Were there no 2nd LNT could the UK pursue 18" armaments or was there just an inherent trend towards 16"?
16 is what they've got and know, since they don't know the Japanese are already going to 18 they feel they can't because it will start another arms race.Were there no 2nd LNT could the UK pursue 18" armaments or was there just an inherent trend towards 16"?
You can go to 18 inch although that implies quite a compromise on 45000 ton.Were there no 2nd LNT could the UK pursue 18" armaments or was there just an inherent trend towards 16"?
Here's a quick RN battleship design using the BL 18-inch Mark II guns designed in 1920 in 2 x 3-gun turrets. It's 800 x 106 ft at 45,000 tons standard. Armor and bunkerage are heavier than the KGV standard, and speed is increased to 29 kts at 150,000 shp.You can go to 18 inch although that implies quite a compromise on 45000 ton.
There are quite a few simple improvements over OTL designs, which is nice in the way they would require less of a POD, but not as nice for the purpose of pushing the technology.
Let’s assume the troll Germany designs is an uparmored, 3x2 16 inch, 31-32 knots scharnhorst class with mixed diesel/steam propulsion. For starters, lets assumed it is lavish equipped with effective AA guns, and maybe followed by a few Spahkreuzer’s.
A pair of these could engage an R class with reasonable chance of not receiving critical damage.
How are the 29-30 knots British ships going to catch these. They can’t guard all the convoys themselves.
I’d say the 6 guns is a serious compronise.Here's a quick RN battleship design using the BL 18-inch Mark II guns designed in 1920 in 2 x 3-gun turrets. It's 800 x 106 ft at 45,000 tons standard. Armor and bunkerage are heavier than the KGV standard, and speed is increased to 29 kts at 150,000 shp.
Displacement:
43,019 t light; 45,539 t standard; 49,290 t normal; 52,291 t full load
Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(797.05 ft / 775.00 ft) x 106.00 ft x (35.00 / 36.75 ft)
(242.94 m / 236.22 m) x 32.31 m x (10.67 / 11.20 m)
Armament:
6 - 18.00" / 457 mm 45.0 cal guns - 3,320.01lbs / 1,505.93kg shells, 100 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1920 Model
2 x 3-gun mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
16 - 5.25" / 133 mm 50.0 cal guns - 80.01lbs / 36.29kg shells, 400 per gun
Quick firing guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1935 Model
8 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
4 raised mounts
64 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm 40.0 cal guns - 2.01lbs / 0.91kg shells, 2,000 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1923 Model
8 x 2 row octuple mounts on sides, evenly spread
4 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 21,329 lbs / 9,674 kg
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 16.0" / 406 mm 503.75 ft / 153.54 m 12.35 ft / 3.76 m
Ends: 3.00" / 76 mm 271.23 ft / 82.67 m 12.35 ft / 3.76 m
Upper: 3.00" / 76 mm 503.75 ft / 153.54 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length
- Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
2.00" / 51 mm 503.75 ft / 153.54 m 33.00 ft / 10.06 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 75.00 ft / 22.86 m
- Hull void:
1.50" / 38 mm 503.75 ft / 153.54 m 33.00 ft / 10.06 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 18.0" / 457 mm 8.00" / 203 mm 18.0" / 457 mm
2nd: 2.50" / 64 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 2.50" / 64 mm
3rd: 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm -
- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 8.00" / 203 mm
Forecastle: 2.00" / 51 mm Quarter deck: 4.00" / 102 mm
- Conning towers: Forward 4.00" / 102 mm, Aft 4.00" / 102 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 150,000 shp / 111,900 Kw = 29.05 kts
Range 12,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 6,752 tons
Complement:
1,653 - 2,150
Cost:
£21.761 million / $87.042 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 3,633 tons, 7.4 %
- Guns: 3,633 tons, 7.4 %
Armour: 18,410 tons, 37.4 %
- Belts: 5,158 tons, 10.5 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,230 tons, 2.5 %
- Void: 923 tons, 1.9 %
- Armament: 2,938 tons, 6.0 %
- Armour Deck: 7,930 tons, 16.1 %
- Conning Towers: 232 tons, 0.5 %
Machinery: 4,107 tons, 8.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 16,119 tons, 32.7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 6,271 tons, 12.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 750 tons, 1.5 %
- On freeboard deck: 750 tons
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
77,657 lbs / 35,225 Kg = 26.6 x 18.0 " / 457 mm shells or 12.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.21
Metacentric height 7.8 ft / 2.4 m
Roll period: 16.0 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 56 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.58
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.12
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.600 / 0.606
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.31 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 27.84 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 52 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 25.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 30.12 ft / 9.18 m, 26.00 ft / 7.92 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 26.00 ft / 7.92 m, 26.00 ft / 7.92 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 18.00 ft / 5.49 m, 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 18.00 ft / 5.49 m, 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
- Average freeboard: 22.33 ft / 6.81 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 86.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 150.2 %
Waterplane Area: 60,083 Square feet or 5,582 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 111 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 208 lbs/sq ft or 1,014 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.97
- Longitudinal: 1.38
- Overall: 1.00
Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
I would not disagree that the Lion would be better of one-on-one than the “super scharnhorst” but it is a serious disadvantage not to keep pace. The super scharnhorst Can disengage against a lion, because there are other convoys.The AA guns is hindsight speaking, and speaking in tongues... if the threat from aircraft is regarded as that high, then it is also known that it's extremely risky to operate without your own fighter cover. That understanding wasn't present in 1936, and wasn't actually justified on the technology of the day either. For Germany, a close-range encounter with destroyers or cruisers at night or in bad weather was the greater threat.
31-32 kts gives little advantage over a 29 kt opponent; it's not enough to reliably be able to run away, given engine conditions, damage and weather, as North Cape showed. So the historical speed of the KGVs would be deemed enough.
The super Scharnhorst is an interesting idea, but one-on-one it's outmatched by a Lion, and would probably have to retreat from a Nelson. More broadly, the answer to your question depends entirely on the British naval response to no LNT2 and German construction of super-battlecruisers, and the political consequences, which may or may not lead to a war at all. The basic outline of the naval response is a KGV class with 16" guns - essentially a Lion, potentially with Vanguards also depending on subsequent German construction, and additional scouting forces if it becomes clear that Germany is building a raiding fleet.
I have been fascinated by battleship designs since joining this forum, and it is an interesting “technology” as it basically stopped during WW2.
The challenge is to make the best possible 45000 ton ship in 1940 using methods and technologies from either country. Developed or not iotl, but at least within reach with a 1930’ish pod.