The ships were designed so that they would not be ‘inconvenienced’ by 8” fire, but they also had to be safe to fight battleships. The objective here was to ensure that battleships could be engaged at certain ranges, without the Captain having to concern himself over the immediate safety of his ship.
What? I thought the whole point of battlecruisers was that they stay out of range of battleships?
 
Now, keeping in this line of thought, I I don't want to be annoying but It had occur to me this scheme last night, please before you make any rash opinion read carefully.

Given that Britain, with difference of the other great Powers, have other kind of commitments, it occurs to me that if they could design a 25-28k tons fast battleship (a proper, fast, 31 knots+) arm with 9, new model, 13.5" guns, they could spare more resources and money (being the expected idea that they should be cheaper than a modernization and therefore acceptable to the Treasury's eyes) for building more of the same design or other vessels, all the reasoning behind this is the same that supported the existence of the Grand Fleet , numbers and concentration of it, which has been as important to Britain as firepower itself and is to give the proper protection to the main key points of the globe in the Admiral's considerations, namely: the East, Suez, Gibraltar, the channel and the North sea, and the Falklands, but not in that order.

What you'd think?
 
Only 4"? I hope they add more, else these boys will be tasting AP shells bombs quite a lot in WW2. That's less than armored CVs.

4" is enough to plausibly armour against plunging fire from contemporary AP shells, on ships built to a hard weight limit any extra is implausible. It won't be sufficient to cope with 1940's dive bombers but the DNC doesn't have 20/20 foresight.

What? I thought the whole point of battlecruisers was that they stay out of range of battleships?

That was Fisher's concept in 1907, even at the time the Germans worked out that that wasn't always going to be possible and in this tl the British have learnt as well.
 
The Royal Navy was a firm believer where possible in Tradition for ship naming. They liked to maintain in use names of First rates with good records and ships that were at Trafalgar or failing that group them by some common theme so Furious , Glorious and Courageous all ended in Ous which set a precedent and led to Illustrious and Victorious . Not sure why Audacious wasn't reused unless it was seen as unlucky. Then the next carrier series all ended in -able .which had been used for capital ships thus Implacable , Formidable etc.

Also the first line of Battle /battleship of each monarchs reign was named after that Monarch although system broke down when George VI insisted it be named after his father . The Duke of York actually commemorating the king

I have a very interesting book called British Warship names . written by 2 members of warship naming committees WW2
 
Last edited:
Very interesting protection scheme. I was wondering if sts-200 would have his designers re-invent the protected cruiser, and they haven't - quite. But that 4" armoured deck is clearly the main protective feature with everything above it deemed expendable.

Still worth noting just what an achievement these ships would be. We haven't had confirmation of the armament, but it's looking like 3x3 15" and the ships only make sense if they're fast. Of course, these ships are effectively about 25,500 tons standard after the pre-planned "refits" - which makes them bigger than Lion and not far behind Queen Elizabeth. But still - Howe (Hood's better armoured sister) has the same 11" belt, maybe half-an-inch more deck armour, only 8x15", 31.5kt - on 10,000 tons more.

They have done this with an approach that an American all-or-nothing evangelist might find slightly extreme. Compared to Howe, the upper belt is gone, the end belts are gone, the main belt is both short and shallow (and as RelativeGalaxy7 noted, virtually underwater at full load) and this is covered for by carrying the armoured deck lower. The citadel covers the magazines and machinery and nothing else - to the point where I wonder how she'd float with flooded ends. In addition to reducing the turret/barbette armour, nothing has been said so far about a conning tower, and I'm betting the secondary armament is both light and carried in unprotected mountings on the upper deck. It's an incredibly tight design, optimised to the limit to stay (just) within the bounds of the Treaty while combining the heaviest possible armament with (barely) acceptable protection and speed.

And will it work? Well, they'll shock the world when they come out, but I'm not so sure how viable they will be long term (putting a proper 1930s AA armament on them looks like it would need a full rebuild). And of course, being 30,000-ton battlecruisers in all but name, they will come with an appropriate price tag.
 
I feel the survivability of these ships will come down completely to speed and handling since If they are fast and nimble while also maintaining their speed post-rebuilds, then they should able to outrun or dodge enemy ships & torpedoes without much issue. Therefore they would not have to worry about flooding or damage too much except for lucky hits.
However, if they can not run or have poor handling, then they are in trouble.
 
These things take AoN to the extreme. If the scheme works as planned, the RN has a great ship for the size regardless of gun size. If not, it potentially has five follies that can theoretically still hunt cruisers at least
 
In very very broad terms the Counties had magazine protection, a bit of splinter protection, and duplication for everything else and it never really bothered them in service. So I am not really worried about the protection level.
I take that more as the need to reload all the guns at once not necessarily fire them all at once. you could fire one then another for ranging purposes but have to wait to reload them all.
It is effectively the same thing. You are working at the speed of the slowest gun crew.
Worse if you are salvo firing because you can't reload until the last barrel is clear. It is begging someone to park the shell hoists just below the turret to speed things up.
 
Well, they'll shock the world when they come out, but I'm not so sure how viable they will be long term (putting a proper 1930s AA armament on them looks like it would need a full rebuild).

It seems like they've been designed to the absolute limit of what physics and technology allow with not an ounce wasted. Which is great in 1926 but come 1936 the Italians will be able to send their less efficient Vesuvio into the yard for a mid life refit and she'll have the spare capacity to take some serious upgrades and in 1940 they'll be able to put a heavy radar right up high without too much worry. These ships just can't have that spare capacity, not while having a decent turn of speed and the heavy guns people are talking about. That would be the advantage of a 13.5" main armament, you have a "worse" ship in the short term but one with some growth potential.

Of course that being said these ships even with their limitations will still eat any post refit* BCL for breakfast, they're always going to be the biggest and baddest 1st gen BCL.

*But possibly not rebuild but that probably won't happen
 
Last edited:
It seems like they've been designed to the absolute limit of what physics and technology allow with not an ounce wasted. Which is great in 1926 but come 1936 the Italians will be able to send their less efficient Vesuvio into the yard for a mid life refit and she'll have the spare capacity to take some serious upgrades and in 1940 they'll be able to put a heavy radar right up high without too much worry. These ships just can't have that spare capacity, not while having a decent turn of speed and the heavy guns people are talking about. That would be the advantage of a 13.5" main armament, you have a "worse" ship in the short term but one with some growth potential.

Of course that being said these ships even with their limitations will still eat any post refit* BCL for breakfast, they're always going to be the biggest and baddest 1st gen BCL.

*But possibly not rebuild but that probably won't happen

The thing is these ships are using welded construction for parts of them. That will show how useful and viable welding is.
When the ships come in for a rebuild they will probably get more welded parts saving weight along with more efficient engines saving weight as well. Their will be room for growth. I also expect them to be using 6" secondaries with some 4" or 4.7" AA guns they will probably all be combined into something like a DP 4.5" system saving some weight and increasing the AA potential.
Their is some room for growth its just a lot tighter and needs more creative solutions.
 
When the ships come in for a rebuild they will probably get more welded parts saving weight along with more efficient engines saving weight as well. Their will be room for growth. I also expect them to be using 6" secondaries with some 4" or 4.7" AA guns they will probably all be combined into something like a DP 4.5" system saving some weight and increasing the AA potential.
Their is some room for growth its just a lot tighter and needs more creative solutions.

None of these BCL's will get rebuilds. Rebuilds cost 2/3rds as much as a new warship but deliver far less capability improvement than replacement ship. They only make financial sense in a world where you can't build new ships. Ships will get mid life refits but the sort of deep Warspite or Andrea Doria style rebuilds of OTL just don't make sense.
A refit will replace the secondaries and AA with more modern DP systems and free up some weight for new systems and more AA firepower but they'll just be less to play with while retaining stability than on a Vesuvio.
 
None of these BCL's will get rebuilds. Rebuilds cost 2/3rds as much as a new warship but deliver far less capability improvement than replacement ship. They only make financial sense in a world where you can't build new ships. Ships will get mid life refits but the sort of deep Warspite or Andrea Doria style rebuilds of OTL just don't make sense.
A refit will replace the secondaries and AA with more modern DP systems and free up some weight for new systems and more AA firepower but they'll just be less to play with while retaining stability than on a Vesuvio.

The royal Navy has a long history of rebuilding ships. its part of what they expect to be doing. A royal Navy refit can be very extensive. At times they have "refitted" ships so thoroughly that very little of the original ship remained.
 
Rebuilds cost 2/3rds as much as a new warship but deliver far less capability improvement than replacement ship.
It might be that the BCL exception will get thrown out in future treaties (with exceptions for ships already built), in which case it may be in nations' interests to get a rebuild. I would say the more pressing issue is time. It took less time to lay down and launch the Kongo than it did to rebuild it. If war is just around the horizon, it might save more time and drydock space to build a new ship rather than to rebuild an existing one.
 

Deleted member 94680

Which is great in 1926 but come 1936 the Italians will be able to send their less efficient Vesuvio into the yard for a mid life refit and she'll have the spare capacity to take some serious upgrades and in 1940 they'll be able to put a heavy radar right up high without too much worry.

Are you sure about that?

Regarding such devices, Cavagnari emphasized "not wanting traps in your way". Writing to Admiral Iachino, he wrote "..procedere con estrema cautela nell'accettare brillanti novità tecniche che non siano ancora collaudate da una esperienza pratica sufficientemente lunga..", which can be translated to "... proceed with extreme caution regarding brilliant technical innovations that have not yet been tested or with which there is no practical experience." Thus, the Italian navy entered the Second World War with a marked technical inferiority to the British Navy.
 
In very very broad terms the Counties had magazine protection, a bit of splinter protection, and duplication for everything else and it never really bothered them in service. So I am not really worried about the protection level.

You know, ironic or fullish as it might sound, I always saw the County's as cruising ships with defensive capabilities rather than warships with peace time duties, pretty much as Starfleet see its ships, ie. I perceive the County's like real life versions of the Constitution class starships 🤦‍♂️ :biggrin::coldsweat:.
 
The thing is, the RN was the only navy other than the Germans that came out of WWI with any idea of how cruisers fought and took damage. Typically that was everything but a 15km duel where belt armor might be useful. Sure they tried to put belt armor on every cruiser that followed, but when you go back and look at WWII damage, when did cruiser armor actually save them? Torps, bombs, knife fights, don't actually care that much about any level of cruiser scale armor. That makes you rethink a few things.
 
Are you sure about that?

Regarding such devices, Cavagnari emphasized "not wanting traps in your way". Writing to Admiral Iachino, he wrote "..procedere con estrema cautela nell'accettare brillanti novità tecniche che non siano ancora collaudate da una esperienza pratica sufficientemente lunga..", which can be translated to "... proceed with extreme caution regarding brilliant technical innovations that have not yet been tested or with which there is no practical experience." Thus, the Italian navy entered the Second World War with a marked technical inferiority to the British Navy.

The Italian hierarchy might be too stupid to embrace radar but their ships would have the physical capacity to install it. The Fisher class, designed right up to the limits of physics might have issues.
 
The thing is, the RN was the only navy other than the Germans that came out of WWI with any idea of how cruisers fought and took damage. Typically that was everything but a 15km duel where belt armor might be useful. Sure they tried to put belt armor on every cruiser that followed, but when you go back and look at WWII damage, when did cruiser armor actually save them? Torps, bombs, knife fights, don't actually care that much about any level of cruiser scale armor. That makes you rethink a few things.

True and when actually exposed to gunfire the Counties proved quite tough considering the hammering the HMAS Canberra took, which is around 50 odd shells of 4 and 8-inch as well as a single torpedo and even then she didn't seem to want to sink and may well have been salvaged if her machinery could have been repaired.
 
Top