The Nelson class (or NelRod's for simplicity sake) were regarded as being fairly solid designs once the problems w/ the 16 inch guns were ironed out. They were the "red headed" child of the RN born out of the G3 design and the WNT. With that said the one major downside to the class were their rather lack of speed, topping out at 23 Knots on a good day . Although this was by no means slow (the R class takes the cake, pie and dinner table with that one) this limited their effectiveness at chasing down the fast German raiders or capital ships like Bismarck or the Twins. Now your challenge is to give a way for the NelRod's to reach a top speed of 28 knots, the same as the KGV's. This can be achieved by your discretion, rather it be proposed refits, or having the ships designed from the get-go to have a greater speed. Imaginary bonus points will be awarded for reaching 30 knots.
AHC/WI: Faster Nelson class?
- Thread starter USS_Ward
- Start date
Refits will never work.....2 G3s would be the easy way.... with WNT allowing completion of 2 they could be cut down significantly due to only facing 16" shells threats and speed could be cut for 28Kn after all they are but a few yards of steel on the slip at this point so can become anything RN wants....?
35,000+3000+3000 tons (really Lex and Sara are legal are they not.....?)
9x (3x3) 16" guns
10x twin x 4.7" DP
28Kn
Given the NelRods came out 1500 tons under the treaty limit, there’s scope to add more horsepower. The Brits got 80,000 shp out of eight boilers in the contemporary County-class, and that would probably be the limit without adding more boilers. However, this would only get you to 26 knots or so.
To reach 28 knots without serious legal shenanigans like jsb proposed you’ll need to dramatically adjust the design.
To reach 28 knots without serious legal shenanigans like jsb proposed you’ll need to dramatically adjust the design.
The British did actually sketch out plans for treaty compliant Battlecruisers notably the F2 and F3 before the construction of the NelRods. Traded off some firepower (from 3x16in doing 23 knots down to either F3s with 9x15in/50 doing 29 knots or F2s with 6x15in/50 doing 30 knots), but still had respectable armour for the time.
Its actually well attested that at several points the ships made speed significantly higher than their rated speed. In the range of 25 knots. Though this was done only in an emergency (gotta sink the Bismarck) and likely resulted in serious wear to the ships machinery. So technically they were faster than their rated speed.
But more realistically I think you would need the RN to manage to get more than two ships, say the RN demands a third 16in ship to get parity with the USN in that category. The basic logic why the RN built the NELRODS as they did was because they had just two ships and it was very much a matter of all your eggs in one basket. The ships would be the biggest and baddest ships the RN had around, and only one was likely to be in service at a time. So you wanted the most powerful ships individually as you could get.
Now if the RN gets the ability to build three of the ships the math changes a bit as the vessels are now able to be deployed in some numbers and you are less fussed about losing one of them as you will still have two. Thus you could probably see the RN boost the ships speed by making use of the 1500 (?) ton surplus in the original design, some rearrangement of the hull form and thinner armor. You could get up to 28 knots fairly easy.
What it requires is a different mindset for the RN/UK, one that is willing to bend and creatively reinterpret the Washington Treaty rules. Maybe finding out that the USN had applied the 3000 refit allowance to the Lexington and Saratoga early on in the design process.
Once you've made that mental leap, then getting around the limitations is much easier. For example, having the 'Official' peacetime 'Standard Displacement' being supplemented by a 'War Emergency Overload' that is the real 'Second Day of War' displacement.
I suspect that a G3 designed with a top speed of 28 knots would probably be doable on around 42 thousand tons, which is about how big the German and Italian Fast Battleships turned out in OTL.
Once you've made that mental leap, then getting around the limitations is much easier. For example, having the 'Official' peacetime 'Standard Displacement' being supplemented by a 'War Emergency Overload' that is the real 'Second Day of War' displacement.
I suspect that a G3 designed with a top speed of 28 knots would probably be doable on around 42 thousand tons, which is about how big the German and Italian Fast Battleships turned out in OTL.
Given the Nelsons were 1500 tons under the treaty limits as built, I think there's some scope to increase horsepower while keeping the gun and armor characteristics and without undue structural modification to the design. Something like an 80,000 shp plant is probably doable; anything more, though, requires more shafts and a corresponding deep redesign.
Sadly, this only gets us to about 26 knots or so. So this really does need either legal shenanigans or a major redesign and reduction of either guns or armor.
Sadly, this only gets us to about 26 knots or so. So this really does need either legal shenanigans or a major redesign and reduction of either guns or armor.
The problems with the guns were never iron out, they were always unreliable. In the battle with the Bismarck when they fired the 16" guns the urinals broke off the bulkheads, and structural damage was sustained. When the RN was planning the Lion's, they designed all new 16" guns & turrets. The RN was never pleased with the Rodno & Nelso.
Iirc that was due to the structural limitations and designs on the ships themselves then the actual gun turrets. If a full blown un-naval treaty restricted G3 battlecruiser had been built the guns would not have been blowing urinals off the bulkheads and other superficial damage; since now the ship structure and design was not compromised for treaty restrictions. At least that what I’ve read around on the internet .
How much armor can we shave off before entering glass cannon territory? Also what refit can be done to the power plant and propulsion system to squeeze as much juice outta them?
I think that the addition of HP is less important than the actual Hull design. The Hull is optimised for the planned performance and also to maximise the armour protection. The Nelrods really are wonderfully armoured and show just how awesome the G3/N3 classes would have been. Mind you the design was certainly not visually apealing.
If for example the Admiral Class had been scrapped in the wake of Jutland and instead the G3 class begun then the Nelrods would not exist. Instead the RN would have a pair of fast Battleships that would strike fear into everyone.
On a different and more on topic note it would be interesting to see just how small the machinery spaces and boilers take up. The stern of the Nelrods is very small and the funnel is just about above the propellors.
If for example the Admiral Class had been scrapped in the wake of Jutland and instead the G3 class begun then the Nelrods would not exist. Instead the RN would have a pair of fast Battleships that would strike fear into everyone.
On a different and more on topic note it would be interesting to see just how small the machinery spaces and boilers take up. The stern of the Nelrods is very small and the funnel is just about above the propellors.
marathag
Banned
No, but with the US and Japan having 16", the RN could not be seen as staying behind with 'old' guns
Build F2 or F3
www.tapatalk.com
and have a homogenous 15in battleline, or make the design a 6 x 16in 'fully armored' battlecruiser. (super Renown)
Our JohnFrench on the BC board mentioned in an offline conversation that F3 was the ship the RN really wanted once the 35,000 ton limit came about, but once the treaty was signed, they felt obliged to build a 16in gunned ship.
As it was, they did build two of the fastest battleships in the world at the time, and they made an excellent compliment to the QE class. But more speed certainly would have been useful by the time they found themselves at war.
My thoughts,
All the World's Battlecruisers-F2 and F3 Battlecruisers
I just stumbled across an image from the 3.0 version of Warship Projects. Red Admiral created the image, and I've enlarged it a bit. The image i
www.tapatalk.com
and have a homogenous 15in battleline, or make the design a 6 x 16in 'fully armored' battlecruiser. (super Renown)
Our JohnFrench on the BC board mentioned in an offline conversation that F3 was the ship the RN really wanted once the 35,000 ton limit came about, but once the treaty was signed, they felt obliged to build a 16in gunned ship.
As it was, they did build two of the fastest battleships in the world at the time, and they made an excellent compliment to the QE class. But more speed certainly would have been useful by the time they found themselves at war.
My thoughts,
I wonder what a pair of F3s would have done to other countries interwar planning.
I don't think Japan would have been willing to make the 4th Kongo their training ship in the London Naval treaty. I suspect that they would instead have demilitarised a Fuso.
I wonder about the Italian modernisations. The idea that they could modernise ships and be able to either out run or outfight any British ships (an idea which was questionable when it came to Renown and Repulse but especially when it came to Hood) was appealing to the Italians. I believe that they discounted Hood as there was a lack of Dry Docks (other than AFD8 at Malta and two dry docks at Gibraltar extended in 1937) in the Mediterranean which could handle her.
If the Royal Navy fast squadron was 5 capital as fast or faster than the modernisations may not be considered a viable investment.
I don't think Japan would have been willing to make the 4th Kongo their training ship in the London Naval treaty. I suspect that they would instead have demilitarised a Fuso.
I wonder about the Italian modernisations. The idea that they could modernise ships and be able to either out run or outfight any British ships (an idea which was questionable when it came to Renown and Repulse but especially when it came to Hood) was appealing to the Italians. I believe that they discounted Hood as there was a lack of Dry Docks (other than AFD8 at Malta and two dry docks at Gibraltar extended in 1937) in the Mediterranean which could handle her.
If the Royal Navy fast squadron was 5 capital as fast or faster than the modernisations may not be considered a viable investment.
It could be doable without too much problem, just gaming the system and make the ships "treaty compliant" when launched but designed for later "easy refit".
1) goes for the absolute max displacement legal under the treaties : 35000t with NO AA guns, but all the space available to install AA guns later (go for DP guns like the 4.5" or the 5.25") , and then refit with 3000t of DP secondaries, other AA and some "additionnal" deck armor( that somewhat was "omitted" from the "initial" design)
2) use a slightly better hull form (some of the design choices of the Nelson were quite conservative)
3) be bold with the engine plant and use high pressure boilers instead of "standard" pressure ones.
As a result, they might be able have an almost twice as big engineering space and with higher pressure boilers, so could have a lot more power than the original 45000hp of the OTL Nelson-class.
That way, the Brits might be able to make a 38000t (standard) "after refit" battleship with something like 120000hp, and so be close to what USS North Carolina was supposed to be (about 37000t standard, 120000hp, 28kts)
1) goes for the absolute max displacement legal under the treaties : 35000t with NO AA guns, but all the space available to install AA guns later (go for DP guns like the 4.5" or the 5.25") , and then refit with 3000t of DP secondaries, other AA and some "additionnal" deck armor( that somewhat was "omitted" from the "initial" design)
2) use a slightly better hull form (some of the design choices of the Nelson were quite conservative)
3) be bold with the engine plant and use high pressure boilers instead of "standard" pressure ones.
As a result, they might be able have an almost twice as big engineering space and with higher pressure boilers, so could have a lot more power than the original 45000hp of the OTL Nelson-class.
That way, the Brits might be able to make a 38000t (standard) "after refit" battleship with something like 120000hp, and so be close to what USS North Carolina was supposed to be (about 37000t standard, 120000hp, 28kts)
Just a thought. How does having a pair of f3 28 knot battleships effect Royal Navy planning going forward.
I wonder if having an extra pair of fast capital ships makes Tiger more or less attractive to keep at London Naval Treaty.
I see both arguments. There's less need for an extra fast capital ship to run down cruisers and raiders versus a full third of the Royal Navy capitalships are fast so we should keep ships that fit the fleet speed of the future.
I wonder if having an extra pair of fast capital ships makes Tiger more or less attractive to keep at London Naval Treaty.
I see both arguments. There's less need for an extra fast capital ship to run down cruisers and raiders versus a full third of the Royal Navy capitalships are fast so we should keep ships that fit the fleet speed of the future.
Tiger would be even more likely to get the chop if the Nelrods were 28knot ships. On the other hand it would be much easier to spare Hood and Repulse for proper rebuilds.
The British did not factor into Italian thinking on the battleship rebuilds. Their opponent in mind was France, in particular the Dunkerques, the goal being to get ships that could at least somewhat stand up to them in a fight and have enough speed to be useful counters.
Remember that this is the early 1920s and true high-pressure steam plants were not first used until the mid-1930s. The Admiralty Three-Drum boilers on the NelRods were state of the art at the time, and a major step up from Hood’s power plant.
I think it less effects Tiger and more Renown, Repulse and Hood. The three BCs HAVE to be kept in service through the endless crisis of the 30s as they are the only fast capital ships. Two more fast ships will allow less wear and tear and maybe allow and extra rebuild or two. That said, OTL Hood, Nelson and Rodney were all a mess by 1939 and as the youngest ships are going to be worked hard anyway.