Shipbucket

Charles Evans Hughes and Arthur James Balfour and others are sitting in a room in Washington feeling happy they have nearly completed negotiating the treaty that will save the world from a potential arms race.
But Balfour has in part of his mind the fact that he is about to sign up to a treaty that will mean GB will have to build 2 more expensive battleships for the RN.
Somebody has a sneaky idea and passes it to him quietly, why not ask if we to can save a bit of money, after all that's the idea of the treaty isn't it ?

What about if we restart the revised admirals ? Using the scrap 15inch guns we have already paid for even if that means that we might have to go slightly over 35,000t would that not be reasonable after all look at hood herself she is huge but you all realise that she isn't really much stronger for that. (so 35,000t+3000t and 8x15" is agreed quietly on a pretext that they are already started)

The result please nobody but the RN,
G4 BC


G4, GB RN Battleship 1922 laid down 1923

Displacement:
37,472 t light; 39,300 t standard; 42,280 t normal; 44,664 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(853.32 ft / 850.00 ft) x 106.00 ft x (27.00 / 28.21 ft)
(260.09 m / 259.08 m) x 32.31 m x (8.23 / 8.60 m)

Armament:
8 - 15.00" / 381 mm 42.0 cal guns - 1,636.38lbs / 742.25kg shells, 120 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1923 Model
2 x Quad mounts on centreline, forward evenly spread
16 - 4.70" / 119 mm 45.0 cal guns - 50.00lbs / 22.68kg shells, 240 per gun
Quick firing guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1919 Model
6 x Twin mounts on sides, aft evenly spread
2 x Twin mounts on centreline, aft deck aft
1 raised mount - superfiring
16 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm 39.0 cal guns - 2.01lbs / 0.91kg shells, 150 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1923 Model
2 x 2 row octuple mounts on sides, aft deck forward
2 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 13,923 lbs / 6,315 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 13.0" / 330 mm 360.00 ft / 109.73 m 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
Ends: 2.00" / 51 mm 200.00 ft / 60.96 m 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
290.00 ft / 88.39 m Unarmoured ends
Main Belt covers 65 % of normal length
Main Belt inclined 10.00 degrees (positive = in)

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 16.0" / 406 mm 9.00" / 229 mm 14.0" / 356 mm
2nd: 2.00" / 51 mm 2.00" / 51 mm 2.00" / 51 mm

- Armoured deck - single deck:
For and Aft decks: 6.00" / 152 mm
Forecastle: 2.00" / 51 mm Quarter deck: 6.00" / 152 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 4.00" / 102 mm, Aft 2.00" / 51 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 133,298 shp / 99,440 Kw = 30.00 kts
Range 7,000nm at 16.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 5,364 tons

Complement:
1,473 - 1,916

Cost:
£9.181 million / $36.725 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,229 tons, 5.3 %
- Guns: 2,229 tons, 5.3 %
Armour: 13,387 tons, 31.7 %
- Belts: 3,637 tons, 8.6 %
- Armament: 2,672 tons, 6.3 %
- Armour Deck: 6,921 tons, 16.4 %
- Conning Towers: 157 tons, 0.4 %
Machinery: 4,455 tons, 10.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 17,001 tons, 40.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4,808 tons, 11.4 %
Miscellaneous weights: 400 tons, 0.9 %
- On freeboard deck: 200 tons
- Above deck: 200 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
86,707 lbs / 39,329 Kg = 51.4 x 15.0 " / 381 mm shells or 5.8 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.21
Metacentric height 7.7 ft / 2.4 m
Roll period: 16.0 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 75 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.59
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.51

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and large transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.608 / 0.615
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.02 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 33.47 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 5.00 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 %, 38.00 ft / 11.58 m, 28.00 ft / 8.53 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 28.00 ft / 8.53 m, 28.00 ft / 8.53 m
- Aft deck: 15.00 %, 28.00 ft / 8.53 m, 28.00 ft / 8.53 m
- Quarter deck: 25.00 %, 28.00 ft / 8.53 m, 28.00 ft / 8.53 m
- Average freeboard: 29.20 ft / 8.90 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 61.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 250.6 %
Waterplane Area: 69,207 Square feet or 6,430 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 123 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 187 lbs/sq ft or 914 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.96
- Longitudinal: 1.41
- Overall: 1.00
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

I like the design and idea behind it. I would put a couple of tweaks in, shown below.



I did think your 2x6" to 2x4.7" conversion looked a bit odd as you kept the original 6" turret and fitted some approximate 4.7" into it - it looked wrong. Smaller turret save a bit of weight which I turn around and spend again (maybe a bit more) in raising B turret one level.

Thanks for the feedback

But I don't really want small turrets (with hindsight from 5.25, etc lots of stingy RN mounts), my thought was that the 6" twin (that in some versions had high elevation anyway) would at least allow plenty of room for fast firing of my (now separate) 4.7"/45 QF (mix of 2 OTL guns, 4.7"/45BL and 4.7"/40QF to make a early 4.7"/45QF now with twin HA/LA mount) with 50lb shell.

What does anybody else think ? How small can I go without making them slow and useless for AA (in WW2 not 1920s ) ?

(and yes I did just add the barrel from part sheet 4.7" )

Bigger turrets can help. But it is actually the breadth of the turret rather than length that helps the most. When the loaders are at work the wider the turret gives least interference. Which is why I kept that 6" turret profile for the width and made it shorter. It was 60 degrees in those 6" twins, would need to get out to 80+ degrees to get it truly AA capable. Splitting that horrible fixed shell is a no-brainer (I do it with my 20/20 hindsight at full power).

As I said I like yours, I have just done it slightly differently.

Uhmm, reading your intro - shouldn't we be doing these drawings on the 1920's Admiral hulls? rather than the F type.

WOW thats a really imposing ship.

_________________
kike-92

Nice. Really nice. You're a bit too early with the adoption of dual purpose guns though. Really, it's armaments should be 6" guns and a few loose AA cannons.

In the late thirties/early fourties you can add some more AA, maybe at the cost of a few 6" turrets. Replace them one on one with the 5.25 and some more pom pom for example. She should have margins to spare for that.

_________________
Would you please not eat my gun...

No I was assuming that the admirals get cancelled as OTL.

The POD is that just before the end of the WNT the British suggest they would like to save money by reusing the parts they have already made for the Admirals (they only name the guns but suggest other parts as well).

US/Japan would look at the suggestion (that RN gets to build a cut down Admiral with 8x15" guns) and assume that it would not be a huge threat and they agree that in return it can displace more than 35,000t (Hood didn't get the full benefit from her excess 6,000t due to redesigns during building, inefficient twins and her massive speed) A cut down Admiral for 38,000t isn't a huge threat she may be fast but she inst going to fight very well v the last 16" BBs so may well be agree to.

The RN has other ideas and builds brand new design just keeping to the legal fiction agreed (ie 38,000t 8x 15")

Hey Mihoshik,

The actual timeline for true DP guns is the HACS unit that would control both aspects. Until then the better directors are for the LA part, the AA director is a separate part, and is not as good.

The HACS start arriving in 1931+, so that is your DP date.

The ability to create a 'DP' weapon was there from the time AA weapons were first fitted in WW1. It was not done because there was still the separation of secondary to tertiary roles in the ship designers minds. And most importantly there was plenty of weight available for the two types of weapons. It was only when navies started looking for weight saving alternatives did the single calibre DP guns emerge. With JSB's concept here, he is looking to save 3-4,000 tons of weight, so changing a possible 12-16x6" and 6x4.7" to 16x4.7" would save most of the weight he was looking for.

If the Admiralty wanted to keep everything even cheaper by utilising the half built Admirals matched with later design features, is this what they could have ended up with?

I think you need a new hull,
1- to hold the massive quad 15" mounts
2- to save weight using D steel to get under 38,000t
3- to be faster (transom etc)
4- to be sufficiently strong to hold the massive deck protection (ties in with 2 as you will want to use it for strength)

Personally I think you just cant improve the Hood/Admirals much as they are basically a redesigned BC/pre AON BB designed pre Jutland and they are already under lots of strain in OTL loading with Hood.