So I've read that the British Admiralty were given three options at the start of the Dreadnought race which were OTL's Dreadnought battleship and Invincible battlecruiser but also a third option of an enlarged Dreadnought with the speed of Invincible with no reduction in armor or firepower. We all know how OTL went but WI the British went with the third option.
WI Earlier Fast Battleship
- Thread starter danwild6
- Start date
Well, if the fast battleship is around from the beginning, then the battlecruiser might not ever see much development; that would have a big effect on the naval race of the early 20th century and (assuming no butterfly issues) World War I.
A larger ship would have taken longer to build naturally and Fisher was trying to beat a few other naval powers to the "All Big Gun" punch.
Would Britain have been able to build this large, fast vessel quickly enough? And would it have proven successful? Or could the design have been just a wee bit beyond Britain's technological reach?
Would Britain have been able to build this large, fast vessel quickly enough? And would it have proven successful? Or could the design have been just a wee bit beyond Britain's technological reach?
Fewer ships
A Fast Battleship with the protection of HMS Dreadnought and the speed of HMS Invincible will be VERY expensive--and big. In some cases, new drydocks will be needed as well. I'll see if I can sim the ship later on tonight or tomorrow, and see what I get.
A more costly ship means fewer of them--always a major concern. Fewer ships means that, if a few are deployed to a distant station, a greater percentage of the fleet is away off.
Of course, if you ahve a 25 knot battle line, you'll still need scouts--and so you might end up with even faster, more costly battle scouts.
Speed is valuable, in that it lets you force or avoid action--but if you sacrifice quantity for perfection, you might control the seas--everywhere the enemy doesn't send his fleet.
A Fast Battleship with the protection of HMS Dreadnought and the speed of HMS Invincible will be VERY expensive--and big. In some cases, new drydocks will be needed as well. I'll see if I can sim the ship later on tonight or tomorrow, and see what I get.
A more costly ship means fewer of them--always a major concern. Fewer ships means that, if a few are deployed to a distant station, a greater percentage of the fleet is away off.
Of course, if you ahve a 25 knot battle line, you'll still need scouts--and so you might end up with even faster, more costly battle scouts.
Speed is valuable, in that it lets you force or avoid action--but if you sacrifice quantity for perfection, you might control the seas--everywhere the enemy doesn't send his fleet.
I'm just casting about for reasons why Fisher would have chosen the slower, smaller design he did.
Either the design eventually selected was as radical as Fisher could sell, it was the best they could build the quickest, there were various concerns about some aspects of the larger design, money was involved, or there is some mixture of issues we can't even begin to guess at.
Despite this alternate design being faster than the OTL version, I still think Fisher is going to produce something like the battlecruiser because that design's perceived role, hunting down enemy armored cruisers and scouting for the battleline, still need to be filled.
A larger, faster battleship
With a program called "Springsharp," I designed a ship with Dreadnought's protection and firepower, and gun layout, but Invincible's speed. The program is not bad for getting reasonable results, but far from perfect. My "HMS Greyhound" is over 25,000 tons normal load, compared to around 17,000 tons for Invincible or 18,000 for Dreadnought. That's almost 40% bigger than Dreadnought--with a corresponding increase in cost, with results of fewer ships.
HMS Greyhound, Britain Fast Battleship laid down 1905
Displacement:
22,215 t light; 23,223 t standard; 25,083 t normal; 26,570 t full load
Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(591.00 ft / 580.00 ft) x 86.00 ft x (32.00 / 33.48 ft)
(180.14 m / 176.78 m) x 26.21 m x (9.75 / 10.20 m)
Armament:
10 - 12.00" / 305 mm 45.0 cal guns - 871.37lbs / 395.24kg shells, 100 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1905 Model
3 x Twin mounts on centreline, evenly spread
2 x Twin mounts on sides amidships
10 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm 45.0 cal guns - 13.62lbs / 6.18kg shells, 300 per gun
Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1905 Model
6 x Single mounts on centreline, evenly spread
6 raised mounts
4 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
4 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 8,850 lbs / 4,014 kg
Main Torpedoes
4 - 21.0" / 533 mm, 20.00 ft / 6.10 m torpedoes - 1.155 t each, 4.621 t total
submerged side tubes
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 11.0" / 279 mm 436.00 ft / 132.89 m 12.00 ft / 3.66 m
Ends: 4.00" / 102 mm 143.00 ft / 43.59 m 11.19 ft / 3.41 m
1.00 ft / 0.30 m Unarmoured ends
Upper: 5.00" / 127 mm 436.00 ft / 132.89 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 116 % of normal length
- Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
1.20" / 30 mm 377.00 ft / 114.91 m 29.37 ft / 8.95 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 78.00 ft / 23.77 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 11.0" / 279 mm 5.00" / 127 mm 11.0" / 279 mm
2nd: 1.00" / 25 mm - -
- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 3.00" / 76 mm
Forecastle: 1.50" / 38 mm Quarter deck: 1.50" / 38 mm
- Conning towers: Forward 11.00" / 279 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm
Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 64,844 shp / 48,373 Kw = 25.50 kts
Range 6,600nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3,347 tons (100% coal)
Complement:
996 - 1,295
Cost:
£2.354 million / $9.417 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,581 tons, 6.3 %
- Guns: 1,571 tons, 6.3 %
- Weapons: 9 tons, 0.0 %
Armour: 7,621 tons, 30.4 %
- Belts: 3,371 tons, 13.4 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 492 tons, 2.0 %
- Armament: 1,789 tons, 7.1 %
- Armour Deck: 1,767 tons, 7.0 %
- Conning Tower: 203 tons, 0.8 %
Machinery: 5,404 tons, 21.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 7,509 tons, 29.9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,868 tons, 11.4 %
Miscellaneous weights: 100 tons, 0.4 %
- On freeboard deck: 100 tons
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
24,164 lbs / 10,961 Kg = 28.0 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 3.6 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.16
Metacentric height 5.2 ft / 1.6 m
Roll period: 15.8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.60
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.28
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle,
a ram bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.550 / 0.557
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.74 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 24.08 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 55
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): -5.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 5.00 ft / 1.52 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 27.00 ft / 8.23 m, 24.00 ft / 7.32 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 20.00 ft / 6.10 m, 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 20.00 ft / 6.10 m, 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 20.00 ft / 6.10 m, 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Average freeboard: 21.19 ft / 6.46 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 110.3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 133.1 %
Waterplane Area: 34,811 Square feet or 3,234 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 95 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 153 lbs/sq ft or 749 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.94
- Longitudinal: 1.82
- Overall: 1.00
Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
With a program called "Springsharp," I designed a ship with Dreadnought's protection and firepower, and gun layout, but Invincible's speed. The program is not bad for getting reasonable results, but far from perfect. My "HMS Greyhound" is over 25,000 tons normal load, compared to around 17,000 tons for Invincible or 18,000 for Dreadnought. That's almost 40% bigger than Dreadnought--with a corresponding increase in cost, with results of fewer ships.
HMS Greyhound, Britain Fast Battleship laid down 1905
Displacement:
22,215 t light; 23,223 t standard; 25,083 t normal; 26,570 t full load
Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(591.00 ft / 580.00 ft) x 86.00 ft x (32.00 / 33.48 ft)
(180.14 m / 176.78 m) x 26.21 m x (9.75 / 10.20 m)
Armament:
10 - 12.00" / 305 mm 45.0 cal guns - 871.37lbs / 395.24kg shells, 100 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1905 Model
3 x Twin mounts on centreline, evenly spread
2 x Twin mounts on sides amidships
10 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm 45.0 cal guns - 13.62lbs / 6.18kg shells, 300 per gun
Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1905 Model
6 x Single mounts on centreline, evenly spread
6 raised mounts
4 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
4 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 8,850 lbs / 4,014 kg
Main Torpedoes
4 - 21.0" / 533 mm, 20.00 ft / 6.10 m torpedoes - 1.155 t each, 4.621 t total
submerged side tubes
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 11.0" / 279 mm 436.00 ft / 132.89 m 12.00 ft / 3.66 m
Ends: 4.00" / 102 mm 143.00 ft / 43.59 m 11.19 ft / 3.41 m
1.00 ft / 0.30 m Unarmoured ends
Upper: 5.00" / 127 mm 436.00 ft / 132.89 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 116 % of normal length
- Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
1.20" / 30 mm 377.00 ft / 114.91 m 29.37 ft / 8.95 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 78.00 ft / 23.77 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 11.0" / 279 mm 5.00" / 127 mm 11.0" / 279 mm
2nd: 1.00" / 25 mm - -
- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 3.00" / 76 mm
Forecastle: 1.50" / 38 mm Quarter deck: 1.50" / 38 mm
- Conning towers: Forward 11.00" / 279 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm
Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 64,844 shp / 48,373 Kw = 25.50 kts
Range 6,600nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3,347 tons (100% coal)
Complement:
996 - 1,295
Cost:
£2.354 million / $9.417 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,581 tons, 6.3 %
- Guns: 1,571 tons, 6.3 %
- Weapons: 9 tons, 0.0 %
Armour: 7,621 tons, 30.4 %
- Belts: 3,371 tons, 13.4 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 492 tons, 2.0 %
- Armament: 1,789 tons, 7.1 %
- Armour Deck: 1,767 tons, 7.0 %
- Conning Tower: 203 tons, 0.8 %
Machinery: 5,404 tons, 21.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 7,509 tons, 29.9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,868 tons, 11.4 %
Miscellaneous weights: 100 tons, 0.4 %
- On freeboard deck: 100 tons
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
24,164 lbs / 10,961 Kg = 28.0 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 3.6 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.16
Metacentric height 5.2 ft / 1.6 m
Roll period: 15.8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.60
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.28
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle,
a ram bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.550 / 0.557
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.74 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 24.08 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 55
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): -5.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 5.00 ft / 1.52 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 27.00 ft / 8.23 m, 24.00 ft / 7.32 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 20.00 ft / 6.10 m, 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 20.00 ft / 6.10 m, 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 20.00 ft / 6.10 m, 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Average freeboard: 21.19 ft / 6.46 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 110.3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 133.1 %
Waterplane Area: 34,811 Square feet or 3,234 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 95 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 153 lbs/sq ft or 749 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.94
- Longitudinal: 1.82
- Overall: 1.00
Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
Forty percent more? Ouch...
When you look at that plus the additional infrastructure costs, I think you've just provided the answer to why Fisher selected the design he did.
Similar to the Orions
The Orion's, laid down in 1910, with Dreadnought's speed and similar (but a bit better) protection, had 10 13.5" guns--a much mopre powerful gun than the Dreadnought's 10 12" guns, and had a comparable displacement to my hypothetical HMS Greyhound.
Remember, each additional knot requires more power than the knot before it, so speed is EXPENSIVE! When contemplating a faster ship, ask yourself what you need the additional speed for--and if you need fast, will a smaller ship do the trick?
The Orion's, laid down in 1910, with Dreadnought's speed and similar (but a bit better) protection, had 10 13.5" guns--a much mopre powerful gun than the Dreadnought's 10 12" guns, and had a comparable displacement to my hypothetical HMS Greyhound.
Remember, each additional knot requires more power than the knot before it, so speed is EXPENSIVE! When contemplating a faster ship, ask yourself what you need the additional speed for--and if you need fast, will a smaller ship do the trick?
David S Poepoe
Banned
This is the surviving design known as 'X4' and mentioned in Battlecruisers by John Roberts.
What has been ignored is that Fisher was hoping to terminate the construction of further battleships with the Dreadnought and replace them with the battlecruiser. The Dreadnought was an evolutionary development while the Invincible was to be a revolutionary development. However, selling the idea to the Royal Navy was very hard and not entirely successful.
One problem with the 'X4' is its expense and the Admiralty was hoping not to trigger a massive expensive international arms race.
I'd say they were two-thirds of a fast battleship as they had the speed and armor but lacked the guns.
The late war Mackensen-class carried a main battery of eight 13.8-inch rifles while their near contemporaries the Queen Elizabeth-class carried eight 15-inch rifles at just a few knots slower.
Markus
Banned
PDN battleships had a top speed of 18 knots, HMS Dreadnought increased that by a sixth, so she was a fast battleship compred to all others. The next increase in speed came in 1913 with the QE-class; + a seventh(24 knots) and at the end of the war battleships with speeds of 27 knots were laid down.
I think this development reflected what was technically possible and tactically necessary. Or simply put: "Why build a 25 knot BB, when a 21 knot BB gets the job done just as well?"
I think this development reflected what was technically possible and tactically necessary. Or simply put: "Why build a 25 knot BB, when a 21 knot BB gets the job done just as well?"