Best British battlefleet for ww1

AUTiger, UK Large armored cruise3r laid down 1912
Displacement:
29,001 t light; 30,397 t standard; 31,465 t normal; 32,320 t full load
Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(697.77 ft / 688.98 ft) x 98.43 ft x (29.53 / 30.16 ft)
(212.68 m / 210.00 m) x 30.00 m x (9.00 / 9.19 m)

Armament:
9 - 13.50" / 343 mm 45.0 cal guns - 1,241.76lbs / 563.25kg shells, 100 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1912 Model
2 x Triple mounts on centreline, forward deck forward
1 raised mount - superfiring
1 x Triple mount on centreline, aft deck centre
16 - 6.10" / 155 mm 45.0 cal guns - 114.59lbs / 51.98kg shells, 100 per gun
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts, 1912 Model
16 x Single mounts on side ends, evenly spread
16 raised mounts
6 - 4.72" / 120 mm 45.0 cal guns - 53.17lbs / 24.12kg shells, 250 per gun
Quick firing guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1912 Model
6 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
6 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 13,328 lbs / 6,046 kg
Main Torpedoes
8 - 21.0" / 533 mm, 13.12 ft / 4.00 m torpedoes - 0.863 t each, 6.904 t total
In 2 sets of deck mounted side rotating tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 9.84" / 250 mm 328.90 ft / 100.25 m 11.91 ft / 3.63 m
Ends: 2.95" / 75 mm 378.90 ft / 115.49 m 11.91 ft / 3.63 m
Upper: 3.94" / 100 mm 310.04 ft / 94.50 m 8.01 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 73 % of normal length
Main Belt inclined 155.00 degrees (positive = in)
- Torpedo Bulkhead - Strengthened structural bulkheads:
2.95" / 75 mm 310.04 ft / 94.50 m 27.10 ft / 8.26 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 98.43 ft / 30.00 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 6.10" / 155 mm 8.86" / 225 mm
2nd: 6.10" / 155 mm 0.00" / 0 mm 3.94" / 100 mm
3rd: 3.94" / 100 mm - 3.94" / 100 mm
- Box over machinery:
2.95" / 75 mm
Forecastle: 2.95" / 75 mm Quarter deck: 2.95" / 75 mm
- Conning towers: Forward 9.84" / 250 mm, Aft 4.92" / 125 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 87,913 shp / 65,583 Kw = 27.00 kts
Range 6,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,923 tons
Complement:
1,180 - 1,535
Cost:
£2.665 million / $10.661 million

Ersatz-Tiger-2.png


Design and picture by the amazing McPherson with minimal input from me :). The obvious change is to triple mounts as well as oil fired (there was discussion of making the Tiger Oil fired but they went with coal) One change that whilst visually is ugly is the retention of Q turret and the deletion of Y. This shortens the armour citadel and allowing for thicker protection over her vitals including a near 10-inch belt vs the 9-inch belt of the OTL design. THis large flat quarterdeck could come in handy when Sea planes get introduced.
 
So why no outcry when the Queen Elizabeth class was launched? Better media campaign to emphasise their relative power?
By the time the QE's came along the RN had been building ships with bigger guns than the Germans for a number of years so Joe Public was assured that RN Dreadnoughts, or in this case Super-Dreadnoughts were superior to the German ships. Given that the We Want Eight and We Won't Wait campaign included the first 13.5" armed ships dropping to 8 guns for the Orions may not be acceptable. The Badens will trigger another increase in size.
 

Deleted member 94680

I think, if battlecruisers had to be built (and I’m not convinced they did), then less turrets (ie no wings or even something like one rear centreline for two forward) and all-or-nothing armour was the best way to go. Make them lighter, therefore faster and the AoN armour gives them a good chance of surviving against BBs if they meet them.

Doctrine should mean they never face BBs mind, but you can’t doctrine away a Beatty.
 
Ersatz-Tiger-2.png


Design and picture by the amazing McPherson with minimal input from me :). The obvious change is to triple mounts as well as oil fired (there was discussion of making the Tiger Oil fired but they went with coal) One change that whilst visually is ugly is the retention of Q turret and the deletion of Y. This shortens the armour citadel and allowing for thicker protection over her vitals including a near 10-inch belt vs the 9-inch belt of the OTL design. THis large flat quarterdeck could come in handy when Sea planes get introduced.

Isnt the Barbette and magazine for Q mount going to get in the way of the machinery spaces
 

Deleted member 94680

Design and picture by the amazing McPherson with minimal input from me :). The obvious change is to triple mounts as well as oil fired (there was discussion of making the Tiger Oil fired but they went with coal) One change that whilst visually is ugly is the retention of Q turret and the deletion of Y. This shortens the armour citadel and allowing for thicker protection over her vitals including a near 10-inch belt vs the 9-inch belt of the OTL design. This large flat quarterdeck could come in handy when Sea planes get introduced.

I don’t think it’s ugly at all.

Would it have to be triple turrets? Wouldn’t doubles be more likely of the time? What kind of machinery does it have for that 27kts? Small tube, or is that something that could be introduced in a later life refit?
 
I am very nervous about triple turrets. What was Vickers building for foreign navies and how did they perform. RoF, dispersion, etc.
 
I am very nervous about triple turrets. What was Vickers building for foreign navies and how did they perform. RoF, dispersion, etc.

Judging by the USN results for the near contemporary Standards, dispersion was a problem that needed to be solved by a time delay system. The Austro Hungarians had their own problems and attempted a similar fix. Italians? The same. Afaik the RN preferred twins to minimize dispersion and their suppliers built to that spec, for the RN and for "foreign customers".
 
Ersatz-Tiger-2.png


Design and picture by the amazing McPherson with minimal input from me :). The obvious change is to triple mounts as well as oil fired (there was discussion of making the Tiger Oil fired but they went with coal) One change that whilst visually is ugly is the retention of Q turret and the deletion of Y. This shortens the armour citadel and allowing for thicker protection over her vitals including a near 10-inch belt vs the 9-inch belt of the OTL design. THis large flat quarterdeck could come in handy when Sea planes get introduced.
Q turret would be moved to the X turret position to clear space for extra machinery or boilers.

upload_2019-7-14_12-55-17.png
 
I don’t think it’s ugly at all.

Would it have to be triple turrets? Wouldn’t doubles be more likely of the time? What kind of machinery does it have for that 27kts? Small tube, or is that something that could be introduced in a later life refit?

I was given the specs. I worked to the specs and modded the RTL image result to fit the modded results. machinery is high pressure/low pressure two stage boilers as in the RTL ship originally. Coal/oil version was 3,500 nm, all oil version was 6,000 nm. I was able to add a barrel, shorten the citadel and thicken the armor a bit because frankly I was G3 inspired.

Q turret would be moved to the X turret position to clear space for extra machinery or boilers.

View attachment 472490

I wanted a short citadel and it really doesn't affect the turbine flat all that much. Would help the fire rooms a lot though!
 
In defence of wing turrets, superfiring was restricted in forward arcs and the wing turrets give you six guns ahead. 6” belt armour is also adequate when its at 45degrees obliquity which is why BC were not to fight on the broadside. Another initial requirement was to run down German liners that were all earmarked for use as fast raiders and had several knots speed advantage over most RN cruisers. Another chase scenario.
 
Probably not, I think. The barbette rides high enough to clear the turbine rooms. It did in the RTL designs after all. (See below.)
I wanted a short citadel and it really doesn't affect the turbine flat all that much. Would help the fire rooms a lot though!
Is it not more a case of the turbine rooms being aft of the Q turret? With steam pipes past the magazines from the boiler rooms forward? Would the barbette not carry all the way down to the keel to support it?
Q turret would be moved to the X turret position to clear space for extra machinery or boilers.
I think you should drop it down a deck to save even more top weight. No reason you cant double stack the aft 6" casements if you need to save length?
 
In defence of wing turrets, superfiring was restricted in forward arcs and the wing turrets give you six guns ahead.
Not really, given potential blast effects to the superstructure, and that the chance of actually firing straight ahead of actually happening were unlikely, chances are it's still just around 4 guns at most cases.
 
Is it not more a case of the turbine rooms being aft of the Q turret? With steam pipes past the magazines from the boiler rooms forward? Would the barbette not carry all the way down to the keel to support it?

The barbettes carried only as low as the armor shading indicates and were kind of like fat truncated ice cream cones inside the ship's frame. Rarely (almost never), did it go keel deep in many designs. I can think of maybe a Cavour, but that is about it.

I think you should drop it down a deck to save even more top weight. No reason you cant double stack the aft 6" casements if you need to save length?

Topweight and you have ammunition hoist/lift issues with the same lift serving a double decker: one of the reasons I hate the 1923 SoDaks is their rotten double decker casemate arrangements. Shoot me here, feature.

YMMV, but I hope I may have given some insight into why the Tiger looked the way she did RTl and why I thought it would be a guide to G3ing her.
 

Deleted member 94680

I was given the specs. I worked to the specs and modded the RTL image result to fit the modded results. machinery is high pressure/low pressure two stage boilers as in the RTL ship originally. Coal/oil version was 3,500 nm, all oil version was 6,000 nm. I was able to add a barrel, shorten the citadel and thicken the armor a bit because frankly I was G3 inspired.

Oh, please don’t take my questions as criticisms. I was merely curious, that was all. The way I understand it, small tube boilers would increase a vessel’s speed when they replaced older systems?

I like the idea of the design, I’m just not sure the RN would go triple turret so early, for the problems you’ve mentioned.
 

Deleted member 94680

the triple turrets were my idea :)

Fair enough. I mean, OTL the RN went triple eventually. That might have been because of the WNT and the savings required, but both the G3 and N3 were triples, so the thought was there. I just think pre-War it’s less likely for triples to be considered, where in extremis a turret might be deleted as a weight saving measure.
 
The barbettes carried only as low as the armor shading indicates and were kind of like fat truncated ice cream cones inside the ship's frame. Rarely (almost never), did it go keel deep in many designs. I can think of maybe a Cavour, but that is about it.

Topweight and you have ammunition hoist/lift issues with the same lift serving a double decker: one of the reasons I hate the 1923 SoDaks is their rotten double decker casemate arrangements. Shoot me here, feature.

YMMV, but I hope I may have given some insight into why the Tiger looked the way she did RTl and why I thought it would be a guide to G3ing her.
To clarify my comments, I don't think the turbine rooms are under the Q mount they are in between the aft two mounts with the boilers forward under the funnels and the space under Q mount is used for its (and presumably 6" secondary) magazines?

The barbette armour might itself not go all the way down but its supporting structure would to carry the weight above.

hmstigerarmorplan.jpg
HMS_Tiger_1913_armour_profile.svg


I don't think moving some of the 6" up a deck to compensate for dropping the main triple 13.5" mount down a deck would be significant to top weight (in fact it would almost certainly mean a large reduction as the triple is far heavier)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/HMS_Tiger_1913_armour_profile.svg?uselang=ru
cant get the pic to show?
 
Top