As a former engineer my first ship being the USS Kitty hawk. Being she was a steamship it takes like 24 hours to get enough steam built up etc... Still love that scene though.
In all honesty I certainly wouldn't put all the lifeboats on the stern where the seaplanes are. If they're cut off from getting to those lifeboats in case of severe battle damage. No one's be able to get off safely.
@@dutchman7216 It's important to note that they're not necessarily life boats. A ships boats are typically for ancilliary duties like ferrying personnel in port, but can double as a means of evacuation if you have sufficient time to prepare them. You can still distribute life rafts around the vessel, either stowed compactly or lashed out of the way, as seen on sides of gun turrets or superstructure or many warships of the period.
"I would watch a 10 hour perfect battleship video." How about watching 10 hours of Ryan playing games of Battleship against boy scouts? He's gonna hate it but eventually Ryan WILL have to say "You sank my battleship!"
I started engineering in the slide rule era and a lot can be done with slide rules. However I think some form of CAD would be beneficial. One of the recent videos was about what all of the crew did in a turret. Now think about all of the various bits they had to design and build, even the mechanism for passing powder bags through the bulkheads was complicated- doors, handles, levers, bells, and just for one small function. How many people had to spend time figuring all of this out and then creating drawings to show someone how to build it. I have trouble grasping the complexity of the wiring to connect all of the various systems throughout the ship, again just thinking about connecting the turrets to the fire control systems, power systems, communication systems.
@@billj5645 I don't think that they were dissing on computerized design or the use of computer tools, just admiring the capability of the engineers who were able to do that without them.
Just the fact that there were 100s of handmade drawings for the ship is pretty amazing. I started school with Autocad release 10. We still had to take a pencil and paper mechanical drawing course. It would take days for one part, and then you had to make a blueprint from it.
So............... he wants the Montana's firepower (4x triple 16" 50 cal turrets) on a platform size in length halfway between a Sth Dakota and Iowa...........and with turbo electric. Is that doable within the 45,000 tonnes???
I think it would be fun to have a game where you design a battleship with the latest electronics and any conceivable weapon systems and the best armor, then send it out to do battle against someone else's dream ship.
Thunderbolt mounts are VASTLY underrated. IMHO, the Mark 15 quad 20mm/70 Mk4 Mod4 with outboard dual .50-cals just bellows "We deal in lead, friend." The modern anti-piracy uses are even more thought inspiring.
You could make a nasty modern version of the Thunderbolt mount with four 25mm Bushmaster chainguns easily and cheaply. And of course it would be rigged for remote operation.
Don't know but there's only one choice: the Himalaya class,, I know the mountain is in Asia but the location of the mountain isn't important,, what's important is making a battleship SO big,, it COULD cover the Atlantic and Indian oceans FROM the Pacific... Made about 2200 ft long and about 350 ft beam with a deep draft of about 60 feet once these things are loaded,, they'd have to be supplied and serviced from huge breakwater docks that haven't even been invented yet... Obviously most of the armament would be missiles, with huge intercontinental ballistic missiles being the specialty of course,, and screw those stupid rail guns,, 16" would be fine but use shells designed with "assist ",, a little bit longer shell that isn't launched with as much power but has a device that would be pretty much the same as a jet or whatever to travel a lot farther than a conventionally launched shell.. but battleships are obsolete anyhow so a behemoth displacing about 800,000 tons might be seen as excessive lol but,, would be weird to watch it steam around Cape Horn, even in a massive gale the waves wouldn't even move it... And the STUPIDEST thing one could possibly do would be to call it unsinkable because then it would of course sink...
@@danielsummey4144 Depends, someting like the Kirov or Slava classes could be similar enough to be called a battleship. Maybe there is no need in the sea-control USN but sea-denial force could use them
I don't think they'll build a new battleship any time soon. Heck, I think aircraft carriers will eventually be downsized if they go forward with unmanned drones and replace half or more the manned aircraft. There won't be a reason for supercarriers anymore if they shrink both the size of airwings AND the aircraft themselves! They might end up building American carriers smaller than Midway-class in the end. I don't think the new carriers would get much smaller than Essex-class; probably around the same size as the current-day amphibious assault ships (which everybody knows are carriers! They don't look much different from the Essex-class, either.) Things change. The battleship lost its role and purpose, and they'll probably reformat the aircraft carrier concept after drones become a thing.
Favorite for me battleship? Warspite! Just a crazy history, damage, Jutland, Norwegian campaign, Italy, longest known hit, at Nomandy. Fought all the way to the scrap yard. It is tragic that she was not save for a museum.
I think that if the MONTANA class, armed with 12 16 inch/50 caliber main guns, 12 5 inch/38 caliber secondaries, 13 inch exterior belt armor, turbo-electric drive, 30-32 knots, 4 shafts, Ryan's bulge-void protection, 6 inch main deck, 3 inch second deck armor, and one funnel would have been the ultimate battleship. The 16 inch armed "super-Bismarck's" proposed by Germany would have been a close second.
I think the obvious next "my perfect battleship" video should be a modern-day interpretation of a battleship. Something built right now, in response to other countries, supposedly building battleships.
Missile battleships would be pretty cool. Something with two turrets for shore bombardment and the aft is dedicated to missile launching systems for SAM and SSM missiles. Armor means it can take a missile hit and keep chugging
Even if a perfect battleship was possible for that specific era, there will eventually be something that makes it no longer to keep labeling that past design as such.
Agreed, a perfect example being the Yamamoto class. It was probably the best ship for line sight battle ship vs battle ship engagements, but it was made to be basically outdated due to both aircraft carriers being a thing & its lack of radar guided weaponry
@@dogloversrule8476 Not so sure. The Yamatos actually had a number of issues with their design. Also, the design philosophy was one created from a point of weakness (the Japanese knew they could never build, let alone man, enough battleships to counter America or the UK or other major powers.) I'd say Warspite or the Iowas are a better design and have better design philosophies than the Yamatos. Of course, this is in part what Ryan meant when he said you had to define perfect.
I’d consider diesel electric propulsion. More efficient and you are eliminating the boilers and all the steam pipework, condensers etc. Also fully welded construction, thats a 10% weight saving on the hull. A transom stern like Vanguard for extra efficiency. If feasible I’d examine aluminium for high up structures to lower the C of G and reduce weight. A teak deck is nice, but not necessary.
The other thing to keep in mind when designing something like this is 'Can I afford to risk heavy damage or full loss of one of these ships?' A ship that sits in port because you are too afraid to risk it is worse than not having it at all.
@@NoewerrATall not so much with those two. The IJN was more than willing to send them out. The issue became lack of fuel to do so. So it was more of a what is an appropriate Kamikaze mission to send them on.
Completely agree with you regarding the Turbo Electric drive system and the quad propeller layout. Differing with you on the Thunderbolt Mounts, that because I found something I like better. As Germany was invading Poland, several Polish engineers escaped to England with an improvement of the 20mm Oerlikon. It was less complex and less expensive to build with no loss in effectiveness. The British and Canadians built some. And in 1944 they built a quad mount that I believe is better than the Thunderbolt mount. Here’s a link th-cam.com/users/shortsGXNgPSXb9Vc?feature=share
I once sketched out a commissioned-in-1942 battleship for a hypothetical Pacific nation that used a lot of US technology, either under license, or bought direct, in both Springsharp and Shipbucket. The one compromise I think Ryan would disagree with is sticking with the quad 14"/50s originally intended for North Carolina (a national policy decision related to ammunition supply lines). Otherwise, I ended up with a fairly similar ship, conceptually. 28 knots (on a South Dakota plant), 44,340 tons standard, twelve 14"/50s in three turrets, twenty 5"/38s in the same King/Nimitz layout for secondaries, a 13" external belt angled at 19 degrees (again, similar hull form to North Carolina), same deck and turret armor as the Iowas, and a range of 10,000 nmi at 15 knots. The one place where it significantly varied from US practice was that, since the nation didn't have to deal with the Panama Canal, they accepted a 120 foot beam that left her about halfway between the NCs and SoDaks in length. She still worked out to be a surprisingly well-balanced ship going by immune zone theory--NAaB (which basically uses Nathan Okun's equations in a user-friendly interface) estimated an immune zone against her own guns from about 18,420 to 35,960 yards, and from 20,000 to 34,800 yards against the design opponent, Nagato. (Nagato, notably, had a *negative* immune zone against her; this could penetrate Nagato's belt out to 27,270 yards, and her deck beyond 25,800 yards.) Indeed, the only major power ships that she didn't have some immunity to at a range where she could penetrate them were the US fast battleships, Yamato, Vanguard, Nelson, Lion, Richelieu, Alsace, and Littorio.
i would say that you try out to take the bismarck for example and make it ready to use for the cold war, mostly using tech from the 1980s, but mostly from germany. you are also allowed to make minor changes to the armor, but you are also allowed to change the power plant entirely
If I'm building a modern battleship as in 2023 then this is what I am doing. 1. Keeping the length of an Iowa and maybe adding a little bit of width to aid stability. 2. Reducing the superstructure but integrating it all in to one section like a Zumwalt to aid stealth. 3. Keeping the 9 x 16inch guns in the 3 turrets. 4. As many Mk57 VLS along the sides of the boats as possible. 5. Landing pad at the stern but no hanger. 6. Diesel Electric propulsion with Sodium ion battery storage and modern steam turbine instead of gas turbine to increase range significantly. 7. Multiple CIWS Phalanx and Searam for anti drone and antimissile defence. 8. BL10 aegis and Ceafar 2 (with ceamount illuminators) phased array radar and the Saab 9LV tactical interface. 9. A hull mounted and towed array sonar. 10. Nulka decoy launches. 11. 30mm guns around the deck of the ship for piracy and anti drone requirements. 12 A modern traditional bulbous style bow instead of what the Zumwalts has.
Nope. And I'm not talking about a conventional 16" shell, this would be either a RAP round or a sabot like used in tank guns. Look at the 120 mm gun on the M1 Abrams. Much higher muzzle velocity and much more kinetic energy than the 120 mm rifle on the older tanks. AND, the Iowa's were the first, maybe only, BBs that could elevate their main guns to 45 degrees, the elevation angle that produces maximum range...@@nx014
I'd like to see you design some ships on Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts, or perhaps even do a campaign series. And since you mentioned it I'd also be interested in seeing a video on how you'd improve the Bismarck design.
I would have the guns and hull form of the iowa class with the layout and design principles of the Nelson class, all guns forward with a short heavily armored citadel. Use the weight saved (and deck space) from the all forward layout to give more weight in armor and AA
I'd like to see your take on a modern 70,000 tons battleship. Something that would be able to take a hit if it was deployed to the pacific. It would interesting to see how you would ballance shore bombardment with missile defence in a modern conflict. Do you think the navy would develop a new naval gun or try and adapt something from existing artillery systems.
I’m thinking its crew reqs would be huge and consequently the operating costs are going to be pretty extensive. Taking a hit is relative, SoDak took a hit, but was combat ineffective the entire battle. Just because you don’t sink doesn’t mean your useful to your nation state, just look at Saratoga. Lastly something that massive will require massive and highly specialized dockyard space to make them, repair them, maintain them . Saras wartime record is a perfect example, this 70k ton beast takes a torp to the side it wouldn’t be back to Pearl for temporary repairs and a quick refit in Seattle. The docks are too small. I’m guessing you’d have to go back to New York, and at 70k tons do you think it would fit through the canal? As a fun thought experiment what does the floating dry dock look like for this thing. I’m chuckling just thinking about it, it would have to be commanded by a 2 star admiral. As you can see when we look at this idea we approach it differently and that’s cool imho. My thoughts didn’t go down the path of how much cool stuff can we get for 70k displacement, it was more how can we build and maintain this beast 12k miles from home and what does the budget for that look like?
An interesting future video would be to design your perfect battleship but instead you are designing that ship for a different nation. Use the same parameters (45,000 tons, 1941 start date) as this video but perhaps you are working on a design team for the Royal Navy, or the Imperial Japanese Navy. It would be interesting to undertake this challenge while discussing the limitations of the UK or Japan for constructing this ship rather than the US.
Iowa hull form. No conning tower. Cargo/Hangar Elevator in rear for quicker resupply. 1 Fore and Aft 2-gun turrets. Willing to drop to 4 main gun barrels in exchange for highly automating the guns like the Des Moines are. Even if that requires dropping from 16 down to 14 inches. Any weight savings from there can be used to improve the torpedo defense, radars and automating more of the systems to reduce crew size.
Vis: videos to come: Although this channel is about battleships, and this vid is about the best possible designs contemporary to the New Jersey... I would also dig some vids along the same lines re: other ship classes (best potential designs of), but about contemporary cruisers destroyers, frigates etc... (maybe even CVs, and/or submarines... Anyway, cheers! (Another great vid, btw.)
Really enjoy watching your videos of Naval history, particularly of Battleships. I wish they would reactivate two or more of the Iowa Class BB's. I'd like them to serve as the Fleet Admiral's flagship and be the most forward ship in the formation in front of the Carrier, (if theres carrier flight ops then the Flagship would adjust position as needed). Our Carriers are the core of our naval power, buuut...nothing makes a presence quite like a Battleship. I served on a Guided Missile Cruiser which was the Flagship in the mid 70's shortly after the Vietnam era ended. Thanks for listening to my wish.
Id stick to 3x3 16" turrets in In ABZ layout and use that extra weight from your 4 turret design for more AA. Maybe 2 more 5" with several more 40mm twin or quad mounts. In my mind having a more powerful outer envelope of AA would be more effective than a stronger inner envelope. Late war with more kamikaze attacks stronger close range AA package could be better but I don't know the data for either
Your ideal WW1 battlecruiser. Me, put 15 inch on Derfflinger, lengthen about 30 feet, about 4 feet more beam, 2 feet drought, 4 screws for 30 knots, 14 inch belt, 6 inch deck, 12 inch armor on turrets.
Great video as always! I would be interested in your take on a modern Battleship using all the latest technologies. Propulsion, armaments, weapons and reduced staffing!
@ 11:30 , would a pair of 5 inch gun mounts forward create the necessity of adding more armor up front to help protect the magazines, thereby adding weight? It might upset the bows reaction to heavy seas with added weight like that, seeing that a good part of the bow of an Iowa class was part of an "all or nothing" armor scheme.
When you think of all the technology that was in the plant and in aircraft of the day I find it hard to believe that an automatic loading system could not have been successfully designed and deployed; higher rates of fire, fewer personnel and maybe anti aircraft capability. During the Treaty period I would have an oversize plant so that I could upgrade the armor and perhaps even the turrets in the event of war.
A couple of things that must NEVER be forgotten in a WWII ship, never mind a US one...... US - ice cream machine & Coke machine RN - storage for the grog (other navies may have their preferred alternatives)
They make NO sense, but my brain loves the idea of missile battleships. Replace the middle turrets with vertical launch tubes for either cruise or ballistic missiles (or a mixture of both). Not possible in WWII and not useful now but the idea is just fun to think about for me.
Missile battleships made sense in the 1950s when the missile magazines and reloading spaces required huge amounts of internal volume. The early missiles basically used a horizontal assembly line to move from the magazine and get prepped for running out on the launcher.
Look up "Arsenal Ship". They were considered, but like a modern battleship, the issue is concentrating too many resources in fewer ships, rather than distributing the missiles among many more Destroyers and Cruisers. That being said, I wish we made at least a few...
How about an HMS Vanguard style transom stern, also a 14.7" belt like the KGVs? I would delete the floatplanes, as a late WW2 battleship can be expected to operate with a carrier.
If you can keep the length rather than shortening it and the turbo-electric drive that means no shafts to deal with, there may be space for a hanger in the fantail like a cruiser. Big empty space outside of the citadel, not adding that much weight and helping with hydrodynamics.
Wow Ryan...love your insights and i have to say a longer video and more visuals would be no problem with me...i think you could save weight with moving to Welding vs Rivet construction....that should buy you some tons there.... you also shortened the ship so there is weight saved there and being slower you could reduce engine size...even with the new versions you suggested....so in comparision they should cancel out the added weight by needing less HP... This might be unorthodox but to save weight could you cheat a little in the torpedo protection and start it lower down on the hull...maybe a foot lower to all you to go deeper....torpedos usually dont hit as high on the blister upper-start line unless im thinking of something else... torpedos i though by this time were running slightly deeper anyway. Oh what did going shorter on the main gun caliber gain you and what did you lose?....was there a better gun being developed at the time that was 55 caliber and 16in?.... I think you bound youself to much with the Panamax design and treaty design....how about losening up this more and exceed the treaty and Panamax design but try to stay within no more than 5% over of the Montana class. Lets see a: WW2 version Vietnam or Korea version 1980s version And a 2023 Ryan's Given a Blank Sheet of Paper version where the next 2 carriers budgets are diverted to you....
Other ideas you could talk about in a related series of videos can include: 1: Regarding the US's first true armored cruiser; USS ACR-2 New York, what would have been possible back in the late 1800s and during WW1 to have made this ship matter more in history? 2: H-41 was to be part of the H-series of ships and HMS Lion in its final form would have rivaled the Nimitrz aircraft carrier in terms of size. H-41 is arguably the only member of the scrapped H-Series that could be seen as reasonable and HMS Lion wasn't always going to be as ridiculously large as that. Instead of trying to improve Bizmark and Turptiz, what in the blueprints and construction of H-41 could have been done so that Germany wasn't as overly reliant on submarines? As for HMS Lion, there's more freedom to be had there but would still be limited by what was reasonable in the late 1930s. 3: King George V-class and Nelson-class are not as famous as the Iowas. With them already complete, what kinda of upgrades could they have reasonably gotten to make them almost as good as North Carolina and South Dakota class battleships? 4: CV-7 Wasp was an infamous wannabe Ranger class Aircraft Carrier originally designed with naval treaty limitations, but kept being built that way even when those limits no longer mattered. Not being able to just turn it into an Essex classic design, what should have been done to make it still its own thing but have it be useful unlike how it played out in real history? 5: Speaking of infamous Aircraft Carriers, there's also Musashi's and Yamato's former third sister turned into a different class; Shinano. Had she survived her battle and actually saw completion, what could Japan had done to make use the full potential of this ship despite their desire situation? 6: What if there was a proper third USS Niagara warship during the 1800s? In real life, the third ship (Niagara 1898) to have that name was originally a civilian steamer, but was converted just to carry around stuff (mainly water). In this hypothetical situation, you can envision what a frigate or cruiser styled Niagara during time could be like and have it actually be optimal.
I... I still want to see what you would do if you were to build a battleship in 2023 using known tech we have today in shipping and in naval fleets, just sticking with already-declassified tech, possibly with modifications.
Video idea: You head the department of the navy of Elbonia, a small but industrious and growing naval power of the late interwar period, and the government wants you to design the next generation of battleships for their navy. Plot twist, you're a traitor. What good design decisions on paper would you recommend knowing that in practice it would give Elbonia the most dysfunctional battleships possible while still getting approved and not risk blowing your cover.
Hey Ryan you know if you make it a 4 gun 2 Barrel per turret layout you can get much smaller case-mate's and turret ring which means you'll get more depth for your torpedo protection.
I'm a battleship person, but I think my ideal design would be more along the lines of an up-gunned & up-armored Admiral Hipper class cruiser. I usually design my BB's a little south of 100,000 tons, or well north of 100,000 tons, but if I had to design my own...I'll need a week to find the information out regarding displacement, hull form, guns, etc. using today's tools.
Give me a North Carolina that just has an extra section of hull to accommodate a superfiring turret aft and a bit more horsepower to maintain speed. I love the look of NC. 16/50’s are nice if weight allows.
If we go by WW2: Basically just remove the armored conning tower and install thunderbolt mounts for anti-aircraft guns on the Iowas. Though had BB-66 Kentucky been completed; also welding in parts of the ship. If we go by late 21st century battleships: -Battlecruiser sized -Reactive armor -Gas turbine or nuclear power -Helicopter landing pad and helicopter equipment -Part or parts of the ship can open up for aquatic drones -Parts of ship can also house airborne drones -Hull form similar to DDG(X) -Stealth propellers -Anti drone Gatling guns -Laser guns -One main front gun -Smaller guided shells -Automatic loading for shells -Both explosive and hypersonic non-explosive missiles -Communications with space force technology -Better water drainage system -Modern septic system -Bunk beds -20a T-shape US electrical sockets -Room to create culture meat and another room for plant meat -Augmentation room to repair or enhance a person's body -Gaming and entertainments rooms
I think it all boils down to two main issues: by the time the Iowa class was built, it was already understood that the line of battleship development had come to an end, and that there was no longer a mission requirement-with the advent of squadron carriers and the imminent arrival of missiles-that would require and justify the expenditure needed to build battleships. In any case, as a good enthusiast, I too designed my perfect battleship: to do so I worked on my imagination, inevitably. Total abandonment of treaties and related limitations, unlimited technical and financial resources, and a science fiction mission requirement, which led me to design a real monster, completely disengaged from reality. It's a nice game.
How much splinter proofing would you use? If id delete the conning tower, id want to thicken up the armor around some of the places on the super structure, especially command and control related areas.
I wish I understood how the French JB and the Italian Romas were so close to the Iowas in speed without the excess length and 62k less horsepower than Iowa on JB, especially with the armor advantage. I think a JB with the Iowa Turret layout, secondary and light armament. would be hard to beat. I always felt there was an opportunity to mount an additional turret aft on the JBs, especially if they had the U.S. AA an secondary mountings. But what does a plumber know about ship designs?
Ryan the pentagon wants a new battle ship for 2032,capable of shore bombardment,long range reconnaissance,stealth,ship hunting and the best air and sea defence. The pentagon has leaked advanced systems onto the internet. Your mission if you accept it is to hunt down these systems and put it into a feasible proposition for the channel. Good hunting.
Very COOL 😎 thought experiment. It's a great compromise between the 9 gun Iowas & the 12 gun Montanas. It gives you more firepower that you can afford & is Panamax. SUGGESTED VIDEO: What would have made Bismarck better: - Better design - Better decisions on 1st/last cruise - Waiting for Tirpitz to sail together - More consorts - Or...just don't make it and us the resources for more subs?
I think I am willing to bet Mr Ryan S wants a modernized version of a smaller battleship like USS North Carolina! That is a very cool ship museum, by the way. EDIT: oh, does he want essentially a miniaturized 1st generation supercarrier‽
Drach has already discussed this in a number of his Drydock videos. Crudely speaking it's an al-forward design based on either three triple 16/50 guns and an absolute mountain of various AA/anti-surface secondary. I think in one of these he discussed the use of three quad 16 guns, or even a three forward plus one aft quad or triple 16 - scary or what? (just think about it 16 off 16 inch guns firing a rolling broadside at some poor unwitting ship....).
I'm thinking that coming up with a "perfect" design you start to hamstring yourself. Even if you manage to make the Jack of all Trades battleship - it's going to be outclassed in one area by someone who sacrificed in another. There just isn't ever going to be a one off perfect design. If you build the best ship you can to fit your particular style of engagement, you will almost always be better off. For the time, I think the Iowa's were about as good an overall design as we could ask for the way engagements were starting to be fought. If money / manpower were no object then sure make the last two Iowa's for the faster tasks and the Montana's for the real heavy lifting - but that's a huge chuck of resources and manpower. Hindsight being what it is, you would almost have been just as well making a few more of the Alaska's for carrier escort and shore bombardment missions - and only 2 or 3 of the Montana's for if/when you get into any major surface engagements or for really really hostile close in power projection work. Yes alone an Alaska wouldn't be a fair match for most active battleships - but 2 of them working together would probably fairly handily at least shred the superstructure and force a true BB to retreat if it came to that, however by the end of the Pacific war that kind of engagement wasn't as likely anymore anyway. It's also highly likely that if that was going to happen you would have your Iowa's or Montana's in the line anyway
yay. I think both audio channels work properly today! (although are they in sync?) The audio remains kind of strange and I use settings on my computer to "play stereo as mono" to tolerate it. This is different this week from all of the past.
Ah yes, had to get that Bismarck slight in at the end. Way to squeeze that one in there. I’ll have some cake please. Where do I email video recommendations too because I want a Bismarck cake video.
The perfect battleship is the one, in its time period, that provides the best combination of affordability, fire power, speed, maneuverability, operating expense, targeting , survivability, range, and speed of construction. One reason battleships are not in use today is there is another class of ship (aircraft carriers) which fulfill these criteria better.
I always wondered how useful secondary surface-to-surface batteries were. I kind of felt like that only smaller ships would get through the main battery, and that there would be some destroyers around to deal with those. But it sounds like they were more important than that. I'd really like to see a video on the role of those secondary guns against other ships. Usually, you only hear about the big turrets.
Not so sure about that conning tower decision although I understand the desire to save the weight. Here are my counterpoints: 1. A 15" shell from Bismarck went through Prince Of Wales' bridge. Sure, it exploded in the water on the other side after passing through, but the problem is the shock wave of the impact and turning the structure of the area it struck into lethal fragments meant everyone on the bridge was killed, other than the Captain who was injured. 2. Meanwhile, here's a quote from the CO of SoDak, taken from the damage report circulated after her battle near Guadalcanal: "Armor: - Fire control and conning tower have definitely proven their worth. Further agitation for the removal of this weight is definitely suspended. Control stations behind armor should be used more frequently. Too much stress in the past has been laid to the space restrictions at these stations. Had these stations not been utilized during the engagement, control and conn personnel would probably have been destroyed." Comparing both of those and it's pretty clear. Note, too, the reference by SoDak's CO that "further agitation for the removal of this weight is definitely suspended". Clearly the weight of the CT was being eyed as a potential saving for other purposes, but that's a pretty clear comment based on actual battle conditions and performance. Cheers
Drop the speed to 30kts, quad rudders, shift some belt armor to deck armor, add another three gun turrets, or three, four gun turrets using the 16" 45 caliber guns. Then reuse the skegs from the South Dakota class
The float plane is interesting. I wonder if organic aviation in WWII is really worth it. Maybe attaching a seaplane tender to every battleship battle group really made more sense. Free up some space for flag staff on the BB, and the tender can recover aircraft without needing to task the BB to sailing a specific course during recovery. I also once doodled a back-of-napkin battleship hull with only 5" guns. All the 5" guns. Lots of engagements weren't really at the max range of a 16" gun. Since the US had good radar, we could do night operations where we snuck up on the opposing fleet. So the idea was to make BB's that would work in "line of battle" with the DD's by having the same gun range as the smaller ships. 4x16" turrets is something like 10,000 tons. A 5" is something like 50 tons. So you'd have a mass budget for something absurd like 400x 5" barrels if you could find the room for them. Which would have the comical result of firing 5" shells as fast as a modern CIWS shoots 20mm.
USS Texas and New York are finished designs, time for the next generation of what will be called Standards. You have hindsight in mind. What changes/doen't change come to USS Nevada and Oklahoma?
My ultimate battleship if it was built, although it is a World of Warships design, it is the 1949 HMS Conquerer with four twin 18 inch guns, but I would change the twin 5.25 inch guns for MK6 twin 4.5 inch guns. With heavy cruisers I would have a stretched Des Moines hull with a fourth triple eight inch gun turret.
Perhaps to make Ryan's design feasible, you sacrifice some of the torpedo armor, since a Battleship will have (Submarine) Destroyers accompanying it anyways.
I wonder what a 2023 era battleship would be like. The shells would be autoloaded, and could possibly use liquid propellants, drastically reducing the crew requirements. Everything would have smart fuzes, of course. Sabot rounds might be an interesting addition for extended range. I'd explore electric reactive armor. (Basically, voids with a huge capacitor attached to use discharge to deflect incoming plasma from shaped charges) Perhaps the ultimate is a light weight ship, the same size as the New Jersey, with far less actual steel plate, but more distributed power generation and drive, such that it could survive hits and keep on going long enough to get back to port. Filling void spaces with low density foam beads could keep them from filling with water, yet allow removal for maintenance, etc. Gas turbine / electric drive seems reasonable as a starting point, nuclear power would be nice to have, but could it take a hit without taking out the crew?... unlikely. Well... those are my thoughts... a 10,000 ton ship with far less armor, but 16" modern guns.
Great video. Later on please consider a video about the perfect battleship without any limitations, using modern tech. Its purely hypotetical but still whould be awsome
Good video, thank you Ryan. One query - what about the stern? The pretty rounded stern of New Jersey or the, I believe, hydro-dynamically more efficient transom of HMS Vanguard?
1. Shortening the hull by 100 feet, while adding one 16" turret and two 5" centerline mounts, and removing one stack, doesn't seem feasible. Plus my understanding is that turbo-electric drives take up more length. On the other hand, most of the lost 100 feet is the skinny bow where you can't put 16" turrets anyway. The second aft 16" turret is unnecessary. 2. If you're going to use quad 20mm guns or replace the 40mm with 3", you should also replace the 5"/38 with the 5"/54 which were actually used on the Midways. I don't know if twin 5"/54 were available. Having two centerline 5" mounts is a good idea, if possible. Another "is possible" is two more 5" directors to match the centerline mounts. Stick with the 16"/50 to get the super heavy AP shells and to outrange everybody else. 3. I would not worry about the Panama Canal. The Midways didn't. 4. The Japanese had twin rudders about 100 feet apart fore and aft as better insurance against torpedo hits. I don't remember now if there were two pairs, or just one, but I would have two pairs. Don't need to risk a Bismarck loss. 5. Yes, dump the conning tower. I can't imagine anyone inside surviving a direct hit even without penetration. 6. Keep the speed. The faster ship controls the range, and with gun battles, controlling the immune zone distance is vital. Yes, the fine bow is set and more susceptible to damage, but speed is precious. Me, personally, would take the Iowas as is, only moving two 5" mounts to the centerline with two new directors, and otherwise keep the design. If carriers are steaming around at 33 knots, battleships which are 3-5 knots slower can't do their job.
I like the museum in the town I was born in it has old 37 mm cannons but has the history of the tidal wave that struck in 1964 from the Alaskan earthquake I was 7years old and remember it to this day
And if we found 4 of your BBs sitting in a reserve fleet they would be great to be updated. Turbo-electric is great. Swap out the boilers for gas-turbine generators. several MK 57 VLS cells and of course a SPY-6 radar. Make the 16-inch guns into autoloaders. I know they don't exist yet but hey this is the 21st century. For ammo, precision-guided 155mm with sabots on another sabot round for hitting targets at long rangeReplace the 5 /38s with Mk 41 Mod 4s in single mounts and all 20mm mounts with Phalanx and Mk-38 systems. Replace the 40mm mounts with RAMs. Add a helipad and if possible a hanger. So you would have plenty of firepower for supporting landing operations or taking out shore targets. JSM and Tomahawks for long-range strikes, NSM and SM-6 for anti-ship. SM-2, SM-6, and ESSM for air defense plus the Mk-41s, RAM. Phalanx, and MK-38s. And SM-3s and maybe PAC-3s for missile defense. PAC-3s have been test fired from Mk-41s so maybe. Your choice of turbo-electric drive really makes updating easy You could also replace the electric drive motors with more modern motors. To save money use LM2500s from all the old Perry and Ticonderoga class ships retiring. Too bad we don't have those hulls sitting around in a reserve fleet somewhere :)
I've noticed my design tendencies favor speed, firepower, and survivability (IE- redundancies and compartmentalization) above all else and at the expense of armor protection. As such: Missouri-class BB (or perhaps a rather heavy BC? BCL?) Displacement: 150kt Speed: Not less than 33 knots Propulsion: Turboelectric (or perhaps diesel-electric?) Main Battery: 4x4 406mm L/50 Secondary Battery: 12x2 127mm L/38 (5x per side, 1x fore, 1x aft) Tertiary Battery: IDK... as many 76mm L/50 Mk. 33 Mod. 13 enclosed twin mounts as you can fit Armor: I tend to favor an all-round even armor scheme as much as possible while following the all or nothing scheme. Ideally minimum armor would protect against at least DD guns (127mm), if not light cruiser guns (152mm) - if only in depth. Heavy cruiser guns (203mm) might be an ask, but the emphasis on shear redundancy and compartmentalization ought to ensure enough survivability to withstand a heavy cruiser. Other: Well, for one, you'd be ditching the ability to transit the Panama Canal. For the other, the vessel would have a heavy emphasis on automation and full autoloaded guns on ever level. As well as generally high technology all round. If displacement allows, might even consider fitting a hydrophone system to try to give early warning against torpedoes, but this is by no means a hard and fast requirement. A full 5 layer torpedo system and triple bottom are a must to mean the goal of increased survivability. Ideally, 6 such ships would be built. 3 on each coast. Rotating such that 1 is deployed at any given time, 1 is training, and 1 is in port for maintenance.
I was just thinking about that myself. If you came up with larger than 16" guns how heavy would the projectile weigh and how much powder would you have to pack behind it.
If you’re slipping the timeline to allow for 3 inch anti-aircraft guns, would you replace the ten 5 inch secondary with a few number of 8 inch autoloaders of the Des Moines?
You'll still need 200k+ shp to get a shorter 45k ton ship up to 30kts. Lexington required 16 boilers to make 180k shp. Even with a more modern turbo electric drive, space will be tight with a 24ft deep tds. I get trading length and a conning tower for an extra turret. But you also want another 1.5" of belt armor and the turbo electric drive. I see your boat weighing in a 50k tons.
One always hear that the 5-ich gun was the best secondary gun of WW2 - but were there ever a direct comparison with other navies secondary guns? The British had their 5.25-inch gun, and the Japanese, German, French and Italian battleships went for a mix of 6-inch anti-ship and lighter AA secondaries. One might think that the 5-inch was a bit on the big side for dealing with the typical single-engined attack planes, even after the proximity fuze - and a bit on the light side for dealing with modern, heavy destroyers. From what I've read it seems like the 40mm Bofors and 20mm Oerlikon guns destroyed many more enemy planes than their bigger companion. Iowa: 20 x 5-inch KGV: 16 x 5.25-inch Yamato: 6 x 6.1-inch + 24 x 5-inch (1945) Bismarck: 12 x 6-inch + 16 x 4.1-inch Richelieu: 9 x 6-inch + 12 x 3.9-inch Littorio: 12 x 6-inch + 4 x 4.7-inch + 12 x 3.5-inch
Ryan, Design a class of four battleships (or heavy cruisers) for 2030 and detail their expected uses i.e. shore bombardment, sea superiority/area denial, commercial lane overwatch, cruise missile deployment, fleet protection, drone deployment, US force projection, etc. This may be out of your expertise and might require a good deal of research but I'd love to see what you come up with as a battleship guy (expert ?). Like tanks, everyone says the larger warships are obsolete but if you have them you'll find a use for them and if designed and used properly they could still be a decisive weapon.
The real test is whether or not it can be reactivated in a 2 minute montage to fight the aliens.
anything can be done in a 2 minute montage. That's what montages are for 8)
Don't forget the soundtrack: Thunderstruck.
Even though I know it's total bullstuff, I still love it.
As a former engineer my first ship being the USS Kitty hawk. Being she was a steamship it takes like 24 hours to get enough steam built up etc... Still love that scene though.
Plus the Iowa Class Battleships can't have their boilers kids without major repair to the sea chest openings.
@@FrmrVolFire just send a WHOLE LOT of guys down to cut random holes in the hull until water gets to the boilers 8D
I would watch a 10 hour perfect battleship video. That sounds really interesting
In all honesty I certainly wouldn't put all the lifeboats on the stern where the seaplanes are. If they're cut off from getting to those lifeboats in case of severe battle damage. No one's be able to get off safely.
@@dutchman7216 It's important to note that they're not necessarily life boats. A ships boats are typically for ancilliary duties like ferrying personnel in port, but can double as a means of evacuation if you have sufficient time to prepare them. You can still distribute life rafts around the vessel, either stowed compactly or lashed out of the way, as seen on sides of gun turrets or superstructure or many warships of the period.
Drachnifel would do that video!
"I would watch a 10 hour perfect battleship video."
How about watching 10 hours of Ryan playing games of Battleship against boy scouts?
He's gonna hate it but eventually Ryan WILL have to say "You sank my battleship!"
That video would never be made.
And to think ww2 ship's were engineered without computers. Just smart men with slide rules and pencils. Incredible.
Don’t forget about Apollo 11 as well. They went to the moon & back with lees computing power than is in a phone today.
I started engineering in the slide rule era and a lot can be done with slide rules. However I think some form of CAD would be beneficial. One of the recent videos was about what all of the crew did in a turret. Now think about all of the various bits they had to design and build, even the mechanism for passing powder bags through the bulkheads was complicated- doors, handles, levers, bells, and just for one small function. How many people had to spend time figuring all of this out and then creating drawings to show someone how to build it. I have trouble grasping the complexity of the wiring to connect all of the various systems throughout the ship, again just thinking about connecting the turrets to the fire control systems, power systems, communication systems.
@@billj5645 I don't think that they were dissing on computerized design or the use of computer tools, just admiring the capability of the engineers who were able to do that without them.
Just the fact that there were 100s of handmade drawings for the ship is pretty amazing. I started school with Autocad release 10. We still had to take a pencil and paper mechanical drawing course. It would take days for one part, and then you had to make a blueprint from it.
People were just better back then….
WWII-era, it's the Montanas all the way. I'm also a sucker for turbo-electric, so the similarly unbuilt 1920s South Dakotas are an absolute favorite.
So............... he wants the Montana's firepower (4x triple 16" 50 cal turrets) on a platform size in length halfway between a Sth Dakota and Iowa...........and with turbo electric.
Is that doable within the 45,000 tonnes???
@@DJP-ph7yj Don't worry about the tonnage, if there's a need for it it will be built.
I think it would be fun to have a game where you design a battleship with the latest electronics and any conceivable weapon systems and the best armor, then send it out to do battle against someone else's dream ship.
@@gwspangler9231 ultimate admiral dreadnoughts
@@ronsee6458 thanks
I can appreciate how Ryan stayed realistic. I would go with a cloaking device, shields, and laser-cannons.
Cloaking devices are only available through the Top Secret British-Romulan mutual assistance treaty.
Thunderbolt mounts are VASTLY underrated. IMHO, the Mark 15 quad 20mm/70 Mk4 Mod4 with outboard dual .50-cals just bellows "We deal in lead, friend." The modern anti-piracy uses are even more thought inspiring.
You could make a nasty modern version of the Thunderbolt mount with four 25mm Bushmaster chainguns easily and cheaply. And of course it would be rigged for remote operation.
@@zoopercoolguy Oooh, quad bushmasters with quad AN/M3Ms and selectable firing circuits... just .50, just 25mm, lead storm.
😅😂 that's it unleash havoc mayhem and ungodly torrents of lead and death ☠️💀☠️💀 good ol'Yankee FIREPOWER
That WoWS CV reference was just... *chefs kiss
I'd like to see Ryan say how he would design a new battleship in 2023 (unless you've already done one like that & I missed it).
Don't know but there's only one choice: the Himalaya class,, I know the mountain is in Asia but the location of the mountain isn't important,, what's important is making a battleship SO big,, it COULD cover the Atlantic and Indian oceans FROM the Pacific... Made about 2200 ft long and about 350 ft beam with a deep draft of about 60 feet once these things are loaded,, they'd have to be supplied and serviced from huge breakwater docks that haven't even been invented yet... Obviously most of the armament would be missiles, with huge intercontinental ballistic missiles being the specialty of course,, and screw those stupid rail guns,, 16" would be fine but use shells designed with "assist ",, a little bit longer shell that isn't launched with as much power but has a device that would be pretty much the same as a jet or whatever to travel a lot farther than a conventionally launched shell.. but battleships are obsolete anyhow so a behemoth displacing about 800,000 tons might be seen as excessive lol but,, would be weird to watch it steam around Cape Horn, even in a massive gale the waves wouldn't even move it... And the STUPIDEST thing one could possibly do would be to call it unsinkable because then it would of course sink...
There isn’t any need for a modern battleship. What we really need is a 48 VLS cell frigate made cheap enough that we can build 200 of them.
@@danielsummey4144 Depends, someting like the Kirov or Slava classes could be similar enough to be called a battleship.
Maybe there is no need in the sea-control USN but sea-denial force could use them
I don't think they'll build a new battleship any time soon.
Heck, I think aircraft carriers will eventually be downsized if they go forward with unmanned drones and replace half or more the manned aircraft. There won't be a reason for supercarriers anymore if they shrink both the size of airwings AND the aircraft themselves!
They might end up building American carriers smaller than Midway-class in the end. I don't think the new carriers would get much smaller than Essex-class; probably around the same size as the current-day amphibious assault ships (which everybody knows are carriers! They don't look much different from the Essex-class, either.)
Things change.
The battleship lost its role and purpose, and they'll probably reformat the aircraft carrier concept after drones become a thing.
@@AvengerII Oh, I know they'll likely never build another battleship. I just want to know how Ryan would design one if they did.
Favorite for me battleship? Warspite! Just a crazy history, damage, Jutland, Norwegian campaign, Italy, longest known hit, at Nomandy. Fought all the way to the scrap yard. It is tragic that she was not save for a museum.
Her and USS Enterprise, historical tragedies both of them.
Warspite isn't really a fair comparison. The Fey worked their magic upon her so that for as long as Britain and need of her, she could not sink.
I guess Battleships are rated similarly to Tanks. Balancing firepower, armor, & mobility. Can’t have all three be the best possible.
That’s basically what it comes down to for all armor vehicles
You _could_ get all three to be the best possible on paper; but the resulting ships would be an unholy abomination, far too large to actually build.
I think that if the MONTANA class, armed with 12 16 inch/50 caliber main guns, 12 5 inch/38 caliber secondaries, 13 inch exterior belt armor, turbo-electric drive, 30-32 knots, 4 shafts, Ryan's bulge-void protection, 6 inch main deck, 3 inch second deck armor, and one funnel would have been the ultimate battleship. The 16 inch armed "super-Bismarck's" proposed by Germany would have been a close second.
The Montana's were going to have 5/54 guns.
The german h designs, specifically h-44 got up to 20 inches, and the super yamatos, also known as project a-150 got to 20 inches too.
I think the obvious next "my perfect battleship" video should be a modern-day interpretation of a battleship. Something built right now, in response to other countries, supposedly building battleships.
Agreed; that's also a far more interesting topic IMO.
Something to take on the Kirov's ?
But it cannot be an SSN?
Missile battleships would be pretty cool. Something with two turrets for shore bombardment and the aft is dedicated to missile launching systems for SAM and SSM missiles. Armor means it can take a missile hit and keep chugging
I'm almost positive he did that before but I totally agree.
Even if a perfect battleship was possible for that specific era, there will eventually be something that makes it no longer to keep labeling that past design as such.
Agreed, a perfect example being the Yamamoto class. It was probably the best ship for line sight battle ship vs battle ship engagements, but it was made to be basically outdated due to both aircraft carriers being a thing & its lack of radar guided weaponry
@@dogloversrule8476 Not so sure. The Yamatos actually had a number of issues with their design. Also, the design philosophy was one created from a point of weakness (the Japanese knew they could never build, let alone man, enough battleships to counter America or the UK or other major powers.) I'd say Warspite or the Iowas are a better design and have better design philosophies than the Yamatos.
Of course, this is in part what Ryan meant when he said you had to define perfect.
I’d consider diesel electric propulsion. More efficient and you are eliminating the boilers and all the steam pipework, condensers etc. Also fully welded construction, thats a 10% weight saving on the hull. A transom stern like Vanguard for extra efficiency. If feasible I’d examine aluminium for high up structures to lower the C of G and reduce weight. A teak deck is nice, but not necessary.
The other thing to keep in mind when designing something like this is 'Can I afford to risk heavy damage or full loss of one of these ships?'
A ship that sits in port because you are too afraid to risk it is worse than not having it at all.
Kind of like what ended up happening to Yamato and Musashi?
@@NoewerrATall not so much with those two. The IJN was more than willing to send them out. The issue became lack of fuel to do so. So it was more of a what is an appropriate Kamikaze mission to send them on.
What makes a battleship great depends upon the main tasks set for the ship.
Completely agree with you regarding the Turbo Electric drive system and the quad propeller layout. Differing with you on the Thunderbolt Mounts, that because I found something I like better. As Germany was invading Poland, several Polish engineers escaped to England with an improvement of the 20mm Oerlikon. It was less complex and less expensive to build with no loss in effectiveness. The British and Canadians built some. And in 1944 they built a quad mount that I believe is better than the Thunderbolt mount. Here’s a link th-cam.com/users/shortsGXNgPSXb9Vc?feature=share
I'd like to know more about Ryan's ideal weapon placements/layout on the ship (excluding the 16 inch guns).
I once sketched out a commissioned-in-1942 battleship for a hypothetical Pacific nation that used a lot of US technology, either under license, or bought direct, in both Springsharp and Shipbucket. The one compromise I think Ryan would disagree with is sticking with the quad 14"/50s originally intended for North Carolina (a national policy decision related to ammunition supply lines). Otherwise, I ended up with a fairly similar ship, conceptually. 28 knots (on a South Dakota plant), 44,340 tons standard, twelve 14"/50s in three turrets, twenty 5"/38s in the same King/Nimitz layout for secondaries, a 13" external belt angled at 19 degrees (again, similar hull form to North Carolina), same deck and turret armor as the Iowas, and a range of 10,000 nmi at 15 knots. The one place where it significantly varied from US practice was that, since the nation didn't have to deal with the Panama Canal, they accepted a 120 foot beam that left her about halfway between the NCs and SoDaks in length.
She still worked out to be a surprisingly well-balanced ship going by immune zone theory--NAaB (which basically uses Nathan Okun's equations in a user-friendly interface) estimated an immune zone against her own guns from about 18,420 to 35,960 yards, and from 20,000 to 34,800 yards against the design opponent, Nagato. (Nagato, notably, had a *negative* immune zone against her; this could penetrate Nagato's belt out to 27,270 yards, and her deck beyond 25,800 yards.) Indeed, the only major power ships that she didn't have some immunity to at a range where she could penetrate them were the US fast battleships, Yamato, Vanguard, Nelson, Lion, Richelieu, Alsace, and Littorio.
i would say that you try out to take the bismarck for example and make it ready to use for the cold war, mostly using tech from the 1980s, but mostly from germany. you are also allowed to make minor changes to the armor, but you are also allowed to change the power plant entirely
Complex constructions are a series of compromises layered atop other compromises. Perfection is far beyond reach and there is beauty in that.
If I'm building a modern battleship as in 2023 then this is what I am doing. 1. Keeping the length of an Iowa and maybe adding a little bit of width to aid stability. 2. Reducing the superstructure but integrating it all in to one section like a Zumwalt to aid stealth. 3. Keeping the 9 x 16inch guns in the 3 turrets. 4. As many Mk57 VLS along the sides of the boats as possible. 5. Landing pad at the stern but no hanger. 6. Diesel Electric propulsion with Sodium ion battery storage and modern steam turbine instead of gas turbine to increase range significantly. 7. Multiple CIWS Phalanx and Searam for anti drone and antimissile defence. 8. BL10 aegis and Ceafar 2 (with ceamount illuminators) phased array radar and the Saab 9LV tactical interface. 9. A hull mounted and towed array sonar. 10. Nulka decoy launches. 11. 30mm guns around the deck of the ship for piracy and anti drone requirements. 12 A modern traditional bulbous style bow instead of what the Zumwalts has.
There was a proposal in the 70's to make a 16/50 smoothbore that with a RAP round it could theoretically reach orbit.
A shell Smoothbore gun barrel will travel shorter distance
Nope. And I'm not talking about a conventional 16" shell, this would be either a RAP round or a sabot like used in tank guns. Look at the 120 mm gun on the M1 Abrams. Much higher muzzle velocity and much more kinetic energy than the 120 mm rifle on the older tanks. AND, the Iowa's were the first, maybe only, BBs that could elevate their main guns to 45 degrees, the elevation angle that produces maximum range...@@nx014
I'd like to see you design some ships on Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts, or perhaps even do a campaign series. And since you mentioned it I'd also be interested in seeing a video on how you'd improve the Bismarck design.
Just got my copy of Burt's "British Battleships 1919-1945" (thanks Drach for the recommendation) so another battleship design item is perfectly timed.
I would have the guns and hull form of the iowa class with the layout and design principles of the Nelson class, all guns forward with a short heavily armored citadel. Use the weight saved (and deck space) from the all forward layout to give more weight in armor and AA
I'd like to see your take on a modern 70,000 tons battleship. Something that would be able to take a hit if it was deployed to the pacific. It would interesting to see how you would ballance shore bombardment with missile defence in a modern conflict. Do you think the navy would develop a new naval gun or try and adapt something from existing artillery systems.
I’m thinking its crew reqs would be huge and consequently the operating costs are going to be pretty extensive.
Taking a hit is relative, SoDak took a hit, but was combat ineffective the entire battle. Just because you don’t sink doesn’t mean your useful to your nation state, just look at Saratoga.
Lastly something that massive will require massive and highly specialized dockyard space to make them, repair them, maintain them . Saras wartime record is a perfect example, this 70k ton beast takes a torp to the side it wouldn’t be back to Pearl for temporary repairs and a quick refit in Seattle. The docks are too small. I’m guessing you’d have to go back to New York, and at 70k tons do you think it would fit through the canal?
As a fun thought experiment what does the floating dry dock look like for this thing. I’m chuckling just thinking about it, it would have to be commanded by a 2 star admiral.
As you can see when we look at this idea we approach it differently and that’s cool imho. My thoughts didn’t go down the path of how much cool stuff can we get for 70k displacement, it was more how can we build and maintain this beast 12k miles from home and what does the budget for that look like?
An interesting future video would be to design your perfect battleship but instead you are designing that ship for a different nation. Use the same parameters (45,000 tons, 1941 start date) as this video but perhaps you are working on a design team for the Royal Navy, or the Imperial Japanese Navy. It would be interesting to undertake this challenge while discussing the limitations of the UK or Japan for constructing this ship rather than the US.
> Turbo-electric with enhanced subdivision
You had my curiosity, now you have my attention!
Iowa hull form. No conning tower. Cargo/Hangar Elevator in rear for quicker resupply. 1 Fore and Aft 2-gun turrets. Willing to drop to 4 main gun barrels in exchange for highly automating the guns like the Des Moines are. Even if that requires dropping from 16 down to 14 inches.
Any weight savings from there can be used to improve the torpedo defense, radars and automating more of the systems to reduce crew size.
Vis: videos to come:
Although this channel is about battleships, and this vid is about the best possible designs contemporary to the New Jersey... I would also dig some vids along the same lines re: other ship classes (best potential designs of), but about contemporary cruisers destroyers, frigates etc... (maybe even CVs, and/or submarines...
Anyway, cheers! (Another great vid, btw.)
Really enjoy watching your videos of Naval history, particularly of Battleships. I wish they would reactivate two or more of the Iowa Class BB's. I'd like them to serve as the Fleet Admiral's flagship and be the most forward ship in the formation in front of the Carrier, (if theres carrier flight ops then the Flagship would adjust position as needed). Our Carriers are the core of our naval power,
buuut...nothing makes a presence quite like a Battleship.
I served on a Guided Missile Cruiser which was the Flagship in the mid 70's shortly after the Vietnam era ended. Thanks for listening to my wish.
Id stick to 3x3 16" turrets in In ABZ layout and use that extra weight from your 4 turret design for more AA. Maybe 2 more 5" with several more 40mm twin or quad mounts. In my mind having a more powerful outer envelope of AA would be more effective than a stronger inner envelope. Late war with more kamikaze attacks stronger close range AA package could be better but I don't know the data for either
Your ideal WW1 battlecruiser. Me, put 15 inch on Derfflinger, lengthen about 30 feet, about 4 feet more beam, 2 feet drought, 4 screws for 30 knots, 14 inch belt, 6 inch deck, 12 inch armor on turrets.
Great archival footage from the air.
Great video as always! I would be interested in your take on a modern Battleship using all the latest technologies. Propulsion, armaments, weapons and reduced staffing!
@ 11:30 , would a pair of 5 inch gun mounts forward create the necessity of adding more armor up front to help protect the magazines, thereby adding weight? It might upset the bows reaction to heavy seas with added weight like that, seeing that a good part of the bow of an Iowa class was part of an "all or nothing" armor scheme.
When you think of all the technology that was in the plant and in aircraft of the day I find it hard to believe that an automatic loading system could not have been successfully designed and deployed; higher rates of fire, fewer personnel and maybe anti aircraft capability. During the Treaty period I would have an oversize plant so that I could upgrade the armor and perhaps even the turrets in the event of war.
Autoloading was solved for 8 inch guns. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Des_Moines-class_cruiser
Sounds like someone needs to play Ultimate Admiral : Dreadnoughts.
A couple of things that must NEVER be forgotten in a WWII ship, never mind a US one......
US - ice cream machine & Coke machine
RN - storage for the grog
(other navies may have their preferred alternatives)
They make NO sense, but my brain loves the idea of missile battleships. Replace the middle turrets with vertical launch tubes for either cruise or ballistic missiles (or a mixture of both). Not possible in WWII and not useful now but the idea is just fun to think about for me.
Missile battleships made sense in the 1950s when the missile magazines and reloading spaces required huge amounts of internal volume. The early missiles basically used a horizontal assembly line to move from the magazine and get prepped for running out on the launcher.
Look up "Arsenal Ship". They were considered, but like a modern battleship, the issue is concentrating too many resources in fewer ships, rather than distributing the missiles among many more Destroyers and Cruisers.
That being said, I wish we made at least a few...
@@FeldMonster I am aware of arsenal ships. They aren't quite the same as what I want but are a great example of why what I want doesn't make sense 8)
Can you please do a video on what your modern battleship is? Also what your modern destroyer & cruiser would be?
As someone who has been playing a lot less of world of warships because of the CVs...I love that comment. Also love the video!
Ryan is angling to be XO on the new Space Battleship New Jersey (New Yamato Class) after it gets built!
How about an HMS Vanguard style transom stern, also a 14.7" belt like the KGVs? I would delete the floatplanes, as a late WW2 battleship can be expected to operate with a carrier.
If you can keep the length rather than shortening it and the turbo-electric drive that means no shafts to deal with, there may be space for a hanger in the fantail like a cruiser. Big empty space outside of the citadel, not adding that much weight and helping with hydrodynamics.
Wow Ryan...love your insights and i have to say a longer video and more visuals would be no problem with me...i think you could save weight with moving to Welding vs Rivet construction....that should buy you some tons there.... you also shortened the ship so there is weight saved there and being slower you could reduce engine size...even with the new versions you suggested....so in comparision they should cancel out the added weight by needing less HP...
This might be unorthodox but to save weight could you cheat a little in the torpedo protection and start it lower down on the hull...maybe a foot lower to all you to go deeper....torpedos usually dont hit as high on the blister upper-start line unless im thinking of something else... torpedos i though by this time were running slightly deeper anyway.
Oh what did going shorter on the main gun caliber gain you and what did you lose?....was there a better gun being developed at the time that was 55 caliber and 16in?....
I think you bound youself to much with the Panamax design and treaty design....how about losening up this more and exceed the treaty and Panamax design but try to stay within no more than 5% over of the Montana class.
Lets see a:
WW2 version
Vietnam or Korea version
1980s version
And a 2023 Ryan's Given a Blank Sheet of Paper version where the next 2 carriers budgets are diverted to you....
Other ideas you could talk about in a related series of videos can include:
1: Regarding the US's first true armored cruiser; USS ACR-2 New York, what would have been possible back in the late 1800s and during WW1 to have made this ship matter more in history?
2: H-41 was to be part of the H-series of ships and HMS Lion in its final form would have rivaled the Nimitrz aircraft carrier in terms of size. H-41 is arguably the only member of the scrapped H-Series that could be seen as reasonable and HMS Lion wasn't always going to be as ridiculously large as that. Instead of trying to improve Bizmark and Turptiz, what in the blueprints and construction of H-41 could have been done so that Germany wasn't as overly reliant on submarines? As for HMS Lion, there's more freedom to be had there but would still be limited by what was reasonable in the late 1930s.
3: King George V-class and Nelson-class are not as famous as the Iowas. With them already complete, what kinda of upgrades could they have reasonably gotten to make them almost as good as North Carolina and South Dakota class battleships?
4: CV-7 Wasp was an infamous wannabe Ranger class Aircraft Carrier originally designed with naval treaty limitations, but kept being built that way even when those limits no longer mattered. Not being able to just turn it into an Essex classic design, what should have been done to make it still its own thing but have it be useful unlike how it played out in real history?
5: Speaking of infamous Aircraft Carriers, there's also Musashi's and Yamato's former third sister turned into a different class; Shinano. Had she survived her battle and actually saw completion, what could Japan had done to make use the full potential of this ship despite their desire situation?
6: What if there was a proper third USS Niagara warship during the 1800s? In real life, the third ship (Niagara 1898) to have that name was originally a civilian steamer, but was converted just to carry around stuff (mainly water). In this hypothetical situation, you can envision what a frigate or cruiser styled Niagara during time could be like and have it actually be optimal.
I... I still want to see what you would do if you were to build a battleship in 2023 using known tech we have today in shipping and in naval fleets, just sticking with already-declassified tech, possibly with modifications.
Video idea:
You head the department of the navy of Elbonia, a small but industrious and growing naval power of the late interwar period, and the government wants you to design the next generation of battleships for their navy. Plot twist, you're a traitor.
What good design decisions on paper would you recommend knowing that in practice it would give Elbonia the most dysfunctional battleships possible while still getting approved and not risk blowing your cover.
Hey Ryan you know if you make it a 4 gun 2 Barrel per turret layout you can get much smaller case-mate's and turret ring which means you'll get more depth for your torpedo protection.
You could but he specifically wanted more firepower, I feel like the 4 turret 3 barrel config is non-negotiable
I'm a battleship person, but I think my ideal design would be more along the lines of an up-gunned & up-armored Admiral Hipper class cruiser. I usually design my BB's a little south of 100,000 tons, or well north of 100,000 tons, but if I had to design my own...I'll need a week to find the information out regarding displacement, hull form, guns, etc. using today's tools.
Give me a North Carolina that just has an extra section of hull to accommodate a superfiring turret aft and a bit more horsepower to maintain speed. I love the look of NC. 16/50’s are nice if weight allows.
If we go by WW2:
Basically just remove the armored conning tower and install thunderbolt mounts for anti-aircraft guns on the Iowas. Though had BB-66 Kentucky been completed; also welding in parts of the ship.
If we go by late 21st century battleships:
-Battlecruiser sized
-Reactive armor
-Gas turbine or nuclear power
-Helicopter landing pad and helicopter equipment
-Part or parts of the ship can open up for aquatic drones
-Parts of ship can also house airborne drones
-Hull form similar to DDG(X)
-Stealth propellers
-Anti drone Gatling guns
-Laser guns
-One main front gun
-Smaller guided shells
-Automatic loading for shells
-Both explosive and hypersonic non-explosive missiles
-Communications with space force technology
-Better water drainage system
-Modern septic system
-Bunk beds
-20a T-shape US electrical sockets
-Room to create culture meat and another room for plant meat
-Augmentation room to repair or enhance a person's body
-Gaming and entertainments rooms
I think it all boils down to two main issues: by the time the Iowa class was built, it was already understood that the line of battleship development had come to an end, and that there was no longer a mission requirement-with the advent of squadron carriers and the imminent arrival of missiles-that would require and justify the expenditure needed to build battleships. In any case, as a good enthusiast, I too designed my perfect battleship: to do so I worked on my imagination, inevitably. Total abandonment of treaties and related limitations, unlimited technical and financial resources, and a science fiction mission requirement, which led me to design a real monster, completely disengaged from reality. It's a nice game.
Yes the states-class ships are terrific, but my favourite is HMS Warspite. She was a durable old warrior that seemed indestructible.
How much splinter proofing would you use? If id delete the conning tower, id want to thicken up the armor around some of the places on the super structure, especially command and control related areas.
I wish I understood how the French JB and the Italian Romas were so close to the Iowas in speed without the excess length and 62k less horsepower than Iowa on JB, especially with the armor advantage. I think a JB with the Iowa Turret layout, secondary and light armament. would be hard to beat. I always felt there was an opportunity to mount an additional turret aft on the JBs, especially if they had the U.S. AA an secondary mountings. But what does a plumber know about ship designs?
I asked this question at the 2022 meet and greet
Ryan the pentagon wants a new battle ship for 2032,capable of shore bombardment,long range reconnaissance,stealth,ship hunting and the best air and sea defence. The pentagon has leaked advanced systems onto the internet. Your mission if you accept it is to hunt down these systems and put it into a feasible proposition for the channel. Good hunting.
Gotta love that even Ryan knows how broken CV Aircraft are in Warships.
Gotta pray AA will be a thing in the future!
The compromises are a really good point
Very COOL 😎 thought experiment. It's a great compromise between the 9 gun Iowas & the 12 gun Montanas. It gives you more firepower that you can afford & is Panamax.
SUGGESTED VIDEO: What would have made Bismarck better:
- Better design
- Better decisions on 1st/last cruise
- Waiting for Tirpitz to sail together
- More consorts
- Or...just don't make it and us the resources for more subs?
I think I am willing to bet Mr Ryan S wants a modernized version of a smaller battleship like USS North Carolina! That is a very cool ship museum, by the way. EDIT: oh, does he want essentially a miniaturized 1st generation supercarrier‽
Guess we need to get Drach to do one using British tech.
Then build them in Ultimate Admiral Dreadnaughts and run 1v1s lol
Drach has already discussed this in a number of his Drydock videos. Crudely speaking it's an al-forward design based on either three triple 16/50 guns and an absolute mountain of various AA/anti-surface secondary. I think in one of these he discussed the use of three quad 16 guns, or even a three forward plus one aft quad or triple 16 - scary or what? (just think about it 16 off 16 inch guns firing a rolling broadside at some poor unwitting ship....).
I'm thinking that coming up with a "perfect" design you start to hamstring yourself. Even if you manage to make the Jack of all Trades battleship - it's going to be outclassed in one area by someone who sacrificed in another. There just isn't ever going to be a one off perfect design.
If you build the best ship you can to fit your particular style of engagement, you will almost always be better off. For the time, I think the Iowa's were about as good an overall design as we could ask for the way engagements were starting to be fought. If money / manpower were no object then sure make the last two Iowa's for the faster tasks and the Montana's for the real heavy lifting - but that's a huge chuck of resources and manpower.
Hindsight being what it is, you would almost have been just as well making a few more of the Alaska's for carrier escort and shore bombardment missions - and only 2 or 3 of the Montana's for if/when you get into any major surface engagements or for really really hostile close in power projection work. Yes alone an Alaska wouldn't be a fair match for most active battleships - but 2 of them working together would probably fairly handily at least shred the superstructure and force a true BB to retreat if it came to that, however by the end of the Pacific war that kind of engagement wasn't as likely anymore anyway. It's also highly likely that if that was going to happen you would have your Iowa's or Montana's in the line anyway
yay. I think both audio channels work properly today! (although are they in sync?) The audio remains kind of strange and I use settings on my computer to "play stereo as mono" to tolerate it. This is different this week from all of the past.
Ah yes, had to get that Bismarck slight in at the end. Way to squeeze that one in there.
I’ll have some cake please. Where do I email video recommendations too because I want a Bismarck cake video.
Would love to hear about your design for an 80's and 90's battleship!
The perfect battleship is the one, in its time period, that provides the best combination of affordability, fire power, speed, maneuverability, operating expense, targeting , survivability, range, and speed of construction. One reason battleships are not in use today is there is another class of ship (aircraft carriers) which fulfill these criteria better.
"Can I design a better Bismarck? Pff, yeah, piece of cake."
Hahaha, that's some serious shade at the Bismarck's designers.
Would not mind seeing how you think you could improve upon other classes and concepts; Bismarck, Nelson, KGV, Richelieu, Indiana etc...
Hey Ryan. If you allow 1950 technology, you can use 1,200 psi boilers. That should allow you some more interior space for the same horsepower .
I always wondered how useful secondary surface-to-surface batteries were. I kind of felt like that only smaller ships would get through the main battery, and that there would be some destroyers around to deal with those. But it sounds like they were more important than that.
I'd really like to see a video on the role of those secondary guns against other ships. Usually, you only hear about the big turrets.
Ryan at his dork finest! Great video!
“It’s not possible to build the perfect battleship”.....Prophetic 😂
Not so sure about that conning tower decision although I understand the desire to save the weight. Here are my counterpoints:
1. A 15" shell from Bismarck went through Prince Of Wales' bridge. Sure, it exploded in the water on the other side after passing through, but the problem is the shock wave of the impact and turning the structure of the area it struck into lethal fragments meant everyone on the bridge was killed, other than the Captain who was injured.
2. Meanwhile, here's a quote from the CO of SoDak, taken from the damage report circulated after her battle near Guadalcanal:
"Armor: - Fire control and conning tower have definitely proven their worth. Further agitation for the removal of this weight is definitely suspended. Control stations behind armor should be used more frequently. Too much stress in the past has been laid to the space restrictions at these stations. Had these stations not been utilized during the engagement, control and conn personnel would probably have been destroyed."
Comparing both of those and it's pretty clear. Note, too, the reference by SoDak's CO that "further agitation for the removal of this weight is definitely suspended". Clearly the weight of the CT was being eyed as a potential saving for other purposes, but that's a pretty clear comment based on actual battle conditions and performance.
Cheers
Drop the speed to 30kts, quad rudders, shift some belt armor to deck armor, add another three gun turrets, or three, four gun turrets using the 16" 45 caliber guns. Then reuse the skegs from the South Dakota class
The float plane is interesting. I wonder if organic aviation in WWII is really worth it. Maybe attaching a seaplane tender to every battleship battle group really made more sense. Free up some space for flag staff on the BB, and the tender can recover aircraft without needing to task the BB to sailing a specific course during recovery.
I also once doodled a back-of-napkin battleship hull with only 5" guns. All the 5" guns. Lots of engagements weren't really at the max range of a 16" gun. Since the US had good radar, we could do night operations where we snuck up on the opposing fleet. So the idea was to make BB's that would work in "line of battle" with the DD's by having the same gun range as the smaller ships. 4x16" turrets is something like 10,000 tons. A 5" is something like 50 tons. So you'd have a mass budget for something absurd like 400x 5" barrels if you could find the room for them. Which would have the comical result of firing 5" shells as fast as a modern CIWS shoots 20mm.
USS Texas and New York are finished designs, time for the next generation of what will be called Standards. You have hindsight in mind. What changes/doen't change come to USS Nevada and Oklahoma?
Yes! Perfect. How do you fix the Nevadas so we avoid that horrid 10 gun layout?
My ultimate battleship if it was built, although it is a World of Warships design, it is the 1949 HMS Conquerer with four twin 18 inch guns, but I would change the twin 5.25 inch guns for MK6 twin 4.5 inch guns. With heavy cruisers I would have a stretched Des Moines hull with a fourth triple eight inch gun turret.
I would choose 10 or 12x381 mms, rest in line with Mr Szymanski
Perhaps to make Ryan's design feasible, you sacrifice some of the torpedo armor, since a Battleship will have (Submarine) Destroyers accompanying it anyways.
If you want to save weight, would you go with an entirely welded ship?
I wonder what a 2023 era battleship would be like.
The shells would be autoloaded, and could possibly use liquid propellants, drastically reducing the crew requirements. Everything would have smart fuzes, of course. Sabot rounds might be an interesting addition for extended range.
I'd explore electric reactive armor. (Basically, voids with a huge capacitor attached to use discharge to deflect incoming plasma from shaped charges)
Perhaps the ultimate is a light weight ship, the same size as the New Jersey, with far less actual steel plate, but more distributed power generation and drive, such that it could survive hits and keep on going long enough to get back to port. Filling void spaces with low density foam beads could keep them from filling with water, yet allow removal for maintenance, etc.
Gas turbine / electric drive seems reasonable as a starting point, nuclear power would be nice to have, but could it take a hit without taking out the crew?... unlikely.
Well... those are my thoughts... a 10,000 ton ship with far less armor, but 16" modern guns.
Great video. Later on please consider a video about the perfect battleship without any limitations, using modern tech. Its purely hypotetical but still whould be awsome
Good video, thank you Ryan.
One query - what about the stern? The pretty rounded stern of New Jersey or the, I believe, hydro-dynamically more efficient transom of HMS Vanguard?
Where can I buy the instructions to build my own lego battleship? Looks awesome.
1. Shortening the hull by 100 feet, while adding one 16" turret and two 5" centerline mounts, and removing one stack, doesn't seem feasible. Plus my understanding is that turbo-electric drives take up more length. On the other hand, most of the lost 100 feet is the skinny bow where you can't put 16" turrets anyway. The second aft 16" turret is unnecessary.
2. If you're going to use quad 20mm guns or replace the 40mm with 3", you should also replace the 5"/38 with the 5"/54 which were actually used on the Midways. I don't know if twin 5"/54 were available. Having two centerline 5" mounts is a good idea, if possible. Another "is possible" is two more 5" directors to match the centerline mounts. Stick with the 16"/50 to get the super heavy AP shells and to outrange everybody else.
3. I would not worry about the Panama Canal. The Midways didn't.
4. The Japanese had twin rudders about 100 feet apart fore and aft as better insurance against torpedo hits. I don't remember now if there were two pairs, or just one, but I would have two pairs. Don't need to risk a Bismarck loss.
5. Yes, dump the conning tower. I can't imagine anyone inside surviving a direct hit even without penetration.
6. Keep the speed. The faster ship controls the range, and with gun battles, controlling the immune zone distance is vital. Yes, the fine bow is set and more susceptible to damage, but speed is precious.
Me, personally, would take the Iowas as is, only moving two 5" mounts to the centerline with two new directors, and otherwise keep the design. If carriers are steaming around at 33 knots, battleships which are 3-5 knots slower can't do their job.
I like the museum in the town I was born in it has old 37 mm cannons but has the history of the tidal wave that struck in 1964 from the Alaskan earthquake I was 7years old and remember it to this day
And if we found 4 of your BBs sitting in a reserve fleet they would be great to be updated.
Turbo-electric is great. Swap out the boilers for gas-turbine generators. several MK 57 VLS cells and of course a SPY-6 radar. Make the 16-inch guns into autoloaders. I know they don't exist yet but hey this is the 21st century. For ammo, precision-guided 155mm with sabots on another sabot round for hitting targets at long rangeReplace the 5 /38s with Mk 41 Mod 4s in single mounts and all 20mm mounts with Phalanx and Mk-38 systems. Replace the 40mm mounts with RAMs.
Add a helipad and if possible a hanger.
So you would have plenty of firepower for supporting landing operations or taking out shore targets. JSM and Tomahawks for long-range strikes, NSM and SM-6 for anti-ship. SM-2, SM-6, and ESSM for air defense plus the Mk-41s, RAM. Phalanx, and MK-38s. And SM-3s and maybe PAC-3s for missile defense. PAC-3s have been test fired from Mk-41s so maybe.
Your choice of turbo-electric drive really makes updating easy You could also replace the electric drive motors with more modern motors. To save money use LM2500s from all the old Perry and Ticonderoga class ships retiring. Too bad we don't have those hulls sitting around in a reserve fleet somewhere :)
I wonder how would your design change if you were building a BB for the modern battlefield?
I've noticed my design tendencies favor speed, firepower, and survivability (IE- redundancies and compartmentalization) above all else and at the expense of armor protection.
As such:
Missouri-class BB (or perhaps a rather heavy BC? BCL?)
Displacement: 150kt
Speed: Not less than 33 knots
Propulsion: Turboelectric (or perhaps diesel-electric?)
Main Battery: 4x4 406mm L/50
Secondary Battery: 12x2 127mm L/38 (5x per side, 1x fore, 1x aft)
Tertiary Battery: IDK... as many 76mm L/50 Mk. 33 Mod. 13 enclosed twin mounts as you can fit
Armor: I tend to favor an all-round even armor scheme as much as possible while following the all or nothing scheme. Ideally minimum armor would protect against at least DD guns (127mm), if not light cruiser guns (152mm) - if only in depth. Heavy cruiser guns (203mm) might be an ask, but the emphasis on shear redundancy and compartmentalization ought to ensure enough survivability to withstand a heavy cruiser.
Other: Well, for one, you'd be ditching the ability to transit the Panama Canal. For the other, the vessel would have a heavy emphasis on automation and full autoloaded guns on ever level. As well as generally high technology all round. If displacement allows, might even consider fitting a hydrophone system to try to give early warning against torpedoes, but this is by no means a hard and fast requirement. A full 5 layer torpedo system and triple bottom are a must to mean the goal of increased survivability. Ideally, 6 such ships would be built. 3 on each coast. Rotating such that 1 is deployed at any given time, 1 is training, and 1 is in port for maintenance.
I was just thinking about that myself. If you came up with larger than 16" guns how heavy would the projectile weigh and how much powder would you have to pack behind it.
If you’re slipping the timeline to allow for 3 inch anti-aircraft guns, would you replace the ten 5 inch secondary with a few number of 8 inch autoloaders of the Des Moines?
I have already been designing my prefect Battleship, since I was a teen back in the '80s but this doesn't seem to allow attaching pics
You'll still need 200k+ shp to get a shorter 45k ton ship up to 30kts. Lexington required 16 boilers to make 180k shp. Even with a more modern turbo electric drive, space will be tight with a 24ft deep tds.
I get trading length and a conning tower for an extra turret. But you also want another 1.5" of belt armor and the turbo electric drive. I see your boat weighing in a 50k tons.
I think I would start with the NC class and redesign from there
One always hear that the 5-ich gun was the best secondary gun of WW2 - but were there ever a direct comparison with other navies secondary guns? The British had their 5.25-inch gun, and the Japanese, German, French and Italian battleships went for a mix of 6-inch anti-ship and lighter AA secondaries.
One might think that the 5-inch was a bit on the big side for dealing with the typical single-engined attack planes, even after the proximity fuze - and a bit on the light side for dealing with modern, heavy destroyers. From what I've read it seems like the 40mm Bofors and 20mm Oerlikon guns destroyed many more enemy planes than their bigger companion.
Iowa: 20 x 5-inch
KGV: 16 x 5.25-inch
Yamato: 6 x 6.1-inch + 24 x 5-inch (1945)
Bismarck: 12 x 6-inch + 16 x 4.1-inch
Richelieu: 9 x 6-inch + 12 x 3.9-inch
Littorio: 12 x 6-inch + 4 x 4.7-inch + 12 x 3.5-inch
Ryan, Design a class of four battleships (or heavy cruisers) for 2030 and detail their expected uses i.e. shore bombardment, sea superiority/area denial, commercial lane overwatch, cruise missile deployment, fleet protection, drone deployment, US force projection, etc. This may be out of your expertise and might require a good deal of research but I'd love to see what you come up with as a battleship guy (expert ?). Like tanks, everyone says the larger warships are obsolete but if you have them you'll find a use for them and if designed and used properly they could still be a decisive weapon.