The battleship Mustu at anchor. Her extensive bulges, the result of her 1930s modernization, are prominent.
A lot of people are surprised by just how large the Nagato class grew to be over their careers.
At the start of their careers, the Nagato class were 215m (708') long with a beam of 29m (95'3"). At a draught of 9m (29'), this gave them a displacement of 32,200 tons (38,498 tons at full load).
In 1927, Mutsu had a modified bow fitted that increased their length by 1.6 meters (about 5' 3") to make the forward deck more dry. Nagato received a similar modification in 1930.
Their size was further enlarged during their comprehensive 1930s modernizations.
The Nagato class had their Hulls extended at the stern, increasing their length by another 7.55m (24' 8").
Beam was also increased through the fitting of large anti-torpedo bulges. This increased the beam by 2.4m (about 8').
The fitting of new weapons and equipment caused the draft to increase as well. At their heaviest, the Nagato class had a new draft of 9.49m (31' 2").
This led to an impressive increase in draft (almost 7,000 tons).
The Nagato class battleships were now 225m long (738') with a beam of 34.6m (113' 6").
Their new displacement was 39,050 tons standard, swelling to 46,000 tons at full load.
This actually placed them within the upper echelon of dreadnoughts in terms of size. At their heaviest, they rivaled designs such as the more modern North Carolina (46,700 tons) and King George V (45,400 tons) classes.
The Yamato class might get all the glory, but the Japanese Navy had some other hefty girls in service too!
One of the more interesting claims that I have heard recently is that Italy and Germany relied on spaced armor because they could not use high-quality armor plate.
So far as Italy goes, the opposite is true. Spaced armor allowed them to utilize the highest quality armor plate.
The difficulty in manufacturing armor plate increased congruently as the thickness of the armor increased.
It was hard to make make an armor plate of 305mm thickness. It was significantly harder to manufacture one that was 356mm and harder yet for 406mm armor.
How did this apply to Italy?
Italian designers were aware of this when designing the spaced armor array of the Littorio class.
The Littorio class had a 280mm armor belt with an outer 70mm decapping layer.
I wanted to talk about plunging fire and super-heavy shells, but I realized that they are but a small part of the equation.
So, this post will be broken into two pieces, the second part focusing on shell design and shape.
Super Heavy Shells.
The wonder weapon of the United States Navy that everyone acknowledges but does not seem to understand the rationale behind.
So what are Super Heavy Shells.
Super Heavy Shells are, for the most part, the result of a panic in the 1930s.
When Japan announced that it was withdrawing from the Washington Naval Treaty, there was a moment of panic in the United States Navy. With the North Carolina class still being planned, there was a belief that the United States might have a deficiency in battleships.
While most Navies made the pursuit of greater speeds in their dreadnoughts a priority during the First World War, the United States remained happy with maintaining a speed of 21 knots throughout their series of superdreadnoughts.
Much has been written about the great leap in capability that was brought about by faster battleships such as the Queen Elizabeth class. This premium on speed has led the casual reader to discount the US Navy's Standard-Type battleships or even the entire battleline.
However, the reasoning for the emphasis for a 21 knot speed was not an inability to produce faster ships. Rather, it was a calculated decision to have all of their battleships standardized to the same speed throughout the entire navy.
The United States "Standard-Type" Battleships are something of an oddity so far as naval history is concerned.
They are typically overlooked by the casual observer and are seen as smaller, slower, or perhaps less visually impressive compared to their European contemporaries.
However, there was a good reason for the Standards and why they were designed the way they were.
They were, along with the strategic thinking of the US Navy, heavily influenced by Alfred Thayer Mahan.
Mahan's 1890 book, "The Influence of Sea Power upon History", had an effect of navies around the World.
The US Navy on the hand, began designing its entire navy around Mahan's theories.
One of the biggest being the concept of a decisive battle between capital ships.
We talked about the Lexington class battlecruisers, what they might have looked like had they been built, and how they might have been upgraded.
Now let's see how they might have operated in the US Navy.
I imagine they would have spent the interwar years split between the Atlantic and Pacific Fleet, generally following the distribution of the battleships. Most of them likely would have been sent to the Pacific along with the Battleline by the late 1930s to contain Japan.
Any battlecruisers left in the Atlantic would have likely supplemented or even replaced the three battleships covering the Neutrality patrols at the outbreak of the Second World War.
The higher speed and great range likely would have been invaluable in covering more territory.
So let's assume that the US Navy did produce it's Lexington class battlecruisers in their original configuration.
How might they have influenced the US Navy during the interwar years and into World War 2?
There likely would have been no Alaska class cruisers for one.
With six large capital ships to patrol the sea lanes, there would be less impetus for the development of the large cruiser proposals in the 1930s.
As a side note, this might have even caused Germany to hesitate on the Deutschland class.
The Renown class/HMS Hood were known to be the major threats to the class due to their speed and power. Having the threat of the Lexington class in the Atlantic would be added to this.