Warship Projects Profile No.US002C



Fourth tentative scheme in the path-finding process during the early stages of the BB-55 design progress. After the relative conservative ‘Scheme A’ and ‘A1’ the next ‘B’ and ‘C’ designs applied full size armament (compared to pre-Treaty superdreadnoughts) while offering high speed and relatively good protection against 14″ guns. Essentially this was a modern, fast (~30 knot) version of the older dreadnoughts, with alternating machinery arrangement and geared turbines. Note the 180.000 SHP powerplant which was four times as much as the older cousins had and equaled the turbo electric plant intended for the LEXINGTON class CCs.

For Scheme C armament was upped to the 16″/45 Mark 6 (2240 lb shell) but protection was still based on the older 14″/50 Mark 7/11 guns performance (1400 lb shell).

Note however that both ‘B’ and ‘C’ had an up-armored version (‘B1’ and ‘C1’ resp.) versus the more modern 14″/50 Mark B and it’s 1500 lb shell with an IZ of 19-30 kyard that translated to 15″ (380 mm) belts. Interestingly enough the deck could stay the same 5.25″ (133 mm) as the 14″/50 had a flat trajectory already and the marginally heavier shell had a comparatively lower muzzle speed that in turn negated the weight advantage. This was later a huge factor in favor of the 16″ gun for the actual ships, as the bigger gun had a much heavier shell and therefore a lot better penetration at the outer edge while the inner edge was the same or better. Plus the bigger gun dealt much bigger damage even with a single hit.

WPPP No. US002C-y


4 Comments Add yours

  1. Melvin says:

    Kudos for another series of good posts to record developments in projected designs.
    Those who look at naval architecture will see in the series a subtle reflection on USN design wherein you have relatively heavy displacement to the ends of the raft citadel AND the fact that these weight constrained ships feature the long preferred high percentage of citadel to ship length.
    Trying to recall the schemes from Friedman, one recalls that the traditional design in the BIg Five featured flat decks over the five cell tbd system. The interesting aspect is that one has an enhanced defensive system for both shell and torpedo attack and so without breaking the 35k limit too much. Another factor which is brought out by the artwork is the obviously high block coefficient, which to date the sources do not provide a numerical value. Given what we have presented the block coefficient married to the 2/3 raft body demonstrates an attempt to have defense against both shell and torpedo attack, not often achieved because of design philosophies favouring defense against one or the other.
    Trying to recall the schematics of the series,you do have separate funnels but didn’t the designs suggest trunked fuinnels which of course would assist in deck space and diminished funnel gas effects, if not a slight reduction in the length of the citadel?


  2. John_McCarthy1 says:

    you forgot to change the stat card from the North Carolina class scheme B proposal


    1. csatahajos says:

      Hi John,

      I’m afraid they were identical except for the main armament, that is why they are the same.




  3. Cindi Wadden says:

    Aw, this was an extremely good post. Spending some time and actual effort to generate a great article… but what can I say… I put things off a whole lot and don’t seem to get anything done.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s