Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 1 of 2  [ 11 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 »
Author Message
David Latuch
Post subject: The New Hampshire-Class Battleship RevisitedPosted: July 27th, 2020, 5:36 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1338
Joined: January 16th, 2014, 1:02 pm
Location: Vermont, USA
After further review, I have to agree with Karl94: the New Hampshire-Class was too beamy and the bow too pointy. Here is a redesign in which I have tried to remedy these defects and more.
New Hampshire-Class Battleships
The basic assumption of this thread is that the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty failed to be agreed upon. As such the South Dakota-class battleships were never cancelled and in fact was followed by the four New Hampshire-class battleships, behemoth dreadnoughts heavier and nearly as long as the Iowa-class, sporting a main armament of 8 eighteen inch/50 caliber guns, 16 six inch/53 caliber secondary battery and 8 five inch/25 caliber dual purpose battery.
USS New Hampshire-Class Battleship
Ship Name Hull # Laid Down Launched Commissioned
New Hampshire (BB-55) 1925 1927 1929
Minnesota (BB-56) 1925 1927 1930
Kansas (BB-57) 1926 1928 1930
Vermont (BB-58) 1927 1929 1930

Displacement:
51,157 t light; 54,519 t standard; 60,000 t normal; 64,385 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
882.07 ft / 850.00 ft x 106.00 ft x 30.00 ft (normal load)
268.85 m / 259.08 m x 32.31 mx 9.14 m

Armament:
8 - 18.00" / 457 mm guns (4x2 guns

16 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns (8x2 guns

8 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns in single mounts

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 16.0" / 406 mm 504.00 ft / 153.62 m 13.47 ft / 4.11 m

Main Belt covers 91 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 16.0" / 406 mm 9.00" / 229 mm 12.0" / 305 mm
2nd: 8.00" / 203 mm 4.00" / 102 mm 8.00" / 203 mm

- Armour deck: 6.25" / 159 mm,

- Conning tower: 20.00" / 508 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 173,819 shp / 129,669 Kw = 29.00 kts
Range 6,000nm at 21.00 kts

Complement:
1,916 - 2,491


USS New Hampshire (BB-55) 1929 As Commissioned:
[ img ]

USS Minnesota (BB-56) 1930 As Commissioned:
[ img ]

USS Kansas(BB-57) 1930 As Commissioned:
[ img ]

USS Vermont(BB-57) 1930 As Commissioned:
[ img ]

Notice that Kansas and Vermont both have tripod masts as opposed to New Hampshire and Minnesota which have the older style lattice or cage masts.

As these ships rotated into refits their after masts were replaced with tower masts and splinter shields added around the 5in/25s. Additionally Mk-34 and Mk-19 were installed for the main and batteries, as seen on the New Hampshire bellow.

USS New Hampshire (BB-55) 1940:
[ img ]

With the advent of the Japanese attack of Pearl Harbor the New Hampshires were all refit with SK and SG radars. Six 40mm Bofors quad gun mounts as well as ten 20mm Oerlikons were also added. The ships also received Measure 22 camouflage schemes.

USS Minnesota (BB-56) 1942:
[ img ]


During 1943 ship’s AA defenses were augmented with the addition of 16 Oerlikons a midships.

USS Vermont(BB-58) 1943:
[ img ]


1944 saw the replacement of the 5in/25s by 5in/38 dual mounts.

USS Kansas(BB-57) 1944:
[ img ]

_________________
My Avatar is
French Vice-admiral Louis-René-Madeleine Le Vassor de La Touche, comte de Tréville
The original spelling of my last name is: LaTouche.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
erik_t
Post subject: Re: The New Hampshire-Class Battleship RevisitedPosted: July 28th, 2020, 12:48 am
Offline
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
I have my frequent complaint that the 5/38 twin base ring mount required a great deal of space under deck that was not required by a 5/25 single pedestal mount. Neither outfit is necessary implausible, but going from one to the other would seem to require that the initial designers owned a crystal ball.

5/38:
[ img ]

5/25:
Literally bolt it to the deck anywhere the deck is strong enough, I think (as verified by their use as submarine deck guns)

A much more plausible approach would be to replace the 6/47 twins with 5/38 twins, and replace the 5/25 with 5/38 single pedestal mounts. This would somewhat reduce the surface fire capability of the secondary battery, but that's plainly a choice the USN was willing to make (to at least a degree) when the Standards lost 5/51 and 5/25 in favor of 5/38.

In every other sense, these are great IMHO.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
David Latuch
Post subject: Re: The New Hampshire-Class Battleship RevisitedPosted: July 28th, 2020, 9:39 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1338
Joined: January 16th, 2014, 1:02 pm
Location: Vermont, USA
Erik,
I find your idea to replace the 6in runs with dual 5in/38 and the 5in/25 with single pedestal mounts intriguing and I have begun working on the drawing.

Here it is:

[ img ]

_________________
My Avatar is
French Vice-admiral Louis-René-Madeleine Le Vassor de La Touche, comte de Tréville
The original spelling of my last name is: LaTouche.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
erik_t
Post subject: Re: The New Hampshire-Class Battleship RevisitedPosted: July 29th, 2020, 12:34 am
Offline
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
Looks great! Since you say "begun working", I assume you know you're missing a 5/38 twin in the side view :)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
emperor_andreas
Post subject: Re: The New Hampshire-Class Battleship RevisitedPosted: July 29th, 2020, 1:25 pm
Offline
Posts: 3482
Joined: November 17th, 2010, 8:03 am
Location: Corinth, MS USA
Contact: Website, Skype, YouTube
Very nice work! Always enjoy a series of drawings from you, my friend!

_________________
[ img ]
MS State Guard - 08 March 2014 - present

The Official IJN Ships & Planes List


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
David Latuch
Post subject: Re: The New Hampshire-Class Battleship RevisitedPosted: July 29th, 2020, 6:43 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1338
Joined: January 16th, 2014, 1:02 pm
Location: Vermont, USA
Oops :oops: Its fixed. ;)

_________________
My Avatar is
French Vice-admiral Louis-René-Madeleine Le Vassor de La Touche, comte de Tréville
The original spelling of my last name is: LaTouche.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
David Latuch
Post subject: Re: The New Hampshire-Class Battleship RevisitedPosted: July 29th, 2020, 6:45 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1338
Joined: January 16th, 2014, 1:02 pm
Location: Vermont, USA
emperor_andreas wrote: *
Very nice work! Always enjoy a series of drawings from you, my friend!
Thanx

_________________
My Avatar is
French Vice-admiral Louis-René-Madeleine Le Vassor de La Touche, comte de Tréville
The original spelling of my last name is: LaTouche.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
JLDogg
Post subject: Re: The New Hampshire-Class Battleship RevisitedPosted: July 29th, 2020, 7:11 pm
Offline
Posts: 47
Joined: July 29th, 2010, 9:28 am
Just love all your ships, keep up the excellent work.
But looking at the refits, it seems to me that the forward quad 40mm's are masked by the bridge wings limiting their firing arcs. Maybe move them to the main deck abaft the #2 turret??


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Krakatoa
Post subject: Re: The New Hampshire-Class Battleship RevisitedPosted: July 30th, 2020, 12:36 am
Offline
Posts: 2495
Joined: July 1st, 2014, 12:20 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact: Website
Sorry David, there appears to be a single 5" missing starboard side aft by the raised 40mm quad. On the birdseye view.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
erik_t
Post subject: Re: The New Hampshire-Class Battleship RevisitedPosted: July 30th, 2020, 2:11 pm
Offline
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
Good catch on the missing 5" single. As I look at that area, I don't think those single mounts can train. Their gun shield is blocked by the 40mm quad. Either the 40mm quad has to move, or some of the shield needs to be trimmed away.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 1 of 2  [ 11 posts ]  Return to “Personal Designs” | Go to page 1 2 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


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


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