marathag
Banned
That's how you get a Blücher. You want to be able to smash ships like that, so that means 12" and 25 knots
Best British battlefleet for ww1
- Thread starter Hood
- Start date
That's how you get a Blücher. You want to be able to smash ships like that, so that means 12" and 25 knots
That's why I suggested the 10" gun, it can penetrate contemporary German Battleships so will have no trouble with an armoured cruiser, but won't tempt anyone into using them in the line of battle. Turbine engines give you the speed you need over a German AC. They'd be Dreadnought Swiftsures.
Good ships sure. But like all there are faults.
Garbage shells. Poor deck armour. Tech not quite up to All or Nothing. Over 20 years the Standards went from ahead of their time in a bad way to ahead of their time in a good way. In a non WNT world they would have been indicators of what would be done as the tech matured in the 20s and a new generation of ships was built. Ships that didn't happen in our timeline.
In the context of what we are discussing the Standards locked in a standard for 15 years. That made it hard to break out of the standard at the end of the line. See the SoDaks. The RN approach allowed for more evolution rather than sticking strictly to a standard.
Depends upon what you think a battle cruise is. Is it the strategically mobile core of a regional fleet unit or the heavy scouts for a battlefleet? Navies have been paying for battleship priced armoured cruisers for 30 years so this isn't a new dynamic.
The Dreadnaught committee looked at smaller guns for Invincible. 12" was considered more accurate and an inevitable development once the foreigners caught on. Some irony there.
During the design process for the Dreadnought there was a superfiring arrangement that was looked at, but the RN didn't like superfiring and Fisher had an obcession with all ahead fire. And with her layout, technically if you was perfectly dead on, the Dreadnought could fire 6 guns forwards vs 4 if you was superfiring, you would have to be perfectly pointed at them. If you could somehow pull fisher aside and get the DNC to point out to him that a Superfiring arrangement would be overall superior and you'd actually save weight by eliminating a turret (and then say that could be used for more machinery for Fisher's first love, speed). Sure testing the turrets to get the turret hoods right etc might impose a few months delay but if Fisher's overseeing it, that delay would be minimal (Hell, knowing Fisher he'd be helping hose the turrets out of dead sheep bits to speed the process along). You could then put that 1-inch of armour that was removed off her belt back with the turret weight saved, or maybe squeak an extra knot out of the engines.
So instead of having 5 turrets in her OTL layout the Dreadnought emerges as a superfiring ship. The follow on classes are copies with their slow, steady improvements, and then the Neptunes jump up to 10 x 12-inch guns but are laid out more like the Orion's.
To keep ahead of the bell curve the Orion's are pretty much as per OTL and so are their follow on's. But with the Iron Dukes the RN makes a change.
The UK had experience with triple turrets, they designed and built them at Armstrong for the Russian navy and here with their next ships the RN adopts them for the Iron Dukes, removing 1 turret for 4 x triple 13.5's. QE's as per OTL, but perhaps push for small tube boilers or high pressure ones (which were used on the Renown and Courageous classes) to actually get them to their hoped for speed of 25 knots. The follow on R's step away from the speed, but retains the small tube boilers, and go back to the more standard fleet speed of 21 - 22 knots. But they are longer, beamier and heavier. This is needed to hold their triple turrets for their 15-inch guns.
So you end out with a fleet like this
Dreadnought type ships - 8 x 12-inch guns in fore/aft superfiring arrangements.
Colossus type ships - 10 x 12-inch guns, superfiring fore and aft with a Q turret.
Orion Type ships (Orion and KGV classes) 10 x 13.5-inch guns in an arrangement as per OTL
Iron Duke Class - 12 x 13.5-inch guns in 4 x superfiring triple turrets.
Queen Elisabeth class - OTL but with small tube boilers.
Revenge class - 12 x 15-inch guns, small tube boilers - 21 knot speed (the R's were slow ships, the bulged ones couldn't get above 18-knots until they'd burned off fuel in WW1). Increase length/beam as needed.
Battlecruisers
I's - 6 x 12-inch guns, two turrets forwards in Superfiring, one aft. So a Renown esque layout.
Lion's - First two (Lion, Princess Royal) 8 x 13.5's as per OTL but move Q turret further back to give the gun increased arcs of fire and not disrupt the machine spaces
Tiger - (Queen Mary, Tiger) 9 x 13.5 in triple turrets, 6-inch secondary guns, small tube boilers any weight saved goes into armour if possible.
Follow on BC design - Basically Design Y.
Oh and all of this!
As well as reminding the admiralty that Convoy's worked and try to impliment them from the earliest possible moment.
And another thing, stay away from the 50cal 12-inch gun, it wasn't as accurate as the older 45cal gun and you don't need to have multiple caliber's of gun around.
So instead of having 5 turrets in her OTL layout the Dreadnought emerges as a superfiring ship. The follow on classes are copies with their slow, steady improvements, and then the Neptunes jump up to 10 x 12-inch guns but are laid out more like the Orion's.
To keep ahead of the bell curve the Orion's are pretty much as per OTL and so are their follow on's. But with the Iron Dukes the RN makes a change.
The UK had experience with triple turrets, they designed and built them at Armstrong for the Russian navy and here with their next ships the RN adopts them for the Iron Dukes, removing 1 turret for 4 x triple 13.5's. QE's as per OTL, but perhaps push for small tube boilers or high pressure ones (which were used on the Renown and Courageous classes) to actually get them to their hoped for speed of 25 knots. The follow on R's step away from the speed, but retains the small tube boilers, and go back to the more standard fleet speed of 21 - 22 knots. But they are longer, beamier and heavier. This is needed to hold their triple turrets for their 15-inch guns.
So you end out with a fleet like this
Dreadnought type ships - 8 x 12-inch guns in fore/aft superfiring arrangements.
Colossus type ships - 10 x 12-inch guns, superfiring fore and aft with a Q turret.
Orion Type ships (Orion and KGV classes) 10 x 13.5-inch guns in an arrangement as per OTL
Iron Duke Class - 12 x 13.5-inch guns in 4 x superfiring triple turrets.
Queen Elisabeth class - OTL but with small tube boilers.
Revenge class - 12 x 15-inch guns, small tube boilers - 21 knot speed (the R's were slow ships, the bulged ones couldn't get above 18-knots until they'd burned off fuel in WW1). Increase length/beam as needed.
Battlecruisers
I's - 6 x 12-inch guns, two turrets forwards in Superfiring, one aft. So a Renown esque layout.
Lion's - First two (Lion, Princess Royal) 8 x 13.5's as per OTL but move Q turret further back to give the gun increased arcs of fire and not disrupt the machine spaces
Tiger - (Queen Mary, Tiger) 9 x 13.5 in triple turrets, 6-inch secondary guns, small tube boilers any weight saved goes into armour if possible.
Follow on BC design - Basically Design Y.
Oh and all of this!
As well as reminding the admiralty that Convoy's worked and try to impliment them from the earliest possible moment.
And another thing, stay away from the 50cal 12-inch gun, it wasn't as accurate as the older 45cal gun and you don't need to have multiple caliber's of gun around.
Last edited:
In 1912 Admiral Mark Kerr proposed moving the Battlefleet to Ireland, the BC to western Scotland and filling the North Sea with Flotilla and carrier groups. He was looking at converting 4 Eclipse class cruisers to carriers but Hermes was selected instead for a partial fitout for handling seaplanes.
The planning by mid1914 was to bust up the BC Squadron into mixed cruiser squadrons by 1915.
The planning by mid1914 was to bust up the BC Squadron into mixed cruiser squadrons by 1915.
Blame Congress for why the standards didn't change all that much, they never gave the USN enough money to build more than 2 battleships(the third New Mexico was a result of selling 2 predreadnoughts to Grece) a year until 1916 (and that's by not building hardly any destroyers or cruisers) necessitating each class of Battleships having similar handeling characteristics and thus overall design
Last edited:
Her sister would thus have to be HMS Jaguar. Grace, pace, space, and a full set of very sharp teeth.
Ooh that does look very nice... I'll admit that I was thinking along the lines of a bigger Renown for the Leopards, and with a finer hull form, more space for machinery and longer, higher bow making her drier forward, she'd be much more comfortable at sustained high speeds on the technology of the day. Plus, if Sir Jackie "... and A VERY GREAT INCREASE IN SPEED" Fisher could coax an extra knot or two out of them, he would.
Now, for the second batch of QEs, Design Y would be great. These ones could pioneer small-tube boilers and geared turbines, (weight savings could be used to beef up armour over magazines). They have a speed high enough to be used with either battleships or battlecruisers, and if the earlier QEs are operating with them, then their higher speeds are useful against 21 kn battle lines.
The higher cost may also pay off in other ways- the Admiral class gets delayed, and thus is able to truly incorporate the lessons of Jutland. The result might be something like a 15" K2 or a J3.
I actually would hope that Courageous, Glorious and Furious don't get canceled, so the RN gets some decently-sized carriers postwar. However, the lessons learned from earlier high-speed ships require Fisher's Follies to be built with strengthened bows, which mean they can be rebuilt with full-length flight decks.
And, if Hood does get built as OTL, with Leopard and Jaguar and a fast battle line (even if it's just 7x standard QEs) in service, perhaps she does get to go in for her Large Repair.
Last edited:
considering what the most famous ship named HMS Leopard did...yeah I really can't see the USN/US happy about another one being built. Heck another ship named HMS Leopard has never visited the US since
There's also an 1897 destroyer squatting on the name, but that's easy enough to change.
Alternates could also be Puma, Cheetah, Ocelot... cat names seem especially fitting for battlecruisers.
By 1914 an 1897 destroyer is little more than floating scrap iron. This is Leopard, and what a fine gunnery target she make.
Just don't send the new Leopard on a tour of the US/ Canadian East CoastBy 1914 an 1897 destroyer is little more than floating scrap iron. This is Leopard, and what a fine gunnery target she make.
It wouldn't be a tour, she'd be looking for deserters and German blockade runners.
Deleted member 94680
I very much doubt that will affect the decision making over the name by the RN of the era. OTL there were 3 more Leopards by WWI alone. Two more followed after that.
If it is raised, the Admiralty can sniffly point to USS Saratoga, Paul Jones, or Lexington for good examples of why it shouldn’t matter.
Last edited by a moderator:
Something like this for Leopard then?
I think Hood, 15" K2 or J3 would be a very small improvement from design Y and the super Renown. Maybe if you went for 12 15" guns but really I'd see them up scaling to 16 or maybe 18". As for the large light cruisers, cancel them, when WNT comes along it'll probably mean some of K2's sisters get the axe, or maybe the G3s if they are being built, although WNT will obviously be very different. After that use the unfinished hulls for carriers
Attachments
The RN, Parliament, and the public all seemed to have an obsession with numbers of battleships. So keeping that in mind, the most build time and budget friendly layout that still retains good fighting quality shall be standardized for the first generation. That being a vaguely South Carolina like arrangement. The following rules shall be adopted:
1. All main guns of a uniform type, in a uniform turret configuration, all on the center line forward or aft. No wing turrets and no mid ship turrets.
2. Secondary battery shall also be a uniform type carrier at or above main deck level. No hull mounts that end up under water.
3. Gun directors for the main battery to be a very high priority, with maximum range possible.
4. Gun directors for the secondary battery as a lower priority, but understood as an eventual necessity.
5. No underwater torpedoes. Just no, absolutely not. Above water only if someone really insists.
6. Insist on at least some effort at underwater protection from the first, triple hull if possible.
7. Insist on at least some thought to the likely future air threat.
8. Get research going on future guns, with a particular interest in higher elevation, longer range shooting.
9. Start researching better shells, the terminal ballistics of the time were crap.
10. Research better TDS designs.
11. Research alternative turret layouts.
12. Research turret mounts for secondary battery.
13. Build a "generation" to a standard steaming characteristic for uniform battleline maneuver. Given RN build rates can increase this every second or third year.
15. Battlecruisers. Totally needs a rethink. Have someone from Treasury insist on a thorough mathematically and scientifically vetted proof of the concept before Treasury will agree to release the funds. Since the "speed is armour" theory is absurd this hopefully kills that idea dead. Obviously the RN will still build some sort of large cruiser speed forces, maybe fast battleships early, maybe more German like battlecruisers that trade off firepower for better armour. Who knows. The classic battlecruisers aren't terrible, but even if they really were to be held out of the main line they needed armour sufficient to perform their scouting mission, at least a brief long range engagement, and then fall back on the main line. I should personally prefer the BC effort be split between a fast BB squadron and earlier work on carriers.
16. Develop a director control that fits on less than 10k ton. Once there are director control light cruisers the logic of the BC fades more quickly and light cruisers that aren't rubbish can start being built.
17. Do some full up destructive testing and analysis to inform both a. design and b. operations procedures and c. damage control training.
18. Magazines under shell rooms. Insist on treating the magazine as a floating bomb primed to explode with everyone at least vaguely terrified of the horrors of the thing exploding and killing everyone on the ship. Let every officer and man have the dangers of powder explosions beaten into them.
19. More technical R&D at every stage.
20. More operational research at every stage.
21. Thoroughly war game both individual ship scenarios and fleet scenarios to better understand what the strengths and weaknesses of the different design trade offs may be.
22. Encourage designing for the future. The expectation should exist that the technology of guns, shells, engines, armour, fire control will continue improving. Include some margin of error in all designs for the enemy developing an advantage and reserve some space and weight for future refit needs. It should be understood that the dreadnaught business is still rather experimental in nature.
1. All main guns of a uniform type, in a uniform turret configuration, all on the center line forward or aft. No wing turrets and no mid ship turrets.
2. Secondary battery shall also be a uniform type carrier at or above main deck level. No hull mounts that end up under water.
3. Gun directors for the main battery to be a very high priority, with maximum range possible.
4. Gun directors for the secondary battery as a lower priority, but understood as an eventual necessity.
5. No underwater torpedoes. Just no, absolutely not. Above water only if someone really insists.
6. Insist on at least some effort at underwater protection from the first, triple hull if possible.
7. Insist on at least some thought to the likely future air threat.
8. Get research going on future guns, with a particular interest in higher elevation, longer range shooting.
9. Start researching better shells, the terminal ballistics of the time were crap.
10. Research better TDS designs.
11. Research alternative turret layouts.
12. Research turret mounts for secondary battery.
13. Build a "generation" to a standard steaming characteristic for uniform battleline maneuver. Given RN build rates can increase this every second or third year.
15. Battlecruisers. Totally needs a rethink. Have someone from Treasury insist on a thorough mathematically and scientifically vetted proof of the concept before Treasury will agree to release the funds. Since the "speed is armour" theory is absurd this hopefully kills that idea dead. Obviously the RN will still build some sort of large cruiser speed forces, maybe fast battleships early, maybe more German like battlecruisers that trade off firepower for better armour. Who knows. The classic battlecruisers aren't terrible, but even if they really were to be held out of the main line they needed armour sufficient to perform their scouting mission, at least a brief long range engagement, and then fall back on the main line. I should personally prefer the BC effort be split between a fast BB squadron and earlier work on carriers.
16. Develop a director control that fits on less than 10k ton. Once there are director control light cruisers the logic of the BC fades more quickly and light cruisers that aren't rubbish can start being built.
17. Do some full up destructive testing and analysis to inform both a. design and b. operations procedures and c. damage control training.
18. Magazines under shell rooms. Insist on treating the magazine as a floating bomb primed to explode with everyone at least vaguely terrified of the horrors of the thing exploding and killing everyone on the ship. Let every officer and man have the dangers of powder explosions beaten into them.
19. More technical R&D at every stage.
20. More operational research at every stage.
21. Thoroughly war game both individual ship scenarios and fleet scenarios to better understand what the strengths and weaknesses of the different design trade offs may be.
22. Encourage designing for the future. The expectation should exist that the technology of guns, shells, engines, armour, fire control will continue improving. Include some margin of error in all designs for the enemy developing an advantage and reserve some space and weight for future refit needs. It should be understood that the dreadnaught business is still rather experimental in nature.
That makes for an interesting PoD on how to get the USA on the German side of WW I and strangle the "special relationship" it its crib.
Strictly speaking the Invincibles were All Big Gun Armoured Cruisers not true Battlecruisers supposedly able to stand up to Battleship level firepower.
Deleted member 94680
Strictly speaking the Invincibles were classed as Battlecruisers by Admiralty in November 1911, so I think BCs are a suitably descriptor. The battlecruiser idea was the brainchild of Fischer and things like “All Big Gun Armoured Cruiser” were distinctions to explain away poorly balanced designs when speed mania fully took grip. The best PoD to get rid of BCs is to stop Fischer becoming FSL or to have him lose out on his proposals for the Invincible amongst his other better ideas.
Closer! A bit slow at 28kn though, Fisher would be in there demanding at least 30.
What I was envisioning was the same general configuration as Tiger, (AB-Q-X) but stretched to about 820' LOA x 90' W, and three funnels reduced to two thanks to oil firing.
Good points all! I was thinking in the barest possible terms- I'd rather an I3 than a J3, but I'd take a J3 over an Admiral
From Dreadnought and Invincible onwards there seemed to be a ratio of 3 Dreadnoughts to 1ish BCs
A couple of years back I think we thrashed out that the RN could have built the same number of X4 fast battleships (and the succeeding class of ships) at the expense of the Battlecruisers
So all other things being equal there would be a 20% reduction of 'Capital ships' in real terms but individually they would be better.
So with a bit of Napkin math
Dreadnought to Revenge class = 32 hulls plus the odds and sods like Erin, Agincourt and Canada (and this takes into account that several hulls were cancelled such as the 6th QE unit and several Rs)
Invincible to Tiger class = 10 hulls
So I would propose this - a fleet of increasingly larger and more powerful Fast Battleships giving the UK about 30 odd Hulls overall by 1914
Now while this would result in Britain having fewer capital ships overall any nation hoping to oppose Britain at sea would have to 'try' to make similar ships ie fast battleships assuming that the speed of the British ships was identified
For example IIRC Invincible when built was considered to be just another Armoured Cruiser - its advantage in Speed, Guns and Armour not fully appreciated by the other principle naval nations until the next class of ships were being laid down ie Blucher being the response to Invincible
So ITTL it might take the other powers a year or 2 / a class or 2 before the penny drops and the Fast Battleship concept is fully realised
So while the RN would have fewer ships so would its opponents have a correspondly reduction in overall hulls allowing the RN to retain its advantage in overall hulls
Ultimately I would like to see effectively 3 waves of 4 QEs laid down with the follow on class being something like the 4 x 28 knot 'mini Admirals' as suggested.
What we would then likely see is Germany also following suit and building 'fast battleships' in fewer overall numbers and also eventually abandon the concept of Battlecruisers as we understand it
This likely means that Japan instead of building the OTL 4 Kongos they would instead follow whatever the OTL Orion Class is ITTL
Going on that plan, and working with the tech at hand, that gives me something of an idea. I can see the battleships getting faster and the battlecruisers more heavily armoured, and when small tube boilers and geared turbines come about, the two lines can then converge. For instance, QE Design Y doesn't look like it would have been able to make 30kn on such a full hull form and short length, but it's a definite step in the right direction.
I also wonder if the Dominions might be inclined to fund part of, if not a whole ship, and have Britain pool contributions. Thus, perhaps a buildout something like:
1912:
Battleships: (OTL QE Class) Queen Elizabeth, Warspite, Valiant + Malaya (Funded by Malaya)
Battlecruiser: Leopard (something like 815' × 91', 31 500t standard, 8 × 15")
To keep the Exchequer happy, 1913 are repeats:
Battleships: Barham, Agincourt, Renown + Dominion (Funded by Canada, Newfoundland and Ireland)
Battlecruiser: Panther (Shameless name swap, but black panthers in Asia and Africa are leopards and the jaguar is a bigger cat, so it was bothering me!)
1914 is the year improvements start being made:
Battleships: (QE Design Y, 27-28kn but uparmoured) Revenge, Royal Sovereign, Royal Oak + Australis (Funded by South Africa, Australia and New Zealand)
Battlecruiser: Jaguar (860' x 95', 36 500 t approx. Same 8 guns but more armour. 32kn on large tube boilers and geared turbines. A skinny, squishy but swift proto-Admiral, most likely deemed too expensive to roll out a whole class of them.)
By 1915 the Dominions are probably clapped out, so it will be Britain on her own. However, all this innovating leads the RN to order something big and fast, (and in lieu of the OTL Renown and Courageous classes) like those 28kn mini-Admirals, or perhaps something with triples, scaled up to 15".
Let's call it 765' × 101' × 30'- ish deep, 36 000 t standard, capable of 30kn on trials or when forced and 28kn under normal conditions, and 9 x 15" BL Mk. I in 3 three-gun turrets arranged AB-Y.
These could bear the names: Repulse, Ramilies, Resolution and Resistance. All with small-tube boilers and reduction-geared turbines.
This build would also likely make it too expensive to lay down the Admirals in 1916, so that would be the full wartime build.
I also wonder if the Dominions might be inclined to fund part of, if not a whole ship, and have Britain pool contributions. Thus, perhaps a buildout something like:
1912:
Battleships: (OTL QE Class) Queen Elizabeth, Warspite, Valiant + Malaya (Funded by Malaya)
Battlecruiser: Leopard (something like 815' × 91', 31 500t standard, 8 × 15")
To keep the Exchequer happy, 1913 are repeats:
Battleships: Barham, Agincourt, Renown + Dominion (Funded by Canada, Newfoundland and Ireland)
Battlecruiser: Panther (Shameless name swap, but black panthers in Asia and Africa are leopards and the jaguar is a bigger cat, so it was bothering me!)
1914 is the year improvements start being made:
Battleships: (QE Design Y, 27-28kn but uparmoured) Revenge, Royal Sovereign, Royal Oak + Australis (Funded by South Africa, Australia and New Zealand)
Battlecruiser: Jaguar (860' x 95', 36 500 t approx. Same 8 guns but more armour. 32kn on large tube boilers and geared turbines. A skinny, squishy but swift proto-Admiral, most likely deemed too expensive to roll out a whole class of them.)
By 1915 the Dominions are probably clapped out, so it will be Britain on her own. However, all this innovating leads the RN to order something big and fast, (and in lieu of the OTL Renown and Courageous classes) like those 28kn mini-Admirals, or perhaps something with triples, scaled up to 15".
Let's call it 765' × 101' × 30'- ish deep, 36 000 t standard, capable of 30kn on trials or when forced and 28kn under normal conditions, and 9 x 15" BL Mk. I in 3 three-gun turrets arranged AB-Y.
These could bear the names: Repulse, Ramilies, Resolution and Resistance. All with small-tube boilers and reduction-geared turbines.
This build would also likely make it too expensive to lay down the Admirals in 1916, so that would be the full wartime build.
Last edited: