The super high elevation on the RN's 8-inch gunned ships was basically worthless. It made the turrets far too complex, heavy and large, loading was slow and the guns were too slow to elevate and traverse to engage with their 8-inch weapons apart from as an opening long range salvo as their ROF also suffered when elevated that high. Any step away from that is a good thing.
Dread Nought but the Fury of the Seas
- Thread starter sts-200
- Start date
Except the Mk. II turrets with sane elevations ended up heavier. How the Brits pulled that off is beyond me.
Somehow, the Japanese achieved the 70-degree elevation without the absurd overweight of the British mounts; hell, the Japanese mounts weren't any heavier than everyone else's twin 8" mounts of the time, aside from the Brits.
The IJN's turrets were protected by 1-inch of armour at the most, basically splinter protection, they also used a wide range of weight saving things like extensive welding and use of lighter materials where possible. The RN stuck with riviting and bolting for a lot longer and thats going to be heavier.
Agreed. On one level it's realistic, this is a less scarred and more self confident RN, on the other hand speed isn't armour and they have direct war experience of battlecruisers getting shot at by battleships. They should have learned that for battlecruisers the leg of the trifecta you sacrifice to gain speed is armament not armour whether in number or layout.
Funnels location isn't determined by aesthetics and considering the number of ships where they cooked the foretop they aren't governed by comfort either. Their location is determined by the machinery layout.
HMS Furious and all the British battleship designs disagree. With hindsight the RN would have been better off not opening this can of worms but they have and they can't go back now.
Last edited:
Why not? This is actually where a naval treaty could be useful, one that limited the maximum size of a capital ship to say 45,000-48,000 tons and 16" guns. They just need to include some sort of verification provisions, as simple as a visit to each ship every 2-3 years to measure the gun size. Granted, this would still allow some fudging on the over all tonnage, but the guns could be verified and that would ensure nobody was cheating on gun size. The British would get to keep Furious as the world's only 18" gunned ship (and both the best and the worst example of one).
At most, somebody like the Japanese could try to build a couple of Yamatos that broke the rules, but they would have to go to war pretty soon after they were built because it would be obvious that the ships were in violation, either when the guns were measured or when the Japanese refused access to inspectors.
One of the side effects would probably be that everyone might well build a few 18" guns to prepare for a potential treaty violation by anyone else. The guns could be used for testing and in coastal defenses.
Obviously it would be nice for the RN if they could get the rest of the world to sign a treaty where they are the only ones allowed a 18" armed ship however I'm not convinced the rest of the world would be as keen despite the flaws of the Furious.
Also the idea that you would build a ship with 16" guns but secretly prepare it to be fitted with 18" guns is much less practical than it sounds. While the Germans sort of tried it with the Scharnhorsts the reality is that if you change the gun calibre you need to change everything about the main armament from the magazines to the handling systems to the turrets to the fire control. Digging around that deep in the ship a. costs a lot and b. takes a lot of dockyard time. You're not just going to sail into harbour on Day 1 of the war with your 16" guns and sail out 10 days later with 18" guns even if you have everything prepped and ready in a dockside warehouse.
Also the idea that you would build a ship with 16" guns but secretly prepare it to be fitted with 18" guns is much less practical than it sounds. While the Germans sort of tried it with the Scharnhorsts the reality is that if you change the gun calibre you need to change everything about the main armament from the magazines to the handling systems to the turrets to the fire control. Digging around that deep in the ship a. costs a lot and b. takes a lot of dockyard time. You're not just going to sail into harbour on Day 1 of the war with your 16" guns and sail out 10 days later with 18" guns even if you have everything prepped and ready in a dockside warehouse.
Deleted member 94680
You have got the idiot that OTL caused the battlecruisers’ destruction in charge though now, remember.
They were aware (eventually) and solved that problem pre-war. That and it was more placement of the foretop that was wrong in relation to the funnels, rather than the other way round.
At present ITTL nobody has any 18" gunned ships under construction. Given that the only extant 18" ship (Furious) has only 6 guns, I think it is at least possible that the US and Japanese might agree to a single British ship 18" ship. In OTL, the US had the Colorados (four ships, three completed) under construction and the Japanese had the Nagatos (two ships) , so the British understandably needed the equalizers of Nelson and Rodney.
As for ship designs, I was not proposing ships designed to come in and be upgunned. I was suggesting keeping a maximum 16" armament and with 45,000 - 48,000 tons trying to get at least marginal armor against 18" guns (at least the Furious 18" mk1 guns). Although thinking about it, if you designed the ship from the outset for 18" guns (turret ring, magazines, and all), what stops the designers from then adapting that design to 16" guns?
They have to redesign the shell storage and magazine arrangements, but everything else should be over-engineered for 16" guns. I expect the biggest problems would be the gun mounts, with 16" guns probably having different balance points so adapters would be needed. However, if you designed a ship for 8 x 18" guns and just put 16" guns in the turrets, there will be adaptations needed, but it should not require cutting lots of armor. The ship would probably accept a small increase in vulnerability since the turret openings for the guns would be larger than required for 16" guns.
I am guessing flash protection. The go to restriction (as opposed to fault) for inter war RN turrets.
I am leery about comments about high elevations for DP guns. High elevation was mainly for dive bombers. A slightly out of context problem which only really existed for 10 years. OTOH 50 degrees is enough to support other ships in your TF.
I think there is a lot of grass is greener, rapidly shifting goal posts, and a steep learning curve in WW2 AA which makes it hard to judge it fairly from hindsight.
Armour protects you. Guns protect your teammates. He who hits first hardest wins. That doesn't change. Beatty's battle cruisers may have blown up but we have seen plenty of arguments about that. But we keep forgetting Scheer was pummeled by ineffective shells at ranges where his own ships struggled to respond.
It is interesting to note the USN fast battleship favoured guns over armour.
Yes, they are 4.7". Not a bad place to start, so long as they fix the mistakes in the next version.
At this time, the pompoms would be sextuple (the mount was never built OTL) - although again, the design is likely to be revised before any ships are built.
As you and other have said, plenty of room for improvements in due course (if the design is selected...?)
It is rather Germanic, but it is basically Hood with greater bridge space, which was demand by wartime experience (both OTL and TTL) - plenty of room for plots, additional tactical rangefinders and signal stations. In addition, these would all be fitted as flagships.
The funnels are deliberately close together, as was the practice at the time, in an effort to make inclination more difficult to measure (the course of the ship as seen by the enemy). If you look at designs for G3 or any of the 'H' types, you will see much the same thing. Even Hood's sisters were to have had more closely space funnels than she did.
As @steamboy says, they were also keen to avoid any possible repeat of the smoke problems of earlier ships. In that arrangement above, the fore-funnel would be trunked back, meaning the boiler rooms extend further forward than the picture suggests, probably to about the foremast, with a transmitting station and secondary magazine ahead of it.
We're a bit early for unit machinery, partly because they were always struggling to fit the machinery into a BC hull, and anything that made it bulkier wasn't helpful.
That potentially goes away in a few years as machinery improves.
12" belt?
I mean it's nice, but if the British can design the G3 with a 14" belt and a 8" deck, with 9 16. 5" guns.
Why can't the Royal navy do so here?
Plus side is the ability to put 2 18" guns in the same barbetts as the 3 16.5" guns.
And something noted by goodall, he was under the impression that the G3 would possibly be able to make 31.5 knots. Not 32 but close and still incredibly quick.
All on 48,400 long tons (normal displacement)
So yeah it's a knot slower.
But it's far better protected (even with the deficiency in protection) with very similar guns. And with the possibility of putting 18" guns in their place instead. Plus it had a a queen anne's mansions style superstructure. Which in general you can fit more in for a far smaller footprint.
Or is et supposed to be the K3 with with guns?
I mean it's nice, but if the British can design the G3 with a 14" belt and a 8" deck, with 9 16. 5" guns.
Why can't the Royal navy do so here?
Plus side is the ability to put 2 18" guns in the same barbetts as the 3 16.5" guns.
And something noted by goodall, he was under the impression that the G3 would possibly be able to make 31.5 knots. Not 32 but close and still incredibly quick.
All on 48,400 long tons (normal displacement)
So yeah it's a knot slower.
But it's far better protected (even with the deficiency in protection) with very similar guns. And with the possibility of putting 18" guns in their place instead. Plus it had a a queen anne's mansions style superstructure. Which in general you can fit more in for a far smaller footprint.
Or is et supposed to be the K3 with with guns?
Last edited:
In the context of 1921, she's a relatively balanced very fast battleship (and just over 45ktons, 9-16", 32 knots ... remind you of anything?)
In a 16" world, she'd be tough to beat.
However, as you say, it's a tricky one ... in an 18" world, she's a classic BC - only capable of harassing the big boys, and at risk to herself. As a cruiser-killer, she's overkill - equally, she could take apart anything afloat in 1921.
Or, are battlecruisers intended to fight 18" ships - in which case, why not give them 18" guns.
Or, do they accept that they are heavily armoured second-class battleships (16" guns, but armoured against 18").
Plenty more to come there.
There's the trouble with funny stories - sooner or later, they happen!
'reality is infinitely more complex that anything the mind of man can invent', to paraphrase Conan Doyle.
How about, heavily armoured 16" battlecruisers able to catch and harass an enemy, slow them down and allow the main Fleet of heavily armoured but slower 18" battleships to catch the fleet and put it under the waves.
Because the weight saved by going from an 18" to a 16" battery doesn't make up for the weight of machinery needed to get the extra 50,000 SHP.
Basically, if it's armoured against 18" either it's ridiculously huge, it's armed with popguns (or a severely reduced battery, maybe 4-6 15-16") or it moves at 23-25kt, 25-27kt if you cut corners and push the limits. That's the equation everyone is struggling with in 1920.
The RN believe the battle line needs a fast wing. That means a decent margin of speed over contemporary battleships (and the projected battleships of 10 years hence), and enough firepower to hurt a capital ship, which means 16" guns and enough of them to maintain a decent hit rate. Put those together and there's only so much tonnage left for armour, which is why you end up with a battlecruiser, albeit one with better protection than most pre-war battleships.
There's an argument that in an 18" world, they should go for a unified line of 26kt fast battleships with 18" guns and full armour, possibly with a side order of 32kt CAs with 8-12" guns, cruiser armour and a big sign over the bridge saying "Not for use in the line of battle". But the British can't afford to build 20,000-ton ships that can't stand in the battle line, and the enemy may inconveniently show up in a Lexington or Amagi which can run from your fast battleships and massacre your CAs.
I think you are slightly exaggerating, you certainly aren't getting a 18" armed, armoured against 18" ship going more than 30 knots without getting enormous but I think you could get a G3 or Nelson layout ship going 27 knots by taking the P-3 mentioned earlier and optimising. Now you can argue that that gun layout is cutting corners and there is a debate about whether it's a corner worth cutting but it is possible.
Agreed but make them 27 knots even if that requires making them more "all or nothing".
Disagree strongly, a ship like that is Alaska level pointless. The RN needs a County class stretched by 10-15 feet with an extra pair of boilers squeezed in taking them to 100,00 shp rather than 80,000 shp so they can do 33 knots rather than 31.5 out of the yard and more importantly can still comfortably do 30+ knots in 20 years time after they've been festooned with lots of heavy radars, fire control, AA etc.
The British already have the best battlecruiser force in the world at this point with Furious, Hood and Howe and slightly slower but still dangerous Repulse and Renown . If enemy battlecruisers appear in the near future they will be seen off by the British battlecruisers. After all while the foreign ships have bigger guns they have so little armour the British 15" guns are adequate and as for Furious....
Last edited:
That's a good point actually - the British are trying to solve a problem which is probably insoluble for 10 years or so, and for at least that time their existing battlecruisers are more than good enough. Their battle line, however, is rather older in the tooth and more suspect compared to likely opposition. Why work on battlecruisers right now in those circumstances?
Well hopefully @sts-200 will have someone in the Admiralty notice this but at least at this stage I suspect it's because Beatty is First Sea Lord and he really wants shiny new battlecruisers. Unfortunately he stayed First Sea Lord in OTL until 1927 so the odds of the RN getting the new battleships it needs rather than battlecruisers Beatty would prefer are low.
Last edited: