While looking into the possibility of which ship is longer, Wisconsin or New Jersey, I came across an interesting bit of information. The Illinois and Kentucky hulls were welded unlike the completed Iowa's that used rivits. Thus the Illinois and Kentucky would have been a lot lighter than their older sisters. That makes my next thought... How fast would they have gone???? If the USS United States could top 38 knots, I imagine the Kentucky and Illinois doing 45 Knots!
48 kts from that hull form is beyond ridiculous. BB-65 & BB-66 could have gone about 33 kts, maybe 35 under very light, "shakedown" load, but that's about it. JM
Of course the NJ could break 33 knots... they were cruising 33 knots with the fleet, in full combat load, through all manner of hideous weather in the Pacific, for years. Once you get around to running trials on a calm day with a "standard" loadout, they will go quite a bit faster. Of course, none of the Big Gun clubs will ever allow the Iowas to go faster than 33 knots anyway, because they're already the fastest class of heavy battleships on the pond, and a faster speed would simply wreck whatever balance we currently have.
Nobody was cruising around the Pacific at 33kts for any extended length of time. Fleet/task force speed would have been something more like 25-28 kts (look to the top speed of the slowest auxiliary for a clue). Although you might get 33kts for awhile, you just can't go pushing the machinery flat-out indefinitely without something breaking sooner or later. The reason that no Big Gun club will ever allow an Iowa to go faster than 33kts is because the standard reference (Conway's) adopted by the clubs says that their max. was 33kts. It has nothing to do with what anybody "thinks" or might have heard/read from some other source. If "balance" were truly the objective, I'd expect that the Iowas would be slowed down, or certain other ships would be allowed more speed, like what some other clubs do. JM
I think the source of controversy is Janes, who may have made an educated but high guess at the speed of the BB's after refit early 80's... and those that think it higher have both that guess, and the fact that all navies have motivation to understate how fast things go. That is why almost all cruisers go 32 knots For Big Guns and adjusting the speed of the Iowa's, John is absolutly on target, they are beast enough as is, they don't also need a rooster tail to compete.
Jane's is notoriously inaccurate, having been produced contemporarily with all the assorted secrecy, speculation, propaganda, disinformation, etc. that goes on in wartime. Conway's was produced later, with the benefit of at least some hindsight. Whether an Iowa (or Yamato, Bismarck, or whatever) is "enough" isn't an issue. It is what it is. And exactly what it is, is defined in a particular set of books that most (all?) Bid Gun clubs have adopted as their primary reference. Any club is free to choose any reference they want to. If they want to accept anything with an ISBN number, for example, & let builders find whatever they can that's to their advantage, there are plenty of competing books around that document a variety of ships. It's hard to beat the convenience of a single reference, though, and I hope that somebody who wants to allow exceptions can come up with a darned compelling reason, that applies universally to every ship ever built. They'd be pretty foolish to set a precedent of allowing an exception. Where would it end, once it's started? If administrative nightmares and constant bickering over details is what anybody wants, then by all means, start making exceptions. If not then, for better or worse, if you've got a standard, stick with it 100%. JM
Conway's isn't always right, nor does it cover every piece of information necessary for every ship. It was, after all, written by humans. WWCC states Conways as the primary source, but also says that you can override Conways by providing two or more reliable outside sources that 1) disagree with Conway's on the data in question, and 2) agree with each other on the data in question. So IF someone were to do the research and dig up the information on the Iowa class speed trials, and find enough reliable sources (wikipedia does not count, nor does Jane's), then it is possible to override Conway's. That's how we have 31-knot Bismarks, and a few other noteworthy changes.
I've read about the welded hull saving weight over the riveted hull, but haven't seen any numbers on that actual weight difference. It may also be the Navy planned to mount other systems aboard to take advantage of the weight freed up by the hull change. Either way, it's hard to estimate the power-to-weight ratio of the ships and the effect on speed without some real numbers.
I think you can be pretty sure that any weight savings would be more than made up in added AAA. Nothing was floating light in late WWII. There's a heck of a lot more involved than just power & weight. I'd like one of the expert naval architects on this forum to come forward with the number of turns needed to get an Iowa hull form up to 35kts (never mind 48), the SHP to get those turns, the pressure needed to get that sort of SHP out of the plant, & the fuel consumption over 24 hours (assuming nothing breaks, first). JM
I don't understand why there is an argument. Nobody is suggesting changing the speed of the Iowa's, people are puzzling out what the real max sustained speed might have been for theoreticals. John is likely right, the boats would have added massive AA and lost the advantage of the welding. You have to have some allowance for correcting errors, like on LST's which list one prop and rudder, but pictures of actual show two. Of course, that is if my memory serves.
Mike's right, this wasn't a rule change proposal... Hint: It's in the "Full Scale" forum! The original question was "assuming they left it light for a speed boost" (yes, they wouldn't have, blah blah) what could it have done? Isn't a ship like that built to be 'x deep' in the water for optimal speed? Reducing weight would bring the ship up out of the water, is there a point where removing weight would slow it down?
Here us what I just happened to run across, stating that she was expected to be eight knots faster than the other Iowa's! So it looks like breaking the 40 Knot mark was a possibility! USS Illinois (BB-65) was to be the fifth Iowa-class battleship constructed for the United States Navy and was the fourth ship to be named in honor of the 21st US state. Hull BB-65 was originally to be the first ship of the Montana-class battleships, but changes during World War II resulted in her being reordered as an Iowa-class battleship. Adherence to the Iowa-class layout rather than the Montana-class layout allowed BB-65 to gain eight knots in speed, carry more 20 mm and 40 mm anti-aircraft guns, and transit the locks of the Panama Canal; however, the move away from the Montana-class layout left BB-65 with a reduction in the heavier armaments and without the additional armor that were to have been added to BB-65 during her time on the drawing board as USS Montana.
OP's some more data that suggests that she would only be able to do 35 Knots! When BB-65 was redesignated an Iowa-class battleship, she was assigned the name Illinois and reconfigured to adhere to the "fast battleship" designs planned in 1938 by the Preliminary Design Branch at the Bureau of Construction and Repair. Her funding was authorized via the passage of the Two Ocean Navy bill through the United States Congress in 1940, and she would now be the fifth Iowa class battleship built for the United States Navy. Like her Iowa-class sisters, Illinois was to cost US $125 million and take approximately 30 to 40 months to complete. She would be tasked primarily with the defense of the US fleet of Essex-class aircraft carriers. In adherence with the Iowa-class design, Illinois would have a maximum beam of 108 ft (33 m) and a waterline length of 860 ft (260 m), permitting a maximum speed of 34.9 knots (64.6 km/h). The Navy also called for the class to have a lengthened forecastle, amid-ship, and a bulbous bow, which would increase her speed to 35 knots.
I believe you're misinterpreting what's written. "Adherence to the Iowa-class layout rather than the Montana-class layout allowed BB-65 to gain eight knots in speed..." What that means is that BB-65, built as an Iowa-class ship, was 8 knots faster than BB-65, built as a Montana-class ship. All they're saying is what we all already know: That the Iowa class was faster than the Montana class (by 8 knots). That has nothing to do with rivets vs. welding, and everything to do with which class the assigned name & hull number of the ship is built as. JM
Well, your comment in the 1st post was flat-out wrong. BB-65 was not intended or expected to be 8 knots faster than the other Iowas. It was expected to be 8 knots faster than the Montanas (just like all of the Iowas). JM
I dont think it really matters as there is no ACCURATE and VERIFIABLE information out there as to the top speed on the Iowas. The bottom line is, until the USN declassifies their trial speed, we'll never know just how fast they were, and therefore, Conway's guess is as good as anyone else's.
