The dispositions will be slightly different here, the Americans will be keen to be seen to do their bit.
Reinforcements to some weaker units may or may not come in handy...
Dread Nought but the Fury of the Seas
- Thread starter sts-200
- Start date
Reinforcements to some weaker units may or may not come in handy...
Above and Below the Waves
Above and Below the Waves
At Scapa Flow, Admiral Beatty was in now established in command of the Grand Fleet, aboard his flagship HMS Royal Sovereign.
Since the Battle of Stavanger, the fleet had been reinforced by the battleships Royal George and Canada, who joined their sisters and the ‘Queen Elizabeths’ to complete 5th Battle Squadron. However, with a realistic top speed of 23½ knots, the C-in-C knew that this squadron’s place was as a fast vanguard for the Grand Fleet, not as heavy support for the battlecruisers.
Although he had lobbied hard for them to join the Battle Cruiser Fleet early in 1916, the experience of battle and the responsibility of command had affected his views. The two groups of fast ships had become separated at Stavanger, and Beatty didn’t want the BCF’s new commander to risk taking on the German Fleet on his own.
In any case, Admiral Sturdee already had a powerful force; since the battle in August 1916, the BCF had been strengthened by the addition of Renown, Courageous and Glorious, while in January, Repulse had returned to service after five months of repairs.
In addition to repairs to battle damage, Repulse had received significant improvements to her protection, along lines that would form a prototype for other ships. The greatest change was the addition of ‘bulges’ along the sides of the hull, intended to protect against torpedo attack. The idea had been tried before in cruisers, and an internal bulge was included in some of the most modern designs, but this was the first time that one had been retrofitted to a large ship.
The bulges added 10' to the ship's beam underwater and met the existing hull at the bottom of the belt. In addition, there was a 2" increase to the lower deck and slopes over the magazines (giving 3” and 4” respectively), along with several improvements to range-finding equipment, which raised her displacement to 30,670 tons normal, or 34,850 tons full load.
The ship was wanted back in service immediately and there was no time for formal trials, but after a brief refit in 1918, she achieved 29.86 knots with 122,260 shp while displacing 32,650 tons. At that time, her engines did not achieve as high a rev rate as they should have, showing that there was a mismatch between the propellers and the speed/power curve of the modified hull. Her Chief Engineer and later her Captain requested that new props be fitted, but with other ships in greater need of refits, the war would be long over before that was done.
Aside from improvements to current vessels and revisions to battle orders and tactics, consideration was being given to the future, as the Naval Aircraft Committee reported in February 1917.
The use of aircraft at Stavanger had produced two important results; it had given Admiral Jellicoe additional information about the location of both the enemy and the BCF, and the following day, a German attempt at reconnaissance had been interrupted when a seaplane shot down a Zeppelin.
Floatplanes were now being carried aboard several battleships and cruisers, while at the other end of the scale there was an idea for a set of ‘aviation vessels’ to be used to launch strikes against enemy ships in harbour. However, this was regarded as rather fanciful; the ships did not exist, and the practice of dropping torpedoes from aeroplanes had barely been tested.
There was considerable debate as to the possible value of attempting to bomb ships, as numerous officers pointed out that even a 500-pound bomb was small in comparison to the half-ton or one-ton shells that capital ships were designed to resist. A few argued that a bomb falling on a deck might do some damage, but probably no more than an equivalent weight of shell. The report called for trials to be made, but in the heat of war the resources for this were needed elsewhere.
However, the report also concluded that disrupting aerial reconnaissance would be increasingly important, and following successful trials in 1916, it was suggested that fighters should be carried aboard capital ships, on flying-off platforms on top of turrets. In the confines of the North Sea, these aircraft should be able to fly to land at the end of their missions. These turret-top planes were a very limited solution; each plane was a ‘use once’ device. If a continuous patrol was to be maintained above the fleet when it was at sea, there would need to be a minimum of 50-60 aircraft available, meaning every capital ship would need to carry at least two planes.
Dedicated seaplane carriers were already with the fleet, but at Stavanger, Beatty had found the BCF’s HMS Engadine to be too slow and had therefore left her behind shortly after dawn. At the time, he hadn’t been confident that her planes could have been launched in the swell (a problem Jellicoe’s Campania did not have, as she was equipped with a flying-off ramp).
If ‘aviation vessels’ were to have a future, they would have to be capable of keeping up with fleet cruising speeds and would have to be able to launch and recover aircraft in a wider range of weather conditions than calm or slight seas. Following the success of Campania, the Admiralty had already taken over a part-completed Italian liner, now rechristened Argus. She was to be fitted with a full-length flying-off deck, which was hoped might also allow wheel or skid-equipped aircraft to land back on board.
At Scapa Flow, Admiral Beatty was in now established in command of the Grand Fleet, aboard his flagship HMS Royal Sovereign.
Since the Battle of Stavanger, the fleet had been reinforced by the battleships Royal George and Canada, who joined their sisters and the ‘Queen Elizabeths’ to complete 5th Battle Squadron. However, with a realistic top speed of 23½ knots, the C-in-C knew that this squadron’s place was as a fast vanguard for the Grand Fleet, not as heavy support for the battlecruisers.
Although he had lobbied hard for them to join the Battle Cruiser Fleet early in 1916, the experience of battle and the responsibility of command had affected his views. The two groups of fast ships had become separated at Stavanger, and Beatty didn’t want the BCF’s new commander to risk taking on the German Fleet on his own.
In any case, Admiral Sturdee already had a powerful force; since the battle in August 1916, the BCF had been strengthened by the addition of Renown, Courageous and Glorious, while in January, Repulse had returned to service after five months of repairs.
In addition to repairs to battle damage, Repulse had received significant improvements to her protection, along lines that would form a prototype for other ships. The greatest change was the addition of ‘bulges’ along the sides of the hull, intended to protect against torpedo attack. The idea had been tried before in cruisers, and an internal bulge was included in some of the most modern designs, but this was the first time that one had been retrofitted to a large ship.
The bulges added 10' to the ship's beam underwater and met the existing hull at the bottom of the belt. In addition, there was a 2" increase to the lower deck and slopes over the magazines (giving 3” and 4” respectively), along with several improvements to range-finding equipment, which raised her displacement to 30,670 tons normal, or 34,850 tons full load.
The ship was wanted back in service immediately and there was no time for formal trials, but after a brief refit in 1918, she achieved 29.86 knots with 122,260 shp while displacing 32,650 tons. At that time, her engines did not achieve as high a rev rate as they should have, showing that there was a mismatch between the propellers and the speed/power curve of the modified hull. Her Chief Engineer and later her Captain requested that new props be fitted, but with other ships in greater need of refits, the war would be long over before that was done.
Aside from improvements to current vessels and revisions to battle orders and tactics, consideration was being given to the future, as the Naval Aircraft Committee reported in February 1917.
The use of aircraft at Stavanger had produced two important results; it had given Admiral Jellicoe additional information about the location of both the enemy and the BCF, and the following day, a German attempt at reconnaissance had been interrupted when a seaplane shot down a Zeppelin.
Floatplanes were now being carried aboard several battleships and cruisers, while at the other end of the scale there was an idea for a set of ‘aviation vessels’ to be used to launch strikes against enemy ships in harbour. However, this was regarded as rather fanciful; the ships did not exist, and the practice of dropping torpedoes from aeroplanes had barely been tested.
There was considerable debate as to the possible value of attempting to bomb ships, as numerous officers pointed out that even a 500-pound bomb was small in comparison to the half-ton or one-ton shells that capital ships were designed to resist. A few argued that a bomb falling on a deck might do some damage, but probably no more than an equivalent weight of shell. The report called for trials to be made, but in the heat of war the resources for this were needed elsewhere.
However, the report also concluded that disrupting aerial reconnaissance would be increasingly important, and following successful trials in 1916, it was suggested that fighters should be carried aboard capital ships, on flying-off platforms on top of turrets. In the confines of the North Sea, these aircraft should be able to fly to land at the end of their missions. These turret-top planes were a very limited solution; each plane was a ‘use once’ device. If a continuous patrol was to be maintained above the fleet when it was at sea, there would need to be a minimum of 50-60 aircraft available, meaning every capital ship would need to carry at least two planes.
Dedicated seaplane carriers were already with the fleet, but at Stavanger, Beatty had found the BCF’s HMS Engadine to be too slow and had therefore left her behind shortly after dawn. At the time, he hadn’t been confident that her planes could have been launched in the swell (a problem Jellicoe’s Campania did not have, as she was equipped with a flying-off ramp).
If ‘aviation vessels’ were to have a future, they would have to be capable of keeping up with fleet cruising speeds and would have to be able to launch and recover aircraft in a wider range of weather conditions than calm or slight seas. Following the success of Campania, the Admiralty had already taken over a part-completed Italian liner, now rechristened Argus. She was to be fitted with a full-length flying-off deck, which was hoped might also allow wheel or skid-equipped aircraft to land back on board.
I'd not really call adding the Courageous and Glorious to the BCS as strengthening it 
They seem to be the OTL ships so 4 x 15-inch guns and 3 inches of armour, at best they can help act as stupidly large scouts and cruiser killers, but they don't belong anywhere near a battle line or anything armed with a gun bigger than 5.9-inches. The Renown and Repulse will be useful, they've proven themselves to be capable ships, Repulse did very well considering she was so brand new. The Furious is still seemingly coming along slowly I have a feeling that she's going to be completed and then be converted if the Argus works out but is found to be too slow and possibly sacrificed as a political move post war to help with treaties etc (although having 6 x 18-inch guns hanging around could be nice, coastal guns anyone?).
The provision of flying off platforms is useful but the planes themselves are a liability if the ship with them is caught with the plane and platform still on its guns. whilst the planes would be (I assume) unfuelled if you fire, you're going to propel bits of plane and ramp everywhere, all of which is quite flammable. So having a carrier is useful. IIRC the Cana..Newfoundland's sister is sitting uncomplete on the stocks so if Argus is a success there could be an Eagle too.
They seem to be the OTL ships so 4 x 15-inch guns and 3 inches of armour, at best they can help act as stupidly large scouts and cruiser killers, but they don't belong anywhere near a battle line or anything armed with a gun bigger than 5.9-inches. The Renown and Repulse will be useful, they've proven themselves to be capable ships, Repulse did very well considering she was so brand new. The Furious is still seemingly coming along slowly I have a feeling that she's going to be completed and then be converted if the Argus works out but is found to be too slow and possibly sacrificed as a political move post war to help with treaties etc (although having 6 x 18-inch guns hanging around could be nice, coastal guns anyone?).The provision of flying off platforms is useful but the planes themselves are a liability if the ship with them is caught with the plane and platform still on its guns. whilst the planes would be (I assume) unfuelled if you fire, you're going to propel bits of plane and ramp everywhere, all of which is quite flammable. So having a carrier is useful. IIRC the Cana..Newfoundland's sister is sitting uncomplete on the stocks so if Argus is a success there could be an Eagle too.
Last edited:
In this timeline the Glorious and Courageous carry 4 14" guns each with the guns being the USN's 14"/45 gunI'd not really call adding the Courageous and Glorious to the BCS as strengthening it
The provision of flying off platforms is useful but the planes themselves are a liability if the ship with them is caught with the plane and platform still on its guns. whilst the planes would be (I assume) unfuelled if you fire, you're going to propel bits of plane and ramp everywhere, all of which is quite flammable. So having a carrier is useful. IIRC the Cana..Newfoundland's sister is sitting uncomplete on the stocks so if Argus is a success there could be an Eagle too.
SsgtC
Banned
Minor correction, the author reconned the American guns onto Monitors and had the Follies armed with British 14* guns originally meant for Chile:
You know I wonder why the 14" guns the British got from the US were of such poor quality. It probably has something to do with the fact that said guns were made by Bethlehem Steel and not the naval gun factory.
SsgtC
Banned
That and they were meant for export, so they probably weren't held to the same quality control standards as guns built for the USN
As SsgtC says, the Follies have 4 x 14" Mk.I (ex-Chilean). Otherwise, they're much as reality.I'd not really call adding the Courageous and Glorious to the BCS as strengthening it
As OTL, no-one really knows what to do with them, and they're assigned to 3LCS - backing up the light cruisers in a 'scout force for the scout force'
With their Hood-class armament, R&R certainly have a future, subject to rather a lot of reconstruction. Furious remains an anomaly, good in some ways, bad in others.
Flying off platforms is one of those 'what can we do now' type of solutions, and just as importantly as battle damage, the plane is largely unprotected against the weather.
Cochrane/Eagle is a definite possibility, although no-one knows yet what carriers should be.
A common enough practice, and I can't believe the Greeks (the guns were originally for a Greek ship) were keen to pay top prices.
A lot of the export ships built in Britain (or by British-owned yards overseas) were similarly second-rate in their details, particularly the stuff for South America, which was often won against fierce competition.
Does TTL have Hugh Williamson for the UK, OTL pre WW1 he suggested more or less what became the aircraft carrier?
Has Clement Ader written "L'Aviation Militaire" in 1909?
Yes to both.
We've also had Beardmore's pre-war carrier design (with two island/hangars on each side), and the various experiments with the old cruiser Hermes. Ark Royal exists (complete with sail), although with no Dardanelles/Gallipoli, Ben-my-Chee never had the chance to launch her torpedo attack.
SsgtC
Banned
Read the book Q-Ships and Their Story by E. Keble Chatterton. The Royal Navy actually commissioned a number of sail driven warships in WWI for service as Q-Ships
I love the fact a WWI warship had a sail.
Deleted member 94680
HM Armed Smack Inverlyon springs to mind.
Of course the Germans had the Seeadler on their side.
No Dardanelles/Gallipol and no Ben-my-Chee fire potentially has a knock on effect when it comes to RN fuel storage rules.
I would also recommend 'The Sea Raiders' by the same author.
Like Ark Royal, the early batches of the Flower class had stabiliser sails.
Seeadler will be making an appearance in due course; although partly as a little light relief.
Definitely, in addition to a little less confidence in the possibilities of the torpedo bomber (at least in the short term).
From the opening posting of the thread...
"they too could have been making vast gains at the expense of the Russians?"
The problem with undoing the results of the previous war (1877-1878) for the Ottomans is that Bulgaria and Greece are still neutral at the beginning of the war and this was *most* of the losses the Ottomans had in that war. So essentially, they went to war to regain the two oblasts in the Caucuses, Kars and Batum. Would they have wanted to get more, *maybe*, but at most they would have picked up even more Armenians (and maybe a few Georgians and Azerbaijans and additional Caucusians of various types)
I guess they also wanted the British thrown out of Egypt...
Just
"they too could have been making vast gains at the expense of the Russians?"
The problem with undoing the results of the previous war (1877-1878) for the Ottomans is that Bulgaria and Greece are still neutral at the beginning of the war and this was *most* of the losses the Ottomans had in that war. So essentially, they went to war to regain the two oblasts in the Caucuses, Kars and Batum. Would they have wanted to get more, *maybe*, but at most they would have picked up even more Armenians (and maybe a few Georgians and Azerbaijans and additional Caucusians of various types)
I guess they also wanted the British thrown out of Egypt...
Just
Not sure if your post has been truncated? (and we are going back rather a long way in story here...)
Despite some nasty surprises, in the opening months of the war, the Germans made huge gains at the expense of the Russians (OTL and TTL).
As you say, recovering land from Greece and Bulgaria might be more attractive to them, but Germany would be unlikely to provide them with much support or encouragement to do that.
Given that Turkey was considering supporting the German cause pre-war, it would be reasonable for their leaders to wonder if they made the right choice by staying neutral.
Here in 1917, I suspect their answer would be a wholehearted 'yes'.