Early Evolution of the American Battle Line (Americas failed attempt to build a fast fleet) please read the latest post

[kriegerfaust]

 

https://www.history.navy.mil/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nhhc-series/s-file/S-584-083.html

Title: Preliminary Design Plan for a Battle Cruiser ... October 12, 1912 Note:
Description: Photo #: S-584-024 Preliminary Design Plan for a Battle Cruiser ... October 12, 1912 Preliminary design plan prepared for the General Board during consideration of designs to be included in the Fiscal Year 1914 program. The General Board recommended that two battle cruisers be requested for Fiscal Year 1914 and the Secretary of the Navys staff developed characteristics that guided this design, which was forwarded to the Secretary of the Navy on 19 October 1912. Ultimately, however, the Navy requested only one battleship of standard design in Fiscal Year 1914, which became Arizona (Battleship # 39). Battle cruiser construction was not authorized until funding was provided under Fiscal Year 1917 authority (see Photo # S-584-102). This plan provides eight 14-inch guns, turbine machinery and a speed of 29 knots in a ship 920 feet long on the load water line (L.W.L.), 97 feet in beam, with a normal displacement of 42,250 tons. The original document was ink on paper (black on white). The original plan is in the 1911-1925 Spring Styles Book. U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command Photograph.

Title: Preliminary Design Plan for a Battle Cruiser ... August 25, 1915 Note:

Description: Photo #: S-584-082 Preliminary Design Plan for a Battle Cruiser ... August 25, 1915 A preliminary design for a battle cruiser sent on 27 August 1915 to the General Board in response to a request to examine the feasibility of three sets of characteristics, all mounting the same main battery but varying in speed and armor. This plan was the only drawing developed for any of the three. Note that the plan appears to be a larger version of P.D. No.143 (see Photo # S-584-081), adding displacement to provide light side armor that made this new design appear feasible. The initial design adopted for the Fiscal Year 1917 battle cruisers (see Photo # S-584-102) resembled this one in armament and armor. This plan provides eight 14-inch guns, turbine machinery, and a speed of 30 knots in a ship 745 feet long on the waterline, 100 feet in beam, and with a normal displacement of 35,500 tons. The original document was ink on linen (black on white). The original plan is in the 1911-1925 Spring Styles Book. U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command Photograph.

Title: Preliminary Design Plan for a "Battle Scout" ... September 9, 1915 Note:

Description: Photo #: S-584-083 Preliminary Design Plan for a Battle Scout ... September 9, 1915 Preliminary design plan for a large scout cruiser, called a Battle Scout, prepared in response to a General Board request of 12 June 1915. This drawing originally was captioned as a Battle Cruiser but that title was erased and the title Battle Scout written in its place. No ships of this type were built but the hull structural design developed here and in P.D. 150 (see Photo # S-584-089) was adapted for the Constellation (Battle Cruiser # 1) class ships approved for construction later (see Photo # S-584-102). This plan provides eight 14-inch and twelve 6-inch guns, turbine machinery, and a speed of 35 knots in a ship 800 feet long on the water line, 94 feet.in beam, with a normal displacement of 32,000 tons. Note the lack of side armor in way of the turrets; their ammunition was to be stored in the armored barbettes. The original document was a blueprint (white on dark blue). The original plan is in the 1911-1925 Spring Styles Book. U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command Photograph.

Catalog #: S-584-083

 

Title: Preliminary Design Plan for a "Scout Cruiser" ... September 15, 1915 Note:

Description: Photo #: S-584-084 Preliminary Design Plan for a Scout Cruiser ... September 15, 1915 Preliminary design plan for a large scout cruiser. This design is very similar to P.D. 144 (see Photo # S-584-083), a so-called Battle Scout, but differs in having main battery guns (10-inch) of lesser caliber than capital ships (14- or 16-inch). Note the provision of side armor in way of the turrets, absent in P.D. 144 but provided here and also in P.D. 150 (see Photo # S-584-089). Other than armament, this design differs from P.D. 150 only in having less beam. No ships of this type were built. This plan provides eight 10-inch and twelve 6-inch guns, turbine machinery, and a speed of 35 knots in a ship 800 feet long on the water line, 90 feet in beam, with a normal displacement of 28,000 tons. The original document was ink on linen (black on white). The original plan is in the 1911-1925 Spring Styles Book. U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command Photograph.

Title: Preliminary Design Plan for a "Battle Scout" ... October 1915 Note:

Description: Photo #: S-584-090 Preliminary Design Plan for a Battle Scout ... October 1915 Preliminary design plan for a large scout cruiser, called a Battle Scout. These Battle Scout designs apparently were intended to explore what capabilities might be provided in a large ship type having fewer heavy guns than a Battle Cruiser but having a significantly heavier main battery than the more lightly armed Scout Cruisers studied earlier in 1915. No Battle Scouts were built. This plan provides eight 14-inch and twelve 6-inch guns, and a speed of 35 knots in a ship 800 feet long on the water line, 94 feet in beam, with a normal displacement of 32,000 tons. This design differs from P.D. 150 (see Photo # S-584-089) in having the main battery grouped in two turrets rather than four, using the weight saved to extend the side armor the full length of the ship. The original document was a blueprint (white on dark blue). The original plan is in the 1911-1925 Spring Styles Book. U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command Photograph.

Title: Preliminary Design Plan for a "Battle Scout" ... October 1915 Note:

Description: Photo #: S-584-091 Preliminary Design Plan for a Battle Scout ... October 1915 Preliminary design plan for a large scout cruiser, called a Battle Scout. These Battle Scout designs apparently were intended to explore what capabilities might be provided in a large ship type having fewer heavy guns than a Battle Cruiser but having a significantly heavier main battery than the more lightly armed Scout Cruisers studied earlier in 1915. No Battle Scouts were built. This plan provides eight 14-inch and twelve 6-inch guns, and a speed of 35 knots in a ship 800 feet long on the water line, 94 feet in beam, with a normal displacement of 32,000 tons. This design differs from P.D. 150 (see Photo # S-584-089) in having the main battery grouped in three turrets rather than four, using the weight saved to extend the side armor forward to the bow. The original document was a blueprint (white on dark blue). The original plan is in the 1911-1925 Spring Styles Book. U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command Photograph.

Title: Battleship 1916 ... March 20, 1916 Note:

Description: Photo #: S-584-094 Battleship 1916 ... March 20, 1916 The preliminary design for battleships to be funded in Fiscal Year 1916, sent by the Bureau of Construction & Repair on 28 March 1916 to the Navy Department as the baseline for comparison with six alternative new designs (see Photo #s S-584-095 through S-584-100) under consideration for construction in the forthcoming Fiscal Year 1917. Tennessee and California (Battleships No.43 and 44, respectively) were built with Fiscal Year 1916 funding to the design shown here. The original document was a blueprint (white on black). The original plan is in the 1911-1925 Spring Styles Book. U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command Photograph.

Title: Battleship 1917 ... March 20, 1916 Note:

Description: Photo #: S-584-095 Battleship 1917 ... March 20, 1916 A preliminary design for a battleship to be funded in Fiscal Year 1917, sent on 28 March 1916 to the Navy Department as one of six alternatives for consideration for construction subsequent to the Tennessee (Battleship No.43) design. This design closely followed the Tennessee in size and speed, differing in having twin 16-inch gun turrets in place of triple 14-inch gun turrets of similar weight. This approach provided the quickest way to improve the Tennessee class design and was selected by the Secretary of the Navy on 22 August 1916 for what became the Colorado (Battleship No.45) class. This plan provided eight 16-inch guns, electric drive machinery, and a speed of 21 knots in a ship 600 feet long on the waterline, 97 feet 6 inches in beam, and with a normal displacement of 32,400 tons. The original document was a blueprint (white on black). The original plan is in the 1911-1925 Spring Styles Book. U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command Photograph.

 

Title: Battleship 1917 ... March 20, 1916 Note:

Description: Photo #: S-584-096 Battleship 1917 ... March 20, 1916 A preliminary design for a battleship to be funded in Fiscal Year 1917, sent on 28 March 1916 to the Navy Department for consideration for construction after the Tennessee (Battleship No.43) design. This design was similar to that of the Tennessee, differing in having two twin and two triple 16-inch gun turrets rather than four triple 14-inch gun turrets. This was the easiest way to provide a ten-gun 16-inch battery on ships of about the same size, but required use of triple 16-inch gun turrets, an untested design. None of the Navys top leaders recommended this design and it was dropped. This plan provided ten 16-inch guns, electric drive machinery, and a speed of 21 knots in a ship 600 feet long on the waterline, 97 feet 6 inches in beam, and with a normal displacement of 33,200 tons. The original document was a blueprint (white on black). The original plan is in the 1911-1925 Spring Styles Book. U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command Photograph.

 

Title: Battleship 1917 ... March 20, 1916 Note:

Description: Photo #: S-584-097 Battleship 1917 ... March 20, 1916 A preliminary design for a battleship to be funded in Fiscal Year 1917, sent on 28 March 1916 to the Navy Department as one of six alternatives. This design followed the Tennessee (Battleship # 43) in layout and speed, differing in replacing triple 14-inch gun turrets with twin 16-inch turrets while also adding a fifth twin 16-inch gun turret amidships. This design avoided the use of potentially risky triple 16-inch gun turrets but expanded ship size and complicated the design by placing magazines amidships between the machinery spaces. As such, it was one of the least desirable schemes and was passed over. This plan provided ten 16-inch guns, electric drive machinery, and a speed of 21 knots in a ship 656 feet long on the waterline, 97 feet 6 inches in beam, and with a normal displacement of 36,900 tons. The original document was a blueprint (white on black). The original plan is in the 1911-1925 Spring Styles Book. U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command Photograph.

Title: Battleship 1917 ... March 20, 1916 Note:

Description: Photo #: S-584-098 Battleship 1917 ... March 20, 1916 A preliminary design for a battleship to be funded in Fiscal Year 1917, sent on 28 March 1916 to the Navy Department. This design generally followed the Tennessee, differing in replacing triple 14-inch gun turrets with twin 16-inch turrets while adding a fifth twin 16-inch gun turret aft. This design was the least risky means of providing ten 16-inch guns on a ship adapted from the Tennessee and was recommended by the Navys General Board to the Secretary of the Navy. Navy Secretary Josephus Daniels disagreed, directing instead the simplest 16-inch gun adaptation of the Tennessee design, Preliminary Design No.163 (see Photo #: S-584-095). This plan provided ten 16-inch guns, electric machinery, and a speed of 21 knots in a ship 644 feet long on the waterline, 97 feet 6 inches in beam, and with a normal displacement of 35,800 tons. The original document was a blueprint (white on black). The original plan is in the 1911-1925 Spring Styles Book. U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command Photograph.

 

Title: Battleship 1917 ... March 20, 1916 Note:

Description: Photo #: S-584-099 Battleship 1917 ... March 20, 1916 A preliminary design for a battleship to be funded in Fiscal Year 1917, sent on 28 March 1916 to the Navy Department. This design followed the Tennessee, differing in replacing triple 14-inch gun turrets with twin 16-inch turrets while adding a fifth twin 16-inch gun turret in a superimposed position forward. This design avoided a midships turret that complicated machinery arrangements or an additional mount aft that also increased the length of propeller shafting, but added over 5,000 tons displacement and associated cost. None of the Navys leadership recommended this design and it was passed over. This plan provided ten 16-inch guns, electric machinery, and a speed of 21 knots in a ship 668 feet long on the waterline, 97 feet 6 inches in beam, and with a normal displacement of 37,500 tons. The original document was a blueprint (white on black). The original plan is in the 1911-1925 Spring Styles Book. U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command

 

Description: Photo #: S-584-100 Battleship 1917 ... March 20, 1916 A preliminary design for a battleship to be funded in Fiscal Year 1917, sent on 28 March 1916 to the Navy Department as one of six alternatives. This design followed the earlier Tennessee (Battleship No.43) in speed and layout, differing in replacing triple 14-inch gun turrets with twin 16-inch turrets of similar weight while adding a fifth twin 16-inch gun turret amidships. The extra turret was placed abaft the bridge but forward of the machinery spaces, avoiding any impact on machinery arrangements. The ship remained considerably larger than several others, however, and it was passed over. This plan provided ten 16-inch guns, electric machinery, and a speed of 21 knots in a ship 656 feet long on the waterline, 97 feet 6 inches in beam, and with a normal displacement of 36,900 tons. The original document was ink on linen (black on white). The original plan is in the 1911-1925 Spring Styles Book. U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command Photograph.

Title: Preliminary Design for a Battle Cruiser ... June 16, 1916 Note:

Description: Photo #: S-584-102 Preliminary Design for a Battle Cruiser ... June 16, 1916 Preliminary design plan for a battle cruiser sent on 19 June 1916 to the Secretary of the Navy to fulfill the characteristics approved on 13 October 1915 for future battle cruiser construction. This design was based on the hull design developed earlier for P.D. 144 (see Photo # S-584-083) and 150 (see Photo # S-584-089). The Secretary of the Navy approved this design on 29 August 1916 for construction of the Fiscal Year 1917 ships that became the Lexington (Battle Cruiser # 1) class. The design was altered substantially three times prior to construction and ultimately only two ships were completed, as aircraft carriers (see Photo # S-584-182). This plan provides ten 14-inch guns, electric drive machinery, and a speed of 35 knots in a ship 850 feet long on the waterline, 90 feet in beam, and with a normal displacement of 33,500 tons. The original document was a blueprint (white on dark blue). The original plan is in the 1911-1925 Spring Styles Book. U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command Photograph.

Catalog #: S-584-102

Edited November 21, 2023 by kriegerfaust

[kriegerfaust]

 

Title: Preliminary Design No.131 for a Scout Cruiser ... May 1915 Note:

Description: Photo #: S-584-070 Preliminary Design No.131 for a Scout Cruiser ... May 1915 Preliminary design plan for a large scout cruiser, prepared to support General Board discussions concerning the characteristics sought in future cruisers. This plan provided four 16-inch guns and seven 5-inch guns and a speed of 35 knots in a ship 775 feet long on the load water line, 79 feet in beam, with a normal displacement of 20,500 tons. This design included 1,087 tons of armor protection, including 4-inch side armor over 348 feet by 17 feet 6 inches amidships and 1.5-inch deck protection, increasing displacement by 10,000 tons over design No.112. This design was second of three requested as a group during May 1915, apparently to further explore tradeoffs among armament, protection, and size in large scout cruisers. This design series took Preliminary Design No.112 (see Photo # S-584-050) as a baseline. Ultimately, however, no ships of this type were built. The original document was a blueprint (white on blue). The original plan is in the 1911-1925 Spring Styles Book. U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command Photograph

 

Title: Preliminary Design No.132 for a Scout Cruiser ... May 1915 Note:

Description: Photo #: S-584-071 Preliminary Design No.132 for a Scout Cruiser ... May 1915 Preliminary design plan for a large scout cruiser, prepared to support General Board discussions concerning the characteristics sought in future cruisers. This plan provided four 16-inch guns and seven 5-inch guns and a speed of 35 knots in a ship 800 feet long on the load water line, 88 feet in beam, with a normal displacement of 26,800 tons. This design included 2,470 tons of armor protection, including 8-inch side armor over 400 feet by 17 feet 6 inches amidships and 3-inch deck protection, and a displacement increase of 16,300 tons over design No.112. This design was last of a group of three undertaken during May 1915, apparently to further explore tradeoffs among armament, protection, and size in large scout cruisers. This design series took Preliminary Design No.112 (see Photo # S-584-050) as a baseline. Ultimately, however, no ships of this type were built. The original document was a blueprint (white on blue). The original plan is in the 1911-1925 Spring Styles Book. U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command Photograph.

Catalog #: S-584-071

 

Title: Preliminary Design Plan for a Battle Cruiser ... May 1915 Note:

Description: Photo #: S-584-072 Preliminary Design Plan for a Battle Cruiser ... May 1915 Preliminary design plan for a battle cruiser prepared for Captain John Hood of the General Board, apparently requested informally as part of the Boards wide-ranging review of possible cruiser type ships that was underway at the time. This design presented a much larger ship than any other battleship or cruiser yet built for the Navy and presumably was found to be unacceptably large and costly. No such ship was built and the battle cruisers ultimately requested and approved in the Fiscal Year 1917 program were somewhat smaller (see Photo # S-584-102). This plan provides eight 16-inch and twenty 6-inch guns, turbine machinery, and a speed of 29 knots in a ship 1063 feet long on the load water line (L.W.L.), 100 feet.in beam, with a normal displacement of 56, 500 tons. The original document was ink on linen (black on white). The original plan is in the 1911-1925 Spring Styles Book. U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command Photograph.

Title: Preliminary Design No.134 for a Scout Cruiser ... May 1915 Note:

Description: Photo #: S-584-073 Preliminary Design No.134 for a Scout Cruiser ... May 1915 Preliminary design plan for a large scout cruiser, prepared to support General Board discussions concerning the characteristics sought in future cruisers. This plan provided four 16-inch guns and ten 6-inch guns and a speed of 30 knots in a ship 695 feet long on the load water line, 70 feet in beam, with a normal displacement of 13,500 tons. This design included only 364 tons for 4-inch armor for the heavy gun barbettes and front shields. This design was requested by Captain John Hood, head of the General Board committee responsible for ship design, apparently to explore to what degree a speed reduction from 35 to 30 knots might reduce the size of such minimally-protected scout cruisers carrying the heaviest guns. This design series took Preliminary Design No.112 (see Photo # S-584-050) as a baseline. Ultimately, however, no ships of this type were built. The original document was a blueprint (white on blue). The original plan is in the 1911-1925 Spring Styles Book. U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command Photograph.

Title: Preliminary Design Plan for a Battle Cruiser ... June 1915 Note:

Description: Photo #: S-584-078 Preliminary Design Plan for a Battle Cruiser ... June 1915 Preliminary design plan for a battle cruiser prepared for Captain John Hood of the General Board, apparently requested informally as part of the Boards wide-ranging review of possible cruiser type ships that was underway at the time. This design may have represented an attempt to design a smaller ship than that developed in May for Captain Hood (see Photo # S-584-072) but neither plan resulted in a design slected for construction. This plan provides eight 16-inch and twenty 6-inch guns, turbine machinery, and a speed of 30 knots in a ship 1000 feet long, 98 feet. in beam, with a normal displacement of 52,000 tons. The original document was ink on linen (black on white). The original plan is in the 1911-1925 Spring Styles Book. U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command Photograph.

Title: Preliminary Design Plan for a "Battle Scout" ... June 1915 Note:

Description: Photo #: S-584-079 Preliminary Design Plan for a Battle Scout ... June 1915 Preliminary design plan for a large scout cruiser, called a Battle Scout, prepared in response to an oral request from the General Board on 12 June 1915. These Battle Scout designs apparently were intended to explore what capabilities might be provided in a large ship type having fewer heavy guns than a Battle Cruiser but having a significantly heavier main battery than the typically lightly armed Scout Cruisers studied earlier in the year 1915. No such Battle Scouts ever were built. This plan provides four 16-inch and ten 6-inch guns, turbine machinery, and a speed of 35 knots in a ship 875 feet long on the load water line (L.W.L.), 86 feet.in beam, with a normal displacement of 27,000 tons. The original document was ink on linen (black on white). The original plan is in the 1911-1925 Spring Styles Book. U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command Photograph.

Title: Incomplete Preliminary Design Plan for a Battle Cruiser ... July 1, 1915 Note:

Description: Photo #: S-584-081 Incomplete Preliminary Design Plan for a Battle Cruiser ... July 1, 1915 Preliminary design plan for a battle cruiser prepared for the General Board, apparently requested as part of the Boards wide-ranging review of possible cruiser type ships that was underway at the time. As noted on the drawing, specific required design criteria, including displacement, forced the creation of a design that lacked any side armor. Accordingly, this design was left incomplete once such an unlikely combination of features had developed. No such ship was built and the battle cruisers ultimately requested for the Fiscal Year 1917 program were somewhat larger (see Photo # S-584-102). This plan provides six 16-inch and fourteen 6-inch guns, turbine machinery, and a speed of 30 knots in a ship 725 feet long on the water line, 90 feet in beam, with a normal displacement of 30,000 tons. The original document was ink on linen (black on white). The original plan is in the 1911-1925 Spring Styles Book. U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command Photograph.

[kriegerfaust]

 

Title: Preliminary Design No.126 for a Scout Cruiser ... April 26, 1915 Note:

Description: Photo #: S-584-063 Preliminary Design No.126 for a Scout Cruiser ... April 26, 1915 Preliminary design plan for a large scout cruiser, prepared to support General Board discussions concerning the characteristics sought in future cruisers. This plan provided four 14-inch guns and seven 5-inch guns and a speed of 35 knots in a ship 800 feet long on the load water line, 85 feet in beam, with a normal displacement of 25,000 tons. This design included 2,330 tons of armor, 8-inch side armor over 374 feet by 17 feet 6 inches amidships plus 1.5-inch deck protection, adding 14,500 tons displacement over design No.112. This design was last in a set of 11 undertaken as a group during 21 to 29 April 1915 to explore tradeoffs among armament, protection, and size in large scout cruisers capable of 35 knots speed. This design series took Preliminary Design No.112 (see Photo # S-584-050) as a baseline. Ultimately, however, no ships of this type were built. The original document was a blueprint (white on blue). The original plan is in the 1911-1925 Spring Styles Book. U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command Photograph.

Title: Preliminary Design No.127 for a Scout Cruiser ... May 1, 1915 Note:

Description: Photo #: S-584-064 Preliminary Design No.127 for a Scout Cruiser ... May 1, 1915 Preliminary design plan for a large scout cruiser, prepared to support General Board discussions concerning the characteristics sought in future Cruisers. This plan provided two 14-inch guns and nine 5-inch guns and a speed of 35 knots in a ship 720 feet long on the load water line, 66 feet in beam, with a normal displacement of 13,000 tons. This design included no armor protection and thus added only 2,500 tons displacement over design No.112. This design was first in a set of three requested as a group in late April 1915, apparently to further explore tradeoffs among armament, protection, and size in large scout cruisers carrying a minimum number of heavy guns and capable of 35 knots speed. This design series took Preliminary Design No.112 (see Photo # S-584-050) as a baseline. Ultimately, however, no ships of this type were built. The original document was a blueprint (white on blue). The original plan is in the 1911-1925 Spring Styles Book. U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command Photograph.

Title: Preliminary Design No.135 for a Scout Cruiser ... May 29, 1915 Note:

Description: Photo #: S-584-065 Preliminary Design No.135 for a Scout Cruiser ... May 29, 1915 Preliminary design plan for a large scout cruiser, prepared to support General Board discussions concerning the characteristics sought in future cruisers. This plan provided four 16-inch guns and ten 6-inch guns and a speed of 32 knots in a ship 780 feet long on the load water line, 72 feet in beam, with a normal displacement of 16,000 tons. This design included only 364 tons for 4-inch armor for the heavy gun barbettes and front shields. This design was requested by Captain John Hood, head of the General Board committee responsible for ship design, apparently to explore to what degree a speed increase of two knots over Design No.134 (see Photo # S-584-073) might increase the size of such a ship. This design series took Preliminary Design No.112 (see Photo # S-584-050) as a baseline. Ultimately, however, no ships of this type were built. The original document was ink on linen (black on white). The original plan is in the 1911-1925 Spring Styles Book. U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command Photograph.

Title: Preliminary Design No.121 for a Scout Cruiser ... May 1915 Note:

Description: Photo #: S-584-066 Preliminary Design No.121 for a Scout Cruiser ... May 1915 Preliminary design plan for a large scout cruiser, prepared to support General Board discussions concerning the characteristics sought in future cruisers. This plan provided two 14-inch guns and nine 5-inch guns and a speed of 35 knots in a ship 720 feet long on the load water line, 65 feet in beam, with a normal displacement of 12,650 tons. This design included no armor, adding two heavy guns at the expense of 2,150 tons additional displacement over design No.112. This design was sixth in a set of 11 undertaken as a group during 21 to 29 April 1915 to explore tradeoffs among armament, protection, and size in such large scout cruisers capable of 35 knots speed. This design series took Preliminary Design No.112 (see Photo # S-584-050) as a baseline. Ultimately, however, no ships of this type were built. The original document was a blueprint (white on blue). The original plan is in the 1911-1925 Spring Styles Book. U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command Photograph.

Title: Preliminary Design No.128 for a Scout Cruiser ... May 1915 Note:

Description: Photo #: S-584-067 Preliminary Design No.128 for a Scout Cruiser ... May 1915 Preliminary design plan for a large scout cruiser, prepared to support General Board discussions concerning the characteristics sought in future cruisers. This plan provided two 14-inch guns and nine 5-inch guns and a speed of 35 knots in a ship 760 feet long on the load water line, 71 feet in beam, with a normal displacement of 16,500 tons. This design included 938 tons of armor protection, including 4-inch side armor over 296 feet by 17 feet 6 inches amidships and 1.5-inch deck protection, adding 6,000 tons displacement over design No.112. This design was second in a set of three requested as a group at the end of April 1915, apparently to further explore tradeoffs among armament, protection, and size in scout cruisers. This design series took Preliminary Design No.112 (see Photo # S-584-050) as a baseline. Ultimately, however, no ships of this type were built. The original document was a blueprint (white on blue). The original plan is in the 1911-1925 Spring Styles Book. U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command Photograph.

Title: Preliminary Design No.129 for a Scout Cruiser ... May 1915 Note:

Description: Photo #: S-584-068 Preliminary Design No.129 for a Scout Cruiser ... May 1915 Preliminary design plan for a large scout cruiser, prepared to support General Board discussions concerning the characteristics sought in future cruisers. This plan provided two 14-inch guns and nine 5-inch guns and a speed of 35 knots in a ship 800 feet long on the load water line, 77 feet in beam, with a normal displacement of 20,850 tons. This design included 2,033 tons of armor protection, including 8 inch side armor over 322 feet by 17 feet 6 inches amidships, adding 10,350 tons displacement over design No.112. This design was last in a set of three requested as a group at the end of April 1915, apparently to further explore tradeoffs among armament, protection, and size in such large, heavily-armed scout cruisers. This design series took Preliminary Design No.112 (see Photo # S-584-050) as a baseline. Ultimately, however, no ships of this type were built. The original document was a blueprint (white on blue). The original plan is in the 1911-1925 Spring Styles Book. U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command Photograph.

Title: Preliminary Design No.130 for a Scout Cruiser ... May 1915 Note:

Description: Photo #: S-584-069 Preliminary Design No.130 for a Scout Cruiser ... May 1915 Preliminary design plan for a large scout cruiser, prepared to support General Board discussions concerning the characteristics sought in future cruisers. This plan provided four 16-inch guns and seven 5-inch guns and a speed of 35 knots in a ship 720 feet long on the load water line, 73 feet in beam, with a normal displacement of 16,500 tons. This design included no armor protection, allowing the installation of four 16-inch guns on a displacement only 6,000 tons greater than design No.112. This design was first in a set of three requested as a group during May 1915, apparently to further explore tradeoffs among armament, protection, and size in such large, heavily armed scout cruisers capable of 35 knots speed. This design series took Preliminary Design No.112 (see Photo # S-584-050) as a baseline. Ultimately, however, no ships of this type were built. The original document was a blueprint (white on blue). The original plan is in the 1911-1925 Spring Styles Book. U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command Photograph.

Edited November 21, 2023 by kriegerfaust

[kriegerfaust]

Title: Preliminary Design No.115 for a Scout Cruiser ... April 1915 Note:
Description: Photo #: S-584-053 Preliminary Design No.115 for a Scout Cruiser ... April 1915 Preliminary design plan for a large scout cruiser, prepared to support General Board discussions concerning the characteristics sought in future cruisers. This plan provides four 12-inch guns and seven 6-inch guns and a speed of 35 knots in a ship 700 feet long on the load water line, 60 feet in beam, with a normal displacement of 12,600 tons. This design was adapted during early April 1915 from Preliminary Design No.112 (see Photo # S-584-050) by adding four heavy guns and 364 tons of armor on their barbette mounts at the expense of eliminating all hull side and deck armor, at the same displacement as design No.114. Preliminary Designs Nos. 113 to 115 were requested at the same time as an initial exploration of armament, speed, and protection options from the P.D. 112 baseline. Ultimately, however, no ships of this large type were built. The original document was a blueprint (white on blue). The original plan is in the 1911-1925 Spring Styles Book. U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command Photograph.

Title: Preliminary Design No.118 for a Scout Cruiser ... April 1915 Note:
Description: Photo #: S-584-056 Preliminary Design No.118 for a Scout Cruiser ... April 1915 Preliminary design plan for a large scout cruiser, prepared to support General Board discussions concerning the characteristics sought in future cruisers. This plan provided four 12-inch guns and seven 5-inch guns and a speed of 35 knots in a ship 720 feet long on the load water line, 69 feet in beam, with a normal displacement of 14,350 tons. This design sacrificed all armor protection to add heavy gun armament and retain 35 knots speed, also adding 3,850 tons displacement over design No.112. This design was third in a set of 11 designs undertaken as a group during 21 to 29 April 1915 to explore tradeoffs among armament, protection, and size in large scout cruisers capable of 35 knots speed. This design series took Preliminary Design No.112 (see Photo # S-584-050) as a baseline. Ultimately, however, no ships of this large type were built. The original document was ink on linen (black on white). The original plan is in the 1911-1925 Spring Styles Book. U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command Photograph.

Title: Preliminary Design No.119 for a Scout Cruiser ... April 1915 Note:
Description: Photo #: S-584-057 Preliminary Design No.119 for a Scout Cruiser ... April 1915 Preliminary design plan for a large scout cruiser, prepared to support General Board discussions concerning the characteristics sought in future cruisers. This plan provided four 12-inch guns and seven 5-inch guns and a speed of 35 knots in a ship 755 feet long on the load water line, 74 feet in beam, with a normal displacement of 18,200 tons. This design included 1,005 tons of armor, 4-inch side armor over 322 feet by 17 feet 6 inches amidships plus 1.5-inch deck protection, adding 7,700 tons displacement over design No.112. This design was fourth in a set of 11 undertaken as a group to explore tradeoffs among armament, protection, and size in large scout cruisers capable of 35 knots speed. This design series took Preliminary Design No.112 (see Photo # S-584-050) as a baseline. Ultimately, however, no ships of this type were built. The original document was a blueprint (white on blue). The original plan is in the 1911-1925 Spring Styles Book. U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command Photograph.

Title: Preliminary Design No.120 for a Scout Cruiser ... April 1915 Note:
Description: Photo #: S-584-058 Preliminary Design No.120 for a Scout Cruiser ... April 1915 Preliminary design plan for a large scout cruiser, prepared to support General Board discussions concerning the characteristics sought in future cruisers. This plan provided four 12-inch guns and seven 5-inch guns and a speed of 35 knots in a ship 800 feet long on the load water line, 80 feet in beam, with a normal displacement of 22,850 tons. This design included 2,175 tons of armor, 8-inch side armor over 348 feet by 17 feet 6 inches amidships plus 3-inch deck protection, adding 12,350 tons displacement over design No.112. This design was fifth in a set of 11 undertaken as a group to explore tradeoffs among armament, protection, and size in large scout cruisers capable of 35 knots speed. This design series took Preliminary Design No.112 (see Photo # S-584-050) as a baseline. Ultimately, however, no ships of this type were built. The original document was a blueprint (white on blue). The original plan is in the 1911-1925 Spring Styles Book. U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command Photograph.

 

Title: Preliminary Design No.122 for a Scout Cruiser ... April 1915 Note:

Description: Photo #: S-584-059 Preliminary Design No.122 for a Scout Cruiser ... April 1915 Preliminary design plan for a large scout cruiser, prepared to support General Board discussions concerning the characteristics sought in future cruisers. This plan provided two 14-inch guns and nine 5-inch guns and a speed of 35 knots in a ship 755 feet long on the load water line, 70 feet 6 inches in beam, with a normal displacement of 16,250 tons. This design included 935 tons of armor, 4-inch side armor over 296 feet by 17 feet 6 inches amidships plus 1.5-inch deck protection, adding 5,750 tons displacement over design No.112. This design was seventh in a set of 11 undertaken as a group during 21 to 29 April 1915 to explore tradeoffs among armament, protection, and size in large scout cruisers capable of 35 knots speed. This design series took Preliminary Design No.112 (see Photo # S-584-050) as a baseline. Ultimately, however, no ships of this type were built. The original document was a blueprint (white on blue). The original plan is in the 1911-1925 Spring Styles Book. U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command Photograph.

Catalog #: S-584-059

Title: Preliminary Design No.123 for a Scout Cruiser ... April 1915 Note:

Description: Photo #: S-584-060 Preliminary Design No.123 for a Scout Cruiser ... April 1915 Preliminary design plan for a large scout cruiser, prepared to support General Board discussions concerning the characteristics sought in future cruisers. This plan provided two 14-inch guns and nine 5-inch guns and a speed of 35 knots in a ship 800 feet long on the load water line, 76 feet in beam, with a normal displacement of 20,500 tons. This design included 2,036 tons of armor, 8-inch side armor over 322 feet by 17 feet 6 inches amidships plus 3-inch deck protection, adding 10,000 tons displacement over design No.112. This design was eighth in a set of 11 undertaken as a group during 21 to 29 April 1915 to explore tradeoffs among armament, protection, and size in large scout cruisers capable of 35 knots speed. This design series took Preliminary Design No.112 (see Photo # S-584-050) as a baseline. Ultimately, however, no ships of this type were built. The original document was a blueprint (white on blue). The original plan is in the 1911-1925 Spring Styles Book. U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command Photograph.

Title: Preliminary Design No.124 for a Scout Cruiser ... April 1915 Note:

Description: Photo #: S-584-061 Preliminary Design No.124 for a Scout Cruiser ... April 1915 Preliminary design plan for a large scout cruiser, prepared to support General Board discussions concerning the characteristics sought in future cruisers. This plan provided four 14-inch guns and seven 5-inch guns and a speed of 35 knots in a ship 720 feet long on the load water line, 71 feet in beam, with a normal displacement of 15,500 tons. This design included no armor but added 5,000 tons displacement over design No.112 to accommodate the heavy gun battery. This design was ninth in a set of 11 undertaken as a group during 21 to 29 April 1915 to explore tradeoffs among armament, protection, and size in large scout cruisers capable of 35 knots speed. This design series took Preliminary Design No.112 (see Photo # S-584-050) as a baseline. Ultimately, however, no ships of this type were built. The original document was a blueprint (white on blue). The original plan is in the 1911-1925 Spring Styles Book. U.S. Naval History and Heritage

Title: Preliminary Design No.125 for a Scout Cruiser ... April 1915 Note:

Description: Photo #: S-584-062 Preliminary Design No.125 for a Scout Cruiser ... April 1915 Preliminary design plan for a large scout cruiser, prepared to support General Board discussions concerning the characteristics sought in future cruisers. This plan provided four 14-inch guns and seven 5-inch guns and a speed of 35 knots in a ship 760 feet long on the load water line, 77 feet in beam, with a normal displacement of 19,500 tons. This design included 1,085 tons of armor, 4-inch side armor over 348 feet by 17 feet 6 inches amidships plus 1.5-inch deck protection, adding 9,000 tons displacement over design No.112. This design was tenth in a set of 11 undertaken as a group during 21 to 29 April 1915 to explore tradeoffs among armament, protection, and size in large scout cruisers capable of 35 knots speed. This design series took Preliminary Design No.112 (see Photo # S-584-050) as a baseline. Ultimately, however, no ships of this type were built. The original document was a blueprint (white on blue). The original plan is in the 1911-1925 Spring Styles Book. U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command Photograph.

Edited November 21, 2023 by kriegerfaust

[kriegerfaust]

https://stefsap.wordpress.com/2015/10/20/usn-1933-battlecruiser-study/

BATTLESHIPS & KNIGHTS

MENU

SEARCH

USN 1933 Battlecruiser study

Posted on October 20, 2015 by stefsap

 

A follow on of the article “Building the limit”, by Alan D. Zimm, Warship International, 1976.

secret projects lexington

Edited November 21, 2023 by kriegerfaust

[MBT808]

I believe most of this has already been posted by someone else already in a line proposal.

[kriegerfaust]

one with the old site dead it's hard to find out, two people often refer to them as anything but what they are 3 its hard to sort through the sheer content of what has and has not been used as suggestion or in the game already without accurate categorization of used designs, especially when it is modified by people from the old site and the people who word for war gamming, but thanks as always for responding to my humble post                                                                           

Edited November 21, 2023 by kriegerfaust

[kriegerfaust]

The Alaska class faced numerous changes and modifications along the way in its layout in 1939, fed by the intervention of departments and individuals along the way. This explained why the design was also delayed. Before September 1939, treaties went into the way of such ships: They fit nowhere and were already beyond tonnage limits in all categories.
At least nine different layouts were discussed between C&R (later BuShips) and BuOrd:
The latter went from a 6,000-ton Atlanta-class AA cruiser (not shown here) to a variety of “overgrown” heavy cruisers with triple turrets, or even a 38,000-ton “super baltimore”:

Scheme S511-06 Heavy Cruiser Study: Preliminary design plan dated 18 January 1940: Largest size cruiser (Baltimore like) based on a 38,700 tons standard displacement. The main battery shows no less than twelve (4×3) 12″/50 guns, with a secondary battery of 8×2 5-in/38 guns, for 212,000 hp and 33.5 knots, and a hull 850 x 99/104.5 x 31.5 feet plus good Anti-torpedo side protection (four internal bulkheads) as shown in the section. Judged too ambitious. The final decision was to not go beyond 25,000 tonnes.

Scheme S511-07 Heavy Cruiser Study: “Proposed Heavy Cruiser – CA2-A”, 19 January 1940. Large cruiser proposal, 25,600 tons standard. Main battery: 3×3 12-in/50 guns, 6×2 5-in/38 guns, 150,000 horsepower for 33.5 knots. Hull 800 x 90 x 26.8 feet and good ASW side protection with four internal bulkheads as shown here in the hull section drawing. It had a rounded stern, generous aft section beam as for battleships and two aft catapults, one crane. Still in profile, this looked like a beefed up Baltimore.

Scheme S511-14 Heavy Cruiser Study: “Heavy Cruiser Study – Scheme 2” dated 19 March 1940. The smallest proposal studied based on 15,750 tons standard displacement. 4×3 8″/55 guns, 6×2 5″/38 guns, 120,000 hp, 700 x 72 x 23.5 ft hull.

Scheme S511-15 Heavy Cruiser Study: “Heavy Cruiser Study – Scheme 3” dated 20 March 1940. Baltimore-like heavy cruiser, based on 17,300 tons standard but with 3×2 12″/50 guns (plus 6×2 5″/38) for 120,000 hp and a 710 x 74 x 24.5 ft hull.

Scheme S511-16 Heavy Cruiser Study: “Heavy Cruiser Study – Scheme 4-A – “Convertible” dated 10 April 1940: A glorified Baltimore, reaching 17,500 tons standard with twelve 8″/55 guns (4×3) but convertible to 3×2 12″/50 guns twin turret mounted in the 1st, 2nd and 4th barbettes. She would have been seconded by twelve 5″/38 (6×2) guns based on 120,000 hp for 33.1 knots.Dimensions 710 x 74.5 x 24.7 feet. Scheme 4B was 6x 12-in/50 guns based on 17,850 tons, 25 feet draft, 33 knots.

Scheme S511-17 Heavy Cruiser Study: “12-Inch Gun Cruiser Study, CA2F” with hull sections for Schemes. The closest to the final design. Note in particular the “cruiser style” superstructures and bridge in particular. Later she went to a battleship style tower-structure instead.
Preliminary design plan prepared for the General Board dated 19 June 1940 for a ship displacing 24,700 tons standard, 28,300 tons trials with her main battery, seven 12″/50 guns (2×2 and 1×3 aft), twelve 5″/38 guns (plus light AA) for 150,000 hp and 33 knots. This was a 750 eet by 84 and 29 feet in beam and draught. The plan was 1:32 scale. Like for all these profiles, this was part of “Spring Styles Book” at the U.S. Naval Historical Center Photograph.

The final General Board adopted a consensus view. In an attempt to keep the displacement under 25,000 tons, the ships were to have a limited underwater protection making them easy preys for Japanese torpedoes and or even shells in a plunging trajectory, even large shell’s close hits.
The final design agreed on was a “scaled-up Baltimore” with the same machinery as the Essex-class aircraft carriers, meaning a greater beam, in order to retain 33 knots. The consensus also fell on nine 12-inch guns in three triple turrets and standard belt and deck protection against 10-inch gunfire.

The Alaskas passed the critical stage as being budgeted in September 1940. They were however part of a much larger order called the Two-Ocean Navy Act in the most significant USN extension of its history. However the Essex-class being ordered at the same time (in large numbers) meant that from their primary surface-to-surface role, carrier group protectoion was added in her primary roles, a capability favored by Admiral King, which as said before, did not liked the Alaska’s concept overall. It was a concession whuch did not hampered mich the ship’s overall capabilities. In that escort role, their large hull had as side effect far more stability, making them far more valuable base for AA upgrade and additions than heavy cruisers. At the same time, they were the “insurance card” against reported Japanese super cruisers in case. Some also saw these ships kept for escort a way to free up cruisers for their intended role of scouting and preying on enemy communications lines.

https://naval-encyclopedia.com/ww2/us/alaska-class-heavy-cruisers-1943.php

Edited November 21, 2023 by kriegerfaust

[Sailor_Moon]

Soooo....this is a LOT. Like, a lot a lot. And none of it really adds up to anything fully coherent? It's just an absolute DELUGE of preliminary design after preliminary design. there's ZERO structure here. I cannot make head nor tails of any of this except MAYBE the USN 1933 Battlecruiser study post. Primarily because that post actually has a bit more detailed drawings of the ships.

Maybe just....do a thread for each tech tree line. One for battlecruisers, one for the scout cruisers, one for the heavy cruisers. Split it up a bit!

[kriegerfaust]

when i started i had no idea how much there would be, the index of the site where i found most of it is terrible, i had to google search then manually click one after the other right or left button, but thanks and it might help of course as is that be more work and most people eyes kind of glaze over and they loose interest, next project will be smaller in scale, 

Edited November 21, 2023 by kriegerfaust

[MBT808]

3 minutes ago, kriegerfaust said:

when i started i had no idea how much there would be, the index of the site where i found most of it is terrible, i had to google search then manually click one after the other right or left button, but thanks and it might help of course as is that be more work and most people eyes kind of glaze over and they loose interest, next project will be smaller in scale, 

I mean, if your post ends up anything like this, people will lose interest immediately. Your articles need to have some of your own words and ideas in them, not just copy-paste articles.

[Sailor_Moon]

18 minutes ago, kriegerfaust said:

when i started i had no idea how much there would be, the index of the site where i found most of it is terrible, i had to google search then manually click one after the other right or left button, but thanks and it might help of course as is that be more work and most people eyes kind of glaze over and they loose interest, next project will be smaller in scale, 

If you are trying to propose a concept, or a tech tree line, or ANYTHING....you have to lay it out properly (do the research AND do the homework of organizing that information!!!) so that the majority of people looking at your posts can understand what you're trying to convey.

For example. Lets say I want to propose an extension to the USN Vermont Line (I have before ;P). The layout is as follows:

Tier III - Delaware
[Picture of ship]
(info blurb, stats, etc.)

Tier IV - Utah (renamed from Florida)
[Picture of ship]
(info blurb, stats, etc.)

Tier V - Nevada
[Picture of ship]
(info blurb, stats, etc.)

Tier VI - Pennsylvania
[Picture of ship]
(info blurb, stats, etc.)

Tier VII - Tennessee
[Picture of ship]
(info blurb, stats, etc.)

This is just a very basic example of a proposal layout, but you get the idea. You can read this, understand the proposal, understand the components of said proposal, and how it can fit into the game as well, which is important. If it doesn't fit, there's a high chance it WON'T make it into the game.

Edited November 21, 2023 by Sailor_Moon

[Asym]

4 hours ago, Sailor_Moon said:

Soooo....this is a LOT. Like, a lot a lot. And none of it really adds up to anything fully coherent? It's just an absolute DELUGE of preliminary design after preliminary design. there's ZERO structure here. I cannot make head nor tails of any of this except MAYBE the USN 1933 Battlecruiser study post. Primarily because that post actually has a bit more detailed drawings of the ships.

Maybe just....do a thread for each tech tree line. One for battlecruisers, one for the scout cruisers, one for the heavy cruisers. Split it up a bit!

Someone should have posted a "GEEK Warning" label on this thread ! 

I wonder if  "World of Tanks" has these same discussions since I spent years crawling through the LST building at Fort Knox.....helped the crew in their working Panther (July reenactments)....and, those whom know anything about that building, would know that's where the Patton Museum had in-work next projects.....  Like all of the x-ticketed US MBT-70's (803's as well) that remained and us tread heads got to "touch and measure and ponder........everything that held to the Riddle of Steel... 

"is this heaven?  No, it's Kentucky...."

Edited November 21, 2023 by Asym

[Wolfswetpaws]

8 hours ago, MBT808 said:

I mean, if your post ends up anything like this, people will lose interest immediately. Your articles need to have some of your own words and ideas in them, not just copy-paste articles.

+1
Merely copying & pasting information is just wasting data-space on this forum.

Writing a concise and coherent proposal is welcome @kriegerfaust.
Trying to dump a bunch of data onto this Forum is not welcome, in my opinion.
Citing a source of information doesn't always require dragging the entire library, that the source was located within, along for the ride.  🙂 

Edited November 21, 2023 by Wolfswetpaws

[kriegerfaust]

well first off i am going to organize the data, yeah second i will find a purpose for it all it has to be there i am sure of it,

[Sailor_Moon]

49 minutes ago, kriegerfaust said:

well first off i am going to organize the data, yeah second i will find a purpose for it all it has to be there i am sure of it,

Just remember, you have to think about what you want to add to the game, taking the game itself into context. If you're proposing a tech tree line, then what you're presenting should indicate what ships at which tiers, with what stats you're giving them. And they need to fit with what's ingame already. Balance must be considered as well. Gotta do the homework!!

Present the information, don't just spew it. Presentation is majorly important! Easily digestable info is welcome.

[kriegerfaust]

First and foremost, i would like to apologize, i did not realize the size of the dump as i was researching, skimming a fascinating page.  The indexing of the site was poor allowing you to quickly access only a fraction of the information contained.  This is not an excuse that holds water as a post should not be a transcription of a single source.  I quickly found myself in a sinking ship instead of patching the whole i continued to bail. 

The information was disorganized which while talking is fine, or in small snips suitable.  In such a long block is overwhelming and meandering.  In the future i will need to spend more time digesting the data rather than spewing it out.  No matter how big or small such future ideas are.  Thank you for the patience of the community this was a long mess that went nowhere then seemed to somehow get even more lost.

My goal partly was to see why the us never attempted a battle cruiser like Brittian, Japan and Germany did.  The answer is simple in two parts, one the Panama Canal and Latter treaty limitations.  Instead of building two fleets the Americans built battleships that were fast, and as heavily armed and armored as possible, that is of course after the slower moving standard line.  for many years the US was in a ship crunch not having a navy to fight.  What kind of fast battleline could a largely neutral power like the United States come up with, and how effective would it have been.

==============================================================================================

Americas involvement in the First World War came late and was mostly limited to the European mainland.  Watching the preamble and the war itself the Americans noticed certain trends in warship design they must incorporate if they were to be a major player in the war and any future conflicts.  Over time the iron triangle of speed, firepower and protection has dominated all ship design.  From the most lightly armed and armored scout cruiser up to the battle scout represent speed over armor.  The battlecruiser and battleship ar further on the armor spectrum sacrificing some speed for protection.

The scout designs seemed to vary widely but in overall consideration seem to be if not slender at least have a beam that is narrower in comparison to the length.  How such ships would have fared in sea keeping or if hit by battleship fire is unknown.  Their insane speed would have meant that even battlecruiser much less battleships would have suffered to maintain formation in the same fleet.  the scout cruiser and to a lesser degree seem to be the battle cruiser driven too extreme.  carrying battleship guns with almost tissue paper armor.

Evolving from the standard 12 inch at the beginning of the war through the 14 which was becoming more the standard by the end.  The American skipped the 15 moving to the sixteen as the future armament of the battle fleet.  This of course gave no end to head aches as bigger guns means more armor.  what good is a ship that can't even take a few of its own shots without going up like a roman candle.

Over time larger faster battleships would win out in the American Navy leading to the North Carolina, South Dakotas and Iowa's we all know and love.  Unlike the British and Japanese, the Americans gave up on sacrificing armor for speed. The main aim of the project was to upgrade the battleship fleet from the 14-inch gun to the sixteen-inch gun while maintaining as many guns as possible with the best possible firing arcs.

The navy seemed terrified of the 16-inch triple turret favoring designs with doubles.  This must be because of the Panama Canal and the navies dedication to a two-ocean navy (Pacific - Atlantic).  With the twin gun design the navy seemed to slide the fifth turret up and down the back of the ship.  Limiting its width limited its length and thus overall mass given the armor a battleship must wear.  Design of lightly armored ships seemed to have fallen by the wayside.

The oddest finding is the consideration of a six-inch gun over the commonly found five-inch guns on most American ships.   Would this have been a British or American gun, what advantages would this have had over the American five and what would it have changed.  many of the lighter armed fast fleet ships seemed to pay little interest in secondary armament.  during the war the shift of heavier secondary armaments was brought about by the evolution of torpedo craft like the torpedo boat and torpedo boat destroyer.

The conclusion goes back to the iron triangle as i call it of speed, firepower and protection.  The scout cruiser is the fastest with almost no armor or firepower.  The battle scout is between the battle cruiser and scout cruiser moving onto the battle cruiser and battleships having increasing amounts of armor and firepower.  It is doubtful the scout cruiser or battle scout would have found a place in the fleet given the limited role the battle cruiser itself played.

Class----------Name-----Date----Primary----Secondary-----Speed-----Length-----Width-----Tonnage
Scoutcruiser---S-584-53--1915----4x12--------7x6-------------35Knots--700--------60--------12,600
Scoutcruiser---S-584-56--1915----4x12--------7x5-------------35Knots--720--------69--------14,500
Scoutcruiser---S-584-57--1915----4x12--------7x5-------------35Knots--755--------74--------18,000
Scoutcruiser---S-584-58--1915----4x12--------7x6-------------35Knots--800--------80--------23,000
Scoutcruiser---S-584-59--1915----2x14--------9x5-------------35Knots---755--------70--------16,500
Scoutcruiser---S-584-60--1915----2x14--------9x5-------------35Knots---800---------76--------20,500
Scoutcruiser---S-584-61--1915----2x14--------9x5-------------35Knots---720---------71--------15,500
Scoutcruiser---S-584-62--1915----4x14--------7x5-------------35Knots---760---------77--------19,500
Scoutcruiser---S-584-64--1915----2x14--------9x5-------------35Knots---720---------66--------13,500
Scoutcruiser---S-584-65--1915----4x16--------10x6-----------32Knots---780---------72--------16,000
Scoutcruiser---S-584-66--1915----2x14--------9x5-------------35Knots---720---------66--------12,600
Scoutcruiser---S-584-67--1915----2x14--------9x5-------------35Knots---760---------71--------16,500
Scoutcruiser---S-584-68--1915----2x14--------9x5-------------35Knots---800---------77--------20,800
Scoutcruiser---S-584-69--1915----4x16--------7x5-------------35Knots---720---------73--------16,500
Scoutcruiser---S-584-70--1915----4x16--------7x5----------35Knots---775---------79--------20,500
Scoutcruiser---S-584-71--1915----4x16--------7x5-------------35Knots---800---------88--------26,800
Scoutcruiser---S-584-73--1915----4x14--------10x6------------30Knots---695--------70--------13,500
scoutcruiser---S-584-84-1915------8x10--------12X6----------35knots----800-------090--------28,000

Class----------Name-----Date----Primary----Secondary-----Speed-----Length-----Width-----Tonnage
Battlescout---S-584-79-1915----4x16--------10X6----------35knots----875---------086--------27,000
Battlescout---S-584-83-1915----8x14--------12X6----------35knots----800---------094--------32,000
Battlescout---S-584-90-1915----8x10--------12X6----------35knots----800---------094--------28,000
Battlescout---S-584-91-1915----8x14--------12X6----------35knots----800---------094---------32,000

Class----------Name-----Date----Primary----Secondary-----Speed-----Length-----Width-----Tonnage
Battlecruiser-----S-595-24-1914----8x14--------------------29knots----920---------098--------42,500
Battlecruiser-----S-595-72-1915----8x16------20x6----------29knots--1063---------100--------56,500
Battlecruiser-----S-595-78-1915----8x16------20x6----------30knots--1000---------100--------52,000
Battlecruiser-----S-595-Xx-1916----10x14--------------------35knots----850---------090--------33,500
Battlecruiser-----S-595-81-1915----6x16--------------------30knots----725---------090--------30,000
Battlecruiser-----S-595-82-1915-------8x14--------------------30knots----745---------100-------35,500
Battlecruiser-----S-595-83-1915----8x14------12x6----------35knots----745---------100--------32,000
Battlecruiser-----S-595-84-1915----4x16------10x6----------35knots----875--------86---------27,000

Class----------Name-----Date----Primary----Secondary-----Speed-----Length-----Width-----Tonnage
Battleship----S-594-94-1916------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Battleship-----S-595-95-1917----8x16------------------------21knots----600---------098--------32,400
Battleship-----S-596-96-1917----10x16------------------------21knots----600---------098------33,200
Battleship-----S-596-97-1917----10x16------------------------21knots----656---------098------36,900
Battleship-----S-596-98-1917----10x16------------------------21knots----644---------098------35,800
Battleship-----S-596-99-1917----10x16------------------------21knots----668---------098------37,500
Battleship-----S-596-100-1917----10x16------------------------21knots---656---------098------36,900