[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/k/ - Weapons

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


Janitor applications are now closed. Thanks to all who applied!


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: IMG_3070.jpg (287 KB, 1384x1109)
287 KB JPG
I feel like I’m the only one fascinated by the refitted American pre-treaty BBs. Still wonder to this day if America just abandoned the fast BB designs entirely and just went with comically sized dreadnoughts only limited to Panamaxxing, but I don’t really like the tillmans
>>
>>65230336
Well the three of the Big Five that were rebuilt already well exceeded Panamax so they wouldn’t be very large ships. Panamax actually forced a hull form that was suitable to fast battleship proportions. You might be interested in some of the really early Montana studies though, one was a marginally longer ABXY South Dakota with most of the spare weight going to extra armor, which I do wish we’d actually built.
>>
File: 013529b.jpg (126 KB, 706x1000)
126 KB JPG
>>
File: 013542q.jpg (448 KB, 3000x2411)
448 KB JPG
>>
File: IMG_3072.jpg (450 KB, 3000x1425)
450 KB JPG
>>65230347
The C&R already consciously broke Montana’s Panamax limit by Scheme 8, which makes me wonder if the US navy didn’t just go with the slightly wider beam, instead giving it something like 44-46m beams for the Montana, as their (if I remember correctly) late war expectance of being relegated completely to either ocean.
>>
>>65230336
Regardless of how you look at it a 20kn battle line isn't going to cut it in a 30kn world. Otherwise you are just giving your enemy the ability to always dictate engagements.
>>
>>65230353
>>65230374
>sponsons
>>
>>65230353
>>65230374
One day I WILL see the Texas.
>>
>>
File: monitorstobattleships.jpg (1.17 MB, 3386x2500)
1.17 MB JPG
>>65230770
DO IT COOL AF
}Need to upload the rest of my dry dock photos
>>
Some of them looked great, especially after the refits, but realistically they were a very, very expensive way to shell a beachhead.
>>
>>65230960
>refits
Cheaper than building an entirely new ship; sunk cost for warships launched decades prior. All battleships worldwide became permanently obsolete after 1942.
>>
>>65230960
Especially since naval gunfire support never really worked like it was supposed to.
>>
>>65230336
>comically sized dreadnoughts only limited to Panamaxxing
qrd?
>>
File: BB-67.png (768 KB, 1331x1159)
768 KB PNG
>>
>>65230336
You're definitely not the only one. The post-refit New Yorks and Pennsylvanias are the most aesthetic of the dreadnoughts ever built, and I maintain that the platonic ideal of a dreadnought would be accomplished by taking a post-refit Pennsylvania and lengthening it just enough to get a triple-barrel Q turret in.
>>
>>65233785
>New Yorks
I also like the Wyomings. Coal fired ftw
>>
File: USS Idaho.jpg (504 KB, 1125x600)
504 KB JPG
Idaho looked really neat with her 5"/38 Mk.30 single turrets. No other BB was refitted with the Mk30s.
>>
>>
>>65230820
old american ships have a charm to them
>>
>>65234139
fat fuck.



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.