SsgtC
Banned
Now that would be a fun timeline! If the American Battleline had been 16" from the Pennsylvania class on, I could see the RN and IJN having an absolute fit about being so outnumbered in 16" ships.
Dread Nought but the Fury of the Seas
- Thread starter sts-200
- Start date
More realistically, the New Mexicos would be the first ships with 16" guns, and that butterflies things so badly I'd be surprised if the Washington Naval Treaty happens at all. Those 16"-gun ships were probably the biggest sticking point.
Ahh, a man who didn't understand that truly civilised ships should be wet ...
A ship with four twin 14" turrets was the starting point in late 1915 for what would become Lexington. I believe it was called Design 150 and was very much as I have briefly outlined.
However, very little was done about it until 1916, at which point it was expanded to ten 14" (first in a 2-3-3-2 arrangement, then 3-2-2-3). This design was approved for construction in June 1916.
I'm not aware that the obvious configuration of nine 14" in three triples was ever seriously considered.
Various studies involving fast 16" gun ships dated from earlier, but the Lexington design only acquired them in 1917.
As we all know, what any given Navy wants, and what the designers, staff, treasuries and politicians are prepared to give them are two very different things...
Not to mention the laws of physics, sometimes.
"Give me a 45-kt ship which can carry more and bigger guns than any battleship in history, plus a full air wing, with organic SAM coverage out to 200nm, space for the Admiral's planning team, permanent video link to home base...oh, and make it small enough to pass through the Panama Canal and under Tower Bridge...and have it ready in 2 years, please"
(Yes, I know I've moved the requirements request forward in time a few decades, sorry!)
That will be 50 billion dollars and we only take payment in advance.Not to mention the laws of physics, sometimes.
"Give me a 45-kt ship which can carry more and bigger guns than any battleship in history, plus a full air wing, with organic SAM coverage out to 200nm, space for the Admiral's planning team, permanent video link to home base...oh, and make it small enough to pass through the Panama Canal and under Tower Bridge...and have it ready in 2 years, please"
(Yes, I know I've moved the requirements request forward in time a few decades, sorry!)
Well in this case the hull will actually be on time and budget but it will still need to be fitted out which will take 4 years and 100 billion dollars.
Ahh, a man who didn't understand that truly civilised ships should be wet ...
A ship with four twin 14" turrets was the starting point in late 1915 for what would become Lexington. I believe it was called Design 150 and was very much as I have briefly outlined.
However, very little was done about it until 1916, at which point it was expanded to ten 14" (first in a 2-3-3-2 arrangement, then 3-2-2-3). This design was approved for construction in June 1916.
I'm not aware that the obvious configuration of nine 14" in three triples was ever seriously considered.
Various studies involving fast 16" gun ships dated from earlier, but the Lexington design only acquired them in 1917.
As we all know, what any given Navy wants, and what the designers, staff, treasuries and politicians are prepared to give them are two very different things...
*laughs in Tillman Battleship*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_battleship
Not to mention the laws of physics, sometimes.
"Give me a 45-kt ship which can carry more and bigger guns than any battleship in history, plus a full air wing, with organic SAM coverage out to 200nm, space for the Admiral's planning team, permanent video link to home base...oh, and make it small enough to pass through the Panama Canal and under Tower Bridge...and have it ready in 2 years, please"
(Yes, I know I've moved the requirements request forward in time a few decades, sorry!)
Sounds like Fisher's dream ship ...
I've long imagined him travelling through a timewarp and expressing overwhelming admiration on being shown the specifications and capabilities of a Nimitz-class carrier; before considering further and saying with a sly grin,
'so, it isn't submersible then...'
...which will all be your fault for changing one word of the specification ten seconds after signing the contract.
Fisher would also probably literally murder the entirety of Parliament for letting/forcing the Royal Navy decline to the point that it has.
Last edited:
Back to the Drawing Board
Back to the Drawing Board
Fisher’s chosen design for the 1915 battlecruisers was an 874’ ship, capable of about 33 knots and with an inclined 8” main belt that would be at least as effective as the vertical 9” belt on the ‘Lions’. Following questions over the loss of Inflexible, the design called for the belt to run between end barbettes, while the turrets would have battleship-levels of protection.
However, in the autumn of 1915 the old Admiral fell out once too often with government ministers, and after his resignation, the Director of Naval Construction pushed for a swift revaluation of the design. His first objection was to the length of the ship, as only Portsmouth and Rosyth could be modified to handle such a long ship. The pressures of war were mounting, as dockyards, materials and manpower were in ever greater demand. Shutting down docks to allow them to accommodate bigger, resource-hungry ships was not an option while the war continued.
If the new ships could be shorter, none of this highly disruptive work would be needed, even if it meant the one-off freak Furious would have to use commercial docks. A proposal in January 1916 to cancel her was rejected, as a great deal of work had already been done (the hull would be launched in July), and there was no doubt that she would be an impressive ship.
However, Fisher’s preferred ‘Design 4’ had positives too; the armament was well protected, and the plan to use extra-long boilers, each of which would deliver steam for 6,300 shp was regarded as a useful improvement on the units used in Furious. Given the assumed scale of the German building programme, everyone agreed with Fisher’s desire for the ships to be completed relatively quickly, but there was a limit to what could be built given the limitations of wartime conditions. A ‘perfect’ 42,000-ton ship would obviously use more of everything than a 35,000-ton ship.
The DNC tried to tempt Admiral Jellicoe with a proposal for a hybrid battleship of 30,000 tons and capable of 26½ knots, but it was again rejected as being ‘too slow to catch current German battlecruisers, and too fast to work with the Grand Fleet’.
Beatty expressed greater interest in the idea, but his reply to the DNC and the Admiralty (naturally copied to the C-in-C) was suggestive of ulterior motives; ‘A fast squadron to provide close support for the battlecruisers would be of the greatest possible use. In the present circumstances, however, I believe the Queen Elizabeths would serve well in this role’.
It was also found that reduction in size below 30-35,000 tons would make relatively little difference to construction schedules, as other factors such as the time taken to produce armour plate became more relevant.
By February 1916 the concept for the ‘Admiral class’ had re-emerged as a battlecruiser equivalent of the ‘Royal’ class battleships. Nominally, these were supposed to be 25-knot ships, and theory suggested that there should be at least a 6-knot margin for a battlecruiser version. However, this was still only 31 knots, and so there could be a significant power reduction from Fisher’s 33-knot ships. If a set of boilers were removed the machinery could still deliver 132,000shp, while the ship could be shortened to 850’, with reductions in size (and therefore weight) of the armoured citadel. Changes to upperworks and masts reduced topweight, and so the beam could be reduced to 101' to maintain the same level of stability. After a series of iterations, the design reached a load displacement of 36,500 tons, but with the reduced weight and a series of detail improvements to the hull, speed would still be at least 31½ knots.
A 9" belt stretched from the lower to slightly above the main deck between the fore and aft turrets, with a 6" upper belt to the upper deck above it, and a 4" waterline extension fore and aft. All these sloped with the hull at about 12 degrees to the vertical. The main and upper belts were closed with 9" vertical bulkheads. Exposed areas of the barbettes would be 11" thick, with 9” to the upper deck inside the hull and 5” down to the main (armoured) deck. As on Fisher’s design, the four twin turrets would have 13" face plates, 11” sides and 4" roofs. Deck protection would be much as the ‘Royals’, with a 1" upper deck covering the belt and a 1.5" main deck with 2” edges and slopes down to meet the bottom of the belt along its full length. A 2.5" lower deck protected the steering gear and shafts aft, and there was 1.5" of protective plating on the edges of the foc'sle deck under the secondary guns. A 1.5" torpedo bulkhead ran between the turrets. There was splinter protection for the bridge and aft director, and an 11" conning tower and armoured director.
Despite the plans to use heavier guns on Furious, a sufficient number of large-bore weapons could not be available in time for these ships' expected completion in 1918. It was therefore accepted that the ships would be armed with the current 15" gun, and turrets and barbettes were sized accordingly. Even the new Mk.2 turrets would be based on the design of the Mk.1, with a boxier carapace and internal workings modified for 30-degree elevation.
It was known that a single 4" hit was highly unlikely to stop a destroyer, and so battleships had been built with 6" secondaries for some years. Fisher's influence had led to 4” guns being mounted on the ‘Renowns’ and the large light cruisers, but with him gone, these new ships would mount twelve 6” guns. However, protected casemates would have imposed a significant weight penalty, and so the guns would be in single mounts on the foc'sle deck, each with a splinter-proof shield.
When Admiral Jellicoe was shown the plans, they met with his approval, but he requested that the upper belt should be at least 7” thick, and that there be improved splinter protection around the secondary guns. The DNC was eventually able to provide an 8” upper belt, along with a series of detailed changes involved minor strengthening to the hull and a thinning of the end bulkheads in compensation for main deck armour that stretched further forward.
As the design was settled, concerns over material and labour availability were growing worse. Production of patrol vessels, monitors, destroyers and merchant ships was accelerating, while Fisher’s use of eight sets of machinery on the three ‘large light cruisers’ and the demands for steel for Furious had led to a pair of C-class cruisers being postponed. Nevertheless, commanders wanted more cruisers too, and rumours of German construction had led to the design of larger ‘D-class’ and ‘Atlantic’ vessels.
It was therefore decided to split the capital ship programme into two. Two ships would be laid down immediately, leaving the other two until to the end of 1916. This first pair could also be slightly accelerated by a few leftovers from cancelled programmes. 9” armour plates from the suspended Chilean battleship Almirante Cochrane would be used on the first ship, while machinery and materials from four 15” gun turrets ordered for cancelled ‘Royals’ would help to speed construction of both ships.
HMS Hood was laid down at John Brown’s on 18th February 1916 to this design, and her sister Howe followed at Cammell Laird the end of the month.
Fisher’s chosen design for the 1915 battlecruisers was an 874’ ship, capable of about 33 knots and with an inclined 8” main belt that would be at least as effective as the vertical 9” belt on the ‘Lions’. Following questions over the loss of Inflexible, the design called for the belt to run between end barbettes, while the turrets would have battleship-levels of protection.
However, in the autumn of 1915 the old Admiral fell out once too often with government ministers, and after his resignation, the Director of Naval Construction pushed for a swift revaluation of the design. His first objection was to the length of the ship, as only Portsmouth and Rosyth could be modified to handle such a long ship. The pressures of war were mounting, as dockyards, materials and manpower were in ever greater demand. Shutting down docks to allow them to accommodate bigger, resource-hungry ships was not an option while the war continued.
If the new ships could be shorter, none of this highly disruptive work would be needed, even if it meant the one-off freak Furious would have to use commercial docks. A proposal in January 1916 to cancel her was rejected, as a great deal of work had already been done (the hull would be launched in July), and there was no doubt that she would be an impressive ship.
However, Fisher’s preferred ‘Design 4’ had positives too; the armament was well protected, and the plan to use extra-long boilers, each of which would deliver steam for 6,300 shp was regarded as a useful improvement on the units used in Furious. Given the assumed scale of the German building programme, everyone agreed with Fisher’s desire for the ships to be completed relatively quickly, but there was a limit to what could be built given the limitations of wartime conditions. A ‘perfect’ 42,000-ton ship would obviously use more of everything than a 35,000-ton ship.
The DNC tried to tempt Admiral Jellicoe with a proposal for a hybrid battleship of 30,000 tons and capable of 26½ knots, but it was again rejected as being ‘too slow to catch current German battlecruisers, and too fast to work with the Grand Fleet’.
Beatty expressed greater interest in the idea, but his reply to the DNC and the Admiralty (naturally copied to the C-in-C) was suggestive of ulterior motives; ‘A fast squadron to provide close support for the battlecruisers would be of the greatest possible use. In the present circumstances, however, I believe the Queen Elizabeths would serve well in this role’.
It was also found that reduction in size below 30-35,000 tons would make relatively little difference to construction schedules, as other factors such as the time taken to produce armour plate became more relevant.
By February 1916 the concept for the ‘Admiral class’ had re-emerged as a battlecruiser equivalent of the ‘Royal’ class battleships. Nominally, these were supposed to be 25-knot ships, and theory suggested that there should be at least a 6-knot margin for a battlecruiser version. However, this was still only 31 knots, and so there could be a significant power reduction from Fisher’s 33-knot ships. If a set of boilers were removed the machinery could still deliver 132,000shp, while the ship could be shortened to 850’, with reductions in size (and therefore weight) of the armoured citadel. Changes to upperworks and masts reduced topweight, and so the beam could be reduced to 101' to maintain the same level of stability. After a series of iterations, the design reached a load displacement of 36,500 tons, but with the reduced weight and a series of detail improvements to the hull, speed would still be at least 31½ knots.
A 9" belt stretched from the lower to slightly above the main deck between the fore and aft turrets, with a 6" upper belt to the upper deck above it, and a 4" waterline extension fore and aft. All these sloped with the hull at about 12 degrees to the vertical. The main and upper belts were closed with 9" vertical bulkheads. Exposed areas of the barbettes would be 11" thick, with 9” to the upper deck inside the hull and 5” down to the main (armoured) deck. As on Fisher’s design, the four twin turrets would have 13" face plates, 11” sides and 4" roofs. Deck protection would be much as the ‘Royals’, with a 1" upper deck covering the belt and a 1.5" main deck with 2” edges and slopes down to meet the bottom of the belt along its full length. A 2.5" lower deck protected the steering gear and shafts aft, and there was 1.5" of protective plating on the edges of the foc'sle deck under the secondary guns. A 1.5" torpedo bulkhead ran between the turrets. There was splinter protection for the bridge and aft director, and an 11" conning tower and armoured director.
Despite the plans to use heavier guns on Furious, a sufficient number of large-bore weapons could not be available in time for these ships' expected completion in 1918. It was therefore accepted that the ships would be armed with the current 15" gun, and turrets and barbettes were sized accordingly. Even the new Mk.2 turrets would be based on the design of the Mk.1, with a boxier carapace and internal workings modified for 30-degree elevation.
It was known that a single 4" hit was highly unlikely to stop a destroyer, and so battleships had been built with 6" secondaries for some years. Fisher's influence had led to 4” guns being mounted on the ‘Renowns’ and the large light cruisers, but with him gone, these new ships would mount twelve 6” guns. However, protected casemates would have imposed a significant weight penalty, and so the guns would be in single mounts on the foc'sle deck, each with a splinter-proof shield.
When Admiral Jellicoe was shown the plans, they met with his approval, but he requested that the upper belt should be at least 7” thick, and that there be improved splinter protection around the secondary guns. The DNC was eventually able to provide an 8” upper belt, along with a series of detailed changes involved minor strengthening to the hull and a thinning of the end bulkheads in compensation for main deck armour that stretched further forward.
As the design was settled, concerns over material and labour availability were growing worse. Production of patrol vessels, monitors, destroyers and merchant ships was accelerating, while Fisher’s use of eight sets of machinery on the three ‘large light cruisers’ and the demands for steel for Furious had led to a pair of C-class cruisers being postponed. Nevertheless, commanders wanted more cruisers too, and rumours of German construction had led to the design of larger ‘D-class’ and ‘Atlantic’ vessels.
It was therefore decided to split the capital ship programme into two. Two ships would be laid down immediately, leaving the other two until to the end of 1916. This first pair could also be slightly accelerated by a few leftovers from cancelled programmes. 9” armour plates from the suspended Chilean battleship Almirante Cochrane would be used on the first ship, while machinery and materials from four 15” gun turrets ordered for cancelled ‘Royals’ would help to speed construction of both ships.
HMS Hood was laid down at John Brown’s on 18th February 1916 to this design, and her sister Howe followed at Cammell Laird the end of the month.
Legend - Admiral Class Feb '16
Legend of ‘Admiral’ class, 25th February 1916
Length 850’ oa, 800’ pp
Beam 101’
Draught 25’ 11” mean, 28’ 9” mean deep
Rated SHP 132,500
Speed 31¾ kts
Oil Fuel 1,200 tons; 3,950 tons max
Armament 8 x 15” Mk.1 in Mk.2 gunhouses
12 x 6” BL Mk.XII
2 x 3” HA
2 x .303 Vickers MG
4 x 21” above water TT
Armour particulars:
Belt 9” Main, 8” Upper
4" Ends (for total of 250’ at waterline fore/aft)
End Bulkheads 8"
Barbettes 11" to exposed deck, 9" to upper deck, 5" to main deck
Gunhouses 13” faces, 11” sides, 4” roof
Conning Tower 11”, with 6” tube
Decks 2.5" Lower aft over steering and shafts
2" Main deck slope
1.5" Main deck flat (2" sides for 20’)
1” Upper deck over belt
1.5" Foc’sle at edges under 6” guns
Torpedo bulkhead 1.5"
Weights/tons
Hull 14,380
Machinery 5,250
Armament 5,220
Armour 9,485
Equipment 1,000
Oil Fuel 1,200
Total (Normal Load) 36,535 tons
Deep Load 40,420 tons
Length 850’ oa, 800’ pp
Beam 101’
Draught 25’ 11” mean, 28’ 9” mean deep
Rated SHP 132,500
Speed 31¾ kts
Oil Fuel 1,200 tons; 3,950 tons max
Armament 8 x 15” Mk.1 in Mk.2 gunhouses
12 x 6” BL Mk.XII
2 x 3” HA
2 x .303 Vickers MG
4 x 21” above water TT
Armour particulars:
Belt 9” Main, 8” Upper
4" Ends (for total of 250’ at waterline fore/aft)
End Bulkheads 8"
Barbettes 11" to exposed deck, 9" to upper deck, 5" to main deck
Gunhouses 13” faces, 11” sides, 4” roof
Conning Tower 11”, with 6” tube
Decks 2.5" Lower aft over steering and shafts
2" Main deck slope
1.5" Main deck flat (2" sides for 20’)
1” Upper deck over belt
1.5" Foc’sle at edges under 6” guns
Torpedo bulkhead 1.5"
Weights/tons
Hull 14,380
Machinery 5,250
Armament 5,220
Armour 9,485
Equipment 1,000
Oil Fuel 1,200
Total (Normal Load) 36,535 tons
Deep Load 40,420 tons
With how thick the upper belt is I'm surprised they didn't narrow it a tad and make it 9" with the rest of the main belt. They could probably get away with only losing a foot, maybe a foot and a half of belt width.
If she hasn't been launched yet, plenty of time to put a flat deck and island to one side on the design.......I think they were looking around for hulls at this time.