The USS Virginia-Class Reboot

Tobius

Post subject: Re: The USS Virginia-Class Reboot

Posted: May 27th, 2017, 2:42 pm

Posts: 545
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 2:10 pm

Excellent art work.

About the class itself, the technical defects were numerous, but the one overarching defect was the gun house mantlets. The Americans quickly discovered that because of mistakes in hull volume calculation, the ships rode lower forward than anticipated. This might not have mattered as Mister Teddy Roosevelt's Navy was used to working their guns wet, but with the Virginias especially, the seawater from waves breaking over the bow washed into the gunhouse and drenched the handling machinery, the guns, and the crews. Again, this was not considered too onerous. However, the superstacked 8 inch guns were found unworkable during the loading cycle for the 12 inch guns, the armored roof of the second story was extremely vulnerable to anything over a 5 inch shell and the too wide barrel embrasures not only allowed too much seawater in, which corroded the working machinery, damaging the hydraulics and electrics, but it also allowed overpressure and back pulse from the muzzle blasts from the guns above when the 8 inchers fired and from the 12 inchers below when the main guns fired.

Hence, this idea was not repeated in American service after the five Virginias were finished. In combat, it was assumed that the superstacked 8 inch battery atop each 12 inch paired gun mount would not be served, thus effectively negating half the 8 inch caliber guns set carried. What puzzles me, though, after USS Kearsage showed why the idea did not work, is why include the useless feature? Instead rework the modified Iowa type gunhouses to correct the two major faults discovered after the USS Kearsage proved the design failure in 1900? This has bothered me as I studied the pre-dreadnought USN history. Here is a partial if not entirely satisfactory answer as to why seven of these mistakes slid down the ways.

The noted US ship constructor, Philip Hitchborn, fought and lost the argument about how the USS Virginia should be laid out and armed with Captain Charles O'Neil, the US Navy's acknowledged best gunnery expert after Admiral Sampson was discredited and before Captain Sims discredited him in turn. The argument, which confused the US Congress, went something like this:

Hichborn: simplification of gun calibers and uniformity of ballistics among the main armaments will allow US battleships to improve their miserable accuracy, which the Spanish American War shows to be appallingly inaccurate. It will also be cheaper to buy ammunition if the USN only has to worry about 4 calibers instead of the current 9. Arm the Virginias and future American battleships with 10 inch BLNRs (breech loading naval rifles) and the new 6 inch quick fire guns. Virginia should carry eight or ten each 10 inch guns; with 2 as a pair in one gunhouse forward, 2 as a pair in one gun house aft and 2 or 3 as broadside casemate guns. This gives a good battery that can defeat most foreign battleships at the expected battle ranges. A battery of ten 3 pounders in single mounts can stop torpedo boats and a battery of 6 inch QFs will deal with cruisers. The broadside on 13,000 (short) tons displacement will be five 3 pounder RFs, eight 6 inch QFs and six or seven 10 inch BLNRs. Keeping within Congress' mandated displacement and cost requirements is possible with such a design with the added benefit of standardizing the calibers in the line of battle.

O'Neil: The Spanish American War has shown us that the best gun in USN service as far as accuracy, rate of fire and armor penetration for the expected targets to be faced (enemy armored cruisers) is the 8 inch gun. The minimum broadside required is four such guns. Six is preferable. Even battleships are vulnerable to an 8 inch gun at the expected close ranges anticipated. Developing a new 10 inch gun using smokeless powder will delay our battleship production, will do nothing to standardize calibers which will go to 10 types instead of the current 9 and cannot be mounted en casemate as the gun barrels are too long and the gun truck is too heavy (wider ship than American drydocks can take). Furthermore, the ship to take Hichborn's recommended six barrel broadside, because of the three centerline gunhouses actually needed, will be over 550 feet long, exceed 17,000 short tons displacement to carry the 10 inches of Krupp CA steel citadel belt required and will be too long for existing drydocks, too. It will also cost too much to build.

O'Neil won that argument. Congress said build it his way. The Kearsage design was "modernized" and duplicated with the disastrous results noted above.

Top

Shipbucket

Who is online