Shipbucket

Wow...got enough 5-inchers on there? Interesting ship...not going to criticize, though, as it's better than anything I could ever do.

-Matt

_________________

MS State Guard - 08 March 2014 - 28 January 2023

The Official IJN Ships & Planes List

#FJB

Just imagine a full broadside slavo. Twelve 16 inch gun, twenty-four 5 inch gun...

For the ship, I think is more like a 20's Montana-ish design with loads of 5 inch gun.

Not really, as the two calibres are so mismatched. And on the design, was it a case of an already huge hull that needed filling with so many dual 5-in; or, did you already have that number of secondaries so stretched the hull to accomodate them? Either way it appears a little excessive.

Gotta admit, that ship would be pure hell in terms of AA and against DDs. It's kinda growing on me, to be honest.

-Matt

_________________

MS State Guard - 08 March 2014 - 28 January 2023

The Official IJN Ships & Planes List

#FJB

Lieutenant: Incoming kamikaze.
Captain; What kamikaze!

Way too many. There is no way there would be that many secondary turrets on a hull no matter how long it is.
Exactly. By WWII the only real reason why capital ships had secondaries was as AA armament. The Iowas, which were specifically designed to have a heavy AA battery, only had ten. Even the British rebuilds which had a reputation for having a lot of turrets only had two extra turrets per side at most (and they were very compact turrets to begin with). Just because you "can" spam turrets doesn't mean you can as you're better off using the weight for something else.

Also, later Iowa studies (for finishing up the two uncompleted hulls) likely would've seen the two funnels trunked into one (and yes, they were already trunked funnels to begin with, and yes, it would've resulted in one huge-ass funnel). I'll admit it just does look kinda ridiculous with three huge funnels like that.

Finally it looks an awful lot like Chuck ship art's Lexington 1916 proposal hull. If it's so you need to credit him as a whole hull is a pretty big component to be borrowing (and I'll give you credit, it's hardly unreasonable to assume the US built Lexington to 1916 specs and then later rebuilt them, though...Maine class, I'll roll with it).


EDIT: another thought, if such a ship would've been laid down even as early as 1916 it would've been one of the last capital ships to be rebuilt, which means it would've likely followed a rebuilding scheme close to the New Mexicos. There's one on the database but it's of Mississippi post-war as a weapons test ship. You're probably better off using this as a guide:

http://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprint ... i-1944.gif

And yes, it's from that site that keeps stealing our stuff.

Also, there is a lot of redundancy on that hull, a lot of empty hull space that doesn't seem to serve a useful purpose. And as a result, you've got a ship that would prove difficult to berth, and dry dock - presumably the navy would have to create a whole new infrastructure to deal with it. No, sorry, this is another example of 'if I can draw it, it could exist' syndrome

The Maine was to become the US-answer to european monstrosities like H44- and Superb-classes. Once it was clear, the Yamato-class would outtake any existing battleship but the planned ultraBBs, the US Navy went for her members of the 1st class fighting vessels.
The planned 20"-gun was mainly a simply enlarged 16"/50 Mk. 7-gun, the goal was to deliver enough punch to counter anything existing or planned. Further the ship should be fast.
The Design 1 was much like the late CC-1 (Lexington) design three time pumped up to 115.000 tons empty and stretched to a ridiculous 401m length. The stern still had four shafts and two rudders, but all somehow oversized.
The 12 20"-guns where installed in four triple-turrets. Also unusual was the amount of 5"-turrets. Eleven Mk.28 turrets per side was seen as a need to protect the big vessel against air raids and the ship was expected to run without any escort shield sometimes. So that much aa and directors were planned.
The Design 1 would have been the lightest of the ultraBBs. But also the fastest one. The hull was very sleek, it was more something like a ultraBC, what is not really correct, due to the fact she still would have outtaken any smaller battleship.
The battlecruiserish look was the reason the design was rejected.

@all: when I posted the drawing, I said 'wait for edit, please'. Until now you could only see the drawing without any explanation or data. I sometimes have a lot of fun doing 'did not make it'-designs. This is one of them.

@bezobrazov: not an american design? You will find any detail of her on existing or at least planned american ships, sorry friend, she fully authentic US-style of 1939/1940.
@Carthaginian : you are right with the armor. The Main is a pumped up South Dakota from about 50% of the drawing.
@SrGopher : yes, it has another big amount of inspiration from Chuckshiparts Lex. Oh his Lex was indeed a never-built. You could see the Maine like the BB-follow up of his Lexington.
@emperor_andreas: I was really thinking about the amount of 5". But I did not want to introduce another, bigger DP-gun, but I saw the need for more aa-shield, so I decided to install more turrets
@Clonecommander6454: no, Montana is later, it's South Dakota-ish
@Portsmouth Bill : a little excessive? All those ultraBBs are so far from reality it is not worth the discussion.
@emperor_andreas : many guns aren't it alone, they have their directors for making their day, too.
@heuhen : That kamikaze had his lucky day, he made a scratch in my deck...
@klagldsf : very constructive comment! Would be the total k.o. for the design.
@Portsmouth Bill : Redundancy: yes, and it is wanted that way. Empty hull space: not really, the hull is not that much wide. Dry dock: right, dry docks for 400m-vessels are rare on this planet, even today.

Finally @all : this is not 'never built', this is AU and in that alternative reality 400m-docks do exist and the economics do allow to build that ships. The question of design comes only up if it is clearly not working. It's an always lurking trap with that AUs, I know. On this side they look so much like real ships on the other they do even not. Don't worry, just imagine.

_________________
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

Ashley, all I can say is that I bag to differ. I know US design history pretty well, and I stand by my comments, but it's your AU and your thread, so I bow out of the discussion.

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen

Right, I think I get the message; the mistake I made was equating this (latest) Maine, with what you'd previously done on the Kreigsmarine. Whereas the latter (IMHO) holds together with interesting ideas, this is way out in 'never never land'; so, as such I'll give anything similar a very wide berth - especially one big enough for this