Best British battlefleet for ww1

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)

Putting the weight that far aft gives me heartburn. Remember that bodge I created out of the Ise? I looked at Japanese ballasting to replace the two turrets (gun houses) and barbettes they took out to put in that silly hanger and the catapult. They added a 20 cm slab of concrete to cover the flight deck as the ballast weight. They screwed up by mounting it 2 meters too high and the result was the Ise corkscrewed like a drunken worm thereafter. Now put a triple turret on a cruiser stern with a block coeff. of 055? Ugh. It might dead load aft too much. I just am not sure I am happy with that result.
 
upload_2019-7-14_11-34-6.png


Something I am working on.
 
Something I am working on.
Putting the weight that far aft gives me heartburn.
I don't get why you have the Q mount in the middle, I don't think if you start from a clean sheet that putting the aft triple at the stern loses you anything and it should be relatively easy to balance?
(Unless you are going for a G3/O3 style post Jutland protection schema designed to favour magazines over propulsion, and then you might as well go all forward?)

I'm assuming you are not as this ships is definitely older than that, for example the aft 6" are to low and the mixed side belt...
 
View attachment 472551

Something I am working on.
An important thing to note is that for gunnery purposes it was considered important to have at least turrets firing (one turret overshooting one on target and one undershooting for a straddle).

If you have battle damage and lose a turret a 4 turreted ship loses a bit of fire power, a 3 turreted ship that loses a turret becomes non viable.
 
If you have battle damage and lose a turret a 4 turreted ship loses a bit of fire power, a 3 turreted ship that loses a turret becomes non viable.
Bismarck lost power on 'Anton' after 'Bruno' was knocked out by Rodney

Potato potahto, Tomato, tomahto, Bismarck had nothing forward after that hit, so is meaningless for one triple or two duals. Fate is fickle.
 
Bismarck lost power on 'Anton' after 'Bruno' was knocked out by Rodney

Potato potahto, Tomato, tomahto, Bismarck had nothing forward after that hit, so is meaningless for one triple or two duals. Fate is fickle.

Of course fate is fuckle. Saying fate is fickle is the same as saying Hood was sank by a golden BB so why did anyone bother putting armour on ships.

I'm merely pointing out what was doctrine at the time.

If you read through any accounts of Jutland for example you will see plenty of examples where a single turret was taken out. The belief that 4 turrets (in a broadside) gives redundancy so you can have 3 in operation at any one time was firmly established in the minds of the Admiralty In Britain.

If people's training was you need 3 turrets no matter what and a 4 turret broadside was so one turret could be disabled and leave 3 turrets alive you need a massive justification to go to 3 turrets.
 
The Australian and New Zealand governments purchase of Indefactigible class Battlecruisers never really felt right to me from the sense of serving British interests. Unless there was a reason other than expense (no free gunpits able to produce 13.5 inch guns) ordering Lion classes instead of Indefactigible would be a very good thing.

Of course I am also a supporter of the fast Iron Duke design that was proposed and the repeat of the Queen Elizabeth class instead of Revenge classes but I do understand why these werent done this way.

Of course, battlecruisers of *any* kind really don't feel right, because the entire concept turned out to be a mistake.

More fast battleships, on the other hand, make a good deal of sense...

On the whole, though, OP's question could be addressed more generally to say that the Royal Navy was actually fairly well set up to fight a general war against a peer naval power generally, and Germany particularly. The Fisher reforms really did leave the RN in far better shape than it had been in 1904, Fisher's battlecruiser mania notwithstanding. The RN had the necessary preponderance of capital ships, mostly equipped with director fire; it had a balanced fleet of escorts; it had adequate infrastructure and a well trained officer corps and enlisted rank. Not a perfect fleet - no such thing has ever existed - but a pretty well prepared one, certainly better prepared than it has been at the outset of any other major war that the Royal Navy has ever had.

Some of the problems that did crop up strike me as the sort that were harder (not impossible, but harder) to see without actually having a war play out: the poor shell performance, flash protection, the lack of good ASW doctrine or capabilities, difficulties in major battle coordination, the need for real aerial scouting.
 
Of course, battlecruisers of *any* kind really don't feel right, because the entire concept turned out to be a mistake.
Battlecrusiers were not a mistake, just made obsolete when the fast battleship became practical ( a bit like the armoured crusier was made obsolete by the battlecrusier ). When the first battlecrusiers were built it was not possible to make fast battleships without impractical compromises. Its only when machinery and boilers get smaller and lighter for a given shp that this changes. So for WW1 bar a POD involving a technical leap , battlecrusiers are useful as long as people don't try and use them in the line of battle.
 
Battlecrusiers were not a mistake, just made obsolete when the fast battleship became practical ( a bit like the armoured crusier was made obsolete by the battlecrusier ). When the first battlecrusiers were built it was not possible to make fast battleships without impractical compromises. Its only when machinery and boilers get smaller and lighter for a given shp that this changes. So for WW1 bar a POD involving a technical leap , battlecrusiers are useful as long as people don't try and use them in the line of battle.

No, I disagree. But I realize this is an old, old debate.

You're putting capital ship value into a ship that cannot stand the pounding of a capital ship action.

Now, in Fisher's conception, these ships were intended to be cruiser killers. (See: The Battle of the Falklands)

But the ships that resulted looked indistinguishable from battleships. They had battleship guns. It was therefore inevitable that admirals would be tempted to put them in the line of battle. Which, of course, is exactly what happened. (See: Jutland)

But if all you want are cruiser killers, what you need to develop are heavy cruisers. You don't need 12"-15" guns for that.

When the first battlecruisers were built it was not possible to make fast battleships without impractical compromises.

They weren't far off, though. The Queen Elizabeths (which count, just barely, as fast battleships) were laid down beginning in 1912. The major change needed to make it possible was oil-fueled boilers.
 
...

You're putting capital ship value into a ship that cannot stand the pounding of a capital ship action.

....
But if all you want are cruiser killers, what you need to develop are heavy cruisers. You don't need 12"-15" guns for that.

When the first battlecruisers were built it was not possible to make fast battleships without impractical compromises.

They weren't far off, though. The Queen Elizabeths (which count, just barely, as fast battleships) were laid down beginning in 1912. The major change needed to make it possible was oil-fueled boilers.
What other better option do you have in 1906?

- QEs and 1912 is way in the future, just look at how fast ships evolved.

- You have to build something to fight and kill the last ACs

- BC/I class are not much more money than ACs/heavy cruisers and massively better.
 
The mistake was giving Dreadnought Armoured Cruisers battleship calibre guns making it all but inevitable they'd be used as fast battleships rather than large cruisers. If they'd used 9.2" or 10" guns they'd not only have built more balanced ships but it would be clear they were not to be part of the Battle line.
 
The mistake was giving Dreadnought Armoured Cruisers battleship calibre guns making it all but inevitable they'd be used as fast battleships rather than large cruisers. If they'd used 9.2" or 10" guns they'd not only have built more balanced ships but it would be clear they were not to be part of the Battle line.
Thats all fine and dandy a 10' gun ship until some German genius developed a similar ship with 11' or 12' guns. The idea was not unique to the British either as the japanese had it nearly there when they took the tsukuba (maybe correct spelling) basically an armored cruiser with four battleship grade guns designed to destroy other armoured cruiser.
 
If they'd used 9.2" or 10" guns they'd not only have built more balanced ships but it would be clear they were not to be part of the Battle line.
But still would cost nearly as much as a BC, same crew size, for far less power, and accuracy of gunfire

Until Fast Battleships were available, and AoN armored ship with 12" guns is ideal, if they aren't commanded by someone like Beatty who wanted RoF over safe propellant handling procedures.
 
Thats all fine and dandy a 10' gun ship until some German genius developed a similar ship with 11' or 12' guns. The idea was not unique to the British either as the japanese had it nearly there when they took the tsukuba (maybe correct spelling) basically an armored cruiser with four battleship grade guns designed to destroy other armoured cruiser.

Exactly. The issue is that any ship foisted with Sub-Capital Caliber guns to "force them in their lane" is countered by taking the same ship and giving it Capital Caliber guns.

So, you might as well start with Capital Caliber guns. Yes, this can lead to them be "taken as" fully blown Capital Ships, but that's not something you solve by hobbling your ships. That's something you solve by posting a bosun with a Cat o' Nine next to every admiral, with orders to go to town whenever the Admiral starts using their Battlecruisers like Battleships.

You don't solve doctrinal issues by methods of build strategy. You fix the doctrine.
 
Sure. But does it have to be an Invincible?
The mistake was giving Dreadnought Armoured Cruisers battleship calibre guns making it all but inevitable they'd be used as fast battleships rather than large cruisers. If they'd used 9.2" or 10" guns they'd not only have built more balanced ships but it would be clear they were not to be part of the Battle line.
Would you rather build SMS Blücher?


15,842 t and 853/1026 crew v I class 17,250 long tons and 784-1000 crew so you save almost nothing and are far weaker.......
 
Thats all fine and dandy a 10' gun ship until some German genius developed a similar ship with 11' or 12' guns. The idea was not unique to the British either as the japanese had it nearly there when they took the tsukuba (maybe correct spelling) basically an armored cruiser with four battleship grade guns designed to destroy other armoured cruiser.

Shrug. The thing I wanted was a 24 knot battleship in 1912.

I don't get why you have the Q mount in the middle, I don't think if you start from a clean sheet that putting the aft triple at the stern loses you anything and it should be relatively easy to balance?

(Unless you are going for a G3/O3 style post Jutland protection schema designed to favour magazines over propulsion, and then you might as well go all forward?)

I'm assuming you are not as this ships is definitely older than that, for example the aft 6" are to low and the mixed side belt...

I want the barbette somewhere along that sectional float sausage where I have good void separation between the belt and the barbette, room for the steam lines, room for the mags for the secondaries, have a block coeff of about 0.550 and work in decent armor without the lateral hull strain dropping below unity. Here, I'll show you.

upload_2019-7-14_17-26-23.png


I got a 24 knot battleship in 1912.

Ersatz Iron Duke, UK battleship laid down 1912
Displacement:
23,225 t light; 24,651 t standard; 25,305 t normal; 25,829 t full load
Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(631.27 ft / 623.36 ft) x 98.43 ft x (26.25 / 26.67 ft)
(192.41 m / 190.00 m) x 30.00 m x (8.00 / 8.13 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, 250 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
16 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
16 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 13,328 lbs / 6,046 kg
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 10.8" / 275 mm 249.34 ft / 76.00 m 11.91 ft / 3.63 m
Ends: 4.92" / 125 mm 373.98 ft / 113.99 m 11.91 ft / 3.63 m
Upper: 3.94" / 100 mm 249.34 ft / 76.00 m 8.01 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 62 % of normal length
Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces
- Torpedo Bulkhead - Strengthened structural bulkheads:
2.95" / 75 mm 249.34 ft / 76.00 m 24.08 ft / 7.34 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 98.43 ft / 30.00 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 11.8" / 300 mm 7.87" / 200 mm 7.87" / 200 mm
2nd: 6.10" / 155 mm - 3.94" / 100 mm
3rd: 4.13" / 105 mm - 4.13" / 105 mm
- Box over machinery:
2.95" / 75 mm
Forecastle: 2.95" / 75 mm Quarter deck: 2.95" / 75 mm
- Conning towers: Forward 10.04" / 255 mm, Aft 4.92" / 125 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 51,074 shp / 38,102 Kw = 24.00 kts
Range 4,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,179 tons
Complement:
1,003 - 1,304
Cost:
£2.257 million / $9.030 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,279 tons, 9.0 %
- Guns: 2,279 tons, 9.0 %
Armour: 7,569 tons, 29.9 %
- Belts: 2,791 tons, 11.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 656 tons, 2.6 %
- Armament: 2,174 tons, 8.6 %
- Armour Deck: 1,670 tons, 6.6 %
- Conning Towers: 278 tons, 1.1 %
Machinery: 2,036 tons, 8.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 11,340 tons, 44.8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,081 tons, 8.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
44,984 lbs / 20,404 Kg = 36.5 x 13.5 " / 343 mm shells or 7.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.16
Metacentric height 6.5 ft / 2.0 m
Roll period: 16.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 78 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.91
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.56
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle, low quarterdeck ,
a straight bulbous bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.550 / 0.552
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.33 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 24.97 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 47 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 29.53 ft / 9.00 m, 29.53 ft / 9.00 m
- Forward deck: 20.00 %, 26.25 ft / 8.00 m, 26.25 ft / 8.00 m
- Aft deck: 20.00 %, 26.25 ft / 8.00 m, 26.25 ft / 8.00 m
- Quarter deck: 40.00 %, 19.69 ft / 6.00 m, 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
- Average freeboard: 24.28 ft / 7.40 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 68.8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 213.4 %
Waterplane Area: 42,819 Square feet or 3,978 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 112 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 215 lbs/sq ft or 1,047 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.00
- Longitudinal: 2.25
- Overall: 1.08
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

Now watch the result for 1912 when I change things.

EID-2.png


Ersatz Iron Duke, UK battleship laid down 1912
Displacement:
25,459 t light; 27,140 t standard; 27,698 t normal; 28,144 t full load
Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(631.27 ft / 623.36 ft) x 98.43 ft x (26.25 / 26.59 ft)
(192.41 m / 190.00 m) x 30.00 m x (8.00 / 8.11 m)
Armament:
12 - 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
2 x Triple mounts on centreline, aft evenly spread
16 - 6.10" / 155 mm 45.0 cal guns - 114.59lbs / 51.98kg shells, 250 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
16 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
16 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 17,054 lbs / 7,735 kg
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 9.84" / 250 mm 249.34 ft / 76.00 m 11.91 ft / 3.63 m
Ends: 4.92" / 125 mm 373.98 ft / 113.99 m 11.91 ft / 3.63 m
Upper: 3.94" / 100 mm 249.34 ft / 76.00 m 8.01 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 62 % of normal length
Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces
- Torpedo Bulkhead - Strengthened structural bulkheads:
2.95" / 75 mm 249.34 ft / 76.00 m 24.08 ft / 7.34 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 98.43 ft / 30.00 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 11.8" / 300 mm 7.87" / 200 mm 7.87" / 200 mm
2nd: 6.10" / 155 mm - 3.94" / 100 mm
3rd: 4.13" / 105 mm - 4.13" / 105 mm
- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 2.95" / 75 mm
Forecastle: 2.95" / 75 mm Quarter deck: 2.95" / 75 mm
- Conning towers: Forward 10.04" / 255 mm, Aft 4.92" / 125 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 33,171 shp / 24,745 Kw = 21.00 kts
Range 3,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,005 tons
Complement:
1,073 - 1,395
Cost:
£2.583 million / $10.333 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,919 tons, 10.5 %
- Guns: 2,919 tons, 10.5 %
Armour: 8,806 tons, 31.8 %
- Belts: 2,653 tons, 9.6 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 656 tons, 2.4 %
- Armament: 2,732 tons, 9.9 %
- Armour Deck: 2,470 tons, 8.9 %
- Conning Towers: 295 tons, 1.1 %
Machinery: 1,323 tons, 4.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 12,412 tons, 44.8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,239 tons, 8.1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
51,827 lbs / 23,508 Kg = 42.1 x 13.5 " / 343 mm shells or 8.1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.23
Metacentric height 7.2 ft / 2.2 m
Roll period: 15.4 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 60 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.91
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.68
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle, low quarterdeck ,
a straight bulbous bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.602 / 0.604
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.33 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 24.97 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 42 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 36
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 29.53 ft / 9.00 m, 29.53 ft / 9.00 m
- Forward deck: 20.00 %, 26.25 ft / 8.00 m, 26.25 ft / 8.00 m
- Aft deck: 20.00 %, 26.25 ft / 8.00 m, 26.25 ft / 8.00 m
- Quarter deck: 40.00 %, 19.69 ft / 6.00 m, 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
- Average freeboard: 24.28 ft / 7.40 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 65.8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 209.5 %
Waterplane Area: 44,957 Square feet or 4,177 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 107 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 227 lbs/sq ft or 1,109 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.03
- Longitudinal: 2.25
- Overall: 1.11
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

I thought there might be some severe compromises. Range is short. The armor is thin. Block coefficient yields a lot more flow drag. She is slow. But I did get a 12 gun broadside out of her!

It was suggested I get rid of the aft deckhouse (secondary steer and fire control, and move the q turret aft. It still turns out that hull lateral load drops below unity and/or block coeff goes up and I lose a knot or 2 or shorten the cruise range or a combo of all attritbutes. What do I give up?

Wet aft secondaries do not bother me as much as wet forward secondaries. (Great White Fleet op-exp.) Given Jutland and the turnaways that Jellicoe was forced to perform, some stern chasers to discourage the Germans would be nice to have. So would more speed and cruiser lines for smart maneuvering and of course torpedo defense from a broader beam.
 
Last edited:
That's something you solve by posting a bosun with a Cat o' Nine next to every admiral who goes to town when the Admiral starts using their Battlecruisers like Battleships.

This is the Royal Navy. Good luck trying that.

"Admirals will be certain to put them in the line of battle where their comparatively light protection will be a disadvantage and their high speed of no value." -- Brassey's Naval Annual, 1908, on battlecruisers
 
Top