no battlecruisers - a different path

is this where i trot out my usual alt RN whatif for ww1

instead of playing it safe with the R class they go for an improved 10*15in (ABQXY) QE

with the extra L/B you might get that upto 26knots

throw in small tube boilers and you might get upto 28 knots
 

Archibald

Banned
Thanks all for the answers.

52,000 tonnes, 33kns and 2 x 3 18" / 45cm guns in forward superfiring mode.
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.

I 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.
Thank what I fantasized too :) So, 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
BC%20Design%20H3a.png~original
 
Last edited:
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 too :) So, 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
BC%20Design%20H3a.png~original

Well given that 'conventional' layout ships with a turret or 2 on the blunt end of the boat also cannot have then firing forwards I don't see what the problem is?

The NelRod design allowed for thicker armour as there was less area or citadel to armour with all the guns grouped forwards.

However if its the best damned design then its got to be the G3 - every time all the time. :D
 
I worked on a TL were Britain's Invincibles were actually built with eight nine inch guns .The Germans with the Blucher then initiated an arms race were each power tried to build more of the Battlecruisers (So called because they are cruisers which look like mini Battleships) than the other .
Each navy also built more Dreads than OTL by the money they saved not spending on building BCs from OTL .
Jutland is bigger and badder and BBs stay smaller than they did OTL but this changes in the 30`s .
 

Archibald

Banned
After much reflexion I know how to call this new category of ships.

How about armoured battlecruisers ?

It circles the (battle)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.
 
Last edited:

Saphroneth

Banned
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.

Now, as you go up to more like the 1920s-1930s level of tech (starting with the G3s) you can actually fit strong BB-grade armour belts on a well armed ship without compromising too much on speed any more.
 
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.

Exactly this. The technology just wasn't there, and oil-firing was also needed as coal weighed too much.

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.

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...
 

Saphroneth

Banned
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!
 
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!

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...
 

Redbeard

Banned
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.

I'm (longterm) working on an ATL where they are called "Jagdkreutser" in a fictional "around the North Sea and Baltic language" - but anyway in English meaning "Hunt Cruiser" as the task of the ships is to hunt down enemy ships.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
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...
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!

I simply don't think there's a task for this ship you envision that's not done just as well by an equally sized and armoured battlecruiser, and done better by a slightly larger and better armoured battlecruiser.

IF you have these AC(F) and the enemy doesn't, then you can use them to help break open the enemy screen, but if you have these AC(F) and the enemy has BCs, you're going to lose the scouting clash very quickly!
While if the enemy uses an armoured cruiser type ship as a raider, you're faster but no better armed or armoured - unless you use a battlecruiser, which can take them more easily.


Now, if these AltMinotaurs were cheaper than battlecruisers - by about a factor of two - then that would work. But they wouldn't be, they'd be almost exactly the same cost. Same hull size, same machinery, basically the same weapons mass... and slightly more crew because there's more turrets to work.
 

Archibald

Banned
. but you can also replace the guns with 3x2 11" guns for 29 knots, or 4x2 11" guns for 28 knots.
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.

"Hunt Cruiser"

Interesting.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
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.
Well, yes, three decades of tech advantage will do that. That said, 11" is not only slightly larger than 8".
 
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.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
The normal way of things is that the largest BBs are about 40% the size of the largest civilian ships - maybe a bit bigger.
 

Archibald

Banned
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.

Ihave that vision of a 1000 tons, 3*15 inch gun turret shooting itself out of the hull (like a goddam rocketship) the first time they try firing the guns.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
The most likely thing to do with a liner is just troopship-ize it.

Later (1930s-1940s) is when you can consider razee-ing it and turn it into a carrier.
 
Top