21 Knot BB Alternative to Admirals

In 1916 when asked for his opinion on future construction Admiral John Jellicoe in command of the Grand Fleet commented that in light of his experience a new capital ship design should be a 21 knot battleship or a 30 knot battlecruiser preferably the latter.

In OTL with excessive rumors about the 3 Mackensens building and the general lead in British Battleships it was decided that new battlecruisers were needed, which led to the Admiral class and HMS Hood

Lets posit an ATL scenario where the situation is reversed and the RN is more worried about German battleships than battlecruisers at the time. Say some combination of the following, Chile ordered their battleships too late, the Ottoman BB were delivered not seized, Malaya paid for a sister to Tiger instead of a QE, Canada bought a fleet unit at the same time as Australia, Salamis was ordered with German or Austrian Guns, Britain lost an extra modern BB or 3 to mines/U-boats, Germany lost 2-3BC herself etc. whatever floats your boat

The question is this, what does such a 21 knot BB in 1916 end up looking like?
 
The early 1916 designs were somewhat disappointing in terms of evolution, they were in many ways similar to the R class
c2.png

The main thing Jellicoe was going for was better underwater torpedo protection, which shows through in Hood. The armour is on the thin side, though inclined.
 
I went a bit wild here...


Option 1: Repeats or slight alterations
  • 1A: Just build another 5 Revenges. Not sexy by any means, but they're cheap and easy to produce, at least as much as a battleship can be.
  • 1B: Build 5 of the above design

Option 2: More guns in twin turrets, more armour
  • 2A: Build 4 enlarged Revenges with five instead of four twin 15" Mk. I turrets (AB-Q-XY). Proven turret design, more bang, still a shorter hull than a battlecruiser.
  • 2B: Build 4 enlarged Revenges with six instead of four twin 15" Mk. I turrets, in the manner of the Imperial Japanese Navy Fuso and Ise classes (AB-PQ-XY), although larger.

Option 3: Enlarged ships with triple 15" turrets, either straight triples or twins as well. More armour,

  • 3A: Three triples (AB-X). 9 guns.
  • 3B: Four triples (AB-XY) 12 guns.
  • 3C: Two twins superfiring two triples (keeps the larger barbette shorter for less topweight) 10 guns.
  • 3D: Two triples superfiring two twins (leaves more space abreast magazine where hull narrows, leaving more space for protection). 10 guns.

Option 4: Enlarged ships with more armour and 16"/L39 or 16"/L42-45 guns, with the latter requiring new gun pits.

  • 4A: Four twin turrets (AB-XY).
  • 4B: Five twin turrets (AB-Q-XY)
  • 4C-F: The above arrangements with 16" rather than 15" guns. The least likely.
 
Option 2: More guns in twin turrets, more armour
  • 2A: Build 4 enlarged Revenges with five instead of four twin 15" Mk. I turrets (AB-Q-XY). Proven turret design, more bang, still a shorter hull than a battlecruiser.
The late, great CanisD's Queen Victoria class

Queen_Victoria.gif


AH is here:

http://www.wolfsshipyard.com/Misc/WolfsDen/MISC/Queen_Victoria/queen.htm

Option 3: Enlarged ships with triple 15" turrets, either straight triples or twins as well. More armour,
  • 3B: Four triples (AB-XY) 12 guns.[/QUOTE]
CanisD's Improved Queen Elizabeth with 12 x 15in in four triples

QE_Triple.gif


The Queen Elizabeth with triple 15" turrets. Using Springsharp it comes out at just over 34,000 tons, about 7000 tons heavier than the real QE. She's about 20 feet longer and about 10 feet wider and a little deeper draft. Same speed, armor, etc... OD

The OD is for "Own Design"

Regards,
 
For shits and giggles I did a quick Springsharp look at something with 8 18" guns. That came out to about 40,000 tons, repeating the R-class armor scheme as much as possible.

Or, to put another way, about the same size as Hood. Speed is expensive, yo.
 
Last edited:
Top