South Carolina-class battleship
naval review off New York City, October 1912
| |
Class overview | |
---|---|
Name | South Carolina-class battleship |
Builders | |
Operators | United States Navy |
Preceded by | Mississippi class |
Succeeded by | Delaware class |
In service | 1910–1922 |
Planned | 2 |
Completed | 2 |
Scrapped | 2 |
General characteristics | |
Type | Dreadnought battleship |
Displacement | |
Length | |
Beam | 80 ft 3 in (24.46 m) |
Draft | 24 ft 6 in (7.47 m) |
Installed power |
|
Propulsion |
|
Speed | 18.5 kn (21.3 mph; 34.3 km/h) |
Range | 6,950 nmi (8,000 mi; 12,870 km) at 10 kn (12 mph; 19 km/h) |
Complement | 51 officers and 881 enlisted men |
Armament |
|
Armor |
Two South Carolina-class battleships, also known as the Michigan class,[B] were built for the United States Navy in the early twentieth century. Named South Carolina and Michigan, they were the first American dreadnoughts—powerful warships whose capabilities far outstripped those of the world's older battleships.
At the turn of the twentieth century, the prevailing theory of naval combat was that battles would continue to be fought at relatively close range using many small, fast-firing guns. As such, each of the ships in the United States' previous Connecticut-class battleships carried many medium-sized weapons alongside four large guns. This paradigm was soon to be subverted, as American naval theorists proposed that a ship mounting a homogeneous battery of large guns would be more effective in battle.
As these ideas began to enjoy wider acceptance, the US Congress authorized the country's navy to construct two small 16,000-long-ton (16,300 t) battleships. This displacement was roughly the same size as the Connecticut class and at least 2,000 long tons (2,000 t) smaller than foreign equivalents. A solution was found in an ambitious design drawn up by Rear Admiral Washington L. Capps, the chief of the navy's Bureau of Construction and Repair; it traded speed for heavy armament and relatively thick armor, both of which were favored by naval theorists of the time.
With their
Background
In 1901, the US Navy's battleship designs reflected the prevailing theory of naval combat: battles would begin at long distances before closing the range for knockout blows. In the latter stage, shorter-range, faster-firing guns would prove most useful. Following this philosophy, the premier battleship class then under construction—the Connecticut class—carried four large 12-inch (305 mm), eight 8-inch (203 mm), and twelve 7-inch (178 mm) guns, an armament slightly heavier than typical foreign battleships of the time.[1]
The Naval Institute's Proceedings magazine devoted space in two of its 1902 issues to possible improvements in battleship design. The first article was authored by Lieutenant Matt H. Signor, who argued for a ship with 13-inch (330 mm) and 10-inch (254 mm)/40 caliber guns in four triple turrets. The secondary battery would be composed of 5-inch (127 mm)/60 guns. This paper provoked enough thought that Proceedings published comments on the story from Captain William M. Folger, Professor P. R. Alger, and naval constructor David W. Taylor—the latter an up-and-coming officer and future head of the Bureau of Construction and Repair (C&R). These comments expressed doubt that the proposed vessel could be codified into a feasible design, but they praised his thoughts as a step in the right direction. Alger believed that Signor was on the right track in suggesting larger armament, though he thought that triple turrets would be unworkable and eight 12-inch guns in four twin turrets would be a much more realistic arrangement. With this, naval historian Norman Friedman believes that Alger made one of the "earliest serious proposals for a homogeneous big-gun battery."[2]
The suggestion leading directly to the South Carolina class came from
In 1903, Poundstone's designs began receiving attention from American naval authorities. After being refined by Washington Irving Chambers, Poundstone's work was brought to the Naval War College, where it was tested in war games during the 1903 Newport Conference. The results indicated that a theoretical battleship that dispensed with the intermediate 8- and 7-inch armament and was armed with only twelve 11- or 12-inch guns, all able to fire on a single broadside, was worth three of the battleships then in service. According to the men who conducted the tests, the main reasoning for the finding was that the measure of effective gun ranges was directly related to the maximum length of an enemy's torpedo range. At this time, the latter was roughly 3,000 yd (2,700 m); at that distance, the 7- and 8-inch guns common to American intermediate batteries would not be able to penetrate the armor of enemy battleships. Worse still, it was certain that—as the United States was developing a 4,000 yd (3,700 m) torpedo—gun range would have to rise in the near future, making the intermediate guns even less useful. However, a homogeneous main battery of 11- or 12-inch guns would be able to penetrate the armor and have sufficient explosive power to disable an enemy capital ship, and adding as many 3-inch (76 mm) guns as possible would provide a strong defense against torpedo-carrying but unarmored destroyers.[6][D]
Design
Faced with this evidence, the General Board sent a formal request in October 1903 to C&R, asking it to draw up plans for a battleship including these characteristics. No progress had been made by 26 January 1904, when the General Board asked C&R for a design including four 12-inch guns, eight 10-inch or larger guns, and no intermediate armament beyond 3-inch anti-destroyer guns. The move to only 10-inch weaponry was the result of doubt among naval authorities that heavier guns could physically be mounted on a ship's broadside. No action was taken on this request until September, when C&R began planning a ship with four 12-inch guns in dual turrets along with eight dual 10-inch or four single 12-inch guns.[6]
Meanwhile, the Naval War College played three battleship designs against each other at its 1904 Newport Conference: the ships that were built following the 1903 conference; the new C&R design from September; and the latest battleships under construction, the Connecticut class. The 7- and 8-inch guns, and even the 10-inch guns, were demonstrated again to be unsatisfactory; even when hitting a battleship at the ideal angle of 90° to its
Within the naval bureaus, however, there was still much resistance. In mid-to-late 1904, Poundstone continued to lobby the General Board while C&R protested that the final determinant in a naval battle would be the light guns—and in any case such a large uniform battery was not feasible. Poundstone replied with a design of his own creation, which he called USS Possible and fit twelve 11-inch guns on a ship that displaced 19,330 long tons. With support from Lieutenant Commander William Sims, who was able to cite the increasingly accurate long-gunnery of the Navy, and interest shown in the project by President Roosevelt, the bureaucratic stalling ended.[9]
On 3 March 1905,
Early in [the twentieth century], several navies simultaneously decided to shift to a main battery composed entirely of the heaviest guns. The first and most famous product of this innovation was HMS Dreadnought, which gave her name to a generation of all-big-gun ships. Parallel to but independent of her conception was the American South Carolina, in many ways equally revolutionary. She introduced a superfiring main battery, a design economy which gave her a better-protected broadside equal to that of her British contemporary on about 3000 tons less displacement.
Norman Friedman, US Battleships: An Illustrated Design History (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1985), 51.
The Constructor of the Navy, Rear Admiral
As the additional main battery turrets with their associated magazines used a great amount of space within each already-limited ship, Capps was forced to economize in other ways to stay within the tonnage limit. Machinery had to be built smaller than normal to fit in the space between the fore and aft magazines, both of which were larger than usual. Boiler rooms were moved inboard to make room for torpedo protection. The biggest drawback was in propulsion: there was no room for engines that could provide the same amount of power as on previous battleships. Capps suggested cutting down the number of boilers by one-third to make room; it may have been at this point that he considered turbine propulsion. All the Bureau of Engineering could offer in response was more compact boiler rooms by eliminating centerline bulkheads.[14]
The designers were running into the problem that Friedman calls the "squeeze": the essential elements of a battleship (armament, propulsion machinery, and armor) typically added up to about sixty percent of their design displacement. Favoring one of these factors, what he called the "three primary military qualities," would force the designers to accept compromises in one or both of the others.[15] In the end, they chose armament and armor over speed; as a result, the South Carolina class' top speed was lower than all future US battleships.[16]
Specifications
At a design displacement of 16,000 long tons, the South Carolina-class dreadnoughts were the same size as their Connecticut-class pre-dreadnought predecessors. In service, they could actually be lighter:
The South Carolinas had a propulsion system consisting of two vertical triple-expansion steam engines driving two 3-bladed screws. These were in turn powered by twelve coal-fired superheating Babcock & Wilcox water-tube boilers located in three watertight compartments. Together, they weighed 1,555 long tons (1,580 t), which was just over the specified contract limit. Traditional triple-expansion engines were installed rather than the steam turbines used in the British Dreadnought. The actual coal capacity of the ships was 2,374 long tons (2,412 t) at full load, slightly more than the designed maximum of 2,200 long tons (2,200 t), allowing for an endurance of 6,950 nmi (12,870 km; 8,000 mi) at 10 kn (19 km/h; 12 mph). While both ships surpassed 20 kn (37 km/h; 23 mph) in idealized trial conditions, the navy expected that the normal top speed would be around 18.5 kn (34.3 km/h; 21.3 mph).[19]
The class'
Armor on the South Carolina class was described by naval author Siegfried Breyer as "remarkably progressive", despite deficiencies in horizontal and underwater protection. The belt was thicker over the magazines, 12 to 10 inches (305 to 254 mm), than over the propulsion, 11 to 9 inches (279 to 229 mm), and in front of the forward magazines, 10 to 8 inches (254 to 203 mm). The casemates were also protected with 10 to 8 inches of armor, while the deck armor varied from 2.5 to 1 inch (64 to 25 mm). The turrets and conning tower had the heaviest armor, with 12–8–2.5 inches (face/side/roof; 305–203–63.5 mm) and 12 to 2 inches (305 to 51 mm), respectively. The barbettes were protected with 10 to 8 inches of armor. The total weight of the armor amounted to 31.4% of the design displacement, slightly more than the next three battleship classes.[21]
Ships
Ship | Hull No. | Builder | Laid down | Launched | Commissioned | Fate |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
South Carolina | BB-26 | William Cramp & Sons | 18 December 1906 | 11 July 1908 | 1 March 1910 | Broken up as a result of the Washington Naval Treaty, 1924 |
Michigan | BB-27 | New York Shipbuilding Corporation | 17 December 1906 | 26 May 1908 | 4 January 1910 |
Construction and trials
The contracts for the South Carolina class were awarded on 20 and 21 July, respectively.[22] Without armor or armament, South Carolina would cost $3,540,000,[23] while Michigan would come in at $3,585,000.[24] With armor and armament, the ships cost about $7,000,000 each.[25]
Michigan's
After their
South Carolina's trials were conducted off the Delaware Capes beginning on 24 August 1909, and its standardization runs were slightly faster than Michigan's. After final modifications at William Cramp,[31] South Carolina was commissioned on 1 March 1910 and departed for a shakedown cruise six days later.[32]
Service history
After being commissioned, South Carolina and Michigan were both assigned to the
South Carolina next took part in the 1911
At the beginning of the First World War, both of the South Carolina-class battleships were grouped with two older pre-dreadnoughts (Vermont and Connecticut) due to their top speeds, which were lower than all subsequent US battleships. South Carolina was refitted in Philadelphia between 14 October and 20 February 1915, and both ships were kept on neutrality patrols on the American side of the Atlantic, even after the US entered the war on 6 April 1917. In January 1918, Michigan was training with the main fleet when it traveled through a strong storm. The high winds and waves caused its forward cage mast to collapse, killing six and injuring thirteen.[34]
On 6 September 1918, South Carolina escorted a fast convoy partway across the Atlantic, becoming one of the first American battleships (alongside New Hampshire and Kansas) to do so. When returning to the United States, South Carolina lost its starboard propeller. When continuing with the port propeller, a valve in its engine malfunctioned; continuing with an auxiliary valve caused a large amount of vibration, so the ship was stopped just hours later for temporary repairs on the main valve before continuing to the Philadelphia Naval Yard for repairs. Michigan had the same problem when escorting a convoy in the next month; the ship lost its port propeller on 8 October, but managed to return home on 11 October without further incident. After the war's end on 11 November 1918, both South Carolina-class battleships were used to repatriate American soldiers that had been fighting in the war.[35]
In the years after the war, the two battleships were used for training cruises. The terms of the 1922
Footnotes
- ^ In US Navy gun nomenclature, the "/45 caliber" denotes the length of the gun. In this case, the /45 gun is 45 caliber, meaning that the gun barrel is 45 times as long as it is in diameter.
- .
- ^ Roosevelt thought that the letter was "excellent", though he was not sure that he could get Congress to adopt a similar view.[4]
- ^ As it turned out, events in the Russo-Japanese War soon showed that naval battles could be fought at even greater distances.[7]
Endnotes
- ^ Campbell, "United States of America: 'The New Navy', 1883–1905," 137–38, 143; Friedman, US Battleships, 52.
- ^ Friedman, US Battleships, 51; Signor, "A New Type of Battleship"; Folger, Alger, Taylor, "Discussion".
- ^ Friedman, US Battleships, 52.
- ^ Theodore Roosevelt to Homer C. Poundstone, 27 December 1902, Theodore Roosevelt Papers, Manuscripts division, The Library of Congress.
- ^ Friedman, US Battleships, 52; Cuniberti, "An Ideal Battleship"; Friedman, "South Carolina Sisters," Poundstone, "Size of Battleships for US Navy," 161–74; Poundstone, "Proposed Armament," 377–411.
- ^ a b Friedman, US Battleships, 53; Friedman, "South Carolina Sisters".
- ^ Friedman, Battleship Design, 98.
- ^ Friedman, US Battleships, 53–54.
- ^ Friedman, US Battleships, 54–55.
- ^ a b Friedman, US Battleships, 55; Friedman, "South Carolina Sisters".
- ^ "Dispute over Battleships," New York Times, 16 October 1905, 6.
- ^ Friedman, Battleship Design, 134.
- ^ Friedman, US Battleships, 58, "Our New Battleships to Rival Dreadnought," New York Times, 26 March 1906, 6.
- ^ Breyer, Battleships, 196; Friedman, US Battleships, 57.
- ^ Friedman, Battleship Design, 22.
- ^ Friedman, US Battleships, 57.
- ^ Friedman, US Battleships, 430–32; "South Carolina" and "Michigan," Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships.
- ^ Campbell, "United States of America: 'The New Navy', 1883–1905," 112.
- ^ Friedman, US Battleships, 431–32; Breyer, Battleships, 196; Leavitt, "USS Michigan," 941–43.
- ^ Friedman, US Battleships, 431, Friedman, Battleship Design, 133–34.
- ^ Friedman, US Battleships, 431; Friedman, Battleship Design, 166–67.
- ^ a b Leavitt, "USS Michigan," 915; Dinger, "USS South Carolina," 200.
- ^ Dinger, "USS South Carolina," 200; "The Battleship South Carolina," International Marine Engineering, 401.
- ^ Leavitt, "USS Michigan," 915; "The Battleship South Carolina," International Marine Engineering, 401.
- ^ "The Battleship South Carolina," International Marine Engineering, 401.
- ^ "The Michigan," Navy, 26; "Launching the Navy's 'All-Big-Gun' Battleship," Harper's Weekly, 30.
- ^ "The South Carolina Launched," Navy, 35–36; "The Battleship South Carolina," International Marine Engineering, 401; "Progress of Naval Vessels," International Marine Engineering, 364; "New All Big Gun Warship Launched," New York Times, 12 July 1908, 4; "Our New Battleship," New York Tribune, 12 July 1908, 3.
- ^ Leavitt, "USS Michigan," 915; Dinger, "USS South Carolina," 200, 228.
- ^ Leavitt, "USS Michigan," 915–17.
- ^ "Michigan," Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships.
- ^ Dinger, "USS South Carolina," 228, 234; "Fastest Ship of Her Class," New York Times, 29 August 1909, 1; "South Carolina Finishes Tests Battleship's Builders Happy," New York Tribune, 25 August 1908, 4; "South Carolina Finishes Tests," New York Tribune, 28 August 1908, 1.
- ^ "South Carolina," Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships.
- ^ a b c "South Carolina" and "Michigan," Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships.
- ^ Jones, US Battleship Operations, 110; "South Carolina" and "Michigan," Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships.
- ^ Jones, US Battleship Operations, 118–20.
References
Books
- Breyer, Siegfried. Battleships and battle cruisers, 1905–1970. Translated by Alfred Kurti. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1973. OCLC 702840.
- Campbell, N.J.M. "United States of America: 'The New Navy, 1883–1905'." In Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1860–1905. London: Conway's Maritime Press, 1979. OCLC 5834247.
- OCLC 4505348.
- ———. US Battleships: An Illustrated Design History. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1985. OCLC 12214729.
- Jones, Jerry W. US Battleship Operations in World War I. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1998. OCLC 37935228.
Journal articles
- Cuniberti, Vittorio. "An Ideal Battleship for the British Fleet," in Jane, Fred T., ed. All The World's Fighting Ships. London: Sampson Low, Marston & Co., 1903. OCLC 6929733
- Dinger, H.C. "USS South Carolina: Description and Official Trials." Journal of the American Society of Naval Engineers 22, no. 3 (1910): 200–38. OCLC 3227025.
- Folger, W.M.; Alger, Philip R.; Taylor, D.W. "Discussion; A New Type of Battleship." Proceedings of United States Naval Institute 28, no. 2 (1902): 269–275. OCLC 2496995.
- Friedman, Norman. "The South Carolina Sisters: America's First Dreadnoughts." Naval History 24, no. 1 (2010): 16–23. OCLC 61312917.
- "Launching the Navy's 'All-Big-Gun' Battleship." Harper's Weekly 52, no. 2687 (1908): 30. OCLC 2441043.
- Leavitt, William Ashley. "USS Michigan: Description and Official Trials." Journal of the American Society of Naval Engineers 21, no. 3 (1909): 915–71.
- Poundstone, Homer C. "Size of Battleships for US Navy." Proceedings of the United States Naval Institute 29, no. 1 (1903): 161–74.
- ———. "Proposed Armament for Type Battleship of US Navy, with Some Suggestions Relative to Armor Protection." Proceedings of the United States Naval Institute 29, no. 2 (1903): 377–411.
- "Progress of Naval Vessels." International Marine Engineering 13, no. 8: (1908): 364. OCLC 2227478.
- Signor, Matt H. "A New Type of Battleship." Proceedings of the United States Naval Institute 28, no. 1 (1902): 1–20.
- "The Battleship South Carolina." International Marine Engineering 13, no. 9 (1908): 401.
- "The Michigan." Navy (Washington, DC) 2, no. 6 (1908): 26–29.
- "The South Carolina Launched." Navy (Washington, DC) 2, no. 7 (1908): 35–36. OCLC 7550453.
Others
- "Michigan." Naval History & Heritage Command.
- "South Carolina." Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. Naval History & Heritage Command.