Royal Navy Super Battleships and Battlecruisers

From the birth of the Dreadnought to the period immediately after the end of World War I.
Maciej
Member
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 8:17 pm
Location: Poland

Re: Royal Navy Super Battleships and Battlecruisers

Post by Maciej »

Now, after some years, I found mistakes in my description about battleships.
All battleships designs were with two shafts, not four as I described.
I upgraded dragings, but can't attach here. Even 300 kb image gets "too large" message. Sorry.
HMSVF
Senior Member
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: Royal Navy Super Battleships and Battlecruisers

Post by HMSVF »

Maciej wrote: Mon Dec 07, 2020 6:43 pm Now, after some years, I found mistakes in my description about battleships.
All battleships designs were with two shafts, not four as I described.
I upgraded dragings, but can't attach here. Even 300 kb image gets "too large" message. Sorry.

Brilliant stuff.

One question.

The belts on all of these vessels look quite shallow. Was it not the case that when the RN used HMS Emperor of India as a target prior to scrapping they were somewhat concerned that the armoured belt wasn't deep enough? I wonder if those trials had been performed in 1920 or so as opposed to 1932 (?) the design may have differed somewhat?

They would have been magnificent vessels to look at.Beautiful ? No,not really. Impressive? Definitely ! I always thought that the "Nelson" class looked as if they had been carved out of granite as opposed to constructed out of steel!

BW


HMSVF
Maciej
Member
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 8:17 pm
Location: Poland

Re: Royal Navy Super Battleships and Battlecruisers

Post by Maciej »

I wasn't here for a while sorry.

All designs I described were well before 1930 or so. Some experinece with diving shell existed (there were such a hits during Great War), but G to N class had very limited protection against such a shells. Some extension of belt over magazines, but none over machinery.
Similar scheme was incorporated in Nelsons and in second part of 30-thies there was plan to extend its best down to protect against diving shells - but not the way as Japaneese done on Yamato or Americans on South Dakota/Iowa. Extension was "reverse" in slope and meat hull plating few meters under water line well uver the keel.
That plan was never implemented.
For obvious reasons tere was no any change of G3/N3 design in 30thies
Original belts of G3/N3 were 16 feet high. Not so bad. American "standards" had something like 17.5 feet (moer or less)
But hulls were quite high too. Requirement of high freeboard was one of serious needs for them.
And belt on G3Ne was sloped internal, so "visible" part for shell was considerably smaller than on external verticval belt.
One of reasons why was later abandoned.

In case of extension of belt in time of design. Pure speculation, but I doubt. Designs were close to limit of infrastructure. So some extra armour needed some compromise elsewere. But who knows? I have no data about it
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1223
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Royal Navy Super Battleships and Battlecruisers

Post by paul.mercer »

Gentlemen,
Re the proposed super battleships and Battlecruisers, i can understand why in the 1920's they wanted to build very powerful battleships, but regarding the 'Super battle cruisers, it was pointed out in another topic that the point of having battlecruisers was to chase away enemy cruisers. With that in mind why were the proposed designs so heavily armed with 16 or 18" guns when cruisers only had 8" guns, surely the two 15" R class battlecruisers were big enough? We have seen at Jutland ( and with Hood)that Battlecruisers being lighter armoured are not fit to stand in line of battle with opponents with heavy guns, it just seems to me to be a pointless exercise particularly if the battleships are going to have a similar top speed of around 30 knots
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Royal Navy Super Battleships and Battlecruisers

Post by dunmunro »

paul.mercer wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 10:41 am Gentlemen,
Re the proposed super battleships and Battlecruisers, i can understand why in the 1920's they wanted to build very powerful battleships, but regarding the 'Super battle cruisers, it was pointed out in another topic that the point of having battlecruisers was to chase away enemy cruisers. With that in mind why were the proposed designs so heavily armed with 16 or 18" guns when cruisers only had 8" guns, surely the two 15" R class battlecruisers were big enough? We have seen at Jutland ( and with Hood)that Battlecruisers being lighter armoured are not fit to stand in line of battle with opponents with heavy guns, it just seems to me to be a pointless exercise particularly if the battleships are going to have a similar top speed of around 30 knots
These were "fully armoured battlecruisers" which were armoured to withstand battleship calibre guns.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7759
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Royal Navy Super Battleships and Battlecruisers

Post by RF »

This was also the period with tight budget restrictions on naval expenditure: instead of ''super battlecruisers'' it would have been better to spend the money on existing ships, such as the proposed strengthening of Hoods' armour protection, which for budget considerations was never done.
We shall never know whether the extra protection would have saved Hood at the DS battle.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1223
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Royal Navy Super Battleships and Battlecruisers

Post by paul.mercer »

Hi Dunmunro and RF, thanks for your replies,
Surely, if they were 'fully armoured and capable of standing against a battleship of the same size there was not much point in designing them as they may just as well produced a fast battleship. Also, re the point that battle cruisers were designed to chase away cruisers, as I mentioned most cruisers mounted 6" or 8" guns and were no match for either Repulse or Renown so building even bigger more heavily armed battle cruisers seems a bit pointless and very costly. not only to build but if they were the same size as a battleship , very expensive to run and on manpower to crew them.
I would have thought that a fast 30-32 knot ship mounting 6 or possibly 8, 11" guns and enough armour to withstand 8" shells would have been quite sufficient to deal with any enemy cruisers if it came to a battle, but I suspect their mere presence would make a cruiser captain consider his options.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7759
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Royal Navy Super Battleships and Battlecruisers

Post by RF »

Basically Paul it seems you are arguing for a super ''Graf Spee'' for a River Plate type confrontation? A Scharnhorst/Gneisenau type vessel?
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
gcogger
Junior Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 8:30 am

Re: Royal Navy Super Battleships and Battlecruisers

Post by gcogger »

paul.mercer wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 10:08 am Hi Dunmunro and RF, thanks for your replies,
Surely, if they were 'fully armoured and capable of standing against a battleship of the same size there was not much point in designing them as they may just as well produced a fast battleship...
I'm sure those more knowledgeable than I will correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that the RN at the time called any battleship design capable of around 30kts+ a battlecruiser, regardless of the armour.
Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: Royal Navy Super Battleships and Battlecruisers

Post by Steve Crandell »

Hmmm. Doesn't that limit the category to HMS Hood, Renown, and Repulse?
gcogger
Junior Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 8:30 am

Re: Royal Navy Super Battleships and Battlecruisers

Post by gcogger »

Yes, plus the G3 and similar designs being discussed here. It is arguable that HMS Hood, in any other navy, would have been called a fast battleship since the armour was comparable to the Queen Elizabeth class.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7759
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Royal Navy Super Battleships and Battlecruisers

Post by RF »

Hoods' fate demonstrates that it was not a battleship. Further the Bismarck was not the most heavily armed of battleships either.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1223
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Royal Navy Super Battleships and Battlecruisers

Post by paul.mercer »

RF wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 10:15 am Basically Paul it seems you are arguing for a super ''Graf Spee'' for a River Plate type confrontation? A Scharnhorst/Gneisenau type vessel?
Thanks again RF,
Yes, you are correct something on the lines of a very fast 'pocket battleship' but with at least 3 or possibly 4 turrets each with two 11" guns the whole lot weighing in at around at between 20- 25000 tons, although I not sure if it would be possible to keep it to around that weight, but having a ship of that size would surely be a lot cheaper to build, man and run than some of the giant battle cruisers that were envisaged by the RN in the 1920's and would be more than sufficient to keep enemy cruisers at bay. It would be a lot smaller ship than the 'Twins which I believe eventually topped out at well over 30,000 tons.
Without wishing to re-open the 'River Plate' scenario I feel that having 6 guns in only two triple turrets was a mistake although I suppose it saved weight. In hindsight and as a personal opinion, I have always thought that AGS should have won that battle, but I suppose we will never know the real circumstances behind Capt Langsdorffes decision.
gcogger
Junior Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 8:30 am

Re: Royal Navy Super Battleships and Battlecruisers

Post by gcogger »

RF wrote: Tue Mar 02, 2021 8:41 am Hoods' fate demonstrates that it was not a battleship. Further the Bismarck was not the most heavily armed of battleships either.
I think it demonstrates that the protection was not 100% perfect - most theories I've seen suggest that it was a very lucky shot that destroyed her. The protection was comparable to the (pre-refit) Queen Elizabeths, which were certainly regarded as battleships.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7759
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Royal Navy Super Battleships and Battlecruisers

Post by RF »

Hood was in a bad way before it was blown up.... maybe it was a lucky shot, but with British battlecruisers it had happened before, at Jutland.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Post Reply