Best British battlefleet for ww1

[Deleted member 94680]

You can always turn and say "yes only eight, but they are bigger. That makes them by default better."

This is why the previous poster suggested the Orions. They were the first 13.5 inch gunned battleship.

Exactly. Just move the media campaign forward to the Orion and talk up the benefit of the 13.5” compared to the 12” everyone else had and job done. My point was it was the Admiralty that thought there needed to be 10 x 13.5” and were happy with 8 x 15”, public be damned. To get the Orion 8 gunned, you need to change what the Admirals thought, not the public.

 

[sonofpegasus]

How fast could an eight gun Orion be? Also could the fore funnel be moved aft so that the fore mast could be ahead of it. Could this mean that Lion et al are very different ships.

 

[Spencersj345.346]

How fast could an eight gun Orion be? Also could the fore funnel be moved aft so that the fore mast could be ahead of it. Could this mean that Lion et al are very different ships.

If I had to guess probably around 23 knots due to not being oil fired and the available engine technology not being quite as advanced as a few years later when the QEs were laid down

 

[sts-200]

How fast could an eight gun Orion be? Also could the fore funnel be moved aft so that the fore mast could be ahead of it. Could this mean that Lion et al are very different ships.

Not very fast. The Orions were quite a compact design (see attached).
Removing Q turret magazine only buys you space for an addition 3 boilers (making 21) i.e. about 31,000shp instead of 27,000. On the same displacement, that only boosts speed by about 3/4 knot, so you would have a 22kt ship. Trials would no doubt be better, but a knot doesn't justify loosing 20% of their striking power.

However, it certainly gives scope for rearranging the funnels.

 

[steamboy]

Invincible Class Battlecruiser (AU version)

16,071 t light; 16,764 t standard; 17,765 t normal; 18,566 t full load
Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(524.93 ft / 524.93 ft) x 80.05 ft x (26.90 / 27.86 ft)
(160.00 m / 160.00 m) x 24.40 m x (8.20 / 8.49 m)

Armament:

6 - 12.01" / 305 mm 45.0 cal guns - 873.08lbs / 396.02kg shells, 100 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1905 Model
2 x Twin mounts on centreline, forward deck forward
1 raised mount - superfiring
1 x Twin mount on centreline, aft deck centre
16 - 4.13" / 105 mm 45.0 cal guns - 35.62lbs / 16.16kg shells, 150 per gun
Quick firing guns in casemate mounts, 1905 Model
16 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
16 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 5,808 lbs / 2,635 kg

Armour:

- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 7.87" / 200 mm 225.72 ft / 68.80 m 10.73 ft / 3.27 m
Ends: 3.94" / 100 mm 299.18 ft / 91.19 m 10.73 ft / 3.27 m
Upper: 5.91" / 150 mm 225.72 ft / 68.80 m 8.01 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 66 % of normal length
Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces
- Torpedo Bulkhead - Strengthened structural bulkheads:
3.00" / 76 mm 225.72 ft / 68.80 m 24.70 ft / 7.53 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 80.05 ft / 24.40 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 7.87" / 200 mm 3.94" / 100 mm 7.87" / 200 mm
2nd: 4.02" / 102 mm - 5.91" / 150 mm
- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 3.00" / 76 mm
Forecastle: 3.00" / 76 mm Quarter deck: 3.00" / 76 mm

Machinery:

Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 50,597 shp / 37,745 Kw = 25.00 kts
Range 6,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,802 tons
Complement:
769 - 1,000

Cost:
£1.616 million / $6.462 million

Done by the superb McPherson, this design takes the I class and removes a turret as well as the torpedoes increasing the armour whilst retaining the speed. The I's could only ever do a 6-gun broadside unless on some very very limited firing arcs and the ahead fire so beloved by Fisher was again, only 6 guns at certain angles. Here you've got 6-guns on a decent platform with better armour and a far tidier layout.

 

[jsb]

On the other hand, I don't think there is any possibility of shielding even guns and magazines against 12 inch guns without a significant increase in size & cost, never mind engines etc. Given the choice between shielding some parts against their own guns but leaving huge vulnerabilities to even 4 inch guns or all or nothing against say 8 inch guns I'd take the latter.

I would take the first so long as it has good compartmentalization to stop flooding...
With hindsight BBs die to golden hits setting off the magazines or they flood nothing else matters IMO and they did not get got hit by lots of medium guns often.

It was a bit of a light bulb moment for me when I realized all those older ships would have been downgraded to second line duties as a natural part of their life cycle in a non-WNT world.

Agreed, none of the WWII ships should have been front line come 1939 without the treaties.....

Done by the superb McPherson, this design takes the I class and removes a turret as well as the torpedoes increasing the armour whilst retaining the speed. The I's could only ever do a 6-gun broadside unless on some very very limited firing arcs and the ahead fire so beloved by Fisher was again, only 6 guns at certain angles. Here you've got 6-guns on a decent platform with better armour and a far tidier layout.

I would prefer to go for 8 centreline guns even if its slightly larger and ditch the TT, 8 will give better long range shooting and if 12" cant hurt the targets then you should simply have a disposable CL carry the TTs in case it gets hit. (I also don't like the 4" positions they should be staggered to fire forward and aft)

 

[steamboy]

Thing is with 8 guns you're getting a lot bigger and heavier and more expensive. The Early Renown's keep the size down. Sure they have their flaws but not so marked as the I's whilst having better protection too. Not by much mind and sure the torps could be deleted.

 

[RelativeGalaxy7]

Another way to boost the fleet would be to let Canada build real warships, though that's probably politically impractical. After all, why should Canadian money be spent in Canada? It's better spent in Britain giving deserving British industrialists more profit--why let Canadian money be used to give jobs to Canadians? (exaggeration, perhaps, but the British armament companies did NOT want warships built in overseas, and had the pull to make it difficult.)

Lion with 6 13.5" turrets, and the displacement saved used for armor might be a good plan, too...

There’s a reason why the Canadian QE’s never came to be. Simply giving Britain money for capital ships went over politically about as well as walking into Parliment and shaking your ass at everybody in attendance. Not investing Canadian money in Canada was a massive flaw in the plan and generally was partially why it never happened.

I don’t know where you are getting that from, british firms didnt really care whatsoever. A lot of british firms had yards in Canada or owned child companies they could expand. The Admiralty was more than willing to hand over designs and resources if information was inforced.

 

[PMN1]

Got this from another site many years ago...Warships Projects 3 I think...but there were proposals for a 23 kt Orion.

From Burt:


Design L (Orion) 22500tons, 540' pp; beam 82' 27000shp 21knots


23-knot design: 24250tons, 575' pp; beam 88ft; 35,000shp 23knots.


Otherwise very similar.


The designer didn't like the Board decision either. Watts wrote to the First Sea Lord: "I know the Board favour the slower ship for some strange reason, and I cannot understand this at all. ... extra money for the faster units would be money well spent" this in the light of reports that the latest German battleships would be of 23knots speed.

 

[jsb]

this design takes the I class

My cut (note length might have to increase and hindsight is obvious)

 

[RelativeGalaxy7]

My cut (note length might have to increase and hindsight is obvious) View attachment 472304

What’s the projected date for that ship? Seems rather unlikely for most of the time the RN was building battlecruisers.

 

[PMN1]

For Dreadnought, how about the QE's layout but with 12" guns and for the I's how about a Tiger with 12" guns....

 

[jsb]

What’s the projected date for that ship? Seems rather unlikely for most of the time the RN was building battlecruisers.

Its an I class Built: 1906–1909, nothing special ..... but somebody did make a joke about the DNC getting all into this new newfangled spiritualism what with him having a crystal ball on his work desk.....

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

There’s a reason why the Canadian QE’s never came to be. Simply giving Britain money for capital ships went over politically about as well as walking into Parliment and shaking your ass at everybody in attendance. Not investing Canadian money in Canada was a massive flaw in the plan and generally was partially why it never happened.

I don’t know where you are getting that from, british firms didnt really care whatsoever. A lot of british firms had yards in Canada or owned child companies they could expand. The Admiralty was more than willing to hand over designs and resources if information was inforced.

Understand Vickers Armstrong complained about the work being carried out in Canadian yards rather than by them, despite it being a Vickers' subsidiary in Canada who would get a fair share of the work. The Canadians then quite rightly complained about their taxes paying British workers (& arms' barons).

 

[Some Bloke]

Earlier switchover to oil anx X3/X4 class?

 

[RelativeGalaxy7]

Understand Vickers Armstrong complained about the work being carried out in Canadian yards rather than by them, despite it being a Vickers' subsidiary in Canada who would get a fair share of the work. The Canadians then quite rightly complained about their taxes paying British workers (& arms' barons).

I’ve never heard of such complaints in any literature on the subject that I’ve read. If there’s was going to be construction in Canada especially at Vickers Montreal, there was going to be a large amount of British involvement. There was plans to extensively utilize Vickers staff in both the design phase, training and actual construction phase.

Obviously they would prefer work back home but I highly doubt they would be obstructive about it especially with the large price markup.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Obviously they would prefer work back home but I highly doubt they would be obstructive about it especially with the large price markup.

It's not like the British yards had much spare capacity either, so anything built in Canadian yards would be extra work and profit.

 

[pjmidd]

Since a lot of expensive bits would need to be shipped in from the UK anyway as Canada could not make them ( big guns for one ) its not like overall UK industry loses out much anyway.

 

[RelativeGalaxy7]

It's not like the British yards had much spare capacity either, so anything built in Canadian yards would be extra work and profit.

Just to put into perspective the Canadian built markup for four Weymouth class cruisers and six Acorn class destroyers was on average $12,400,000 compared to $8,500,000 for the same order of ships to be built in Britain.

Keep in mind these prices don't cover armour plate, armament, and certain fittings usually supplied by the
Admiralty, but included the fitting of these on board the vessels upon construction.

 

[McPherson]

My cut (note length might have to increase and hindsight is obvious) View attachment 472304

One might need more workspace in the casemate. The gun crews could interfere with each other and the magazine hoists "might" appear to be crowded and awkward. I mean the fire rooms take up a lot of room there in the ships of the period and the hoists from the magazines have to skew sideways to clear bulkheads and overheads? in the setbacks? And don't forget that in the UK examples at least that ones at which I examined, that long turbine flat aft of the fire rooms and boilers means no space for an X turret. IMO that could mean one might have to lengthen the hull to work the turbines in. This is my understanding of the severe 1906 limits the RN shipwrights faced as they tried to meet Fisher's crazy demands. One of the reasons for the Invincibles' wing turrets was because of the fire rooms and the need to outboard those turrets as well as their barbettes.