Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 1 of 1  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
Karle94
Post subject: USS Washington BB-47: Victim of the Washington Naval TreatyPosted: November 18th, 2020, 8:36 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2129
Joined: November 8th, 2010, 3:07 pm
Location: Norseland
In my strive for ever increasing quality and improvement which has been greatly helped with a combination of AU-drawings and feedback recieved on Discord has led me to draw the USS Washington BB-47, the third ship of the Colorado class. She was 75,9% complete when she was cancelled in 1922. She would most definetely have seen service starting in 1923. The drawing was to serve as a prototype for a future upgrade of the rest of the class, and as a base for the Tennessee class, which the Colorado class was virtually identical with. For the most part, she will look the same as the three other of the class. With the exception of lifeboats the four ships will look identical until about the 30s with minor differances in the boat complement and minor elements relating to the superstructure.

USS Washington as hypothetically commissioned in 1923:
[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
emperor_andreas
Post subject: Re: USS Washington BB-47: Victim of the Washington Naval TreatyPosted: November 18th, 2020, 6:36 pm
Offline
Posts: 3910
Joined: November 17th, 2010, 8:03 am
Location: Corinth, MS USA
Contact: YouTube
Awesome work!

_________________
[ img ]
MS State Guard - 08 March 2014 - 28 January 2023

The Official IJN Ships & Planes List

#FJB


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Steampower1
Post subject: Re: USS Washington BB-47: Victim of the Washington Naval TreatyPosted: December 5th, 2020, 7:39 pm
Offline
Posts: 35
Joined: December 30th, 2017, 10:05 pm
Very nice. We should have finished Washington and scrapped Arkansas.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Karle94
Post subject: Re: USS Washington BB-47: Victim of the Washington Naval TreatyPosted: December 5th, 2020, 8:30 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2129
Joined: November 8th, 2010, 3:07 pm
Location: Norseland
I don't know if there would be enough displacement in the treaty to do that.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
emperor_andreas
Post subject: Re: USS Washington BB-47: Victim of the Washington Naval TreatyPosted: December 5th, 2020, 8:44 pm
Offline
Posts: 3910
Joined: November 17th, 2010, 8:03 am
Location: Corinth, MS USA
Contact: YouTube
Steampower1 wrote: *
We should have finished Washington and scrapped Arkansas.
Actually, Wyoming was older. Scrap Wyoming and use Arkansas as the gunnery training ship.

_________________
[ img ]
MS State Guard - 08 March 2014 - 28 January 2023

The Official IJN Ships & Planes List

#FJB


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
BB1987
Post subject: Re: USS Washington BB-47: Victim of the Washington Naval TreatyPosted: December 5th, 2020, 8:47 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2818
Joined: May 23rd, 2012, 1:01 pm
Location: Rome - Italy
The real issue is the fact that Wasington was a 16-inch gunned battleship. The US could not have more than three (like Japan and the UK were capped at two) by treaty.

_________________
My Worklist
Sources and documentations are the most welcome.

-Koko Kyouwakoku (Republic of Koko)
-Koko's carrier-based aircrafts of WWII
-Koko Kaiun Yuso Kaisha - KoKaYu Line (Koko AU spinoff)
-Koko - Civil Aviation


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Colombamike
Post subject: Re: USS Washington BB-47: Victim of the Washington Naval TreatyPosted: December 5th, 2020, 9:07 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1359
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 6:18 am
Location: France, Marseille
;)
[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
erik_t
Post subject: Re: USS Washington BB-47: Victim of the Washington Naval TreatyPosted: December 6th, 2020, 3:43 pm
Offline
Posts: 2936
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
Excellent drawing that I'd somehow missed. Is there reason to think that the portholes in the superstructure would be larger than those in the hull? It seems plausible to me that 18" is more appropriate than 24" for the superstructure as well.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Karle94
Post subject: Re: USS Washington BB-47: Victim of the Washington Naval TreatyPosted: December 6th, 2020, 4:50 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2129
Joined: November 8th, 2010, 3:07 pm
Location: Norseland
Pictures my friend. It seems it was the case for American ships to have larger portholes in the superstructure, probably because they were less of a weakness and if they are flooding, then the ship is already lost.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 1 of 1  [ 9 posts ]  Return to “Never-Built Designs”

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


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