Shop Forum More Submit  Join Login
North Carolina Preliminary Scheme A 1934-35 by Tzoli North Carolina Preliminary Scheme A 1934-35 by Tzoli
I've been asked to make some of the numerous prelimianry design studies eventually leading to the North Carolina class Battleships
This is the first on the list leading to that class featuring a modified Nelson style all forward armament but with all superfiring turrets where all turrets could fire forward at a minimum angle of 4,5-5 degrees with a calibre of 14"/50 Mark B / Mark 13 Cannons. Secondary armament are considered the standard 5"/38 Mark 12 but in triple turrets, engine room arrangement also out of ordinary as all the boiler rooms located at the aft behind the turbine rooms, and on the extreme aft two seaplane catapult on a superfiring arrangement. The bridge is reminiscent of the British Nelsons.

The design had the following characteristics:
Dimensions: 216,41 wl x 31,09 x 8,7m
Displacement: 32.450tons (standard), 35.615 (maximum)
Armour: 114mm Deck, 292mm Belt
Engines: 160.000shp 4 shafts
Speed: 56km/h (30knots)
Armaments: 
3x3 14"/50 (351mm) Cannons
4x3 5"/38 (127mm) DP-AA Guns
4x4 1,1"/75 (28mm)
2-4x Seaplanes (I've choose Vought O5U)

Original drawing:
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia…
Add a Comment:
 
:iconalfredo555:
Alfredo555 Featured By Owner Feb 11, 2018
Sorry. My english is very poor.

Dear Tzoli: Do you have any graphic information about the preliminary designs of the Austrian Radetzky class? There were monocalibres versions. Thank you very much.
Reply
:icontzoli:
Tzoli Featured By Owner Feb 11, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I only has one photo:
i.imgur.com/sBlp3Pa.jpg
I did not draw them as I lack any data about their dimensions and secondary/tertiary armament.
Reply
:iconalfredo555:
Alfredo555 Featured By Owner Feb 11, 2018
Thanks for the information.
Reply
:icontzoli:
Tzoli Featured By Owner Feb 11, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
welcome
Reply
:iconalfredo555:
Alfredo555 Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2018
Estimado Tzoli: ¿Tiene usted alguna información gráfica sobre los diseños preliminares de la clase austriaca Radetzky? Había versiones monocalibres.  Muchas gracias.
Reply
:icontzoli:
Tzoli Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Sorry I don't speak Spanish or Portuguese.
Reply
:icontheabyssalsamurai:
TheAbyssalSamurai Featured By Owner Jan 30, 2018  Hobbyist Artist
What is that small superstructure in front of the funnel?
Reply
:icontzoli:
Tzoli Featured By Owner Jan 30, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
That is the aft superstructure. Or aft conning tower
Reply
:icontheabyssalsamurai:
TheAbyssalSamurai Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2018  Hobbyist Artist
I see.
Reply
:iconmensjedezeemeermin:
MensjeDeZeemeermin Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2018
Thank goodness they went the way they did on her MB.
Reply
:icontzoli:
Tzoli Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
MB?
Reply
:iconmensjedezeemeermin:
MensjeDeZeemeermin Featured By Owner Jan 30, 2018
Main Battery. The French and British 'all forwards' clobbered their superstructure and the turrets made each other unusable.
Reply
:icontzoli:
Tzoli Featured By Owner Jan 30, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
What do you main clobbered? Both were excellent ships. Nelsons had some issues with the turrets loading mechanisms but it was solved by WW2
Reply
:iconmensjedezeemeermin:
MensjeDeZeemeermin Featured By Owner Jan 30, 2018
I read in my materials that fire from the aft turret made things very uncomfortable and difficult in the forward two turrets on both the British and French all-forwards.  I think that's the reason the U.S. avoided that configuration in their battleships. I also heard of superstructure damage. The French ships were quite good otherwise, but for ammunition problems, the British ships were tough, but rather slow.
Reply
:icontzoli:
Tzoli Featured By Owner Jan 30, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
The Nelsons were an older design and not intended as fast battleships.
As for turret damage that is not correct both the barbettes and the turrets were armoured enough to survive the blast effect of the cannons. the Frnech ships had no such issue as it was only a pair of turrets forward no 3rd turret. Uncocomfortable likely but that cannot really be evaded. Imagine what would the gunners experience if the Yamato fired it's 2nd turret directly forward above the 1st!

The USN was very conservative in it's thinking and building warships hence the classical layouts of their turrets, though some designs feature such unique designs as this or the 1933 Battlecruiser proposals.
Reply
:iconmensjedezeemeermin:
MensjeDeZeemeermin Featured By Owner Jan 30, 2018
With respect, and gratitude for your work and insights, I've heard different. Britain had no business NOT building fast battleships after Jutland.  The U.S. 'Standard Battleship' was a brilliant and innovative, adaptable design, and the brilliant designers from the Washingtons forward met the London limits in tough, superior, superb warships.  I mourn the never-built Montanas.
Reply
:icontzoli:
Tzoli Featured By Owner Jan 30, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Yes they built fast battleships the Queen Elizabeths, but the post WW1 capital ships would had been the normal mix of slow battleships of the N3 design and the fast battlecruisers of the G3 design. The Nelson class (Design O3) evolved from the N3 / G3 series as a reduced versions of those two in accordance to the Washington naval treaty as the RN lacked any 16" armed battleships. The Royal Navy allowed to build two such 35.000ton vessels, Japan allowed to finish the Mutsu as a result.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconuglygosling:
uglygosling Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2018
I cannot make up my mind if this is 'beautiful' or 'ugly,' then again of course warships are designed foremost for function over appearance. I must admit I am somewhat biased against the 5"/12.7cm triple mounts, if for no other reason than the 4" triple used on the Courageous and Renown classes had a poor reputation in the Royal Navy despite being a good design on paper, according to a couple books in my collection.
Reply
:icontzoli:
Tzoli Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Those two guns are quite different!
The 4"/45 Mark IX was designed for anti surface basically anti destroyer / torpedo boat guns also the Triple mount while only a shielded mount was manually trained and rotated thus required a large crew. It's difficult to move 19tons of steel!

While the 5"/38 Mark 12 was a Dual Purpose power loaded gun designed to engage both aircraft and surface targets. It was power assisted both for turning the gunhouse and elevating the guns, hence it's very good tracking ability. Though indeed these turrets were much heavier of around 50-70tons depending on armour thickness.
Also the loadign mechanism were different as well. the 4" was a loaded aft manually while the 5" loaded by the side with power assist.
Reply
:iconuglygosling:
uglygosling Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2018
None of the books in my collection made any mention of how the 4"/45 Mark IX was operated, I probably just assumed it was powered. Thanks for the added info!

I once saw somewhere a photo of a US Navy Hellcat(?) fighter being spotted on a carrier flight deck, the caption said about 90 men were pushing it if I remember correctly. Even it were empty (about 9000 lbs/4000kg) I imagine that would have been a workout for those sailors, depending on how far they had to push it.
Reply
:iconmidway2009:
Midway2009 Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2018  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Incredible. :D
Reply
:iconthelordtaxus:
TheLordTaxus Featured By Owner Jan 24, 2018
Never seen this design.
Reply
:icontzoli:
Tzoli Featured By Owner Jan 25, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
It's in Friedman's US Battleship Book also on Wiki
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Ca…
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia…
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
January 24
Image Size
1.2 MB
Resolution
4500×2000
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
901 (1 today)
Favourites
31 (who?)
Comments
27
Downloads
29
×