Best British battlefleet for ww1

[WaterproofPotatoes]

I was also thinking as to what lighter units should be built.

The first things that hit me are what not to build. Among those are:

-The K(alamity) Class steam powered fleet submarines. They were designed to make a top speed of 24.5kn surfaced in order to operate with the Queen Elizabeths, which was impossible with the diesels of the time, so they were given steam turbine powerplants for when they were surfaced, plus batteries and a diesel generator for underwater work. Even Jackie "A VERY GREAT INCREASE IN SPEED" Fisher stated that there could be nothing more foolish than a steam-powered submarine. A third of the class was lost, all through accidents and none by enemy action. For the inherent risks of a submarine that had the size of a destroyer, the speed of a (n armoured) cruiser and the turning radius of a battlecruiser, see the "Battle" of May Island, where several were lost to collisions while sailing as a squadron.

-The M-Class submarine cruisers aren't really necessary either, as cool as they are.

-Too many too-small scout cruisers and destroyer flottilla leaders that are too wet.

-Pressing the odds-and-sods foreign dreadnoughts, many with guns that are too small and can't fit directors are probably less useful than just completing the Dream Fleet faster. The pre-Dreads, although outclassed, can just be run into the ground because they're already there.

Now, for what to build:

- An earlier (1913-14) Hawkins class of first-class cruisers. Are they perfect Washington heavies? No, but they're better than any of the old armoured cruisers. The unified battery of 7.5" guns is easier to spot for.

-Stretched (to about 500-525' LOA) C and D class scout/light/2nd-class cruisers with longer, higher bows. Earlier would be nice too.

-Earlier and more V and W class destroyers. Perhaps if Thoryncroft is able to trial their more powerful destroyers a flottilla or two earlier, more of these could be available.

-Make sure most of the subs are E class boats. I can understand why the K and M class boats were built, but starting with one, two tops, prototypes would have been a better way to go.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

-The M-Class submarine cruisers aren't really necessary either, as cool as they are.

Or... were not enough of them built? A fleet of M-Class subs would be the perfect vessel to carry out Fischer's Baltic Project and end the War early! Added advantage of no Stab In The Back Myth with the Royal Marines in Berlin!

I’m kidding of course. Unless you think it’s a good idea too..?

 

[WaterproofPotatoes]

Or... were not enough of them built? A fleet of M-Class subs would be the perfect vessel to carry out Fischer's Baltic Project and end the War early! Added advantage of no Stab In The Back Myth with the Royal Marines in Berlin!

I’m kidding of course. Unless you think it’s a good idea too..?

As with so many of Fisher's ideas, the concept is great, but the details are spotty and the technology just isn't there yet. It would have gone horribly wrong and it's a good thing it wasn't done, but the concept of an amphibious landing is a sound one

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Or... were not enough of them built? A fleet of M-Class subs would be the perfect vessel to carry out Fischer's Baltic Project and end the War early! Added advantage of no Stab In The Back Myth with the Royal Marines in Berlin!

I’m kidding of course. Unless you think it’s a good idea too..?

No you are definitely kidding

 

[James Ricker]

Launch a campaign to improve their performance of the shells used by the Royal Navy in order to get more bang for the pound. Inadvertently that would discover the flaws in the shells that the Royal Navy was using. Green boys in 1914 , naval engagements with the German high Seas Fleet would have and more costly to for the Germans.

 

[James Ricker]

If Britain is going into WWI with a carrier it will be this one. I don't think it will help much.

As a platform for reconnaissance aircraft it would give the Royal Navy a major advantage

 

[Jellico]

The lighter ships are interesting. So much potential. All the good tech going to the big ships...

One thing about the Ks. I have seen it argued that they are the first class of anti-submarine submarine. One good idea masked by a bad idea. Is there a way of teasing the good idea out?

The problem with the Hawkins as an armored cruiser analog is that such a beast already exists. The I class. I have always been partial to a dreadnought protected cruiser, something Leanderish with twin turrets, directors, 30knts. Hard to justify as she would much bigger than a C with little more firepower.

I would have loved to see the Towns go all 6" earlier. The Cs and Ds are tricky as they are effectively North Sea scouts rather than traditional cruisers. You need to convince someone that there is still an Empire out there. Maybe approach it as a project for the Dominions? After all that approach got them Australia and New Zealand when the Indefatigables were arguably obsolete.

Big destroyers (Vs and Ws) would be nice, but the justification is harder. Also aren't there mechanical issues? HMS Swift leaps to mind.

 

[fourthmaninaboat]

Strictly speaking the Invincibles were classed as Battlecruisers by Admiralty in November 1911, so I think BCs are a suitably descriptor. The battlecruiser idea was the brainchild of Fischer and things like “All Big Gun Armoured Cruiser” were distinctions to explain away poorly balanced designs when speed mania fully took grip. The best PoD to get rid of BCs is to stop Fischer becoming FSL or to have him lose out on his proposals for the Invincible amongst his other better ideas.

The idea of the battlecruiser being an 'all-big-gun armoured cruiser' makes perfect sense when you consider how armoured cruisers had been used and seen in the 1880s-early 1900s. The first-class armoured cruisers were expected to be heavy scouts for the fleet and to act as a fast wing for it. They were designed to fight battleships - the Cressys were intended to lie in the line of battle by their designer, while in 1897, the main priority for first class cruiser design was for them to have 'capacity for close action, as adjuncts to battleships'. The term battlecruiser had been coined to describe such ships as early as 1893, by Rear-Admiral Samuel Long. The dreadnought battlecruiser was an updating of these concepts for the era of the 'all-big-gun' ships, and so it makes perfect sense to describe them as all-big-gun armoured cruisers. They were perfectly serviceable ships, that filled a vital tactical role (even in the 1920s, the USN considered its battlefleet to be at somewhat of a tactical disadvantage against the RN or IJN thanks to its lack of battlecruisers), and were only let down by a poor choice of propellant exacerbated by awful magazine procedures, as well as awful shells. That said, the Indefatigables were a misstep; the RN should have better predicted that their innovation would provoke a German response.

One thing about the Ks. I have seen it argued that they are the first class of anti-submarine submarine. One good idea masked by a bad idea. Is there a way of teasing the good idea out?

The K Class subs were intended to operate with the fleet; rather than having to be deployed ahead of sorties, they could sortie with the battlefleet. It was hoped they could participate in fleet actions in a way the slower diesel-powered subs couldn't, especially when the Grand Fleet was having to respond to German sorties. They were not intended for the anti-submarine role at all, and were never used in this way; I think you're confusing them for the R Class, which were designed with a hull form optimised for underwater speed, a large hydrophone array and a heavy forward-firing torpedo armament. The Rs only entered service in 1918, but spent their limited time in the war on dedicated ASW service. They're often claimed to be the first SSKs, or hunter-killer subs, and I think it's a fairly reasonable argument.

 

[Jellico]

That would be the one.

 

[WaterproofPotatoes]

That would be the one.

Intetestingly enough, a K-class did manage to torpedo a German U-Boat, but the torpedo itself was a clanger; attributed to typical K-class luck.

 

[Thomas1195]

stop Fischer becoming FSL

This would end up worse for Britain, since he did help reform the Navy after all, and his alternative would be the more conservative Beresford. Better is to have his BC proposal being blocked.

 

[Dorknought]

I think you're confusing them for the R Class, which were designed with a hull form optimised for underwater speed, a large hydrophone array and a heavy forward-firing torpedo armament. The Rs only entered service in 1918, but spent their limited time in the war on dedicated ASW service. They're often claimed to be the first SSKs, or hunter-killer subs, and I think it's a fairly reasonable argument.

It was the Diesel J class that we’re conceived pre WW1 as a ‘Reaper’ type to loiter off enemy bases and then run down and sink patrol submarines as they exit or return to base. One was even equiped with depth charges that was used in an attack on a uboat in 1918.

The idea of a Fleet submarine was also a prewar concept that persisted into the 1930’s. RN sub development was about to go into an experimental phase but war derailed it. A steam powered sub and large diesel sub were prototypes for the Fleet and Reaper type. One of these (steam I think) employed many safety features adopted in later subs. G class were to be comparative trials for diesels from various manufacturers. The RN really did need large ocean going subs for global deployment. The ‘K’s are unfairly maligned, the last one was successful.

 

[Jellico]

Better is to have his BC proposal being blocked.

I am going to be controversial and say you have to have battle cruisers.

Hydrodynamics mean a big ship will max out somewhere around 30+ knots.

In 1905 a fast capital ship is 20 knots. So you are going to have a period of leap frogging until things stabilize around 30 knots.

The problem is in 1905 you can't build a capital ship with reasonable fighting ability and 30 knots at a size and cost any sensible government is going to pay for.


So let's build a slow fleet like the Americans? Except the USN spent most of the 20s scared of the RN and IJN's battle cruiser's ability to blind their scouts. Some one is going to build super scouts. Armored cruisers were already battleship sized/priced and it doesn't take a genius to put 2 and 2 together.

Besides. Half of the RN's reason for battle cruisers was for their strategic mobility. They want to be able to shift heavy guns around the world quickly.


Eventually around 1920 small tube boilers and geared turbines mean you can get the hybrid capital ship everyone wanted. But there is a 20 year gap with a world war that needs to be filled first.

 

[NHBL]

For an "Ideal" battlecruiser, how much speed would you get if you kept the Queen Elizabeth armor, added a little bit of tonnage, and went with either 6 x 15's or 8 x 13.5" guns.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Intetestingly enough, a K-class did manage to torpedo a German U-Boat, but the torpedo itself was a clanger; attributed to typical K-class luck.

I have a soft spot for the K class. My Grandad served on the last of them.

 

[Spencersj345.346]

For an "Ideal" battlecruiser, how much speed would you get if you kept the Queen Elizabeth armor, added a little bit of tonnage, and went with either 6 x 15's or 8 x 13.5" guns.

If by a bit more tonnage you mean 3 to 5 thousand tons and you are using the most up to date engines of the time and get a well designed hull...you're probably looking at 30ish knots maybe 31 knots as your top speed

 

[steamboy]

The Renowns when designed were fast ships, but they paid for that with armour no better than an I's on a MUCH larger hull leaving large areas without much in the way of protection.

 

[Jellico]

And such ships were offered by the design teams. But you have to convince the bosses that they are worth spending the money on.

One of the outcomes of Jutland was that it made combining speed and armor a priority. It might take a kick in the teeth like that to make it happen faster than OTL. Imagine a couple of Cats blowing up while R&R were still in the design stage? That would be interesting with the Admirals still to come.

OTOH the N3s (if they were real) and O3s throw an interesting shade on things. Raw fighting power is still valued. Personally I think of it in gaming terms of infantry, archers, and cavalry. If you don't have your infantry right the other two aren't going to work and that is where the slow battleship fits for a long time.

It makes the Japanese and their love of a fastish battleship all the more curious. What was unique about East Asia that let them hope mobility would give them an edge?

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

It makes the Japanese and their love of a fastish battleship all the more curious. What was unique about East Asia that let them hope mobility would give them an edge?

Distance from likely opponents, so the ability to show up sooner than the enemy thinks possible is an advantage?

 

[fourthmaninaboat]

It was the Diesel J class that we’re conceived pre WW1 as a ‘Reaper’ type to loiter off enemy bases and then run down and sink patrol submarines as they exit or return to base. One was even equiped with depth charges that was used in an attack on a uboat in 1918.

The idea of a Fleet submarine was also a prewar concept that persisted into the 1930’s. RN sub development was about to go into an experimental phase but war derailed it. A steam powered sub and large diesel sub were prototypes for the Fleet and Reaper type. One of these (steam I think) employed many safety features adopted in later subs. G class were to be comparative trials for diesels from various manufacturers. The RN really did need large ocean going subs for global deployment. The ‘K’s are unfairly maligned, the last one was successful.

All my sources describe the J Class as an early attempt at the fleet submarine role, for the same task as the K Class. They were designated as 'Reapers', because they were to join the fleet, and 'reap' what submarines patrolling off German bases sowed - picking out targets based on spotting reports from these patrol submarines. They were generally expected to primarily target surface ships. It was pretty common for British submarines to be equipped with depth-charges, especially later in the war. Even the K Class were equipped with them (Friedman's The Great War At Sea includes an image of K 22 with a depth-charge mortar). Every modern British sub class from the Cs to the Rs were deployed on ASW patrols with two exceptions; these were the Js and Ks.

It makes the Japanese and their love of a fastish battleship all the more curious. What was unique about East Asia that let them hope mobility would give them an edge?

Having a fast element in your battleline gives you a tactical advantage, no matter where in the world you are. The faster element lets you control range, pursue a defeated enemy, or force an enemy to manoeuvre by threatening to outflank his line. It also lets you support your scouting forces, attritting the enemy on the approach to the battle.