hans zurbriggen wrote: ↑Sun Feb 19, 2023 8:33 am
Hello all,
I must admit I'm not expert of QE's . Thanks to Mr.Malara for drawings of "R" class that give a good view of vertical protection and for his calculations.
However I'm still very confused about horizontal armor layout of QE's:
Which is thickness of upper, main and lower deck ? Is there slope (at which level and of which thickness /inclination) ?
Does anybody has a transversal section at machines/magazines for QE's to evaluate how many layers of which thickness are present on QE's as built (and possibly also after reconstruction) in order to compare vs "R" class ?
Now I realize that the 6" battery is in this case unprotected from an explosion from below, a shell penetrating the upper belt would explode directly below the unprotected battery.
paul.mercer wrote: ↑Sun Feb 19, 2023 10:17 am
Gentlemen,
If you had to choose between a rebuilt QE or the later 'R' class. which on would you pick as it seems that the 'R' was slower but a bit better protected but the later QE's had better main gun elevation?
It will be the Rebuilt QE on any day. Most R-class didn't have the same level of deck armor on of the Rebuilt QE (Only Royal Oak has it) and the raised the deck armor is very vulnerable to hard cap APC hitting the 2 inch slop through 6 inch (which becomes more likely at WW2 battle range). Also the QE have thicker torpedo bulkhead and about 2kt faster even without considering the age of the R class Machinery.
To see how bad the state the average R class was in WW2 you can look up the case when Resolution was Torpedoed at 25 September 1940.
She received one torpedo hit, 'A' boiler room sprang a leak causing a fire and partial flooding in it. This end up causing Resolution losing power (because she cannot correct the list AND the lubrication system fails with the list) and need a tow to return to port.
Realistically the R-class in WW2 ends up being 20kt ships most of the time while QE can do 23 kts.
Last edited by wmh829386 on Sun Feb 19, 2023 9:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Now I realize that the 6" battery is in this case unprotected from an explosion from below, a shell penetrating the upper belt would explode directly below the unprotected battery.
I thought there is 1.25 ~ 1 inch at the upper deck just like QE. Anyway l, that's not enough to top splinter from major calibre shell.
hans zurbriggen wrote: ↑Sun Feb 19, 2023 8:33 am
Hello all,
I must admit I'm not expert of QE's . Thanks to Mr.Malara for drawings of "R" class that give a good view of vertical protection and for his calculations.
However I'm still very confused about horizontal armor layout of QE's:
Which is thickness of upper, main and lower deck ? Is there slope (at which level and of which thickness /inclination) ?
Does anybody has a transversal section at machines/magazines for QE's to evaluate how many layers of which thickness are present on QE's as built (and possibly also after reconstruction) in order to compare vs "R" class ?
hans
For as built I will quote R.A. Burt "British Battleships of World War One."
The forecastle deck was 1in thick over the secondary battery. The upper deck extended between ‘A’ and ‘Y’ barbettes and consisted of 1¼in–1¾in–2in plates.
...
The middle deck extended from ‘A’ barbette to the outer after bulkh allead and was given 1in on the flat, and 1¼in on the inclines.
The main deck over the citadel is only 3/8 inch.
The as built deck armor of QE is barely enough against 12 inch German shells. Barham received a hit that have fragments penetrates the 1 inch middle deck and cause smoke to enter B magazine.
Now I realize that the 6" battery is in this case unprotected from an explosion from below, a shell penetrating the upper belt would explode directly below the unprotected battery.
I thought there is 1.25 ~ 1 inch at the upper deck just like QE. Anyway l, that's not enough to top splinter from major calibre shell.
Yes, you are right, it is labeled in the elevation plan between the second and the third 6" guns, quiet blurred, can not discern if it says 1 1/4 or 1 1/2.
Hello Mr. Malara,
thanks a lot for pointing me to AOT's Warpite (I had forgot I had this book, shame on me).
I agree with your and Mr. wmh829386 conclusions: looking at the drawings, I would say that QE's armor scheme (even before reconstruction) was much better than R class one, especially from vertical protection viewpoint and 'flat' trajectories (let's say 0°-20°). In these cases, slope (weakest point of the scheme) is well protected behind main belt, while it is behind 6" belt on R class. Also, from drawings only, inclination of slope looks (no numeric data available) more unfavorable to shells than on R class.
One aspect I still don't understand is why, despite having less space (in height) for machinery, QE's could be rebuilt, increasing power, while R class (one deck more) could not.
hans zurbriggen wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 9:37 am
Hello Mr. Malara,
thanks a lot for pointing me to AOT's Warpite (I had forgot I had this book, shame on me).
I agree with your and Mr. wmh829386 conclusions: looking at the drawings, I would say that QE's armor scheme (even before reconstruction) was much better than R class one, especially from vertical protection viewpoint and 'flat' trajectories (let's say 0°-20°). In these cases, slope (weakest point of the scheme) is well protected behind main belt, while it is behind 6" belt on R class. Also, from drawings only, inclination of slope looks (no numeric data available) more unfavorable to shells than on R class.
One aspect I still don't understand is why, despite having less space (in height) for machinery, QE's could be rebuilt, increasing power, while R class (one deck more) could not.
hans
Hi Hans.
Scaled from plans, boiler and machinery spaces in Warspite are 59m long, whereas those from Revenge are about 200 ft long, almost the same. But, we know from data than QE had 24 boilers originally, whereas Rs had 18. I risk saying that the same machinery could have been accommodated in both, and that the diminished machinery in Rs was a cost saving measure (fact already known) that had no impact in machinery volumes. So too the new geared turbines and Admiralty 3-drums boiler could have been fitted in Rs, but again was not done due to costs.
hans zurbriggen wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 9:37 am
Hello Mr. Malara,
thanks a lot for pointing me to AOT's Warpite (I had forgot I had this book, shame on me).
I agree with your and Mr. wmh829386 conclusions: looking at the drawings, I would say that QE's armor scheme (even before reconstruction) was much better than R class one, especially from vertical protection viewpoint and 'flat' trajectories (let's say 0°-20°). In these cases, slope (weakest point of the scheme) is well protected behind main belt, while it is behind 6" belt on R class. Also, from drawings only, inclination of slope looks (no numeric data available) more unfavorable to shells than on R class.
One aspect I still don't understand is why, despite having less space (in height) for machinery, QE's could be rebuilt, increasing power, while R class (one deck more) could not.
hans
Hi Hans.
Scaled from plans, boiler and machinery spaces in Warspite are 59m long, whereas those from Revenge are about 200 ft long, almost the same. But, we know from data than QE had 24 boilers originally, whereas Rs had 18. I risk saying that the same machinery could have been accommodated in both, and that the diminished machinery in Rs was a cost saving measure (fact already known) that had no impact in machinery volumes. So too the new geared turbines and Admiralty 3-drums boiler could have been fitted in Rs, but again was not done due to costs.
If I remember correctly, the space for Boiler room A was repurposed for secondary ammunition and stores for Rebuilt QEs you can compare the layout before and after the Rebuit to confirm that.
This means that they gains SHP despite losing 1/4 of the original boilers spaces.
From "Ensign 4: Queen Elizabeth Class Battleship" the figure for reconstructed Warspite is
80,000 shp --23.5 knots at 300 rpm
Can't find where this comes from it looks pretty identical to before the reconstruction, suggesting that the propellers are unchanged.
From "British Battleships of World War One" there is a record of HMS Queen Elizabeth's trial before the full reconstruction, but bulged already. She achieved 79,518 shp -- 23.7 knots at 300 rpm.
So performance is pretty similar. (The caveat is that 79,518 shp is on the far end of overload on the original machinary)
marcelo_malara wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 2:35 am
I am curious about QE´s rpm at max power before and after reconstruction. Does anyone have this data?
Regards
So I think the Shaft rpm for max power stays about 300 rpm before and after reconstruction. No idea about the turbine rpm after the reconstruction though
marcelo_malara wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 2:35 am
I am curious about QE´s rpm at max power before and after reconstruction. Does anyone have this data?
Regards
So I think the Shaft rpm for max power stays about 300 rpm before and after reconstruction. No idea about the turbine rpm after the reconstruction though
Thanks. Propeller diameter would not be easy to increase, due to hull form. I was thinking in a higher pitch that would use the higher power, but it seems that the power did not increase beyond the already overload original value
marcelo_malara wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 2:07 pm
I was thinking in a higher pitch that would use the higher power, but it seems that the power did not increase beyond the already overload original value
I think the limit to the speed of the QE is mostly a hull form and displacement issue. The original design displacement is 27000 tons without fuel. With ~ 3500 tons of fuel, the deep load should be under 31000 tons. As built, HMS QE already displaces 33260 tons at deep load at 1916!. That is without bulge and post Jutland armour.
The reconstruction has the potential to perhaps push 100,000 shp by raising steam pressure and using the additional boiler room.
However, if we keep in mind that KGV achieve 110,000 shp for 28.5/29 knots with 35000 tons design (~40000 tons deep), QE is really draggy even before bulging.
