Alternate warships of nations

The German bcs charged the Royal Navy and survived
One didn’t and the rest were ruined.

Other than the 2 Is that should not have been in a battleship fight any more than the 3 armoured cruisers that were also sunk, only 1 modern BC was lost (Queen Mary) and this almost certainly due to the laxation of safety features and drills resulting in a magazine explosion.

The other modern RN BCs were also badly shot up and survived and not for the first time

There is also the design compromises to take into account.

The British BCs were designed to bully lesser cruisers around the globe while the German ones were ‘more’ intended to work with the main fleet with less range considerations in mind.

So the German ones picked greater armour over the British who picked range (including habitability) and armament over armour.

These decisions were correct for their respective navy’s needs.
 
Why "build largish numbers of 10-15k coastal battleships with an all-big-gun armament, very heavy armor and slowish speed for use in the Baltic and North sea" "in an alternate scenario where Russia and France pose a bigger threat navally and drives the big gun revolution the Germans produce a series of such ships to counter Russian dreadnoughts and guard their shores"

The issue is that 10-15k ships simply can't fight real balanced Dreadnoughts, so unless you are planing to stay in the real shallows ie in something like the gulf of say Finland you will lose? What is the advantage of more, smaller ships over a few larger dreadnoughts?

On 10-15k what do you gets the España class cutting the speed gets you a bit more protecting but is it worth it if you meet a real Dreadnought do you not simply die?

I'm a fucking spaniard. I have done some reserach on the shipbuilding subject and talked to spanish historians. As soon as the "ironclad revolution" came, so you need something tech and iron/steel to build ships instead of timbers and a lot of carpenters, the sanctioned mantra was "build on the cheap" so the España's are an aberration of nature picking the cheapest part of the BC guns and armour (less guns and less armour is always cheaper) and the cheapest part of the DN machinery (compared to BCs that need higer speeds slow bbs machiner is always cheapest) So we got a ship that couldn't stand a fight with a BB nor run away from it. It only can figth a BC but not chase or run away from one and in tactical and politcal situation of Spain was simply useless for anything than showing the flag or shore bombardment if the enemy has no navy.
 
..... So we got a ship that couldn't stand a fight with a BB nor run away from it......
Yes thats the point, all the CDs are really made by minor people (apart from wartime monitors....that are also made for different production reasons ie time and using different docks etc) who dont have much of an option due to cost or other constants ie docks and yards etc, but if your Germany and you are already building a few oceans going BCs then going for a mix with CDs is IMO questionable when you could just build more BCs as you have already spent the money for the large infrastructure & docks to support them.
 

Ramontxo

Donor
I have always wondered how a six gun España class would have fared .The middle tower enjoying a far better field of fire and the weight and space liberated going to more powerful propulsion.
 
I have always wondered how a six gun España class would have fared .The middle tower enjoying a far better field of fire and the weight and space liberated going to more powerful propulsion.
España is 1909 laid down why not go for 3x3 and 9 guns? Italy, Austria-Hungary & Russia all had started on triples by then?
 
Last edited:

Ramontxo

Donor
España is 1909 laid down why not go for 3x3 and 9 guns? Italy, Austria-Hungary & Russia all had started on triples by then?
As size and price are quite limited it would have better been an proto "pocket battleship" with just two three gun turrets and therefore more weight and space for propulsion. But turret size has a direct effect on beam size and triple turrets of the time were nouvelle technology. And reducing the number of main armament turrets just to two would have been, probably, not acceptable to the Spanish Navy of the time.
 
BCs are not really a great defensive weapon though, light armour and high speed are just not necessary for defensive use. And BCs don't do well when tied down defending a specific point where everyone knows your there.
BC’s are great for the scouting battle. Determining where your enemy’s fleet is and depriving him of eyes can still be useful in defence.
 
Their design role.....
...was to hunt down and destroy enemy surface raiders on the high seas. Everything else was just a secondary role they were used in, not their design role.

Shame British BC's weren't used for that...
They were. Locating the main German force was exactly the role the BCF played in the Run to the South (albeit 2LCS were the only lot actually doing the job properly), and during the initial contact between the main fleets 3BCS played a vital role in preventing 1 and 2 SG realising and reporting Jellicoe's presence.
 
...was to hunt down and destroy enemy surface raiders on the high seas. Everything else was just a secondary role they were used in, not their design role.

I mean, German BCs were kinda designed to counter British BCs. (Thought for British/original BCs their design role was indeed hunting down cruisers)
 
What exactly did the British expect to happen once the Invincibles’ capabilities became known though? It is excusable for the Invincibles, but Indefatigable and her sisters should have been given a step up in armor like the Cats were. I think a lot of the stigma regarding battlecruisers comes from the Indefatigable class failing to make the obvious adjustment to the likely foreign counters and the Lions not being as thickly armored (yes I know they were well enough armored) as their German counterparts, which looks bad to your average armchair naval buff who doesn’t understand the topic as well.

Also regarding the Indefatigables, I was watching a Drach video the other day about terribly designed warships and he went on a rant about the belt along the A barbette being trimmed back leaving it vulnerable, is that true and as potentially crippling as it sounds?
 
...was to hunt down and destroy enemy surface raiders on the high seas. Everything else was just a secondary role they were used in, not their design role.


They were. Locating the main German force was exactly the role the BCF played in the Run to the South (albeit 2LCS were the only lot actually doing the job properly), and during the initial contact between the main fleets 3BCS played a vital role in preventing 1 and 2 SG realizing and reporting Jellicoe's presence.
mmmm I don't disagree, but then they were tacked on the FRONT of the battle line. FRONT! Instead of scarpering or hiding on the far side, they were used in a battle they were not designed for..... (And annoyed Jellico by doing so as I understand it)
 
Yes thats the point, all the CDs are really made by minor people (apart from wartime monitors....that are also made for different production reasons ie time and using different docks etc) who dont have much of an option due to cost or other constants ie docks and yards etc, but if your Germany and you are already building a few oceans going BCs then going for a mix with CDs is IMO questionable when you could just build more BCs as you have already spent the money for the large infrastructure & docks to support them.
The major powers didn't need to build coast defence ships as they had enough pre Dreadnoughts available to fill the role. No longer fit for the line of battle they were more than adequate as coastal defence ships and monitors.
 
As size and price are quite limited it would have better been an proto "pocket battleship" with just two three gun turrets and therefore more weight and space for propulsion. But turret size has a direct effect on beam size and triple turrets of the time were nouvelle technology. And reducing the number of main armament turrets just to two would have been, probably, not acceptable to the Spanish Navy of the time.
My friend (my first bicycle had an athletic banner on it), no way a protopocket will fill the bill:

1st Triple turrets are new so tech and work intesive so higher costs
2nd Diesel engines are even newer, very expensive and not fully reliable

A six gun España could be but only to make it cheaper, so not extra engine power only the turret savings.

That's the spanish way
 

Ramontxo

Donor
My friend (my first bicycle had an athletic banner on it), no way a protopocket will fill the bill:

1st Triple turrets are new so tech and work intesive so higher costs
2nd Diesel engines are even newer, very expensive and not fully reliable

A six gun España could be but only to make it cheaper, so not extra engine power only the turret savings.

That's the spanish way
Yes I agree. I probably didn’t express myself clearly. I was proposing to reduce the main armament to just three twins (the arcs for a full four turret broadside were ridiculous anyway) and use the space money and weight saved for better machinery.

Anyway edited to add

 
Last edited:
Nothing alternate about this, but I think it worth noting, with pleasure, that USS Texas (the only surviving battleship in the world that served in both world wars) is heading to drydock in Galveston for repairs to her hull, and it's spectacular to see her underway. even if it's by tug. Live feed link posted below.

But maybe this can be an occasion to think about how the first generation of US super-dreadnoughts could have been different.

 
Honestly, I think the navy did fantastic with how they handled the 16,000 ton limit.

Perhaps having a 20,000 ton limit could've allowed for a faster battle line though?

Or perhaps a early battlecruiser idea of a cruiser flagship meant to protect cruisers and scout while fighting off peers?
 
Top