I haven't seen that one, but I can believe it, given that Watts would have been speaking with 20:20 hindsight, and quite possible covering himself against post-war criticism.As I understand it, after the war, Phillips Watts publicly made the claim that had small tube boilers and geared turbines been used for the Queen Elizabeth’s, then they would have been able to achieve speeds of 28.5 knots. The Admiralty Board asked d’Eyncourt for comment and he agreed with Watts assessment.
Not to mention according to Congress the USN already had a lot of cruisers albeit old mostly and out of date but hey politicians. Also the USN rightly figured that it could build destroyers and cruisers in a hurry far faster than battleships so they focused what money congress was forking over on the battle lineKind of hard to to test it with cruisers when you aren’t building any due to a combination of budget and tech issues.
IIRC it was successful in that it worked and provided good resistance to battle damage because they could directly couple the electric engines to the shafts and do without reduction gears. The big problem was that it was significantly heavier than an equivalent geared steam turbine plant so it wasn't used in any of the later battleships (North Carolina and after).
My understanding is that it wasn't so much the weight of the machinery itself - it was only slightly heavier than an equivalent reduction gear plant - but the size of the plant. In the treaty-limited world that meant bigger ships, which was just wasted tonnage. The turbo-electric drive seems to be one of those 'use what we have' solutions. Prior to the '20s, the US didn't have much turbine propulsion expertise, but it did have Westinghouse and GE, who were good at building electrical and generator plant.
Hood was a real kick up the you-know-what for the US designers when they were shown details during the war. Her machinery was lighter, smaller and more efficient at all speeds than any of the planned US plant.
Welcome to the story.Came late to this fascinating ATL, but Turkish neutrality has 'butterflied' the dire Dardanelles Campaign and 'Ghastly Gallipoli' unto a 'fevre dream'. Along with its hard-learned lessons about 'combined forces' etc...
IIRC, this also butterflies away some remarkable work by stealthy RN subs in 'Sea of Marmara'...
I've never really seen much information I believe about that ship, other than the fact that D'Eyncourt mentioned a sketch design.You know I wonder why design y for the R class wasn't used instead . it had a 11" belt with 8 15" inch guns and a top speed of 30 knots. And that's without small tube boilers or geared turbines add those and she's easily doing at least 31 knots. Plus the design already exists
All this suited Fisher's view that speed was more important than armour, and it avoided the need to order new plates, but it did mean that the ships would be less well armoured than the ‘Lions’. The 6” belt was marginally capable of resisting the German 11" at long ranges (then regarded as over 12,000 yards) for oblique impacts, but it was inadequate in the face of the 12" guns known to be fitted to SMS Derfflinger, and would be hopelessly outmatched by the 14" weapons that the Admiralty believed were being fitted to the next German battlecruiser, the Lutzow.
Nonetheless, they would be impressive ships. At 795' in length with a beam of 91', yet again a British battlecruiser would be largest warship in the world.
It'll be some new vessels instead!
Why do I have the feeling that it will not be the Invincibles blowing ITTL?
It'll be some new vessels instead!
Hey I just realized a positive of the new Renown class the Lexington class deaign will almost certainly be up armored if one of them blows up at the equivalent to Jutland