Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wasatch!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!bellcore!faline!thumper!ulysses!att!cbnews!dave@questar.questar.mn.org From: dave@questar.questar.mn.org (David Becker) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Montana battleships Message-ID: <6033@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 28 Apr 89 03:24:16 GMT References: <5929@cbnews.ATT.COM- Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: Questar Data Systems; St. Paul, MN Lines: 48 Approved: military@att.att.com From: dave@questar.questar.mn.org (David Becker) Bill Thacker writes: : : Details of Iowa's underwater protection are very vague, but it seems : likely that four torpedo bulkheads were provided, the outer two filled : with fuel oil or water. A triple bottom was also fitted. This system : was used on the South Dakotas which immediately proceded them, and : planned for the Montanas to follow. What did the navy have in mind for the Montana class? I suppose they only wanted carriers after WWII and built those instead of any more battleships. [mod.note: Precisely. The Montanas were a logical follow-on to the South Dakota class, being relatively slow (27-knot) battleships, as opposed to the high-speed Iowas. The were to mount a fourth 16"/50 turret astern, and use the new 5"/54 dual purpose secondary battery. Otherwise, they were bloody big (58000 tons design); too big to pass the Panama Canal, but the sacrifice was considered necessary to keep even with the next generation of battleships (which was expected to evolve internationally). Orders were placed for 5 ships: Montana (BB 67), Ohio, Maine, New Hampshire, and Louisiana, but work never started. - Bill ] : Tim McDaniel writes: : >- Armor is "expensive" in weight, leading to a deeper draft, thus less : >fuel efficiency and less maximum speed (any other costs?). : : This is essentially it. In WWII and before, the "big three" items : in warship design were armor, propulsion, and armament; a gain in one : could only be achieved to the detriment of the others, unless you : could increase displacement (which was limited by docking considerations : and, at the time, the Panama Canal). : How would fission reactor affect this tradeoff? How would a fission powered Iowa compare to the fossil ones? I believe a couple large carriers are fossil powered(JFK or America?) while most are fission(Nimitz, Enterprise). Did their designers throw out armor totally in favor of armament(aircraft). -- David Becker and another bug bites, and another bug bites another bug bites the dust db@kolonel.MN.ORG