unCommissioned /unbuild battleships?

is there a list of battleships that were either scrapped or not build cause of the Washington treaty?

 

Probably there is but I cant find it right now.
Here you can find WT text including retaining ships. Just about all battleships and battlecruisers already existing and not mentioned in that text were to be scrapped or otherwise rendered useless.
Ships not built because of WT were these:

British:
G3-project battlecruisers (4) and N3-project battleships (4)


US:
Colorado-Class Battleship BB.47 Washington

First South Dakota-Class:
BB.49 South Dakota
BB.50 Indiana
BB.51 Montana
BB.52 North Carolina
BB.53 Iowa
BB.54 Massachusetts

Lexington-class BC's
CC.1 Lexington
CC.2 Constellation
CC.3 Saratoga
CC.4 Ranger
CC.5 Constitution
CC.6 United States
2 of them (Lex and Sara) were completed as carriers.


Japan:
Kaga-Class Battleships Kaga and Tosa, Kaga was completed as carrier.

Kii-Class Battleships Kii, Owari and 2 other (unnamed).

Modified Kii -project (4 ships)

Amagi-Class Battlecruisers Amagi, Akagi, Atago and Takao. Akagi was completed as carrier and Amagi was also being build as carrier when earthquake destroyed it, replaced by Kaga.

Some of those ships were just in paper, not anything else when WT came. I probably missed some ships, dont take that list for granted.

 

are you saying that the iowa class was not build?
or the massachusetts? :-?

 

Montana and 2nd generation Yamato

If Hitler waited until 1945 to start WWII, he will have in his possession battleships that are even more powerful than the Bismarck, they were to be the "Z" ships in his navy. I don't have the figures but again they were suppose to be larger, faster and even more powerful.

Soon after the Iowa's were launched, US preparations were underway to lay down the Montana class that was suppose to carry 12 of the 16-inch guns, but it was scrapped as the war was coming to a close and the role of the aircraft carrier was solidified. Not to be outdone, the Japanese were working on a super super battleships, one that was suppose to be larger and more powerful than the Yamato, if that is possible. It would have bristled with 12 of the mighty 18.1 inch guns. Imagine the firepowers and the carnage if these ships ever meet head on. It would be the ultimate battleship duel of all time.

 

Re: Montana and 2nd generation Yamato

The Japanese were working within limitations imposed by the domestic infrastructure. You may recall that the Yamatos taxed Japanese recources, so going to a larger design was not feasible. The most probable follow-up to Yamato was one of approximately the same size. The attempt at increased firepower involved not an increase in the number of guns, but an increase in caliber. The likely armament was three twin 20.1in turrets. In my opinion, this actually represents a decrease in firepower. Yes, a 20.1in gun will get you more penetration and a bigger shell, but the 18.1in gun already had plenty of penetration and shell weight. The fact is that the "super-Yamato" would have had a smaller broadside weight than Yamato did, and that's no improvement.
Iowa BB 53 was laid down on 17 May 1920, and Massachusetts BB 54 on 4 Apr 1921. Both were officially canceled, along with the other SoDaks, on 8 Feb 1922.
No one has mentioned possible completions of Caracciolos or Normandies. The French and Italians had the exclusive right to complete ships during the battleship holiday, but they opted not to bother.

 

Re: Montana and 2nd generation Yamato

The German "H" class was originally designed to mount eight 16in guns. These could have been altered to fire 16.5in ammo. Displacement was in the 50,000's of tons. Wartime changes caused some tonnage increase, and eventually the project became more like an exercise in design theory, with ships of outrageous tonnage that were never planned for actual construction. When you hear about 122,000-ton ships, that really refers to design studies rather than serious ship proposals.

 

Like Tiornu pointed out, that iowa and massachusetts were early 20's ships, not those early 40's ships.
Like many other nations, US also recycled their shipnames.

 

I have read that the continuing development of German battleship designs in the 100,000+ ton class during the war was mainly due to desperate efforts of the design staff to avoid conscription to the Eastern Front

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

 

what about the super british battleships the british did not built, i read about it but forgot which class they are

 

Do you mean Lions? They were ww2-period ships. Or do you mean those N3-project ships in early 20's?
I'll post some info about them when I get back from work.

 

the lions class

 

There was actually two Lion-class projects, I and II.

Lion I were upgraded KGV with 9x16" guns and 15" belt armour. Very well protected ships with around 40000 tons standard displacement.
Length(O/A) 785' (239.3m)
Length(W/L) 763' 232.5m)
Beam 104' (31.7m)
Draft 30' (9.14m) (avg)

Speed approximately 29 knots.

Two of these were laid down -39 but work was suspended next year. Other two planned ships were cancelled same time.


Lion II were never laid down, they were to have even thicker armour than Lion I. Main guns were same as Lion I but there was planned 50% more secondary guns. Around 45000 tons standard displacement.
Length(O/A) 812.5' (247.6m)
Length(W/L) 779' (237.4m)
Beam 115' (35m)
Draft 32' (9.75m) (avg)

Around 28 knots.

Source: Archived warships1.com shipdatas

 

I think we'd be better off not considering the so-called "Lion II" as a project per se. There were numerous studies, some of which had no Admiralty sanction at all, for instructive purposes--"What would it take to give this ship adequate protection from Tallboys?" and that sort of thing. There was never any serious effort to settle on a design for construction. DK Brown mentions a 1000ft 85,000-ton design, still carrying nine 16in guns and sixteen 5.25in guns, but featuring an 18in belt and 9in deck armor.

 

Well, of course we do; names like those need to be kept in circulation. WASP, HORNET, ENTERPRISE, RANGER, SARATOGA, LEXINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA, IOWA...the list goes on.

 

hmm...i thought that there was a british super battleship bigger than the yamato?

 

Maybe some of those post-Lion studies Tiornu mentioned? I'm pretty sure anything that big was never laid down.

 

The Soviet Union also intended to build some impressive battleships, mamed "Sovietskij Sojus" class.
They had an armament similar to the US Iowa class.
The first one was I think to be launched in late 1943.
But as the war with Germany broke out their construction was chancelled, to give priority to land forces.

 

The British never seriously pursued any design larger than Vanguard or G3.
SoSo had very powerful guns but seems a bit under-armed for a design near 60,000 tons. She would have suffered greatly for the lack of Soviet armor prodection. The Soviets gave up on cementing their armor, which would have given them the only modern battleships without cemented belt armor

 

We can all see the futility of building large capital warships as big-gun platforms. Why waste money and time to construct a ship that has to get within 15-20miles of an enemy before it can toss 2,400 lb projectiles to its targets, when you can simply fly a squadron of bombers, each one capable of carrying over 10,000 lbs of explosives, and drop them on your enemies head 1,500 miles away.

 

well, bombers can be destroyed with a piddling little missile.
Battleships are a little harder to dispatch...

(playing devil's advocate! )