AHC/WI: Alternate Dreadnought Cruiser Development

[David S Poepoe]

The G3's were Fast battleships, the Lexingtons were BC's in the truest word they were not well protected with a 5 - 7 inch belt at the most whilst a G3 was called a Battlecruiser its probably because the term Fast Battleship wasn't that common or perhaps had not even been coined at the time.

There is reference to the 1930s King George V class as battlecruisers in either Brassey's or Jane's. The British did use the term battlecruiser for a capital ship that had the speed greater than the given battleline.

 

[David S Poepoe]

The British version of the battlecruiser relied due to Fisher on her guns and her speed while neglecting armour protection. This folly was true for all of their ships. The Germans OTOH did not reduce the protection of their ships as much, but reduced the firepower slightly. We know, how it ended at Jutland.

One overlooked factor of Fisher's revolution is fire control. The battlecruisers were to rely upon their speed, guns and fire control to engage or disengage from enemy forces.

I do not believe that one can say that the 'neglected armour protection'. Warship design is a balance tonnage, speed and fire and there is additional pressure when one is building in numbers. The Germans did build fine ships, but they never produced in number - a trait that they continue with tanks in WWII.

 

[Jeeves]

Delta, there is one area where your designs are sorely lacking: none of them possess any sort of torpedo bulkhead. Including one would mean either a massive increase in displacement to keep the same speed or a far smaller powerplant. But completely forgoing underwater protection is a dicy proposition in a war fought with loads of mines and torpedoes...

The Germans definately designed superior ships in WW1 for the most part, they were very tough and well laid out. But they were built FOR the North Sea, they were not built for long range operations. For example the crew quarters aboard german ships were not really suitable for long term habitability. Crews lived ashore, they would get on their ships, sail out, come back, go back to barracks.

RN ships were lived in and on and became home, this meant different internal layouts whilst the Germans were also happy to adopt the small tube boilers quite early, sacrificing reliability for power and performance without taking as much room, something the RN shied away from until Fisher's Follies if I recall (or maybe the Renowns).

That claim gets thrown around a lot, but looking at the actual plans of German ships I see lots of crew spaces, bath- and washrooms, kitchens, a bakery, a barber (!), laundry drying areas and musical instrument storage!

 

[David S Poepoe]

That claim gets thrown around a lot, but looking at the actualplans of German ships I see lots of crew spaces, bath- and washrooms, kitchens, a bakery, a barber (!), laundry drying areas and musical instrument storage!

There is a upcoming book on German battlecruisers of World War I which I am eagerly awaiting. I think we will find that crew quarters, in general, are smaller and more cramped, than British warships. Each ship possessed a band so it would be expected to find instrument storage. I would also wonder if it was more a policy of the Imperial Navy to barrack its crews in order to keep tonnage down, either overall or in regards to living space to dedicate more to offense or defensive capabilities.

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

The US Navy seemed keen on large armoured cruisers with the Pennsylvania-class (13,680t, 4x8",14x6") and Tennessee-class (14,500t, 4x10", 16x6"). When first designed these would have been near the top of the AC tree, probably only the Blucher outclassing them, and being matched by the Rurik. The late RN ACs would have given them a good run but sadly all were soon falling behind the early batlecruisers (even the strange Japanese semi-dreadnought BCs). The USN also kept them in service for longer, perhaps more down to the tiny number of cruisers available, and they did seem to be popular ships.

 

[NothingNow]

There is a upcoming book on German battlecruisers of World War I which I am eagerly awaiting. I think we will find that crew quarters, in general, are smaller and more cramped, than British warships. Each ship possessed a band so it would be expected to find instrument storage. I would also wonder if it was more a policy of the Imperial Navy to barrack its crews in order to keep tonnage down, either overall or in regards to living space to dedicate more to offense or defensive capabilities.

Yeah. I mean there does seem to be a notable distinction between colonial vessels and main fleet ships for the Imperial Navy which doesn't seem to be brought up much.
Particularly when you look at the Scharnhorst-class, which were pretty roomy looking compared to the Roon-class or the Blücher, but aren't noticeably faster, or longer ranged.

But this is really right about where we're seeing a split between proper cruisers, and fast ships intended to supplement the battle line, so things get kinda weird. Particularly since Armored Cruisers and Battlecruisers filled three or four distinct roles at the time: Cruiser squadron leaders, fast escorts, heavily armed scouts and then serving in the line with battleships.

Arguably, the best option would be to have a distinct break early on separating out the various roles, and developing optimized designs for a specific set of complementary roles, instead of forcing a very compromised design to serve in all of them.

 

[Delta Force]

31kts on a ship that big in 1914? Probably asking too much without small tube boilers and if this is the RN then thats probably too inovative really especially when combined with triple turrets.

I'd say drop the speed to a more realistic 28 knots, you could probably save weight on the machinery needed which means a smaller, cheaper vessel.

It might be possible. The Renown class and the Courageous class were both laid down in 1915. Renown had 112,000 horsepower and a maximum speed of 31.5 knots, while Courageous had 90,000 horsepower and a maximum speed of 32 knots.

The British version of the battlecruiser relied due to Fisher on her guns and her speed while neglecting armour protection. This folly was true for all of their ships. The Germans OTOH did not reduce the protection of their ships as much, but reduced the firepower slightly. We know, how it ended at Jutland.

I don't think the British approach made much sense, in terms of its emphasis on heavy guns. A battlecruiser doesn't need heavy armament to fight other cruisers, because any capital ship gun is going to penetrate. Depending on the battlecruiser, they don't even need them to fight each other due to the relatively light armor carried. Heavy guns only make sense if the battlecruisers are going to fight battleships, which is something they shouldn't be doing in the first place due to only having protection against cruisers.

If we revisit the situation one has to see that AC were more and more used as fast wings of the battlefleets in the late 19th/early 20th century. Like in Tsushima. IMO that was only an emergency solution, as these ships had, compared to the battleships of that time, a similar bad protection. If we take the proto BCs of the Ibuki class you can see that, if you compare it with the Mikasa for example. The loss of three ACs at Jutland is also a consequence hereof and shows, that this theory did not work (although admittedly they fought against dreadnoughts). Thus this idea of a fast battleship evolved out of this as well.

It's worth noting that while being less suitable for the line of battle than first class battleships, armored cruisers of the era had much in common with some of the second class battleships of the era and others that were intended to make up fast squadrons, which tended to have lighter armor and armament and achieve a slightly higher speed.

Nevertheless for the time being a battlecruiser was built. Indeed Fisher's vision was to make the BC the core of the fleet. That's why only HMS Dreanought, but three Invincible class BCs were ordered.

Ironically, that probably had a larger impact on the Royal Navy than the dreadnoughts. Armored cruisers cost less than battleships, and with the development of the battlecruiser they cost as much as a battleship, and occasionally were even more expensive.

The Germans did it the other way and used the BCs as scouting ships and not as fast wings. The last classes, Derfflinger, Mackensen and Ersatz Yorck or GK 4541 study, can be considered already as fast battleships able to act as fast wing.

It's worth noting that the German battlecruisers were built more along the lines of armored cruisers, trading armament and sometimes speed for improved protection. Postwar, the Royal Navy moved away from the Fisherite designs to more heavily armored ones.

The Germans definately designed superior ships in WW1 for the most part, they were very tough and well laid out. But they were built FOR the North Sea, they were not built for long range operations. For example the crew quarters aboard german ships were not really suitable for long term habitability. Crews lived ashore, they would get on their ships, sail out, come back, go back to barracks.

One of the interesting things about British ship design in general though is that Royal Navy warships, especially cruisers, were constantly criticized by foreign and domestic experts and officers for generally having performance below what would be expected for warships of their tonnage. Such differences shouldn't be as large for cruisers, unless the Germans built naval barracks or rented out hotels whenever they stopped in a colony or overseas location, or just roughed it out for weeks.

RN ships were lived in and on and became home, this meant different internal layouts whilst the Germans were also happy to adopt the small tube boilers quite early, sacrificing reliability for power and performance without taking as much room, something the RN shied away from until Fisher's Follies if I recall (or maybe the Renowns).

The Renown class and Courageous class were both built in 1915 and were rather fast, so they were probably designed with small tube boilers around the same time.

I would have through the fact that they where all allies a few years ago (and shared designs during WW1) would make that less of a coincidence ?

I also don't really think the G3s and Lexington's are that similar ? (except for in size)

Is our vew of BCs biased by a single stupid decision by Beatty to not keep to flash safety standards concerning ammunition (due to wanting faster fire to offset the lack of practise)

JSB

I meant more in terms of within countries, such as the N3 compared to the G3, and the South Dakota compared to the Lexington.

Also, the battlecruisers did suffer due to poor munition safety in the Royal Navy, but at the same time several German warships survived rather extreme damage. SMS Seydlitz twice survived damage that likely would have proven fatal to a Royal Navy battlecruiser.

 

[Delta Force]

I want to compare these to what was actually built, as I think it shows quite neatly why battlecruisers would be the better choice. The fact there was no British 10in gun makes it difficult- Fisher wanted them for the prototype battlecruisers I've highlighted earlier, but was told that the improvement in performance didn't justify building a new gun so close to the 9.2in. You seem to have gone with the 10in/45 Mk VI so I'll stick with that.

The 10"/45 is the Mark VI/VII from the Swiftsure class.

You also seem to have invented the transom stern sixteen years early, which frankly seems to be cheating.

That's a mistake on my part. I used a 1920s cruiser design I had done earlier as the base and rolled it back, and I forgot to change that part. I'll see what happens when I redo things (likely significantly lower performance and/or much higher tonnage).

In terms of cost, I'm not sure the 1906 Super Cruiser would come out cheaper than the Minotaur class (£1.27m compared to £1.41m for similar size ships) or the 1906 Large Super Cruiser cheaper than the Invincible (£1.65m compared to £1.77m). There may be additional development costs involved in creating a 10in gun which haven't been taken into account. Either way, you can only build one of these for each cancelled battlecruiser.

Belt armour of 7-8in was sufficient, based on wartime experience, to protect against 11in shells; Battlecruiser armour was proof against cruiser shells (Invincible at the Falklands survived 12 8.2in and 6 5.9in shells without serious consequences). Your main belt is heavier, but there were very few hits on the main belt during the war. The deck armour seems more or less the same as Invincible's: I'm assuming you went more or less the same with turret armour as well. If these ships are only intended to fight against German cruisers with (at most) 8.2in guns, they're heavily overarmoured. You could afford to lose 4in off the belt without compromising the effectiveness of the ship.

I'll see if I can cut costs while doing the revisions. I have a habit of making my ships rather heavily armored.

As for the deck armor, I was going with contemporary design practices that didn't place much emphasis on deck armor. Of course it's inadvisable in hindsight, but I'm exploring more of what would have been possible with some of the design trends of the time.

Delta, there is one area where your designs are sorely lacking: none of them possess any sort of torpedo bulkhead. Including one would mean either a massive increase in displacement to keep the same speed or a far smaller powerplant. But completely forgoing underwater protection is a dicy proposition in a war fought with loads of mines and torpedoes...

When I was going backwards from the 1920s era design I used as the basis for this, I deleted the more modern style torpedo belt but forgot to put a bulkhead in.

 

[NothingNow]

I don't think the British approach made much sense, in terms of its emphasis on heavy guns. A battlecruiser doesn't need heavy armament to fight other cruisers, because any capital ship gun is going to penetrate. Depending on the battlecruiser, they don't even need them to fight each other due to the relatively light armor carried. Heavy guns only make sense if the battlecruisers are going to fight battleships, which is something they shouldn't be doing in the first place due to only having protection against cruisers.

They don't even give too much in the way of extra range, and complicate everything else while, which is one hell of a trade off when you're looking for a cost-effective vessel.
Something like a 1-2kt faster Blücher with 8 guns in four turrets is probably the best option, since it'll be able to run when needed, and be well enough armed to handle any other armored cruiser out there but still be fairly cheap and light.

The 10"/45 is the Mark VI/VII from the Swiftsure class.

That'd be a decent choice. I'd go for a 10"/50 myself, just to get some extra range and accuracy, but an off the shelf gun is always a good option.

 

[Driftless]

10" & 11" from 1900-1914

US Navy - 10"/40 or 25.4cm guns (USS Tennessee class ACR)
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_10-40_mk3.htm

RN - 10"/45 OR 25.4cm guns (HMS Swiftsure class)
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_10-45_mk6-7.htm

Germany 11"/45 or 28cm guns (Von Der Tann & Nassau class)
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_11-45_skc07.htm

Russia 10"/50 25.4cm guns (Rurik)
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_10-50_m1908.htm

 

[David S Poepoe]

US Navy - 10"/40 or 25.4cm guns (USS Tennessee class ACR)
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_10-40_mk3.htm

RN - 10"/45 OR 25.4cm guns (HMS Swiftsure class)
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_10-45_mk6-7.htm

Germany 11"/45 or 28cm guns (Von Der Tann & Nassau class)
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_11-45_skc07.htm

Russia 10"/50 25.4cm guns (Rurik)
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_10-50_m1908.htm

Reinforces what I had already read about, the British 10"/45 wasn't as good as the American 10"/40. Justifies the jump from 9.2in to 12in.

 

[robcraufurd]

A battlecruiser doesn't need heavy armament to fight other cruisers, because any capital ship gun is going to penetrate. Depending on the battlecruiser, they don't even need them to fight each other due to the relatively light armor carried.

You're forgetting about bursting charges. The German 8.2in has a bursting charge of 7.67lbs (AP) or 15.18lbs (HE). The British 12in has a bursting charge of 26.3lbs (AP) or 106.5lbs (HE). So every shell the battlecruiser lands on the cruiser (at a longer range) does between 3.4 and 7 times the damage than the shells the cruisers are landing on the battleship. If British battlecruisers are armoured against 11in shells and German battlecruisers are armoured against 12in shells, then both ships have the same chance of penetrating the other but the British will do more damage each time they hit.

As for the deck armor, I was going with contemporary design practices that didn't place much emphasis on deck armor. Of course it's inadvisable in hindsight, but I'm exploring more of what would have been possible with some of the design trends of the time.

Which is understandable. However, tactics for these ships will presumably involve running away a lot given they're not armed to take on battleships. This means they're going to spend more time at long range subjected to plunging fire, which is going to make the poor deck protection even more obvious. Furthermore, the lower calibre makes it more likely that the emphasis will be put on high rate of fire rather than accuracy- the old "hail of fire" approach- which doesn't bode well for the anti-flash prevention.

 

[Delta Force]

Here are two heavy cruiser designs, intended for scouting and operations away from the fleet (raiding, cruiser hunting, etc.). Approximately 1.5 of these ships could be purchased for the cost of a battlecruiser of their year (around £1.77 million and £2.7 million, respectively). To lower development costs they use the 10"/45 Mark VI/VII and 10"/50 Pattern 1908 guns and turrets, respectively.

1906 Heavy Cruiser (10 Inch)

1906 Heavy Cruiser (10 Inch), Test Heavy Cruiser laid down 1906

Displacement:
11,186 t light; 11,750 t standard; 13,082 t normal; 14,148 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(596.27 ft / 590.55 ft) x 65.62 ft x (22.97 / 24.39 ft)
(181.74 m / 180.00 m) x 20.00 m x (7.00 / 7.43 m)

Armament:
8 - 10.00" / 254 mm 45.0 cal guns - 500.01lbs / 226.80kg shells, 86 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1906 Model
2 x Twin mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
2 x Twin mounts on sides amidships
16 - 4.02" / 102 mm 40.0 cal guns - 25.00lbs / 11.34kg shells, 500 per gun
Quick firing guns in casemate mounts, 1906 Model
16 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 4,400 lbs / 1,996 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 5.98" / 152 mm 429.79 ft / 131.00 m 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 112 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Strengthened structural bulkheads:
1.97" / 50 mm 429.79 ft / 131.00 m 27.07 ft / 8.25 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 59.06 ft / 18.00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 5.98" / 152 mm 2.95" / 75 mm 5.98" / 152 mm
2nd: 2.95" / 75 mm - -

- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 1.97" / 50 mm
Forecastle: 0.00" / 0 mm Quarter deck: 1.97" / 50 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 5.98" / 152 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 42,000 shp / 31,332 Kw = 25.59 kts
Range 8,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2,398 tons (75% coal)

Complement:
611 - 795

Cost:
£1.200 million / $4.799 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 975 tons, 7.4 %
- Guns: 975 tons, 7.4 %
Armour: 4,079 tons, 31.2 %
- Belts: 1,712 tons, 13.1 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 847 tons, 6.5 %
- Armament: 573 tons, 4.4 %
- Armour Deck: 875 tons, 6.7 %
- Conning Tower: 72 tons, 0.5 %
Machinery: 2,927 tons, 22.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,206 tons, 24.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,896 tons, 14.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
12,871 lbs / 5,838 Kg = 25.7 x 10.0 " / 254 mm shells or 2.1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.25
Metacentric height 4.0 ft / 1.2 m
Roll period: 13.8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.50
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.22

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.515 / 0.524
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 24.30 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 46 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 57
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 21.33 ft / 6.50 m, 15.58 ft / 4.75 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 15.58 ft / 4.75 m, 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 13.12 ft / 4.00 m, 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 13.12 ft / 4.00 m, 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
- Average freeboard: 14.44 ft / 4.40 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 111.9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 111.7 %
Waterplane Area: 26,164 Square feet or 2,431 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 95 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 118 lbs/sq ft or 578 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.01
- Longitudinal: 1.01
- Overall: 1.01
Cramped machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Adequate accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

1914 Heavy Cruiser (10 Inch)

1914 Heavy Cruiser (10 Inch), Test Heavy Cruiser laid down 1914

Displacement:
13,967 t light; 14,600 t standard; 15,427 t normal; 16,089 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(662.76 ft / 656.17 ft) x 65.62 ft x (24.61 / 25.41 ft)
(202.01 m / 200.00 m) x 20.00 m x (7.50 / 7.74 m)

Armament:
8 - 10.00" / 254 mm 50.0 cal guns - 500.01lbs / 226.80kg shells, 86 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1914 Model
4 x Twin mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
2 raised mounts - superfiring
12 - 5.98" / 152 mm 45.0 cal guns - 100.00lbs / 45.36kg shells, 200 per gun
Quick firing guns in casemate mounts, 1914 Model
12 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
12 hull mounts in casemates- Limited use in heavy seas
Weight of broadside 5,200 lbs / 2,359 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 7.99" / 203 mm 436.35 ft / 133.00 m 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 102 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Strengthened structural bulkheads:
2.95" / 75 mm 436.35 ft / 133.00 m 28.71 ft / 8.75 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 52.49 ft / 16.00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 7.99" / 203 mm 2.95" / 75 mm 7.99" / 203 mm
2nd: 2.95" / 75 mm - -

- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 2.95" / 75 mm
Forecastle: 0.00" / 0 mm Quarter deck: 2.95" / 75 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 7.99" / 203 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 64,000 shp / 47,744 Kw = 28.13 kts
Range 8,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,489 tons

Complement:
691 - 899

Cost:
£1.699 million / $6.797 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,266 tons, 8.2 %
- Guns: 1,266 tons, 8.2 %
Armour: 6,176 tons, 40.0 %
- Belts: 2,333 tons, 15.1 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,369 tons, 8.9 %
- Armament: 916 tons, 5.9 %
- Armour Deck: 1,451 tons, 9.4 %
- Conning Tower: 107 tons, 0.7 %
Machinery: 2,465 tons, 16.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 4,060 tons, 26.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,460 tons, 9.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
18,082 lbs / 8,202 Kg = 36.2 x 10.0 " / 254 mm shells or 3.1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.01
Metacentric height 2.7 ft / 0.8 m
Roll period: 16.8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.99
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.24

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.510 / 0.515
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 25.62 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 47 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 57
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 24.61 ft / 7.50 m, 18.86 ft / 5.75 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 18.86 ft / 5.75 m, 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 16.40 ft / 5.00 m, 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 16.40 ft / 5.00 m, 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Average freeboard: 17.72 ft / 5.40 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 102.1 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 135.4 %
Waterplane Area: 28,941 Square feet or 2,689 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 97 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 134 lbs/sq ft or 656 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.02
- Longitudinal: 1.15
- Overall: 1.03
Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

 

[Delta Force]

These "super cruiser" designs are something of a dreadnought take on the armored cruiser concept, featuring more armor and armament to enable operations with the fleet. They are something of a cross between a second rate battleship and an armored cruiser.

1906 Super Cruiser (10 Inch)

1906 Super Cruiser (10 Inch) v2, Test Super Cruiser laid down 1906

Displacement:
14,759 t light; 15,500 t standard; 17,146 t normal; 18,463 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(629.51 ft / 623.36 ft) x 65.62 ft x (27.89 / 29.47 ft)
(191.88 m / 190.00 m) x 20.00 m x (8.50 / 8.98 m)

Armament:
12 - 10.00" / 254 mm 45.0 cal guns - 500.01lbs / 226.80kg shells, 86 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1906 Model
2 x Twin mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
4 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
16 - 4.02" / 102 mm 40.0 cal guns - 25.00lbs / 11.34kg shells, 500 per gun
Quick firing guns in casemate mounts, 1906 Model
16 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 6,400 lbs / 2,903 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 7.99" / 203 mm 433.07 ft / 132.00 m 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 107 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Strengthened structural bulkheads:
1.97" / 50 mm 433.07 ft / 132.00 m 31.99 ft / 9.75 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 59.06 ft / 18.00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 7.99" / 203 mm 2.95" / 75 mm 7.99" / 203 mm
2nd: 2.95" / 75 mm - -

- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 2.95" / 75 mm
Forecastle: 0.00" / 0 mm Quarter deck: 2.95" / 75 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 7.99" / 203 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 48,800 shp / 36,405 Kw = 26.39 kts
Range 8,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2,963 tons (75% coal)

Complement:
748 - 973

Cost:
£1.580 million / $6.319 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,422 tons, 8.3 %
- Guns: 1,422 tons, 8.3 %
Armour: 5,988 tons, 34.9 %
- Belts: 2,326 tons, 13.6 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,009 tons, 5.9 %
- Armament: 1,080 tons, 6.3 %
- Armour Deck: 1,458 tons, 8.5 %
- Conning Tower: 114 tons, 0.7 %
Machinery: 3,401 tons, 19.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,948 tons, 23.0 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,387 tons, 13.9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
15,997 lbs / 7,256 Kg = 32.0 x 10.0 " / 254 mm shells or 2.4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.05
Metacentric height 2.9 ft / 0.9 m
Roll period: 16.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.91
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.21

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle,
a normal bow and large transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.526 / 0.536
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.50 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 28.52 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 47 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 58
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 22.97 ft / 7.00 m, 18.86 ft / 5.75 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 17.22 ft / 5.25 m, 14.76 ft / 4.50 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 14.76 ft / 4.50 m, 14.76 ft / 4.50 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 14.76 ft / 4.50 m, 14.76 ft / 4.50 m
- Average freeboard: 16.28 ft / 4.96 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 106.3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 113.4 %
Waterplane Area: 29,047 Square feet or 2,699 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 93 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 127 lbs/sq ft or 619 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.98
- Longitudinal: 1.17
- Overall: 1.00
Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Adequate accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

1914 Super Cruiser (10 Inch)

1914 Super Cruiser (10 Inch) v2, Test Super Cruiser laid down 1914

Displacement:
17,446 t light; 18,250 t standard; 19,186 t normal; 19,935 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(662.76 ft / 656.17 ft) x 75.46 ft x (26.25 / 27.03 ft)
(202.01 m / 200.00 m) x 23.00 m x (8.00 / 8.24 m)

Armament:
12 - 10.00" / 254 mm 50.0 cal guns - 500.01lbs / 226.80kg shells, 86 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1914 Model
6 x Twin mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
2 raised mounts - superfiring
12 - 5.98" / 152 mm 45.0 cal guns - 100.00lbs / 45.36kg shells, 200 per gun
Quick firing guns in casemate mounts, 1914 Model
12 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
12 hull mounts in casemates- Limited use in heavy seas
Weight of broadside 7,200 lbs / 3,266 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 10.0" / 254 mm 433.07 ft / 132.00 m 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 102 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Strengthened structural bulkheads:
2.95" / 75 mm 433.07 ft / 132.00 m 30.35 ft / 9.25 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 62.34 ft / 19.00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 10.0" / 254 mm 2.95" / 75 mm 10.0" / 254 mm
2nd: 2.95" / 75 mm - -

- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 2.95" / 75 mm
Forecastle: 0.00" / 0 mm Quarter deck: 2.95" / 75 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 10.00" / 254 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 74,000 shp / 55,204 Kw = 28.09 kts
Range 8,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,685 tons

Complement:
814 - 1,059

Cost:
£2.203 million / $8.811 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,788 tons, 9.3 %
- Guns: 1,788 tons, 9.3 %
Armour: 7,747 tons, 40.4 %
- Belts: 2,943 tons, 15.3 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,436 tons, 7.5 %
- Armament: 1,534 tons, 8.0 %
- Armour Deck: 1,680 tons, 8.8 %
- Conning Tower: 154 tons, 0.8 %
Machinery: 2,851 tons, 14.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 5,061 tons, 26.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,740 tons, 9.1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
21,174 lbs / 9,604 Kg = 42.3 x 10.0 " / 254 mm shells or 3.6 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.00
Metacentric height 3.3 ft / 1.0 m
Roll period: 17.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.83
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.12

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.517 / 0.521
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.70 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 25.62 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 63
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 24.61 ft / 7.50 m, 18.86 ft / 5.75 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 18.86 ft / 5.75 m, 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 16.40 ft / 5.00 m, 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 16.40 ft / 5.00 m, 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Average freeboard: 17.72 ft / 5.40 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 99.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 133.0 %
Waterplane Area: 33,500 Square feet or 3,112 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 94 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 149 lbs/sq ft or 728 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.02
- Longitudinal: 1.15
- Overall: 1.04
Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

1914 Super Cruiser (12 Inch)

1914 Super Cruiser (12 Inch), Test Super Cruiser laid down 1914

Displacement:
17,408 t light; 18,250 t standard; 19,186 t normal; 19,935 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(662.76 ft / 656.17 ft) x 75.46 ft x (26.25 / 27.03 ft)
(202.01 m / 200.00 m) x 23.00 m x (8.00 / 8.24 m)

Armament:
8 - 12.01" / 305 mm 45.0 cal guns - 849.99lbs / 385.55kg shells, 86 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1914 Model
4 x Twin mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
2 raised mounts - superfiring
12 - 5.98" / 152 mm 45.0 cal guns - 100.00lbs / 45.36kg shells, 200 per gun
Quick firing guns in casemate mounts, 1914 Model
12 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
12 hull mounts in casemates- Limited use in heavy seas
Weight of broadside 8,000 lbs / 3,629 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 10.0" / 254 mm 430.45 ft / 131.20 m 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 101 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Strengthened structural bulkheads:
2.95" / 75 mm 430.45 ft / 131.20 m 30.35 ft / 9.25 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 62.34 ft / 19.00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 10.0" / 254 mm 2.95" / 75 mm 10.0" / 254 mm
2nd: 2.95" / 75 mm - -

- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 2.95" / 75 mm
Forecastle: 0.00" / 0 mm Quarter deck: 2.95" / 75 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 10.00" / 254 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 74,000 shp / 55,204 Kw = 28.09 kts
Range 8,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,685 tons

Complement:
814 - 1,059

Cost:
£2.191 million / $8.765 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,462 tons, 7.6 %
- Guns: 1,462 tons, 7.6 %
Armour: 7,521 tons, 39.2 %
- Belts: 2,929 tons, 15.3 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,427 tons, 7.4 %
- Armament: 1,330 tons, 6.9 %
- Armour Deck: 1,680 tons, 8.8 %
- Conning Tower: 154 tons, 0.8 %
Machinery: 2,851 tons, 14.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 5,575 tons, 29.1 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,778 tons, 9.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
21,559 lbs / 9,779 Kg = 24.9 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 3.7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.00
Metacentric height 3.3 ft / 1.0 m
Roll period: 17.5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.97
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.13

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.517 / 0.521
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.70 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 25.62 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 63
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 24.61 ft / 7.50 m, 18.86 ft / 5.75 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 18.86 ft / 5.75 m, 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 16.40 ft / 5.00 m, 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 16.40 ft / 5.00 m, 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Average freeboard: 17.72 ft / 5.40 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 99.5 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 133.0 %
Waterplane Area: 33,500 Square feet or 3,112 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 96 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 153 lbs/sq ft or 746 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.98
- Longitudinal: 1.21
- Overall: 1.00
Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

 

[Tyr Anazasi]

You're forgetting about bursting charges. The German 8.2in has a bursting charge of 7.67lbs (AP) or 15.18lbs (HE). The British 12in has a bursting charge of 26.3lbs (AP) or 106.5lbs (HE). So every shell the battlecruiser lands on the cruiser (at a longer range) does between 3.4 and 7 times the damage than the shells the cruisers are landing on the battleship. If British battlecruisers are armoured against 11in shells and German battlecruisers are armoured against 12in shells, then both ships have the same chance of penetrating the other but the British will do more damage each time they hit.

The German 28,3 cm guns 28 cm/45 SK L/45 of the SMS von der Tann had propellant charges of 79 kg as main and 26 kg as fore charge firing a 302 kg shell. At 12.000 m it could pernetrate 20 cm armour.

The British 12"/45 Mk. X of HMS Invincible used an 11,9 kg bursting charge, which fired a 386 kg shell. At 9.144 m such a shell could pernetrate 26,9 cm armour, theroretically.

Looking at the figures both guns were about equal in their penetration abilities. However, two things remain here problematic. Once the British shells were badly constructed and detonated on the armour.

 

[eltf177]

Very interesting designs Delta Force, thank you!

I do agree with Jeeves that the three largest of the first four designs could use a TDS. Also the two 1914 designs desperately need a superfiring turret. Other than that they look quite good, keep 'em coming!

 

[robcraufurd]

The German 28,3 cm guns 28 cm/45 SK L/45 of the SMS von der Tann had propellant charges of 79 kg as main and 26 kg as fore charge

The British 12"/45 Mk. X of HMS Invincible used an 11,9 kg bursting charge

You seem here to be confusing propellant charges and bursting charges. The propellant is what fires the shell out of the gun. The bursting charge is in the shell and blows up when the shell lands.

Looking at the figures both guns were about equal in their penetration abilities.

Exactly. Each shell has the same chance of penetrating the enemy. However, the British 12in shell carries a 11.9kg bursting charge and the German 28cm shell carries a 8.95kg bursting charge, meaning the German shell will only do 75% of the damage of the British shell.

Once the British shells were badly constructed and detonated on the armour.

Though this is surely an argument for better shells, not different guns. Given equal quality shells, the British will do more damage to the Germans.

However, two things remain here problematic.

I think you missed the second thing, unless I've misread.

 

[David S Poepoe]

I have always wondered how neat the Lion class battlecruisers would have been if they had been completed as companions to the Orion class mounting 10 13.5in guns.

 

[Tyr Anazasi]

You seem here to be confusing propellant charges and bursting charges. The propellant is what fires the shell out of the gun. The bursting charge is in the shell and blows up when the shell lands.


Exactly. Each shell has the same chance of penetrating the enemy. However, the British 12in shell carries a 11.9kg bursting charge and the German 28cm shell carries a 8.95kg bursting charge, meaning the German shell will only do 75% of the damage of the British shell.


Though this is surely an argument for better shells, not different guns. Given equal quality shells, the British will do more damage to the Germans.


I think you missed the second thing, unless I've misread.

Yes, the British shells could do more damage. But as the German battlecruisers were better protected to more than balance this, it is no point here.

 

[robcraufurd]

Yes, the British shells could do more damage. But as the German battlecruisers were better protected to more than balance this, it is no point here.

I can't tell if you're talking about armour or internal subdivisioning, but let me elaborate. The point of a ship's armour is to keep the shells out. We've established that the British armour scheme was as well protected against German 28cm shells as the German ships were against British 12in shells. At least, that's what I understood you to mean by this:

Looking at the figures both guns were about equal in their penetration abilities.

If, however you mean that the German 28cm gun was as effective at penetrating armour as the British 12in gun, then (as far as it's possible to measure such a thing) that doesn't seem to be correct when you factor in the effect of inferior British shells.

Anyway, once that shell gets through the armour and explodes inside the ship, the British 12in shell has 11.9kg of explosive to cause damage whereas the German 28cm shell only has 8.95kg of explosive. That means that with the same number of shells penetrating, the British do more damage. The Germans do have better internal subdivisions, but- as has been mentioned in this thread- the trade-off for that is reduced ability to spend time at sea and not the size of the guns.

I have always wondered how neat the Lion class battlecruisers would have been if they had been completed as companions to the Orion class mounting 10 13.5in guns.

What would you cut to fit the extra turret in, though? Seems a little pointless calling them battlecruisers if you cut the speed, and I doubt you could shave off any armour. A better alternative might have been to order Australia and New Zealand as Lions rather than as repeat Invincibles. Apparently there was a desire to have a homogeneous squadron of six ships, but the Admiralty should have recognised that the design was out of date by the time Indefatigable was being built. With hindsight, too, they could have ended up with four and four:

Invincible, Inflexible, Indomitable, Indefatigable (12in, l.d. 1906-1909)
Lion, Princess Royal, Australia, New Zealand (13.5in, l.d. 1909-1910)

An even better alternative would have been to delete Q turret instead of X, or pre-empt the Kongo/Tiger design, but you can't have everything.