What is everyones opinion on which ship would have been the most formidable, that was planned but never laid, or if it was started, never completed?? For arguments sake, any ship that was planned, and even had an outside chance of being built is up for nomination, it did not need to be ordered or started, just concieved, and realisticly possible to build, based on technology available at the time of conception.
hmm did the other posts get eaten? Suddenly, this thread which I had replied to twice and other people had has no replies? Did we roll back, or am I bugged?
2 Million Ton Pykrete Aircraft Carrier http://www.metacafe.com/watch/235665/2_million_ton_pykrete_aircraft_carrier_in_ww2/its big and no i cant make one i live Southern California
Yes, a bunch of replies got eaten, from this and other threads. There were around 13 replies on this thread the last time I replied to it.
To summarize what I had last night before I went to bed, Montana would be the winner in my book. She has better firecontrol, more reliable shells, and 12 guns firing superheavy 2700 pound shells which can penetrate most armor at most battle ranges. Montana uses Radar to provide it's firecontrol which works even in poor visibility. The British Lions get an honorable mention for second place. h-39 was nothing more then an enlarged Bismarck which carried it's design flaws forward, and only upped the guns to 8 16". the rest of the H series and Super Yamatos were "no freaking way" ships (no docks to support them, economies of the nations couldn't support the building etc etc) but even if they were built without more reliable shells and radar, in order to achieve hits the visibility needs to be good to take advantage of their optical firecontrol, and Montana will still probably straddle on her first salvo. Should the IJN or DKM ships score hits, their shells are not known for being reliable, and may not explode. I think that gives an edge to the USN/RN ships. They are going to hit first, and their shells are likely to explode.
I remember reading that RN armor in WW2 was actually better per inch than USN armor. That may give the Lions a bit of an edge I don't have the belt thicknesses of each ship handy. It depends on the guns. The USN 2700lb 16" shell was fantastic. Equal or better than the 18.1 from the Yamatos. If RN could get an equivalent shell then it becomes a question of fire control. IIRC the 16" on the Nelsons was not as good as that on the Colorados, but the Lions were to have a new model gun. The US 16"/50 was a good gun and had good ammunition. There the Montana's have an edge.
This is an interesting one, and I will stay out of the historical aspect. We'll never know on that one, and the debate can circle for hours. Instead, I will focus on the question, as related to models: "which ship would have been the most formidable model, that was planned but never laid, or if it was started, never completed?" Several ships come to mind. They are: 1) Montana 2) H-39 3) H-44 4) Alsace 5) Normandie 6) Super-Yamato 7) Sovietski Soyuz Let's take a look. Montana: 12 1/4" guns in four triple turrets. under 30 knots, twin rudders. Basically an enlarged Iowa. H-39: 8 1/4" guns in four double turrets. approximately 30 knots (not sure exactly). Basically an enlarged Bismark. H-44: 8 1/4" guns in four double turrets. Not sure what speed. Basically a VERY enlarged Bismark. Alsace: 12 1/4" guns in three quadruple turrets. approximately 30 knots (not sure exactly, but up there). Normandie: 12 7/32" guns in three quadruple turrets. Under 25 knots. Dreadnought size and dreadnought speed, with quad cannons. Super-Yamato: Not sure the armament on this one. Either bigger guns, or more of 'em. Not sure about speed, but probably same or slower. Soyuz: 9 1/4" guns in three triple turrets. Basically a Russian Iowa, with a funky bulged hull. If I had to pick one, it'd be either the Alsace or the Normandie. Why? Firepower per unit size, plus mobility (speed and/or maneuverability). The Frenchies get the most bang for your buck, and they also get more buck than any other ship but the Montana. One French quad cannon packs more punch than two double cannons, and the "stomper" cannon, a unique WWCC design, cranks it up even more. Also consider that the Alsace was supposed to be a French Iowa, rather than a super-battleship (with the size, speed, and maneuverability that follow) and the Alsace would beat the pants off just about any other beast out there. The only ship in this list that could take an Alsace in a straight-up fight would be the Normandie, and that only because of Normandie's maneuverability. If Alsace decides not to fight, then Alsace wins that one too. Mike, the Alsace is mentioned in Conways, just not by name. This line, written after the Gascoigne: "two sisters were approved in April 1940- although they may have been built to a new design- but were not begun." refers to the Alsace class. That makes it legal to build in my club the WWCC, and one has been built. It currently resides in Oregon and hasn't seen action in years. Tugboat, what information do you have about a possible 15-inch upgrade for the Bearn? Are you talking about the Gille Battlecruisers, or an actual modification to the Normandie Class? Did they keep the quad turrets? And how many sources do you have on that?
"I remember reading that RN armor in WW2 was actually better per inch than USN armor. That may give the Lions a bit of an edge I don't have the belt thicknesses of each ship handy. " That's true. The US Heavy Armor (class A?) over 8 inches in thickness was among the worst in the world. Our stuff under 8 inches though was the very best in the world. It had to do with hwo it was forged IIRC. I also seem to remember that by WW2, the US could not produce modern armor plate of greater then 12.2 inches in thickness, which you will see is the thickness of the belts of the USN fast battleships. The USN did incline the belts to make them more effective, which the british did not do with the KGV class. I am not sure if the Lions or Vanguard had inclined belts but I dont think they did. The difference I dont think was overwhelming though. The British however, were against the idea of "super heavy" rounds as they are longer and are more inclined to experience "base slap", and thus would not have the same kind of penetrating power of the US Super heavy rounds. The belt armor is actually practically irrelevant to a late 1940's surface shootout. Most engagements will occur at long range, where plunging fire prevails, and thus the DECK armor is what's key. Montana has an additional 3 guns over the Lion, which makes for a greater likely hood of an earlier hit, so I think that regardless of the final design of the Lion, Montana is superior in a gunfight.
D'oh. Was forgetting about plunging fire. Senility attack or an attack of Kreigsmarine designitis. Not sure which.
"Kreigsmarine designitis" That's an awesome term. Should be required reading for the Bismarck uber alles crowd!
Don't forget the WW1 French battleship Lyon. They were an enlarged Normandie, with another quad 13.4" turret (so 16 barrels). Conways says that had they been built, they would have been the most powerful ships in the world. (at that time anyways). I would like to build one for Treaty.They would be a match for a WW1 era U.S. battleship, with the exception of the WW1 Montana (South Dakota WW1). It sure would be an interesting battle. Mikey
What I like about the Montana class WW2 is that they decided to increase the number of guns, and kept to the 16" which was a really great gun. Where other countries were trying to develope larger guns, and possibly have less barrels. More barrels generally means a better chance of getting a hit out of a salvo. And even the smaller size shells are going to do some damage. Mikey
The only line drawings I have seen of the Super Yammies only have 6 guns that were going to be 20 inch in size
Here is a photo shopped pic of the Super Yamato with 8 20 inch guns and 8" twin secondaries. http://www.geocities.com/alt_naval/noway.htm
I guess that link must be popular; I get the "Sorry, Service Temporarily Unavailable." message when I click the link.
Probably exceeded its bandwidth quota for the day. R/CNavalCombat....the new /....or rather the new digg.
Johny come late again. The Russians had a combo Battleship -Aircraft Carrier being designed by the U.S. over 1,000 ft long. It would have mounted 12- 16 inch guns and had an airplane capacity of roughly 60 planes. I would have to look it up on the tonnage as I do not recall. Anyway one can not build it as both a carrier and a battleship in the WWCC rules.
