World of Warships

WG, there’s an actual American design with 18″ guns (April 1938 “slow” BB61) instead of kitbashing Georgia turrets on Montana hull (“Ohio”)

WorldOfWarships3 - WG, there's an actual American design with 18" guns (April 1938 "slow" BB61) instead of kitbashing Georgia turrets on Montana hull ("Ohio")

It seems like WG is really in the mood to reuse assets recently. It emerged today from the DevBlog that WG essentially kitbashing Georgia's 18" two-gun turrets on Montana's hull to make "Ohio". However, what I'm personally very annoyed with is that there is an actual American design that uses 18" guns, while "Ohio" is entirely a WG kitbash with no basis in history.

The design that I'm talking about is the "slow" 27.5-knot BB61 design from April 1938. Such a design uses 3×3 18"/48 guns. I've posted a commentary about this design on my own Reddit page, and I'll transcribe it here.

April 1938 design scheme


  • Friedman U.S. Battleships, an Illustrated Design History, page 308
  • Garzke & Dulin United States Battleships, 1935-1992, page 111.
Characteristic Value
Waterline length 800 ft
Beam 108 ft 3 in
Draft 35.96 ft
Max displacement 56,595 long tons
Battle displacement 54,495 long tons
Standard displacement 45,495 long tons
Speed 27.5 knots
SHP 130,000
Range (15 knots) 15,000 nmi
Main battery 9 x 18” (457mm)/48
Secondary battery 20 x 5” (127mm)/38
Belt (19 degrees on 30# STS) 14.75” (375mm)
Heavy deck (on 30# STS) 5.1” + 0.75" (130mm + 19mm)
Bomb deck 1.5” (38mm)
Splinter deck 0.63” (16mm)
Barbettes, conning tower 21” (533mm)
Turret face 20” (508mm)
Turret, CT roof 10” (254mm)
Traverse bulkheads 16.75” (425mm)
Splinter protection 2.5” (64mm)

Weight (from Friedman, p. 308.)

Weight Tons
Hull 2,115 (almost certainly a typo)
Hull Fittings 1,697
Protection 13,037
Engineering (Wet) 3,500
Armament 3,464
Ammunition 1,638
Equip&Outfit 476
Complement 192
Stores & Fresh Water 322
Aeronautics 54
Reserve Feed Water 650
Fuel Oil 8,000
1/3 Stores & F.W. 350
Designed Full Load 54,495
Belt 6,226
Heavy Deck 4,010
Bomb Deck 1,344
Splinter Deck 454
Torpedo Bulkheads 3,310

My comments

The powerplant for this scheme has the same output as the South Dakota (BB57) class which has a 666 ft waterline length. Thus, assuming the same propulsion machinery arrangement, it appears that this design scheme's hull has 134 ft more waterline length to work with to accommodate the 18”/48 triple turrets and increase the fineness ratio.


Based on the hull dimensions and displacement values, the ship would have a block coefficient of 0.637 at max load, better than North Carolina (BB55) and South Dakota (BB57) but not as good as Iowa (BB61). During New Jersey's sea trials in 1943, she made 27.92 knots with 126,400 SHP, and for Iowa's sea trials in 1985, she made 28.08 knots with 109,700 SHP. Given that the April 1938 design scheme's fineness ratio is much closer to Iowa's than the South Dakota's, I'm inclined to believe the power and speed figures when the hull is clean (i.e. out of drydock with no bottom fouling).

Read:  A couple more pieces to the puzzle why surface AA feels less interactive than before.

Due to the inclination of 19 degrees, I would certainly expect that the belt to be mounted internally similar to arrangement on the SoDak/Iowa designs, and due to the thickness, likely on 35# or even 40# STS, which is a potential area for weight increase. Similarly, due to the additional length and bending moment, I also wouldn't be surprised if the outer hull side strakes by the belt were increased to 60# STS, and the main armor deck combination is more akin to the Iowa (4.75" Class B on 1.25" STS strength deck) than the SoDak (5-5.3" Class B on 0.75" STS strength deck).

There could be some concern about the hull form given that the three-gun 18"/48 turret has a barbette diameter of 41' 0", which is nearly 4 feet wider than the barbette of the three-gun 16"/45 Mark 7 turret which has a diameter of 37' 3". I think the barbette diameter could be an issue at the #1 turret, while #2 and #3 turrets may be fine; looking at the Booklet of General Plans for the SoDaks, there seems to be ample room to play with for the #2 and #3 turret. Even then, with the same machinery arrangement as the SoDaks and 134 ft more waterline length, they may be able to get adequate space and clearance around the #1 turret by making the tapering of the hull near the bow more gradual, though it would no doubt still be a tight fit as on the Iowas.

Had this ship actually been built, I would expect that the max load displacement of the ship would creep up by 3,000 tons to the 59,000-60,000 ton range, perhaps even slightly higher, in order to accommodate for potential unforeseen strengthening and also the additional AA guns and electronics that would be mounted. Incidentally, assuming that draft is linearly proportional to displacement, this would increase the design max draft to 37.8 ft, which is almost exactly the same as Iowa's actual max draft during World War 2.

Read:  German/US Premium T9 Destroyer proposal

EDIT: Visual appearance

With regards to how this ship would visually look like, one can reasonably postulate that it would look like a 1939 SoDak with a stretched bow and stern, and I can explain the rationale below.

For one, the machinery output is 130,000 SHP, the same as the 1939 South Dakota class. As such, the ship may be able to duplicate the machinery used on the SoDaks, thus resulting in the design's superstructure also being largely identical (given that battleship superstructure generally spans the length of the machinery spaces).

On the other hand, the design's waterline length is 800 ft compared to SoDak's 666 ft, so the design has 134 additional ft to play with to increase fineness ratio and accommodate the bigger turrets. The beam remains the same at 108.2 ft. Thus, if the design duplicates SoDak's machinery layout, then this additional length would be in the bow and stern sections from the machinery traverse bulkheads onward.

Source: Original link

© Post "WG, there’s an actual American design with 18″ guns (April 1938 “slow” BB61) instead of kitbashing Georgia turrets on Montana hull (“Ohio”)" for game World of Warships.

Top-10 Best Video Games of 2018 So Far

2018 has been a stellar year for video game fans, and there's still more to come. The list for the Best Games of So Far!

Top-10 Most Anticipated Video Games of 2019

With 2018 bringing such incredible titles to gaming, it's no wonder everyone's already looking forward to 2019's offerings. All the best new games slated for a 2019 release, fans all over the world want to dive into these anticipated games!

You Might Also Like

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *