The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Fri Jan 22, 2021 9:16 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 72 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 4:37 am 
Hi USN_Matt you have for gotten a battleship that was surposed to be built by the british besideds that one your talking about. I've called it after me as my username the name was N3 that's it.

Well I hope I was of help to you and I love all of those battleships LOL put them all in museum it be the grestest day of my life.

N3 Class Battleship

Class overview
Name: N3
Operators: Royal Navy
Preceded by: Revenge class
Succeeded by: Nelson class
Planned: 4
Completed: 0
Cancelled: 4
General characteristics
Type: Battleship
Displacement: about 48,000 long tons (49,000 t)
Length: 815 ft (248.4 m)
Beam: 106 ft (32.3 m)
Draught: 33 ft (10.1 m) (at deep load)
Installed power: 56,000 shp (42,000 kW)
Propulsion: two shafts, 2 geared steam turbines
Speed: 23 knots (43 km/h; 26 mph)
Armament: 3 × 3 - 18-inch (457 mm) guns
8 × 2 - 6-inch (152 mm) guns
6 × 1 - 4.7-inch (120 mm) AA guns
4 × 10 - barrel 2-pdr pom-pom mountings
2 × 24.5-inch (622 mm) torpedo tubes
Armour: Belt: 13.5–15 in (343–381 mm)
Deck: 6–8 in (152–203 mm)
Barbettes: 15 in (381 mm)
Turrets: 10–18 in (254–457 mm)
Conning tower: 15 in (381 mm)
Bulkheads: 9–14 in (229–356 mm)


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 6:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 10:02 pm
Posts: 162
Location: hangzhou china
alsace should be the most elegant one :cool_1:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 6:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:04 am
Posts: 341
Location: London, England
Had the N3's been built, dispite their powerfull armament they were restricted by their poor speed. Even in WW2 they would almost certainly been used as convoy escorts, and I would think as the threat of the German surface fleet was subdued, for shore bombardment, (italy & D Day) and paid off before the end of the war to release their crews for more valuable vessels (By late 1944 the Royal navy, and the rest of our Armed Forces, were suffering from Manpower shortages).

Even the faster G3 class battlcruisers, (Had they been built, they were more fast battleships), would have been paid off straight after the end of the war. Some perhaps sooner, no surface threat In the west, and even with refits poor AA armament they would not have been any use to the British Pacific Fleet (where the Lions would have gone)

had the Lion class been built, I doubt Vanguard would have happened. Lack of manpower to build and crew the vessel.

Even had other navies retained Battleships I do think the Royal Navy would have retained more battleships or longer than it actually did. Simply the UK couldn't afford them, the country was skint.

_________________
Simon Heathwood


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 11:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3103
Yep, definitely like this one.
Attachment:
alsace_midships_aircraftsmall.jpg
alsace_midships_aircraftsmall.jpg [ 102.13 KiB | Viewed 3715 times ]

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 12:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 10:37 am
Posts: 1500
Location: Massachusetts.
navydavesof wrote:
Yep, definitely like this one.
Attachment:
alsace_midships_aircraftsmall.jpg

Is this a French battle design without treaty limits? 3rd of class???

_________________
On the Bench
1/350 Independence
1/350 Dunkerque
1/350 Shimakaze
1/350 Sharnhorst Dragon
1/350 Belfast


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 12:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3103
sirpaul wrote:
Is this a French battle design without treaty limits? 3rd of class???
The Alsace-class was the next battleship class the French had planned. When France saw the London Treaty was being abandoned by rival countries they embarked on a few studies for new battleships that disregarded the treaty limits. Alsace was to be about 45,700 tones. Progress on the class had reached the naming phase. There were to be 4 ships: Alsace, Normandie, Flandre, and Bourgogne. Essentially it was a more heavily armed Richelieu. There were several designs proposed, but all had a 3rd main battery turret. The main difference was that one had triple 16" turrets and one simply had third 4 gun 16" turret. I believe that due to industrial feasibility the variant with the 4-gun 15" turret was chosen. They were already making 15" guns, and the knowledge base was already established.

As I am sure you noticed, she was to have a below-deck stern hanger. I have added a few elements to an AU story he has been writing that involves WWII battleships remaining in service well into the later half of the 20th century. If the battleship was to remain a constant capital ship in the navies of the post war world, another class of would likely have been constructed post 1945 by most battleship owning powers. Along with Richelieu and Jean Bart a few units of the Alsace-class would have had a place in the future of a Liberated France.

Alsace has earned a place on my future whiff build list. Anyone else want to help :big_grin: ?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 8:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:58 pm
Posts: 1549
Location: Houston, Texas
IF the ships were built, there would have been some happy scrappers in the 1950s.

_________________
╔═════╗
Seasick
╚═════╝


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3103
Seasick wrote:
IF the ships were built, there would have been some happy scrappers in the 1950s.
Just like those dumb Iowa-class, huh? :heh:
No better steel than battleship steel. "And the bidding starts at..."
:thumbs_up_1:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Sep 27, 2011 9:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:58 pm
Posts: 1549
Location: Houston, Texas
PCU Kentucky (BB-66) was scrapped a year or so after she donated her bow to the USS Wisconsin. PCU Illinois (BB-65) was scrapped on the slipway in the late 1940s. As for metal, the world was contaminated with radioactive isotopes from all the surface and air nuclear test. Manufacturing equipment and scientific equipment being manufactured today benifits from high grade metals made before the first atomic test. Battleship steel is at a premium today.

_________________
╔═════╗
Seasick
╚═════╝


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 8:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:06 am
Posts: 541
Location: Leeds, UK.
It's always agreed that later in the war the battleship concept was becoming obsolete, but if one had ever met with a fleet that was not defended by their own battleships and got past the air strikes, if one had got amongst enemy ships unhindered, it would be like a fox in a chicken run; they could cause carnage to an invasion fleet. The Japanese did try this a number of times, but was always beaten off at longer range by air strikes or at closer range by defending U.S. battleships.

If a super Yamato could have been designed to survive torpedo hits with larger torpedo bulges and even better armour or if escorted by a couple of carrier loads of fighters, could one have got past the air strikes and made it to Okinawa where Yamato failed? If one did, who knows what the outcome would have been, but I'm sure a modern battleship in gun range could eat carriers for dinner.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3103
In conclusion of examination of the battleship concept, one can understand that the battleship in itself itself is the most effective strike platform feasible. Today it would not only bear a remarkable missile battey like a CG, but it would have a shockingly overwhelming gunnery battery where basic extended range projectile technologies with basic precision guidance would arm such a strike platrom with an unequalled strike capability. Such a battleship like that of a Littorio or Iowa-class would provide a battle deciding advantage to a field or theater commander. Naval gunnery as a tactical support arm had been lost to many actual commanders and certainly more armchair admirals who rely on the wiki world for information.
As soon as people get their heads out of the sand about battleships, the quicker a nation can have a surprisingly effective strike platform that literally puts a CVN to shame.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:21 pm
Posts: 3239
Location: equidistant to everywhere
0.1 Kton warhead, and the single battleship turns into about a thousand.

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:51 pm
Posts: 2644
A battleship cannot withstand a hit from a senator-class politician armed with the Mk IV long-range budget cutters


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3103
EJFoeth wrote:
A battleship cannot withstand a hit from a senator-class politician armed with the Mk IV long-range budget cutters

:big_grin:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3103
The funny thing is that it would probably be the French who would build one :heh: .

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 7:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3103
One of the earlier comments that pointed out that if the battleships were retained after WWII they would have continued playing the cat and mouse thing like SSNs did during the Cold War.
Perhaps that is right. The French Alsace-class with helo capability, 12 fifteen-inch guns and a missile system...that would have been a significant force to contend with.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2011 8:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 6:47 pm
Posts: 3133
Location: Oslo, Norway
Alsace class was the most elegant indeed.
And besides Alsace class, Frane navy would have completed the 2 other Richelieu class battleships, Clemenceau and Gascogne.
In Gascogne we see a return to a main artillery arrangement with a turret aft:
Image
And by the way France Navy besides USN was the only navy that retained battleships till later 1960's both Richelieu and Jean Bart was active as training ships till 1967.
Jean Bart has also the most modern and capable AA equipment from all battleships when she finnaly completed in 1952.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 5:06 pm 
Rob-UK wrote:
It's always agreed that later in the war the battleship concept was becoming obsolete, but if one had ever met with a fleet that was not defended by their own battleships and got past the air strikes, if one had got amongst enemy ships unhindered, it would be like a fox in a chicken run; they could cause carnage to an invasion fleet. The Japanese did try this a number of times, but was always beaten off at longer range by air strikes or at closer range by defending U.S. battleships.

If a super Yamato could have been designed to survive torpedo hits with larger torpedo bulges and even better armour or if escorted by a couple of carrier loads of fighters, could one have got past the air strikes and made it to Okinawa where Yamato failed? If one did, who knows what the outcome would have been, but I'm sure a modern battleship in gun range could eat carriers for dinner.


Sorry to demolish your theory but airpower is not only about attack and defence - it’s also about intelligence. The Navy with the air superiority is the navy that knows what the other side is doing so can manoeuvre to best advantage, i.e. A carrier centric force would simple use it's reconnaissance aircraft to keep it informed as to where your battleship centric force was and keep out of its way while sending in strike aircraft.

This USN used a form of this tactic at Midway to ensure its carriers were kept out of range of the IJN battleships and cruisers.

By the way no ship planned during WW2 would have been invulnerable to attack, even if not sunk any underwater or machinery related damage would have slowed the ship so it would have extreme difficulty closing on its enemy ships.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 6:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 9:00 pm
Posts: 149
Location: south africa
i would have to say , any combat force operates on morale , if thats broken then the enemy wont really put up a fight , but i think if those ships were built and fighting and favoureable results were seen , would the war of the ocean become clash of titans and giants ? ? Because it wouldnt have been long then even H-44 would have been the new accepted standard for combat ships , any comments on my theory ? ?

_________________
be inspirational today , you might never get that chance tomorrow


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 6:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:01 pm
Posts: 254
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Atma wrote:
In Gascogne we see a return to a main artillery arrangement with a turret aft:


she was intended to complete the squadron as the rear ship in line, to provide rear guard.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 72 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group