WI different SMS Blucher?

[Riain]

The SMS Blucher was the last armoured cruiser built by Germany, in response to the looming Invincible class which the assumed would have 6 or 8 x 9.2" guns. As a result she was a 16,000 ship with 12 newly developed 8.2" guns capable of 25 knots. However a week after Blucher was authorised the details of Invincible came to light, with 8 x 12" guns and 26kt speed; making Blucher a bit of an oddball, if not actually obsolete.

WI instead of her OTL design the designers went a different way?

The first way I'd suggest is to match the assumed threat of 6-8 x 9.2" guns with maybe 6 x 11" of the type used in Von Der Tann 18 months later, with the displacement, speed and armour staying the same. This would make a ship pretty competitive with how the Invincibles actually turned out, but different to Von Der Tann which as per German doctrine would fight with the battle line once the enemy was contacted.

The second way I'd suggest would be a German version of the 1915 Hawkins class 'heavy cruiser' which was 10,000 ton displacement, long range, 31 knot speed and 7 x 7.5" guns. This was to meet an RN requirement for trade protection, but became the basis for the Washington Treaty type 'Heavy Cruiser' built for virtually all major navies. Such a type would avoid the line of battle.

Thoughts?

 

[Not James Stockdale]

If this alt-Blucher is not going to be fighting with the battle line, it's going to need to fight with the light forces. The German light cruisers of the time did 27.5 knots, so that would be your target speed. You would probably stick to armoured cruiser size (14k-16k tons). She would have a somewhat longer and narrower hull form than the OTL Blucher, so you might have to bring armament down to 4x2 21cm guns. The US Navy seems to have figured out superfiring turrets before Blucher was built, but if those aren't an option a layout like Indefatigible, where the midships turrets are staggered to allow them to fire over the other beam, might be workable. You would still need the heavy secondary fit to counter the British destroyers, so 15cm and 8.8cm guns would still be important. You would want to armor against the 6" guns RN light cruisers were carrying; armoring against the 7.5" or 9.2" guns of RN armoured cruisers probably would not be possible with these armament and speed requirements.

 

[Dilvish]

The SMS Blucher was the last armoured cruiser built by Germany, in response to the looming Invincible class which the assumed would have 6 or 8 x 9.2" guns. As a result she was a 16,000 ship with 12 newly developed 8.2" guns capable of 25 knots. However a week after Blucher was authorised the details of Invincible came to light, with 8 x 12" guns and 26kt speed; making Blucher a bit of an oddball, if not actually obsolete.

WI instead of her OTL design the designers went a different way?

The first way I'd suggest is to match the assumed threat of 6-8 x 9.2" guns with maybe 6 x 11" of the type used in Von Der Tann 18 months later, with the displacement, speed and armour staying the same. This would make a ship pretty competitive with how the Invincibles actually turned out, but different to Von Der Tann which as per German doctrine would fight with the battle line once the enemy was contacted.

The second way I'd suggest would be a German version of the 1915 Hawkins class 'heavy cruiser' which was 10,000 ton displacement, long range, 31 knot speed and 7 x 7.5" guns. This was to meet an RN requirement for trade protection, but became the basis for the Washington Treaty type 'Heavy Cruiser' built for virtually all major navies. Such a type would avoid the line of battle.

Thoughts?

Blucher done the second way would have 7 or 8 of the 8.2" guns? Faster than the historical ship. Would this Blucher have less armor as well? This ATL Blucher may still be sailing with the battle cruisers on the raids. When sailing with the whole HSF, the ship may be supporting the light cruisers instead?

Either of these alternate Bluchers would make an interesting choice to sail with Von Spee's squadron. The second version's speed would make the ship a troublesome independent raider.

 

[Riain]

German battlecruisers were designed to find and fix the enemy battle fleet with their speed but then fight alongside it, whereas the Blucher and earlier British BCs were not armoured for such slugfests. The 11", lightly armoured ship might be an oddball in German terms, but not obsolescent when laid down like OTL Blucher because her guns would give her more range and ship killing power.

Blucher done the second way would have 7 or 8 of the 8.2" guns? Faster than the historical ship. Would this Blucher have less armor as well? This ATL Blucher may still be sailing with the battle cruisers on the raids. When sailing with the whole HSF, the ship may be supporting the light cruisers instead?

The 'Hawkins class' route might be very interesting indeed, a real point of difference with OTL. Perhaps if it was the first of a class of Heavy Cruisers such fast and powerful ships could be the terror of the British coast, overpowering the Harwich force 5th light cruiser squadron but much too fast for the Grand Fleet battlecruisers.

In any case I think either option would be more useful than OTLs 26kt, 8" gunned ship.

 

[marathag]

South Carolina were planned in 1906 with the superfiring guns, along with Armstrong building Minas Gerais for Brazil, so that an easy pickup.

Also bouncing around, was the idea of triple turrets. The British were sure that the Germans were looking into them in the 1908 period, so go with that too.

Something like the Carolinas with quad triple turrets with 8.2". Calculations of the WWI era put a triple turret weighing between 11 to 15% more than a dual, so that's a big weight saver, and superfiring save on length of the armor belt, at the expense of weight carried higher effected metacentric height

Navies on a budget, like the US, Brazil and Austria, looked for getting the most battleship for the money and willing to take more chances

So, with triple turrets, imagine this as Blucher, with a bit less armor and more engine to keep around 26kn

(18) 8.2"
Imagine the wall of flame of that broadside

 

[Riain]

I think that would still miss the mark because of the lack of gunpower compared to a 12" BC, without the 31kt of a Hawkins to make up for it.

I think 3 twin 8.2" doing 30kts would be better, making up for a lack of gunpower with world beating speed and also small enough to be built in numbers befitting a cruiser rather than a quasi-capital ship.

 

[Md139115]

South Carolina were planned in 1906 with the superfiring guns, along with Armstrong building Minas Gerais for Brazil, so that an easy pickup.

Also bouncing around, was the idea of triple turrets. The British were sure that the Germans were looking into them in the 1908 period, so go with that too.

Something like the Carolinas with quad triple turrets with 8.2". Calculations of the WWI era put a triple turret weighing between 11 to 15% more than a dual, so that's a big weight saver, and superfiring save on length of the armor belt, at the expense of weight carried higher effected metacentric height

Navies on a budget, like the US, Brazil and Austria, looked for getting the most battleship for the money and willing to take more chances

So, with triple turrets, imagine this as Blucher, with a bit less armor and more engine to keep around 26kn

Look... I appreciate the utility of giving the British a heart attack as much as the next person, but I really am not sure that German shipyards were capable of managing all of that.

Furthermore, this is a battlecruiser. Speed is paramount, and if you notice, no German battlecruiser prior to Moltke mounted superfiring turrets due to the desire to keep the center of gravity low (and she only had one in the stern) and reduce the size of the hull needed to push through the water.

I see the revised Blucher being far more similar to the Von der Tann in terms of its layout and armament.

Actually, scratch that. I see the Blucher being the lead ship of the Von der Tann class, which might very well find funds for a third ship since they were no longer building two custom one-offs. Perhaps Konig Albrecht for the name - after the recently deceased King of the Saxons that had personally led his troops in the Austro-Prussian and Franco-Prussian wars? It would keep the class tradition of naming a ship after a military leader of each constituent kingdom of the Empire.

 

[Not James Stockdale]

I just put together a Springsharp report for a 27.5 knot ship with 4x2 21cm main guns. It uses turbines instead of the OTL Blucher's triple expansion engines, but Von der Tann, laid down later that year, was fitted with turbines. I'm able to get Blucher's secondary fit and armor on the ship, along with a slightly higher load of coal. Armor percentage here is almost 30%, which is comparable to dreadnoughts of the time and somewhat higher than on British battlecruisers. The role I would envision for this ship is essentially as a command ship for the HSF Main Body's screening forces. The Scouting Group would already have battlecruisers to base the recon screen around, but the Main Body would lack fast ships larger than an RN light cruiser until the Scouting Group returns for the main engagement.



SMS Blucher, Imperial German heavy cruiser laid down 1907

Displacement:
14,702 t light; 15,560 t standard; 17,050 t normal; 18,242 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(620.00 ft / 620.00 ft) x 70.00 ft x (25.00 / 26.38 ft)
(188.98 m / 188.98 m) x 21.34 m x (7.62 / 8.04 m)

Armament:
8 - 8.27" / 210 mm 45.0 cal guns - 250.00lbs / 113.40kg shells, 200 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1909 Model
2 x Twin mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
2 x Twin mounts on sides, forward deck aft
8 - 5.91" / 150 mm 45.0 cal guns - 100.00lbs / 45.36kg shells, 400 per gun
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts, 1908 Model
8 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
16 - 3.46" / 88.0 mm 45.0 cal guns - 22.00lbs / 9.98kg shells, 600 per gun
Quick firing guns in deck mounts, 1905 Model
16 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 3,152 lbs / 1,430 kg
Main Torpedoes
2 - 17.7" / 450 mm, 14.76 ft / 4.50 m torpedoes - 0.689 t each, 1.379 t total
submerged bow & stern tubes
2nd Torpedoes
2 - 17.7" / 450 mm, 14.76 ft / 4.50 m torpedoes - 0.689 t each, 1.379 t total
submerged side tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 7.10" / 180 mm 403.00 ft / 122.83 m 10.04 ft / 3.06 m
Ends: 2.40" / 61 mm 216.98 ft / 66.14 m 10.04 ft / 3.06 m
Upper: 2.40" / 61 mm 403.00 ft / 122.83 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
1.50" / 38 mm 403.00 ft / 122.83 m 22.95 ft / 7.00 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 55.00 ft / 16.76 m

- Hull void:
1.00" / 25 mm 262.47 ft / 80.00 m 26.25 ft / 8.00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 7.00" / 178 mm 4.00" / 102 mm 7.00" / 178 mm
2nd: 5.50" / 140 mm - 2.00" / 51 mm
3rd: 1.00" / 25 mm - -

- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 3.00" / 76 mm
Forecastle: 2.00" / 51 mm Quarter deck: 2.00" / 51 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 8.00" / 203 mm, Aft 3.00" / 76 mm

Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 3 shafts, 65,500 shp / 48,863 Kw = 27.53 kts
Range 5,000nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2,682 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
745 - 969

Cost:
£1.357 million / $5.429 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 701 tons, 4.1 %
- Guns: 696 tons, 4.1 %
- Weapons: 6 tons, 0.0 %
Armour: 4,972 tons, 29.2 %
- Belts: 1,713 tons, 10.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 513 tons, 3.0 %
- Void: 255 tons, 1.5 %
- Armament: 744 tons, 4.4 %
- Armour Deck: 1,590 tons, 9.3 %
- Conning Towers: 157 tons, 0.9 %
Machinery: 4,094 tons, 24.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 4,834 tons, 28.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,348 tons, 13.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 100 tons, 0.6 %
- On freeboard deck: 100 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
19,276 lbs / 8,743 Kg = 68.2 x 8.3 " / 210 mm shells or 5.0 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.29
Metacentric height 4.7 ft / 1.4 m
Roll period: 13.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 61 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.30
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.23

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.550 / 0.558
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.86 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 24.90 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 51 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 25.00 ft / 7.62 m, 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 22.00 ft / 6.71 m, 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 14.00 ft / 4.27 m, 14.00 ft / 4.27 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 14.00 ft / 4.27 m, 14.00 ft / 4.27 m
- Average freeboard: 18.24 ft / 5.56 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 121.1 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 137.0 %
Waterplane Area: 30,288 Square feet or 2,814 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 108 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 113 lbs/sq ft or 552 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.99
- Longitudinal: 1.10
- Overall: 1.00
Cramped machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

 

[Riain]

I don't think making Blucher any sort of better armoured cruiser is the answer.

I think either making her a BC with 11" guns, which is probably the conventional course of action in ~1905, or making her an enlarged Light Cruiser with 6 to 8 180-200mm guns, 9-10,000t and 30 knots speed which would be unconventional in ~1905.

 

[Not James Stockdale]

I don't think making Blucher any sort of better armoured cruiser is the answer.

I think either making her a BC with 11" guns, which is probably the conventional course of action in ~1905, or making her an enlarged Light Cruiser with 6 to 8 180-200mm guns, 9-10,000t and 30 knots speed which would be unconventional in ~1905.

What use would they have for 30 knots in 1905? Von der Tann was designed for 25 kts, though it actually went significantly faster, while the Konigsberg and Dresden class light cruisers of the time could do 23.5 kts.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Actually, scratch that. I see the Blucher being the lead ship of the Von der Tann class, which might very well find funds for a third ship since they were no longer building two custom one-offs. Perhaps Konig Albrecht for the name - after the recently deceased King of the Saxons that had personally led his troops in the Austro-Prussian and Franco-Prussian wars? It would keep the class tradition of naming a ship after a military leader of each constituent kingdom of the Empire.

Subject to the Germans being able to produce the turbines that is what I would do too. It might start a ripple effect. That is:

Blücher - OTL Blücher class - TTL Von Der Tann class
Von Der Tann - OTL Von Der Tann class - TTL Moltke class
Moltke - OTL Moltke class - TTL Moltke class
Goeben - OTL Moltke class - TTL Seydlitz class
Seydlitz - OTL Seydlitz class - TTL Derfflinger class
Derfflinger - OTL Derfflinger class - TTL Derfflinger class
Lützow - OTL Derfflinger class - TTL Hindenberg class
Hindenberg - OTL Hindenberg class - TTL Mackensen class
Mackensen - OTL Mackensen class - TTL Mackensen class
Erstaz Freya - OTL Mackensen class - TTL Mackensen class
Graff Spee - OTL Mackensen class - TTL Mackensen class
Erstaz Friedrich Carl - OTL Mackensen class - TTL Erstaz Yorck class
Erstaz Yorck - OTL Erstaz Yorck class - TTL Erstaz Yorck class
Erstaz Gneisenau - OTL Erstaz Yorck class - TTL Erstaz Yorck class
Erstaz Scharnhorst - OTL Erstaz Yorck class - TTL a new design

I'd have preferred it if the ripple had begun earlier in the 1900s so that the armoured cruisers Roon and Yorck were built as Scharnhorst class ships and the succeeding Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were built as Blüchers.

On the battleship side the last 4 Deutschlands would have been built as Nassaus and the Nassaus would in turn have been built as Helgolands. The OTL Nassaus and Helgoland classes had to be built with reciprocating engines because the Germans could not build enough turbines at the time. Therefore I think it would not have been possible to have built the OTL Helgolands as Kaisers.

AFAIK the Germans built Blücher to the OTL design because faulty intelligence led them to believe that the 3 ships being built under the British 1905-06 Building Programme were improved Minotaur class armoured cruisers, not the Invincible class battle cruisers. Does anybody know if that is true.

 

[danwild6]

Either way the Germans could have easily redesigned the Blucher into a real BC which would have been the best course of action.

 

[tomo pauk]

I don't think making Blucher any sort of better armoured cruiser is the answer.

I think either making her a BC with 11" guns, which is probably the conventional course of action in ~1905, or making her an enlarged Light Cruiser with 6 to 8 180-200mm guns, 9-10,000t and 30 knots speed which would be unconventional in ~1905.

Good proposals. Blucher was neither fish nor fowl - too weak vs. new big ships, too expensive and too slow when compared to best cruisers. So indeed two options:
- 6-8 11in guns, superfiring 2-gun turrets where applicable ->Balltelcruiser option, project for 27 knots
- 6-8 8.2in guns, superfiring 2-gun turrets where applicable -> Cruiser option, project for 29 knots

 

[michael1]

Clearly the Blucher was a mistake, based on faulty intelligence. I think you're right either faster or more heavily armed is the way to go. The most useful two options are probably an extra von der Tann or a 28ish knot Hawkins equivalent (unlikely to get 31knots on this displacement at this time with more than a light cruiser armament and how cost effective is the extra 3 knots actually going to be). The latter would be a really effective light cruiser killer whereas battlecruisers were best against armoured cruisers, which weren't being built. The light cruiser killer would have significant international repercussions, much like the Hawkins class did, however the Germans would probably have chosen the von der Tann option if they had better intelligence.

 

[ramtank2]

Build Blucher with 6 single 11" turrets in place of twin 8.2", and turbine machinery, still a one off type while moving from armoured cruiser to battlecruiser.

 

[Deleted member 2186]

The SMS Blucher was the last armoured cruiser built by Germany, in response to the looming Invincible class which the assumed would have 6 or 8 x 9.2" guns. As a result she was a 16,000 ship with 12 newly developed 8.2" guns capable of 25 knots. However a week after Blucher was authorised the details of Invincible came to light, with 8 x 12" guns and 26kt speed; making Blucher a bit of an oddball, if not actually obsolete.

WI instead of her OTL design the designers went a different way?

The first way I'd suggest is to match the assumed threat of 6-8 x 9.2" guns with maybe 6 x 11" of the type used in Von Der Tann 18 months later, with the displacement, speed and armour staying the same. This would make a ship pretty competitive with how the Invincibles actually turned out, but different to Von Der Tann which as per German doctrine would fight with the battle line once the enemy was contacted.

The second way I'd suggest would be a German version of the 1915 Hawkins class 'heavy cruiser' which was 10,000 ton displacement, long range, 31 knot speed and 7 x 7.5" guns. This was to meet an RN requirement for trade protection, but became the basis for the Washington Treaty type 'Heavy Cruiser' built for virtually all major navies. Such a type would avoid the line of battle.

Thoughts?

Is a different SMS Blucher going to make a difference in the Battle of Dogger Bank of 1915 where she was sunk.

 

[tomo pauk]

If built as an 'almost a battlecruiser', then yes, it might. As a big cruiser, probably no.

 

[michael1]

If built as an 'almost a battlecruiser', then yes, it might. As a big cruiser, probably no.

Assuming the British don't respond to a stronger German Battlecruiser force by either building more themselves or changing deployments, which seems implausible to me at least.

 

[marathag]

Assuming the British don't respond to a stronger German Battlecruiser force by either building more themselves or changing deployments, which seems implausible to me at least.

RN building more crappy battlecruisers is a win for the HSF

 

[Riain]

I think the 6x11" gun idea, making it a quasi-battlecruiser, is probably the best option given the propulsion technology available in 1905. The Hawkins had a decade more propulsion development to get their 70,000hp.

Is a different SMS Blucher going to make a difference in the Battle of Dogger Bank of 1915 where she was sunk.

I don't think Blucher being a proper BC could make things worse in the broadest sense, although the course of the battle might go differently and maybe worse.