 'heavy battleship' line would be South Dakota and tier 10 would be the BB-67-1 herself, the Montana.

The 'fast battleships' would likely slate tier 6 for the Alaska large cruiser or its CA-2D upgrade the "Super Alaska" (as I have said in the post here for Alaska, she's not gonna survive anything over 12 inch guns which makes it likely the CA-2D juicing her up to battleship grade a more sane thought), tier 7 for the Lexington/Constellation battlecruiser that's reformatted to fast battleship as an upgrade, merging back to tier 8 for North Carolina, tier 9 for Iowa and the BB-65-2 (although to name her, I guess they could just name her as Illinois as well. In all fairness, BB-65 was also her pennant) as the tier 10. This is just me brainfarting so hard so if you have any musings about it, do tell.

 

Derp.exe just encountered a serious error.

 

Edited by EvyL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,677 posts

Apparently everyone wants a BB with 18" inch guns

 

Well why not? The 18 inch gun was conceived as the most powerful anti-surface ship gun theorized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
845 posts
467 battles

 

Well why not? The 18 inch gun was conceived as the most powerful anti-surface ship gun theorized.

 

On theory and on paper,yes. In practical use,not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×