r/Warships

We know the American's absolutely would have went through with the South Dakota's, But the Lexingtons likely still would have ended up as flat tops, as even before the Treaty was signed that was becoming the popular idea for them. but past the South Dakota's Would the American's stick to the standard type design? Or would the fast battleships like NC and Iowa still become the endpoint for their Battleships?

Would the British have built the N3s? Or maybe the more Conventional L3 competitor design? Considering how much other work would need to be done to their Naval infrastructure to support such a vessel, i wonder if they would even survive the costs of such expansion, and building such ships.

Along with that how far would Japan push their ship designs? If the Yamato was their magnum opus after such a long pause in Design and build work, What would the evolution look like if they didn't have that pause.

I’ve been working on fictional warships for a world build me and some of my friends are putting togethe, and here are a few of them, mainly from the navy of a nation called the United States of Yokania (or just Yokania — the name most likely gives away what IRL nation this is equivalent to):

Shown in the first image is a refit of an Anguloria-class fast battleshi, this one in particular being YSS Wesylvania as she was in the 1980s. The Anguloria class as a whole appeared in the 1940s originally, when the need for a fast battleship able to escort, fight alongside, and protect the Yokanian Navy’s aircraft carriers was identified, and have enjoyed a long service career afterward.

**-Name:** Wesylvania (subclass of Anguloria).

**-Type:** guided missile battleship.

• **Builder:** Wright Shipbuilding Co.

Size:

• **Draft:** 13 meters.

• **Beam:** 35 meters.

• **Length:** 270.4 meters.

• **Height:** 66 meters.

• **Top Speed:** 33 knots.

• **Range:** 32,500 km.

**Displacement:** 49,000 metric tonnes (standard).

**Propulsion:** Steam turbine.

**Engines:** 4x Simmers TP-900 steam turbines and 2x TG-950 steam turbine generators, fed by FO-525B oil-fired water-tube boilers.

• **Power:** 220,000 shaft horsepower to the propellers.

• **Fuel mass:** TBD.

Armament:

* Primary Gun Battery: 6x M41A2 405mm/50 naval guns (automatically loaded) in 2x forward superfiring 3-gun turrets.

* Primary missiles: 72x M82 CIVLS 8-cell VLS modules (all aft of amidships, typically 128x RGM-29/RGM-36/RGM-45 cruise missiles and 448x RIM-104/RIM-111 SAMs).

* Secondary Gun Battery: 8x M65 125mm/62 naval dual-purpose guns in single turrets on the wings (octagonal 4-up-4-down).

* Point Defense Battery: 8x TM-57 Hornet II quad-25mm revolver-cannon CIWS, 9x M66 Guardian SAM turrets, and RIM-104/RIM-111 SAMs. 40mm Stalwart II revolver cannons and/or flex-mounted M3A1 machineguns are optional.

* Aircraft: 4x UH-4 Twin Dragonfly, MH-17 Cicada, AH-10 Kokain, and/or AH-17 Locust helicopters.

* Crew: 1,580 enlisted/ratings, 180 officers (1,760 total).

* Entered service: 1960 (YSS Wesylvania BB/BBG-69).

Sensors:

Sonar: WQSG-69 sonar with towed array.

* Range: up to 20 km.

* Rotation Direction: 360°.

* Power: TBD.

Radar: SPS-21 low-frequency search radar, SPG-71 fire-control radar, and SPY-1 3D phased array radar.

* Range: up to 420 km.

* Power: a lot.

* Rotation: 360°.

* Slaving: all weapons systems tied into sensors, fire control suite, and Orion combat system.

* Datalink: 1980s, early military internet communications capabilities.

The second image shows a common missile cruiser in the Yokanian Navy, being the Greenwood class, also from the 1980s. The Greenwood class first appeared in the 1970s as a replacement for the myriad of cruisers then in service, serving to expand the Navy’s surface combatant capabilities.

**-Name:** Greenwood (class).

**-Class:** guided missile cruiser.

Size:

• **Draft:** 7.0 m.

• **Beam:** 25 m (approximate).

• **Length:** 220 m (approximate).

• **Height:** 58 m (keel/mast—approximate).

• **Speed:** 35 knots.

• **Range:** 30,000+ km.

**Displacement:** 20,000 metric tons.

**Propulsion:** combined-cycle turbine-electric.

**Engine:** 4x Simmers CG-140FD flue-burning combined cycle turbines, 2x Starfire PowerTech H-1280B auxiliary diesels. 4x propeller shafts.

• **Type:** Fuel Oil.

• **Weight:** TBD.

• **Power:** 160,000 shaft hp.

• **Fuel mass:** TBD.

Armament:

• **Primary Gun Battery:** 6x M40A2 205mm/55 naval guns in two forward superfiring triple turrets.

• **Primary missiles:** 32x M82 CIVLS 8-cell VLS modules amidships, and 4x M80 4-tube slant launcher “bins” (256 cells + 16 tubes = 272 total).

• **Secondary Gun Battery:** 3x M65 125mm/62 naval dual-purpose guns in single turrets, one centerline forward and two on the wings.

• **Point Defense Battery:** 4x TM-61 Hornet II quad-25mm revolver-cannon CIWS, 4x M66 Guardian SAM turrets, and RIM-104 CM-1/RIM-111 CM-2 SAMs in VLS cells (usually 192). 40mm Stalwart II revolver cannons and/or flex-mounted M3A1 machineguns are optional.

• **Aircraft Types:** UH-4 Twin Dragonfly, MH-15 Honeybee, MH-17 Cicada, and/or AH-17 Locust helicopters.

• **Aircraft Amount:** 2x.

* Entered service: 1973 (YRS Greenwood CG-191).

**Sonar:** WQSG-69 sonar with towed array.

• **Range:** up to 20 km.

• **Rotation Direction:** 360°.

• **Power:** I don’t know, a lot.

**Radar:** SPSG-21 low-frequency radar, SPG-71 fire control radar, SPY-1 3D search radar.

• **Range:** up to 420 km.

• **Power:** a lot.

• **Rotation:** 360°.

• **Slaving:** all weapons systems tied into sensors, fire control suite, and Orion combat system.

• **Data Link:** 1980s, early military internet communications capabilities.

As notes:

* the M41A2 is an equal to the 16”/50 Mark 7 guns used on the Iowas, albeit with a fully automated loading system to reduce crew requirements.

* the M40A2 is equivalent to the 8”/55 Mark 28 prototype guns that were developed for the Spruance-class destroyers of the 1970s, but were cancelled due to budget constraints.

* the M65 is equivalent to the 5”/62 Mark 45 Mod 4 gun on modern Arleigh Burkes.

* the M66 is primarily based on the launchers used with the RIM-116 Rollong Airframe Missile

* the M82 CIVLS is a cold-launch equivalent to the Mark 41 VLS used by the US Navy, specifically the Strike variant.

* the TM-61 Hornet II is my own homebrew stuff, utilizing four M7A2 25mm guns on semi articulated mounts (the M7 being an externally driven revolver cannon I came up with). This approach allows the size and shape of the turret’s beaten zone to be adjusted to the threat at hand, with exacting precision to take down aerial targets in its envelope quickly and efficiently.

* I built these ships with the help of one of my friends, utilizing a game called NavalArt (though fair warning, NavalArt‘s shipbuilding system is extremely clunky—I would much prefer to use Blender instead).

What are your thoughts on these machines? I’ll hold off on offering my opinion to allow you guys to discuss and offer any criticism.

(On another note, I apologize for the absolute text wall, as I wanted to provide at least general statistics on these ships to inform your take.)

CSS Georgia was an ironclad warship built in Savannah, Georgia during the American Civil War. The Ladies' Gunboat Association raised $115,000 for her construction. Because of a lack of iron, her armor was made from repurposed rails. as a result, she was very very very heavy. she could barely move or steer on her own, and never saw combat.

What makes this even better is that at the end of the war, she was scuttled to prevent the union from "using it". what they could have used it for i have no idea.

Weight of shell is one of the most important factors in a naval gun of the earlier 20th century, especially needing to consider what a can be handled by sailors due to less machinery assistance than would be found later in the century. It would seem to me though that 150 lbs, equating to about a 170mm or 6.7" gun, would be one of the optimal calibers. One strong man's maximum to handle repeatedly with some ease is about 75lbs, and this can be seen in naval shells and cartridges like the 5.5" which had an 80lbs shell for that reason or the 5"/25 who had an 80lbs cartridge. These guns were able to have a good rate of fire seemingly proving the idea. Thus it would seem to stand to reason that to have the maximum effectiveness of a gun which with a shell two men could handle the shell of that it would be 150lbs or maybe slightly more.

It would also be the largest reasonable for a separate cartridge system before automatic weapons as the powder and casing should weigh in the neighborhood of 80lbs so could be handled by a single man.

In addition to it being of a good weight to achieve a good rate of fire, being about 1.5x the weight of a standard 6" shell would give the ships a ballistic advantage over light cruisers so armed. As cruiser armor often only really gave protection from 6" shell, it would seem this would likely be the minimum to be fairly confident at being able to overwhelm one's foes.

Pictured is a 17cm SK L/40, one of the few naval weapons which had about this shell weight (lighter trending German shells meant it was 141lbs), spending its second life as part of the Atlantic Wall.

Was the lack of use if weapons in this caliber simply inertia with the long history of the 6"/155m and then the naval treaty limit of 8"? Or was something like this really slightly too big and the 130lbs heavy 6" shell really the reasonable max for a high rate of fire naval gun?

I discovered it yesterday and I want to know more about it

I just finished reading Battleship Sailor by Theodore C. Mason. What a fantastic book with some of the best descriptions of PreWW2 navy life. It has a amazing account of the attack on Pearl Harbor as the author was in the birdbath as a radiomen on USS California. I highly recommend this book.

He's also got another book "We Will Stand by You: Serving in the Pawnee, 1942- 1945" about his wartime service on a fleet tug during WW2. I also highly recommend it as well.

My next book to read is also in the picture,

"The Fighting Flying Boat: A History of the Martin PBM Mariner"

by Richard Alden Hoffman who was a PBM pilot..

Very much looking forwards to reading it!

I thought here might be the best place to try and identify this warship.

We spotted it a long way off-shore so sorry for the low resolution/quality.

We’re on holiday in Rhodes, Greece and this was seen far out in the Mediterranean Sea in between us and Turkey, heading south.

It wasn’t on any trackers that we could see. We’ve spent a while on AI and it has so far been 100% sure on about 5 different ships. 🤣

Thanks.

Possibly "Viana do Castelo" class, but I'm not sure. Sorry for the poor quality but it was quite far away.

Thx in advance for any hints! 🖖