Perfect, great, thanks for the link, that more or less what I had in mind (the more I learned about shipbucket, the more I'm impressed). Although I would rather cut speed to 30 knots and add more armor.52,000 tonnes, 33kns and 2 x 3 18" / 45cm guns in forward superfiring mode.
Thank what I fantasized tooI have often “fantasized” about a 35.000 ton, 30+ knot ship with only 6 40-41cm main guns, but mounted in two superfiring triple turrets mounted forward. Such a ship doesn’t need to turn broadside to utilize its power but can fire all guns in the decisive initial minutes of a battle when you approach the enemy. Not at least it can concentrate its armour vs. fire coming from ahead – ie. very thick forward bulkhead but a moderate belt. Decks, turrets and barbettes same as other ships.
If built for the RN (instead of the Nelsons and KGVs) such ships would ideally operate in pairs and be able to catch and defeat any Axis ship. We could place them at the Denmark Strait vs. Bismarck or in the Med. when trying to catch the Italian battlefleet.
Thanks all for the answers.
Perfect, great, thanks for the link, that more or less what I had in mind (the more I learned about shipbucket, the more I'm impressed). Although I would rather cut speed to 30 knots and add more armor.
Thank what I fantasized tooSo, according to you, 18 inch guns are not needed - broadside can be lower ?
It is a kind of Nelson / Rodney that throw away the unseful third turret and the weight gained allows it to go faster (the goddam turret that can't fire forward, or it would bust the other turret - only eccentric British could imagine such a bizarre design)
So the winner is - the H3a
![]()
The right combination of propulsion and construction technology didn't exist until after the war to build the ultimate battlecruiser. With small tube boilers of higher pressure came the ability to fit a small but powerful and fuel efficient power plant into a reasonbly sized ship. Similarly thinngs like welded construction, built up guns and other construction techniques and technologies made for more efficient construction and better use of tonnage for weapons and protection.
The thing about the lack of armour on a battlecruiser is that it's kind of necessary. The design intent for a battlecruiser is:
Fast
Well armed
Protection is rightly secondary - the original intent of the design is to be able to destroy enemy cruisers, they are not intended for use in the battle-line, and so it's armour you compromise to get the speed and armament on the tonnage.
I think the problem with a sped-up AC like you describe is that it'd be almost as expensive as a BC and much less effective in any fight - the difference between an AC and a BC is basically the BC having the armament mass concentrated into a few really heavy guns rather than many more middle-sized ones.Again right on the head. BB's sacrifice speed for firepower and armor. BC's sacrifice armor for firepower and speed - except for the German's who sacrificed firepower for armor and speed. Until the technology improves this sacrifice must be made.
Fisher's Follies were really fast Monitors, not Light BC's. So they really don't follow the true BC line.
One thing I would like to have seen was Armored Cruisers fitted with turbines and oil-sprayed coal to get their speed up...
I think the problem with a sped-up AC like you describe is that it'd be almost as expensive as a BC and much less effective in any fight - the difference between an AC and a BC is basically the BC having the armament mass concentrated into a few really heavy guns rather than many more middle-sized ones.
If you do a copy of the Minotaur with oil-coal burning and turbines, you can get 28.75 knots out of it... but you can also replace the guns with 3x2 11" guns for 29 knots, or 4x2 11" guns for 28 knots.
I'd rather be on the latter ship in a fight!
After much reflexion I know how to call this new category of ships.
How about armoured battlecruisers ?
It circles the wagons, bringing back the long dead armoured cruiser, together with the battlecruiser (it also highlits the later main weakness, that is, the lack of armour - take that, Fisher and Beatty)
I can see the British building them instead of the Rodneys in 1922, and the Japanese in the 40's instead of the Yamatos.
Would they really? To get the speed I've described I had to leave the HMS Minotaur armour alone, meaning it's actually no better protected than a BC - and if you protect a BC that little, you can get something slighty faster than the AltMinotaur!Agreed. But they would be excellent on foreign stations chasing down raiders. And also to smasht holes in the CL/DD screen of opposing fleets to allow your own CL's and DD's to attack...
I wonder how would such ship perform against a Baltimore or Des Moines heavy cruiser - which is a little faster with only slightly smaller guns.. but you can also replace the guns with 3x2 11" guns for 29 knots, or 4x2 11" guns for 28 knots.
"Hunt Cruiser"
Well, yes, three decades of tech advantage will do that. That said, 11" is not only slightly larger than 8".I wonder how would such ship perform against a Baltimore or Des Moines heavy cruiser - which is a little faster with only slightly smaller guns.
It's different for a liner then a bb. You don't have to(normally) worry about armor and gun stress on a liner. It's also easier to build a liner and that's why historically they tended to be the largest things on the ocean.I give you the RMS Titanic
Tonnage: 46,328 GRT
Displacement: 52,310 tons
Length: 882 ft 9 in (269.1 m)
Beam: 92 ft 0 in (28.0 m)
Height: 175 ft (53.3 m) (keel to top of funnels)
Draught: 34 ft 7 in (10.5 m)
Depth: 64 ft 6 in (19.7 m)
Building the hull isn't the issue - outfitting the engines is a challenge but small tube boilers were well understood and the Admiralty design of the 1920's is basically an evolutionary one.
If the Admiralty had really wanted a 30 kn monster fast battleship they could probably have built one for late war service - just that there was no need
It's different for a liner then a bb. You don't have to(normally) worry about armor and gun stress on a liner. It's also easier to build a liner and that's why historically they tended to be the largest things on the ocean.