AHC/WI: Alternate Dreadnought Cruiser Development

[David S Poepoe]

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was a desire to have a homogeneous squadron of six ships, but the Admiralty should have recognised that the design was out of date by the time Indefatigable was being built.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.

You wouldn't cut you would add. To cut from Wikipedia:

The Director of Naval Construction, Sir Philip Watts suggested that a fifth turret, superfiring over the rear turret, could be added if the ship was lengthened by three frames, 12 feet (4 m) in total, and that this would add very little cost other than the £175,000 for the additional turret, but add 25% more firepower to the ship.[6] This was not approved, however, possibly because of doubts about its feasibility

 

[robcraufurd]

You wouldn't cut you would add.

Sorry, I assumed you were suggesting a compromise rather than just adding tonnage and cost. In this case it seems worth it, though I suspect that if there was an opportunity to add 25% to the firepower at relatively low cost and it wasn't taken, there was a significant design issue obvious to them but not to us.

 

[alfredtuomi]

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.

interestingly enough the weight of 5 13.5 inch turrets was almost the same as the weight of 4 bl15 turrets.hence why the queen elizabeths had 15 inch guns on the same displacement as the previous class of battleships........now what if the small tube boilers as fitted to the courageous class had been fitted into the queens......say 110,000 shp verses 75,000 shp and about 20 feet longer but no increase in displacement...........
just imagine the queen's at jutland keeping pace with Beatty's battlecruisers......hmmmmmmm

 

[Tyr Anazasi]

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:



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.


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.

Okay, understood. However, the German 11" shell would be able to fire twice as much, meaning delivering more shells in the same time.

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

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.

Or they are going up against battlecruisers themselves, as they did at Dogger Bank & Jutland (the Race to the South & Race to the North). We shouldn't see the battlecruiser being purely a means to stamp out cruiser warfare, but the original Admiralty plan had them as effectively flotilla leaders for the light cruiser squadrons and becoming the eyes of the Navy. This would almost certainly mean that they would run up against similar vessels given that most naval advances were copied across the world.

What they became, on both sides of the North Sea, were the heavy scouting forces &/or raiders. To sink a battlecruiser you need a large gun, and a vessel quick enough to keep pace. The answer can only be another battlecruiser.

 

[Delta Force]

Okay, understood. However, the German 11" shell would be able to fire twice as much, meaning delivering more shells in the same time.

That's one of the advantages of the smaller caliber guns.

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

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.

I believe the problem was that both Australia & New Zealand had offered to pay for Indefatigable-class, and the Admiralty was concerned lest they withdraw the offer if the vessels were to be the more expensive Lion-class, deciding that two sure things were better than two better but uncertain builds.

 

[jsb]

What about just going for 3 x twin 13.5 in a ABX to save cost ?

You will mostly be chasing others so the A and B turrets are the most useful ones ?

It would look something like an early Renown class.

JSB

 

[Delta Force]

Or they are going up against battlecruisers themselves, as they did at Dogger Bank & Jutland (the Race to the South & Race to the North). We shouldn't see the battlecruiser being purely a means to stamp out cruiser warfare, but the original Admiralty plan had them as effectively flotilla leaders for the light cruiser squadrons and becoming the eyes of the Navy. This would almost certainly mean that they would run up against similar vessels given that most naval advances were copied across the world.

What they became, on both sides of the North Sea, were the heavy scouting forces &/or raiders. To sink a battlecruiser you need a large gun, and a vessel quick enough to keep pace. The answer can only be another battlecruiser.

It's true that a battlecruiser is required to defeat another battlecruiser. However, I think the Royal Navy made a mistake in developing the dreadnought cruisers the direction that they did. While it was inevitable that a new type of cruiser would replace the armored cruiser and render the existing fleet obsolete, it's unlikely that any other fleet would have gone on to construct battlecruisers similar to those that were historically built if the Royal Navy hadn't built them.

It's difficult to determine how exactly it impacted the security situation for the British Empire and the Royal Navy. The battlecruiser race diverted funding and resources that otherwise would have gone towards constructing battleships or fleets of armored cruiser/heavy cruiser type warships. While it could be argued that this prevented a cruiser race by showing the extent to which the Royal Navy would go, it's worth noting that the British were allied with three of the most powerful nations in the world at the time, and they all had battlecruiser programs. The French had plans to build battlecruisers before the outbreak of World War I, while the Japanese and Russians had the most ambitious battlecruiser programs after the United Kingdom and Germany.

Battlecruisers were tremendously expensive and weren't as widespread as dreadnought battleships. If the dreadnought cruisers had been more akin to armored cruisers/heavy cruisers it's likely that more navies would have operated modern cruisers, but the Royal Navy (and of course other major navies) would have been able to build more battleships whose guns and production slots would have otherwise been taken by battlecruisers. They would also have been able to operate more cruisers, and since the British Empire had a vast area to police more hulls might have been an attractive option.

It's possible that the British thought they had made a mistake after World War I, because they sought to create a system in which there would be large numbers of small cruisers instead of small numbers of large cruisers. Without such extensive overseas commitments, the other nations (but especially Japan and the United States) wanted the exact opposite. The Royal Navy may very well have accidentally started an arms race that reduced the security situation of the Empire when they built Invincible the way they did.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

interestingly enough the weight of 5 13.5 inch turrets was almost the same as the weight of 4 bl15 turrets.hence why the queen elizabeths had 15 inch guns on the same displacement as the previous class of battleships........now what if the small tube boilers as fitted to the courageous class had been fitted into the queens......say 110,000 shp verses 75,000 shp and about 20 feet longer but no increase in displacement...........
just imagine the queen's at jutland keeping pace with Beatty's battlecruisers......hmmmmmmm

Or at each class from Bellorophon you do not build Battle Cruisers but instead apply the X4 design concept and improve the propulsion and make Fast Battleships from 1906 - build more of them.

Repeat this at each new class - through to QE and Revenge (build revenges as a second batch of QE)

Need a Battleship? Send a Fast Battleship - Need a Battle Cruiser? send a Fast Battleship.

just imagine the queen's at Jutland replacing Beatty's battlecruisers..even yummier

 

[robcraufurd]

Okay, understood. However, the German 11" shell would be able to fire twice as much, meaning delivering more shells in the same time.

In theory, perhaps. In practice, the gun's designated rate of fire had little effect on the actual rate of fire in combat. The limiting factor is the time taken for the shell to arrive on target, observe the fall of shot, and adjust for the next salvo. At Jutland, both sides fire about one round per gun per minute.

I believe the problem was that both Australia & New Zealand had offered to pay for Indefatigable-class, and the Admiralty was concerned lest they withdraw the offer if the vessels were to be the more expensive Lion-class, deciding that two sure things were better than two better but uncertain builds.

Given the superiority of the Lion over the Indefatigable, I might have been tempted to beg them to go halves on the extra £350,000 (Lion £2.09m vs New Zealand £1.78m, Australia £2m). Might have been difficult for the British Liberal government to justify, though.

What about just going for 3 x twin 13.5 in a ABX to save cost?

I mentioned this here- the standard requirement for effective salvo ranging is 8 heavy guns of standard calibre. Don't get me wrong, Renown is one of my favourite warships- I love the photo of her from 1944 pulling that handbrake turn- but she's very much a "what spare parts have we got in the shop to make a ship out of" vessel, hence the 6-gun broadside.

it's unlikely that any other fleet would have gone on to construct battlecruisers similar to those that were historically built if the Royal Navy hadn't built them.

Not sure about this. At some point, the Germans are going to realise that their best hope of luring the Royal Navy into an ambush, or obtaining local superiority over them, is going to be through rendering their scout line ineffective and forcing the British to blunder into an unfavourable engagement. Like the creation of the Dreadnought, Britain getting there first means they can maintain their margin of superiority: if the Germans had four battlecruisers and the British none, I can see a Jutland-style engagement going very differently.

They would also have been able to operate more cruisers, and since the British Empire had a vast area to police more hulls might have been an attractive option.

But, as WWI shows, Fisher's battlecruisers were incredibly successful in hunting down and destroying German cruisers. Which would you rather have performing that role- a £1.4m Minotaur or a £1.77m Invincible? Furthermore, a German cruiser surviving for six extra months in the Pacific isn't going to threaten the security of the Empire- a serious defeat to the Grand Fleet in the North Sea might.

 

[Delta Force]

Or at each class from Bellorophon you do not build Battle Cruisers but instead apply the X4 design concept and improve the propulsion and make Fast Battleships from 1906 - build more of them.

Repeat this at each new class - through to QE and Revenge (build revenges as a second batch of QE)

Need a Battleship? Send a Fast Battleship - Need a Battle Cruiser? send a Fast Battleship.

just imagine the queen's at Jutland replacing Beatty's battlecruisers..even yummier

I was thinking that too. I'm going to see what a fast battleship would have been like in my next Springsharps.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I was thinking that too. I'm going to see what a fast battleship would have been like in my next Springsharps.

Can you run the numbers on a Bellerophon/Invincible fast battleship design?

 

[Delta Force]

Can you run the numbers on a Bellerophon/Invincible fast battleship design?

I'll try that and Vittorio Cuniberti's ideal battleship for the Royal Navy.

 

[Delta Force]

Here are the Cuniberti ideal battleships. They could be smaller with less bunkerage, but I decided too much coal and petroleum is better than not enough.

Cuniberti Ideal Battleship (Reciprocating)

Cuniberti Ideal Battleship (Reciprocating), Test Fast Battleship laid down 1902

Displacement:
20,468 t light; 21,500 t standard; 23,363 t normal; 24,852 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(629.07 ft / 623.36 ft) x 86.61 ft x (27.89 / 29.28 ft)
(191.74 m / 190.00 m) x 26.40 m x (8.50 / 8.92 m)

Armament:
12 - 12.01" / 305 mm 40.0 cal guns - 849.99lbs / 385.55kg shells, 80 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1902 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, 1902 Model
16 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
16 hull mounts in casemates- Limited use in all but light seas
Weight of broadside 10,600 lbs / 4,808 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 456.04 ft / 139.00 m 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 113 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Strengthened structural bulkheads:
1.97" / 50 mm 456.04 ft / 139.00 m 32.81 ft / 10.00 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 72.83 ft / 22.20 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 2.95" / 75 mm 11.0" / 280 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 12.01" / 305 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, complex reciprocating steam engines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 29,000 ihp / 21,634 Kw = 21.03 kts
Range 8,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3,352 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
944 - 1,228

Cost:
£2.179 million / $8.716 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,652 tons, 7.1 %
- Guns: 1,652 tons, 7.1 %
Armour: 8,467 tons, 36.2 %
- Belts: 3,734 tons, 16.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,090 tons, 4.7 %
- Armament: 1,554 tons, 6.7 %
- Armour Deck: 1,878 tons, 8.0 %
- Conning Tower: 211 tons, 0.9 %
Machinery: 4,394 tons, 18.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 5,955 tons, 25.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,894 tons, 12.4 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
22,871 lbs / 10,374 Kg = 26.4 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 3.6 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.28
Metacentric height 6.3 ft / 1.9 m
Roll period: 14.5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.43
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.21

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.543 / 0.550
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.20 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 24.97 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 39 %
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 %, 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): 103.4 %
Waterplane Area: 37,437 Square feet or 3,478 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 92 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 151 lbs/sq ft or 735 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.00
- Longitudinal: 1.05
- Overall: 1.00
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

Cuniberti Ideal Battleship (Turbine)

Cuniberti Ideal Battleship (Turbine), Test Fast Battleship laid down 1906

Displacement:
20,468 t light; 21,500 t standard; 23,374 t normal; 24,874 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(629.95 ft / 623.36 ft) x 86.61 ft x (27.89 / 29.29 ft)
(192.01 m / 190.00 m) x 26.40 m x (8.50 / 8.93 m)

Armament:
12 - 12.01" / 305 mm 45.0 cal guns - 849.99lbs / 385.55kg shells, 80 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
16 hull mounts in casemates- Limited use in heavy seas
Weight of broadside 10,600 lbs / 4,808 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 419.95 ft / 128.00 m 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 104 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Strengthened structural bulkheads:
1.97" / 50 mm 419.95 ft / 128.00 m 32.81 ft / 10.00 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 72.83 ft / 22.20 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 2.95" / 75 mm 11.0" / 280 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 12.01" / 305 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 50,000 shp / 37,300 Kw = 24.31 kts
Range 8,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3,374 tons (75% coal)

Complement:
944 - 1,228

Cost:
£2.203 million / $8.814 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,941 tons, 8.3 %
- Guns: 1,941 tons, 8.3 %
Armour: 8,424 tons, 36.0 %
- Belts: 3,509 tons, 15.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,004 tons, 4.3 %
- Armament: 1,822 tons, 7.8 %
- Armour Deck: 1,879 tons, 8.0 %
- Conning Tower: 211 tons, 0.9 %
Machinery: 3,484 tons, 14.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 6,618 tons, 28.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,906 tons, 12.4 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
26,560 lbs / 12,047 Kg = 30.7 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 4.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.24
Metacentric height 5.9 ft / 1.8 m
Roll period: 14.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.55
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.35

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.543 / 0.551
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.20 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 24.97 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 47 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 52
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): 103.4 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 128.2 %
Waterplane Area: 37,446 Square feet or 3,479 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 94 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 158 lbs/sq ft or 773 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.99
- Longitudinal: 1.30
- Overall: 1.02
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 are the fast battleship designs.

Dreadnought Class Fast Battleship

Dreadnought Class, Test Fast Battleship laid down 1906

Displacement:
19,565 t light; 20,500 t standard; 22,324 t normal; 23,784 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(629.95 ft / 623.36 ft) x 85.96 ft x (27.89 / 29.29 ft)
(192.01 m / 190.00 m) x 26.20 m x (8.50 / 8.93 m)

Armament:
10 - 12.01" / 305 mm 45.0 cal guns - 849.99lbs / 385.55kg shells, 80 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1906 Model
3 x Twin mounts on centreline ends, majority forward
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
16 hull mounts in casemates- Limited use in heavy seas
Weight of broadside 8,900 lbs / 4,037 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 11.0" / 280 mm 426.51 ft / 130.00 m 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 105 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Strengthened structural bulkheads:
1.97" / 50 mm 426.51 ft / 130.00 m 32.81 ft / 10.00 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 72.83 ft / 22.20 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 2.95" / 75 mm 11.0" / 280 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 11.02" / 280 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 54,000 shp / 40,284 Kw = 25.04 kts
Range 8,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3,283 tons (75% coal)

Complement:
913 - 1,187

Cost:
£2.048 million / $8.192 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,630 tons, 7.3 %
- Guns: 1,630 tons, 7.3 %
Armour: 7,828 tons, 35.1 %
- Belts: 3,241 tons, 14.5 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,019 tons, 4.6 %
- Armament: 1,550 tons, 6.9 %
- Armour Deck: 1,829 tons, 8.2 %
- Conning Tower: 188 tons, 0.8 %
Machinery: 3,763 tons, 16.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 6,344 tons, 28.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,759 tons, 12.4 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
25,460 lbs / 11,549 Kg = 29.4 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 4.0 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.27
Metacentric height 6.2 ft / 1.9 m
Roll period: 14.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.46
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.34

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.523 / 0.530
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.25 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 24.97 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 47 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 52
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): 104.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 129.1 %
Waterplane Area: 36,461 Square feet or 3,387 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 96 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 154 lbs/sq ft or 753 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.99
- Longitudinal: 1.33
- Overall: 1.02
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

Invincible Class Fast Battleship

Invincible Class, Test Fast Battleship laid down 1906

Displacement:
18,171 t light; 19,000 t standard; 20,739 t normal; 22,131 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(616.83 ft / 610.24 ft) x 82.02 ft x (27.89 / 29.32 ft)
(188.01 m / 186.00 m) x 25.00 m x (8.50 / 8.94 m)

Armament:
8 - 12.01" / 305 mm 45.0 cal guns - 849.99lbs / 385.55kg shells, 80 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
16 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: 11.0" / 280 mm 439.63 ft / 134.00 m 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 111 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Strengthened structural bulkheads:
1.97" / 50 mm 439.63 ft / 134.00 m 32.81 ft / 10.00 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 65.62 ft / 20.00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 2.95" / 75 mm 11.0" / 280 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 11.02" / 280 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 54,000 shp / 40,284 Kw = 25.32 kts
Range 8,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3,132 tons (75% coal)

Complement:
863 - 1,123

Cost:
£1.836 million / $7.345 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,320 tons, 6.4 %
- Guns: 1,320 tons, 6.4 %
Armour: 7,473 tons, 36.0 %
- Belts: 3,295 tons, 15.9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,051 tons, 5.1 %
- Armament: 1,245 tons, 6.0 %
- Armour Deck: 1,704 tons, 8.2 %
- Conning Tower: 179 tons, 0.9 %
Machinery: 3,763 tons, 18.1 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 5,615 tons, 27.1 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,568 tons, 12.4 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
23,698 lbs / 10,749 Kg = 27.4 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 3.7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.27
Metacentric height 5.7 ft / 1.7 m
Roll period: 14.4 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.44
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.33

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.520 / 0.528
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.44 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 24.70 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 48 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 53
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): 110.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 127.2 %
Waterplane Area: 33,968 Square feet or 3,156 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 97 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 146 lbs/sq ft or 711 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.99
- Longitudinal: 1.36
- Overall: 1.02
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]

It would seem that a 10" heavy cruiser and Cuniberti style battleship could be acquired for around the same cost as an Invincible class battlecruiser and Dreadnought class battleship. Alternatively, two Cuniberti style battleships could be acquired for £4.4 million, in contrast to around £3.5 million for an Invincible and Dreadnought.

 

[jsb]

I mentioned this here- the standard requirement for effective salvo ranging is 8 heavy guns of standard calibre. Don't get me wrong, Renown is one of my favourite warships- I love the photo of her from 1944 pulling that handbrake turn- but she's very much a "what spare parts have we got in the shop to make a ship out of" vessel, hence the 6-gun broadside.

I guess it depends on if ships turned to open the rear turrets arcs when chasing down opponents ? Do we know if they did that in the different BC fights ? (and how much does having only 6 guns lose you ?)

Remember with 3 turrets you could afford to increase the belt (or turret faces) or just build more of the cheaper ships (will have to try and sim some)

JSB

 

[Delta Force]

I guess it depends on if ships turned to open the rear turrets arcs when chasing down opponents ? Do we know if they did that in the different BC fights ? (and how much does having only 6 guns lose you ?)

Remember with 3 turrets you could afford to increase the belt (or turret faces) or just build more of the cheaper ships (will have to try and sim some)

JSB

Determining turret placement involves several factors. Having more guns fore is useful for a ship that is going to cross the T of the enemy fleet, or that can expect to have its own T crossed. It is also useful for fighting in confined spaces, where a ship might not be able to turn to deliver a broadside. The problem is that if a ship is being chased, it won't have as many guns shooting back.

Having more guns aft is structurally better, and it allows for more firepower if a ship is being chased. It also allows for various tricks to gain the benefits of superfiring turrets without actually having some of the weight penalties that come with superfiring turrets, by allowing turrets on a raised mid-deck to fire over turrets on a lower level aft deck.

 

[eltf177]

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!

I redid the two 1914 designs in SS2 adding a superfiring turret. That's doable but adding a TDS isn't going to happen, the designs are just too tight...