Deleted member 94680

The Austrians rolled a lot of sixes, but in the end numbers and quality counted.

Good update, interested to see where you take it from here...
 
Yeah, with that final outcome, I can safely call that a good run of sixes on the part of the Austrians. They inflicted more damage than I expected, but they still got their shit pushed in. Two dreadnoughts gone, yikes.
 

Deleted member 94680

Yeah, with that final outcome, I can safely call that a good run of sixes on the part of the Austrians. They inflicted more damage than I expected, but they still got their shit pushed in. Two dreadnoughts gone, yikes.

17-D23-CC9-F784-4-FAA-B1-BB-5-FF6-F55-AC353.jpg

Source: Naval-History.net

Unless there’s been a different Austrian building programme ITTL that’s 66% of their dreads gone in one engagement.
 

cpip

Gone Fishin'
17-D23-CC9-F784-4-FAA-B1-BB-5-FF6-F55-AC353.jpg

Source: Naval-History.net

Unless there’s been a different Austrian building programme ITTL that’s 66% of their dreads gone in one engagement.

That was likely how it would go. Their primary expected opponent -- no matter what the Triple Alliance might have suggested on paper -- was always the Italian fleet. The Italians had 3 dreadnoughts in August 1914, and two of those had just been commissioned earlier that year.
 
Armored Cruiser is not far off the truth and my understanding is that they were originally described as such before being given the name Battle Cruiser
Absolutely, yes.
Contemporary references I've seen include 'Dreadnought armoured cruiser' and '12" cruiser'.
Battlecruiser didn't really surface until the Lions came along, and even then it wasn't always applied.
Fisher had several plans in 1903-6 for bigger AC's, including studying up-gunning the Minotaurs during their construction. Most were for 25-knot ships, but they weren't all turbine driven.
The original 3 I-class certainly bear a very close resemblance to earlier ACs in their appearance and armour layout.

Somewhere I have a picture of '1st Cruiser Squadron' pre-war, with a Lion leading two or three I-class, with several four-funnel armoured cruisers behind (probably the Minotaurs) - i.e. the ships were expected to operate together.

Of course in the story, the loyal press would downplay any British loss quite shamelessly; they're magnificent battlecruisers when they sweep the seas of enemy ships, but they suddenly become armoured cruisers when they're sunk.
 
The Austrians rolled a lot of sixes, but in the end numbers and quality counted.

Good update, interested to see where you take it from here...

Yeah, with that final outcome, I can safely call that a good run of sixes on the part of the Austrians. They inflicted more damage than I expected, but they still got their shit pushed in. Two dreadnoughts gone, yikes.

Well, I have to keep it interesting.
Ultimately, it was 3:2; good odds, particularly when one of the three could almost outgun the two on her own ... and the world learns its first 15" Mk.1 lesson.
 
--- Source: Naval-History.net

Unless there’s been a different Austrian building programme ITTL that’s 66% of their dreads gone in one engagement.
No, it's the same programme.
But don't worry, they'll have Svent Istvan by the end of the year ... unless someone sneezes and she falls apart.

The last category is the most interesting one...
 
Fisher’s Dreams and Tedious Realities
Fisher’s Dreams and Tedious Realities

In the spring of 1915, Admiral Fisher had yet to secure authorisation to build more capital ships. Even the backing of the First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, had failed to convince Cabinet to allow the construction of new battlecruisers or battleships. In the Fleet, Admiral Jellicoe kept an eye on future needs, but he was just as interested in ensuring that the 15” battleships then under construction (3 ‘Queen Elizabeths’ and 5 ‘Royals’) were completed as soon as possible.

The ‘Renowns’ and the ‘large light cruisers’ Courageous and Glorious were also under construction and were due to be completed in near-record time. Although in some ways an improvement over older designs, the DNC firmly believed that these latest ships were under-armoured. He had wanted to build a proper new type of fast battleship, with thicker armour and new machinery. However, without authorisation for new contracts and materials, there was a limit to what could be done, while Fisher's forceful management of the projects had pushed his preferred lightweight designs through. The facts also supported the First Sea Lord; over the first six months of the war, fast ships were more useful than slow ones.

More widespread doubts about the level of protection started to surface when Inflexible was lost, and Repulse’s performance at the Battle of Stavanger would confirm that the ships were vulnerable. Even with additional 1" plating on turret tops and magazines, Beatty’s successor as C-in-C of the Battlecruiser Fleet would reshape the force to keep these powerful but flawed ships away from the front of the battle line.

The ‘Renowns’ and three monitors had used 11 of the 16 gun turrets that were on order, so three or four more were available for a fifth ship, HMS Furious, which would have been an enlarged version of Glorious.
However, all those designs were regarded as interim ones by Admiral Fisher, a man who had not revolutionised naval warfare by standing still. Theoretically, a radically new design could only be built once the government's restriction on capital ship construction was lifted, but the concept of these fast, aggressive hunter-ships fitted in with Churchill's gung-ho spirit, while ideas including Fisher's Baltic operation appealed to him. In March and April 1915, these two and others at the Admiralty conspired to build another ‘large light cruiser’ … and very, very large she would be.
Even before the war, Fisher had wanted to move on with new hull forms, engines and a more capable armament. The Royal Navy had ordered ships armed with eight 15" guns in 1912, 1913 and 1914, and so he considered it was time for a change. His pre-war ideas for hybrid battleship-battlecruisers had long since been drowned out by the need for speed, and he had come up with a new Dreadnought – a ship that would be superior to everything else afloat. She would be 1,000’ long, armed with 20” guns and equipped with the latest and most precise fire-control systems.

Remarkable as she would have been, tedious reality intervened.
The 20” gun existed only in Fisher’s mind, and even Armstrong’s advised that they would have difficulty in building such a weapon. There was no authorisation for the vast amounts of armour and steel that would be needed for the 48,000-ton ship, and the Navy didn’t have any docks that could accommodate her if she were built. A few larger commercial docks existed, but the best Portsmouth or Rosyth would be able to manage was about 880’, and then only by reconfiguring existing pontoons and gates. Such real-world limits could not be ignored, and Fisher’s designers therefore turned to slightly more modest proposals and came up with some new tricks.

What was needed was a ship that used only cruiser-type resources, plus whatever odds and ends could be scraped up from the remains of the 1914 battleship programme. Steel plates and framing were easy; more could be ordered for ‘cruisers’, and a deeper hull with thicker layers of top and bottom plating could take care of the stresses experienced by a large ship. Machinery wasn't difficult either, as sets were now on order for ‘C-class’ cruisers. As in Glorious, this machinery could be grouped to produce the higher powers needed by a larger ship.

A design using four of the 15” turrets in a long, fine hull was proposed, with a design speed of 32 knots (with 33 expected under forcing). Some 6” plate was still available, and there would also be a quantity of 9” armour from the suspended Chilean battleship Almirante Cochrane. A 6-shaft layout using 3 sets of ‘C-class’ machinery was suggested, but even in a beamier ship, it was found to be too difficult to arrange the shafts and propellers, and Fisher still wasn't happy with the amount of power that would be produced. For strength, the design incorporated a flush-deck layout, and the wide beam allowed for useful improvements in underwater protection; another lesson of the opening months of the war.
A three-turret version was a little faster, at 33½ knots, and the reduction in stresses aft meant that weight could be saved by lowering the quarterdeck along with X turret.

Neither of these schemes appealed greatly to Fisher (although the design for the four-turret ship would later be developed in other ways), as they would take long to build and wouldn’t produce anything that was significantly better than Renown.
He was on the verge of accepting a modified Glorious instead, as that could be built quickly, when the Engineer-in-Chief came up with a new way of combining turbine power, and Armstrong’s works came back to him with a proposal for a new 15” Mk.2 gun.
 
Fisher’s Dreams and Tedious Realities
He was on the verge of accepting a modified Glorious instead, as that could be built quickly, when the Engineer-in-Chief came up with a new way of combining turbine power, and Armstrong’s works came back to him with a proposal for a new 15” Mk.2 gun.

Triples?
 
He was on the verge of accepting a modified Glorious instead, as that could be built quickly, when the Engineer-in-Chief came up with a new way of combining turbine power, and Armstrong’s works came back to him with a proposal for a new 15” Mk.2 gun.
Armstrong must have upgraded their gun manufacturing capacity; the 15"/42 Mk. 1 was the longest gun that could be made at the time, hence the relatively short barrel.
 
Nice timeline.
Good to see the British getting into shape with a far cheaper set of lessons than OTL.

Two questions, is Louis Brandenburg still part of the fleet and is the Royal Navy torpedo bomber program ongoing (as during Gallipoli the bombers sank three ships before being put away)?

If the second is ongoing I could see Fisher going for a Taranto style raid on Kiel in the future.
 
Armstrong must have upgraded their gun manufacturing capacity; the 15"/42 Mk. 1 was the longest gun that could be made at the time, hence the relatively short barrel.
They have (and they did throughout the war in reality too). By 1916/17, they could make much larger guns, as could Vickers and the ROF.
 
Nice timeline.
Good to see the British getting into shape with a far cheaper set of lessons than OTL.

Two questions, is Louis Brandenburg still part of the fleet and is the Royal Navy torpedo bomber program ongoing (as during Gallipoli the bombers sank three ships before being put away)?

If the second is ongoing I could see Fisher going for a Taranto style raid on Kiel in the future.
Thank you, glad you are enjoying it so far.

I've not come across Louis Brandenburg (If you mean Battenburg then he was 'encouraged to resign' a few weeks earlier than in reality, partly due to the escape of the Goeben).
Torpedo bomber development is still underway. So far, they haven't had the opportunity to try anything, but the Shorts 184 exists, as do the seaplane carriers. Once someone's had an idea, you can be pretty sure it will be tried at some point.
I can see Fisher going for that too, but I don't think I'm spoiling much by saying that he won't be around that long.
 
What is the armour construction side like? The three bottlenecks are guns, armour, and turbines (and a little later reduction gears). With all these BCs I have to wonder about turbines too.

By extension what isn't getting built? After the Rs the big ship program was cancelled with a few exceptions OTL in favour of small ships. What is going on with the small ships? That could bite when the Uboats get serious.
 
What is the armour construction side like? The three bottlenecks are guns, armour, and turbines (and a little later reduction gears). With all these BCs I have to wonder about turbines too.

By extension what isn't getting built? After the Rs the big ship program was cancelled with a few exceptions OTL in favour of small ships. What is going on with the small ships? That could bite when the Uboats get serious.

The situation is much as OTL - which is to say pretty good.
Obviously, everyone wants more of everything, however, there won't be the problems there were in the '30s/'40s, as the shipbuilding, armour and related industries were much bigger and had been delivering at high rates for years.
Tragically, Britain was better at producing reduction gears in 1918 than it was in 1940.

As regards small ships, the programme is much as OTL. By mid 1915, we would have significant construction of monitors/gunboats, minesweepers and patrol vessels e.g. the first of the 'Flower' classes. Ideas for ASW ships and fast motor boats would still be at a formative stage.
One of Fisher's great achievements was to put this in place quickly, often using yards that hadn't previously built warships.

For large ships, so far the story's numbers are the same as in reality, although there have been significant changes to the details.
Five 'Royals' are under construction (23/25-knot fast battleships with 8-15"), which are slightly larger and more complex than the real-world R-class. As a consequence, they won't be ready quite as quickly. The five planned for 1914 have been cancelled (much as OTL), freeing resources for other things.
R&R are slightly larger and need an extra turret each, but the Follies are very slightly smaller and don't use 15" guns, they use the US-built 14".

As we shall see in the next installment, there are limits on what is going to be available for the next couple of years, sometimes due to what has been ordered. If (for example) cruiser machinery is used in one place, it can't be used elsewhere...
 
Top