Shipbucket

Just how far can you push a design. 12" designs ended up with the 14 gun Agincourt. 13.5" only went as far as 10. 14" went to 12.

I decided to see how far I could push a battlecruiser design with 13.5". The chances that this would ever be contemplated by Admiralty is next to zero. At this stage of WW1 it was 15" or nothing. But the ship I have redrawn and pasted together with 12x13.5" rivals the size of the Renown class with 6x15. The Lion class with its 8x13.5" used the mk-1 13.5" with the 1250lb shell while my Courageous uses the mk-2 heavy 1400lb shell. So for Renown your broadside is 6x1950=11,700, while the Courageous, 12x1400=16,800, almost 50% more.



My thought is the ship will be somewhere in the 32-33,000 tons std, and around 38,000 tons full load. Those with Springsharp may be able to tell me if it works at that displacement.

Displacement: 32,500 tons standard, 38,000 tons full load
Dimensions: 817 x 92 x 28 feet
Machinery: 4 shaft, geared turbines, 100,000shp
Speed: 28 knots
Endurance: 7,000 miles at 15 knots
Armour: 9" belt, 2" deck, 10" turrets
Armament:
12 x 13.5" (4x3)
21 x 4" (7x3)
4 x 4" AA (4x1)

Crew: 1200

Edit: filled in the last of the data details.

Where are you getting the 13.5 triples from ? (the 15 twins are available now and spare)

As to spring sharp (only did a quick go) It looks like it wants more power (130kship, but RN tank testing was the best in world in 1914) and over weight 35SD,39FL (but then not sure bout how much 9' belt you want)

weight wise,

15 twin OTL = Mark I and Mark I*: 770 tons (782 mt)
13.5 twin OTL = Mark II: 600 tons (610 mt)

15 twin SS = 737t
13.5 twin SS = 575t
13.5 triple SS = 828t
All with face 10',side 8' and no Barbette and on deck level. (all a bit light as well so real triple 850+t ?)

This makes me think that you can just go with 8x15' and save weight (and why not ?) The only reason for triples I can think of is if 6 guns is not ok and you go for 9 (3x3) and save 530t (+ lots of hull length) over 4 x 15' twins.

With hindsight I would just build a Hood (fast QE not the early designs)(or maybe a cheaper slower/6 gun version if HMT will not play) but you cant call that a LLC

Displacement:
30,604 t light; 32,605 t standard; 34,686 t normal; 36,351 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(817.00 ft / 806.99 ft) x 92.00 ft x (28.00 / 29.09 ft)
(249.02 m / 245.97 m) x 28.04 m x (8.53 / 8.87 m)

Armament:
12 - 13.50" / 343 mm 45.0 cal guns - 1,240.68lbs / 562.76kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1917 Model
4 x Triple mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
2 raised mounts - superfiring
Main guns limited to end-on fire
21 - 4.00" / 102 mm 45.0 cal guns - 32.27lbs / 14.64kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1917 Model
7 x Triple mounts on sides amidships
7 raised mounts
4 - 4.00" / 102 mm 45.0 cal guns - 32.27lbs / 14.64kg shells, 150 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1917 Model
4 x Single mounts on sides amidships
4 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 15,695 lbs / 7,119 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 9.00" / 229 mm 420.00 ft / 128.02 m 28.00 ft / 8.53 m
Ends: 3.50" / 89 mm 80.00 ft / 24.38 m 25.00 ft / 7.62 m
306.99 ft / 93.57 m Unarmoured ends
Main Belt covers 80 % of normal length
Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 10.0" / 254 mm 8.00" / 203 mm 8.00" / 203 mm
2nd: 1.00" / 25 mm - -

- Armoured deck - single deck: 2.00" / 51 mm For and Aft decks

- Conning towers: Forward 10.00" / 254 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Hydraulic drive, 4 shafts, 132,193 shp / 98,616 Kw = 30.00 kts
Range 6,900nm at 14.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3,746 tons

Complement:
1,270 - 1,652

Cost:
£5.836 million / $23.346 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,731 tons, 7.9 %
Armour: 7,977 tons, 23.0 %
- Belts: 4,874 tons, 14.1 %
- Armament: 1,782 tons, 5.1 %
- Armour Deck: 1,092 tons, 3.1 %
- Conning Tower: 229 tons, 0.7 %
Machinery: 4,846 tons, 14.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 15,050 tons, 43.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4,083 tons, 11.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
45,431 lbs / 20,607 Kg = 36.9 x 13.5 " / 343 mm shells or 3.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.03
Metacentric height 4.7 ft / 1.4 m
Roll period: 17.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 67 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 1.49
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.33

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle, rise forward of midbreak, raised quarterdeck ,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.584 / 0.589
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.77 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 28.41 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 30.00 %, 27.50 ft / 8.38 m, 33.50 ft / 10.21 m
- Forward deck: 35.00 %, 27.50 ft / 8.38 m, 26.50 ft / 8.08 m
- Aft deck: 0.00 %, 0.00 ft / 0.00 m, 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
- Quarter deck: 35.00 %, 20.00 ft / 6.10 m, 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Average freeboard: 26.31 ft / 8.02 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 84.9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 216.6 %
Waterplane Area: 53,493 Square feet or 4,970 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 110 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 202 lbs/sq ft or 987 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.97
- Longitudinal: 1.37
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

_________________
Work list(Current)
Miscellaneous|Victorian Colonial Navy|Murray Riverboats|Colony of Victoria AU|Project Sail-fixing SB's sail shortage
How to mentally pronounce my usernameRow-(as in a boat)Don-(as in the short form of Donald)Dough-(bread)
"Loitering on the High Seas" (Named after the good ship Rodondo)
There's no such thing as "nothing left to draw" If you can down 10 pints and draw, you're doing alright by my standards

Nice but I have questions about,

- Main guns limited to end-on fire (not good !)

- Main Belt covers 80 % of normal length, Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces (would this be acceptable ?)

- Barbette 8' (needs to be as Belt ? 10')

- Hydraulic drive ? (not geared ?)

- Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 % (at least a 100+t for boats)

ADD - If you want a LLC could you reuse some old 12' guns (with added elevation)you might get 6 guns on the OTL ships (rather than 4 x 15' weight almost works) and that would allow you to actually hit stuff, a very light but fast BC that could kill any none capital ship and still hurt old dreadnoughts, what would the world do at WNT with 3 RN Alaska's ?

It is surprising how much you guys only see what you want to see.

JSB - the hull above is a lot bigger than the Courageous Class LBC's. Both above and underwater dimensions are about 6-8 foot bigger. It is nearly 30 feet longer and 10 feet wider. It is enormous compared to the LBC's. The superstructure is the only common element. This is a true battlecruiser sized vessel.

Rodondo has only entered in the basic data that I supplied above. He will get erroneous readings as everyone who uses Springsharp does unless they dot every 'i' and cross every 't' with your eyes crossed as well.

What the SS report has done is show that the design is feasible. That was what I wanted to know.

That it would never be built, I said exactly that in my first post. The drawing is to see how far you could go with a 13.5" BC. You could probably go with 5 triples on a vessel the size of Hood. But that would be a step too far.

Sorry for muddying the waters with LLC talk, But I think we are talking at cross purposes I assumed this would get built instead of them, not that it was LLC size.

Jackie Fisher's LBC's were designed for a special purpose. The attack into the Baltic. They were more properly 'fast monitors' as that was the role they were to fulfil.

As to arming this drawing with 15", I have already done an 'Alternate' drawing like that with my "Alternate Renown". This ship was purely a never-were and never going to be. It was purely from my imagination as to how far designers could push the 13.5" envelope. To take the 13.5" designs for BC's you would go Lion, Tiger, probably a 10 gun version (5x2) then this drawing with 12 guns. It would never have been built in time of war for all the reasons we already know. 15" was the way to go. Too long to produce new triple turret in time of war etc etc..

While I haver borrowed the name Courageous and the 1917 date, the drawing would have followed directly in Tigers footsteps. Admiralty was ordering capital ships in batches of 2-3 (for BC's). So you had 3 Lions but only one Tiger, this would be ship 2 and/or 3 of the Tiger series. I have always thought that the Queen Elizabeth class were to replace any future BC types and if Fisher had not got back to the Admiralty and ordered the Renowns and Courageous class, the BC would have finished with Tiger.

This ship makes a good comparison to the Renown. The 15" guns have more destructive power when hits are achieved, but a six gun broadside does not give that good a percentage of achieving hits. With twelve gun broadsides you will hit the enemy more often with less destructive shells. Against ships of its own class or lower, hitting the enemy with more shells would prove effective. Against larger opponents is where you would run into the Battlecruisers problem. Ships that are armoured to take damage from a BC's gun size are normally armed with guns that will make mincemeat of a battlecruiser.

In WW1 the 9" armoured belt on the later British BC's was supposed to be able to stop a German 11" shell and have a decent zone of immunity against the 12". At Jutland this was not a problem as all the German ships were armed with 11" and 12" guns. The Renown however, when completed, had a 6" armoured belt. I do not know what size of guns that would stop but I think 11" and 12" would pretty much go straight through. If R&R had been at Jutland would they have increased the British losses?

I made a comment above about the Tiger being the last British BC. I made that comment without really thinking about it fully. But it stuck in my mind. Thinking more about it, it really could have been that Tiger should have been the last BC. Tiger was ordered in 1911 and no further BC's were ordered till Fisher ordered R&R, the LBC's and Hood/Admirals. The British really had gone the route of the fast battleship in place of the battlecruiser. The supposed sister for Tiger (Leopard), was deferred as a sixth Queen Elizabeth class ship. An interesting never-were subject. Would the next class after the QE's have been the 10x15" proposed "Queen Victorias" or gone on to 8x16" to match the US ships. We are talking 'no Fisher' future designs during WW1 and before the G3/N3 monsters.

Hi Krakatoa,

I'd understood that the middle turret had fallen out of favour with the RN, not necessarily due to the turret itself but more due to compromises that had to be made to engine / boiler layout and difficulties in keeping the middle magazines cool. Would, then, a five-turret ship be seen as a backward step?

Regards,
Adam

_________________
Public Service Announcement: This is the preferred SB / FD font.

NSWE: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5695

IMO RN would go for faster QEs (Hood or slower 26/28 Kn ?) or for 18' guns x8 (4x2) in a BB (protection v 16' min guns) with QE speed ship (or combine the 2 if budget is no object)