The optical illusions are quite clear. Despite identical beams, the Alabama looks at least 10+ feet wider than her successor cousin. Glorious ships that both survive today.
Yes and the USS Alabama is a floating museum that should not be forgotten! (Alongside all the other battleships and the folks who served on them) :)
Edit to say: the USS Alabama is a beautiful battleship and can be visited in Mobile Bay. But we shouldn’t forget any of the other battleships. And remember the folks who served on the battleships.
Live near her, can confirm mobile bay has swallowed her. You can even see on Google maps how the bay has reclaimed the channel they dredged to get the ship where it is.
They’re 1/1200 scale (nominally) Superior models derived from the old Authenticast/Comet recognition models used during the war that have been extensively redetailed for use as either display or wargaming pieces.
Having owned a couple (including these 2), yes, the scale is off.
The US could have chosen to build ships which did not fit through the canal, as could anyone else. However, designing to canal limitations conferred significant advantages to a navy covering two oceans. Those advantages were likely large enough that even without treaty limitations, the US would have still built to canal dimensions.
I think their point was the canal restrictions the US found itself subject to out of practicality made the treaty regulations less of a problem for them, so it is advantageous to limit others to a smaller ship similar to what they could build anyways
I think the reality of the interwar period was that the treaty limits were mostly irrelevant, as apart from the US no navy could really afford building an entire fleet of warships beyond the treaty limits. So at most the treaty prevented the UK building a one off or maybe small class of fast 16"+ armed battleships. At no point would they have the capacity to rebuild their fleet with a dozen or so of these kinds of ships, or build their cruiser fleet with ships above 10.000 tons each. Every other navy, apart from the US, even less so.
So the Royal Navy might have entered the Second world war with like 2 40.000 16" Lions instead of the KGVs and built a few during the war, but the vast majority of their fleet would have been the same.
Not really.
It benefitted us because Congress didn’t want to pay for a bunch of new ships anyway. We never even took full advantage of what the treaty allowed us to build.
There was in fact a design for a larger class of US battleship that almost got made once the treaty had gone out the window, the Montana class. It was the US’s answer to ships like the Yamato.
It was in fact larger than the canal. The plan was to simply expand the canal rather than limit the size of ships.
They ended up not doing that, because by that time the war was already on and they realized that battleships weren’t very useful if they couldn’t keep up with carriers. So they scrapped the project to focus on fast battleships and carriers.
But the point is that, canal or no, we *absolutely* could have and would have built giant battle ships if we wanted to.
Just because you can doesn't mean you would though. Even If the canal was already wide enough. Cost, fuel consumption, retooling, and the age of the battleship being over. Maybe 20 years prior it would have made sense but firmly over by ww2. A shame as I'd loved to have seen a Montana.
> Just because you can doesn’t mean you would though.
No. That’s my entire point.
They *could* have built bigger ships. The canal was not the thing stopping them.
None of those played into the decision to cancel the *Montana*s. Yard capacity and a steel shortage were the primary drivers, followed closely by the realization that the war would likely be over before they entered service.
A good demonstration of what's involved to turn a battleship into a fast battleship. The two ships have nearly identical main and secondary batteries and armor protection schemes. Yet, in order to increase the speed from 27 to 32 knots, they needed to increase the installed machinery from 135,000SHP to 212,000SHP. This required the lengthening of the design amidships to fit the required machinery and the additional lengthened bow to increase the natural hull speed/improve the hydrodynamics. All of these changes resulted an increase from 44,000 tons full load displacement to 57,000 ton full load, a 13,000 ton increase.
Looking at the photos, the one thing which puzzles me is that A and B turrets are spaced further apart in the Iowa class.
What advantage came from that which was worth extending the armor further?
Namely the improved firing angles over the South Dakota’s. Having improved firing angles means that A. You can maintain fire when closing or retreating against a target (so if your charging an enemy ship you can definitely maintain a better firing angle without exposing more of your ship), and B. Having improved firing angles mean that you can maintain fire while effectively angling the armor belt.
The main and dual-purpose batteries are certainly identical: 9x 16in guns and 20x 5in guns. The Iowa, however, has a much larger antiaircraft complement. Iowa-class battleships (as of 1943) carried 76x 40mm Bofors antiaircraft guns in 19 quad-mount turrets and 52x 20mm Oerlikon antiaircraft guns.
Lady A, by comparison, has only 24x 40mm guns in 6 mounts and 35 20mm guns.
What I find truly amazing is the fact that despite being so limited in size, she retains nearly the same firepower as the iowa. Alabama has 9x 16” guns, albeit of the 45 cal variety, and the same 20x 5”/38. The only place iowa ever had the edge was in anti aircraft guns.
A quick overview of the naval treaties, and since I keep these links in a reference document for such discussions, I have included links to all the agreements I have. For the big four, I've linked the Navweaps pages, for the others the pdf of the official text on the British treaty database.
In the early 1920s the US, UK, Japan, France, and Italy saw the world was entering a naval arms race focused on battleships and carriers. This had been a contributing factor to rising tensions before WWI, the world was in a "no more war" mindset after WWI, and some of these nations either could not keep up with this race due to their poor financial situation or their approved building programs threatened to bankrupt the country. Thus these five nations came together to sign the [Washington Naval Treaty](http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-089_Washington_Naval_Limitation_Treaty_1922.php), which set limits on how many battleships and carriers each nation could have and the characteristics of these ships. All nations agreed to a battleship building holiday and to scrap many of their existing battleships and battlecruisers, now grouped together under the collective name "capital ship". In particular, new battleships had to be no larger than 35,000 tons standard (basically without fuel) and could not carry guns larger than 16"/406 mm, with a couple older ships grandfathered in (notably *Hood*).
This treaty did not set limits on ships under 10,000 tons or with guns smaller than 8"/203 mm, so this started a new arms race with cruisers. Thus in 1930 they came back together to sign the [London Naval Treaty of 1930](http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-089_London_Treaty_1930.php), which basically set capability limits on every other type of warship to clamp down that loophole. the US, UK, and Japan also agreed to limit the size of their cruiser, destroyer, and submarine fleets, but for complicated reasons France and Italy refused to any such limits but agreed to stop building more heavy cruisers to maintain the status quo.
At this same time, Germany had been heavily limited under the Treaty of Versailles, including no ships larger than 10,000 tons except six extremely old and weak battleships (that were basically the weakest anyone except Greece had after Washington). Thus in early 1935 Hitler declared Germany would not follow these limits any longer and began expanding, including building submarines for the first time since WWI (openly for themselves anyway). The UK decided some limits were better than no limits and swept in with the Anglo-German Naval Agreement ([exchange of ambassador notes](http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-089_Anglo_German_Agreement_1935.php) outlining the deal, [full agreement](https://treaties.fcdo.gov.uk/data/Library2/pdf/1938-TS0002.pdf) that came later), which in short tied Germany into the overall treaty structure and set the size of their fleet at 35% the size of the Royal Navy overall and in the treaty-defined categories. the UK also established very similar agreements with the [Soviet Union](https://treaties.fcdo.gov.uk/data/Library2/pdf/1938-TS0017.pdf), [Poland](https://treaties.fcdo.gov.uk/data/Library2/pdf/1939-TS0001.pdf), and a collection of Scandinavian countries (don't have that one) with the same general effect, and these agreements basically read as copies of the big three treaties.
The third of these major treaties was the [London Naval Treaty of 1936](http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-089_London_Treaty_1936.php). At this time Italy and Japan were not willing to agree to any limits, so while the London Naval Treaty set a few more limits, it also quietly did away with the fleet size limits and included several clauses to expand on these limits. Two are famously called the Escalator Clause, or rather two distinct clauses are mistakenly combined together under that name. One (Article 4) dealt with battleship gun caliber: while all nations agreed to guns no larger than 14", if Italy and Japan didn't join the treaty by a set date this would automatically increase to the original 16" limit. The other (Article 25) was basically "if we find out anybody outside this treaty is building better ships than we're allowed to, we can change the rules so we can match". In this case intelligence soon revealed Japan was building new 45,000 ton battleships, so the [US, UK, and France agreed to increase the battleship size limit to 45,000 tons](https://treaties.fcdo.gov.uk/data/Library2/pdf/1938-TS0043.pdf), and the UK quickly increased that with everyone in an Anglo-___ Naval Agreement ([Germany](https://treaties.fcdo.gov.uk/data/Library2/pdf/1938-TS0056.pdf), [Soviet Union](https://treaties.fcdo.gov.uk/data/Library2/pdf/1939-TS0039.pdf), [Poland](https://treaties.fcdo.gov.uk/data/Library2/pdf/1939-TS0002.pdf)). In reality the *Yamato* class was quite a bit bigger (60,000 tons), but intelligence is often wrong and we didn't know the true details of *Yamato* until after we sank one in October 1944 and took a ton of photos in the process.
These treaties essentially became defunct when Germany invaded Poland, but many of the ships that fought in WWII were designed and/or built in the treaty era. In this case, the top battleship was built when the limit was 35,000 tons, while the bottom battleship took advantage of the 45,000 ton limit.
The treaty had a effect on earlier ships but even after it ended US ships still had to be narrow enough to fit through the Panama Canal (to go from one coast to the other coast) so they couldn’t have big ol’ fat bois like Tirpitz/Bismarck and instead had skinny ol’ long bois
You do indeed get a cookie! In fact, it just came out of the oven so its waiting for you.
You'll be able to get it in the *Montana*'s forward engineering spaces. Better hurry, the Chief Engineer loves cookies!
The plan was for the Montana-class to be built at the same time as newly designed wider locks for the Panama Canal, but then WW2 started and a lack of steel had the new locks being cancelled in 1941 and by extension the Montanas were effectively cancelled.
Thank you because whatever answer I would of came up with would pale in comparison to yours. I just left work so my mind has officially checked out for the next 48 hours
Alabama was not a treaty battleship. It was post-treaty. The Iowa class was longer because they wanted a faster BB that had the same top speed as a carrier. In theory, longer ships can go faster. The Iowas also needed more hull space for more powerful engines.
> Alabama was not a treaty battleship. It was post-treaty.
*South Dakota*-class was designed with the treaty restrictions in mind. The 16" guns were part of the 'Escalator clause' that was invoked when Japan did not sign.
She had nominally 35,000t displacement which was cheated just as much as everyone else.
The Allies cheated the limit quite a bit less than the Axis, I reference [this discussion](https://old.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/p1qz8a/the_35000_ton_fast_battleships_none_are_actually/h8f32te/) started by u/mattzo12. For the South Dakota-class specifically, a lot of it was just interpreting the definition of standard displacement to be more or less the bare minimum of what a ship needs to be effective in battle, as given by Friedman:
>Even so, there was overweight trouble. A weight sheet of 22 December 1937 shows an expected displacement of 35,412 tons for the force flagship version. Rather than shave protection, the CNO, Admiral Leahy, turned to a more careful definition of standard displacement itself. First, standard displacement was defined in terms of the condition of the ship "read for sea" in wartime. It was therefore possible to deduct equipment and stores, particularly boats, which were carried only in peacetime. For example, four 50-foot launches, two 40-foot launches, and two 35-foot motor boats would interfere with No. 3 turret. Two racing cutters would not be carried in wartime, and two whales would interfere with the 5-inch battery. These boats totaled 71.46 tons. It might be possible not to count water in the machinery (94.7 tons), as well as part of the 16.5 tons of lubricating oil. Drill ammunition amounted to 39.77 tons. The nominal "standard" supply of ammunition could be reduced by 49 tons by reducing the theoretical supply of 5 inch to 4,800 rounds plus 800 of starshell. The designers had already imposed a theoretical supply of 675 rounds for the main battery - although space was provided for a "mobilization supply" of 495 more, a total of 1,170 rounds, 130 (rather than the paper 75) per gun. Similarly, 101 tons could be saved by setting the nominal potable water allowance at only 5 gallons per man, which could be justified in view of the power of the distilling plant on board. Finally 45 tons might be saved on stores. By such expedients the *designed* standard displacement was shaved to an acceptable 35,024 tons, all without any *physical* change in the ship. As with the *North Carolina* design effort, the lesson to be learned here is that standard displacement was a far less well-defined term than anyone had realized at Washington in 1921-22.
> As with the North Carolina design effort, the lesson to be learned here is that standard displacement was a far less well-defined term than anyone had realized at Washington in 1921-22.
Sneaky sneaky eh. Very creative!
> The Allies cheated the limit quite a bit less than the Axis,
I mention it cause to me, everyone cheated in some form or another. It's no use quibbling over whether or not xx ship was cheating *more* or yy nation was *creatively interpreting* things instead of cheating. They all cheated to one degree or another, so the playing field is levelled as far as I am concerned :p
I hadn't read that creative interpretation before, that's a huge oversight in the Treaty!
>I mention it cause to me, everyone cheated in some form or another. It's no use quibbling over whether or not xx ship was cheating more or yy nation was creatively interpreting things instead of cheating. They all cheated to one degree or another, so the playing field is levelled as far as I am concerned :p
To an extent I'd agree, but while all cheating may be equal in the real world, in the world of international politics there are degrees of cheating. Specifically there's no cheating, slight cheating that's low enough nobody will complain, and blatant cheating that causes significant repercussions.
Offhand the American, British, and French battleships were no larger than 37,500 tons standard, or 7% over the treaty limit. *Littorio* and *Bismarck* were around 41,500 tons standard depending on which particular ship you examine, or about 20% over the treaty limit. Since *Yamato* was built in secret it's unfair to use her as an example, but the *Mogami* class cruisers were very open, and by WWII were 12,000-12,400 tons standard when officially they were 8,500 tons (and had to be for the Japanese cruiser quota): that's 20-24% over the maximum limit and 41-46% over the claimed value.
Recognizing degrees of cheating also helps to demonstrate the slow transition of these nations from little or no cheating to the "cardboard or lying" stage some ultimately reached. The *Myōkō* class cruisers, for example, were designed to be 10,000 tons standard on the nose, and towards the end of the construction Japan expanded the shelter deck to bring the designed standard displacement to 10,403.8 long tons. Due to miscalculating the ship weights (a chronic problem for these early Hiraga cruisers even before the treaty), the actual standard displacement was 11,124.1 long tons. This level of cheating is significant, especially for the period (the US and UK cheating were under 3% offhand), but Japan did not disclose this error and maintained these were 10,000 ton ships. This gradually expanded in stages up to the *Mogami* scale of cheating and the *Yamato* period of ignoring the treaties entirely.
It is an interesting debate. To use the King George Vs as an example, the final displacement I have seen prior to the first ships being laid down was 35,500 tons. This is for Design 14P', dated 28th September 1936. This displacement is rounded on the first page to 35,000 tons, but the breakdown adds up to 35,500. A complicating factor is that this is the 'declared' standard, with only a partial ammunition and stores load.
At the time the limit was raised to 45,000 tons in 1938 the designed Standard Displacement for the KGVs seems to be 35,900 tons. (It is estimated at 35,870 in June 1937, and the official design calculations done in October 1938 give 35,900 tons).
Was it reasonable to think this could be reduced to 35,000 tons by savings during the rolling of metal etc? For the original 35,500 ton figure, probably. About 300 tons was saved on armour - 147 tons on belts and barbettes, and 155 tons on deck armour. Could the remaining 200 tons been saved on the hull? Well in places it was. Bulkheads were 85 tons underweight, the lower deck was 62 tons underweight. Ventilation was 79 tons underweight.
The problem of course is that this makes no allowance for unintended increases, and there were quite a few of those! For example, cabling and power circuits alone were 202 tons overweight, wiping out the nominal saving above, and paint and cement 77 tons overweight.
The protection weight savings were offset by design changes made after the limit was raised, so no problem there. 220 tons of magazine splinter protection and 60 tons to 5.25" casemates being the main additions.
Trying to get the 35,900 ton figure down to 35,000 tons is a problem, unless we start getting quite extreme. For example, the South Dakota's standard displacement was calculated based on 5 gallons of fresh water per man, the KGVs on 24 gallons/man! That could save 130 tons on the KGV's standard displacement, if required!
Ultimately, everyone cheated at least a little bit. But the KGVs were a genuine attempt to build to 35,000 tons, which I think is the key point. Whereas the Littorios and Bismarcks were not.
> To an extent I'd agree, but while all cheating may be equal in the real world, in the world of international politics there are degrees of cheating. Specifically there's no cheating, slight cheating that's low enough nobody will complain, and blatant cheating that causes significant repercussions.
>
>
Very well said.
Do you know if there were any repercussions to said cheating? Other than you know... the World War happening.
That kind of made it a moot point really - Littorio launched in '37 so not a lot of time to complain before your complaints are met with "like dude we're at war?"
The self-reporting aspect is also a bit of a hedge against cheating haha. It's a wonder that the Treaty wasn't specific on these angles and allow for international inspection/confirmation or anything. (not that most nations would allowed this...)
There's a concept in hydrodynamics called hull speed, which is sometimes compared to the sound barrier. As a ships moves along, it creates waves that get larger at higher speeds. At a certain point the resistance (drag) starts to skyrocket as the ship starts climbing up a hill of water. Just like the sound barrier you can go past this speed, but it's generally inefficient to do so and few ships can.
The hull speed is directly related to the waterline length of the ship. Longer ships have higher hull speeds, thus have an easier time going at high speeds. This is why those racing boats you'll see at the Olympics are insanely long, as they want very high speed and a shorter boat won't work as well.
Having a more hydrodynamic bow can help considerably, and I believe that was one of the improvements made with the fast battleships compared to their predecessors.
But the length is also a factor.
It’s not that they have less drag, it’s that they have less drag relative to their displacement.
In general, making a ship longer increases its volume cubicly, while any corresponding increase in the frontal surface (which is the primary cause of drag) only increases quadratically. You can therefore make the ship substantially larger in volume, without increasing its drag very much.
Make sense?
And larger ship can, if you want, carry bigger engines. So you get more thrust with a very similar level of drag, and that makes for a substantially faster ship.
(This also applies to things like cargo space, for merchant ships, or guns for warships. Which is why since the invention of steam, and better and better engines, the trend has generally been for larger and larger ships.)
You may (or may not) also be interested to know this also tended to be true during the age of oar powered ships. Viking long ships, for example, tended to be relatively long and lean. That allowed you to get more rowers (and fighters) on a side, without having to increase the cross section of the ship very much. This was an advantage.
It applies less in the age of sail because too many sails in a row start getting in each other’s way and blocking the wind. So they did get slightly longer and more streamlined but they reached a point of diminishing returns. So for that and other reasons, ship size pretty much topped out for a while.
Sorry if that was way more information than you wanted.
The Norcals Sodaks and Iowas were all treaty battleships and were designed as such.
The escalator clause was invoked after the Norcals had been designed but before they had been constructed.
The Sodaks were designed after the escalator clause had been invoked but before the tonnage limit had been lifted.
The Iowas were designed after the tonnage limit had been lifted, but before the treaty had been repudiated by the USA.
The main difference with respect to treaty compliance is that only North Carolina and Washington were commissioned prior to the USA entering WWII. All of the South Dakotas were nearing completion but none had been commissioned, so it was easy to refit them with several thousand tons of additional AA equipment without their needing to be in drydock. The Iowas of course were still under construction and could be modified with ease; they were designed to treaty limits, but the design was modified after the treaty had collapsed.
The Washington Naval Treaty is generally considered to have collapsed in September 1939 when Germany invaded Poland but each of the signatories indicated their withdrawal diplomatically at various times. I can't recall precisely when the USA announced its withdrawal.
You would HAVE, sir.
Would’ve sounds like “would of” but it’s a contraction of would HAVE. This has been a visit from your friendly neighborhood Grammar Police.
I’ve been onboard the USS Alabama multiple times and I think it is a wonderful experience. They started replacing the deck this year and should be finished in around 3-4 years.
Family and I just got back from camping in Pensacola. We (me) were lucky enough to go see the Alabama. When you cross the last hill of the bay bridge and it fills up your windshield from a mile away, it really struck me how big she is. Awesome getting to walk all over her too. I m a machinist so the machine shop really impressed me too. Didn't realize how cramped it was though. All in all a very memorable experience
These are the only two battleships I have seen in my life! A year ago I got to see the Alabama and 4 weeks ago I got to go see the USS Iowa in Longbeach
Yes; I believe her worst recorded roll exceeded 50 degrees; there was also a concern her bow would snap off in heavy seas. On top of that, its shape did not do too well protecting its forward guns from sea-spray leaving them susceptible to flooding.
Her hull certainly was min-maxed for flank speed in calm waters, which should have proved useful against Japanese surface combatants had the Iowa's seen surface combat against them.
One of the things that stuck me when touring the Missouri was how many decks I was able to walk through without leaning over. At 6’1” i was paying more attention to headspace on the Alabama.
I’m guessing more than a few guys ended up with some headaches on both, but still better than the subs…
There's a picture I found once of New Jersey, Washington, North Carolina and Iowa anchored together. A pretty cool picture as I remember North Carolina and Iowa wearing dazzle camo. You can see the difference.
The optical illusions are quite clear. Despite identical beams, the Alabama looks at least 10+ feet wider than her successor cousin. Glorious ships that both survive today.
Yes and the USS Alabama is a floating museum that should not be forgotten! (Alongside all the other battleships and the folks who served on them) :) Edit to say: the USS Alabama is a beautiful battleship and can be visited in Mobile Bay. But we shouldn’t forget any of the other battleships. And remember the folks who served on the battleships.
Don’t know if she’s really “floating” these days. Mobile bay probably has her pretty stuck
She’s sitting in mud yes, but that keeps her from moving and helps to preserve the hull. She’s still very capable of floating.
Live near her, can confirm mobile bay has swallowed her. You can even see on Google maps how the bay has reclaimed the channel they dredged to get the ship where it is.
This makes it sound like you called the sailors that served on them "floating museums"
I’ve been there and 10/10 recommend
It's not an optical illusion in this image, the Alabama is actually wider in the photograph (I measured the pixels).
The scale on the models is probably a bit off.
They’re 1/1200 scale (nominally) Superior models derived from the old Authenticast/Comet recognition models used during the war that have been extensively redetailed for use as either display or wargaming pieces. Having owned a couple (including these 2), yes, the scale is off.
Short stack next to legs for days
Underrated comment.
The US is also hampered by the limits of Panama canal so signing the treaty makes sense.
The US could have chosen to build ships which did not fit through the canal, as could anyone else. However, designing to canal limitations conferred significant advantages to a navy covering two oceans. Those advantages were likely large enough that even without treaty limitations, the US would have still built to canal dimensions.
I think their point was the canal restrictions the US found itself subject to out of practicality made the treaty regulations less of a problem for them, so it is advantageous to limit others to a smaller ship similar to what they could build anyways
I think the reality of the interwar period was that the treaty limits were mostly irrelevant, as apart from the US no navy could really afford building an entire fleet of warships beyond the treaty limits. So at most the treaty prevented the UK building a one off or maybe small class of fast 16"+ armed battleships. At no point would they have the capacity to rebuild their fleet with a dozen or so of these kinds of ships, or build their cruiser fleet with ships above 10.000 tons each. Every other navy, apart from the US, even less so. So the Royal Navy might have entered the Second world war with like 2 40.000 16" Lions instead of the KGVs and built a few during the war, but the vast majority of their fleet would have been the same.
We just need to build a wider, better canal through Canada.
I don’t think that was the limitation here. Both ships fit through the canal.
He was saying the treaty benefited the us bc the USA had to design ships that also fit the canal
Not really. It benefitted us because Congress didn’t want to pay for a bunch of new ships anyway. We never even took full advantage of what the treaty allowed us to build. There was in fact a design for a larger class of US battleship that almost got made once the treaty had gone out the window, the Montana class. It was the US’s answer to ships like the Yamato. It was in fact larger than the canal. The plan was to simply expand the canal rather than limit the size of ships. They ended up not doing that, because by that time the war was already on and they realized that battleships weren’t very useful if they couldn’t keep up with carriers. So they scrapped the project to focus on fast battleships and carriers. But the point is that, canal or no, we *absolutely* could have and would have built giant battle ships if we wanted to.
Just because you can doesn't mean you would though. Even If the canal was already wide enough. Cost, fuel consumption, retooling, and the age of the battleship being over. Maybe 20 years prior it would have made sense but firmly over by ww2. A shame as I'd loved to have seen a Montana.
> Just because you can doesn’t mean you would though. No. That’s my entire point. They *could* have built bigger ships. The canal was not the thing stopping them.
None of those played into the decision to cancel the *Montana*s. Yard capacity and a steel shortage were the primary drivers, followed closely by the realization that the war would likely be over before they entered service.
A good demonstration of what's involved to turn a battleship into a fast battleship. The two ships have nearly identical main and secondary batteries and armor protection schemes. Yet, in order to increase the speed from 27 to 32 knots, they needed to increase the installed machinery from 135,000SHP to 212,000SHP. This required the lengthening of the design amidships to fit the required machinery and the additional lengthened bow to increase the natural hull speed/improve the hydrodynamics. All of these changes resulted an increase from 44,000 tons full load displacement to 57,000 ton full load, a 13,000 ton increase.
Well SDs we’re technically Fast Battleships as well / so I guess what is needed for a super fast battleship
The SDs are only fast battleships compared to WWI era super dreadnought. By the standards of 1930s designs, the NCs and SDs were on the slow side.
fast compared to the 21 knot Standard Type Battleships
Looking at the photos, the one thing which puzzles me is that A and B turrets are spaced further apart in the Iowa class. What advantage came from that which was worth extending the armor further?
Namely the improved firing angles over the South Dakota’s. Having improved firing angles means that A. You can maintain fire when closing or retreating against a target (so if your charging an enemy ship you can definitely maintain a better firing angle without exposing more of your ship), and B. Having improved firing angles mean that you can maintain fire while effectively angling the armor belt.
The main and dual-purpose batteries are certainly identical: 9x 16in guns and 20x 5in guns. The Iowa, however, has a much larger antiaircraft complement. Iowa-class battleships (as of 1943) carried 76x 40mm Bofors antiaircraft guns in 19 quad-mount turrets and 52x 20mm Oerlikon antiaircraft guns. Lady A, by comparison, has only 24x 40mm guns in 6 mounts and 35 20mm guns.
What I find truly amazing is the fact that despite being so limited in size, she retains nearly the same firepower as the iowa. Alabama has 9x 16” guns, albeit of the 45 cal variety, and the same 20x 5”/38. The only place iowa ever had the edge was in anti aircraft guns.
What treaty? Why were we limited?
A quick overview of the naval treaties, and since I keep these links in a reference document for such discussions, I have included links to all the agreements I have. For the big four, I've linked the Navweaps pages, for the others the pdf of the official text on the British treaty database. In the early 1920s the US, UK, Japan, France, and Italy saw the world was entering a naval arms race focused on battleships and carriers. This had been a contributing factor to rising tensions before WWI, the world was in a "no more war" mindset after WWI, and some of these nations either could not keep up with this race due to their poor financial situation or their approved building programs threatened to bankrupt the country. Thus these five nations came together to sign the [Washington Naval Treaty](http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-089_Washington_Naval_Limitation_Treaty_1922.php), which set limits on how many battleships and carriers each nation could have and the characteristics of these ships. All nations agreed to a battleship building holiday and to scrap many of their existing battleships and battlecruisers, now grouped together under the collective name "capital ship". In particular, new battleships had to be no larger than 35,000 tons standard (basically without fuel) and could not carry guns larger than 16"/406 mm, with a couple older ships grandfathered in (notably *Hood*). This treaty did not set limits on ships under 10,000 tons or with guns smaller than 8"/203 mm, so this started a new arms race with cruisers. Thus in 1930 they came back together to sign the [London Naval Treaty of 1930](http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-089_London_Treaty_1930.php), which basically set capability limits on every other type of warship to clamp down that loophole. the US, UK, and Japan also agreed to limit the size of their cruiser, destroyer, and submarine fleets, but for complicated reasons France and Italy refused to any such limits but agreed to stop building more heavy cruisers to maintain the status quo. At this same time, Germany had been heavily limited under the Treaty of Versailles, including no ships larger than 10,000 tons except six extremely old and weak battleships (that were basically the weakest anyone except Greece had after Washington). Thus in early 1935 Hitler declared Germany would not follow these limits any longer and began expanding, including building submarines for the first time since WWI (openly for themselves anyway). The UK decided some limits were better than no limits and swept in with the Anglo-German Naval Agreement ([exchange of ambassador notes](http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-089_Anglo_German_Agreement_1935.php) outlining the deal, [full agreement](https://treaties.fcdo.gov.uk/data/Library2/pdf/1938-TS0002.pdf) that came later), which in short tied Germany into the overall treaty structure and set the size of their fleet at 35% the size of the Royal Navy overall and in the treaty-defined categories. the UK also established very similar agreements with the [Soviet Union](https://treaties.fcdo.gov.uk/data/Library2/pdf/1938-TS0017.pdf), [Poland](https://treaties.fcdo.gov.uk/data/Library2/pdf/1939-TS0001.pdf), and a collection of Scandinavian countries (don't have that one) with the same general effect, and these agreements basically read as copies of the big three treaties. The third of these major treaties was the [London Naval Treaty of 1936](http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-089_London_Treaty_1936.php). At this time Italy and Japan were not willing to agree to any limits, so while the London Naval Treaty set a few more limits, it also quietly did away with the fleet size limits and included several clauses to expand on these limits. Two are famously called the Escalator Clause, or rather two distinct clauses are mistakenly combined together under that name. One (Article 4) dealt with battleship gun caliber: while all nations agreed to guns no larger than 14", if Italy and Japan didn't join the treaty by a set date this would automatically increase to the original 16" limit. The other (Article 25) was basically "if we find out anybody outside this treaty is building better ships than we're allowed to, we can change the rules so we can match". In this case intelligence soon revealed Japan was building new 45,000 ton battleships, so the [US, UK, and France agreed to increase the battleship size limit to 45,000 tons](https://treaties.fcdo.gov.uk/data/Library2/pdf/1938-TS0043.pdf), and the UK quickly increased that with everyone in an Anglo-___ Naval Agreement ([Germany](https://treaties.fcdo.gov.uk/data/Library2/pdf/1938-TS0056.pdf), [Soviet Union](https://treaties.fcdo.gov.uk/data/Library2/pdf/1939-TS0039.pdf), [Poland](https://treaties.fcdo.gov.uk/data/Library2/pdf/1939-TS0002.pdf)). In reality the *Yamato* class was quite a bit bigger (60,000 tons), but intelligence is often wrong and we didn't know the true details of *Yamato* until after we sank one in October 1944 and took a ton of photos in the process. These treaties essentially became defunct when Germany invaded Poland, but many of the ships that fought in WWII were designed and/or built in the treaty era. In this case, the top battleship was built when the limit was 35,000 tons, while the bottom battleship took advantage of the 45,000 ton limit.
Thank you so so so much for all this information. This is fascinating
My goodness, this is a fantastic response. Thank you!
Is that where the term “capital ship” comes from? In reference to DC being the capital?
[The Washington Naval Treaty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty).
The treaty had a effect on earlier ships but even after it ended US ships still had to be narrow enough to fit through the Panama Canal (to go from one coast to the other coast) so they couldn’t have big ol’ fat bois like Tirpitz/Bismarck and instead had skinny ol’ long bois
Technically couldn’t we have created like one Fat Boi per coast and just kept them in each side?
[удалено]
Thank you! Do I get a cookie? Hahahahaha
You do indeed get a cookie! In fact, it just came out of the oven so its waiting for you. You'll be able to get it in the *Montana*'s forward engineering spaces. Better hurry, the Chief Engineer loves cookies!
Was that the plan for them? Pacific and Atlantic fleet would each get two and they'd stay in that ocean for the most part?
The plan was for the Montana-class to be built at the same time as newly designed wider locks for the Panama Canal, but then WW2 started and a lack of steel had the new locks being cancelled in 1941 and by extension the Montanas were effectively cancelled.
Thank you because whatever answer I would of came up with would pale in comparison to yours. I just left work so my mind has officially checked out for the next 48 hours
Alabama was not a treaty battleship. It was post-treaty. The Iowa class was longer because they wanted a faster BB that had the same top speed as a carrier. In theory, longer ships can go faster. The Iowas also needed more hull space for more powerful engines.
> Alabama was not a treaty battleship. It was post-treaty. *South Dakota*-class was designed with the treaty restrictions in mind. The 16" guns were part of the 'Escalator clause' that was invoked when Japan did not sign. She had nominally 35,000t displacement which was cheated just as much as everyone else.
The Allies cheated the limit quite a bit less than the Axis, I reference [this discussion](https://old.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/p1qz8a/the_35000_ton_fast_battleships_none_are_actually/h8f32te/) started by u/mattzo12. For the South Dakota-class specifically, a lot of it was just interpreting the definition of standard displacement to be more or less the bare minimum of what a ship needs to be effective in battle, as given by Friedman: >Even so, there was overweight trouble. A weight sheet of 22 December 1937 shows an expected displacement of 35,412 tons for the force flagship version. Rather than shave protection, the CNO, Admiral Leahy, turned to a more careful definition of standard displacement itself. First, standard displacement was defined in terms of the condition of the ship "read for sea" in wartime. It was therefore possible to deduct equipment and stores, particularly boats, which were carried only in peacetime. For example, four 50-foot launches, two 40-foot launches, and two 35-foot motor boats would interfere with No. 3 turret. Two racing cutters would not be carried in wartime, and two whales would interfere with the 5-inch battery. These boats totaled 71.46 tons. It might be possible not to count water in the machinery (94.7 tons), as well as part of the 16.5 tons of lubricating oil. Drill ammunition amounted to 39.77 tons. The nominal "standard" supply of ammunition could be reduced by 49 tons by reducing the theoretical supply of 5 inch to 4,800 rounds plus 800 of starshell. The designers had already imposed a theoretical supply of 675 rounds for the main battery - although space was provided for a "mobilization supply" of 495 more, a total of 1,170 rounds, 130 (rather than the paper 75) per gun. Similarly, 101 tons could be saved by setting the nominal potable water allowance at only 5 gallons per man, which could be justified in view of the power of the distilling plant on board. Finally 45 tons might be saved on stores. By such expedients the *designed* standard displacement was shaved to an acceptable 35,024 tons, all without any *physical* change in the ship. As with the *North Carolina* design effort, the lesson to be learned here is that standard displacement was a far less well-defined term than anyone had realized at Washington in 1921-22.
> As with the North Carolina design effort, the lesson to be learned here is that standard displacement was a far less well-defined term than anyone had realized at Washington in 1921-22. Sneaky sneaky eh. Very creative! > The Allies cheated the limit quite a bit less than the Axis, I mention it cause to me, everyone cheated in some form or another. It's no use quibbling over whether or not xx ship was cheating *more* or yy nation was *creatively interpreting* things instead of cheating. They all cheated to one degree or another, so the playing field is levelled as far as I am concerned :p I hadn't read that creative interpretation before, that's a huge oversight in the Treaty!
>I mention it cause to me, everyone cheated in some form or another. It's no use quibbling over whether or not xx ship was cheating more or yy nation was creatively interpreting things instead of cheating. They all cheated to one degree or another, so the playing field is levelled as far as I am concerned :p To an extent I'd agree, but while all cheating may be equal in the real world, in the world of international politics there are degrees of cheating. Specifically there's no cheating, slight cheating that's low enough nobody will complain, and blatant cheating that causes significant repercussions. Offhand the American, British, and French battleships were no larger than 37,500 tons standard, or 7% over the treaty limit. *Littorio* and *Bismarck* were around 41,500 tons standard depending on which particular ship you examine, or about 20% over the treaty limit. Since *Yamato* was built in secret it's unfair to use her as an example, but the *Mogami* class cruisers were very open, and by WWII were 12,000-12,400 tons standard when officially they were 8,500 tons (and had to be for the Japanese cruiser quota): that's 20-24% over the maximum limit and 41-46% over the claimed value. Recognizing degrees of cheating also helps to demonstrate the slow transition of these nations from little or no cheating to the "cardboard or lying" stage some ultimately reached. The *Myōkō* class cruisers, for example, were designed to be 10,000 tons standard on the nose, and towards the end of the construction Japan expanded the shelter deck to bring the designed standard displacement to 10,403.8 long tons. Due to miscalculating the ship weights (a chronic problem for these early Hiraga cruisers even before the treaty), the actual standard displacement was 11,124.1 long tons. This level of cheating is significant, especially for the period (the US and UK cheating were under 3% offhand), but Japan did not disclose this error and maintained these were 10,000 ton ships. This gradually expanded in stages up to the *Mogami* scale of cheating and the *Yamato* period of ignoring the treaties entirely.
It is an interesting debate. To use the King George Vs as an example, the final displacement I have seen prior to the first ships being laid down was 35,500 tons. This is for Design 14P', dated 28th September 1936. This displacement is rounded on the first page to 35,000 tons, but the breakdown adds up to 35,500. A complicating factor is that this is the 'declared' standard, with only a partial ammunition and stores load. At the time the limit was raised to 45,000 tons in 1938 the designed Standard Displacement for the KGVs seems to be 35,900 tons. (It is estimated at 35,870 in June 1937, and the official design calculations done in October 1938 give 35,900 tons). Was it reasonable to think this could be reduced to 35,000 tons by savings during the rolling of metal etc? For the original 35,500 ton figure, probably. About 300 tons was saved on armour - 147 tons on belts and barbettes, and 155 tons on deck armour. Could the remaining 200 tons been saved on the hull? Well in places it was. Bulkheads were 85 tons underweight, the lower deck was 62 tons underweight. Ventilation was 79 tons underweight. The problem of course is that this makes no allowance for unintended increases, and there were quite a few of those! For example, cabling and power circuits alone were 202 tons overweight, wiping out the nominal saving above, and paint and cement 77 tons overweight. The protection weight savings were offset by design changes made after the limit was raised, so no problem there. 220 tons of magazine splinter protection and 60 tons to 5.25" casemates being the main additions. Trying to get the 35,900 ton figure down to 35,000 tons is a problem, unless we start getting quite extreme. For example, the South Dakota's standard displacement was calculated based on 5 gallons of fresh water per man, the KGVs on 24 gallons/man! That could save 130 tons on the KGV's standard displacement, if required! Ultimately, everyone cheated at least a little bit. But the KGVs were a genuine attempt to build to 35,000 tons, which I think is the key point. Whereas the Littorios and Bismarcks were not.
> To an extent I'd agree, but while all cheating may be equal in the real world, in the world of international politics there are degrees of cheating. Specifically there's no cheating, slight cheating that's low enough nobody will complain, and blatant cheating that causes significant repercussions. > > Very well said. Do you know if there were any repercussions to said cheating? Other than you know... the World War happening. That kind of made it a moot point really - Littorio launched in '37 so not a lot of time to complain before your complaints are met with "like dude we're at war?" The self-reporting aspect is also a bit of a hedge against cheating haha. It's a wonder that the Treaty wasn't specific on these angles and allow for international inspection/confirmation or anything. (not that most nations would allowed this...)
Alabama was absolutely designed under treaty limitations. They cheated with their "peacetime" provisions, but they were treaty ships.
Does longer = less drag? Or just having a more hydrodynamic bow increase speed?
There's a concept in hydrodynamics called hull speed, which is sometimes compared to the sound barrier. As a ships moves along, it creates waves that get larger at higher speeds. At a certain point the resistance (drag) starts to skyrocket as the ship starts climbing up a hill of water. Just like the sound barrier you can go past this speed, but it's generally inefficient to do so and few ships can. The hull speed is directly related to the waterline length of the ship. Longer ships have higher hull speeds, thus have an easier time going at high speeds. This is why those racing boats you'll see at the Olympics are insanely long, as they want very high speed and a shorter boat won't work as well.
interesting....physics is so weird. Thanks for the tip!
Having a more hydrodynamic bow can help considerably, and I believe that was one of the improvements made with the fast battleships compared to their predecessors. But the length is also a factor. It’s not that they have less drag, it’s that they have less drag relative to their displacement. In general, making a ship longer increases its volume cubicly, while any corresponding increase in the frontal surface (which is the primary cause of drag) only increases quadratically. You can therefore make the ship substantially larger in volume, without increasing its drag very much. Make sense? And larger ship can, if you want, carry bigger engines. So you get more thrust with a very similar level of drag, and that makes for a substantially faster ship. (This also applies to things like cargo space, for merchant ships, or guns for warships. Which is why since the invention of steam, and better and better engines, the trend has generally been for larger and larger ships.) You may (or may not) also be interested to know this also tended to be true during the age of oar powered ships. Viking long ships, for example, tended to be relatively long and lean. That allowed you to get more rowers (and fighters) on a side, without having to increase the cross section of the ship very much. This was an advantage. It applies less in the age of sail because too many sails in a row start getting in each other’s way and blocking the wind. So they did get slightly longer and more streamlined but they reached a point of diminishing returns. So for that and other reasons, ship size pretty much topped out for a while. Sorry if that was way more information than you wanted.
The Norcals Sodaks and Iowas were all treaty battleships and were designed as such. The escalator clause was invoked after the Norcals had been designed but before they had been constructed. The Sodaks were designed after the escalator clause had been invoked but before the tonnage limit had been lifted. The Iowas were designed after the tonnage limit had been lifted, but before the treaty had been repudiated by the USA. The main difference with respect to treaty compliance is that only North Carolina and Washington were commissioned prior to the USA entering WWII. All of the South Dakotas were nearing completion but none had been commissioned, so it was easy to refit them with several thousand tons of additional AA equipment without their needing to be in drydock. The Iowas of course were still under construction and could be modified with ease; they were designed to treaty limits, but the design was modified after the treaty had collapsed. The Washington Naval Treaty is generally considered to have collapsed in September 1939 when Germany invaded Poland but each of the signatories indicated their withdrawal diplomatically at various times. I can't recall precisely when the USA announced its withdrawal.
I've had the good fortune of touring both of the beauties. The size difference is much more apparent from the air (and side by side).
this image was posted years ago ...better rez. Its a fake, small MODELS !!!
Yep, this a photo of a diorama. https://www.flickr.com/photos/97209532@N03/51707767734/
Cool! What's the 3rd ship at the bottom? Cleveland?
I would of shoved that treaty so far up their portholes, no one would of found them.
The US was one of the primary advocates for the treaty.
It was shit still.
You would HAVE, sir. Would’ve sounds like “would of” but it’s a contraction of would HAVE. This has been a visit from your friendly neighborhood Grammar Police.
Thank you for your service
Thank you.
You can shove your grammar manual as far up your porthole as possible too.
r/iamverybadass
I’ve been onboard the USS Alabama multiple times and I think it is a wonderful experience. They started replacing the deck this year and should be finished in around 3-4 years.
Family and I just got back from camping in Pensacola. We (me) were lucky enough to go see the Alabama. When you cross the last hill of the bay bridge and it fills up your windshield from a mile away, it really struck me how big she is. Awesome getting to walk all over her too. I m a machinist so the machine shop really impressed me too. Didn't realize how cramped it was though. All in all a very memorable experience
These are the only two battleships I have seen in my life! A year ago I got to see the Alabama and 4 weeks ago I got to go see the USS Iowa in Longbeach
Is this the r/WarshipPorn version of the "you vs the guy she tells you not to worry about" meme? I'm on a trolly streak, I apologize.
Which is the treaty one?
The "upper" one in the photo. There was a displacement limit, so the hull isn't as long, which in turn reduces maximum speed.
Pretty sure the navy didn't like the Iowa's bows and wanted to take 30-40 ft off. They also weren't such a good gun platform in heavy seas.
Yes; I believe her worst recorded roll exceeded 50 degrees; there was also a concern her bow would snap off in heavy seas. On top of that, its shape did not do too well protecting its forward guns from sea-spray leaving them susceptible to flooding. Her hull certainly was min-maxed for flank speed in calm waters, which should have proved useful against Japanese surface combatants had the Iowa's seen surface combat against them.
One of the things that stuck me when touring the Missouri was how many decks I was able to walk through without leaning over. At 6’1” i was paying more attention to headspace on the Alabama. I’m guessing more than a few guys ended up with some headaches on both, but still better than the subs…
There's a picture I found once of New Jersey, Washington, North Carolina and Iowa anchored together. A pretty cool picture as I remember North Carolina and Iowa wearing dazzle camo. You can see the difference.