The original design did include 8x21" fixed underwater torpedo tubes. That was a thing with capital ships designed before the Treaty-imposed battleship holiday.World of Warships does have Constellation CC-2 with a theoretical WW2 refit as a premium ship. Could serve as a potential source of inspiration in terms of secondary and AA armament. Though only as inspiration, the thing has torpedo tubes for crying out loud!
There is also the WSGR version of Constellation.World of Warships does have Constellation CC-2 with a theoretical WW2 refit as a premium ship. Could serve as a potential source of inspiration in terms of secondary and AA armament. Though only as inspiration, the thing has torpedo tubes for crying out loud!
I'm aware that was a thing with earlier battleships. But for some reason WG decided to put above water, swiveling, tubes on her. Despite the fact that the US had gone away from arming surface combatants other than destroyers with them.The original design did include 8x21" fixed underwater torpedo tubes. That was a thing with capital ships designed before the Treaty-imposed battleship holiday.
The only forward compartment SMS Seydlitz had which wasn't flooded when she limped into port after the battle was the one where the torpedoes were stored. If that had flooded she would have sunk.
I'm aware that was a thing with earlier battleships. But for some reason WG decided to put above water, swiveling, tubes on her. Despite the fact that the US had gone away from arming surface combatants other than destroyers with them.
The mention of floaties brings to mind another shipgirl commenting that Seydlitz is 'hydrodynamic' and needs floaties.That brings to mind the picture of shipgirl Seydlitz compulsively keeping a few empty torpedo casings on hand at all times as emergency floaties.
Putting the triple superfiring up top with the twin below it was a US thing (see: Pensacola-class). This allowed the turrets be placed closer to the bow and stern for more available deck space between them while retaining a fine low-drag underwater hull shape.Incidentally, wargaming released a news thing today about Large cruiser Congress, a 1940 design. From what I saw in the article, the double turret is on the bottom while the triple turret is on top, seems odd layout...
As for Constitution, I like that 10 gun layout instead of the 8 gun.
Norman Friedman put out a series of books with boring titles like "U.S. Battleships: An Illustrated Design History" that are very detailed.I see, thank you for that information. I watched one of Drach's videos on the Pensacola and that class had a similar layout.
I just remembered that Prinz Eugan was commissioned into the U.S.N. after the war.
Inverse you could have her make a beeline for the states after she separated from Bismarck.
Cue a taskforce with the USS Prinz Eugen, called Pringles by her US crew, and the HMS Bismarck.
Or if you really feeling mean one of the US state capitals is Bismarck and US heavy cruisers are named after cities...
So you now have the USS Bismarck and the HMS Bismarck.
I was talking about when Prinz and Bismarck serperated right after Bismarck sunk Hood and drove off Prince of Wales.
Wait let me back up.
Someone over in SB had the bright idea of Bismarck surrendering (caused no one liked Nazies) when her rudder got jammed in May 1941, the Brits captured her, went free battleship, and commissions her as the HMS Bismarck, traditional the British never changed the name of ships they captured.
Meanwhile the crew of the Prinz heard of this, the surrender, and decide to go to the US to do the same. Why the US? Because they heard talk of the British scuttling the Bismarck among other things, and decided the US was the safer bet.
The USN not having the same tradition of capturing ships, decided to rename Pringles as Bismarck. For the dimple reason as she is a heavy cruiser and US heavy cruisers are named after cities. It kinda started as a joke for the Navy that grow...
You ever hear of Rule the Waves.I wish that in some respects, we could go back to that time period and observe as all of these new technologies came out. Specially to be a naval engineer back then, must've been very interesting times with all the stuff being designed.
Going from 850F, 565psi to 2100F, 565psi would allow you to wring approximately 300,000shp out of machinery that's about the same size as the 172,000shp machinery the Montana's were designed for without increasing fuel consumption at all due to increased thermodynamic efficiency. With WWII-era screws that alone ups a Montana's flank speed by about 7kts.Okay, that's actually not possible. Like, even if we handwave the boiler change, that is in fact hydrodynamically impossible and there's only so far I'm willing to push Sparkly Magical Shipgirl Bullshit.
Those "hilariously high-temps" are totally doable with the kinds of steels I design around. 310 Stainless doesn't start creeping until 2,102F.Even if I put aside my skepticism that such hilariously high-temp boilers are at all reliable:
Oh sure the boiler and turbines can take that kind of temprature and pressure if designed that way. The problem is, the ship itself cant actually handle that much shaft horsepower, nor does it have the hulform to actually convert that power into speed.Those "hilariously high-temps" are totally doable with the kinds of steels I design around. 310 Stainless doesn't start creeping until 2,102F.
The gearing and propellers are part of the steam plant, so that's a non-issue.Oh sure the boiler and turbines can take that kind of temprature and pressure if designed that way. The problem is, the ship itself cant actually handle that much shaft horsepower, nor does it have the hulform to actually convert that power into speed.
You are right though on Montana having no clue what her top speed would be, just are wrong on what would go wrong. I'm pretty certian that if the gearbox doesn't tear itself apart under the increased load, the propeller will as they appaerntly throw a fit when theyre even slightly outside their design tolerances. Presuming both were replaced with unobtanium, the hull form itself would cap the speed the ship could reach.
No, the propellers cannot handle that amount of horsepower. There's only so much power you can dump into a propeller before cavitation strips away all the extra energy you're putting into it. That limit, even today*, is about 70,000 shp per shaft and you've blown right past that.The gearing and propellers are part of the steam plant, so that's a non-issue.
The hull, however, is not. The Montana-class, as paper ships which were never built, might be able to handle the increased speed without a change in hull form because they were designed to be tougher than the Iowas* ... but there are no guarantees.
* The Iowas had to fit through the Panama Canal. The Montana's were under no length, beam, draught, or displacement restrictions.
You are entirely wrong in all of your statements. The Emma Maersk is larger than a Montana and capable of 25-26kts on a single 109,000hp shaft.No, the propellers cannot handle that amount of horsepower. There's only so much power you can dump into a propeller before cavitation strips away all the extra energy you're putting into it. That limit, even today*, is about 70,000 shp per shaft and you've blown right past that.
And the problem with the Hull is not structural strength, it's hydrodynamics. The Montanas have a solid length to beam ratio, but it's a ratio designed for 30 knots and they don't go all-in on the hydrodynamic trickery the Iowas do. You're going to be dumping excessive amounts of power into the water for every knot above 30.
And the real nail in the coffin? The US Navy studied a fast Montana design with 320,000 horsepower. It was expected to make only 33 knots. It had six propeller shafts. And this with a significantly higher length to beam ratio that likely compensates for the actual design being 10,000 tons lighter.
So no. You're not getting 35 knots out of that horsepower and you're certainly not dumping that amount of power into four shafts.
*Unco
No, it is not 109,000 shaft horsepower. That's the engine output; no source I've found states what the actual shaft horsepower is, but given the definition of shaft horsepower* it's lower than the engine horsepower.You are entirely wrong in all of your statements. The Emma Maersk is larger than a Montana and capable of 25-26kts on a single 109,000hp shaft.