WI R class same speed as QE's

AFAIK the original plan for the 1912-13 Estimates was to build 4 battleships and one battle cruiser armed with 15" guns. The battleships would have been up-gunned Iron Dukes mounting ten 15" in five twin turrets in A, B, Q, X and Y positions. The battle cruiser would have been an up-gunned Tiger mounting eight 15" in A, B, X and Y positions.

Then it was realised that eight 15" fired a greater weight of shell than ten 13.5". If oil was used instead of coal more powerful machinery was fitted in the space vacated by Q turret the ships would be capable of 25 knots. Thus the Queen Elizabeth class was born.

AFAIK the ships ordered in the 1912-13 Estimates were intended to form a fast division at the head of the battle line. Therefore ITTL I think the POD has to be that the Admiralty decides that it wants a full squadron of fast battleships instead of a division.

When we come to the middle of 1916 I think the squadron will be split into two divisions. One division will remain with the main body of the Grand Fleet and the other will be assigned to the Battle Cruiser Force to take the place of the battle cruiser squadron that was at Scapa Flow for gunnery practice.

Though I still like the idea of all 6-8 available Queen Elizabeths being assigned to the BCF so that Evan-Thomas can use the speed of his ships to cross Sheer's T and give the van of the German battle line a thorough hammering.
 
28.5 knots from a QE! o_O Surely it wouldn't save that much weight to allow for more machinery...I don't have springsharp (nor have a fucking clue how to use it) so I've no way of seeing if this is close to true.
That's what the notes say the opinion of her designer was. Though I think the weight saved would have been used to thicken the armour.
 
That's what the notes say the opinion of her designer was. Though I think the weight saved would have been used to thicken the armour.

Indeed, a thicker belt would be nice, instead of that narrow strake of 13 inch plate, broaden and deepen that would be good.
 
AFAIK the major problem with the Revenge class in World War II was that their machinery was wearing out rather than being slower than the Queen Elisabeth class. This problem also applied to Barham and Malaya.

The 1934-37 refit if Warspite cost £2.4 million. Therefore if the 5 battleships in the 1913-14 Estimates had been a second batch of Queen Elisabeth class fast battleships instead of Revenge class slow battleships it would have cost £12 million to modernise them in the 1930s. Ark Royal built at about the same time as Warspite's refit cost £4 million. Unless this is a money no object thread the £12 million would have been better spent building another 3 Ark Royals to replace Argus, Eagle and Hermes.
 
Last edited:
I've got my copies of Conway's out. According to that the specifications of the two classes are rather similar.

Queen Elizabeth class
Displacement 31,500 tons deep load
Dimensions 645ft 9in overall x 90ft 6in
Machinery 4-shaft Parsons turbines, 24 Babcock and Wilcox boilers, 56,000 shp = 23 knots
Armament 8 x 15" and 14 x 6"​

Revenge class
Displacement 31,000 tons deep load
Dimensions 624ft 3in overall x 88ft 6in
Machinery 4-shaft Parsons turbines, 18 Babcox and Wilcox boilers, 40,000 shp = 23 knots
Armament 8 x 15" and 14 x 6"​

Note that the maximum speed was the same for both classes.

The armour scheme was similar too. The major difference is the deck armour. Conway's says Queen Elizabeth was 13" and Revenge was 2" to 1" but I think the figure for Queen Elizabeth is a typo.

As part of their rebuilding Queen Elizabeth, Valiant and Warspite had their 24 existing boilers replaced by 8 Admiralty 3-drum boilers. The installed shaft horse power rose from 56,000 to 80,000, but their maximum speed was only increased to 23½ knots. However, the ships were also about 15% heavier as their deep load displacements had increased to about 36,500 tons.
 
Or add the X turret amidships?
No. IMHO due to it's restricted arcs of fire more armour and/or more speed would have been more useful than a fifth turret. If you want more guns with the weight saved then ten 15" mounted two twins and two triples or twelve 15" mounted in four triple turrets would be a better distribution. But AFAIK the gunners wouldn't have accepted that.
 
IOTL the Revenge class that took the longest to build were Ramillies (47 months completed September 1917) and Resolution (37 months completed December 1916). The other 3 were actually laid down after these ships but Revenge, Royal Oak and Royal Sovereign were all built in 28-29 months and had joined the Grand Fleet by the end of May 1916. Only Revenge and Royal Oak fought in the battle because Royal Sovereign had faulty machinery.

AFAIK the extended building times was due to the diversion of materials and labour to the Repulse class, Courageous class and monitors. IMHO had Fisher stuck to the building programme that he inherited from Battenberg the likelihood is that Ramillies and Resolution would have been built in 28-29 months as well and be with the Grand Fleet by the end of March 1916. In that situation the 4 ships ordered in the 1914-15 Estimates would have been laid down in the first half of 1915 and been completed in 1918.

If all had been built as Queen Elisabeth class the Grand Fleet would have had 10 fast battleships at the end of 1916 instead of 5 of which 8 were ready to sail on the 31st instead of 4. Then as I wrote in Post 61 the probable distribution is 4 ships assigned to the Battle Cruiser Force while the Third Battle Cruiser Squadron was away having gunnery practice and the other 4 performing their designed function which was to be a fast division at the van of the line of battle.
 
Indeed its a shame the Admiralty was against the triple turrets.

Okay how about this as an idea.

QE's built with small tube boilers and geared turbines, this makes them capable of 25 knots although all were felt capable of exceeding this by a knot if forced on trials. Lets also assume that the Admiratly stomps on the Follies and gets them stopped as well as no rushed production of the Refit and Repair.

Batch 1 - Pretty much OTL designs, main change is a deeper and taller main strake of armour for the main belt

HMS Queen Elizabeth
HMS Warspite
HMS Valiant
HMS Barham
HMS Malaya
HMS Anson (Ex Agincourt, renamed so not to offend French allies).

The the 3 'Canadian' ships - Repeat Batch 1's but with re-sighted 6-inch gun secondaries as they were found to be frequently washed out on the initial build

HMS Acadia
HMS Quebec
HMS Ontario

Then use the Rs as batch 2 vessels - Same as Canadian vessels except HMS Ramillies, Renown and Repulse, these three were built to a modified design and incorperated the American all or nothing armoured scheme. This delayed their construction and all three were finished in 1917/1918.

HMS Revenge
HMS Royal Oak
HMS Resolution
HMS Royal Sovereign
HMS Ramillies (AoN armour scheme)
HMS Repulse (AoN armour scheme)
HMS Renown (AoN armour scheme)

This big building programme though cuts back on the number of slips and thus, the Admirals are not laid down, but you get a new Battlecruiser design being looked at, possibly one with 3 x triple turrets and AoN armour scheme to take the full lesson from Jutland. Planned laying down of the first of these new ships is 1919.
 
Indeed its a shame the Admiralty was against the triple turrets.

Okay how about this as an idea.

QE's built with small tube boilers and geared turbines, this makes them capable of 25 knots although all were felt capable of exceeding this by a knot if forced on trials.

Batch 1 - Pretty much OTL designs, main change is a deeper and taller main strake of armour for the main belt
HMS Queen Elizabeth
HMS Warspite
HMS Valiant
HMS Barham
HMS Malaya
HMS Anson (Ex Agincourt, renamed so not to offend French allies).​

The the 3 'Canadian' ships - Repeat Batch 1's but with re-sighted 6-inch gun secondaries as they were found to be frequently washed out on the initial build
HMS Acadia
HMS Quebec
HMS Ontario​

Then use the Rs as batch 2 vessels - Same as Canadian vessels except HMS Ramillies, Renown and Repulse, these three were built to a modified design and incorperated the American all or nothing armoured scheme. This delayed their construction and all three were finished in 1917/1918.
HMS Revenge
HMS Royal Oak
HMS Resolution
HMS Royal Sovereign
HMS Ramillies
HMS Repulse
HMS Renown​
If we don't want to offend the French then Ramillies needs to have a different name and as Canada used to belong to France the names for the Canadian funded ships might not be a good idea either. You would have to re-name about a quarter of the capital ships in the fleet. Marlborough and Iron Duke will have to go for a start.

My idea is currently:
1912-13 Estimates - 5 Queen Elizabeth class completed January 1915 to February 1916 as OTL
1913-14 Estimates - 5 Queen Elizabeth class completed March to May 1915
1914-15 Estimates - 4 Queen Elizabeth class laid down in the first half of 1915 and completed in the second half of 1917

War Emergency Programme
2 Queen Elizabeth class laid down in the second half of 1915 and completed in 1918
4 Battle class laid down in 1916 and completed 1920-21​

All 16 Queen Elizabeth class ships would have small tube boilers for a speed of 25 knots but most of the weight saved was used for thicker armour distributed where Queen Elisabeth, Valiant and Warspite received it in their 1934-41 refits.

The 4 Battle class would displace 35,000 tons standard, have a maximum speed of 25 knots and be armed with twelve 15" in four triple turrets and sixteen 6" in casemates.
 
Last edited:
Indeed its a shame the Admiralty was against the triple turrets.

Okay how about this as an idea.

QE's built with small tube boilers and geared turbines, this makes them capable of 25 knots although all were felt capable of exceeding this by a knot if forced on trials. Lets also assume that the Admiratly stomps on the Follies and gets them stopped as well as no rushed production of the Refit and Repair.

Batch 1 - Pretty much OTL designs, main change is a deeper and taller main strake of armour for the main belt

HMS Queen Elizabeth
HMS Warspite
HMS Valiant
HMS Barham
HMS Malaya
HMS Anson (Ex Agincourt, renamed so not to offend French allies).

The the 3 'Canadian' ships - Repeat Batch 1's but with re-sighted 6-inch gun secondaries as they were found to be frequently washed out on the initial build

HMS Acadia
HMS Quebec
HMS Ontario

Then use the Rs as batch 2 vessels - Same as Canadian vessels except HMS Ramillies, Renown and Repulse, these three were built to a modified design and incorperated the American all or nothing armoured scheme. This delayed their construction and all three were finished in 1917/1918.

HMS Revenge
HMS Royal Oak
HMS Resolution
HMS Royal Sovereign
HMS Ramillies (AoN armour scheme)
HMS Repulse (AoN armour scheme)
HMS Renown (AoN armour scheme)

This big building programme though cuts back on the number of slips and thus, the Admirals are not laid down, but you get a new Battlecruiser design being looked at, possibly one with 3 x triple turrets and AoN armour scheme to take the full lesson from Jutland. Planned laying down of the first of these new ships is 1919.

The Malaya, as a gift from the federated states, was laid down only a month before the first 5 R class in OTL.
And the Agincourt was planned as the 6th QE, to be laid down with the second 3 R class in OTL, all cancelled in August '14 and then Refit & Repair reordered in Jan '15.

If all these ships are QEs then you get the first 4 as batch 1.
Malaya and the 3 Canadians as repeat batch 1. In my view getting all 3 Canadians is practically ASB - 1 is much more likely.

The 5 initial R's as batch 2 (unless building the Canadians impacts how many of these you can build and when, even the UK didn't have limitless slips. Cancelling fishers follies will help).

The last 3 R's and Agincourt/Anson as batch 3.
 
The Malaya, as a gift from the federated states, was laid down only a month before the first 5 R class in OTL. And the Agincourt was planned as the 6th QE, to be laid down with the second 3 R class in OTL, all cancelled in August '14 and then Refit & Repair reordered in Jan '15. If all these ships are QEs then you get the first 4 as batch 1. Malaya and the 3 Canadians as repeat batch 1. In my view getting all 3 Canadians is practically ASB - 1 is much more likely. The 5 initial R's as batch 2 (unless building the Canadians impacts how many of these you can build and when, even the UK didn't have limitless slips. Cancelling fishers follies will help). The last 3 R's and Agincourt/Anson as batch 3.
Do you mean something along the lines of this?
My idea is currently:
1912-13 Estimates - 5 Queen Elizabeth class completed January 1915 to February 1916 as OTL
1913-14 Estimates - 5 Queen Elizabeth class completed March to May 1915
1914-15 Estimates - 4 Queen Elizabeth class laid down in the first half of 1915 and completed in the second half of 1917

War Emergency Programme
2 Queen Elizabeth class laid down in the second half of 1915 and completed in 1918
4 Battle class laid down in 1916 and completed 1920-21​

All 16 Queen Elizabeth class ships would have small tube boilers for a speed of 25 knots but most of the weight saved was used for thicker armour distributed where Queen Elisabeth, Valiant and Warspite received it in their 1934-41 refits.

The 4 Battle class would displace 35,000 tons standard, have a maximum speed of 25 knots and be armed with twelve 15" in four triple turrets and sixteen 6" in casemates.
I think 3 Canadian Queen Elizabeths are unlikely, but I think the capacity to build the hulls, machinery, armour and armament is there. From 1910-11 to 1913-14 the Admiralty had been ordering battleships at the rate of 5 per year. It was only reduced to 4 in 1914-15 because the Germans ordered 2 capital ships in their 1914-15 Estimates instead of the 3 a year in their preceding estimates.

In 1909-10 we had the "We Want Eight We Won't Wait!" programme of 6 battleships and 2 battle cruisers plus the battle cruisers Australia and New Zealand bought and paid for by the countries they were named after. All ten capital ships were laid down between July 1909 and June 1910. They were completed in an average of 28 months.

During this period we also have 2 ships ordered by Chile, 3 ships ordered by Brazil (one sold to Turkey), one ordered by Turkey and one battle cruiser (Kongo) ordered by Japan.
 
I don't know what could be built, but lets assume that the Canadian trio don't get built as per OTL but the original 5 QE's go ahead with a 6th ship partially funded by Canada, to be HMS Ontario or simething.

These are all small tube, geared turbine vessels with the Canadian ship having better location for her secondaries. All have a deeper and taller main belt (the QE's had a very narrow 13 inch belt) thanks to weight saved being put into improved protection, speed of 25 knots.

Assuming Fisher does not get his way re Refit and Repair and then gets his fingers caught in the cookie jar with the Follies so there's no disruption of service or guns that way and the R's go ahead as repeat QE's with the same layout of secondaries as the Canadian ship, and again are 25 knot vessels.

One thing that you could do to spice things up is whip up fears about German 'super ships' as well as noticing whats going on over the pond. All or Nothing came around before Jutland, but the Admiralty was quite conservative. The British had the manufacturing experience to build triple turrets as they built them for the Russian Baltic DN's at Armstrong.

So you can either get a repeat QE with the R's or...you get spicey. Adopt an AoN armour scheme and go for a turret arrangement like Nevada in a 3 2 2 3 arrangement.
 
Wouldn't it have been better if all the R class battleships had been constructed as battlecruisers? They would have been more useful at Jutland that way, more useful than even than more Queen Elizabeths, and very useful for WW2 as well.
 
Wouldn't it have been better if all the R class battleships had been constructed as battlecruisers? They would have been more useful at Jutland that way, more useful than even than more Queen Elizabeths, and very useful for WW2 as well.

The thing is then with that, what type? Basically have them as Renown/Repulse types? They were poorly protected and very expensive ships to build, the problem with BCs is that they tended to be more expensive to build due to all their engines, so you'd probably not save much money and have a weaker vessel to boot.
 
I've just half-remembered from an earlier thread about the Queen Elizabeth class that they did not meet their designed speed because anti-torpedo bulges were fitted. Is that correct?
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't it have been better if all the R class battleships had been constructed as battlecruisers?
I think the best answer is to have them redesigned as battlecruisers once the declaration of war loosens the purse strings, full protected battlecruisers that is.
Just have 6QEs (OTL 4GB + 1 Malayan +1 Can) and 4Hoods (all will miss Jutland) by 1918.
 
QE's didn't meet there 25 knot speed, however I don't think any of the class had anti-torpedo bulges until post war.

Canadian QE's were to follow the first 5 R's, and where to be coal oil firing as designed, likely changing to pure oil firing during construction like the R's, and likely slower than QE's but faster than R's.

Technology was there to build a much better ship than the R's, small tube boilers and geared turbines would have allowed greater weight allotted to protection, while at same time increasing speed and endurance.

RN worried about supply of oil from mid east main reason R's and Cdn QE's designed as coal oil fired ships.

Design T4 9 guns with triple in Y position, T2 10 guns 2 triple 2 twins, T3 5 twin turrets.

I don't have any faith in Cdn government funding any ships then or now.

5 QE's, 5 R's built as batch 2 QE's, 4 Hoods asap instead of R&R C G and F, RN much better off.

5th BS Jutland, 4 of the RN's strongest BB's replaced Hood's 3 BC and HMS Australia, at a most opportune time.
 
Top