Dread Nought but the Fury of the Seas

I just had a thought, correct me if I'm wrong. IIRC, the Germans can't put any new guns on their capital ships. The smallest British caliber at the moment is 13.5" or 34.3cm. German calibers at the moment are 12"/30.5cm and 13.8"/35cm, which is larger than the British 34.3cm gun, making it illegal. As long as the Germans aren't allowed to mount a new gun on their ships for the duration of the treaty, that means they are effectively limited to 12".
I think the first is actually incorrect, while the second is correct. The WNT signatories are barred from developing new heavy naval guns, so the most powerful guns are Furious' 18"/45 guns followed by the South Dakotas' 16"/50 guns. Germany isn't a WNT signatory, so it can develop new heavy guns. It is under the Stockholm limits so it can't deploy new heavy guns for land service (not coastal defense), but has no restrictions on developing new heavy guns for naval use.
Trevayne has the right interpretation - the Germans cannot lay down new capital ships until 1928, and even then they can only be equipped with the smallest heavy gun in the RN (currently 13.5").
The Germans are free to develop new guns if they wish. The obvious thing for them to do at present would be to line down the 35-cm gun to 13.5"
Of course, as Germany emerges from its naval hibernation, the pressure to close these loopholes will grow.
 
How about instead of going for the new 'fad' of light battleships, the RN gives its six battlecruisers an overhaul? Perhaps even new, HP machinery instead of their older boilers, save weight, generate more power, free up weight for other additions like needed improvements to the deck armour. Plating over casemates etc.
 

Stenz

Monthly Donor
The problem is getting to treasury to continue to buy this after the first batch of ships
The idea isn’t to fool the Treasury, the idea is to exploit the Treaty to build the best warship possible for Britain. The treasury will be well aware of the true cost of the ship, the necessity is to get it past the other Powers without causing an incident.
 
Trevayne has the right interpretation - the Germans cannot lay down new capital ships until 1928, and even then they can only be equipped with the smallest heavy gun in the RN (currently 13.5").
The Germans are free to develop new guns if they wish. The obvious thing for them to do at present would be to line down the 35-cm gun to 13.5"
Of course, as Germany emerges from its naval hibernation, the pressure to close these loopholes will grow.
With the Bismarck hunt anniversary this week, I couldn't help but wonder what TTL return to life will look like for the German Navy. With about eight more years of shipbuilding experience when compared to the OTL laying down of the Scharnhorst I imagine they'll end up with ships at least more efficient in terms of displacement than they did.
 
Lovely designs, I would suggest to the DNC though that any torpedo tubes are eliminated, they compromise a large area in the hull which could flood easily as the Great War showed, and exposed on the decks they would be at the mercy of the blast of the main armament and could be damaged or indeed, detonated by hostile fire. A capital ships role is to engage with guns, and torpedoes are more suitable for accompanying light or heavy cruisers.
 
Late but sure, beforehand @sts-200 correct me if my conclusions are misled please.

I mentioned the 16" because the triple turrets are available. The last update suggestedthat the new design had to use an established turret design. Triple 15" would work okay, but I don't think they exist?

The design isn't there to fight battleships - it's there to kill cruisers, battle cruisers and to be able to contribute in a fleet fight, just not as part of the battle line. The 12" designs fail heavily on the last point.
The problem is which contributes more, a 16" gun ship that can inflict some damage, but has marginal survivability and will probably get taken out if the battle lasts more than 15 minutes, or a 12"-13.5" ship that will not contribute as much damage, but can actually last more than 15 minutes in action with opposing battleships? I agree it is a tricky question.
How does the 12" ship fail at supporting a battle fleet but not in the battle line?. It can crush any cruiser scouting for the fleet and match any Light battleship as they are either less well armoured or comparable but wit fewer guns. There are more uses for these ships than fleet engagements as well. Interwar the Royal Navy was looking at aggressive commerce raiding as a way to buy time for any fleet to get from its base to where it is needed wherever on the planet that is. The 12" ships are ideal for that role in a way any 16" ship isn't. then when the fleet arrives they have durable, fast scouts that either match their direct competition or are over match to lesser ships. If they fulfil their role of denying scouting for the enemy fleet they have done their job and supported the Battle line. It may be better than that as they may have been able to draw some capital ships out to look for them during the battle swinging things in the Royal Navy's favour significantly. Then if the fleets do meet and its line ahead for them both the ships can join in and engage already engaged ships or cross the T, they have the armour to fight at range whilst having guns large enough to cause issues in combination with bigger ships.

I just dont understand your complaint, you want ships that can do things that arent fighting in a battle line yet you want guns so large they limit the design of the ship or mean it has to be involved in the battle line? What roles where you thinking of in a fleet engagement are the ships meant to fill that dont include fighting in a battle line that the 12" ships cant do? They at least match the French and Italian ships, The Lexington's are much larger but poorly armoured whereas the Columbia's are slower and poorly protected. Yes they have larger guns but they are matched by the protection of the proposed ships. At longer ranges I would actually bet on the Royal Navy ships due to their heavier Deck and Turret armour. If you are comparing the capabilities of a necessarily limited ship to unlimited ships like the Lexingtons for instance then they will always fall short no matter what you try and do.
Not really in my opinion at least. If you design a glass cannon it is vulnerable in whatever role you put it in. A more balanced design will be very useful in its intended roles whilst offering utility in other roles. The 12" ship is not intended to engage Battleships unless their is no other alternatives. If its in that situation then things are either really dire and bigger guns wont help or are going so well you dont need the bigger guns. Allow me to explain. The 12" ships have ensured the enemy has been denied scouting and allowed the RN fleet to cross the enemies T, the ships have done their job. Now they can get involved in the fleet action supporting the battleships and whilst they might not do major damage they can harass and damage important systems like fire control etc. Plus they have more utility in commerce raiding, something the RN was all about inter war as a way of buying time to get their fleet to where it needs to be. A glass cannon can be mission killed relatively easily whereas a ship that is more survivable can better fulfill that role.
Because 12" isn't enough to really scare enemy battleships yet it denies tonnage to the battle line. It's great to have as a scout to punch through the enemy's screen, but not at the cost of hobbling your own battle line.

Now, I agree that 16" is too much - I only mentioned it because I remembered that there was a triple 16" turret available and the demands of tonnage and sufficient guns for spotting favours two triple turrets. These things are using battleship tonnage and must be capable of harming enemy battleships - and 12" just doesn't cut it.

The question of:



Is the wrong formulation - these things must be both survivable and threatening. And fast. And, presumably, have a mast to which the Moon could be attached too. :p
It's not easy and huge compromises will have to be made - hence focusing armour on magazines and engineering at the expense of turrets and particularly gunhouses, both in terms of numbers and armour.
The problem with that line of thought is that as soon as you have a ship that can threaten a Battleship it is meant to be used against a battleship. Any ship built to 23000 tons that is meant to fight a Battleship is going to be limited in and not really able to match it. The 2 forward turret layout is good for preserving weight in armour so you can have a thicker belt say, thing is that is very vulnerable to both turrets being taken out by a single enemy salvo or even a single hit. then your ship is useless until at least one turret can be brought back online.

The big advantage of a fast 12" or even 13.5" ship is scouting for the battlefleet. That role is still of vital importance right now, yes over the Next decade the aircraft carrier will take on that role but as things stand that's the role of a battlecruiser. I'm advocating for the best way I see for the royal navy to spend the tonnage in a way that suits their doctrine and thinking within the confines of this story and OTL thinking from this time period that is likely to be similar here. My actual advice would be rebuild the battlecruisers you have to carry out the raiding and scouting role and spend all your tonnage on Battleships, ignore the light battleship its a dead end. Actually thats a lie, my actual advice to this alt RN would be to use the 23000 ton limit to build large aircraft carriers backed up by large, 40000 - 42000 ton fast Battleships but that wont happen. At least the 12" ships I suggested will be useful support to a carrier with all the AA I put on the second design at least.
The problem is when you’re building a 12” cruiser killer is why bother? If you’re only looking at killing cruisers and scouting, then a good 8” ship will suffice. The extra weight needed to make a 12” viable is wasted weight when everything you want to achieve can be achieved with a good 8” ship.

There’s a reason only one navy bothered with 12” cruiser killers and barely bothered at that.
The problem is with a good 8" cruiser hunting another good 8" cruiser you are setting up a fair fight that you might well lose. You are relying on having better training and personnel to overcome your opponent. The point of a 12" cruiser killer is to set up a completely unfair fight that you are going to win.

Only the US built any cruiser killers in OTL (the Alaskas), because they were banned by the treaties until they were overtaken by carrier tech, although I think the Japanese thought about them.
If you are looking at a “Cruiser Killer” why not use the 9.2” guns the UK has? If ever there was a gun which fought successfully over its weight that is it. This would accomplish a few other things:
1. Not worry other powers you were trying to cheat.
2. Keep tonnage down to beused in a real BB or true BC
3. Be an excellent flag for those ports that don’t rate a BB or BC in them, but would still have umph.
4. Should be a good ship to run down raiders and Q ships.
5. Lastly, no Admiral in his right mind would put it in the line with the regular BB and/or BC. Some would look at the gun size alone on a 12” armed ship and try using them in the line.

The US could use the 10” variant of the land based gun.
I agree that it is an interesting gun choice, but IIRC any ship* that has guns over 8" is classed as a capital ship, not a cruiser. If a ship has 8" or smaller guns, it can be counted as a cruiser. Any ship with larger guns, is a capital ship and uses tonnage that could go for larger and more useful ships.

*did we ever find out if monitors are allowed? Were the British ones grandfathered as existing ships with no more allowed, or is there a monitor category with no more than one twin capital turret and no other guns over 5"?
The Royal Navy will assume they have better training and personnel. Simply having 12” guns doesn’t guarantee you’ll win the fight - it’s an advantage, for sure, but it’s not decisive on its own.

The point of a 12” cruiser killer is it weighs an awful lot more than a good 8” cruiser and is somewhat of a waste when it isn’t killing cruisers. It’s a bigger ship that needs a bigger crew and therefore costs more to run every year it’s in service. Which in peace time means it will be viewed as a waste of resources.

Build a good 8” ship and train the crew to a high standard. Build more 8” ships in total and force the enemy to build more in response or dominate their 7.5”/6” cruisers and win the fight that way.
I think there was a discussion on 9.2” armed battlecruisers earlier on in this thread, but I might be getting my TLs mixed up.

IIRC, it basically came down to the fact a 9.2” armed ship is more or less the same size and weight as a 12” armed ship so you may as well build for the bigger guns.
I could possibly see the RN not bothering and instead using the entire allocation of tonnage to continue to build 42000 tonners and rely on 8" county class

This LBC class has made an already fraught and confusing decision making process even more so LOL
A few reasons. Firstly its role isn't primarily cruiser killing, its just what it is required to do in order to fulfill its purpose. The purpose of the ship would be, commerce/anti commerce raider activities and scouting for a battle-fleet. The main opposition in those tasks will be cruisers so being able to quickly deal with them is beneficial. You also the have the fact other navies are building ships in this class so some counter is needed. You cant rely on 8" ships to fight the Columbia's say. Then you have the fact that a well built ship with 12" guns can be a lot more durable than a cruiser, that makes a mission kill of the ship a lot less likely. Finally for the Royal Navy you have the fact that they need a lot of cruisers building smaller cheaper 6" cruisers en mass supported by 12" ships might make more sense.

I imagine Part of the reason the ships weren't built OTL is that most navies couldn't for Treaty reasons.

Thing is I kind of agree with you. If the Royal Navy are going to make use of the 23000 ton limit then a 12" battlecruiser makes the most sense. Thing is I don't think the exemption really makes sense for the Royal Navy. There were some ways that the clause might have made sense but that time has passed with other navies getting their first. Now the best option for the Royl Navy is to go full fast battleship say 40000 tons. You keep Hood, Howe, Renown and Repulse as Battlecrusiers to fulfil the above role and slowly replace the slower Battleships. That way you get the best possible battleships whilst having far better commerce raiders/scouts. The battlecruisers will need to be rebuilt at some point but that's OK as newer more powerful engines will replace some of the speed they have lost by being bulged etc.
Well....
I think we´re missing some important points here

Quoting Lord Mahan´s own words to that effect:
Armored cruiser:

Mahan called the interest in armored cruisers "a fad," then explained:

She is armored, and she is a cruiser; and what have you got? A ship to "lie in the line"? as our ancestors used to say. No, and Yes; that is to say, she may at a pinch, and at a risk that exceeds her powers. A cruiser? Yes, and No; for, order to give her armor and armament which do not fit the line, you have given tonnage beyond what is needed for the speed and coal endurance proper for a cruiser. By giving this tonnage to armor and armament you have taken it from other uses; either from increasing her own speed and endurance, or from providing another cruiser. You have in her more cruiser than she ought to have and less armored vessel, or less cruiser and more armored ship. I do not call this a combination, though I do call it a compromise.... I do not say you have a useless ship. I do say that you have not as useful a ship as, for the tonnage, you ought to have.
Allow me to differ a bit with history and some of the prophet´s conclusions; yes, she´s armored but not the standard of a capital ship (a battleship), but she has speed and endurance that it has inherent advantages, that can be of use and work, in an ad hoc basis that is, to the battleline´s favour, which in itself is a big boost for the sake of flexibility. But even so you would and could, with good reason, argue that it can´t resist in a line engagement; my answer would be: why would you risk such a vessel in the line?, of course as any vessel, she´s expected to suffer under fire but as an seriously expected possibility not as a outright fact, because with that, you´re predicting what you or who ever, are expecting of her in that type of engagement or, on the contrary, if not the case, then you have either a severe doctrinal confusion or your commanders does, who don´t know the correct use that are to execute with that kind of ships. Why to risk her, such a light ship, in such a dangerous and reckless way and heading?, when she can better wondered around and work her way to the flanks and/or rear of the already engage enemy or cutting any supporting unit that can support or give relieve to that same enemy; certainly if she´s lightly armored is at a great risk but as the evidence has prove (real and fictitious), the major threat to a fighting ship and its inherent capability to stand and inflict damage is mainly concentrate in the protection that you give to its weapons systems and related issues, in a sense, the staying power of a combat unit is abbreviated in just one general place: turrets, barbettes and magazines, those three had the necessity to be fully armored or enclosed and isolated, and as Stavenger and Jutland prove to both sides, the most important and worrying hits and damage made is that done to the weapons system directly, even when you considered the belt armor as thin, if at least can keep major damage out of machinery spaces, the ship will keep fighting to the last, until it run out of ammo or until that same space is affected; of course you have to considered previously if that same thin armor is covering or not the full length of the ship´s vitals, as Queen Mary, Lion, Panther and Tiger prove (in real life and fiction) in either cases. As the example of Tsushima proves, a ship like that can resist and hold its place in the line as long as its fighting and/or seakeeping capability remains largely unaffected in general, the trouble to that line of thought and their logical conclusions, which are not wrong, are that those ships (and their unfortunate crews) are been led in a crash course , if not headed to in the right direction, if there´s no doctrine in place and, properly instructed and brief-in-their-mission´s-nature commanders, for the correct use of said kind of vessels. But of course I must agree that all this reasoning gets mute if you ought to push tech beyond its workable limits, the result is the final conclusion of Mahan.

to better illustrate the point, I make some exhaustive work and reach two possible path that can be possibly accepted by the admiralty, one is the 13,5" variant:

Note: I have bothered to include some questionable, unlikely and unbritish oddities like G12"C and D, but there you go, your pick...
Note 2: all have inclined belts at 12°, a cruiser´s coning tower with 2" splinter protection and added miscellaneous weight on deck that acts as a proposed seaplane gear.
Note 3: am already using the 3000 tons AA exemption.

Quiz: who can guess why the ´G´ name of the entire class?

G13,5" A, Great Britain light battlecruiser laid down 1925

Displacement:
21.553 t light; 22.461 t standard; 23.302 t normal; 23.975 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(792,33 ft / 786,25 ft) x 82,00 ft x (23,00 / 23,51 ft)
(241,50 m / 239,65 m) x 24,99 m x (7,01 / 7,17 m)

Armament:
6 - 13,50" / 343 mm 45,0 cal guns - 1.240,68lbs / 562,76kg shells, 100 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1925 Model
2 x 2-gun mounts on centreline, forward deck forward
1 raised mount - superfiring
1 x 2-gun mount on centreline, aft deck aft
10 - 4,00" / 102 mm 45,0 cal guns - 32,27lbs / 14,64kg shells, 150 per gun
Dual purpose guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1925 Model
5 x Twin mounts on sides, forward evenly spread
Weight of broadside 7.767 lbs / 3.523 kg
3 - 21,0" / 533 mm, 1,00 ft / 0,30 m torpedoes - 0,199 t each, 0,597 t total
In 3 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes
3 - 21,0" / 533 mm, 1,00 ft / 0,30 m torpedoes - 0,199 t each, 0,597 t total
In 3 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 9,00" / 229 mm 505,00 ft / 153,92 m 10,80 ft / 3,29 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Upper: 9,00" / 229 mm 505,00 ft / 153,92 m 8,00 ft / 2,44 m
Main Belt covers 99 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1,00" / 25 mm 505,00 ft / 153,92 m 20,19 ft / 6,15 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 10,0" / 254 mm 5,00" / 127 mm 10,0" / 254 mm
2nd: 4,00" / 102 mm 4,00" / 102 mm 4,00" / 102 mm

- Armoured deck - single deck: 2,00" / 51 mm For and Aft decks
Forecastle: 2,00" / 51 mm Quarter deck: 2,00" / 51 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 2,00" / 51 mm, Aft 0,00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 101.347 shp / 75.605 Kw = 30,40 kts
Range 7.600nm at 10,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1.514 tons

Complement:
942 - 1.225

Cost:
£6,351 million / $25,404 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1.650 tons, 7,1 %
- Guns: 1.648 tons, 7,1 %
- Torpedoes: 1 tons, 0,0 %
Armour: 7.481 tons, 32,1 %
- Belts: 3.545 tons, 15,2 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 377 tons, 1,6 %
- Armament: 1.804 tons, 7,7 %
- Armour Deck: 1.719 tons, 7,4 %
- Conning Tower: 35 tons, 0,2 %
Machinery: 3.290 tons, 14,1 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 9.033 tons, 38,8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1.749 tons, 7,5 %
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):
34.923 lbs / 15.841 Kg = 28,4 x 13,5 " / 343 mm shells or 4,8 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,04
Metacentric height 4,0 ft / 1,2 m
Roll period: 17,2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 69 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,94
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,38

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
a ram bow and small transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0,550 / 0,554
Length to Beam Ratio: 9,59 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 30,05 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 48 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 8,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 2,00 ft / 0,61 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20,00 %, 29,00 ft / 8,84 m, 28,00 ft / 8,53 m
- Forward deck: 45,00 %, 28,00 ft / 8,53 m, 28,00 ft / 8,53 m
- Aft deck: 17,00 %, 17,00 ft / 5,18 m, 17,00 ft / 5,18 m
- Quarter deck: 18,00 %, 17,00 ft / 5,18 m, 17,00 ft / 5,18 m
- Average freeboard: 24,23 ft / 7,39 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 98,5 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 232,9 %
Waterplane Area: 46.104 Square feet or 4.283 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 111 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 146 lbs/sq ft or 714 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,89
- Longitudinal: 1,08
- Overall: 0,91
Caution: Hull subject to strain in open-sea
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
G13,5" B, Great Britain light battlecruiser laid down 1925

Displacement:
21.553 t light; 22.461 t standard; 23.302 t normal; 23.975 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(792,33 ft / 786,25 ft) x 82,00 ft x (23,00 / 23,51 ft)
(241,50 m / 239,65 m) x 24,99 m x (7,01 / 7,17 m)

Armament:
6 - 13,50" / 343 mm 45,0 cal guns - 1.240,68lbs / 562,76kg shells, 100 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1925 Model
1 x 3-gun mount on centreline, forward deck forward
1 x 3-gun mount on centreline, aft deck aft
10 - 4,00" / 102 mm 45,0 cal guns - 32,27lbs / 14,64kg shells, 150 per gun
Dual purpose guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1925 Model
5 x Twin mounts on sides, forward evenly spread
Weight of broadside 7.767 lbs / 3.523 kg
3 - 21,0" / 533 mm, 1,00 ft / 0,30 m torpedoes - 0,199 t each, 0,597 t total
In 3 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes
3 - 21,0" / 533 mm, 1,00 ft / 0,30 m torpedoes - 0,199 t each, 0,597 t total
In 3 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 9,00" / 229 mm 505,00 ft / 153,92 m 10,80 ft / 3,29 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Upper: 9,00" / 229 mm 505,00 ft / 153,92 m 8,00 ft / 2,44 m
Main Belt covers 99 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1,00" / 25 mm 505,00 ft / 153,92 m 20,19 ft / 6,15 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 10,0" / 254 mm 5,00" / 127 mm 10,0" / 254 mm
2nd: 4,00" / 102 mm 4,00" / 102 mm 4,00" / 102 mm

- Armoured deck - multiple decks: 2,00" / 51 mm For and Aft decks
Forecastle: 2,00" / 51 mm Quarter deck: 2,00" / 51 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 2,00" / 51 mm, Aft 0,00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 101.347 shp / 75.605 Kw = 30,40 kts
Range 7.600nm at 10,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1.514 tons

Complement:
942 - 1.225

Cost:
£6,351 million / $25,404 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1.650 tons, 7,1 %
- Guns: 1.648 tons, 7,1 %
- Torpedoes: 1 tons, 0,0 %
Armour: 7.074 tons, 30,4 %
- Belts: 3.545 tons, 15,2 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 377 tons, 1,6 %
- Armament: 1.398 tons, 6,0 %
- Armour Deck: 1.719 tons, 7,4 %
- Conning Tower: 35 tons, 0,2 %
Machinery: 3.290 tons, 14,1 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 9.439 tons, 40,5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1.749 tons, 7,5 %
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):
37.719 lbs / 17.109 Kg = 30,7 x 13,5 " / 343 mm shells or 5,0 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,09
Metacentric height 4,4 ft / 1,3 m
Roll period: 16,5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,83
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,41

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
a ram bow and small transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0,550 / 0,554
Length to Beam Ratio: 9,59 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 30,05 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 48 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 8,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 2,00 ft / 0,61 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20,00 %, 29,00 ft / 8,84 m, 28,00 ft / 8,53 m
- Forward deck: 45,00 %, 28,00 ft / 8,53 m, 28,00 ft / 8,53 m
- Aft deck: 17,00 %, 17,00 ft / 5,18 m, 17,00 ft / 5,18 m
- Quarter deck: 18,00 %, 17,00 ft / 5,18 m, 17,00 ft / 5,18 m
- Average freeboard: 24,23 ft / 7,39 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 98,5 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 232,9 %
Waterplane Area: 46.104 Square feet or 4.283 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 113 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 152 lbs/sq ft or 743 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,94
- Longitudinal: 1,17
- Overall: 0,96
Caution: Hull subject to strain in open-sea
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
G 13,5" C, Great Britain light battlecruiser laid down 1925

Displacement:
21.551 t light; 22.461 t standard; 23.302 t normal; 23.975 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(792,33 ft / 786,25 ft) x 82,00 ft x (23,00 / 23,51 ft)
(241,50 m / 239,65 m) x 24,99 m x (7,01 / 7,17 m)

Armament:
6 - 13,50" / 343 mm 45,0 cal guns - 1.240,68lbs / 562,76kg shells, 100 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1925 Model
2 x 3-gun mounts on centreline, forward deck forward
1 raised mount - superfiring
11 - 4,00" / 102 mm 45,0 cal guns - 32,27lbs / 14,64kg shells, 150 per gun
Dual purpose guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1925 Model
4 x Twin mounts on sides, forward evenly spread
1 x Triple mount on centreline, aft deck aft
Weight of broadside 7.799 lbs / 3.538 kg
3 - 21,0" / 533 mm, 1,00 ft / 0,30 m torpedoes - 0,199 t each, 0,597 t total
In 3 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes
3 - 21,0" / 533 mm, 1,00 ft / 0,30 m torpedoes - 0,199 t each, 0,597 t total
In 3 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 9,00" / 229 mm 505,00 ft / 153,92 m 10,80 ft / 3,29 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Upper: 9,00" / 229 mm 505,00 ft / 153,92 m 8,00 ft / 2,44 m
Main Belt covers 99 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1,00" / 25 mm 505,00 ft / 153,92 m 20,19 ft / 6,15 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 10,0" / 254 mm 5,00" / 127 mm 10,0" / 254 mm
2nd: 4,00" / 102 mm 4,00" / 102 mm 4,00" / 102 mm

- Armoured deck - single deck: 2,00" / 51 mm For and Aft decks
Forecastle: 2,00" / 51 mm Quarter deck: 2,00" / 51 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 2,00" / 51 mm, Aft 0,00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 101.347 shp / 75.605 Kw = 30,40 kts
Range 7.600nm at 10,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1.514 tons

Complement:
942 - 1.225

Cost:
£6,361 million / $25,444 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1.658 tons, 7,1 %
- Guns: 1.657 tons, 7,1 %
- Torpedoes: 1 tons, 0,0 %
Armour: 7.371 tons, 31,6 %
- Belts: 3.545 tons, 15,2 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 377 tons, 1,6 %
- Armament: 1.695 tons, 7,3 %
- Armour Deck: 1.719 tons, 7,4 %
- Conning Tower: 35 tons, 0,2 %
Machinery: 3.290 tons, 14,1 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 9.131 tons, 39,2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1.752 tons, 7,5 %
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):
33.801 lbs / 15.332 Kg = 27,5 x 13,5 " / 343 mm shells or 4,7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,04
Metacentric height 4,0 ft / 1,2 m
Roll period: 17,2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 67 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,94
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,35

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
a ram bow and small transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0,550 / 0,554
Length to Beam Ratio: 9,59 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 30,05 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 48 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 8,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 2,00 ft / 0,61 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20,00 %, 29,00 ft / 8,84 m, 27,00 ft / 8,23 m
- Forward deck: 45,00 %, 27,00 ft / 8,23 m, 27,00 ft / 8,23 m
- Aft deck: 15,00 %, 17,00 ft / 5,18 m, 17,00 ft / 5,18 m
- Quarter deck: 20,00 %, 17,00 ft / 5,18 m, 17,00 ft / 5,18 m
- Average freeboard: 23,66 ft / 7,21 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 98,6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 228,3 %
Waterplane Area: 46.104 Square feet or 4.283 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 111 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 149 lbs/sq ft or 726 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,87
- Longitudinal: 1,07
- Overall: 0,89
Caution: Hull subject to strain in open-sea
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

And the other is the 12" variant:

G 12" A, Great Britain light battlecruiser laid down 1925

Displacement:
21.662 t light; 22.461 t standard; 23.302 t normal; 23.975 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(792,33 ft / 786,25 ft) x 82,00 ft x (23,00 / 23,51 ft)
(241,50 m / 239,65 m) x 24,99 m x (7,01 / 7,17 m)

Armament:
6 - 12,00" / 305 mm 45,0 cal guns - 900,00lbs / 408,23kg shells, 100 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1925 Model
1 x 3-gun mount on centreline, forward deck forward
1 x 3-gun mount on centreline, aft deck aft
12 - 4,00" / 102 mm 45,0 cal guns - 32,27lbs / 14,64kg shells, 150 per gun
Dual purpose guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1925 Model
6 x Twin mounts on sides, forward evenly spread
Weight of broadside 5.787 lbs / 2.625 kg
3 - 21,0" / 533 mm, 1,00 ft / 0,30 m torpedoes - 0,199 t each, 0,597 t total
In 3 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes
3 - 21,0" / 533 mm, 1,00 ft / 0,30 m torpedoes - 0,199 t each, 0,597 t total
In 3 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 10,0" / 254 mm 505,00 ft / 153,92 m 10,80 ft / 3,29 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Upper: 10,0" / 254 mm 505,00 ft / 153,92 m 8,00 ft / 2,44 m
Main Belt covers 99 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1,00" / 25 mm 505,00 ft / 153,92 m 20,19 ft / 6,15 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 10,0" / 254 mm 5,00" / 127 mm 10,0" / 254 mm
2nd: 4,00" / 102 mm 4,00" / 102 mm 4,00" / 102 mm

- Armoured deck - single deck: 2,00" / 51 mm For and Aft decks
Forecastle: 2,00" / 51 mm Quarter deck: 2,00" / 51 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 2,00" / 51 mm, Aft 0,00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 114.643 shp / 85.523 Kw = 31,40 kts
Range 7.600nm at 10,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1.514 tons

Complement:
942 - 1.225

Cost:
£5,906 million / $23,626 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1.241 tons, 5,3 %
- Guns: 1.240 tons, 5,3 %
- Torpedoes: 1 tons, 0,0 %
Armour: 7.342 tons, 31,5 %
- Belts: 3.938 tons, 16,9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 377 tons, 1,6 %
- Armament: 1.272 tons, 5,5 %
- Armour Deck: 1.719 tons, 7,4 %
- Conning Tower: 35 tons, 0,2 %
Machinery: 3.722 tons, 16,0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 9.257 tons, 39,7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1.641 tons, 7,0 %
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):
40.366 lbs / 18.310 Kg = 46,7 x 12,0 " / 305 mm shells or 5,2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,12
Metacentric height 4,6 ft / 1,4 m
Roll period: 16,0 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 66 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,57
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,32

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
a ram bow and small transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0,550 / 0,554
Length to Beam Ratio: 9,59 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 30,05 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 8,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 2,00 ft / 0,61 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20,00 %, 29,00 ft / 8,84 m, 27,00 ft / 8,23 m
- Forward deck: 45,00 %, 27,00 ft / 8,23 m, 27,00 ft / 8,23 m
- Aft deck: 15,00 %, 17,00 ft / 5,18 m, 17,00 ft / 5,18 m
- Quarter deck: 20,00 %, 17,00 ft / 5,18 m, 17,00 ft / 5,18 m
- Average freeboard: 23,66 ft / 7,21 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 96,4 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 228,3 %
Waterplane Area: 46.104 Square feet or 4.283 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 117 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 148 lbs/sq ft or 722 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,99
- Longitudinal: 1,13
- Overall: 1,00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
G12" B, Great Britain light battlecruiser laid down 1925

Displacement:
21.664 t light; 22.461 t standard; 23.302 t normal; 23.975 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(792,33 ft / 786,25 ft) x 82,00 ft x (23,00 / 23,51 ft)
(241,50 m / 239,65 m) x 24,99 m x (7,01 / 7,17 m)

Armament:
6 - 12,00" / 305 mm 45,0 cal guns - 900,00lbs / 408,23kg shells, 100 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1925 Model
2 x 3-gun mounts on centreline, forward deck forward
1 raised mount - superfiring
11 - 4,00" / 102 mm 45,0 cal guns - 32,27lbs / 14,64kg shells, 150 per gun
Dual purpose guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1925 Model
5 x Twin mounts on sides, forward evenly spread
1 x Triple mount on centreline, aft deck aft
Weight of broadside 5.755 lbs / 2.610 kg
3 - 21,0" / 533 mm, 1,00 ft / 0,30 m torpedoes - 0,199 t each, 0,597 t total
In 3 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes
3 - 21,0" / 533 mm, 1,00 ft / 0,30 m torpedoes - 0,199 t each, 0,597 t total
In 3 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 10,0" / 254 mm 505,00 ft / 153,92 m 10,80 ft / 3,29 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Upper: 10,0" / 254 mm 505,00 ft / 153,92 m 8,00 ft / 2,44 m
Main Belt covers 99 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1,00" / 25 mm 505,00 ft / 153,92 m 20,19 ft / 6,15 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 10,0" / 254 mm 5,00" / 127 mm 10,0" / 254 mm
2nd: 4,00" / 102 mm 4,00" / 102 mm 4,00" / 102 mm

- Armoured deck - single deck: 2,00" / 51 mm For and Aft decks
Forecastle: 2,00" / 51 mm Quarter deck: 2,00" / 51 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 2,00" / 51 mm, Aft 0,00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 114.643 shp / 85.523 Kw = 31,40 kts
Range 7.600nm at 10,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1.514 tons

Complement:
942 - 1.225

Cost:
£5,897 million / $23,586 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1.233 tons, 5,3 %
- Guns: 1.232 tons, 5,3 %
- Torpedoes: 1 tons, 0,0 %
Armour: 7.580 tons, 32,5 %
- Belts: 3.938 tons, 16,9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 377 tons, 1,6 %
- Armament: 1.510 tons, 6,5 %
- Armour Deck: 1.719 tons, 7,4 %
- Conning Tower: 35 tons, 0,2 %
Machinery: 3.722 tons, 16,0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 9.029 tons, 38,7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1.638 tons, 7,0 %
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):
37.355 lbs / 16.944 Kg = 43,2 x 12,0 " / 305 mm shells or 5,1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,08
Metacentric height 4,3 ft / 1,3 m
Roll period: 16,6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 65 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,65
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,29

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
a ram bow and small transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0,550 / 0,554
Length to Beam Ratio: 9,59 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 30,05 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 8,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 2,00 ft / 0,61 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20,00 %, 29,00 ft / 8,84 m, 27,00 ft / 8,23 m
- Forward deck: 45,00 %, 27,00 ft / 8,23 m, 27,00 ft / 8,23 m
- Aft deck: 15,00 %, 17,00 ft / 5,18 m, 17,00 ft / 5,18 m
- Quarter deck: 20,00 %, 17,00 ft / 5,18 m, 17,00 ft / 5,18 m
- Average freeboard: 23,66 ft / 7,21 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 96,3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 228,3 %
Waterplane Area: 46.104 Square feet or 4.283 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 116 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 144 lbs/sq ft or 705 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,93
- Longitudinal: 1,07
- Overall: 0,94
Caution: Hull subject to strain in open-sea
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
G12" C, Great Britain light battlecruiser laid down 1925

Displacement:
21.562 t light; 22.461 t standard; 23.302 t normal; 23.975 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(792,33 ft / 786,25 ft) x 82,00 ft x (23,00 / 23,51 ft)
(241,50 m / 239,65 m) x 24,99 m x (7,01 / 7,17 m)

Armament:
8 - 12,00" / 305 mm 45,0 cal guns - 900,00lbs / 408,23kg shells, 100 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1925 Model
1 x 4-gun mount on centreline, forward deck forward
1 x 4-gun mount on centreline, aft deck aft
12 - 4,00" / 102 mm 45,0 cal guns - 32,27lbs / 14,64kg shells, 150 per gun
Dual purpose guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1925 Model
6 x Twin mounts on sides, forward evenly spread
Weight of broadside 7.587 lbs / 3.442 kg
3 - 21,0" / 533 mm, 1,00 ft / 0,30 m torpedoes - 0,199 t each, 0,597 t total
In 3 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes
3 - 21,0" / 533 mm, 1,00 ft / 0,30 m torpedoes - 0,199 t each, 0,597 t total
In 3 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 10,0" / 254 mm 505,00 ft / 153,92 m 10,80 ft / 3,29 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Upper: 10,0" / 254 mm 505,00 ft / 153,92 m 8,00 ft / 2,44 m
Main Belt covers 99 % of normal length
Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1,00" / 25 mm 505,00 ft / 153,92 m 20,19 ft / 6,15 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 10,0" / 254 mm 4,00" / 102 mm 10,0" / 254 mm
2nd: 4,00" / 102 mm 4,00" / 102 mm 4,00" / 102 mm

- Armoured deck - single deck: 2,00" / 51 mm For and Aft decks
Forecastle: 2,00" / 51 mm Quarter deck: 2,00" / 51 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 2,00" / 51 mm, Aft 0,00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 114.643 shp / 85.523 Kw = 31,40 kts
Range 7.600nm at 10,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1.514 tons

Complement:
942 - 1.225

Cost:
£6,427 million / $25,709 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1.622 tons, 7,0 %
- Guns: 1.620 tons, 7,0 %
- Torpedoes: 1 tons, 0,0 %
Armour: 7.402 tons, 31,8 %
- Belts: 3.938 tons, 16,9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 377 tons, 1,6 %
- Armament: 1.332 tons, 5,7 %
- Armour Deck: 1.719 tons, 7,4 %
- Conning Tower: 35 tons, 0,2 %
Machinery: 3.722 tons, 16,0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 8.716 tons, 37,4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1.741 tons, 7,5 %
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):
33.497 lbs / 15.194 Kg = 38,8 x 12,0 " / 305 mm shells or 4,4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,11
Metacentric height 4,5 ft / 1,4 m
Roll period: 16,2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 65 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,75
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,30

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
a ram bow and small transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0,550 / 0,554
Length to Beam Ratio: 9,59 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 30,05 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 8,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 2,00 ft / 0,61 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20,00 %, 29,00 ft / 8,84 m, 27,00 ft / 8,23 m
- Forward deck: 45,00 %, 27,00 ft / 8,23 m, 27,00 ft / 8,23 m
- Aft deck: 15,00 %, 17,00 ft / 5,18 m, 17,00 ft / 5,18 m
- Quarter deck: 20,00 %, 17,00 ft / 5,18 m, 17,00 ft / 5,18 m
- Average freeboard: 23,66 ft / 7,21 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 104,5 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 228,3 %
Waterplane Area: 46.104 Square feet or 4.283 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 108 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 143 lbs/sq ft or 696 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,89
- Longitudinal: 1,06
- Overall: 0,90
Caution: Hull subject to strain in open-sea
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
G12" D, Great Britain light battlecruiser laid down 1925

Displacement:
21.562 t light; 22.461 t standard; 23.302 t normal; 23.975 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(792,33 ft / 786,25 ft) x 82,00 ft x (23,00 / 23,51 ft)
(241,50 m / 239,65 m) x 24,99 m x (7,01 / 7,17 m)

Armament:
8 - 12,00" / 305 mm 45,0 cal guns - 900,00lbs / 408,23kg shells, 100 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1925 Model
1 x 4-gun mount on centreline, forward deck forward
1 raised mount - superfiring
1 x 4-gun mount on centreline, forward deck forward
12 - 4,00" / 102 mm 45,0 cal guns - 32,27lbs / 14,64kg shells, 150 per gun
Dual purpose guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1925 Model
4 x Twin mounts on sides, forward evenly spread
2 x Twin mounts on centreline, aft deck aft
1 raised mount - superfiring
Weight of broadside 7.587 lbs / 3.442 kg
3 - 21,0" / 533 mm, 1,00 ft / 0,30 m torpedoes - 0,199 t each, 0,597 t total
In 3 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes
3 - 21,0" / 533 mm, 1,00 ft / 0,30 m torpedoes - 0,199 t each, 0,597 t total
In 3 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 10,0" / 254 mm 505,00 ft / 153,92 m 10,80 ft / 3,29 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Upper: 9,00" / 229 mm 505,00 ft / 153,92 m 8,00 ft / 2,44 m
Main Belt covers 99 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1,00" / 25 mm 505,00 ft / 153,92 m 20,19 ft / 6,15 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 10,0" / 254 mm 5,00" / 127 mm 10,0" / 254 mm
2nd: 4,00" / 102 mm 4,00" / 102 mm 4,00" / 102 mm

- Armoured deck - single deck: 2,00" / 51 mm For and Aft decks
Forecastle: 2,00" / 51 mm Quarter deck: 2,00" / 51 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 2,00" / 51 mm, Aft 0,00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 96.395 shp / 71.911 Kw = 30,00 kts
Range 7.600nm at 10,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1.514 tons

Complement:
942 - 1.225

Cost:
£6,156 million / $24,624 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1.622 tons, 7,0 %
- Guns: 1.620 tons, 7,0 %
- Torpedoes: 1 tons, 0,0 %
Armour: 7.556 tons, 32,4 %
- Belts: 3.771 tons, 16,2 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 377 tons, 1,6 %
- Armament: 1.654 tons, 7,1 %
- Armour Deck: 1.719 tons, 7,4 %
- Conning Tower: 35 tons, 0,2 %
Machinery: 3.130 tons, 13,4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 9.155 tons, 39,3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1.741 tons, 7,5 %
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):
36.263 lbs / 16.449 Kg = 42,0 x 12,0 " / 305 mm shells or 5,1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,04
Metacentric height 4,0 ft / 1,2 m
Roll period: 17,1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,92
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,39

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
a ram bow and small transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0,550 / 0,554
Length to Beam Ratio: 9,59 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 30,05 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 47 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 8,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 2,00 ft / 0,61 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20,00 %, 29,00 ft / 8,84 m, 27,00 ft / 8,23 m
- Forward deck: 45,00 %, 27,00 ft / 8,23 m, 27,00 ft / 8,23 m
- Aft deck: 15,00 %, 17,00 ft / 5,18 m, 17,00 ft / 5,18 m
- Quarter deck: 20,00 %, 17,00 ft / 5,18 m, 17,00 ft / 5,18 m
- Average freeboard: 23,66 ft / 7,21 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 93,8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 228,3 %
Waterplane Area: 46.104 Square feet or 4.283 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 114 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 149 lbs/sq ft or 728 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,89
- Longitudinal: 1,08
- Overall: 0,91
Caution: Hull subject to strain in open-sea
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
G12" E, Great Britain light battlecruiser laid down 1925

Displacement:
21.562 t light; 22.461 t standard; 23.302 t normal; 23.975 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(792,33 ft / 786,25 ft) x 82,00 ft x (23,00 / 23,51 ft)
(241,50 m / 239,65 m) x 24,99 m x (7,01 / 7,17 m)

Armament:
8 - 12,00" / 305 mm 45,0 cal guns - 900,00lbs / 408,23kg shells, 100 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1925 Model
2 x 2-gun mounts on centreline, forward deck forward
1 raised mount - superfiring
2 x 2-gun mounts on centreline, aft deck aft
1 raised mount - superfiring
12 - 4,00" / 102 mm 45,0 cal guns - 32,27lbs / 14,64kg shells, 150 per gun
Dual purpose guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1925 Model
6 x Twin mounts on sides, forward evenly spread
Weight of broadside 7.587 lbs / 3.442 kg
3 - 21,0" / 533 mm, 1,00 ft / 0,30 m torpedoes - 0,199 t each, 0,597 t total
In 3 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes
3 - 21,0" / 533 mm, 1,00 ft / 0,30 m torpedoes - 0,199 t each, 0,597 t total
In 3 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 10,0" / 254 mm 505,00 ft / 153,92 m 10,80 ft / 3,29 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Upper: 10,0" / 254 mm 505,00 ft / 153,92 m 8,00 ft / 2,44 m
Main Belt covers 99 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1,00" / 25 mm 505,00 ft / 153,92 m 20,19 ft / 6,15 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 10,0" / 254 mm 5,00" / 127 mm 10,0" / 254 mm
2nd: 4,00" / 102 mm 4,00" / 102 mm 4,00" / 102 mm

- Armoured deck - single deck: 2,00" / 51 mm For and Aft decks
Forecastle: 2,00" / 51 mm Quarter deck: 2,00" / 51 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 2,00" / 51 mm, Aft 0,00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 96.395 shp / 71.911 Kw = 30,00 kts
Range 7.600nm at 10,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1.514 tons

Complement:
942 - 1.225

Cost:
£6,156 million / $24,624 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1.622 tons, 7,0 %
- Guns: 1.620 tons, 7,0 %
- Torpedoes: 1 tons, 0,0 %
Armour: 8.071 tons, 34,6 %
- Belts: 3.938 tons, 16,9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 377 tons, 1,6 %
- Armament: 2.001 tons, 8,6 %
- Armour Deck: 1.720 tons, 7,4 %
- Conning Tower: 35 tons, 0,2 %
Machinery: 3.130 tons, 13,4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 8.639 tons, 37,1 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1.741 tons, 7,5 %
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):
34.811 lbs / 15.790 Kg = 40,3 x 12,0 " / 305 mm shells or 5,0 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,02
Metacentric height 3,9 ft / 1,2 m
Roll period: 17,5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 69 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,94
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,38

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
a ram bow and small transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0,550 / 0,554
Length to Beam Ratio: 9,59 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 30,05 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 47 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 8,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 2,00 ft / 0,61 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20,00 %, 29,00 ft / 8,84 m, 27,00 ft / 8,23 m
- Forward deck: 45,00 %, 27,00 ft / 8,23 m, 27,00 ft / 8,23 m
- Aft deck: 20,00 %, 17,00 ft / 5,18 m, 17,00 ft / 5,18 m
- Quarter deck: 15,00 %, 17,00 ft / 5,18 m, 17,00 ft / 5,18 m
- Average freeboard: 23,66 ft / 7,21 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 93,8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 223,0 %
Waterplane Area: 46.104 Square feet or 4.283 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 111 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 141 lbs/sq ft or 691 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,88
- Longitudinal: 1,00
- Overall: 0,89
Caution: Hull subject to strain in open-sea
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
G12" F, Great Britain light battlecruiser laid down 1925

Displacement:
21.562 t light; 22.461 t standard; 23.302 t normal; 23.975 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(792,33 ft / 786,25 ft) x 82,00 ft x (23,00 / 23,51 ft)
(241,50 m / 239,65 m) x 24,99 m x (7,01 / 7,17 m)

Armament:
8 - 12,00" / 305 mm 45,0 cal guns - 900,00lbs / 408,23kg shells, 100 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1925 Model
1 x 2-gun mount on centreline, forward deck forward
1 raised mount - superfiring
2 x 3-gun mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
12 - 4,00" / 102 mm 45,0 cal guns - 32,27lbs / 14,64kg shells, 150 per gun
Dual purpose guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1925 Model
6 x Twin mounts on sides, forward evenly spread
Weight of broadside 7.587 lbs / 3.442 kg
3 - 21,0" / 533 mm, 1,00 ft / 0,30 m torpedoes - 0,199 t each, 0,597 t total
In 3 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes
3 - 21,0" / 533 mm, 1,00 ft / 0,30 m torpedoes - 0,199 t each, 0,597 t total
In 3 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 10,0" / 254 mm 505,00 ft / 153,92 m 10,80 ft / 3,29 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Upper: 10,0" / 254 mm 505,00 ft / 153,92 m 8,00 ft / 2,44 m
Main Belt covers 99 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1,00" / 25 mm 505,00 ft / 153,92 m 20,19 ft / 6,15 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 10,0" / 254 mm 5,00" / 127 mm 10,0" / 254 mm
2nd: 4,00" / 102 mm 4,00" / 102 mm 4,00" / 102 mm

- Armoured deck - single deck: 2,00" / 51 mm For and Aft decks
Forecastle: 2,00" / 51 mm Quarter deck: 2,00" / 51 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 2,00" / 51 mm, Aft 0,00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 96.395 shp / 71.911 Kw = 30,00 kts
Range 7.600nm at 10,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1.514 tons

Complement:
942 - 1.225

Cost:
£6,156 million / $24,624 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1.622 tons, 7,0 %
- Guns: 1.620 tons, 7,0 %
- Torpedoes: 1 tons, 0,0 %
Armour: 7.877 tons, 33,8 %
- Belts: 3.938 tons, 16,9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 377 tons, 1,6 %
- Armament: 1.807 tons, 7,8 %
- Armour Deck: 1.720 tons, 7,4 %
- Conning Tower: 35 tons, 0,2 %
Machinery: 3.130 tons, 13,4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 8.833 tons, 37,9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1.741 tons, 7,5 %
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):
36.429 lbs / 16.524 Kg = 42,2 x 12,0 " / 305 mm shells or 5,1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,05
Metacentric height 4,1 ft / 1,3 m
Roll period: 17,0 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,85
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,40

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
a ram bow and small transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0,550 / 0,554
Length to Beam Ratio: 9,59 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 30,05 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 47 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 8,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 2,00 ft / 0,61 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20,00 %, 29,00 ft / 8,84 m, 27,00 ft / 8,23 m
- Forward deck: 45,00 %, 27,00 ft / 8,23 m, 27,00 ft / 8,23 m
- Aft deck: 20,00 %, 17,00 ft / 5,18 m, 17,00 ft / 5,18 m
- Quarter deck: 15,00 %, 17,00 ft / 5,18 m, 17,00 ft / 5,18 m
- Average freeboard: 23,66 ft / 7,21 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 93,8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 223,0 %
Waterplane Area: 46.104 Square feet or 4.283 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 112 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 144 lbs/sq ft or 705 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,91
- Longitudinal: 1,05
- Overall: 0,92
Caution: Hull subject to strain in open-sea
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
G12" G, Great Britain light battlecruiser laid down 1925

Displacement:
21.512 t light; 22.461 t standard; 23.302 t normal; 23.975 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(792,33 ft / 786,25 ft) x 82,00 ft x (23,00 / 23,51 ft)
(241,50 m / 239,65 m) x 24,99 m x (7,01 / 7,17 m)

Armament:
9 - 12,00" / 305 mm 45,0 cal guns - 900,00lbs / 408,23kg shells, 100 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1925 Model
2 x 3-gun mounts on centreline, forward deck forward
1 raised mount - superfiring
1 x 3-gun mount on centreline, aft deck aft
12 - 4,00" / 102 mm 45,0 cal guns - 32,27lbs / 14,64kg shells, 150 per gun
Dual purpose guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1925 Model
6 x Twin mounts on sides, forward evenly spread
Weight of broadside 8.487 lbs / 3.850 kg
3 - 21,0" / 533 mm, 1,00 ft / 0,30 m torpedoes - 0,199 t each, 0,597 t total
In 3 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes
3 - 21,0" / 533 mm, 1,00 ft / 0,30 m torpedoes - 0,199 t each, 0,597 t total
In 3 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 10,0" / 254 mm 505,00 ft / 153,92 m 10,80 ft / 3,29 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Upper: 10,0" / 254 mm 505,00 ft / 153,92 m 8,00 ft / 2,44 m
Main Belt covers 99 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1,00" / 25 mm 505,00 ft / 153,92 m 20,19 ft / 6,15 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 10,0" / 254 mm 5,00" / 127 mm 10,0" / 254 mm
2nd: 4,00" / 102 mm 4,00" / 102 mm 4,00" / 102 mm

- Armoured deck - single deck: 2,00" / 51 mm For and Aft decks
Forecastle: 2,00" / 51 mm Quarter deck: 2,00" / 51 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 2,00" / 51 mm, Aft 0,00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 96.395 shp / 71.911 Kw = 30,00 kts
Range 7.600nm at 10,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1.514 tons

Complement:
942 - 1.225

Cost:
£6,416 million / $25,665 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1.812 tons, 7,8 %
- Guns: 1.811 tons, 7,8 %
- Torpedoes: 1 tons, 0,0 %
Armour: 7.992 tons, 34,3 %
- Belts: 3.938 tons, 16,9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 377 tons, 1,6 %
- Armament: 1.922 tons, 8,2 %
- Armour Deck: 1.720 tons, 7,4 %
- Conning Tower: 35 tons, 0,2 %
Machinery: 3.130 tons, 13,4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 8.478 tons, 36,4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1.791 tons, 7,7 %
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):
32.340 lbs / 14.669 Kg = 37,4 x 12,0 " / 305 mm shells or 4,7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,03
Metacentric height 4,0 ft / 1,2 m
Roll period: 17,3 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 69 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,98
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,38

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
a ram bow and small transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0,550 / 0,554
Length to Beam Ratio: 9,59 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 30,05 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 47 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 8,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 2,00 ft / 0,61 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20,00 %, 29,00 ft / 8,84 m, 27,00 ft / 8,23 m
- Forward deck: 45,00 %, 27,00 ft / 8,23 m, 27,00 ft / 8,23 m
- Aft deck: 20,00 %, 17,00 ft / 5,18 m, 17,00 ft / 5,18 m
- Quarter deck: 15,00 %, 17,00 ft / 5,18 m, 17,00 ft / 5,18 m
- Average freeboard: 23,66 ft / 7,21 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 97,8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 223,0 %
Waterplane Area: 46.104 Square feet or 4.283 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 107 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 140 lbs/sq ft or 686 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,84
- Longitudinal: 1,00
- Overall: 0,86
Caution: Hull subject to strain in open-sea
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Some final thought: If you noted that they are highly stressed designs in nearly every possible way, don´t worry, it´s not a mistake, given the record of Britain´s battlecruisers of been stressed ships I just simply decided to throw it by the window, in the altar of SPEEEEED, GUNNNNNS, armor???, in the best british tradition, but I think that it can be solve with a re-engining in the mid-thirties, at least partially. As for the all-forward designs, the rational is the same as the Dunkerque´s in OTL, i.e. they are expected to be involve often in a chase more than anything else, but they are perfectly workable with the fleet.

Edited.
 
Last edited:
Lovely designs, I would suggest to the DNC though that any torpedo tubes are eliminated, they compromise a large area in the hull which could flood easily as the Great War showed, and exposed on the decks they would be at the mercy of the blast of the main armament and could be damaged or indeed, detonated by hostile fire. A capital ships role is to engage with guns, and torpedoes are more suitable for accompanying light or heavy cruisers.
Yep, I just put them for conventionalism, if they are just anti-raider large cruisers then the tubes are a logical asset, but yes when everyone realise that they are a bit superfluous in other combat environments, they will be retire.
 
With the Bismarck hunt anniversary this week, I couldn't help but wonder what TTL return to life will look like for the German Navy. With about eight more years of shipbuilding experience when compared to the OTL laying down of the Scharnhorst I imagine they'll end up with ships at least more efficient in terms of displacement than they did.
Starting slow, and working up. They can't yet afford to go gratuitously offending the British or French, and they need to start with the basics.
Some decent cruisers, and some destroyers worthy of the name would be a good start.
Maybe (or maybe not) complete a half-built Sachsen or Mackensen to regain some experience with heavy ships and start modernising their obsolete battle line.

They have a cruiser man as C-in-C, who made his name raiding (or rather misleading the enemy while his subordinates did the raiding), and they have ample evidence that the HSF didn't really accomplish very much. On the other hand, there's always an argument for a balanced fleet.
 
I doubt that any of the German capital ship that were under construction would be in a usable shape by this time. Mackensen was launched in April 1917 so given the changed circumstances here might not have been launched,
 
Late but sure, beforehand @sts-200 correct me if my conclusions are misled please.

to better illustrate the point, I make some exhaustive work and reach two possible path that can be possibly accepted by the admiralty, one is the 13,5" variant:

Note: I have bothered to include some questionable, unlikely and unbritish oddities like G12"C and D, but there you go, your pick...
Note 2: all have inclined belts at 12°, a cruiser´s coning tower with 2" splinter protection and added miscellaneous weight on deck that acts as a proposed seaplane gear.
Note 3: am already using the 3000 tons AA exemption.

Quiz: who can guess why the ´G´ name of the entire class?
None of these look very attractive tbh. The 12" version is just another armoured cruiser, a throwback to 1905 but this time actively damaging to the battle line.

MarcH is right - the exemption doesn't make sense and they are looking for the impossible ship. Fisher wouldn't have any of these throwbacks. He'd put the full tonnage into full-size fully armoured battle cruisers and use carriers for the roles of scouting and hunting down raiders.
 
Yep speed means weight, which is why ive been going on about 12" battlecruisers for way too long in this tread now tbh. Plus the design has no real room to grow or expand its right at the limit. You can either strengthen if you add weight affecting sea keeping quite a bit or avoid it and your still slightly wet but have also stressed the hull a lot.
I believe the real benefit of 12 inch battlecruiser for the Royal Navy would be that it forces the Germans to build 12 inch capital ships. Though it would probably force the Germans into buildingredients battlecruisers only which would not actually be a good thing for the Royal Navy.
The problem is with a good 8" cruiser hunting another good 8" cruiser you are setting up a fair fight that you might well lose. You are relying on having better training and personnel to overcome your opponent. The point of a 12" cruiser killer is to set up a completely unfair fight that you are going to win.
To be honest the royal navy approach historically was more along the lines of 6 inch cruiser will do enough damage to mission kill a 8 inch cruiser in a duel so you don't really need more 8 inch cruisers.

Its funny when the threat is 8 inch cruisers the approach varies between different commentators between these options.
Let's spend capital ship tonnage, let's beat them with better 8 inch cruisers, let's mission kill with smaller ships, a mission kill is as a good as a kill, let's build carriers, planes can't kill battleships but they can manage cruisers.
 
None of these look very attractive tbh. The 12" version is just another armoured cruiser, a throwback to 1905 but this time actively damaging to the battle line.

MarcH is right - the exemption doesn't make sense and they are looking for the impossible ship. Fisher wouldn't have any of these throwbacks. He'd put the full tonnage into full-size fully armoured battle cruisers and use carriers for the roles of scouting and hunting down raiders.
Yes I agree, but for the current period, the carrier is a too forward thinking yet, wait for the 30's at least, and the fully armored battlecruiser is too expensive to be produce in good numbers to be able to cover the far flung corners of the Empire, that currently can be threatened by the new fast ships of the competence, friends and non-friends alike, for the time being a response is needed and an effective one in the good typical British way for the short term, you know the british methods, all has to be in a big way. But anyways, my analysis was for the sake of a design's simplicity, and the historical irony in that respect, that actually end serving in more than one way, despite being for just a specific role, that's why I think that those two are the only options viable with the available tech, inside the treaty limits.
 
Last edited:
Yes I agree, but for the current period, the carrier is a too forward thinking yet, wait for the 30's at least, and the fully armored battlecruiser is too expensive to be produce in good numbers to be able to cover the far flung corners of the Empire, that currently can be threatened by the new fast ships of the competence, friends and non-friends alike, for the time being a response is needed and an effective one in the good typical British way for the short term, you know the british methods, all has to be in a big way.
Actually, I'm not sure the carrier is too forward thinking. The reason the RN need numbers of cruisers is to locate the enemy - and even at the time carriers are vastly more effective at scouting than cruisers, they just can't yet apply enough firepower to a moving target (although the RNAS was planning a torpedo raid on German battleships in port in 1918 using carrier aircraft - https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/blog/a-cuckoo-in-the-nest/). The RN's problem is that these cruisers are a manpower sink, which they can't afford.
If the RN can build a combination of carriers and fast battleships capable of catching and sinking the cruisers found for them by the carriers, things get interesting. The carriers are potentially very economical in manpower and can be relatively light as they don't need all that many aircraft for scouting only. The RN can then spend the tonnage on proper fast battleships, against which any light battleship is a deathtrap.
 
Yep, the scouting ability of aircraft is obvious, and proven at Stavanger. The risk is in their strike ability, but a cursory extrapolation of the increases in aircraft range, speed and payload over the last decade would tell a forward-thinking officer like Fisher of what the future would look like.
 
Very interested in potentially seeing an illustration of that Royal Navy carrier cruiser hybrid ;)
I don't have one unfortunately, but picture a bigger County-class cruiser, with a full-width boxy superstructure amidships, topped by a deck extending from B to X-turrets.
A decent length island to starboard, with one funnel and a big fire-control top, akin to the real Hermes.
 
Yes I agree, but for the current period, the carrier is a too forward thinking yet, wait for the 30's at least, and the fully armored battlecruiser is too expensive to be produce in good numbers to be able to cover the far flung corners of the Empire, that currently can be threatened by the new fast ships of the competence, friends and non-friends alike, for the time being a response is needed and an effective one in the good typical British way for the short term, you know the british methods, all has to be in a big way. But anyways, my analysis was for the sake of a design's simplicity, and the historical irony in that respect, that actually end serving in more than one way, despite being for just a specific role, that's why I think that those two are the only options viable with the available tech, inside the treaty limits.
Actually, I'm not sure the carrier is too forward thinking. The reason the RN need numbers of cruisers is to locate the enemy - and even at the time carriers are vastly more effective at scouting than cruisers, they just can't yet apply enough firepower to a moving target (although the RNAS was planning a torpedo raid on German battleships in port in 1918 using carrier aircraft - https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/blog/a-cuckoo-in-the-nest/). The RN's problem is that these cruisers are a manpower sink, which they can't afford.
If the RN can build a combination of carriers and fast battleships capable of catching and sinking the cruisers found for them by the carriers, things get interesting. The carriers are potentially very economical in manpower and can be relatively light as they don't need all that many aircraft for scouting only. The RN can then spend the tonnage on proper fast battleships, against which any light battleship is a deathtrap.
Yep, the scouting ability of aircraft is obvious, and proven at Stavanger. The risk is in their strike ability, but a cursory extrapolation of the increases in aircraft range, speed and payload over the last decade would tell a forward-thinking officer like Fisher of what the future would look like.
The carrier is certainly here, and here to stay.
There's still plenty of questions over what exactly it is - essentially is it a 'cruiser with amazing scouting abilities', and/or is it 'fleet defence vessel', and/or is it a 'destroyer flotilla capable of 100 knots'.
That last one is still a bit futuristic in '23/24, but it has certainly been foreseen, in several navies. Those same officers might see that a carrier's power will increase during its lifetime, as planes improve, whereas a battleship will essentially be the same weapon 20 years after it's built.

So far in the story, the RN has experimented with all of those, with varying degrees of success, and are pursuing them in different ways with Hermes and Pegasus.
Hermes is very much a proto-fleet carrier (bearing in mind it's 1923) - big air group, limited armament, fast enough to stay with the fleet.
Pegasus is a cruiser that can see 100+ miles. She could operate with a major fleet, but she's intended for colonial stations - everything from shooting up the local pirates to hunting raiders in wartime.
 
If the RN can build a combination of carriers and fast battleships capable of catching and sinking the cruisers found for them by the carriers, things get interesting.
The reason the RN need numbers of cruisers is to locate the enemy - and even at the time carriers are vastly more effective at scouting than cruisers
The RN's problem is that these cruisers are a manpower sink, which they can't afford.
The carriers are potentially very economical in manpower and can be relatively light as they don't need all that many aircraft for scouting only. The RN can then spend the tonnage on proper fast battleships, against which any light battleship is a deathtrap.
Yep, the scouting ability of aircraft is obvious, and proven at Stavanger. The risk is in their strike ability, but a cursory extrapolation of the increases in aircraft range, speed and payload over the last decade would tell a forward-thinking officer like Fisher of what the future would look like.
I was on the bring of answering the boys but you render me mute with this:

So far in the story, the RN has experimented with all of those, with varying degrees of success, and are pursuing them in different ways with Hermes and Pegasus.
Hermes is very much a proto-fleet carrier (bearing in mind it's 1923) - big air group, limited armament, fast enough to stay with the fleet.
Pegasus is a cruiser that can see 100+ miles. She could operate with a major fleet, but she's intended for colonial stations - everything from shooting up the local pirates to hunting raiders in wartime.
I did catch those hints at what was certainly the new vision of the Royal Navy for new technology, which is kind of overcoming its known conservatism (Fisher apart of course), but what I didn't acknowledge was the pace of that new embracing paramount, if you say that the carrier can be use in the form and the strategic scheme describe by @pdf27 and @King Augeas in near future, then yes certainly the cruisers are getting obsolete very quickly (although they are still pretty much necessary everywhere through the empire for the time being, which ironically makes me realize how much I was wrong about getting the seaplane gear off the cruisers), much to the Treasury's rejoice, and the working scheme that led to Bismarck's sinking is on the road and closing faster to be in place before 1935 we could reasonably assume.
 
Last edited:
My take on design 892. Exactly 26,000t

Lemnos, Greece Enter ship type laid down 1926

Displacement:
24.498 t light; 26.000 t standard; 27.500 t normal; 28.700 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(620,62 ft / 605,00 ft) x 92,00 ft x (29,00 / 30,04 ft)
(189,17 m / 184,40 m) x 28,04 m x (8,84 / 9,15 m)

Armament:
6 - 16,00" / 406 mm 45,0 cal guns - 2.048,01lbs / 928,96kg shells, 100 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1926 Model
2 x 3-gun mounts on centreline, forward evenly spread
1 raised mount
8 - 6,00" / 152 mm 50,0 cal guns - 114,33lbs / 51,86kg shells, 300 per gun
Dual purpose guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1926 Model
4 x Twin mounts on sides, aft evenly spread
6 - 4,70" / 119 mm 40,0 cal guns - 49,76lbs / 22,57kg shells, 600 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1926 Model
6 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
24 - 1,57" / 40,0 mm 60,0 cal guns - 2,14lbs / 0,97kg shells, 600 per gun
Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1926 Model
12 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 13.553 lbs / 6.147 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 14,0" / 356 mm 358,89 ft / 109,39 m 11,51 ft / 3,51 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 91% of normal length
Main Belt inclined -15,00 degrees (positive = in)

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
1,50" / 38 mm 358,89 ft / 109,39 m 27,30 ft / 8,32 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 72,00 ft / 21,95 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 16,0" / 406 mm 9,00" / 229 mm 15,0" / 381 mm
2nd: 1,50" / 38 mm 1,00" / 25 mm -

- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 6,00" / 152 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 14,00" / 356 mm, Aft 0,00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 74.925 shp / 55.894 Kw = 26,00 kts
Range 5.000nm at 16,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2.701 tons

Complement:
1.067 - 1.388

Cost:
£8,546 million / $34,185 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2.751 tons, 10,0%
- Guns: 2.751 tons, 10,0%
Armour: 9.203 tons, 33,5%
- Belts: 2.570 tons, 9,3%
- Torpedo bulkhead: 544 tons, 2,0%
- Armament: 2.343 tons, 8,5%
- Armour Deck: 3.471 tons, 12,6%
- Conning Tower: 275 tons, 1,0%
Machinery: 2.398 tons, 8,7%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 10.146 tons, 36,9%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3.002 tons, 10,9%
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0,0%

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
35.619 lbs / 16.157 Kg = 17,4 x 16,0 " / 406 mm shells or 5,7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,09
Metacentric height 5,2 ft / 1,6 m
Roll period: 17,0 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 53 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,77
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,06

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0,596 / 0,601
Length to Beam Ratio: 6,58 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 24,60 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 54 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 30,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0,00 ft / 0,00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20,34%, 27,06 ft / 8,25 m, 22,14 ft / 6,75 m
- Forward deck: 30,00%, 22,14 ft / 6,75 m, 17,22 ft / 5,25 m
- Aft deck: 29,32%, 17,22 ft / 5,25 m, 17,22 ft / 5,25 m
- Quarter deck: 20,34%, 17,22 ft / 5,25 m, 17,22 ft / 5,25 m
- Average freeboard: 19,36 ft / 5,90 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 91,2%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 133,7%
Waterplane Area: 40.568 Square feet or 3.769 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 105%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 201 lbs/sq ft or 979 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,93
- Longitudinal: 1,79
- Overall: 1,00
Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
 
I don't have one unfortunately, but picture a bigger County-class cruiser, with a full-width boxy superstructure amidships, topped by a deck extending from B to X-turrets.
A decent length island to starboard, with one funnel and a big fire-control top, akin to the real Hermes.
So a bit like the OTL US Flight Deck Cruiser but with four twin 8" rather than two triple 6"?

1280px-Flight_deck_cruiser_design_CF-2_31_Jan_1940.jpg


 
Top