Warships that should never been built?

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
You could argue that none of the I class Battlecruisers should have been built. Battleship guns should not be on ships with cruiser armour.
That was less the actual concept and much more the error of the Admirals command the fleets at sea. Big as a battleship, guns as big as a battleship, has "Battle" in the name = BATTLESHIP, well at least until they get hit by a battleship size round when they become "lost with all hands".

The USN made an opposite mistake, but one that has similar tragic results, with the Juneau class AA cruisers. They named them Light Cruiser, Anti-Aircraft instead of something more in keeping with their design, even destroyer leader anti-aircraft would have been a better designation. Instead they started with CL, so they were used in a similar way to light cruisers. Bad idea. A truely descriptive name would have been Big Destroyer with a shit-ton of ammunition, surface combat contra-indicated since there effectively overstuffed 5"/38 magazines with engines.
 
Once again I enternally question why the USN didn't made the Panama Canal locks 10 feet wider. Although I will say that the Lexington definitely had a better armor distribution(but definitely not in thickness than the QEs due to it being all or nothing. Hmm as for how to cut down the weight of the engines in particular ditch the turbo electric drive and use the same turbines as Hood(which after all were designed by Curtis) and license decent reduction gears from the UK.
Well when they were designed the locks were larger than any projected ships needed. But in the years the canal was being built ships grew greatly in size. There were plans to enlarge them by the early 1930s (less than 20 years after the canal was completed) and the project began in 1938. The channels were pretty much complete when the project was stopped in December 1941 when it was decided that the resources the project would need could be better used in other war projects. The Montana class BBs were cancelled soon after. I'm slightly surprised that the Midway class (which also needed the larger locks) were continued, but I'm glad they were. The excavated channels for the project were allowed to languish until they were incorporated in the just completed canal expansion.
 
I have a basic Springsharp report for the Lexington-class battlecruiser. It's based as much as possible on the basic Springstyle for Battle Cruiser 1919 Scheme B, a 45,000 ton normal ship with 8 x 16-inch and 14 x 6-inch guns capable of 33 knots. I have specified the powerplant for 180,000 shp, the Lexington's design value, rather than the 216,000 shp that Springsharp thinks are needed to get this ship to 33 knots, so the difference of 1.5 knots is known. Range is set at 16,350 nmi to give the right weight for bunkerage, 2,500 tons at 2/3rds capacity. Values for freeboard are based on the Springstyle. The Springsharp composite strength indicates that weight is still available for use.
Lexington-class, United States Navy battlecruiser laid down 1921

Displacement:
38,817 t light; 40,975 t standard; 43,478 t normal; 45,479 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(874.33 ft / 850.00 ft) x 99.00 ft (Bulges 105.00 ft) x (31.00 / 32.19 ft)
(266.50 m / 259.08 m) x 30.18 m (Bulges 32.00 m) x (9.45 / 9.81 m)

Armament:
8 - 16.00" / 406 mm 50.0 cal guns - 2,110.00lbs / 957.08kg shells, 120 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1918 Model
2 x Twin mounts on centreline, forward deck forward
1 raised mount - superfiring
2 x Twin mounts on centreline, aft deck aft
1 raised mount aft - superfiring
14 - 6.00" / 152 mm 53.0 cal guns - 105.01lbs / 47.63kg shells, 200 per gun
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts, 1920 Model
14 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
4 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 18,350 lbs / 8,323 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 9.00" / 229 mm 653.00 ft / 199.03 m 11.94 ft / 3.64 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 118 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
2.00" / 51 mm 637.50 ft / 194.31 m 28.46 ft / 8.67 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 72.00 ft / 21.95 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 6.00" / 152 mm 8.00" / 203 mm
2nd: 3.00" / 76 mm - -

- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 4.00" / 102 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 8.00" / 203 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 180,001 shp / 134,281 Kw = 31.51 kts
Range 16,343nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 4,504 tons

Complement:
1,505 - 1,957

Cost:
£10.469 million / $41.876 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 3,410 tons, 7.8 %
- Guns: 3,410 tons, 7.8 %
Armour: 10,379 tons, 23.9 %
- Belts: 2,849 tons, 6.6 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,343 tons, 3.1 %
- Armament: 2,093 tons, 4.8 %
- Armour Deck: 3,881 tons, 8.9 %
- Conning Tower: 213 tons, 0.5 %
Machinery: 6,198 tons, 14.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 18,830 tons, 43.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4,661 tons, 10.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
47,660 lbs / 21,618 Kg = 23.3 x 16.0 " / 406 mm shells or 6.8 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.21
Metacentric height 7.0 ft / 2.1 m
Roll period: 16.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 46 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.50
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 0.83

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a straight bulbous bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.550 / 0.554
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.10 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 29.15 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 51 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 40.00 degrees
Stern overhang: -8.00 ft / -2.44 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 15.00 %, 29.00 ft / 8.84 m, 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 22.00 ft / 6.71 m, 17.50 ft / 5.33 m
- Aft deck: 45.00 %, 17.50 ft / 5.33 m, 17.50 ft / 5.33 m
- Quarter deck: 10.00 %, 17.50 ft / 5.33 m, 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Average freeboard: 19.40 ft / 5.91 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 118.2 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 136.8 %
Waterplane Area: 58,727 Square feet or 5,456 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 107 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 241 lbs/sq ft or 1,178 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.20
- Longitudinal: 1.03
- Overall: 1.07
Cramped machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Poor seaboat, wet and uncomfortable, reduced performance in heavy weather
I have increased the bulge to 114 feet and increased bulk coefficient to 0.56, giving a standard displacement of 48,000 tons compared to the 43,500 tons of the Lexington-class. Speed drops by less than a knot, which would be to 32 knots in real life, in exchange for increasing belt thickness by 3" to 12" and deck thickness by 2" to 6". Barbette armor has been increased by 2". These changes represent an addition of almost 5,000 tons of armor. The ship is now 31% armor by weight, which is a good level for a fast battleship of this era, and especially good compared to the 23% armor by weight of the Lexingtons.

Oregon-class, United States Navy fast battleship laid down 1921

Displacement:
43,311 t light; 45,561 t standard; 48,062 t normal; 50,064 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(874.33 ft / 850.00 ft) x 99.00 ft (Bulges 114.00 ft) x (31.00 / 32.18 ft)
(266.50 m / 259.08 m) x 30.18 m (Bulges 34.75 m) x (9.45 / 9.81 m)

Armament:
8 - 16.00" / 406 mm 50.0 cal guns - 2,110.00lbs / 957.08kg shells, 120 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1918 Model
2 x Twin mounts on centreline, forward deck forward
1 raised mount - superfiring
2 x Twin mounts on centreline, aft deck aft
1 raised mount aft - superfiring
14 - 6.00" / 152 mm 53.0 cal guns - 105.01lbs / 47.63kg shells, 200 per gun
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts, 1920 Model
14 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
4 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 18,350 lbs / 8,323 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 595.00 ft / 181.36 m 15.00 ft / 4.57 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 108 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
2.00" / 51 mm 595.00 ft / 181.36 m 29.10 ft / 8.87 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 72.00 ft / 21.95 m

- Hull Bulges:
1.00" / 25 mm 595.00 ft / 181.36 m 29.10 ft / 8.87 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 8.00" / 203 mm 10.0" / 254 mm
2nd: 3.00" / 76 mm - -

- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 6.00" / 152 mm
Forecastle: 1.00" / 25 mm Quarter deck: 1.00" / 25 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 8.00" / 203 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 180,002 shp / 134,282 Kw = 30.88 kts
Range 15,268nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 4,503 tons

Complement:
1,622 - 2,109

Cost:
£10.869 million / $43.477 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 3,410 tons, 7.1 %
- Guns: 3,410 tons, 7.1 %
Armour: 14,963 tons, 31.1 %
- Belts: 4,425 tons, 9.2 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,281 tons, 2.7 %
- Bulges: 641 tons, 1.3 %
- Armament: 2,609 tons, 5.4 %
- Armour Deck: 5,780 tons, 12.0 %
- Conning Tower: 228 tons, 0.5 %
Machinery: 6,198 tons, 12.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 18,740 tons, 39.0 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4,752 tons, 9.9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
57,350 lbs / 26,014 Kg = 28.0 x 16.0 " / 406 mm shells or 8.9 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.28
Metacentric height 7.7 ft / 2.3 m
Roll period: 17.3 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 45 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.36
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 0.82

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a straight bulbous bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.560 / 0.562
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.46 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 29.15 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 51 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 40.00 degrees
Stern overhang: -8.00 ft / -2.44 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 15.00 %, 29.00 ft / 8.84 m, 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 22.00 ft / 6.71 m, 17.50 ft / 5.33 m
- Aft deck: 40.00 %, 17.50 ft / 5.33 m, 17.50 ft / 5.33 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 17.50 ft / 5.33 m, 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Average freeboard: 19.46 ft / 5.93 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 107.2 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 128.5 %
Waterplane Area: 59,281 Square feet or 5,507 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 106 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 233 lbs/sq ft or 1,137 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.15
- Longitudinal: 0.95
- Overall: 1.00
Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Poor seaboat, wet and uncomfortable, reduced performance in heavy weather
 
Last edited:
Page 100 of Royal Navy Frigates 1945-1983 by Leo Marriott..
It was also planned that the last four ships should be equipped with the new Seawolf missile system instead of the original Seacat installation, but this plan was dropped to cost considerations and also to topweight and stability problems associated with the greater weight of the new missile system. As it was, all the ships needed extra permanent ballast as a result of equipment fitted over and above the original design.

I thought that the chapter on Type 23 and future designs said that Argentina was offered a Type 21 armed with the VM40 version of Seawolf, but bought MEKO 360 instead. I thought that it also had an artists' impression of the ship.

However, I had a naval warfare board game called Seastrike and it did have a drawing of the VM40 Seawolf armed Type 21 on the lid of the box.
Interesting. I've read they didn't have the growth margin to accept Sea Wolf or a towed array.

I haven't looked my copy of the relevant Friedman, but I suspect that being refitted with the GWS25 version of Seawolf was part of the Type 21's staff requirement.
I haven't seen that, but these were light frigates. As the USN discovered with the Perrys, when you design light, small and cheap with little margin for growth, you also get little margin for modernization.

Regards,
 

Then there is this Commie Shit Rebuild of a Dreadnought, which though in their original configuration looked fine, but with their rebuilds in the 1930s, look very ugly. These ships also had no real purpose within the Soviet Fleet during WWII other than a glorified artillery platform.
Not really useful in OTL Eastern front war but there are some scenarios where a stronger soviet surface fleet is useful. Say during a hypothetical Swedish/Soviet war or a larger Finnish/Soviet War. Or something more along the lines of our WW2 where the French hold on but the Soviets still get involved either on the side of the Allies or the Germans.
 
I don't like the Type 21 either.

Unfortunately, it wouldn't have been possible to build 8 Type 22s instead of the 8 Type 21s because AIUI the design wasn't ready.

Even if the Type 22 design was ready in 1969 (when the first Type 21 was ordered) Sea Wolf and the Type 2016 sonar were not.

Therefore, we would have had 8 Type 22s completed 1974-48 "fitted for, but not with" Sea Wolf. "B" and "X" positions would have been occupied by twin 40mm gun mountings or vacant because Sea Wolf wasn't due to be installed until their mid-life refit. At least half of them would still be without Sea Wolf in the spring of 1982.

Therefore, I think that 8 Type 42s should have been built instead of the 8 Type 21s in spite of them costing about twice as much. (OTOH the unit cost of 14 Batch 1 Type 42s might have been less than the unit cost of the 6 Batch 1 ships of OTL through economies of scale.)

On the subject of the Type 42 the Batch I and 2 ships of OTL should have been built with the larger hull of the OTL Batch 3 ships.
Aaaaahhh! . . . the Type 42!

The ship that that the penny pinching MOD tried to scale down then cost twice as much!
 
The ship that that the penny pinching MOD tried to scale down then cost twice as much!
the funny thing is that the Dutch navy has learned that lesson, and found that scaling up a ship a bit will make it cost less (steel is cheap, and with more room to work with it gets easier to put things in)
 
Last edited:
Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were used as raiders, not raider killers?

Figure in the thinking how? Fisher wanted battlecruisers as a fast wing for the fleet or cruiser killers (when he came close to expressing his ideas properly), I’ve never seen anything about being worried about AMCs.
I belie e he is refering to Graf Von Spee's S & G which were sunk off the Falklands by two of the I class Battle Cruisers during the first world war.
 
I’ve often thought the name “battlecruiser” was part of the problem. Allowed too many people (*cough* Beatty *cough*) to think of them as ‘proper’ capital ships.

Maybe supercrusier or fleet cruiser would have been a better name for the type.
We all know the official standing, on this board, of this class of wasted displacement. Though as long as we continue with the realistic condemnation we should not fear the West coast Ursus!
 
Exactly. The Coast Guard get screwed at budget time, always has. A bunch of low hour, high speed, low manning cost (40-50 personnel vs. 113 for the Legend class or 160+ for the Hamilton class) that can be used specifically for the drug interdiction role (one thing the LCS classes are is FAST, as in freeway legal speed fast) that are designed for both helicopter operations and small boat ops is better than a kick in the nuts.
If only the Coasties were allowed to sell some of the drugs they seize.

Then they could probably afford to build their own fleet of Ford Class supercarriers outfitted with railguns and death rays.
 
There ya' go.

380'+ long, 3,000+ ton warship with ONE 57mm gun, 2x1 30mm Bushmasters 4x1 M2 .50 cal and a CIWS.

As a comparison the IDF's Sa'ar 6 will carry a 76mm gun, two remote operated 30mm guns, a 32 cell VLS for SAM, 16 Gabriel III/IV anti-ship missiles, and two 324mm torpedo launchers, with an SH-60 helo on 295 feet and 1,900 tons full load.

Of course you can also go a bit old school and compare them to the second flight Spruance class ships that the Navy just sort of sank for shits and giggles because they lacked AGEIS.

Things are total wastes of time and money.
I've often wondered whether the US should have just built copies of the Saar 5/ Saar 6's instead of the LCS. That and building up a smallish fleet of small gunboats/ missile boats for locations like the Persian Gulf.
 
If only the Coasties were allowed to sell some of the drugs they seize.

Then they could probably afford to build their own fleet of Ford Class supercarriers outfitted with railguns and death rays.
Or at the very least get new Icebreakers and a 25% increase in the number of larger cutters they are procuring
 
Last edited:
Aaaaahhh! . . . the Type 42!

The ship that that the penny pinching MOD tried to scale down then cost twice as much!
That can't be blamed on the shortening of the hull that is often attributed to Dennis Healey who to those that remember Mike Yarwood was also known as the Silly Billy.

Type 42 was one of many 1970s warship classes whose final cost was much more than the estimated cost.
 
I've often wondered whether the US should have just built copies of the Saar 5/ Saar 6's instead of the LCS. That and building up a smallish fleet of small gunboats/ missile boats for locations like the Persian Gulf.
The Saar 6 design would probably need to grow by about 800 tons to improve its seakeaping,range, and habitability not to mention provide room for future upgrades in order for the USN to like it
 
The Saar 6 design would probably need to grow by about 800 tons to improve its seakeaping,range, and habitability not to mention provide room for future upgrades in order for the USN to like it
I suggested a MEKO 200 variant, similar to the ANZAC class, good all around multipurpose frigate.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I've often wondered whether the US should have just built copies of the Saar 5/ Saar 6's instead of the LCS. That and building up a smallish fleet of small gunboats/ missile boats for locations like the Persian Gulf.
There are plenty of light FFG/Heavy corvettes that they could have chosen. A reworked/enlarged Sa'ar 5 would have been an easy solution. Damned ships were even built in Mississippi (of all places) by a major U.S. defense contractor.

The problem the U.S. ran into is the same one that has screwed up the F-35 program for so long. They tried to create an "all in one" jack-of-all-trades ship rather than build proper ships for the roles. That is clever as hell if/when it works, the operative term being "if/when", when it doesn't you wind up the F-111 (thank God for Tom Connolly). Coup-led to that was the over reliance on vaporware to make the ships function, especially the Non-Line-of-Sight Missile. There was also the classic "oooh...shiny" problem when it came to the concept of "mission modules", several of which were themselves reliant on unproven/undeveloped tech to work.

The result was a 3,000 top warship, the same size as a Sumner class DD (3x2 5"/38, 3x2 3"/50 DP, 10 21"torpedoes, and misc light automatic weapons/Robert B Smith class DD/minelayer (as before except with 80 mines replacing the torpedo tubes) armed with a 57mm gun, two 30mm chain guns (sometimes, they are part of the Surface warfare module) and 4x1 M2 .50 cal. The LCS are far faster than the older DD, but are also shockingly less survivable than a 72 year old design and carry armament that barely qualifies them as an inshore patrol boat.

Never buy something designed by a committee working for four or five different bosses with entirely different goals.
 
Cancel hms Vanguard, IMPLACABLE and indefatigable and build HMS AUDACIOUS as a priority. It should be obvious from 1940 onwards that the future of the RN is Carrier aviation
 
Does mission modules = missing modules in many cases?
Yes. Unfortunately.
Cancel hms Vanguard, IMPLACABLE and indefatigable and build HMS AUDACIOUS as a priority. It should be obvious from 1940 onwards that the future of the RN is Carrier aviation
Vanguard yes but the Implacable class was very useful just needed the two story hanger left out. Their main issue was being worked to death and no refit money. In contrast as others have mentioned the Victorious refit should never have happened and the resources used for either a Malta or at least a repeat Audacious class ship.
 
Top