AHC/WI: Brandenburg Class Layout as the Pre-Dreadnought Standard

The Brandenburg class was the first oceangoing battleship design of the Imperial German Navy. Interestingly for the era, the Brandenburg class battleships featured three twin turrets in an A-P-Y configuration: one turret fore, one turret center, and one turret aft. This was in contrast to the typical design used by most pre-dreadnought battleships, which featured only two twin turrets in an A-Y configuration, with one turret fore and one turret aft. The A-P-Y configuration didn't become popular at the time due to to the superstructure damage caused when the center turret fired, but the the turret was more awkwardly placed compared to later designs.

While the A-P-Y configuration doesn't inherently cause superstructure damage, it does result in design compromises, taking up space ordinarily used by coal and machinery and requiring more armor to protect the turret and barbette, as well as potentially requiring the armored belt to take up a larger proportion of the ship. Of course, it still results in 50% more main guns relative to an A-Y ship, and with three turrets a ship retains two functioning turrets should one be disabled or destroyed during combat.

Might these advantages be enough to see the A-P-Y configuration adopted as the standard layout for pre-dreadnought battleships? If adopted, what kind of impact might it have on the development of the semi-dreadnought and dreadnought schools of battleship design going into the 1900s?

Interesting question. I would think that had the Brandenburg class been more than a one off class of ships then it may have had greater impact. Undoubtedly, to offset developments in ship design battleships would grow in size which would necessitate the expansion of shipyards and dry docks.

Now would this spur the development of the all big gun battleship? Probably not, historically there is no major naval conflict to suggest that fleet engagements will be at any other than close range. I don't think that the proliferation of secondary gun calibers will be any different. It is likely that there would still be a view that having the tonnage used by an additional main turret, of slow firing 12in guns, would be better used by a larger secondary armament of rapid firing 8in or 9.2in guns.

If memory serves, that central turret was shorter in barrel (in order to be able to turn left and right) and ended up being notably off-range and muzzle velocity of the other two guns, which may have been part of why it wasn't adopted as the standard yet.

I'm not sure the advantages are enough. Yes you have 50% more heavy broadside fire, but you have no increase in end on end fire. In exchange for that 50% increase you are either weakening the belt, reducing the number of faster firing secondaries, or reducing speed/range, making the ship more expensive, or all four. I don't think that it will become standard.

Becoming standard requires being adopted by the RN. The RN needs all the range and speed it can get so compromising on that is a no go. Likewise the RN is powerful enough any opponent is likely to fight asymmetrically, so the faster firing secondaries become more important to deal with smaller craft, so no compromise there. The RN might be willing to compromise on protection to some degree, but not that much. Finally cost is the big one, the RN has a lot of commitments so needs numbers, and there is also the fact that a larger number of 2 turret designs has greater end on end fire than a smaller number of 3 turret designs. So I don't see the RN adopting it

cpip said:

If memory serves, that central turret was shorter in barrel (in order to be able to turn left and right) and ended up being notably off-range and muzzle velocity of the other two guns, which may have been part of why it wasn't adopted as the standard yet.

Click to expand...

The fore and aft turrets were 40 caliber guns (in naval use, caliber is the ratio between width and length of a gun), while the center turret was 35 caliber. The guns could have been 40 caliber if the guns had 55 inches of additional clearance between the turret and superstructure, or 110 inches for omnidirectional traverse. Before the pre-dreadnought era, many ships used weapons with differing barrel lengths, which might explain some of the low hit ratios experienced in service.

RamscoopRaider said:

I'm not sure the advantages are enough. Yes you have 50% more heavy broadside fire, but you have no increase in end on end fire. In exchange for that 50% increase you are either weakening the belt, reducing the number of faster firing secondaries, or reducing speed/range, making the ship more expensive, or all four. I don't think that it will become standard.

Click to expand...

The increased firepower of dreadnoughts led many politicians to support them as a cost saving measure, since less ships would be required for similar capability. Of course, it ultimately led to the dreadnought arms race. The United States Navy was starting a large naval expansion program in the 1890s, and Congress was always rather cost conscious until around World War I. Someone could try to have the Navy acquire two A-P-Y ships for instead of three A-Y ships.

Fleets with a fleet focused less on colonial operations might also be interested in A-P-Y ships for similar reasons, and because a reduction in range and speed might be more acceptable to them.

Becoming standard requires being adopted by the RN. The RN needs all the range and speed it can get so compromising on that is a no go. Likewise the RN is powerful enough any opponent is likely to fight asymmetrically, so the faster firing secondaries become more important to deal with smaller craft, so no compromise there. The RN might be willing to compromise on protection to some degree, but not that much. Finally cost is the big one, the RN has a lot of commitments so needs numbers, and there is also the fact that a larger number of 2 turret designs has greater end on end fire than a smaller number of 3 turret designs. So I don't see the RN adopting it

Click to expand...

I think the Royal Navy probably would prefer the A-Y arrangement, but there is the question of how they would respond if other nations started building A-P-Y ships. Perhaps the Royal Navy would try to build to a qualitative advantage, retaining weapons larger than 12" into the 1890s and improving performance in other areas? The pre-dreadnought might simply grow into a larger ship if the Royal Navy responds with thicker armor and larger guns, since A-P-Y would be more difficult to retain with larger guns and the need for increased armor and performance.

Later on, the midships turrets became much more common, and those were long barrelled guns.

Why were the P turret guns 35 caliber, vs 40 caliber for the A & Y turret guns? Was it a limited space availability issue? Did the superstructure damage occur if they fired perpendicular to the line of the keel? Or, did it occur to the superstructures immediately fore and aft of the P turret, when the aim was more oblique?

What if the P turret guns were 40 caliber weapons? Alter the original design to keep the superstructure more out of the way, or lengthen the hull, to give more room (really big expensive fix, I know..)

Delta Force said:

The increased firepower of dreadnoughts led many politicians to support them as a cost saving measure, since less ships would be required for similar capability. Of course, it ultimately led to the dreadnought arms race. The United States Navy was starting a large naval expansion program in the 1890s, and Congress was always rather cost conscious until around World War I. Someone could try to have the Navy acquire two A-P-Y ships for instead of three A-Y ships.

Fleets with a fleet focused less on colonial operations might also be interested in A-P-Y ships for similar reasons, and because a reduction in range and speed might be more acceptable to them.

I think the Royal Navy probably would prefer the A-Y arrangement, but there is the question of how they would respond if other nations started building A-P-Y ships. Perhaps the Royal Navy would try to build to a qualitative advantage, retaining weapons larger than 12" into the 1890s and improving performance in other areas? The pre-dreadnought might simply grow into a larger ship if the Royal Navy responds with thicker armor and larger guns, since A-P-Y would be more difficult to retain with larger guns and the need for increased armor and performance.

Click to expand...

The USN tended to be rather conservative in that era, I don't think it would try something that different unless everyone was doing it. Likewise the US needs long range in its ships, they were willing to take a tonnage penalty for extra range, so compromising there is unlikely. Congress also tended to inflict maximum tonnage per ship limits, which makes the flaws of A-P-Y ships more apparent

About the only fleets I could see interested in APY designs are the Germans, Russians, and Austrians (the French have too many commitments and the Italians valued speed and secondary guns to much)

The RN probably just keeps building A-Y ships, in head on engagements, which the RN valued highly, an A-P-Y ship has no advantages over an equal number of A-Y ships. The RN may decide to upgun its secondaries earlier in response to this, but that's all

Reading this thread I wondered about the NelRod designs. Now i know they were "3rd Generation" dreadnought designs but the principles (all forward guns = smaller armoured volume = lighter ship) could have been developed in the pre-dreadnought era.

What if the A-Y configuration evolved into A-B and then A-B-C (or A-B-P? if not superfiring)? You can still pack the rest of the ship with smaller calibres but the main guns can be concentrated far more effectively

Derek Pullem said:

Reading this thread I wondered about the NelRod designs. Now i know they were "3rd Generation" dreadnought designs but the principles (all forward guns = smaller armoured volume = lighter ship) could have been developed in the pre-dreadnought era.

What if the A-Y configuration evolved into A-B and then A-B-C (or A-B-P? if not superfiring)? You can still pack the rest of the ship with smaller calibres but the main guns can be concentrated far more effectively

Click to expand...

I think it would be more likely to see an A-X-Y arrangement since there would be no addition distance placed between the bridge and the bow.

If you look at the arrangement of guns for the Austro-Hungarian Radetzky class pre-dreadnoughts you can image that with a slightly longer hull that the two aft 9in gun turrets could be replaced by one centerline turret. One would have the turret arrangement of the Dreadnought.

USS Brooklyn CA-3 (It's a crusier, but the right vintage and an alternative layout of the main battery)

Between USS Brooklyn and USS Kentucky, the US got

Between USS Brooklyn and USS Kentucky, the US got awfully close to superfiring single calibre main batteries before 1900...



And for what it's worth, the USN beat the Germans on three main battery turrets by about 30 years:


USS Roanoke, as converted in 1862-63:

Best,

Circling back to the original idea....

I'm not familiar with the design cycle for ships like the Brandenburgs. How would the process practically start in that era, and what's the sequence of process? Partly what I'm fishing for, is how did they arrive at the notion of 6x280mm guns, but of two different calibers and performances?)

* Basic concept (Mission, available resources, systemic limitations?)
* Budget? (how set in stone would that have been)
* How would they have dealt with mid-construction design change?

The reason for the two different barrel lenghts was technical progress - originally designed for three turrets with two L35 barrels each, Krupp had the L40 guns ready for the ships - but as the ships were already under construction the midships turret had to keep the shorter guns.


There was another customer for the L40-guns: Norway bought three of them for coastal defense. Two of those hit the heavy cruiser Blücher in 1940...

I can recommend Dirk Nottelmann's 'Die Brandenburg-Klasse'; very detailed; I do not know wether there´s an English version available.

Derek Pullem said:

Reading this thread I wondered about the NelRod designs. Now i know they were "3rd Generation" dreadnought designs but the principles (all forward guns = smaller armoured volume = lighter ship) could have been developed in the pre-dreadnought era.

What if the A-Y configuration evolved into A-B and then A-B-C (or A-B-P? if not superfiring)? You can still pack the rest of the ship with smaller calibres but the main guns can be concentrated far more effectively

Click to expand...

A ship could have an A-Y en echelon configuration, allowing more operational flexibility and better weight distribution. It would be possible to aim both turrets at the same target throughout much of the firing arc.

David S Poepoe said:

I think it would be more likely to see an A-X-Y arrangement since there would be no addition distance placed between the bridge and the bow.

If you look at the arrangement of guns for the Austro-Hungarian Radetzky class pre-dreadnoughts you can image that with a slightly longer hull that the two aft 9in gun turrets could be replaced by one centerline turret. One would have the turret arrangement of the Dreadnought.

Click to expand...

The Radetzky class were actually a semi-dreadnoughts, and were intentionally designed as such. Siegfried Popper pushed for a dreadnought, but Austria-Hungary lacked the facilities to build the dreadnought designs that were proposed during the development of the Radetzky class. It might have been possible to build a dreadnought with three turrets though, especially if one was superfiring.

Four might even be possible too, but that would result in some design quirks as with the Spanish España class dreadnoughts, the smallest ever built and displacing 15,700 tons, close to the 16,000 ton limit of Austro-Hungarian facilities. The España had a rather unusual double en echelon design that was sometimes seen on pre-dreadnoughts, and that actually allowed for three turrets to be trained ahead and astern without requiring a wider hull for wing turrets. A ship with four superfiring turrets would have weighed more and have only been able to bring two turrets to bear ahead and astern.

TFSmith121 said:

Between USS Brooklyn and USS Kentucky, the US got awfully close to superfiring single calibre main batteries before 1900...

Click to expand...

The Kearsarge stacked turrets were interesting, but not that useful in actual operation. The upper turrets couldn't independently rotate, so the entire gun assembly had to rotate to aim them. The center of gravity and silhouette of the ship was also impacted by such turrets (and meant four guns could be eliminated by one hit), and the lower turret had a magazine hoist running through it to service the upper turret.

True; not arguing they were the best choice, only that

Delta Force said:

The Kearsarge stacked turrets were interesting, but not that useful in actual operation. The upper turrets couldn't independently rotate, so the entire gun assembly had to rotate to aim them. The center of gravity and silhouette of the ship was also impacted by such turrets (and meant four guns could be eliminated by one hit), and the lower turret had a magazine hoist running through it to service the upper turret.

Click to expand...

True; not arguing they were a great design choice, only that between Brooklyn's four turret, same calibre main battery, and Kentucky's four turret (stacked) mixed main battery, one is within a design interation of a same calibre main battery in superfiring turrets...before 1900.

And to be honest, Roanoke's rebuild indicated the usefulness of multiple main battery turrets (given a large enough hull) in 1862...certainly a better rate of fire than Dictator or Puritan would have managed.

Prince Albert was another possibility, but she came along after Roanoke.

Best,

Delta Force said:

The Radetzky class were actually a semi-dreadnoughts, and were intentionally designed as such. Siegfried Popper pushed for a dreadnought, but Austria-Hungary lacked the facilities to build the dreadnought designs that were proposed during the development of the Radetzky class. It might have been possible to build a dreadnought with three turrets though, especially if one was superfiring.

Four might even be possible too, but that would result in some design quirks as with the Spanish España class dreadnoughts, the smallest ever built and displacing 15,700 tons, close to the 16,000 ton limit of Austro-Hungarian facilities. The España had a rather unusual double en echelon design that was sometimes seen on pre-dreadnoughts, and that actually allowed for three turrets to be trained ahead and astern without requiring a wider hull for wing turrets. A ship with four superfiring turrets would have weighed more and have only been able to bring two turrets to bear ahead and astern.

Click to expand...

The amid ship turrets were simply en echelon, however if one groups the four turrets of the Espana into two batteries, that would be a double en echelon. I've never considered it that way, just two centerline and two en echelon. The echelon mounting was a feature that occurred in several dreadnought designs also.

Regarding the Radetzky I'm all quite familiar with what you are talking about. If the AH had just be willing to put a little money in its navy it could have had a dreadnought (of sorts) that could have been a stepping stone to the Viribus Unitis.

The superposed turrets that the US used was a unique way to solve a particular problem. I think it would have been interesting if the follow up to the Virginia class had permitted additional tonnage to include two additional aft wing turrets mounting two 8in guns. The overall broadside would be 4 12in and 8 8in.

Looking at the drawing, the fit for the "P" magazine had to have been pretty snug between the boilerroom and the engineroom. That had to have played a role in why the layout didn't catch on - a least till the hulls got bigger.

Has a certain pugnacious quality;

Has a certain pugnacious quality; certainly a better looking design than most of the German pre-dreadnaughts.

Best,

TFSmith121 said:

Prince Albert was another possibility, but she came along after Roanoke.

Click to expand...

You mean SMS Prinz Adalbert of the Prussian Navy, sister ship to the CSS Stonewall (later the IJN Kōtetsu)?

David S Poepoe said:

The amid ship turrets were simply en echelon, however if one groups the four turrets of the Espana into two batteries, that would be a double en echelon. I've never considered it that way, just two centerline and two en echelon. The echelon mounting was a feature that occurred in several dreadnought designs also.

Click to expand...

It's was a rather common means of maximizing the number of guns able to be brought to bear at various angles before (and as with España, as an alternative to) superfiring turrets. The USS Maine is an example of a pre-dreadnought en echelon arrangement.

Regarding the Radetzky I'm all quite familiar with what you are talking about. If the AH had just be willing to put a little money in its navy it could have had a dreadnought (of sorts) that could have been a stepping stone to the Viribus Unitis.

Click to expand...

The Austro-Hungarian Navy started a buildup in the late 1880s/early 1890s, around the same time as the Imperial German Navy. A more powerful Austro-Hungarian Navy could be interesting, or at least one where the building process isn't dictated by what cramped docks happen to be available at the time.

David S Poepoe said:

The superposed turrets that the US used was a unique way to solve a particular problem. I think it would have been interesting if the follow up to the Virginia class had permitted additional tonnage to include two additional aft wing turrets mounting two 8in guns. The overall broadside would be 4 12in and 8 8in.

Click to expand...

Why not something like the Satsuma class arrangement? A ship designed from the start as a semi-dreadnought with 8 inch secondaries could probably be lighter than Satsuma, which was originally planned as a dreadnought with twelve 12 inch guns.

Driftless said:

Looking at the drawing, the fit for the "P" magazine had to have been pretty snug between the boilerroom and the engineroom. That had to have played a role in why the layout didn't catch on - a least till the hulls got bigger.

Click to expand...

Historically that was one of the issues with the A-P-Y arrangement, as the P turret magazines tended to be rather warm due to their proximately to the boilers.