User:The ed17/Sandbox#Dutch Design 1047 battlecruiser

http://books.google.com/books?id=qXcSAAAAYAAJ&pg=327

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=940DE0DA113FE233A25753C2A9639C946796D6CF

"We are now building $30,000,000 worth of battleships with the superimposed feature and within a year of finally adopting it for these battleships have rejected it in our most recent designs." Folger, W.M.; Alger, P.R.; Taylor, D.W. "Discussion; A New Type of Battleship." Proceedings of United States Naval Institute 28, no. 2 (1902): 269–275. {{issn|0041-798X}}. {{oclc|2496995}}.

--part of Taylor's comments, p. 274

• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive&oldid=268244464]
• Proteins' "practical Wikipedia tutorial"
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29&oldid=668335746#Letterhead_class.3F re-adding letterhead class]

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chamal N
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Bushranger
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NativeForeigner
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Interior
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kevin Gorman
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Little Mountain 5

• Tony1's "Writing Exercises"
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Checklist
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Featured article criteria 1c

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_29#Design_1047_battlecruiser

• http://books.google.com/books?id=l0YAAAAAYAAJ&dq=%22Brazilian+battleship%22&source=gbs_navlinks_s - pg 376
• http://books.google.com/books?id=GlVLAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22Brazilian+battleship%22&source=gbs_navlinks_s - search "Brazilian battleship"
• [http://books.google.com/books?id=b6AvAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA24] Extensive technical details

• [http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/view/Main_Page]

• {{tl|Shannara location}}
• {{tl|Shannara-stub}}
• {{tl|Shannara welcome}}

"I" was testament to the fact that there were problems with "K": many of the weight estimates were too low—forcing the belt to be thinned, from {{convert|15|in|mm|abbr=on}} to {{convert|12.25|in|mm|abbr=on}}—and the propulsion plant called for would be hard to fit into the underwater protection plan. The major alteration in II was one of the three main turrets fore was moved aft, which caused some problems; it was difficult to add a turret, with its accompanying barbette and magazine, into a place which had not been designed for it. In addition, the original plan called for a ship that displaced 35,745 tons—over the limit. Friedman (1985), pp. 252 and 254

In the developments of "K", the General Board asked for an immune zone between {{convert|20700|yd|mi km|abbr=on}} and {{convert|30000|yd|mi km|abbr=on}}, which roughly corresponded to less belt armor ({{convert|14|in|mm|abbr=on}} rather than {{convert|15|in|mm|abbr=on}}) and the same amount of deck armor ({{convert|5.25|in|mm|abbr=on}}). Friedman (1985), p. 252

Although a plan had finally been chosen, there were still tweaks that were, or were attempted to, be made. In a conference in the Chief of Naval Operations' office, the following were proposed: four additional secondary weapons, a thicker belt, and the raising of the second main turret's barbette so that it could fire over the first turret. It was believed that a small cut in power/speed would allow these changes while still remaining under the 35,000 long tin limit, but it was found that the additions—which together would weigh {{convert|782|LT|t ST|abbr=on}}—would force the propulsion plant down to 65,000 shp, equating to a {{convert|24|kn|mph km/h|abbr=on}} top speed, and it would also lower the metacentric height by an unacceptable amount. Friedman (1985), p. 265

Prior to World War I, it appeared that battlecruisers were going to supersede all other types of cruiser. However, experiences during the war, especially the performance of the British battlecruiser during the Battle of Jutland, curbed the enthusiasm of the battlecruiser's supporters.{{cn}} Instead, only one battlecruiser was completed after the war, the Admiral-class {{HMS|Hood|51|6}};{{cn}} the other three ships of that class, the United States' six {{Sclass|Lexington|battlecruiser|0}} and Japan's four {{Sclass|Amagi|battlecruiser|0}}, were all canceled and scrapped, used as target ships, or converted to aircraft carriers to comply with the Washington Naval Treaty requirements.Wikisource

The treaty set strict limits on new capital ship building; the cornerstone was a 5:5:3 ratio of warship tonnage, in which Britain and the United States, who had to keep up two-ocean navies in the Atlantic and Pacific, were allowed 500,000 tons of warships each. Also by this ratio, Japan was allowed 300,000 tons, as she had a one-ocean navy. The agreement forced all of the signatories of the treaty to stop all current capital ship production and instead scrap older, mostly obsolete, ships such as pre-dreadnoughts. However, even though the treaty controlled tonnage of each navy's warships, and limited maximum tonnage and armament of any new warship to 10,000 tons and {{convert|8|in|mm}} guns, the lower classes of ships were left unrestricted. This oversight led to a naval cruiser arms race in the 1920's,http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/id/88313.htm including the start of a building program of 15 cruisers and an aircraft carrier by the United States after failed talks in Geneva.http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/id/87717.htm

The arms race led the nations back to the negotiating table in 1930 for the London Naval Treaty. This finally regulated cruiser numbers, as it put a 10:10:7 limit on "auxiliary ships" (which included cruisers), placed a cap on total cruiser tonnage (339,000 for Great Britain, 323,500 tons for the United States, 208,850 tons for Japan), capped the number of heavy cruisers at 18 for the U.S., 15 for Great Britain and 12 for Japan, and defined what "heavy" and "light" cruisers were (a gun bore of less than or equal to {{convert|6.1|in|mm}} was a light cruiser, while bores up to {{convert|8|in|mm}} were considered heavy cruisers).http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/id/87716.htm

The treaty spawned a new type of cruiser: the treaty cruiser. These ships were characterized by trying to fit as much as possible onto a 10,000 ton hull. The first large cruisers built under the treaty were Japan's {{Sclass|Furutaka|cruiser|4}}, which mounted six 8-inch guns on a ship that displaced only 7,100 tons; this was quickly followed by France's {{Sclass|Duguay Trouin|cruiser|5}} and {{Sclass|Duquesne|cruiser|0}}es and Great Britain's {{Sclass|Kent|cruiser|5}}, {{Sclass|London|cruiser|5}} and {{Sclass|Norfolk|cruiser|0}}es. Japan countered with the first treaty-busting ships, the {{Sclass|Nachi|cruiser|0}}, which were officially 10,000 tons but were 10,980 in reality.Osborne, 105–107.

The United States built ten cruisers of a pre-war design, the {{Sclass|Omaha|cruiser|4}}, completing them all by 1925. As President Warren G. Harding and his successor, Calvin Coolidge, believed that disarmament, not rearmament, was teh best choice to avoid future wars; as such, naval spending was cut, and by 1926, naval spending was at its lowest since WWI. However, Japan's new-found naval power alarmed the U.S., so modern cruisers were finally designed and laid down; 11 treaty cruisers from the {{Sclass|Pensacola|cruiser|5}}, {{Sclass|Northampton|cruiser|5}}, {{Sclass|Portland|cruiser|5}} and {{Sclass|New Orleans|cruiser|4}}es were laid down in 1926–30.Osborne, 107–108 The last treaty cruiser to be laid down was the one cruiser of the {{Sclass|Wichita|cruiser|4}}, which was laid down in 1935 and completed four years later.Osbourne, 112.Bauer and Roberts, 138.

However, many cruisers built in the 1930's exceeded the 10,000 ton limit. Although the early years of that decade saw "the best treaty cruiser", the French Algérie and the treaty-following U.S. cruisers hit the water, they also saw the launch of the so-called "pocket battleships"—Germany's {{Sclass|Deutschland|cruiser|4}}. Although Germany was not bound by the terms of the London Naval Treaty because it had not signed it, it was bounded by the Treaty of Versailles, which limited all new German capital ships to 10,000 tons and 11-inch main armament. Although these new ships appeared to comply with both limitations, being listed in official records at 10,000 tons, they were much heavier in reality—11,700 tons.Osborne, 112–113.

The initial impetus for the design of the Alaska-class came from the deployments of the so-called "pocket battleships" in the early 1930s. Though nothing happened right away, plans were revived in the late 1930s when intelligence reports were received that said Japan was planning or building "super cruisers" which were much more powerful than U.S. heavy cruisers.Scarpaci, 17.Japan actually developed plans for two of the "super cruisers" in 1941, though it was mostly in response to the new Alaska ships. However, the ships were never ordered due to the greater need for carriers. The Navy responded in 1938, when a request from the General Board was sent to the Bureau of Construction and Repair for a "comprehensive study of all types of naval vessels for consideration for a new and expanded building program".Dulin, Jr., Garzke, Jr., 189. The U.S. President at the time, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, might have inspired the idea for the class with his desire to counter the raiding abilities of Japanese cruisers and German "pocket battleships",Dulin, Jr. and Garzke, Jr., 179. but these claims are difficult to verify.Morison and Polmar, 85.

The Scharnhorst class filled no real need in Germany's navy, the Kriegsmarine, as political considerations limited aspects of the design. Nine {{convert|280|mm|in|abbr=on}} guns were utilized as the main armament because Hitler did not want to alarm the British, but this choice rendered the class inferior to the 14, 15 and 16 inch (360, 380, and 410 mm) guns of British, French and American battleships. In addition, the steam turbines used were much less fuel-efficient than the long-range diesel engines of the {{Sclass|Deutschland|cruiser|4}}. Although giving a higher speed, the turbines limited the maximum sailing range of the Scharnhorst class, reducing their effectiveness as commerce raiders. These characteristics, though problematic for Germany, were perfect for the cruiser-killer role the Netherlands had in mind.Gardiner and Chesneau (1980), p. 225Garzke and Dulin (1985), pp. 128, 130 and 453Although the main armament and a smaller cruising radius were problems for the German ships, they were actually benefits for the Dutch: the {{convert|280|mm|in|abbr=on}} guns were larger than the 150 and 200 mm (6 and 8 in) guns mounted on cruisers, and speed—not range—was emphasized in the 1047s' design because they had to be able to outrun most other ships.

{{Reflist}}

The 1.1 in was developed in the late 1920s and early 1930s as a replacement for the lighter .50 caliber. It was derided within the Navy, as it commonly jammed and was unreliable in general; hence, it was normally replaced by 40 mm and 20 mm guns whenever possible. By early 1945, it was only in use on a few smaller ships. About 100 rounds per minute was commonly obtained with one gun; it was capable of firing at angles as varied as -15 and 110 degrees, moving to these at 24 degrees per second. Capable of turning a full 360 degrees, the guns had the interesting capability of being able to slew 30 degrees side-to-side. This was for minor aiming corrections when the guns were elevated and normal training would not alter the direction of fire enough. Its AA ceiling was {{convert|19000|ft|mi km|abbr=off|adj=on}}.{{cite web |last=DiGiulian | first=Tony | url=http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_1-1-75_mk1.htm | title=United States of America 1.1"/75 (28 mm) Mark 1 and Mark 2 | date = 16 May 2008| accessdate=17 August 2009 | publisher=NavWeaps}}

The .50 caliber machine gun was originally designed after the First World War as an aircraft-mounted weapon; it was only modified for army use in the early 1920s and navy use in 1932. Water-cooled, the latter version began service in 1933; it was capable of firing about 450–600 bullets per minute at 2,930 ft/s (893 m/s), though its practical rate of fire was lower. Its effective range was {{convert|7800|ft|m|abbr=off|adj=on}}, while its effective AA ceiling was around {{convert|5000|ft|m|abbr=off|adj=on}}. It could be elevated from -10 to 80 degrees and trained in a 360 degree radius.{{cite web |last=DiGiulian | first=Tony | url=http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_50cal-M2_MG.htm | title=United States of America 0.50"/90 (12.7 mm) M2 Browning MG | date = 13 October 2007| accessdate=17 August 2009 | publisher=NavWeaps}}

File:Bofors firing USS Hornet.jpg

The Bofors 40 mm gun was the most widely used ship-borne heavy machine gun of the Second World War, seeing service on virtually every American and British warship that served during that time, and is still in use on ships today. Based on a 1918 Krupp design, the 40mm developed into a gun quite unlike its inspiration. First tests occurred in the early 1930s; a twin mounting was ordered by the U.S. Navy in 1940 in order to test it. A license to construct the gun was obtained in June 1941; after adaptations to suit American needs—such as the ability to mass-produce the gun—a quad was installed upon the training ship {{USS|Wyoming|BB-32|2}} on 22 June 1942, and a twin was fitted to the destroyer {{USS|Coghlan|DD-606|2}} on 1 July 1942.{{cite web |last=DiGiulian | first=Tony | url=http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_4cm-56_mk12.htm | title=Sweden Bofors 40 mm/60 (1.57") Model 1936 – United States of America 40 mm/56 (1.57") Mark 1, Mark 2 and M1 – British 40 mm/56.3 (1.57") QF Marks I, III, IV, VIII, IX, X, XI, NI and NI/I – German 4 cm/56 (1.57") Flak 28 – Japanese 4 cm/60 (1.57") Type 5 | date = 31 August 2008| accessdate=17 August 2009 | publisher=NavWeaps}}

The American versions of the gun utilized either air- or water-cooling, depending on the mounting. All single 40 mm were air-cooled, while all guns in twin or quads were water-cooled. The latter guns weighed around {{convert|1150|lb|kg|abbr=off|adj=on}} each; they were {{convert|148.8|in|mm|abbr=off|adj=on}} long overall, had a bore length of {{convert|88.6|in|mm|abbr=off|adj=on}}, and had a rifling length of {{convert|75.85|in|mm|abbr=off|adj=on}}. One gun could fire at a rate of 120 shells per minute; about 10,000 rounds total could be fired prior to a gun needed to be replaced. The quad version of the gun was, in essence, two twin mounts mounted together—each pair carried a left- and a right-hand gun (Mark 1 and Mark 2, respectively), like the twins.

With 124,735 manufactured from 1940 through 1945, the Oerlikon 20 mm was probably the most-produced AA gun of the Second World War. Although it had been rejected in 1935—almost bankrupting the company—an updated model was selected to replace the .50 caliber machine guns, with full approval for the change occurring on 9 November 1940. A gun was test-fired on 8 June 1941, and 379 had been made by the attack on Pearl Harbor. American manufacturers, working with the Bureau of Ordnance, almost totally redesigned the gun so that it could be mass-produced; as a result, the time it took to construct a gun dropped from 428.4 man-hours (1941) to 76.2 man-hours (1944). By the end of the war, the United States alone had produced over a billion shells for this gun.{{cite web |last=DiGiulian | first=Tony | url=http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_2cm-70_mk234.htm | title=Switzerland Oerlikon 20 mm/70 (0.79") Mark 1 – United States of America 20 mm/70 (0.79") Marks 2, 3 & 4 – Britain 20 mm/70 (0.79") Mark I and Mark II| date = 30 January 2009| accessdate=17 August 2009 | publisher=NavWeaps}}

The 20 mm had a maximum range of {{convert|10000|ft|mi km|abbr=off|adj=on}}, though its effective range was only about {{convert|1000|ft|mi km|abbr=off|adj=on}}. The gun was manually elevated from -5 to 87 degrees, though this varied depending on the Mark; the last single mounting, the Mark 10, could go as low as -15 and as high as 90 degrees. It could train around a full 360 degrees. In action, it fired shells at around 2725 ft/s (835 m/s); the gun would last for about 9000 rounds prior to the barrel needing to be changed.

{{reflist}}

• Macintyre, Donald G. F. W., The naval war against Hitler, New York, Scribner [1971]. D771 .M276
• Marder, Arthur Jacob, From the Dardanelles to Oran : studies of the Royal Navy in war and peace, 1915-1940, London ; New York : Oxford University Press, 1974. VA454 .M345
• Marder, Arthur Jacob, From the dreadnought to Scapa Flow; the Royal Navy in the Fisher era, 1904-1919, London, New York, Oxford University Press. VA454 .M35
• Marder, Arthur Jacob, Operation "Menace" : the Dakar expedition and the Dudley North affair, D766.99.S4 M2 (LSSU, need inter-library loan)
• Marder, Arthur Jacob, The anatomy of British sea power; a history of British naval policy in the pre-dreadnought era, 1880-1905, Hamden, Conn., Archon Books, 1964 [c1940]. DA88 .M3 1964
• Parkes, Oscar, British battleships, "Warrior" 1860 to "Vanguard" 1950; a history of design construction and armament, Hamden, Conn., Archon Books, 1972 [c1971]. VA454 .P3 1972
• Winton, John, The forgotten fleet; the British Navy in the Pacific, 1944-1945, New York, Coward-McCann [1970, c1969]. D 767 .W52

|}

• [https://secure.flickr.com/photos/internetarchivebookimages/14597862047/in/photostream/ Agincourt pic], grainy but definitely PD
• Gigantic painting of Rio de Janeiro, Scientific American vol 108 (Oscar Parkes)
• Arizona image going into East River, half page, Scientific American vol 115 p. 471
• Rivadavia image quarter page Scientific American vol 109, p. 253
• Nevada painting, SA vol 114 (1916), p. 191

• Arizona description: "Our Latest Dreadnought, the 'Arizona'," SA 115 (1916): 471, 485.
• Rivadavia description: "The New Argentine Dreadnought 'Rivadavia'," SA 109 (1913): 253.

"Trials of Our Latest Dreadnought," SA 114 (1916), no. 12: 297. "satisfactorily" high-speed trails, averaging .5 knot above contract speed (21 knots) for "some hours", in gun power and armor, Pennsy is better than foreign ships, but its speed is "lamentably low" compared to British QE (25), Russian Gongort (23) and Italian Caio Duilio (22.5).

• "Naval authorities look to the dreadnought strength of a navy as the first test by which to determine its comparative efficiency." left column [https://books.google.com/books?id=Gq0zAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA229]

• [https://archive.org/stream/scientific-american-1900-03-24/scientific-american-v82-n12-1900-03-24#page/n7/mode/1up Deodoro SciAm article]

• Different titles
• Starts as Navy League Journal
• Navy (1907) ACI-0113 (OCoLC)7550453
• Navy and Merchant Marine
• National marine ACI-0111 (OCoLC)7550411

• [http://books.google.com/books?id=kCUfAQAAMAAJ 1904, vol 30]
• [http://books.google.com/books?id=byYfAQAAMAAJ 1905, vol 31] Peru naval ambitions
• [http://books.google.com/books?id=yMw9AQAAMAAJ 1906, vol 32], issues 3 and 4. Has info on 1905 Brazilian bb program. [CAN'T FIND 1-2]
• [http://books.google.com/books?id=aO0-AQAAMAAJ 1907, vol 33], issues 1 and 2.
• [http://books.google.com/books?id=e54jAQAAIAAJ 1907, vol 33], issues 3 and 4.
• [http://books.google.com/books?id=fSsfAQAAMAAJ 1908, vol 34]
• [http://books.google.com/books?id=hiwfAQAAMAAJ 1909, vol 35]
• [http://books.google.com/books?id=QSNLAAAAYAAJ 1910, vol 36], all but search is odd.
• [http://books.google.com/books?id=KSNKAAAAYAAJ 1910, vol 36], issues 3 and 4.
• [http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/008891895 1911-14, vol 37-40]
• [http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000506665 Others]

• [http://books.google.com/books?id=0OwgqUnabYYC 1909] p. 339, 1065 (Engineering technical description), Para destroyers 1070 (Engineering description w/ pic, ship plans, boiler diagrams)

• Full Engineering report of 21 Jan 1910- [http://books.google.com/books?id=-mwmAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA179] 179

• [http://books.google.com/books?id=-_YwAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA352 Minas Geraes]
• [https://books.google.com/books?id=Pd8-AQAAMAAJ] I think? 1910

• [http://books.google.com/books?id=tFlPAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA243 Navy League founded date]

• [http://books.google.com/books?id=ZFxBAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA767 Reaction to MG class] "Battleships," Cincinnati Price Currant 65, no. 48 (1908): 767.

Need [http://www.worldcat.org/title/navy-league-annual/oclc/1714700 this], vol 3 1909

:[http://books.google.com/books?id=6HA6AQAAMAAJ] 1907/08

:[http://books.google.com/books?id=rXA6AQAAMAAJ] 1908/09

:[http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/100157773] 09-11

:[https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hnq8th 1908]

:[https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiug.30112082979094 1909] (note: search for Brazil doesn't get the main section)

:[https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiug.30112082979086 1910]

:[https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924069243867 1911]

:[https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015025038517 1912]

:[https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89044221190 1913]

:[https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b2905150 1914]