Dread Nought but the Fury of the Seas
- Thread starter sts-200
- Start date
I was under the impression that Nelson belt was 18° not 25°?
The other thing was that Nelsons belt was a bit to short, and seems to have left them with a vulnerability to shells diving in after a certain angle.
I would think this would be far more noticeable with a 25° angle belt at such a short length, well it may well protect virtually nothing and any steeper, it wouldn't matter the width of the belt.
Than again, that is if Nelsons belt is 18° not 25°
The thing is, having read through dk browns description of the design process and the reasoning behind the ships designed... I really do think the G3 was the best design they came up with.
And was further ahead than the designs of the other nations. Nevermind the N3 battleship.
But the same can be said of all the other designs the British came up with from K to H. But the main reason for the design of the G3 was basically to get the best ship possible for the least amount of money to fit in the docks they already had available.
And they did stunningly well.
The rear most gun turret has fantastic arcs back and forward. Surprisingly.
Last edited:
I suppose they might postpone new big constructions (battleships or aircraft carriers) until after their new big locks are ready. They were in construction before the war, but OTL were not finished until the end of the 20's.
On the plus side, it will gives them the time to review their building policy and integrate the war lessons.
So, in theory, they could have some proto-Richelieu's by the mid to late 20's. (By proto-Richelieu, I mean 2 15' quad, 27kt, with a similar level of protection. The displacement will probably be around 40,000 tonnes). Those battleships can give them back the superiority over the Italians in the Med, and the Dutch in the North Sea.
Last edited:
Captain Oblivious
Banned
Opportunistic move. That's really the point I wanted to make.
OTL Bearn was certainly flawed, but it used one of these Normandie hulls instead of scrapping it.
I suggest to build the Bearn as per OTL, with all the flaws. Then consider that a "first try", use that as a training carrier (hello, HMS Argus) and then build two more Bearns with the flaws corrected as much as possible - within the limits of the Normandie hulls, of course.
I know hindsight is always 20/20. Bearn was flawed and much maligned, for all the reasons above. Including by the 1939 French Navy.
But I've red very respectable people comparing it to HMS Argus stellar service in WWII. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Argus_(I49)
28 kt for carriers stemmed (AFAIK, and lame pun fully assumed
) from WWII experience. Before WWII things might be different.IJA, RN, and USN all converted huge battlecruisers hulls into many carriers (from memory - HMS Glorious, Courageous, USS Lexington, Saratoga, Akagi / Kaga)
Bearn followed the same ideas, but ony one was done. When there were four more Normandie hulls. Why not building 1 or 2 more ?
Last edited:
Saddly, using the other Normandie hulls will cost more, not less. OTL, the Béarn was chosen because she was the least advanced hull. The other will need more work.Opportunistic move. That's really the point I wanted to make.
OTL Bearn was certainly flawed, but it used one of these Normandie hulls instead of scrapping it.
I suggest to build the Bearn as per OTL, with all the flaws. Then consider that a "first try", use that as a training carrier (hello, HMS Argus) and then build two more Bearns with the flaws corrected as much as possible - within the limits of the Normandie hulls, of course.
I know hindsight is always 20/20. Bearn was flawed and much maligned, for all the reasons above. Including by the 1939 French Navy.
But I've red very respectable people comparing it to HMS Argus stellar service in WWII. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Argus_(I49)
28 kt for carriers stemmed (AFAIK, and lame pun fully assumed
IJA, RN, and USN all converted huge battlecruisers hulls into many carriers (from memory - HMS Glorious, Courageous, USS Lexington, Saratoga, Akagi / Kaga)
Bearn followed the same ideas, but ony one was done. When there were four more Normandie hulls. Why not building 1 or 2 more ?
So using Béarn as a training/prototype carrier is a good move in the early 20's.
Then, in the 30's, you use the return of experience from Béarn (and whatever the RN and the USN gives you) to build 2 or 3 new carriers.
It was 18-deg in Nelson, as were the later iterations of G3.
There were concerns over the depth of the belt on the Nelsons, to the degree that an additional 'lower armour belt' was proposed for them in the 30s. It was never fitted.
Yes, I'd agree, they were selected for good reasons.
As has been mentioned up thread, wartime experience showed that ships rarely fired more than 45-deg off the beam (if that), so the midships turret didn't loose them much.
Pursuing a retiring enemy (i.e a stern chase) wasn't ever very safe or practical, and on a 31-knot ship, no-one would be chasing you for very long.
Besides, declining action wasn't really in the RN's playbook.
No problem - I learned something new too.
Meanwhile, the debate about anti-ship missiles continues ... will they be 16" or 18" ... or something else?
Alphabet Soup 3 – ‘I’ for Incomparable
Alphabet Soup 3 – ‘I’ for Incomparable
In the spring of 1920, the ‘I-series’ were a breakout into a totally new design, developed in conjunction with the ‘M-series’ battleships.
I-3 had three triple turrets mounted forward (with A & B superfiring and Q abaft the bridge), with all the machinery aft, in an effort to reduce the length of the heaviest portions of deck and belt armour. Unlike pre-war designs, where machinery had often been better protected than the armament, the new ships would require the heaviest armour over the guns to ensure that no shell could ever reach the magazines, as was believed to have happen to HMS Queen Mary at Stavanger. However, designers were also aware that these new ships would be expected to fight at longer ranges, where shells would genuinely be plunging, and so relatively heavy deck protection was needed in addition to a thicker belt.
For I-3, the ship's size was increased to fit in new machinery, and at 925' x 108', with 180,000shp, she would be capable of 32½ knots and armed with nine 18" Mk.2 guns. The armour belt was internally mounted and sloped at 25 degrees, making the 12" of armour as effective as 15" would be in an ‘Admiral’ type design. Decks were 7" thick over magazines (with 4-5” elsewhere), with weight being saved by sloping the sides of the deck down to meet the top of the belt. Main armament was better protected than ever, as turrets had 8” roofs and secondary guns were mounted in twin turrets rather than semi-open shields.
The innovative, weight-saving design meant that the ship would displace only 52,000 tons, despite the increases in size and speed.
Questions still remained, and the I-series were intended as a way of trialling new ideas, and so there were a series of variants over the next few months.
I-4 looked at increasing the number of guns, which was perhaps more important for a battlecruiser than their individual hitting power. She would mount twelve 16" Mk.2 guns in three quadruple turrets. Speed and armour were the same, but length rose to 935' and normal displacement to 53,500 tons.
The existence of the ‘I-2’ design was not officially acknowledged for many years.
Six 20" 42-calibre guns would have been mounted in twin turrets, and would have totally outmatched any other ship, anywhere, while the ship’s own armour would provide protection against the 18” Mk.1 gun at all practical ranges above 15,000 yards. Displacement would be 54,500 tons and speed 32 knots.
However, the immense blast effects of the 18” Mk.1 gun were now well known, and with manufacturing technology nearing its limits, it was debatable whether a 20” gun would be much more effective than the proposed 18” 45-calibre weapon. Even so, several months later the firm of Armstrong’s, the only one with a factory capable of making 20" guns, were told to keep quiet when they suggested that they could also build a 21" gun, if it was required.
If I-2 ever came to light, it would raise the ante with every other power, with far greater certainty than Furious had done. In a world of 15” and 16” ships, a 20” battlecruiser would reset the naval race in the same way that Dreadnought had done a generation earlier.
Unlike in 1905, the government were keen to avoid provoking an outright building race, while cooler heads at the Admiralty pointed out that the Navy needed more than just a few super-ships such as Furious or I-2; it needed powerful but realistic vessels that could support the battle-line and be built in numbers.
I-3 was perhaps more attractive than others in the series, but the biggest problem with any of the designs was their size; they would not fit in any existing Admiralty dock, and so in addition to being immensely costly ships, they would require expensive new docks.
In the spring of 1920, the ‘I-series’ were a breakout into a totally new design, developed in conjunction with the ‘M-series’ battleships.
I-3 had three triple turrets mounted forward (with A & B superfiring and Q abaft the bridge), with all the machinery aft, in an effort to reduce the length of the heaviest portions of deck and belt armour. Unlike pre-war designs, where machinery had often been better protected than the armament, the new ships would require the heaviest armour over the guns to ensure that no shell could ever reach the magazines, as was believed to have happen to HMS Queen Mary at Stavanger. However, designers were also aware that these new ships would be expected to fight at longer ranges, where shells would genuinely be plunging, and so relatively heavy deck protection was needed in addition to a thicker belt.
For I-3, the ship's size was increased to fit in new machinery, and at 925' x 108', with 180,000shp, she would be capable of 32½ knots and armed with nine 18" Mk.2 guns. The armour belt was internally mounted and sloped at 25 degrees, making the 12" of armour as effective as 15" would be in an ‘Admiral’ type design. Decks were 7" thick over magazines (with 4-5” elsewhere), with weight being saved by sloping the sides of the deck down to meet the top of the belt. Main armament was better protected than ever, as turrets had 8” roofs and secondary guns were mounted in twin turrets rather than semi-open shields.
The innovative, weight-saving design meant that the ship would displace only 52,000 tons, despite the increases in size and speed.
Questions still remained, and the I-series were intended as a way of trialling new ideas, and so there were a series of variants over the next few months.
I-4 looked at increasing the number of guns, which was perhaps more important for a battlecruiser than their individual hitting power. She would mount twelve 16" Mk.2 guns in three quadruple turrets. Speed and armour were the same, but length rose to 935' and normal displacement to 53,500 tons.
The existence of the ‘I-2’ design was not officially acknowledged for many years.
Six 20" 42-calibre guns would have been mounted in twin turrets, and would have totally outmatched any other ship, anywhere, while the ship’s own armour would provide protection against the 18” Mk.1 gun at all practical ranges above 15,000 yards. Displacement would be 54,500 tons and speed 32 knots.
However, the immense blast effects of the 18” Mk.1 gun were now well known, and with manufacturing technology nearing its limits, it was debatable whether a 20” gun would be much more effective than the proposed 18” 45-calibre weapon. Even so, several months later the firm of Armstrong’s, the only one with a factory capable of making 20" guns, were told to keep quiet when they suggested that they could also build a 21" gun, if it was required.
If I-2 ever came to light, it would raise the ante with every other power, with far greater certainty than Furious had done. In a world of 15” and 16” ships, a 20” battlecruiser would reset the naval race in the same way that Dreadnought had done a generation earlier.
Unlike in 1905, the government were keen to avoid provoking an outright building race, while cooler heads at the Admiralty pointed out that the Navy needed more than just a few super-ships such as Furious or I-2; it needed powerful but realistic vessels that could support the battle-line and be built in numbers.
I-3 was perhaps more attractive than others in the series, but the biggest problem with any of the designs was their size; they would not fit in any existing Admiralty dock, and so in addition to being immensely costly ships, they would require expensive new docks.
They thought they could get 6x 20", armour against 18* AND 32kt? All on 55,000 tons? OK, that's a seriously big ship, but still...
I'm slightly worried to think what the Japanese are planning. At this rate, we could be talking about 30kt super-Yamatos - in 1925...
I'd take that with a pinch of salt if the ships were never built. Battleship architecture all the way back to the 1870s is littered with gun mounts that had impressive fire arcs on paper and 1/2 to 2/3 of that in practice when the blast effects we taken into consideration.Spartan-G257 said:
So I noticed something last night, but that was last night and I was to tired to theorise on it.
But all of the 25° belts had deck armour that wasn't flat.
The 18° of the G3 and Nelson (and I presume the N3) all had flat decks...
I think that may have been the reason for the change especially once you consider diving shells at greater ranges...
That and british industry may not have been able to put angles any better than that?
Anyway pictures showing what I meant.
And yes I realise the pictures have a whole boatload of extra information, I'm not sorry about the pun 😁, regarding the weight of everything.
But all of the 25° belts had deck armour that wasn't flat.
The 18° of the G3 and Nelson (and I presume the N3) all had flat decks...
I think that may have been the reason for the change especially once you consider diving shells at greater ranges...
That and british industry may not have been able to put angles any better than that?
Anyway pictures showing what I meant.
G3 final
M3
G3 pre final
M3
G3 pre final
And yes I realise the pictures have a whole boatload of extra information, I'm not sorry about the pun 😁, regarding the weight of everything.
Last edited:
Welp it looks like not expanding the drydocks while the war was on and thus far more funding was available is going to be serious problem in terms of ye old budget. Of course given how long it takes to build a ship the expansions to the docks should be just about done when the ships need them.
If Japan tried to build those, they would go bankrupt. IOTL they were spending 1/3 of their national budget on the navy by 1921.
With the war ending a year earlier than OTL we might see some of the Hulls less developed - although the first 4 were all launched from what I can understand more to 'clear the slips' than any actual intention of finishing them
Work on Turrets was halted only work on the guns was continued as these might possibly be useful to the army!
So they might be less advanced ITTL and the French more susceptible to the idea of converting them to carriers
Especially with the British having raised the game somewhat over OTL
None of the 4 hulls were scrapped before 1923 with Languedoc not being scrapped till 1929 - so plenty of time for a different decision to have been made!
This. is. battleship. porn.
You say that almost as if it is a bad thing - I must be mistaken!
Excellent stuff, but IIRC the problem with sloped internal belts was that they were a pain to fix if they'd have been damaged and because they were also integral once made, you'd not ever be able to adjust it.
Also re the Lyon/Normandie type ships. If you could complete a Normandie with 15-inch guns, but 3 per turret would give you a 12 gun broadside.
Also re the Lyon/Normandie type ships. If you could complete a Normandie with 15-inch guns, but 3 per turret would give you a 12 gun broadside.
Last edited:
It's possible, but the wiki page also state : "In July 1915 work on the ships' armament was suspended, save the guns themselves, which could be converted for use by the Army. "
So I'm not sure, the ships are more or less advanced than OTL
Interesting question, how much of the machinery and equipment could be salvaged for installation in a new hull designed to produce 25-28 knots? They might be able to finish Bearn as a carrier and use the engines and boilers for the other four to produce two better carriers later on, after they have had a few years to learn from Bearn.
Captain Oblivious
Banned
I a little disturbed by this fixation on 25 kt+ carriers. Is that really mandatory, BEFORE WWII ? I come to understand carriers had to follow battleships and cruisers only when they become capital ships, that is, after 1942.
Was 30 kt "follow the battleships / cruisers pace" mandatory before WWII and before carriers become capital ships ?
(Ah, I see where was my reasoning flawed. The RN / USN / IJA converted hulls were battlecruisers - 30 kt - when the Normandies were much slower battleships at 21 kt).
Was 30 kt "follow the battleships / cruisers pace" mandatory before WWII and before carriers become capital ships ?
(Ah, I see where was my reasoning flawed. The RN / USN / IJA converted hulls were battlecruisers - 30 kt - when the Normandies were much slower battleships at 21 kt).
Last edited: