Turbo Electric vs Direct Drive Turbine: What Propulsion Plant Is Better for Capital Ships? 

"You push a button and electrical things happen and then the thing shoots" - that's the best description of modern weapons systems I've ever heard!

Matter-Antimatter annihilation coupled to a pair of warp nacelles would be a pretty nifty power and propulsion system.

The main advantage of turbo-electric is that you run your generation equipment at it's most efficient speed always, switching in more generation when more power is required at the drive motors. Even by the 1940s, steam-to-electricity-to-motor conversion efficiency was pretty good compared to mechanical loses in the gearing. The SS Normandie proved extremely efficient compared to Queen Mary (for example).

The problem with the highly subdivided machinery spaces is it makes the ship far more prone to capsizing when one side is hit multiple times. USS Oklahoma capsized in Pearl Harbor; West Virginia and California were saved from capsizing by intentionally sinking them into the bottom before they could capsize. All of those ships put each boiler in its own room along both sides, with the machinery in the middle. When they take an attack from one side, it floods only one side and the ship wants to roll. The US Navy knew this was a problem, and switched to full width machinery spaces after the standard class. The later battleships and all of the aircraft carriers to this day use full width machinery spaces. If a space floods, it does not create a tendency to capsize as the whole space will flood evenly.

It might be kind of ironic but I believe US Navy first major ship (15,000+ tons) with turbo-electric propulsion was the pre-WWI Jupiter class collier, which became first US carrier USS Langley, which serviced coal as most archaic energy source but had a futuristic drive system.

I work with a gentleman who was an electricians mate on board the USS Missouri for his last 4 months in the Navy. He told me that as he recalled the Iowas had a 5 kV electrical distribution system that was protected by GE magnablast breakers amd electromechanical relays. As an electrical power distribution engineer id be super into a video talking about some of that equipment

On the subject of hits knocking out T-E power, I recall that all but one of the incidents involved the _boilers_ being snuffed out, an issue that would have temporarily crippled _any_ ship with steam power, regardless of the final drive. The singular exception was something like a million-to-one shot where a torpedo bulls-eyed the one bulkhead that carried the main power bus, essentially unplugging the ship's engines until it could be reconnected. Either way it was temporary and if you're being particularly generous the same shot would probably have broken the seals on a longer propeller shaft like what happened to _Prince of Wales._

I remember when stationed at the Pentagon in the mid-eighties, the handwriting was on the wall for retiring the battleships, and I saw a serious proposal to do exactly what you are describing -- they proposed to cut the bottom out of the ships in order to replace the drive train without dismantling the rest of the ship. I don't recall the specifics, but they were also going to cut the crew by half of so. And the test range for the 16" guns was curiously down a section of the Potomac.

Many merchant ships of WWII were made with turbo electric not because it was more efficient but because making Lock trained compact reduction gears is difficult and only a few factories can make them. The output was reserved for warships so merchants got the excess Capacity output of easier to make generators and motors that many factories could provide. T-2 tankers Victory freighters.

I did some volunteer work on the Acushnet being turned into a museum ship, it's a diesel electric hybrid. Pretty wild, 4 engines, four generators in the front, not much in the middle, then the four motors feeding two gear reducers powering two shafts. Being able to mechanically decouple your power generation from the propulsion is pretty neat.

There was one account of a battleship avoiding a collision because it was able to both back down quickly to avoid the ship in front, then go back forward to avoid getting rammed by the ship behind it all in the span of a few minutes.

Turbo-Electric is making a comeback in naval construction with gas turbines direct driving electrical generators which provide electricity to electric motors which turn the propellers, and also for times you don't need the high output of a gas turbine, diesel generators can still produce a useful amount of electricity to spin the motors. It also opens up using azipods to offer better maneuverability to ships.

Turbo-electric power plants were popular with passenger ships, such as SS Canberra, where again you generally have a high electrical load compared to a cargo ship. Modern cruise ships mainly use diesel-electric propulsion where you have a number of large diesel generators providing both propulsion and hotel power.

7:08 I would love to hear more about this story, and how the navy was able to use their ships to generate power for Seattle after that earthquake!

I served in the submarine service in the late 1960s in three different WW-2 built Balao class subs which had been upgraded and streamlined after the war. This was the time when the nuclear submarine fleet was really just being built up. In the 1920s and 1930s The US experimented with various types of drive trains for their subs. It must be said that submarine technology was much influenced by the vast improvements of the relatively new diesel engines and that they eventually used the same diesels as the new diesel locomotives, making the R&D and $$ workable for the navy. Back in the 19-teens well into the 1930s the diesels were (noisily) geared directly to the prop shafts, but this created noisy vibration and forced the diesels to be run at speeds related to desired shaft RPM instead of their most fuel-efficient constant speeds. One design had a single prop shaft routed thru two diesel engines in line and created hopeless vibrations because of inevitable even slight misalignment. From there subs developed one pair of direct drive diesels in the stern and a second pair of diesel generators further forward in a compromise plant. By the late 1930's the fully diesel-electric drive had been adopted, refined and proven for submarines, generally worldwide. In our US subs there were two 1500 to 1600 HP railroad locomotive diesel generators in each of two engine rooms. The generators sent their power to a large switch cubicle just aft in the maneuvering room. Here the power could be cleverly switched to power the large geared electric propulsion motors below the deck of this compartment, and/or to charge the massive batteries that provides ALL power and propulsion for the sub when it was submerged. The switching allowed any diesel generator to do either of these tasks or both of them at the same time - ultimate flexibility. Late in the war a captain in the electrical branch, one Hyman Rickover, led a team which developed a slow turning electrical propulsion motor for submarines. This eliminated the need for the very noisy gearing and made our boats quieter. These were installed as original equipment in late war subs and were commonly retrofitted into the earlier subs when they were upgraded post war. After the war these boats were upgraded in various ways (GUPPY programs) always with a snorkel system which could supply air to any two of the four diesels allowing them to be run at periscope depth which made the subs more difficult to detect. The diesel railroad locomotives use the same concept of electric drive. Large geared electric motors turn their wheels. But on the subs, at least we had our large batteries to subsist with when below.with no diesels running. I FAST BECAME A BIG FAN OF ELECTRIC DRIVE, AND STILL AM.

Can we see a video on all the hidden WWII era equipment and other "stuff" that was supposed to be removed or upgraded but never was or just forgotten about? Ive been to the ship a dozen or so times and always fine something that looks a little out of place, but was never sure.

Modern generators can produce more power in the same amount of space. When they replaced the generators at Hoover Dam they provided a lot more power in the same size.

considering modern cruse ships like the queen Mary 2 use hybrid turbine electric for speed and efficiency, it is the way to go! not to mention you can also install a bow thruster system for extra maneuverability.

On the land side, the Germans and the US experimented with electric powered armored fighting vehicles. When the Wehrmacht spec went out for a "breakthrough" tank that eventually became the MkVI Tiger, Dr. Ferdinand Porsche designed a tank with two gasoline engines driving two generators driving two motors driving the tracks. After an initial production run of about 90, it was rejected due to the competitive Henschel design being better overall, not to mention the complexity and expense (and the prototypes had this nasty habit of catching fire). Most of these were later equipped with a casemate superstructure and put into service as the Ferdinand tank destroyer. Later in the war, surviving Ferdinands were modded and re-issued to troops as Elefant. The US Army had two electric drive tanks that progressed to prototype/limited initial production, but not further. The first was Heavy Tank T1E1 (sometimes called M6A2), and the other was medium tank T23.

Another advantage of turbo electric is that power from any generator can be routed to any propeller. Thus a hit that takes out a turbine doesn't take out any propellers, instead reducing the power to all propellers equally.

One of the early iterations of the Bismarck and the Graf Zeppelin called for TE plants. One of the advantages is that on average they had better range than their steam turbine sisters. IIRC the USN got 20% better fuel efficiency with them. They were also just about as fast in reverse as forward and you could run one set of screws in reverse and the other forward to turn a bit sharper.

At 7:10 there's an error: The city whose power grid was plugged into by Lexington was Tacoma, not Seattle. Also, not earthquake-related.

Love these videos Ryan, keep up the great work

I helped operate conventional steam propulsion. 1200 main steam, 600 main steam. I also did LM2500s. Of those 3, 1200 main was my girl. So tough, if you could make fire and reroute pipes you could make it move.

I remember how incredibly different the experience of going from flank to reverse was aboard my first ship USS Kitty Hawk vs my second ship USS O'Kane. Kitty Hawk, you gotta stop the shaft then lock the shaft engage reverse then unlock the shaft. Competent engineers like we were could get that accomplished fairly quickly but in the age of CPP screws it was still slow. BUT once we were in reverse that's 280,000 shaft horse power it hauled the ship down fast. On the O'Kane and every other Arleigh Burke class they had CPP screws Controllable Pitch Propeller. So flank to reverse was a near instant action AND BOY DID SHE STOP! Like the old saying stopping on a dime and giving you back change. You only had to experience it once to realize the fantail may not be the best spot to experience this. Hard crash back earns every bit of it's name and the fantail is in the splash zone...

Another great video from the battleship. Thanks

1) Not Seattle for the use of an aircraft carrier to power the land grid, but rather Tacoma. The power plant on the US Navy ships was LEASED to the Navy by General Electric, the arrangement in Tacoma was done through General Electric with the Navy not paying the lease rate while the ship was used for the land grid. 2) The ultimate turbo-electric plant was not that of the battlecruisers/aircraft carriers, but rather the French liner Normandie. The reason that Normandie was not returned to service was that the electrical components were ruined by their long immersion in the North River.

Good luck in your hunt for sponsors, and looking forward to seeing you on track 👍

Rudderow class DEs and Crosley class (converted from Rudderows) APDs were T-E ships. My watch and Sea & Anchor Detail were at the Throttle on USS Weiss APD 135. It was easy to go from Ahead 2/3rds to Back FULL in less than 20 seconds. I did it once.

Like so many engineering decisions -- on land never mind at sea -- it comes down to balancing options and advantages and disadvantages. There's something to be said for almost any drive design.

Electric propulsion with a generator driven by a turbine is the way to go for just about anything that needs a large amount of power. Tanks, Trains, & Ships. An important benefit of electric motors, is that we can run the motor for a short while, even if engine power is insufficient at the moment. Even hybrid cars use a very similar concept.

I remember a science fiction short story (Bill the Galactic Hero?) . . . where space battleships possessed enormous power conduits, with fuses the size of 8" brass. In battle, under stress from demands of engines, weapons, and force field defenses, these great fuses would arc and blow, sending lightning bolts and molten brass into the space, while brave fuse men yanked the deaders out and slammed fresh ones into the clips. Sweat and fire and lightning. I can see it as a movie scene. Makes me wonder if the writer (Harry Harrison?) had served on a turbo-electric battleship during the war.

The U.S. Navy used electric drive with reduction gearing that never were made specifically engineered for each other till the early to mid 80s. This is the first video that mentioned the change in the 80s. I worked in the GE gear plant in Lynn MASS which made Navy reduction gearing for nuke subs up to carriers. I was assigned to the RD program that designed an built the gas turbine and reduction gearing and drive motors. The 3 were specially designed for each other. U.S. ARLEIH BURKE class destroyers DDG 51 were the first class of ships to use them. The reduction gearing case was almost 1/2 The size of previous reduction gearing and it handled higher speeds. With the gas turbine a lot of room was add for other things. I and another employee machined the major casing that held the bull gear and all other gearing. It took a couple of years to build and get accepted by the U.S. NAVY. 62 and this is one of my bragging points. I would love to actually see them installed even though they are manufactured else where.

As far as the case of Saratoga loosing ALL power - that seems like a matter of better design, rather than a fundamental flaw in the idea. I could see how, if cabling and connections weren’t insulated and isolatable, you could have a complete outage. But there MUST be a way to correctly “cut out” the damaged sections, and bring at least some capacity back online.

Gas turbine to electric is the way to go. Quick start up, flexible configuration, reasonable efficiency, and easy redundancy. Nuclear may seem good but it has problems like nuc plant operators don't grow on trees; requiring a special individual and extensive training. I was an operator in fuel oil to 600PSI steam and diesel - electric plants and worked in Repair Department for nuc subs.

One advantage of turbo/electric over steam propulsive turbines that I can see, would be in the resistance to shock and splinter damage; if you crack or puncture a steam pipe, that steam pipe will lose pressure and functionally lose some or all of it's capacity to transfer energy. Chip or bend a copper wire, it will still have almost all of it's original energy transfer capacity (though it may become a hazard to crew. Obviously, the turbo-generators still require steam supply to run, so you're not eliminating all of that problem by going with turbo/electric, but assuming the steam manifolds are subdivided sufficiently, it would seem much less likely to cause a major loss of propulsive power from the loss of a single supply pipe in battle.

My favorite method of marine propulsion? I'd have to say either the multicylinder hot-bulb-engines we liked here in Sweden, or the Napier Deltic.

Expense and fear aside, nuclear, (with some diesel backup) would be the way to go on any large ship. Limited by only ammunition, food, and manpower. But realistically, gas turbine with diesel backup would probably be more sensible.

Excellent video, as always, Ryan. However, I'd like to offer a small correction. The power failure in Seattle you discussed at 7:10 was actually several miles south at Tacoma. The picture at 7:15 is of the USS Lexington tied to the Baker Steamship Dock supplying emergency power to the City of Tacoma, which it was able to do because of, as you stated, its' immense generating capacity as a turbo-electric design. Note the large gun turrets forward of the island structure. These are left from its main 8" armament as a cruiser. At remodeling these were removed and 5" dual purpose deck edge guns installed. The Lexington was just across the Puget Sound at the Naval Shipyard at Bremerton at the time. I have this history because the dock was my great-grandfathers company and I have this exact same picture framed in my home, the story was related to me by my grandmother. Thanks for your continued work in saving the history of these great ships.

The forward and Nimitz class carriers were designed to be used for 50 years. Or so I've heard.

I believe the Germans used a hybrid diesel-steam turbine electric for some ship - the diesels for cruising and the steam turbines for higher speed.

I can tell you that on Nimitz class carriers direct drive turbine propulsion is alive and well. I doubt that electric motors powerful enough were available when it was designed in the 1960s. Imagine how much smaller those cables, generators, and drive motors could be if they upped the voltage to 4160VAC 3 phase like on Nimitz's central distribution bus.

Is there something you could do for 1000 videos such as a 5 inch gun salute and sounding the ships salvo alarm. I'm not sure how easy it would be to get a 5 inch mount firing from Secondary Battery Plot but that would be cool. It would be cool to see the complete firing process from start to finish (plotting, loading and firing). I am not sure if you would have a former Iowa Class guns mate that could be involved.

JFTR, USNS Aeolus T-ARC 3 was launched in 1945 and operated until 1985. She was turboelectric. The main propulsion motor was pretty much problem free. She was replaced by the USNS Zeus T-ARC 7, another turboelectric ship which is still in service. Turboelectric lasts pretty much as long as you're willing to maintain it.

Basically a turbo electric or turbo generator ship, uses an electric motor that turns the propellers. Like any land based lower station, steam is used to generate that electricity. That electricity is then wired to the electric motors. While direct drive ships use the steam to blow a windmill, that’s connected to the propeller on a shaft.

The best example of the turbo electric drive was when Maryland, whose bow was damaged, sailed from the marianas to Hawaii in reverse.

CVs Saratoga and Lexington used turbo-electric propulsion. Use their war-time records to assess the methods reliability and robustness.

One thing you forgot about choosing the right power source is the number and size of propellers you will use. The Iowas had a larger propeller than the Lexington CV. This was probably due to the gear reduction units on the Iowas. I believe the Electric drive could somewhat simulate a gear box by using different ratios of poles between the generator and motor.

Thumbs up from another fan of turboelectric ships.

Nuclear is always a concept I thought would be interesting on a battleship the size of an Iowa, she could probably crank out higher speeds and support many and newer weapon systems/associated systems

Here's a related follow up question since you mentioned it: If cost is no object do you go nuclear with your battleship? You have all the benefits of turbo electric (perhaps apart from being able to decentralise quite as well) with effectively unlimited range and the ability to maintain high speeds for very long duration. The downsides of course are everything that comes along with being nuclear

Replace the boilers with diesels and that's more or less the system the USN submarines of WW2 used. Very flexible, efficient, and had redundancies. Of course far more practical due to scale AND you want that flexibility between propulsion and diverting power to recharge your battery stores, which that system allowed you to do really quite quickly (if you didn't mind using the fuel, which you wouldn't if getting your battery charge done ASAP). There's also the problem that you can't exactly be running fires and boilers when you need to dive, let alone light them off again when surfacing (although the Brits did exactly that in one of their earliest subs, I seem to recall), LOL.

If I were to build a modern battleship, I would probably do a gas-turbine hybrid. Gas-Turbine generators with the turbo-electric drive train. No boilers, no long shafts, no high-pressure steam. The gas-turbine generators don't need steam condensors and associated piping for cooling the steam. They are really easy to automate, so we can put them in small compartments all over the ship. They could be emergency generators as well. I might use electric driven propulsion jets to eliminate the shafts completely

I remember reading on turbo electric ships, they were very popular with ships that needed refrigeration, especially the ones that transported tropical fruit that also dealt with high temperatures. The US seized a German one, it was not worth it as it constantly broke down, even when paying the original German crew to maintain it, assuming they were not sabotaging it.

You've got me thinking now Ryan. On the Iowas is there another seal where the shaft goes through the citadel and heads towards the back of the ship? So that if the rear compartment floods it cannot get into the citadel? Can you please do a video on this? And great stuff as always

Love these videos. I think the drives on the Iowa class battleships were actually great for the time and would probably still be great today along with turbo electric stuff. If I were doing one today I'd do it with a bunch of emd locomotive engines. If you look at locomotives you don't need very much room to house it. But there's nuclear power which is basically just an alternate way to heat water for steam propulsion, or steam turbine generators. Anyway you do it is a variant from many decades ago anyway. Nuclear is just another way to make steam and diesel will always just be that..a diesel.

Agreed 👍

Oars are clearly the best and most reliable form of propulsion.

Diesel-electric works very well in icebreakers because the screw could be stopped quite suddenly by ice and a circuit breaker would open. That doesn’t mean there is no chance of damage to the screw, but the engine won’t be damaged and there’s no clutch, so no clutch damage either. The Coast Guard icebreaker Glacier had been the world’s most powerful floating diesel-electric power plant- Ten 10-cylinder 38 D 8 1/8 Fairbanks-Morse propulsion diesels, two F-M ship’s service generators, two F-M generators for the heeling pumps (to transfer ballast or fuel rapidly from side-to-side to help break free when stuck in ice) and one emergency generator. Fifteen F-M diesels in total!

Battleship Maryland got hit in the bow by a Japanese torpedo and went to Pearl Harbor backwards the whole way. This is something a steam turbine engine could never do.

If I were to design a new BB I would either go with nuclear, with an arrangement similar to a Nimitz class carrier, or failing that probably DC diesel-electric, with MG sets for ships power, or possibly CODAG like the RNs new birdfarms...

I think ideally Nuclear, but modern Diesels could be great also. Though running a few hundred Chevy 350's would also be interesting

"Official Japanese Steel Kitchen Knife of the USS New Jersey" Dripping with irony like the juices out of a sliced steak

Thank you for explaining the pros and cons of turbo-electric versus direct drive. Nuclear powered warship damage control in battle hasn't been tested---yet. There have been a number of nuclear powerplant incidents and the ones I've read about have been mostly submarines. The reason that USS Enterprise/CV-60 had eight atomic piles instead of the two currently standard on American aircraft carriers (with diesel back-up generators) was so that any one nuclear powerplant failure would only take down one-eighth of the Enterprise's power. Submarines--to my knowledge--have only one nuclear powerplant, a bank of backup batteries and a small diesel generator for emergency electrical power generation while surfaced. When submarines suffer hits that surface warships might survive, the submarine is doomed by depth. Two nuclear powered US cruisers were Long Beach and Bainbridge, and both had a pair of nuclear powerplants. It might be interesting to compare those cruiser designs against the Iowa--because Long Beach and Bainbridge took over the aircraft carrier defense mission from the New Jersey. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Long_Beach_(CGN-9) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Bainbridge_(CGN-25) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Truxtun_(CGN-35) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_cruisers_of_the_United_States_Navy

Nuclear Turbo Electric. We know Turbo Electric works as that's what the US is using on the new Zumwalt Class Destroyer. You drop a reactor in there, you don't need any of the smoke stacks or ventilation equipment, freeing up alot of room. You could even use the saved weight to put thicker armor around the reactor, even matching the citadel. One of the big things to me is to get way from the whole "It has to fit through Panama" idea, and you can build a true monster

Having been involved with converting a military ship from A/C to D/C propulsion systems, I learned one thing. Turbo electric systems have a few major drawbacks. The number of generators needed for the same HP will take up more space than a turbine propulsion system, and the main motors that drive the ship weigh more than a comparable turbine and reduction gear arrangement. Electric propulsion systems are fantastic these days and if we were building today, Diesel electric would be the way to go. Back then most of the gear was 3 or 4 times as large as it is now.

Just as you do, you tell me to build a battleship to fight other battleships I am going to choose a turboelectric installation. The turbo electric allows me to nearly double the number of compartments I have the power installation divided into. I might have missed this but another problem of the turbo-electric is that it physically occupies more space per horsepower. Compared to say West Virgina even with an additional 20 years of development you are not going to manage to pack 212000 Shaft horsepower into the same space with turbo-electric that you can with straight steam turbines. Even with careful space management, you are probably going to have to have half again more space for that plant. This is going to turn into a ship clearly another one hundred feet longer. This is going to be more expensive (but even harder to sink), with more target area but no more main armament. As far as the ship's actual ability to fight all it will really gain in secondary armament - maybe 30 5 inch and 120 40mm and then you're going to end up with a half-again larger crew. As I am sure you know, in shipbuilding one nail always drives another.

The irony of their sponsorship of Japanese knives selling on an Iowa class Battleship.

Turbo electric makes more sense these days due to improved electric motor and power supply technology which makes it more efficient. Also, the rise of directed energy weapons (i.e. lasers) increases the need for more electrical power.

Is this essentially the propulsion of the Zumwalt class DDGs, with Gas Turbines turning generators?

I would go nuclear turbo electric if I was designing a modern manned military ship. The only thing I would that the US navy didn't do too well would be to design things so the ship could be refueled cost efficiently. The intent would be for the ships could have long potential lifetimes.

How funny: A battleship build during a conflict with Japan and that participated in that war is now promoting and selling Japanese knifes.

I could be mistaking, however, if your worried about compartmentation, you could run a bulkhead down the keel and split both fire rooms and engine rooms, assuming you are not worried about Washington Naval Treaty weight limits.

I always found it interesting that the big five had turbo electric propulsion. Didn’t realize the Lex and the Sara were turbo also. When you mentioned the Saratoga taking damage did you mean the Lexington since she was lost in the Coral Sea. I think a nuclear electric plant would be interesting. Maybe not though. Then you need a reactor, steam turbine and generators. I’ve heard that Zumwalt and the Ford class have massive electrical generation capacity though.

One issue with firehose that you fail to mention is. Modern fire hose has kevlar woven in the fabric!

Kamikoto, the traditional, superior Japanese knife. Made from generations of skill! Japan has centuries of incredible Katana artisans skill strictly handed down to keep the patriotic craftsmanship alive! Made in China

If I were to design a modern battleship with heavy guns and missiles, I would use multiple nuclear power plants driving electric generators for electric drive. Utilize 3x 50 caliber 16" main guns in one turret for close range (up to ~20-25 miles without rocket assistance) fire support. Have room for multiple Mk 41 and Mk 57 VLS systems for long range strike or defense, CIWS or directed energy defense systems for close in defense, and room for fleet command.

I think a good, or bad example of a steam power ship is Cameron's titanic m when the go from full speed to full reverse. I'm not sure if that actually is accurate how fast she was reversing, but seeing those massive engines stop und going to reverse, there is defenetly some damage done. So even with the steam turbines through a gear box there is still a massive inertia. On electric going full speed, cutting g the power you can even use electric breaking and generate power for those seconds to get it to a stop bofore shooting in power for full reverse. And then there are the pods, or water jets and bucket stop

How about a combination turbo fan and steam driven electrical? You could run generators off of turbofan engine and use the exhaust heat for boilers to power Steam generators.

"Push a button and electrical things happen" That's my understanding of electricity after hs Physics. 😄

Did you ever do anything on Admiral Farragut? Since it too was a part of NJ military history. Did any of the museum artifacts from AFA make it to NJ BB62?

I would think that a hybrid approach would be best. you have one set of turbines direct driving the screws, another set generating electrical power. Your drive turbines would be designed to do one thing: efficiently drive forward at cruise speed. Then also have electric motors attached to your drive lines to assist with acceleration and of course reverse.

HMS Prince of Wales taking the Type 91 Torpedo strike near her shaft was bad luck

No, you gat the Lexington powering a city thing wrong. It was Tacoma and because a drought cut off hydro power.

Had to correct after checking Umm not sure this comparison is really fair guys considering only HMS Dreadnought, the Bellerophon-Class, St.Vincent-Class, Colossus-Class, Neptune-Class Dreadnoughts, the Orion-Class Super Dreadnoughts and the 1911 King George V-Class Super Dreadnoughts, the Invincible-Class, indefatigable-Class, Lion-Class, Queen Mary-Class and Tiger-Class Battlecruisers used Direct-Drive Turbines before the British switched to geared steam turbines on the Iron Dukes and the Renowns and which went on to every battleship and battlecruiser that followed on from them

Nuclear turbo-electric gets my vote !:-)

Nuclear power would be interesting. Would have alot of stuff to plan for. Like replacing the fuel rods and such. Modular or sectional armor?

Nuclear turbo electric! 👌🏼

The other downside is if the motors are exposed to seawater they’re down for the count. Read about that they had to do to West Virginia and California at Pearl vs the regular steam driven ships. There are certainly pluses but also minuses.

Triple expansion reciprocating steam engine. Because it is so cool! 🙂

In today's world with no restrictions. Nuclear Turbo Electric 12 16" guns in 4 3 gun turrets, Harpoon and cruse missile launchers, phased aray radar and a plethora of 5" autoloader mounts and don't forget the CWIS.

The SS Normandie had Turbo Electric drive,The Rms Queen Mary with turbines kicked her behind!

Diesel generators running the turbo electric seems like a neat setup. Diesel engines have come a long way since WW2 and it would allow for even more subdivisions.

Turbo electric is good if you have a variable pitch propellers. That way you don’t need dynamic braking to stop the shaft before putting it in all back, all you need to do is to reverse pitch of the blades

I'm curious what happened with Saratoga that caused all of the electrical power to fail? Were all of the generators actually taken out? Or did the sudden loss of one or more cause the phase to get out of sync and damage other equipment? Or something else? It does seem like you'd have to be really careful about how to deal with sudden loss of a generator in that case, just as it's an issue that must be dealt with on the normal power grid. Pieces of AC equipment that are connected to each other really don't like to be out-of-phase.

Please do a technical video with steam pressures, voltages, currents, ac freq, switching, circuit breaker etc as this is difficult to source.

So… what would a Ryan class battleship look like?

I've heard of them using diesel electric locomotives to power small towns after natural disasters, but a diesel electric aircraft carrier powering a city is certainly a step up.

And yet, here we have the Nimitz, and Ford class (CVN-65 as well) that ALL have shafts, reduction gears, and steam turbine main engines. Steam Turbines can be very easily reversed and honestly doesn't take much if any longer to reverse than a Turbo Electric would. Both have inertia to fight, and yeah, the Electric would have less, but the steam has far greater power (torque) to slow the shaft. Granted, this does not result in a faster turn around time as the shaft is such a large amount of mass, but the shaft can be spinning backwards absolutely in less than 2 minutes (from a flank bell) and honestly, I think close to 1 minute. Emergency Throttle rates are wonderful things.

Where the officers galley located at on the ship?