While the Cats are Away…
While the Cats are Away…

Von Spee’s success in tying down British forces had not passed unnoticed in Germany, and it allowed the Admiralty to persuade the Kaiser that his precious fleet should be used more aggressively, particularly while the British lacked a significant margin of superiority in numbers in the North Sea.
In mid-November, following the loss of the Audacious, Jellicoe had a maximum of 16 battleships and 5 battlecruisers, usually less one or two ships away for refit or repair. A further two Iron Dukes had just commissioned, but the CinC knew they were not yet fully effective.
Ingenohl’s fleet had 14 battleships and 4 battlecruisers, plus the Derfflinger, which had commissioned at the beginning of the month.

Operations started cautiously, with a mining operation off Yarmouth covered by the four operational battlecruisers on 3rd November. The minefield would sink only a small coaster, but the operation suggested more ambitious missions could be attempted, as the heavy ships of the Royal Navy were nowhere to be seen. A grander plan was conceived, in which the battlecruisers would attempt to draw away part of the British fleet by bombarding the English coast.

Across the North Sea, the Royal Navy was riding high after Admiral Patey’s victory in the Bismarck Sea, which had been followed by the destruction of Germany’s most successful raider, the Emden, in the Indian Ocean. Further good news was not long coming, as in early December, Dresden was hunted to exhaustion by Stoddart’s forces in the Atlantic and forced to accept internment in Brazil, while Karlsruhe had suffered a magazine explosion off the coast of Africa in November (although the British didn’t confirm this until January). New Zealand’s squadron had followed the route taken by Gneisenau and Nurnburg across the Pacific, but had instead found the Leipzig off the coast of Chile on December 2nd.

The Gneisenau and Nurnburg had avoided Cradock’s forces during November, meeting a collier that had been sent out from San Pedro, and hiding in the isolated bays and maze of channels around the tip of South America. Captain Maerker of the Gneisenau decided to stay away from the Falklands (very wisely – the islands were defended by the battleship Canopus and the cruiser Monmouth, in addition to Cradock’s occasional visits to re-coal), and instead headed for the mouth of the River Plate. There he hoped to raid British shipping before meeting another supply ship to the east of the Abrolhos Rocks and heading back towards Germany.
On the morning of 11th December, Invincible, Good Hope and Suffolk were to the north of the Plate when they received a radio signal from the refrigerator ship Estrella, which was being pursued by a warship (one of the first ‘raider warnings’ ever broadcast). Judging by the signal strength and the position given, they were right on top of her and Cradock ordered his flagship Invincible to charge ahead.
Nurnburg had caught and fired on the freighter in retaliation for the distress signal by the time Cradock reached her, and the Estrella would burn and sink. However, she was revenged swiftly as Nurnburg was crippled by the battlecruiser in less than half an hour’s action, before she sailed on, to leave the two armoured cruisers to finish the smaller German ship.
Gneisenau should have been well away from her companion, as there was no need for both ships to approach an unarmed merchantman. However, with little fuel or time to spare, Maerker had chosen stayed in contact. It was a fatal mistake, as Gneisenau was chased down over the course of the next three hours. Although Invincible ran out of ammunition for her forward turret during the pursuit, and Gneisenau’s gunnery was excellent, the final result was never in doubt.

Closer to home, the capture by the Russians of German naval codebooks in late August had given the Admiralty in London a crucial advantage. They were forewarned of German plans for a further raid, but even so the information was incomplete, and a range of possible routes and locations had to be covered.
British co-ordination went badly wrong; signals were missed and sailings were delayed, while scouts from the Second Battle Squadron engaged German light forces, but Hipper’s battlecruisers escaped at speed before the battleships ever sighted him. Poor weather and a mix-up of coded position indicators meant that Beatty’s battlecruisers never came within 30 miles of the Germans, despite their charging south at high speed once the confusion had been straightened out.

The German raid of 16th December was the most severe blow to the Royal Navy’s prestige in over a century; mainland Britain had been attacked and the Navy had failed to destroy the enemy in return. However, for the British war effort as a whole, it turned out to be a blessing in disguise; to the newspapers and the public, the Germans were now unquestionably ‘brutish Huns’, ‘baby-killing barbarians’ and such like, and the recruiting offices were filled to overflowing with volunteers desperate to do their bit in revenging the victims of Scarborough and Hartlepool.

By the start of 1915, the Navy had cleared the oceans of German warships, but in the North Sea, the Kaisermarine still had a short period of grace, while scattered British forces returned to home waters.
 
Dreadnought’s Back!
‘Dreadnought’s Back!’

In 1912, the Royal Navy switched from a policy of building fast (27-knot) battlecruisers and slow (21-knot) battleships to building ‘fast battleships’. This resulted in the ships of the Queen Elizabeth class, with 15” guns and a ‘design overload’ speed of 25 knots. However, the Queen Elizabeths were expensive, and after years of building five or more capital ships each year, the government wanted to control spending, resulting in authorisation for only four ships. In summer of 1912, however, a fifth ship was ordered, courtesy of the Malay States.

The Navy continued to argue that numbers mattered, but British government pressure was remorseless, and so if there was to be any chance of five ships in the 1913 programme, they would have to be cheaper. Cutting back the armament of eight 15” guns was not acceptable, and so various other ideas were suggested, including going back to building 21-knot ships.
However, a compromise came in the form of design ‘X2’, effectively a value-engineered version of the Queen Elizabeths. By removing three boilers, using cheaper un-tapered 12” armour plate and reducing the secondary battery to twelve 6” guns, naval architects showed that nine ‘X2s’ could be built for the price of eight Queen Elizabeths. A lengthened and finer hull would still allow for 25 knots, despite the reduction to an overload rating of 63,000 shp.
There was further good news, as the number of ships could be rounded up to ten over the two years of the 1913 and ‘14 programmes, thanks to the passage of the Canadian Naval Aid Bill. Canada’s ambitions to have her own fleet had risen and fallen over the years, most recently in 1912, when a new government was elected. Earlier, more modest proposals for a fleet of cruisers were decried as feeble, and a hugely expensive programme to buy three battleships from Britain was proposed. The programme never stood a chance of passing through Canada’s Senate, but the Prime Minister was made aware of the proposed ‘X2’ design, and the Royal Navy’s desire for an extra ship when he visited Britain in 1913. Despite the acrimony, a face-saving deal was thought to be possible, and ultimately the Canadian government agreed to pay for a single battleship, on the condition that Canadian yards received contracts for several smaller vessels.

Thus was the ‘Royal’ class born, so named for the first four ships; Royal Oak, Royal William, Royal George and Royal Sovereign. It was perhaps unfortunate that two of these were amongst the most popular names for public houses in the UK, and as a consequence the class acquired the lower-deck nickname of “the drunks”.

The five ships of the 1913 programme, including HMS Canada, were all well advanced in their construction when the war started (Royal William would be launched in November 1914). However three of the five ships of the 1914 programme had not even been laid down, and all five of this second group were suspended on 5th August, in the expectation that none of them would be completed until the later part of 1917, long after the war would be over.

However, it was not universally accepted that the war would be a short one, and among those who thought that Britain should plan for hostilities lasting into 1917 was the maverick Admiral Fisher, who returned as First Sea Lord in October 1914. Winston Churchill would later be known for his mantra ‘Action this Day’, but Fisher’s could be described as ‘Action this Second’, and his drive would help push through a vast construction programme. During his tenure, he would oversee orders for over 1,000 ships, with nearly 600 in his first few months alone.
 
Last edited:

SsgtC

Banned
I'm not sure about Royal Standard as a name for a British battleship. The closest I could find in a quick check of Royal Navy history was HMS Standard of 1782, a 64 gun third rate that was paid off in 1816. Perhaps Royal William might work a bit better?
 
However, a compromise came in the form of design ‘X2’, effectively a value-engineered version of the Queen Elizabeths. By removing three boilers, using cheaper un-tapered 12” armour plate and reducing the secondary battery to twelve 6” guns, naval architects showed that nine ‘X2s’ could be built for the price of eight Queen Elizabeths. A lengthened and finer hull would still allow for 25 knots, despite the reduction to an overload rating of 63,000 shp.
.

Or possibly use small tube boilers and geared turbines.....
 
Or possibly use small tube boilers and geared turbines.....
Queen E machinery weighed 3,900 tons for 75,000shp at overload.
Courageous machinery weighed 2,350 for 90,000shp. (small tube, geared turbines).
Or c19.25 hp/ton for QE, and c38.3 hp/ton for Courageous.
Can't find the source, but remember reading that small-tube boilers were 30% more efficient.

A smaller number of larger boilers, which are inherently more efficient, would help as well.
Coal fired boilers were limited in size as the coal had to be shovelled in.
For oil fired, just use a bigger pipe.
 
I'm not sure about Royal Standard as a name for a British battleship. The closest I could find in a quick check of Royal Navy history was HMS Standard of 1782, a 64 gun third rate that was paid off in 1816. Perhaps Royal William might work a bit better?
It's never been used to my knowledge, but then these ships were never built. I wanted to use the name 'Royals' ensure they were easily differentiated from the real Royal Sovereigns.

Royal William is a better name - the sailor King himself. One of those that's so obvious I don't know why I didn't think of it!
 
By popular request (well, one person made a suggestion!) HMS Royal Standard had been renamed HMS Royal William.
Mind you, some consider it bad luck to change the name of a ship...
 
Or possibly use small tube boilers and geared turbines.....

But those are new technology and thus more expensive and probably less reliable ( says the RN's true enemy the treasury)

And subject to a more rapid fall-off in performance as they foul - or so it was argued (correctly) at the time. Mind you, small-tube performance was so much higher in the first place, it was still a clear benefit.
There was also a history of problems with leaks in boiler tubes during the 1900s (caused partly by the Admiralty themselves), so arguably the fewer tubes the better.
Don't forget the boiler and engine builders either - in some ways highly innovative, but all too often development stopped due to lack of investment and/or sufficiently trained people, while 'traditional' products were seen as good enough.
That came back to bite - e.g. Hood's engines (1916) were far better than anything afloat on a capital ship, much to the consternation of the Americans when they saw the designs.
By 1926, US engines were as good as the British designs. By 1936, they were better.

As regards the story, the 'Royals' fit the pattern of British pre-war development. Introduce a major advance every few years (e.g. Dreadnought, Orion, QE), then spend the next couple of years improving it without making fundamental changes e.g. Orion>KGV>Iron Duke
 
Only for capital ships the first small tube Yarrow boiler was installed on a destroyer in 1893

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarrow_boiler#Marine_use

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havock-class_destroyer

Indeed, but for destroyers there was no choice - they needed light weight and high power. Destroyer machinery was notoriously unreliable and short-lived, which didn't matter as the ships were essentially expendable in battle, and had only a short year life in peacetime service (they were worn out after 5-8 years).
A battleship would be expected to serve for up to 20 years, so no-one was prepared to commit to lightweight machinery ... or so the argument went.
In 1895 or 1900, it might have been valid, but by 1910 on, that argument was almost unquestionably invalid. However, the RN was cautious. Reduction gears and small tubes weren't yet in service on cruisers in 1913, so there was little chance of them taking a risk on battleships.

Of course, once 'speed is everything', opinions may change.
 
Indeed, but for destroyers there was no choice - they needed light weight and high power. Destroyer machinery was notoriously unreliable and short-lived, which didn't matter as the ships were essentially expendable in battle, and had only a short year life in peacetime service (they were worn out after 5-8 years).
A battleship would be expected to serve for up to 20 years, so no-one was prepared to commit to lightweight machinery ... or so the argument went.
In 1895 or 1900, it might have been valid, but by 1910 on, that argument was almost unquestionably invalid. However, the RN was cautious. Reduction gears and small tubes weren't yet in service on cruisers in 1913, so there was little chance of them taking a risk on battleships.

Of course, once 'speed is everything', opinions may change.

Did read somewhere, have to dig out the reference, that small tube boilers were considered for the King George V class but as far as remember, only boilers, not geared turbines.
 
Did read somewhere, have to dig out the reference, that small tube boilers were considered for the King George V class but as far as remember, only boilers, not geared turbines.
Can't immediately find that reference in any of the obvious texts, but I agree I recall reading about the DNC pushing for small tube and/or geared turbines at various times.
I know small tube & geared turbines were advocated for Renown, mentioned for QE, and for boilers-only on Tiger (DNC also wanted all-oil for Tiger).
The Boiler Committee of 1904 'established' that large tube boilers were preferable for battleships, and that went unchallenged for a long time.

The Germans of course, used small tube boilers, with excellent results. e.g. compare Hindenburg vs Tiger - Tiger was 18% more powerful (at rated load), but the boiler rooms were 25% bigger and the machinery overall was 60% heavier.
 
You know if the RN had used small tube boilers and geared turbines in the QEs I wonder just how fast they would have gone especially since they could have used the saved weight to make a more hydrodynamic ship
 
Can't immediately find that reference in any of the obvious texts, but I agree I recall reading about the DNC pushing for small tube and/or geared turbines at various times.
I know small tube & geared turbines were advocated for Renown, mentioned for QE, and for boilers-only on Tiger (DNC also wanted all-oil for Tiger).
The Boiler Committee of 1904 'established' that large tube boilers were preferable for battleships, and that went unchallenged for a long time.

The Germans of course, used small tube boilers, with excellent results. e.g. compare Hindenburg vs Tiger - Tiger was 18% more powerful (at rated load), but the boiler rooms were 25% bigger and the machinery overall was 60% heavier.
And the RN did use oil-fired small tube boilers and geared turbines on larger ships - starting with light cruiser Champion, laid down 9th March 1914.
And Courageous/Glorious, both laid down 14th March 1915.
 
You know if the RN had used small tube boilers and geared turbines in the QEs I wonder just how fast they would have gone especially since they could have used the saved weight to make a more hydrodynamic ship
Depends how far the modifications went. Just putting better engines in them wouldn't go far, bearing in mind they were a bit of a hotchpotch to start with (and grossly overweight due to the change to oil firing, variations on turrets vs engines etc...). Forcing one up to 28kts would require overloaded KGV (1936) levels of power. As you say, further increases in speed would have to go hand-in-hand with changes to the hull.
Given the time pressures, the number of changes and the overstretched DNC staff at the time, a complete redesign would be difficult to imagine.

However, a good idea of what a "fresh sheet QE" would be like would be Nagato.
The Japanese would have had extensive access to the QE design, and would have seen (and probably even been advised) what could/should have been done better; resulting in a slightly bigger ship, with modern engines and similar levels of armour, capable of 26.5kts.
 
And the RN did use oil-fired small tube boilers and geared turbines on larger ships - starting with light cruiser Champion, laid down 9th March 1914.
...
Indeed, and the incremental process of testing can be seen there. The first RN cruiser to use geared turbines was Yarmouth, completed in 1912, but she had older boilers and use mixed coal-oil firing.
Her sisters had direct-drive turbines, which allowed direct comparisons to be made.
 
You know I wonder what the QEs would have had for their main belts if they had used the all or nothing armor scheme if nothing else they probably wouldn't have been so overweight and thus reached their design speed
 

SsgtC

Banned
Indeed, and the incremental process of testing can be seen there. The first RN cruiser to use geared turbines was Yarmouth, completed in 1912, but she had older boilers and use mixed coal-oil firing.
Her sisters had direct-drive turbines, which allowed direct comparisons to be made.
The USN did the same. In the Nevada class, Nevada was built with geared turbines while Oklahoma was built with vertical triple expansion engines.
 
Top