WI: Iowa Class Armament/Hull Incompatibility Is Not Resolved

Delta Force

Banned
During the development of the Iowa class, the Navy wanted more powerful armament than the 16"/45 Mark 6 used on the preceding North Carolina class. There wasn't much weight margin, but the Bureau of Ordnance informed the Bureau of Construction and Repair that it could design a smaller barbette capable of using the 16"/50 Mark 2 cannons planned for the design. However, for some reason the Bureau of Ordnance continued working on the larger barbette design, while the Bureau of Construction used the smaller design in drafting the ship. This incompatibility was not realized until shortly before the design was to be finalized. The Bureau of Ordnance was able to design the lighter and smaller diameter 16"/50 Mark 7, as well as a smaller barbette, allowing the design to be completed.

What if the issue is unable to be resolved, or cannot be resolved in time? Could the Navy order the Iowa into production with the Mark 6? What about increasing the number of South Dakota class ships ordered? Alternatively, might it decide to skip the Iowa class entirely and wait a few months, opting to build a more powerful battleship such as the Montana class instead?
 
That would be a tough one. However the US is fairly determined to build a 30+ knot BB and make use of that 10,000 tons in the escalator clause.

They are going to build the IOWA, however there is a couple of options.

#1- Use the Mark II on the smaller barbette but re-design the turret to accept a smaller bore separation and ammo handling and take the penalty.

#2- Go with the Mark VI which is a fairly powerful gun in it's own right.
 
Given how naval guns almost never fire at maximum range and how steeply angled shells do more damage both at sea and on land, going with the Mark 6 isn't going to present a disadvantage. With the new 2700 pound shells they still fire a heavier broadside than any battleship ever made aside from the Yamato twins.
 
I would be hesitant accepting all of the data and opinions on a Wikipedia page for such a specialised item . I would recommend the excellent Navweaps.com site as more accurate and at least maintained by experts in the field .

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk2.htm

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-45_mk6.htm

From what I read there it appears the general idea of what your saying is correct however the wiki pages have some really unusual weights etc that don't tally with navweaps . this is not unusual as their are hundreds of books out their that use data that includes typo's that become accepted as correct and used as a reference for the next book etc .

I for one could not see a repeat of the South Dakota being approved . The USN wanted the fastest Battleship in the world and they got it . It was not armoured against it's own shells and was one of three classes the American Navy designed knowing it could not stand up to itself . Mind you the Super Heavy AP shells the South Dakota and North Carolinas got given in addition to the Iowa's the only ship that could have stood up to them was the Yamato and even then it would be a close battle .

As for the question about maybe building the Montana instead , that would give them no advantages over the South Dakota except more firepower in a salvo and possible more armour . Speed for the Montana was supposed to be 27 knots and it was not really fast enough .
 

Redbeard

Banned
If I had been in the chair from which to take a decision I would happily have taken the 16"/45. It was an accurate and well proven design and with the 2700 lbs. AP shell it was fully capable of engaging any target afloat. But I would most certainly like it onboard a 30+ knot design.
 
Top