If they had been approved in 1912 would they have been completed in time to serve at Jutland? And if they were would their presence make much of a difference?
What if Canada got the Queen Elizabeth class ships it ordered
- Thread starter StormRyder
- Start date
So 3 of the retained 13.5" Super Dreadnoughts get scrapped so the RN/RCN can keep the extra QE's.
The real problem is the 1st London Naval Treaty. Does Britain fight to keep all their 15" ships or give up 3 of the R class.
The idea i've been thinking of to get the Canadian Senate to approve the expenditure is somewhat devious.
Write up a set of specs that would require a service speed in excess of 25 knots over 2500 nautical miles on 2/3 fuel load ,maximum speed of 28 knots,and a broadside weight 50% larger than a Queen Elizabeth class(the Americans were already talking 16" guns),of course preliminary estimates (secret but "leaked" to the Liberal Party) would be based on R class armor scheme, coal firing using large tube boilers and direct drive turbines creating some ridiculous monstrosity of(guessing) 60,000 tons and 1000 feet long which the RN would categorically refuse.
What wouldn t be leaked would be the proposal for oil fired small tube boilers with geared turbines (all available)which should be just over 44000 tons.Specifically the 18" version of the Admiral class (otl)but originally designed with more armor.
The trick is to get the Liberal controlled senate convinced they can vote for this fully expecting the RN to say no thanks.
Write up a set of specs that would require a service speed in excess of 25 knots over 2500 nautical miles on 2/3 fuel load ,maximum speed of 28 knots,and a broadside weight 50% larger than a Queen Elizabeth class(the Americans were already talking 16" guns),of course preliminary estimates (secret but "leaked" to the Liberal Party) would be based on R class armor scheme, coal firing using large tube boilers and direct drive turbines creating some ridiculous monstrosity of(guessing) 60,000 tons and 1000 feet long which the RN would categorically refuse.
What wouldn t be leaked would be the proposal for oil fired small tube boilers with geared turbines (all available)which should be just over 44000 tons.Specifically the 18" version of the Admiral class (otl)but originally designed with more armor.
The trick is to get the Liberal controlled senate convinced they can vote for this fully expecting the RN to say no thanks.
The Rs were newer than the QEs
I think its more likely that the LNT would change to incorporate the extra 3 hulls
(Naval treaties get really complicated!!!)
So I cannot see them ditching any of the 15" armed ships (including Hood) and I cannot see them not wanting to build the NelRods due to the 16" armed vessels in the US and Japanese fleets
The thing is that many of the British ships are quite young - all of the 13.5" armed ships were only 8-10 years old - but they would have to draw the line somewhere
So perhaps 1 of the Rs is designated a training ship?
That gives us in 1922 -
8 QE (1914+)
4 R + 1 training ship (1916+)
2 Renown BC (1916)
1 Hood (1920)
That's 15+1 - all whom have entered service within 8 years of the WNT
Do the British still go for 2 x 16" armed vessels?
Its a difficult one!
The main issue here isn't the the proposed specifications of the ships Canada is going to fund, it comes back to long standing political divides. I don't think one is able to pull any kind of trick to get past this problem. Prime Minister Wilfred Laurier was the public face of the RCN since it was founded and at the time when he was defeated by Robert Borden, he was trying to have Canada domestically build itself a fleet of destroyers and cruisers. Laurier stayed on as the opposition leader after his loss and watched Borden completely destroy his vision of a Canadian built and operated navy, it was a personal slight by Borden towards Laurier and his party to cut the RCN down to the bone and turn around to offer money to Britain. Laurier's decade and a half in power allowed him to stack the Canadian Senate to his side which effectively allowed him to shoot down any kind of Naval Bill Borden tried to pass through which he did not agree with.
The Liberals are going to oppose any Canadian attempt to push funds to the Royal Navy for ships not owned by Canada because there is a distinct policy split largely enforced down party lines. There might be potential for some kind of deal to be brokered to suit both parties but considering their polar opposite public policy stances, it's rather difficult outside of some wartime tragedy or something.
Partly ninja'd by @Cryhavoc101's Post 24, but in my defence I started writing this well before his reply was posted.
IOTL the British Empire was initially allowed to keep 22 capital ships of 580,450 tons. However, Ajax, Centurion, King George V and Thunderer had to be scrapped when Nelson and Rodney were completed which reduced the totals to 20 capital ships of 558,950 tons.
By contrast the Americans were initially allowed 18 capital ships of 500,650 tons, which would increase to 525,850 tons when Delaware and North Dakota were replaced by Colorado and West Virginia.
ITTL I think the British Empire will initially be allowed 21 capital ships of 571,450 tons with the 3 extra Queen Elisabeths taking the place of Ajax, Centurion, King George V and Thunderer. This is because of the larger displacement and greater fighting power of the Queen Elisabeth design.
All other things being equal all 4 Iron Dukes would have to go when Nelson and Rodney were completed. That would produce a total of 19 capital ships of 541,450 tons.
If the British Empire was allowed to keep one Iron Duke after Nelson and Rodney were completed that would increase the total to 20 ships of 566,450 tons. However, I think the Americans wouldn't agree to that because the difference between their tonnage and the British Empire's tonnage was too great and because of the greater fighting power of the 3 extra Queen Elisabeths.
IOTL Centurion was converted to a radio controlled target ship when Nelson and Rodney were completed instead of being scrapped. ITTL one of the Iron Dukes would be converted instead. It's possible that Iron Duke's conversion to a gunnery training ship would be brought forward from 1931 to 1927.
Given how pro-disarmament Her Majesty's Government was IOTL it's almost certain that they'll still agree to a decrease to 15 capital ships so the 3 oldest Queen Elizabeths or 3 of the R class will have to go. I think the 3 ships to go would be Queen Elizabeth, Warspite and Barham as they're the 3 oldest capital ships. That means that one of the 3 Canadian financed ships is modernised 1934-37 instead of Warspite and another is modernised 1937-41 instead of Queen Elizabeth.
However, every cloud has a sliver lining. It's very likely that one of the 3 discarded ships would be demilitarised and become the gunnery training ship. It's possible that another would be demilitarised and become the new radio controlled target ship. It's also likely that the redundant 15" gun turrets would be put into storage to join the 4 removed from Courageous and Glorious, which would increase the number of spare 15" turrets from 4 to 13.
IOTL the Admiralty thought about re-militarising Iron Duke in March 1939 (see the link below) but decided that it wasn't worth the effort. However, it might think that re-militarising the Queen Elizabeth class ship serving in that role ITTL was worth the effort.
The Admiralty might also consider remilitarising the Queen Elizabeth being used as the target ship instead of Centurion, which in part would have been because it had only been subjected to 8 years "wear and tear" in that role instead of the 12 that Centurion had been subjected to by 1939.
So the British Commonwealth's capital ship strength in September 1939 ITTL could be either 17 ships including 2 being modernised or 17 capital ships including 4 being modernised. However, that's still an improvement on OTL when the capital ship strength was 15 ships including 2 being modernised.
I've done some "spreadsheet work" on the WNT implications.
IOTL the British Empire was initially allowed to keep 22 capital ships of 580,450 tons. However, Ajax, Centurion, King George V and Thunderer had to be scrapped when Nelson and Rodney were completed which reduced the totals to 20 capital ships of 558,950 tons.
By contrast the Americans were initially allowed 18 capital ships of 500,650 tons, which would increase to 525,850 tons when Delaware and North Dakota were replaced by Colorado and West Virginia.
ITTL I think the British Empire will initially be allowed 21 capital ships of 571,450 tons with the 3 extra Queen Elisabeths taking the place of Ajax, Centurion, King George V and Thunderer. This is because of the larger displacement and greater fighting power of the Queen Elisabeth design.
All other things being equal all 4 Iron Dukes would have to go when Nelson and Rodney were completed. That would produce a total of 19 capital ships of 541,450 tons.
If the British Empire was allowed to keep one Iron Duke after Nelson and Rodney were completed that would increase the total to 20 ships of 566,450 tons. However, I think the Americans wouldn't agree to that because the difference between their tonnage and the British Empire's tonnage was too great and because of the greater fighting power of the 3 extra Queen Elisabeths.
IOTL Centurion was converted to a radio controlled target ship when Nelson and Rodney were completed instead of being scrapped. ITTL one of the Iron Dukes would be converted instead. It's possible that Iron Duke's conversion to a gunnery training ship would be brought forward from 1931 to 1927.
IOTL the British Commonwealth agreed to decrease its capital ship force from 20 to 15 while the USA agreed to reduce theirs from 18 to 15.
Given how pro-disarmament Her Majesty's Government was IOTL it's almost certain that they'll still agree to a decrease to 15 capital ships so the 3 oldest Queen Elizabeths or 3 of the R class will have to go. I think the 3 ships to go would be Queen Elizabeth, Warspite and Barham as they're the 3 oldest capital ships. That means that one of the 3 Canadian financed ships is modernised 1934-37 instead of Warspite and another is modernised 1937-41 instead of Queen Elizabeth.
However, every cloud has a sliver lining. It's very likely that one of the 3 discarded ships would be demilitarised and become the gunnery training ship. It's possible that another would be demilitarised and become the new radio controlled target ship. It's also likely that the redundant 15" gun turrets would be put into storage to join the 4 removed from Courageous and Glorious, which would increase the number of spare 15" turrets from 4 to 13.
IOTL the Admiralty thought about re-militarising Iron Duke in March 1939 (see the link below) but decided that it wasn't worth the effort. However, it might think that re-militarising the Queen Elizabeth class ship serving in that role ITTL was worth the effort.
The Admiralty might also consider remilitarising the Queen Elizabeth being used as the target ship instead of Centurion, which in part would have been because it had only been subjected to 8 years "wear and tear" in that role instead of the 12 that Centurion had been subjected to by 1939.
Another possibility is that they're remilitarised from 1937 to the same standard as Queen Elizabeth and Valiant IOTL. I can't make my mind up whether they'd be done instead of the second Canadian modernisation (which took the place of Queen Elizabeth's OTL modernisation ITTL) and Valiant or as well as them.
So the British Commonwealth's capital ship strength in September 1939 ITTL could be either 17 ships including 2 being modernised or 17 capital ships including 4 being modernised. However, that's still an improvement on OTL when the capital ship strength was 15 ships including 2 being modernised.
Last edited:
If any one of these ships show up at Jutland then you WILL get a different outcome. The ships will not allocate fire exactly the same way, and the hits will be different to one degree or another simply because the ships wont be in the same exact location. So the outcome will change.
And it is not just the nu,ber if ships and or the tonnage (but these things do count). But the “quality” of the respective ships the size of the guns and what have you. Even the possibility that the training ships and targets and such could be worth rebuilding/rearming is something to consider in relation to the treaty.
And it is not just the nu,ber if ships and or the tonnage (but these things do count). But the “quality” of the respective ships the size of the guns and what have you. Even the possibility that the training ships and targets and such could be worth rebuilding/rearming is something to consider in relation to the treaty.
There's a possibility that ordering 3 additional Queen Elisabeth's in 1912-13 Navy Estimates (for a total of 8) will result in fewer and different capital ships being ordered for the Royal Navy in the 1913-14 & 1914-15 Estimates and the wartime building programmes.
Our Timeline
The 1912-13 Navy Estimates originally included 5 Queen Elizabeth class battleships. This was reduced to 4 when the British and German governments agreed to sacrifice one ship from their 1912-13 building programmes. These ships were Barham, Queen Elizabeth, Valiant and Warspite. They were laid down between October 1912 & February 1913, launched between October 1913 & November 1914 and completed between January 1915 & February 1916. The shortest building time was 27 months for Queen Elizabeth and the longest was 37 months for Valiant. The average building time was 31 months.
The ship deleted from the 1912-13 Estimates was reinstated when the Federated Malay States agreed to pay for a battleship as an "Imperial Gift". This ship was HMS Malaya ordered in 1913, laid down in October 1913, launched in March 1915 and completed in February 1916. She took 28 months to build which was the second-shortest building time for a Queen Elisabeth class battleship.
5 Revenge class were ordered in the 1913-14 Estimates. They were laid down between November 1913 & January 1914, launched between November 1914 & September 1916 and completed between March 1916 & September 1917. The average building time was 34 months. However, Ramillies which was the first ship to be laid down was the last ship to be launched and the last ship to be completed which also gave the longest building time of 47 months. Resolution laid down 17 days after Ramillies was the second last to be completed (in December 1916) which also gave her the second longest building time of 37 months. The other 3 ships (Revenge, Royal Oak and Royal Sovereign) were completed between March and May 1916 with an average building time of 29 months. Revenge and Royal Oak fought at Jutland. I thought that Royal Sovereign missed Jutland because of machinery problems, but her Wikipedia entry says Jellicoe left her behind due to the inexperience of her crew.
The British 5 capital ships ordered in the 1913-14 Estimates were to counter the 3 that Germany had ordered in their 1913-14 Estimates. The British 1914-15 Estimates included 4 capital ships to counter the 2 that were in Germany's 1914-15 Estimates. The 4 British capital ships were to consist of 3 Revenge class and one ship of the Queen Elizabeth type.
However, as we know the outbreak of World War One and Fisher's return to the Admiralty resulted in the cancellation of the 4 ships that were on order and the building of 2 Renown class battle cruisers and 3 Courageous light battle cruisers in their place. Renown and Repulse were laid down in January 1915 and completed in September & August 1916 respectively with an average building time of 19½ months. Courageous and Glorious were laid down in March and May 1915 respectively and both were completed in January 1917 which was an average building time of 21½ months. Their half-sister Furious was laid down in June 1915 and completed in July 1917 which was 26 months later.
AFAIK (1) The priority given to these ships was the reason why Ramillies and Resolution took so long to build. AFAIK (2) The Courageous class was built due to restrictions imposed by HM Treasury and if they hadn't existed they would have been additional Renown class battle cruisers. AFAIK (3) the Renown class could have been armed with 4 twin 15" turrets instead of 3 if they had been fitted with small tube boilers.
3 Hood class were ordered in April 1916 and a fourth was ordered in July. Hood was laid down twice (May 1915 and September 1916), launched in August 1918 and completed in May 1920 which was 45 months after her second laying down. She was the first British capital ship with small tube boilers and geared turbines. Her sisters were laid down in October and November 1916, but they were suspended in March 1917 and cancelled at the end of the war.
Alternative One
My guess is that if the Bill had been passed the 3 ships (Acadia, Quebec and Ontario) would have been ordered at the same time as Malaya. They would have been laid down before the end of 1913 and would have been completed in time for all 3 ships to be present at Jutland.
I think that ordering 8 capital ships in the 1912-13 Estimates will result in the number of capital ships ordered in the 1913-14 Estimates being reduced from 5 IOTL to 4 ITTL. IOTL the British ordered 10 capital ships in the 1912-13 and 1913-14 financial years which gave them a 2:1 superiority over the 5 ordered by Germany over the same period. At the time the battleships were organised into squadrons of 8 and divisions of 4 so ordering 4 Revenge class instead of 5 would be a "better fit" and increase the numerical superiority to 12:5.
The TTL 1914-15 Estimates might be for 4 Revenge class instead of 3 which with the 4 ordered the previous financial year would make a squadron of 8 ships. The estimates wouldn't include a Queen Elizabeth type ship because the ships already on order were sufficient to form a full-strength fast battle squadron of 8 ships. However, they'd still be cancelled in favour of the Courageous and Renown classes. The history of the Hood class would be the same as OTL.
That would give a force of 15 capital ships with 15" guns at the end of 1920 (which would consisting of 8 Queen Elisabeth class, 4 Revenge class, 2 Renown class and Hood) instead of the OTL force of 13 ships (that is 5 Queen Elisabeth class, 5 Revenge class, 2 Renown class and Hood).
Alternative Two
4 Queen Elisabeth class were ordered in the 1913-14 Estimates instead of 5 Revenge class. AFAIK one of the reasons why the Revenge class was built instead of more Queen Elisabeth class was that they were cheaper and could thus be built in the numbers required. However, ITTL they only wanted 4 ships in 1913-14 so it was possible to build them as additional Queen Elisabeth class ships.
These would be followed by 4 ships of the Queen Elizabeth "type" ordered in the 1914-15 Estimates. I wrote "type" instead of class because they were to incorporate lessons learned from the ships built in the 1912-13 Estimates and (because of wishful thinking rather than because it was likely) a maximum speed of 28½ knots due to the fitting of small tube boilers.
Unfortunately, Fisher would probably cancel the 4 Queen Elizabeth Mk 2 class in favour of the Courageous and Renown classes. The history of the Hood class would be the same as OTL. That would have resulted in a force of 15 capital ships with 15" guns at the end of 1920 (i.e. 12 Queen Elizabeth class, 2 Renown class and Hood). However, the TTL Renown class might have small tube boilers and therefore be armed with eight 15" guns instead of six.
However, my wishful thinking is for the Admiralty to stick to the 4 Queen Elizabeth Mk 2 with small tube boilers instead of building the Courageous and Renown classes. These would be followed by a Queen Elizabeth Mk 3 class with small tube boilers and geared turbines built instead of the Hood class. Wishful thinking also results in the 3 ships suspended in March 1917 being resumed at the end of the war and completed by the end of 1925. That would produce a force of 20 capital ships armed with 15" guns completed or under construction at the end of 1920 comprising 12 Queen Elizabeth class Mk 1, 4 Queen Elizabeth class Mk 2 and 4 Queen Elizabeth class Mk 3.
Our Timeline
The 1912-13 Navy Estimates originally included 5 Queen Elizabeth class battleships. This was reduced to 4 when the British and German governments agreed to sacrifice one ship from their 1912-13 building programmes. These ships were Barham, Queen Elizabeth, Valiant and Warspite. They were laid down between October 1912 & February 1913, launched between October 1913 & November 1914 and completed between January 1915 & February 1916. The shortest building time was 27 months for Queen Elizabeth and the longest was 37 months for Valiant. The average building time was 31 months.
The ship deleted from the 1912-13 Estimates was reinstated when the Federated Malay States agreed to pay for a battleship as an "Imperial Gift". This ship was HMS Malaya ordered in 1913, laid down in October 1913, launched in March 1915 and completed in February 1916. She took 28 months to build which was the second-shortest building time for a Queen Elisabeth class battleship.
5 Revenge class were ordered in the 1913-14 Estimates. They were laid down between November 1913 & January 1914, launched between November 1914 & September 1916 and completed between March 1916 & September 1917. The average building time was 34 months. However, Ramillies which was the first ship to be laid down was the last ship to be launched and the last ship to be completed which also gave the longest building time of 47 months. Resolution laid down 17 days after Ramillies was the second last to be completed (in December 1916) which also gave her the second longest building time of 37 months. The other 3 ships (Revenge, Royal Oak and Royal Sovereign) were completed between March and May 1916 with an average building time of 29 months. Revenge and Royal Oak fought at Jutland. I thought that Royal Sovereign missed Jutland because of machinery problems, but her Wikipedia entry says Jellicoe left her behind due to the inexperience of her crew.
The British 5 capital ships ordered in the 1913-14 Estimates were to counter the 3 that Germany had ordered in their 1913-14 Estimates. The British 1914-15 Estimates included 4 capital ships to counter the 2 that were in Germany's 1914-15 Estimates. The 4 British capital ships were to consist of 3 Revenge class and one ship of the Queen Elizabeth type.
However, as we know the outbreak of World War One and Fisher's return to the Admiralty resulted in the cancellation of the 4 ships that were on order and the building of 2 Renown class battle cruisers and 3 Courageous light battle cruisers in their place. Renown and Repulse were laid down in January 1915 and completed in September & August 1916 respectively with an average building time of 19½ months. Courageous and Glorious were laid down in March and May 1915 respectively and both were completed in January 1917 which was an average building time of 21½ months. Their half-sister Furious was laid down in June 1915 and completed in July 1917 which was 26 months later.
AFAIK (1) The priority given to these ships was the reason why Ramillies and Resolution took so long to build. AFAIK (2) The Courageous class was built due to restrictions imposed by HM Treasury and if they hadn't existed they would have been additional Renown class battle cruisers. AFAIK (3) the Renown class could have been armed with 4 twin 15" turrets instead of 3 if they had been fitted with small tube boilers.
3 Hood class were ordered in April 1916 and a fourth was ordered in July. Hood was laid down twice (May 1915 and September 1916), launched in August 1918 and completed in May 1920 which was 45 months after her second laying down. She was the first British capital ship with small tube boilers and geared turbines. Her sisters were laid down in October and November 1916, but they were suspended in March 1917 and cancelled at the end of the war.
Alternative One
My guess is that if the Bill had been passed the 3 ships (Acadia, Quebec and Ontario) would have been ordered at the same time as Malaya. They would have been laid down before the end of 1913 and would have been completed in time for all 3 ships to be present at Jutland.
I think that ordering 8 capital ships in the 1912-13 Estimates will result in the number of capital ships ordered in the 1913-14 Estimates being reduced from 5 IOTL to 4 ITTL. IOTL the British ordered 10 capital ships in the 1912-13 and 1913-14 financial years which gave them a 2:1 superiority over the 5 ordered by Germany over the same period. At the time the battleships were organised into squadrons of 8 and divisions of 4 so ordering 4 Revenge class instead of 5 would be a "better fit" and increase the numerical superiority to 12:5.
The TTL 1914-15 Estimates might be for 4 Revenge class instead of 3 which with the 4 ordered the previous financial year would make a squadron of 8 ships. The estimates wouldn't include a Queen Elizabeth type ship because the ships already on order were sufficient to form a full-strength fast battle squadron of 8 ships. However, they'd still be cancelled in favour of the Courageous and Renown classes. The history of the Hood class would be the same as OTL.
That would give a force of 15 capital ships with 15" guns at the end of 1920 (which would consisting of 8 Queen Elisabeth class, 4 Revenge class, 2 Renown class and Hood) instead of the OTL force of 13 ships (that is 5 Queen Elisabeth class, 5 Revenge class, 2 Renown class and Hood).
Alternative Two
4 Queen Elisabeth class were ordered in the 1913-14 Estimates instead of 5 Revenge class. AFAIK one of the reasons why the Revenge class was built instead of more Queen Elisabeth class was that they were cheaper and could thus be built in the numbers required. However, ITTL they only wanted 4 ships in 1913-14 so it was possible to build them as additional Queen Elisabeth class ships.
These would be followed by 4 ships of the Queen Elizabeth "type" ordered in the 1914-15 Estimates. I wrote "type" instead of class because they were to incorporate lessons learned from the ships built in the 1912-13 Estimates and (because of wishful thinking rather than because it was likely) a maximum speed of 28½ knots due to the fitting of small tube boilers.
Unfortunately, Fisher would probably cancel the 4 Queen Elizabeth Mk 2 class in favour of the Courageous and Renown classes. The history of the Hood class would be the same as OTL. That would have resulted in a force of 15 capital ships with 15" guns at the end of 1920 (i.e. 12 Queen Elizabeth class, 2 Renown class and Hood). However, the TTL Renown class might have small tube boilers and therefore be armed with eight 15" guns instead of six.
However, my wishful thinking is for the Admiralty to stick to the 4 Queen Elizabeth Mk 2 with small tube boilers instead of building the Courageous and Renown classes. These would be followed by a Queen Elizabeth Mk 3 class with small tube boilers and geared turbines built instead of the Hood class. Wishful thinking also results in the 3 ships suspended in March 1917 being resumed at the end of the war and completed by the end of 1925. That would produce a force of 20 capital ships armed with 15" guns completed or under construction at the end of 1920 comprising 12 Queen Elizabeth class Mk 1, 4 Queen Elizabeth class Mk 2 and 4 Queen Elizabeth class Mk 3.
Last edited:
Heck, 1-3 more BBs might shake up the crews aboard the QEs or even other ships with all kinds of possible effects, from one pulling off a Golden BB to Warspite sinking, etc.
Personally my preferred option is as OTL with the five QE's but Canada gets serious about funding three QE's making Eight QE's in the 1912/13 estimates, As stated above the five R class in the 13/14 estimates now become four more QE's . The war emergency program are either as OTL R class or modified QE's but are cancelled by Fisher to build battle cruisers.
As it is The RN/RCN end up with Twelve QE type battleships, with the distinct possibility that eight of them might have made Jutland. Now there is a thought!
As it is The RN/RCN end up with Twelve QE type battleships, with the distinct possibility that eight of them might have made Jutland. Now there is a thought!
An extra 3 QEs at Jutland makes quite a difference.
The 8 QEs would have had a greater broadside weight than all 17 German battleships combined, including the one left in port.
But 8 BBs is two battle squadrons or close to it, while only one was attached to BCF. Now with three more QE's maybe that changes but IMO it probably ends up with Jellicoe having a couple more BBs in his gunline. Possibly Hood gets some reinforcements in the scouting actions prior to crossing the T.
I could see 2nd Squadron of 5th BS (the other QEs and possibly Canada? She was almost as fast) being used as a fast wing and used with Hoods Squadron to lead the GF towards Beatty's force
Correct. It simply isn't the Hood/Admiral class. It's the OTL Queen Elizabeth with small tube boilers, geared turbines and a designed maximum speed of 28½ knots.
That's the QE Mk 2 which is QE Mk 1 (the OTL Queen Elizabeth class) with small tube boilers and detail improvements.
My QE Mk 3 is QE Mk 2 with geared turbines instead of direct drive turbines, the same designed maximum speed of 28½ knots and further detail improvements.
The designed speed of 28½ knots (which may not have been reached in practice) was inspired by this quote from Battleships of World War One by Anthony Preston.
According to the Washington Naval Treaty the Queen Elizabeth class of OTL (QE Mk 1 ITTL) had a standard displacement of 27,500 tons and Hood's standard displacement was 41,200 tons. According to Conway's 1906-21 Queen Elizabeth had an overall length of 645ft 9in and a beam of 90ft 6in while Hood was considerably longer at 860ft overall and her beam was 104ft.
My first uneducated guess was that QE Mk 2 and QE Mk 3 would have similar dimensions and displacements to the QE Mk 1.
OTOH - The American contemporaries to QE Mks 1, 2 and 3 were the Standard Battleships and according to the sources that I used for the Queen Elizabeth class and Hood:
- The Nevada class laid down around the same time as the first 8 QE Mk 1 ITTL had displacements of 27,500 tons and dimensions of 583ft overall x 95ft 6in;
- The Pennsylvania class laid down around the same time as the second 4 QE Mk 1 ITTL had displacements of 31,400 tons and dimensions of 608ft overall x 97ft 1in.
- The New Mexico class laid down around the same time as the 4 QE Mk 2 had displacements of 32,000 tons and dimensions of 624ft overall x 97ft 5 in.
- The Tennessee class laid down around the same time as the 4 QE Mk 3 had displacements of 32,300 tons and dimensions of 624 ft overall x 97ft 5in. The succeeding Colorado class had the same dimensions as the Tennessee class and a displacement of 32,600 tons.
I wanted to do the comparison by waterline length rather than overall length, but Conway's didn't have the waterline lengths for the Queen Elizabeth class and Hood. For the record the Nevada class had a waterline length of 575ft and all subsequent classes of Standard Battleship had a waterline length 600ft.
Last edited:
I might have missed this above... but where would they be built? Even the UK has a limit on yards. They certainly had a limit on 15" barrels.
I am getting the impression that rather than being additional ships these would push out ships like R&R and the Outrageouses. That is good for Washington I guess. But there are all sorts of worms.
Eg Jellicoe still wants his battle cruisers (R&R). Small tube QEs I guess with the extra funds.
Replacing Courageous et al sounds awesome till you remember they were running out of turrets with R&R. 18"(40) QE anyone?
I can see a scenario where Canada funds three fast QEs around 1914-16, but that then steals the weapon systems and power chains (maybe even armor) of five big OTL hulls.
I am getting the impression that rather than being additional ships these would push out ships like R&R and the Outrageouses. That is good for Washington I guess. But there are all sorts of worms.
Eg Jellicoe still wants his battle cruisers (R&R). Small tube QEs I guess with the extra funds.
Replacing Courageous et al sounds awesome till you remember they were running out of turrets with R&R. 18"(40) QE anyone?
I can see a scenario where Canada funds three fast QEs around 1914-16, but that then steals the weapon systems and power chains (maybe even armor) of five big OTL hulls.
I began writing this before @Jellicoe uploaded Post 37.
What if the British and Canadian Governments decided that 3 ships would be built at the rate of one per year starting with the 1913-14 building programme instead of adding 3 Queen Elisabeth class to the 1912-13 building programme? Which would result in.
Except the Courageous class was built due to Treasury restrictions on the number of "proper" capital ships that could be built under the War Emergency Programme. It's possible that another pair of Renown class would be built instead of Courageous and Glorious instead using the money authorised to fund the second and third Canadian financed battleships. In that case Furious would be Renown class mounting three 18" in 3 single turrets or a standard Renown class ship mounting six 15" in 3 twin turrets. (AIUI a set of 15" turrets was ordered for Furious in case her 18" turrets were failures.) That would increase the number of "proper" 15" gunned capital ships in 1920 from 13 to 15 comprising 10 Queen Elizabeth class, 4 Renown class and Hood or 16 if Furious was completed as a standard Renown class.
However, my wishful thinking is that the 4 Queen Elizabeth Mk 2 in the 1914-15 Estimates and the money authorised for the Canadian funded battleship projected for the 1915-16 Estimates would be used to pay for a 5th QE Mk 2 built under the War Emergency Programme. 4 QE Mk 3 would be ordered in 1916 and completed 1920-25 as per Alternative Two in Post 28. That would produce a total of 15 capital ships with 15" guns in 1920 consisting of 10 QE Mk 1, 4 QE Mk 2 and one QE Mk 3 plus another 3 QE Mk 3 under construction.
Alternative Three
What if the British and Canadian Governments decided that 3 ships would be built at the rate of one per year starting with the 1913-14 building programme instead of adding 3 Queen Elisabeth class to the 1912-13 building programme? Which would result in.
- 1912-13 Estimates - 5 Queen Elizabeth Mk 1 including one paid for by the Federation of Malay States (HMS Malaya) as OTL.
- 1913-14 Estimates - 5 Queen Elizabeth Mk 1 including one paid for by Canada instead of 5 Revenge class all paid for by HM Treasury.
- 1914-15 Estimates - 4 Queen Elizabeth Mk 2 including one paid for by Canada instead of 3 Revenge class and one Queen Elizabeth type all paid for by HM Treasury.
- The 1914-15 ships would be cancelled as OTL. The Renown & Courageous classes and Hood would be built as OTL.
Except the Courageous class was built due to Treasury restrictions on the number of "proper" capital ships that could be built under the War Emergency Programme. It's possible that another pair of Renown class would be built instead of Courageous and Glorious instead using the money authorised to fund the second and third Canadian financed battleships. In that case Furious would be Renown class mounting three 18" in 3 single turrets or a standard Renown class ship mounting six 15" in 3 twin turrets. (AIUI a set of 15" turrets was ordered for Furious in case her 18" turrets were failures.) That would increase the number of "proper" 15" gunned capital ships in 1920 from 13 to 15 comprising 10 Queen Elizabeth class, 4 Renown class and Hood or 16 if Furious was completed as a standard Renown class.
However, my wishful thinking is that the 4 Queen Elizabeth Mk 2 in the 1914-15 Estimates and the money authorised for the Canadian funded battleship projected for the 1915-16 Estimates would be used to pay for a 5th QE Mk 2 built under the War Emergency Programme. 4 QE Mk 3 would be ordered in 1916 and completed 1920-25 as per Alternative Two in Post 28. That would produce a total of 15 capital ships with 15" guns in 1920 consisting of 10 QE Mk 1, 4 QE Mk 2 and one QE Mk 3 plus another 3 QE Mk 3 under construction.
Last edited:
It depend in which purchase year the Canadian ships are ordered. If done early enough then you might see some of the export order ships bumped because those yards are all ready committed to RN hulls.
The proposals up thread for 12 QE's in three tranches is possible at the cost of all the Revenge class and the later large battlecruisers. OTL 8 Revenge class were ordered, so ITTL it is likely that the first and second batches of four are completed and only the last four are at risk of being Fishered into Battle cruisers. this is just a variation on the above post.
The proposals up thread for 12 QE's in three tranches is possible at the cost of all the Revenge class and the later large battlecruisers. OTL 8 Revenge class were ordered, so ITTL it is likely that the first and second batches of four are completed and only the last four are at risk of being Fishered into Battle cruisers. this is just a variation on the above post.
The change in top speed would require a change in the shape of the ship.
The US standards that you have used as a comparison are notably shorter and broader than the QEs, but also 4 knots slower.
As an illustration, 3 near contemporaries.
Nevada: 27,500 tons, 583ft x 95ft6 21kt
QE: 27,500 tons, 645ft x 90ft6 25kt
Tiger: 28,500 tons, 704ft x 90ft 28kt
If the QEs Mk II have more power on the same displacement (due to altered powerplants), then the shape needs to change to make best use of it, to something like Tiger.
Other changes would probably be needed as well.
The 6" casemate secondaries would probably need repositioning higher in the ship.
But then they would be too heavy in that position, so would need to be fewer or lighter guns.
Can be thought of as QEs adapted for the higher speed/power from small-tube boilers.
Or as Tigers adapted for higher calibre guns and additional armour from weight saving from small-tube boilers and oil firing.