Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 2 of 3  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 »
Author Message
Bombhead
Post subject: Re: US Navy considered torpedo battleshipPosted: July 15th, 2011, 1:45 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2299
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 7:41 pm
Very nice drawings Ashley.The torpedos come into their own in a night action when ranges tend to be shorter and confusion reigns.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Thiel
Post subject: Re: US Navy considered torpedo battleshipPosted: July 15th, 2011, 7:19 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
I'm surprised they didn't include bow tubes as well. Only being able to engage an enemy on your beam would be quite a drawback.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
dreadnaught111
Post subject: Re: US Navy considered torpedo battleshipPosted: July 16th, 2011, 9:48 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 70
Joined: March 26th, 2011, 9:37 pm
Location: Tampa, Florida
Ashley wrote:
I made Cuba another state of America :twisted:
Or maybe it's a territory like Puerto Rico. Either way, Castro won't be coming to power. :mrgreen:

As for the ship, she's a very handsome battlecruiser. :D

_________________
Fan of Dreadnaughts, Super-Dreadnaughts, Fast Battleships and Battlecruisers.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Ashley
Post subject: Re: US Navy considered torpedo battleshipPosted: July 17th, 2011, 12:19 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 582
Joined: August 17th, 2010, 7:45 am
Location: Gone to hell
Thiel wrote:
I'm surprised they didn't include bow tubes as well. Only being able to engage an enemy on your beam would be quite a drawback.
Good old battleship line thinking...

_________________
This is a serious forum. Do not laugh. Do not post nonsens. Do not be kiddish. At least, not all the time.
Current work list:
go on playing dead


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
DER386
Post subject: Re: US Navy considered torpedo battleshipPosted: July 17th, 2011, 5:45 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 41
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:36 am
The Russians considered their own Torpedo Battleship in 1913. According to McLaughlin's Russian & Soviet Battleships it was
23,000 tons displacement, 656' in length
Armed with 12 - 7"/52 guns in 4 triple turrets, 84 underwater 17.7" (450cm) torpedo tubes
It had a speed of 28 knots
(When I get my scanner working again, I will try to post an image)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Colombamike
Post subject: Re: US Navy considered torpedo battleshipPosted: July 17th, 2011, 5:56 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1357
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 6:18 am
Location: France, Marseille
[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
ReiAyanami
Post subject: Re: US Navy considered torpedo battleshipPosted: July 19th, 2011, 11:53 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 136
Joined: June 29th, 2011, 4:46 pm
Location: Athens, Greece
In what way is this better than, say, 4 destroyers?
Perhaps the rangefinder that was just around the corner at this time put an end to such plans.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Ashley
Post subject: Re: US Navy considered torpedo battleshipPosted: July 26th, 2011, 10:04 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 582
Joined: August 17th, 2010, 7:45 am
Location: Gone to hell
Yes, I saw that design, too.
84 tubes? That's really mad. Consider they plan sees one ore two torps for reload then the whole deck is filled up with tubes and torps and air pressure things. On the other side, all that stuff doesn't weight too much. So an additional torpedodeck would do well.
Maybe it was to expensive? In 1913 the torpedo was still an ultimative weapon.
With a lenghth of 200m and only 23000 tons there can't be much armor.
7"/18cm guns. Aah yes, just secondairies. The torps are main armament.
72000 hp but 28 kn only?. For 1913 it's ok.
The design will work one or two times then any hunter will keep out of torp range and then blow it up with good old fashioned gunfire. 8" would be enough.
The ship would have been simply inefficent. Nice but useless until you use it for an AU. To sink it there...

_________________
This is a serious forum. Do not laugh. Do not post nonsens. Do not be kiddish. At least, not all the time.
Current work list:
go on playing dead


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Graham1973
Post subject: Re: US Navy considered torpedo battleshipPosted: September 18th, 2011, 2:33 pm
Offline
Posts: 136
Joined: September 18th, 2011, 2:20 pm
Ashley wrote:
This is a quick&dirty drawing of the real 1912 plans.
But still it does reveal one of the more interesting features of the design which is one of four the USN came up with, just how much it looks like an overgrown destroyer. Something which it shares with an artists impression of the original Italian design that appeared in the US press in 1911.

[ img ]

See: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-fr ... 5B818DF1D3


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Graham1973
Post subject: Re: US Navy considered torpedo battleshipPosted: March 6th, 2017, 12:02 am
Offline
Posts: 136
Joined: September 18th, 2011, 2:20 pm
Looks like all of the original images by Ashley have disappeared,.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 2 of 3  [ 21 posts ]  Return to “Never-Built Designs” | Go to page « 1 2 3 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]