A Super-Alsace design proposed to counter Bismarck

[David Latuch]

Silly builders forgetting to remove bits in the yard!

Aye lad, we'll have'ta flog them right good we will.

[eswube]

An amazing looking battleship! Great work!

[David Latuch]

Okay, I believe all the bits of yard debrishave been removed . . . I said it was a WIP So shoot me

[KHT]

I like it rather much, but there are a few itches in the report.
I'll start off with the artillery. When using "RL" equipment in a springsharp calculation, enter all proper values, i.e. the exact caliber, the length of the barrel, and the shell weight, and if we're to be really picky, the design date of the gun. Also, ammunition amounts. Right now all the different parts of the ship's gunnery has 150 shells per gun. A quick look at navweaps show that the Richelieu carried 104 shells per 380mm/45 Model 1935 gun, 400 shells for each 152mm/55 Model 1930 gun, and 1000 shells per each 100mm/55 Model 1945 gun(The gun mount portrayed, unless I'm mistaken).
If you ignore these details, the report will inevitably be somewhat askew as to how big the design actually would be(With that said, springsharp has it's flaws.).
The other big thing I reacted to is armour values. The first one is the deck armour. The Richelieu class had 6,7" deck armour, and I strongly believe this ship would have even thicker. The next fishy armour value is for the main turrets. 10" front armour just doesn't seem sensible. At normal fighting distances even the Scharnhorst and her twin would be able to put those turrets out of commission, and you want her to go toe to toe against Bismarch? The Richelieu had 17" front plates for the turrets, and I'd prefer either that or thicker. The armour for the 6" artillery on the other hand seems very thick. 8" fronts? Of course, we're not bound by real designs here, but I'd be reluctant to put armour heavier than 5-6" on a turret with guns of that caliber. There's really nothing existing that 8" of armour will protect against that 6" won't at the time of this ship's design and building.
And, finally, something on the technical side of designing a ship in springsharp: The composite strength/hull strength should always be 1.00, unless you're planning on giving her margins for updates.
I'm sorry if I come off as somewhat snarky in this reply.

[David Latuch]

I like it rather much, but there are a few itches in the report.
I'll start off with the artillery. When using "RL" equipment in a springsharp calculation, enter all proper values, i.e. the exact caliber, the length of the barrel, and the shell weight, and if we're to be really picky, the design date of the gun. Also, ammunition amounts. Right now all the different parts of the ship's gunnery has 150 shells per gun. A quick look at navweaps show that the Richelieu carried 104 shells per 380mm/45 Model 1935 gun, 400 shells for each 152mm/55 Model 1930 gun, and 1000 shells per each 100mm/55 Model 1945 gun(The gun mount portrayed, unless I'm mistaken).
If you ignore these details, the report will inevitably be somewhat askew as to how big the design actually would be(With that said, springsharp has it's flaws.).
The other big thing I reacted to is armour values. The first one is the deck armour. The Richelieu class had 6,7" deck armour, and I strongly believe this ship would have even thicker. The next fishy armour value is for the main turrets. 10" front armour just doesn't seem sensible. At normal fighting distances even the Scharnhorst and her twin would be able to put those turrets out of commission, and you want her to go toe to toe against Bismarch? The Richelieu had 17" front plates for the turrets, and I'd prefer either that or thicker. The armour for the 6" artillery on the other hand seems very thick. 8" fronts? Of course, we're not bound by real designs here, but I'd be reluctant to put armour heavier than 5-6" on a turret with guns of that caliber. There's really nothing existing that 8" of armour will protect against that 6" won't at the time of this ship's design and building.
And, finally, something on the technical side of designing a ship in springsharp: The composite strength/hull strength should always be 1.00, unless you're planning on giving her margins for updates.
I'm sorry if I come off as somewhat snarky in this reply.

No,you are quite corrrect, but I have a very fishy internet service here and it was out for twenty four hours and I had to guess at the armor vaues.Thank you for keeping me honest.

[Hood]

Well it looks super enough to me.

I think its a plausible what-if ship had there been no 1939 war and the Z Plan had gotten into some kind momentum and if the French had had development problems with the 16in and stuck with 15in. There would be few battleships that could stand up to sixteen 15in guns and it would be one of best broadsides afloat I think.
It certainly looks a cracker too.

[ailgin]

Great job, just one question though. Do you think that they would have kept the aircraft equipment at the stern?

[David Latuch]

Great job, just one question though. Do you think that they would have kept the aircraft equipment at the stern?

I'm not sure, but looking at the Suffren Class cruisers and the interim war design studies, amidships catapults were problematic when it came to moving aircraft from hangers to the catapults. Looking at the Dunkerques and the three versions of the Richelieus (Richelieu, Jean Bart; Clemenceau; Gascogne) along with the plans for Alsace, I'd have to say yes, the aircraft equipment would most likely remain in the stern, especially with the French predilection to occupy the center with boats.

[Krakatoa]

I think as much that the question would be "do you keep the aircraft handling facilities at all?" By 1942 aircraft were being removed en masse as the aircraft carrier became more numerous. Also the extra weight added with RADAR systems required something to be removed and aircraft and torpedoes were the first to go.

(I still love that French look to their later Battleships)

[David Latuch]

I think as much that the question would be "do you keep the aircraft handling facilities at all?" By 1942 aircraft were being removed en masse as the aircraft carrier became more numerous. Also the extra weight added with RADAR systems required something to be removed and aircraft and torpedoes were the first to go.

(I still love that French look to their later Battleships)

You are probably correct with the As Completed version--the Iowa Class were completed with catapults in 1943 & 1944, however the Newport News (CA-148) was designed with catapults that were never installed during construction. She was laided down in 1945, launched in 1948 and commissioned in 1949.

I might be safe to remove the catapult but what about the turntable, crane and underdeck hanger? Newport News retained its crane and the underdeck hanger was used for boat storage. (I served on her and was a member of her decommissioning crew).