WI: Royal Navy with good AP, effective anti-flash

"I'm thinking of things like Room 40's cockup with callsign DK"

I'm in the middle of a move so I haven't got access to my copy of "Room 40" by Patrick Beesley, but I seem to recall from his account of the callsign incident that Room 40 were well aware that Admiral Scheer transferred his callsign to a shore station during a sortie, but Rear-Admiral (?) Jackson only asked where direction-finding located the callsign, and on being told "Wilhelmshaven" walked out without giving the staff any time to clarify this - he had no time for Room 40 or its staff.
 
If I recall the Admiral Class were basically originally designed as the BC version of the Queen Elisabeth Class ships
The specification actually started as an experimental battleship, with the QE's armament, armour and engine power, but reducing the draught by as much as possible for damage control reasons. D'Eyncourt got it down by 22% before they sent it to Fisher, who said he didn't really want a battleship but in the light of Ersatz Yorck could he have some 15in+ battlecruisers instead? The designers then came back with six designs, three with 8 15in and one each of 4, 6 and 8 18in. I can only imagine what the armour on the last design was like...
 
It's a shame the Queen Elizabeth-class didn't achieve the 25 knots hoped for from them...
I'll have a search for it but I can remember reading somewhere that one of the Royal Navy's engineering committees looked at the possibility of using small-tube boilers in their construction, Sir Eustace Tennyson d'Eyncourt who was Director of Naval Construction was apparently in favour, which would have allowed them to achieve 28 or 29 knots as designed. Alternatively they could have increased armour and still made 25 knots. As someone with a soft spot for the Queen Elizabeth-class either of these options would make me happy. :)
 
Maybe a few more German ships sink and a few less British ones do. The strategic effect won't change: Jutland still secured the North Sea for the Royal Navy definitively. A somewhat worse performance in that battle would reinforce that stance, but it didn't need any more reinforcing anyway.
 
I'll have a search for it but I can remember reading somewhere that one of the Royal Navy's engineering committees looked at the possibility of using small-tube boilers in their construction,
Hey, produce the ideal result from the 1904 Boiler Committee (obvious only in hindsight) and every ship from Dreadnought onwards could have had small-tube boilers without the problem of 'wrapperitis'. Can you imagine a Royal Navy battle-line making 24 knots instead of 21?

I'm having a complete brain freeze here but can anyone remind me whether the Queen Elizabeth-class had geared turbines or not? I know that the Royal Navy were starting to trial them early in the decade but can't remember whether it was too late or not to be incorporated.
Too early. HMS Badger and HMS Beaver got them in 1911; HMS Leonidas and Lucifer in 1912; Calliope and Champion in 1913.
 
Last edited:
I'm having a complete brain freeze here but can anyone remind me whether the Queen Elizabeth-class had geared turbines or not? I know that the Royal Navy were starting to trial them early in the decade but can't remember whether it was too late or not to be incorporated. Thanks.


Hey, produce the ideal result from the 1904 Boiler Committee (obvious only in hindsight) and every ship from Dreadnought onwards could have had small-tube boilers without the problem of 'wrapperitis'. Can you imagine a Royal Navy battle-line making 24 knots instead of 21?
Without being able to check my books that does ring a bell.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
The specification actually started as an experimental battleship, with the QE's armament, armour and engine power, but reducing the draught by as much as possible for damage control reasons. D'Eyncourt got it down by 22% before they sent it to Fisher, who said he didn't really want a battleship but in the light of Ersatz Yorck could he have some 15in+ battlecruisers instead? The designers then came back with six designs, three with 8 15in and one each of 4, 6 and 8 18in. I can only imagine what the armour on the last design was like...
I can try to SpringSharp it later. OTL Admiral dimensions and speed but 18" guns... whoo.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Okay, here's what I have at the moment for AltHood, which is almost no armour whatsoever.

HMS AltHood, Royal Navy Battlecruiser laid down 1916

Displacement:
40,117 t light; 43,173 t standard; 46,892 t normal; 49,867 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
860.50 ft / 860.50 ft x 89.20 ft (Bulges 104.20 ft) x 32.00 ft (normal load)
262.28 m / 262.28 m x 27.19 m (Bulges 31.76 m) x 9.75 m

Armament:
8 - 18.00" / 457 mm guns (4x2 guns), 2,916.00lbs / 1,322.68kg shells, 1916 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
12 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns in single mounts, 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1916 Model
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
on side, all forward
12 guns in hull casemates - Limited use in heavy seas
4 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns in single mounts, 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1916 Model
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
on side, all aft
4 guns in hull casemates - Limited use in heavy seas
3 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm guns in single mounts, 13.50lbs / 6.12kg shells, 1916 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
4 - 1.85" / 47.0 mm guns in single mounts, 3.17lbs / 1.44kg shells, 1916 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 25,109 lbs / 11,389 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
4 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm submerged torpedo tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 8.00" / 203 mm 395.83 ft / 120.65 m 11.33 ft / 3.45 m
Ends: 4.00" / 102 mm 464.65 ft / 141.63 m 11.33 ft / 3.45 m
Upper: 6.00" / 152 mm 395.83 ft / 120.65 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 71 % of normal length
Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

- Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges:
1.50" / 38 mm 395.83 ft / 120.65 m 29.77 ft / 9.07 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 13.0" / 330 mm 8.00" / 203 mm 8.00" / 203 mm
2nd: 6.00" / 152 mm - -
3rd: 6.00" / 152 mm - -

- Armour deck: 3.00" / 76 mm, Conning tower: 2.00" / 51 mm


Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 178,255 shp / 132,978 Kw = 31.05 kts
Range 4,500nm at 20.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 6,694 tons

Complement:
1,593 - 2,071

Cost:
£8.133 million / $32.533 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 3,139 tons, 6.7 %
Armour: 10,035 tons, 21.4 %
- Belts: 3,219 tons, 6.9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 654 tons, 1.4 %
- Armament: 3,071 tons, 6.5 %
- Armour Deck: 3,035 tons, 6.5 %
- Conning Tower: 56 tons, 0.1 %
Machinery: 6,641 tons, 14.2 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 20,302 tons, 43.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 6,775 tons, 14.4 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
45,066 lbs / 20,441 Kg = 15.5 x 18.0 " / 457 mm shells or 5.1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.29
Metacentric height 6.7 ft / 2.0 m
Roll period: 16.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 32 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.59
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 0.60

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.572
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.26 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 29.33 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 50 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 34
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): -10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 32.27 ft / 9.84 m
- Forecastle (8 %): 20.53 ft / 6.26 m
- Mid (67 %): 20.53 ft / 6.26 m
- Quarterdeck (8 %): 20.53 ft / 6.26 m
- Stern: 20.53 ft / 6.26 m
- Average freeboard: 20.92 ft / 6.37 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 128.4 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 134.2 %
Waterplane Area: 54,685 Square feet or 5,080 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 97 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 241 lbs/sq ft or 1,176 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.11
- Longitudinal: 0.96
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Caution: Lacks seaworthiness - very limited seakeeping ability





Not very well protected...

EDIT: Oh, the year the ship's laid down has a huge effect. Missed that!
 
Okay, here's what I have at the moment for AltHood, which is almost no armour whatsoever.
Not a million miles off, but there are some tweaks that might need to be made if we assume it's supposed to look more or less like the final pre-Jutland Hood design. The 18in gun wasn't ready in 1916 but would have been the 18in/40 used in Furious with the 3,320lb shell. Secondary armament would probably have been 16 single 5.5in/50 guns (82lb shell) and 2 21in torpedo tubes plus the AA. The upper belt was 5in rather than 6in, which might give you a bit of spare capacity: similarly, oil was meant to be 4,000 tons max. The 15in design was 36,300 tons and 25.5ft draft, but if you're having 18in guns I think it's acceptable to come in above that- probably in the 39,500 region.

Not sure I would have agreed to go on board it, but it's certainly a valuable corrective to the idea that Hood was the worst warship imaginable...
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Going by those numbers I have to remove all the armour to prevent the ship snapping in half!

The resultant design is 40,045 T normal load, and the main belt is 2" with a 1" deck.

Now, if I switch it over to a transom stern things get slightly better. I can go up to a 4" belt AND 4" gunshields for the main turret!


...seriously, this design could be sunk by a Char B1bis.
 
Going by those numbers I have to remove all the armour to prevent the ship snapping in half!

The resultant design is 40,045 T normal load, and the main belt is 2" with a 1" deck.

Now, if I switch it over to a transom stern things get slightly better. I can go up to a 4" belt AND 4" gunshields for the main turret!


...seriously, this design could be sunk by a Char B1bis.

It could probably be sunk by an angry shoal of Cod
 
Not sure I would have agreed to go on board it, but it's certainly a valuable corrective to the idea that Hood was the worst warship imaginable...
With my Fisherite hat on, I'm saying "Tally ho!"

Per Raven & Roberts, the length should be 880 feet overall/830 feet between perpendicularss with a 104 foot beam and 26 feet normal draught, 29 feet 6 inches at deep load, giving 39,500 tons normal displacement. Power is 120,000 shp for 30 knots, rather than the 160,000 shp/32 knots of the sketch that became Hood.
 
Okay so finally being able to check a couple of pages the Queen Elizabeth-class were too early for geared turbines that honour goes to the Courageous-class battlecruisers. Looks as thought the progression went the destroyers HMS Badger and HMS Beaver with gearing for their high pressure turbines but not low pressure ones, destroyers HMS Leonidas and HMS Lucifer a year later built with both, the cruisers HMS Calliope and HMS Champion had both with Calliope having two propeller shafts and Champion four, and the Courageous-class battlecruisers being the first class of ships to be built with them being commissioned in late 1916. Can anyone think of a way speed this up by a couple of years? I've a hankering for small tube boilers Queen Elizabeth-class battleships with geared steam turbines being ready for the Great War but it's looking tricky to reasonably achieve.
 
Top