Fisher’s Dreams and Tedious Realities

What was needed was a ship that used only cruiser-type resources, plus whatever odds and ends could be scraped up from the remains of the 1914 battleship programme. Steel plates and framing were easy; more could be ordered for ‘cruisers’, and a deeper hull with thicker layers of top and bottom plating could take care of the stresses experienced by a large ship. Machinery wasn't difficult either, as sets were now on order for ‘C-class’ cruisers. As in Glorious, this machinery could be grouped to produce the higher powers needed by a larger ship.

Neither of these schemes appealed greatly to Fisher (although the design for the four-turret ship would later be developed in other ways), as they would take long to build and wouldn’t produce anything that was significantly better than Renown.
He was on the verge of accepting a modified Glorious instead, as that could be built quickly, when the Engineer-in-Chief came up with a new way of combining turbine power, and Armstrong’s works came back to him with a proposal for a new 15” Mk.2 gun.

I feel like we're just ignoring wartime constraints here and you aren't portraying Fisher anywhere near correctly. You can't just run by and swipe up all of the machinery (boilers or turbines) for cruisers when historically the Chancellor of the Exchequer had forbidden any larger ships than light cruisers for this exact point. The RN needs cruisers quite badly in this stage of the war and is attempting to pump them out as fast as humanly possible. Even for Fisher, diverting these very expensive and limited resources away is not very plausible. You can't just magic up new boilers and especially turbines, they are bottleneck items with a long wait time for replacement. We're getting too far into capital ship building wank while forgetting the very realistic constraints placed on Britain during wartime conditions. Also I dearly hope we aren't going towards triple or three gun turrets because the British also completely loathed them as well. Sticking with another 15" gun even an improved version is not with Fishers MO whatsoever.

Fisher is being a little sneakier in the story, and he's already used up more turrets on the Renowns, so there is less of a choice.
Perhaps the Follies are not seen as the magnificently high-quality product they were in real life :). All will become clear in due course...

I think British dislike of the guns was more along the lines of "not invented here" than anything else. I have no doubt they were 'export grade' - i.e. not quite as good as one might build for oneself. On average, US guns seem to have been less accurate than the British ones (right up to the 2nd WW), however it is possible to argue that a slightly spread pattern gave a better chance of scoring a hit in pre-radar days, so that isn't necessarily a flaw in any American designs.
Roberts, Raglan etc.. gave reasonably good service once the bugs were worked out (and don't you wish they'd stuck with the original names, however politically inappropriate they were - even by 1915 standards).

The British didn't like the guns because they didn't think they were of sufficient quality to meet Admiralty standards, especially to the point where they would be green lit to be placed in new Royal Navy constructions. Lower quality ships with lower quality guns were used by the RN during the war but these were basically exclusively whole sale foreign builds that the RN took over, they didn't take off their weapons to slap them into new RN builds for a very damn good reason. Fisher would be very unlikely to want 14" guns (a clear step down from the 15" gun, same with the Admiralty at this point). Fisher would have rather waited a few years for a new gun such as the 18"/40 gun (which he historically did) or the monster 20"/40 (as he also historically did in 1915, which was confirmed in d’Eyncourt’s papers as being design finalized at this time)
 
I feel like we're just ignoring wartime constraints here and you aren't portraying Fisher anywhere near correctly. You can't just run by and swipe up all of the machinery (boilers or turbines) for cruisers when historically the Chancellor of the Exchequer had forbidden any larger ships than light cruisers for this exact point. The RN needs cruisers quite badly in this stage of the war and is attempting to pump them out as fast as humanly possible. Even for Fisher, diverting these very expensive and limited resources away is not very plausible. You can't just magic up new boilers and especially turbines, they are bottleneck items with a long wait time for replacement. We're getting too far into capital ship building wank while forgetting the very realistic constraints placed on Britain during wartime conditions. Also I dearly hope we aren't going towards triple or three gun turrets because the British also completely loathed them as well. Sticking with another 15" gun even an improved version is not with Fishers MO whatsoever.

The British didn't like the guns because they didn't think they were of sufficient quality to meet Admiralty standards, especially to the point where they would be green lit to be placed in new Royal Navy constructions. Lower quality ships with lower quality guns were used by the RN during the war but these were basically exclusively whole sale foreign builds that the RN took over, they didn't take off their weapons to slap them into new RN builds for a very damn good reason. Fisher would be very unlikely to want 14" guns (a clear step down from the 15" gun, same with the Admiralty at this point). Fisher would have rather waited a few years for a new gun such as the 18"/40 gun (which he historically did) or the monster 20"/40 (as he also historically did in 1915, which was confirmed in d’Eyncourt’s papers as being design finalized at this time)

That is what happened with the 'Large light cruisers'; orders for one thing were used for another, other orders were recycled and a great deal was put in motion simply based on Fisher's say-so. Machinery that could have gone to cruisers went to the three Follies.
Of course the government knew what was going on; Fisher told them, and no-one orders millions of pounds of ships without authorization. It was just a political form of words to get around the ban on new capital ship construction.
In the story, in terms of ships, steel, machinery, mounts, guns etc., very little has changed in terms of quantity, it's just that a few (big-ish) bits are arranged differently.

As to 15" guns and your second paragraph, I make only the following comment:
:biggrin: ... wait and see.
 
Unlike Anything Else
Unlike Anything Else

The few weeks between the end of April and the middle of May 1915 saw new heights in the speed and purpose of the design department. The DNC and Admiral Fisher had found something to agree on, even if it was driven by circumstance rather than any great meeting of minds.

The design of the third ‘large light cruiser’ was recast again. A ship with three turrets emerged, each of which would mount two guns on a 34' diameter barbette and would be of a boxier appearance than the sloped-top turrets of recent years, due to the need to increase the maximum elevation of the guns to 30 degrees. As the 15" Mk.1 entered service with the Navy aboard HMS Queen Elizabeth, it was clear that the step up from 13.5" was an unqualified success. The risk had paid off, and Fisher took the same risk again, as Armstrong’s Elswick works were ordered to deliver a set of 15” 48-cal Mk.2 guns as soon as possible. As with the 15” Mk.1, the first of these would be hurried through in order to test it and to produce a set of range tables.

In the wider naval community, and even in places at the Admiralty, it would remain unclear for some time as to what this new gun was, and what it was for. However, the 15" 48-cal designation did not fool seasoned observers for long, as most could see that Fisher was taking the next step up in firepower, from 12" a few years ago, to 13.5", then to 15", then to what came next.

The hull form of Glorious was enlarged, with plating and frames being stiffened (even this early, there were doubts about the strength of the first two ships). To further help accommodate the stresses of such a long ship, the hull was deepened by 3' 6", with positive results for the feel of mess decks and the space available for the engines. Hull frames also extended up to the shelter deck, forming a "spine" in the centre of the ship, extending from ‘B’ barbette to just aft of the break in the hull where the foc'sle deck tapered away from the sides. In service, the centre section of the ship was found to be both strong and reasonably stiff, but stresses tended to concentrate between A and B and just forward of X barbettes, resulting in damage when she was driven fast into heavy weather early in her career. Strengthening beams and additional plating later mitigated the problem, but she was always a highly stressed ship.

In place of three boiler rooms with 6 boilers each on Glorious, there would be four with a total of 32 boilers. By widening boiler and engine rooms, much more power could be delivered without greatly lengthening the vessel, although at some cost to desired improvements in torpedo protection. Each boiler room was to be 65' wide to allow four boilers to be placed alongside each other, with an extra foot added to the outer double-skin of the internal bulge, resulting in a 98' beam. Fisher's worries over underwater defence had grown more acute in recent months, and the ship would be fitted with a 1.75" torpedo bulkhead, in place of the 1.5" fitted to Glorious.
Machinery consisted of four sets of ‘C class’ geared turbines, with a unique arrangement of double turbines fitted to four shafts. Each shaft had two independent sets of reduction gears and turbines. The arrangement was fine, if a little cramped, for the outer shafts (the forward engine room), but the inner shafts had to be split between Nos 2 and 3 engine rooms, with a machinery room to port of No.2 and to starboard of No.3.

With new guns and machinery ‘borrowed’ from cruiser construction, much of the ship's armour had to come from leftovers or from plating intended for smaller, lightly armoured ships. Here, Fisher was forced to accept something that he would never have done otherwise. Without new orders, the only face-hardened armour available in sufficient quantity was from the now-cancelled Royal-class battleships. Armour plate takes a long time to produce, and the orders for their belt armour had merely been allocated a lower priority when the ships were put on hold at the start of the war. Most of their 6" upper belts had already been claimed by the ‘Renowns’, so with no other options available, designers used the 12" plates ordered for their main belts. Under the ruse that these immense chunks of armour might be needed to repair battle-damaged ships, the order took on a higher priority.

There were also some genuine innovations and improvements. For the first time on a major RN ship, all electrical power would be provided by turbo-generators rather than a mixture of turbine and reciprocating engines. Hydraulic plant was increased to cope with the heavier guns and to avoid problems with elevation and run-out during action. Although the hull was derived from that of the Glorious, it was beamier, which allowed a slight increase in the depth of the ‘internal bulge’, a curved section of the double hull that protruded from the side of the ship itself. Additional crushing tubes would also be added to help reduce the force of underwater explosions and to preserve some of the buoyancy in otherwise flooded sections.

The armour belt would cover 515' of the 878’ length of the ship, from near the front of A to the rear of X barbettes. The belt itself would be 12" thick and inclined at 12 degrees with the side of the hull. However, it was only 8' deep, and there was no upper belt above it, only 3" of protective plating on the sides that extended to the upper deck over the machinery spaces. A splinter-proof 3" of plating also extended fore and aft of the belt for a total of 275' at the waterline, to provide some protection near the bow and stern. The main belt would be closed by 12" end bulkheads, again just 8' high. As detailed designs were being prepared, concerns over weight growth led to the entire belt being raised by 15", meaning that it projected slightly above the main deck.
The armament would be well protected. Turrets had 13" faces, 4" roofs, with 10" sides and rears, while the barbettes were 11" thick to where they entered the hull, with 7" extending down to the main (armour) deck. Inkeeping with their cruiser heritage, there was no full-length lower deck, and the main deck was therefore directly above the engines, magazines and boilers. As with the earlier Royals, the belt did not therefore protect the armour deck (the main deck) and consequently this was relatively heavy, with a 2" flat and 3" slopes extending down to project 18” below the bottom of the belt. Slopes over the machinery were 4”. The lower deck aft over the shafts and steering gear was 3", and there was a 1.5" lower deck running 125' forward to match the waterline protective plate. The foc'sle forward carried 1" of HT protective plate (increased to 1.5" within 15' of the sides), and the exposed upper deck aft was 1.5”, all of which also contributed to the strength of the ship.

Furious section.png
The design reached 34,690 tons at load displacement, and an estimated 39,190 tons deep, for a draught of 25' 5" at load, or 28' 8" deep. At load draught, most of the belt was above the waterline, but at deep load the top was 3' 3" above the waves, with the rest of the huge exposed side of the ship unarmoured against anything more than 6" fire. Following minor revisions to the height of the bulge and to internal stiffening, the ship was laid down on 22nd May.

Fisher's name for his original gargantuan concept had been ‘HMS Incomparable’, however, as the third ‘large light cruiser’, she already had a name that was accepted by the government and Admiralty, and she would be built as HMS Furious.

Furious.png
 
Welp I'm pretty sure she won't be converted to a carrier in this timeline as long as the turrets are twin turrets, and by using more modern engines and boilers in the 30s you could seriously uparmor her with the saved weight
 
Last edited:
That is what happened with the 'Large light cruisers'; orders for one thing were used for another, other orders were recycled and a great deal was put in motion simply based on Fisher's say-so. Machinery that could have gone to cruisers went to the three Follies.
Of course the government knew what was going on; Fisher told them, and no-one orders millions of pounds of ships without authorization. It was just a political form of words to get around the ban on new capital ship construction.
In the story, in terms of ships, steel, machinery, mounts, guns etc., very little has changed in terms of quantity, it's just that a few (big-ish) bits are arranged differently.

As to 15" guns and your second paragraph, I make only the following comment:
:biggrin: ... wait and see.

Yes I'm aware of what happened for the Large Light Cruisers however, you can't simply keep swiping cruiser machinery out of warehouses without some butterflies down the road. Ah yes I missed the 15" Mark II, I'm guessing it's similar to another weapon called the 15" Mark B ;)
 
Welp I'm pretty sure she won't be converted to a carrier in this timeline as long as the turrets are twin turrets, and by using more modern engines and boilers in the 30s you could seriously uparmor her with the saved weight
She won't become a carrier, she'll be far too high-profile (remind you of any real ships?)
Yes, they are twin turrets.
 
Yes I'm aware of what happened for the Large Light Cruisers however, you can't simply keep swiping cruiser machinery out of warehouses without some butterflies down the road.
Indeed not ... and no doubt in due course there will be some soulless individuals who will call her a white elephant and a waste of resources (and she won't complete anything like as quickly as the real Furious).
However, she's an interesting ship, very much a transitional design with potential.
Ah yes I missed the 15" Mark II, I'm guessing it's similar to another weapon called the 15" Mark B ;)
I wouldn't want to make it too obvious :)
 
So what is happening w the germans in this period.? Sub expansion? Bc ?
So far, not much has changed w.r.t. the Germans. They have the extra 6 Mackensens under their War Programme, plus the two Bayerns.
There will be some details of their 'lessons of war' so far, prior to the start of ... a certain event (if you read the last few installments carefully, you already know what it's called!;))

Submarine building has been massively expanded (as OTL), and USW is happening, however there will be a slight twist there in a few chapters' time, in part due to Fisher's presence.
 
No fear!
Although she could do with being a bit higher in the water, and losing that bulky forward conning tower; pity there were no DCTs in 1916.
Another thing she could really do with is an all or nothing armor scheme and use the saved weight to have a thicker main deck and if possible a deeper and/or thicker main belt and better turret armor
 
Last edited:
Another thing she could really do with is an all or nothing armor scheme and use the saved weight to have a thicker main deck
Quite true, but given British thinking up to late 1916, it would be a difficult thing to do. Even the second group of ships weren't going to be AoN (although they would have been about as good as Bismarck was ~20 years later).

On a more theoretical point, it's a pity AoN was never really tested in battle. A few shells on PoW and one of the US ships (South Dakota?) didn't really test it.
Graduated armour actually did quite well in limiting damage (not stopping it), except where it was just ridiculously thin.
 
Quite true, but given British thinking up to late 1916, it would be a difficult thing to do. Even the second group of ships weren't going to be AoN (although they would have been about as good as Bismarck was ~20 years later).

On a more theoretical point, it's a pity AoN was never really tested in battle. A few shells on PoW and one of the US ships (South Dakota?) didn't really test it.
Graduated armour actually did quite well in limiting damage (not stopping it), except where it was just ridiculously thin.
Hmm maybe Fisher decides reducing the area the ships armor covers will reduce weight and thus increase a hulls potential speed while still adding greater protection. As related to battle testing of all or nothing armor the tests on Tosa and Washington are about as close as we're going to get and they did take quite a lot punishment
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 94680

Another thing she could really do with is an all or nothing armor scheme and use the saved weight to have a thicker main deck and if possible a deeper and/or thicker main belt and better turret armor

On a more theoretical point, it's a pity AoN was never really tested in battle. A few shells on PoW and one of the US ships (South Dakota?) didn't really test it.
Graduated armour actually did quite well in limiting damage (not stopping it), except where it was just ridiculously thin.

None of the grand engagements the naval planners of the day envisaged ever really happened, but as @sts-200 says, the SoDak is probably the best illustration of the scheme.

The most direct demonstration of the benefits—and the limits—of an all-or-nothing armoring scheme in comparison to banded armoring occurred in the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal.

So a vessel built with traditional armour...

On the first night (13 November 1942) a US cruiser-destroyer formation charged directly through a superior Japanese force at point-blank range, unintentionally offsetting the Japanese advantage in fire power with their advantage in fire volume. Japanese battleship Hiei, built using an incremental armoring scheme, was fatally damaged by fires caused by 8 inch AP shells from USS San Francisco that penetrated secondary battery casemates protected by a medium thickness upper belt similar to Bismarck. As in Bismarck the upper belt proved sufficient to detonate the projectiles but not sufficient to exclude them, and a fatal hit that disabled her steering gear allowed Hiei to be sunk by air attack the following day.


Whereas a ship built with AoN armour...

On the second night, (14–15 November 1942) the USS South Dakota was hit at close range by 27 common, HE, and AP shells of various calibers, most of which passed through her unarmored superstructure without detonating and caused relatively little damage.
Both projectiles that struck South Dakota's armor shattered, including a 14 in (36 cm) armor-piercing round from the Japanese battleship Kirishima, which struck the heavily armored barbette of main battery turret III. No projectiles penetrated South Dakota's armor and the ship's hull strength, buoyancy, stability, steering and propulsion were not materially affected. Though South Dakota was in no danger of sinking, she was put out of action by the damage the smaller-caliber fire wreaked upon her radars and electronic systems, which rendered her ineffective for night combat.

Source: wiki page on All or Nothing armour

It’s probably the best demonstration of the differences between the two schemes.

Isn’t there the other benefit: speed? An AoN ship (as I understand it) can be strongly armoured over the vitals for less weight than a banded armour ship due to the “unarmoured” portions. The weight saved in armour can go to more machinery or just make a lighter vessel?
 
Isn’t there the other benefit: speed? An AoN ship (as I understand it) can be strongly armoured over the vitals for less weight than a banded armour ship due to the “unarmoured” portions. The weight saved in armour can go to more machinery or just make a lighter vessel?
Yes, but in practice the weight saved was put towards thickening armor in the citadel rather than increasing speed in the one smooth transition seen: the New Yorks to Nevadas.
 
Top