Dread Nought but the Fury of the Seas

Love the title too :) And its not waiving the rules...its a clever interpretation understanding of them. If there's one thing that politicians can do is fudge things.

 
I wonder if they'll ever be deployed together with Australia as a battlecruiser leader of sorts. Such as force would make any for think twice just from their firepower.
 
Probably made out of cardboard, but will be curious enough to see on springsharp
It's difficult to springsharp this ship as it effectively has three main belts due to the 9" armour section over the machinery sandwiched between the 11" magazine belts.

The have no discernible Achilles heel; their armor is as good if not better than its contemporaries (albeit in an unconventional armor scheme)
It's a very impressive ship but I wouldn't call it flawless. Turrets unprotected against heavy guns is brave and could prove fatal while the shallowness of the belt means more work needs to be done by the deck armour and while at 4" it's good for the era plunging fire never mind AP dive bombs are a concern. Her torpedo defences equally are adequate for the era but not sufficient. Her biggest issue though is that she simply doesn't have the margin that her contemporaries do, that's the problem with building to the limit.
 
Quite possibly a proper battleship if the 3-2-3 main gun layout is retained and the weights are used for armour and TDS
They can't put anything too heavy on her because that would a.) require more engine power to maintain her speed and b.) force a redesign of the hull.
I suspect they won't use the entire 28k allowance as such a ship wouldn't be a "half-sister" instead, they'll take the post "refit" 26k Fisher, save some money and weight by doing all of that at build rather than after, squeeze a tiny bit more power into her* and beef up the TDS, turrets and barrettes for a 27k ton improved half-sister.

*can't be much as her machinery spaces are already cramped

EDIT: Interestingly the RN number of 16" guns in RN service is catching up fast with 15" as these are finished building.

The 15" armed ships are 5xQE's (8 guns), 4x Royal's (8 guns), 2x Repulse (6 guns), 2x Hood (8 guns) for 100 guns.
The 16" armed ships are Rodney (8 guns), 3x Nelson (9 guns), 6x Fisher (8 guns) for 83 guns.

Assuming the 1927 & 1928 programs are for a full fat battleship, either an improved Trafalgar (herself an improved Nelson) or a clean sheet design with 9 guns, the 16" gunned ships will overtake.
 
Last edited:
It's a very impressive ship but I wouldn't call it flawless. Turrets unprotected against heavy guns is brave and could prove fatal while the shallowness of the belt means more work needs to be done by the deck armour and while at 4" it's good for the era plunging fire never mind AP dive bombs are a concern. Her torpedo defences equally are adequate for the era but not sufficient. Her biggest issue though is that she simply doesn't have the margin that her contemporaries do, that's the problem with building to the limit.
Certainly, she isn't perfect. But from the perspective of foreign nations, as intelligence reports trickle in, they are going to have no idea how the British managed to do so much in 23,000 tons. She isn't using two quads like the French, she isn't using smaller guns like the Italians, and she isn't really skimping on armor like the Americans (ok, this last one is a bit of a stretch). Nevertheless, she represents a significant upgrade over WW1 era dreadnoughts, which cannot easily be said for the other Light Battleships. As the 1920s comes to a close, she is certainly a proud symbol of British power and a stark reminder to the world that the Royal Navy is to be feared and respected.

However, I do have to concede that her Achilles heel may be that she is too min-maxed. I believe she is the best ship that the British could build at the moment. However, with no war looming on the horizon and low tensions, perhaps they should have thought about building the best ship for the future. They've backed themselves into a corner with razor thin margins, leaving the ship little room for improvement like you said. Especially knowing what we know now about OTL WW2 naval combat, her actual prospective uses (carrier escort, foreign stations, hunting raiders, etc.) doesn't bode well considering her design. In summary, she is superb in her envisioned role, but as technology evolves she will likely struggle to keep up.
 
However, I do have to concede that her Achilles heel may be that she is too min-maxed. I believe she is the best ship that the British could build at the moment. However, with no war looming on the horizon and low tensions, perhaps they should have thought about building the best ship for the future. They've backed themselves into a corner with razor thin margins, leaving the ship little room for improvement like you said. Especially knowing what we know now about OTL WW2 naval combat, her actual prospective uses (carrier escort, foreign stations, hunting raiders, etc.) doesn't bode well considering her design. In summary, she is superb in her envisioned role, but as technology evolves she will likely struggle to keep up.
I'm not sure I'd go that far. They isn't going to be a great carrier escort, the weaknesses of their armour scheme match perfectly onto carrier aircraft attacks: dive bombs and torpedoes and they lack the ability to be plastered with AA they way OTL Pacific War ships were. However for hunting raiders she great, she's reasonably fast and very punchy, the Battle of the River Plate would last about half an hour with one of these on the British side. For foreign stations shes strong enough on all points of the iron triangle that she can do the RN proud. As for "second line" engagements like Savo Island or Java Sea where you didn't have battleships in OTL these could be sent at the head of a cruiser squadron and at both of those engagements a Fisher would have turned the tide.

On a different topic what is the shape of the RN post the Fisher's. When Anson is commissioned into service the RN will have built 178,000 treaty tons of capital ship since the signing of the treaty (3x 36k ton Nelson's plus 5x14k tons Fisher's). As the RN was already at it's 750k ton cap what has it gotten rid of. Starting with the oldest and slowest first presumably the Orion's (56k tons) and KGV's (42k tons) have gone along with Courageous (14k tons) but that still leaves 66k tons what else has been disposed of, the Lion's seem the obvious next target which nets you 53k tons but you are still 13k tons short.

EDIT: I've just realised that Panther was turned into a training ship here and the Lion's have also gone so the RN is actually 14,500 tons under the treaty limit.
 
Last edited:

Stenz

Monthly Donor
They've backed themselves into a corner with razor thin margins, leaving the ship little room for improvement like you said. Especially knowing what we know now about OTL WW2 naval combat, her actual prospective uses (carrier escort, foreign stations, hunting raiders, etc.) doesn't bode well considering her design. In summary, she is superb in her envisioned role, but as technology evolves she will likely struggle to keep up.
That's as you say OTL WWII naval combat. We're not 100% yet where sts is going to take naval development, across the spectrum of Powers, both Great and regional.

Who knows, capital ship gunnery duels might well be more prevalent, or never happen at all? Aircraft Carriers and Naval Aviation as we know it may never develop as we'd recognise it until after the next Great War (heck, even if there is a next Great War!) or at all. All the Great Powers may end up in a protracted battleship Arms Race and Carriers get left behind, relegated to scouting and escort roles?
 
Using the table in the Capital Ships 1921 threadmark, the pre WNT 15”+ ships of the RN plus the eight treaty ships displace 631,500 tons total, that’s 23 ships the RN has plenty of BBs imo so they shouldn’t be afraid to scrap the KGV and Orion classes before the Dukes. If they want to go up to 875000 tons, they can keep the 13.5” BBs with 45000 tons to spare, ie retain some old BCs
 
If they want to go up to 875000 tons, they can keep the 13.5” BBs with 45000 tons to spare, ie retain some old BCs
They are limited to 750,000 treaty tons of capital ship.

Upon delivery of Anson the RN is14,500k treaty tons under the total tonnage cap and having built 70k treaty tons in the 1924 &1925 programs against a 72k tons allowance meaning they are carrying 2k tons into the 1926 program.
 
Last edited:
They are limited to 750,000 treaty tons of capital ship.
Then they can keep the dukes for 731500 and 28 ships as well as an older ship that’s 29 capital ships which is really expensive. IMHO they should go back to 35000 ton BBs for a while since they now have 10 BCs as well as Rodney, whatever you call her
 
Last edited:
Then they can keep the dukes for 731500 and 28 ships as well as an older ship that’s 29 capital ships which is really expensive
Well the RN traditionally kept a squadron or two of capital ships in reserve and the RN hierarchy would be concerned about dropping below the 750k tons cap voluntarily for fear that either the Treasury of the Foreign Office wouldn't let them build back up there. So I assume that the RN active battlefleet stops at the Royal's with the Iron Duke's quietly moored at Portsmouth but in Commission. Assuming they are in Reserve they won't be costing much and can either be reactivated (after 6 months) in case of war or disposed of when the RN needs to use their treaty tonnage to enable the 1926 program.
 
The 15" armed ships are 5xQE's (8 guns), 4x Royal's (8 guns), 2x Repulse (6 guns), 2x Hood (8 guns) for 100 guns.
The 16" armed ships are Rodney (8 guns), 3x Nelson (9 guns), 6x Fisher (8 guns) for 83 guns.
R&R have 8x15" buddy, but yes you´re essentially right.

That lefts the table as follows:

TTL Royal Navy, currently up to 1926:

TYPEFIRST LINESECOND LINETHIRD LINEFOURTH LINE
FAST BATTLESHIPQE & ROYAL CLASSES(AS BUILD), RODNEY (AS BUILD), FURIOUS?FURIOUS?
BATTLESHIPQE & ROYAL CLASSES(POST-1922), NELSON CLASS, PLUS ACTIVE 13,5" SUPER-DREADNOUGHTS BUT IN RESERVE.
BATTLECRUISERRODNEY (POST-1922); HOOD, HOWE (AS BUILD), FISHER CLASS ACTUAL TYPE (WITH MODIFICATIONS), FURIOUS.RENOWN AND REPULSE ( ALL AS BUILD; PROBABLE POST-1928 MAJOR REFIT), FISHER CLASS ACTUAL TYPE (AS BUILD), FURIOUS.HOOD, HOWE, RENOWN AND REPULSE (POST-1922)
LBB/LBCFISHER CLASS OFFICIALLY TYPE (WITH MODIFICATIONS)FISHER CLASS OFFICIALLY TYPE (AS BUILD)

LEGEND:

13,5" SUPER-DREADNOUGHTS: 10 X 13,5", 20-21 KNOTS, 11 UNITS COLLECTIVELY.
QE´S AND ROYAL´S: 8 X 15", 23-24 KNOTS, 9 UNITS COLLECTIVELY
NELSON CLASS: 9 X 16 ", 25 KNOTS, 3 UNITS.
RENOWN CLASS: 8 X 15", 29-30 KNOTS WITH BULGES ADDED, 2 UNITS
ADMIRAL CLASS: 8 X 15 ", 30-31(32?) KNOTS, 2 UNITS
RODNEY: 8 X 16", 28(NATURAL)-30(FORCED) KNOTS, 1 UNIT
FURIOUS: 6 X 18", 35 KNOTS (EMERGENCY SPEED)- 32 or 33 KNOTS (MAXIMUM SAFE), 1 UNIT
FISHER CLASS: 8 X 16", 31-32 KNOTS, 6 UNITS
 
Last edited:
It's difficult to springsharp this ship as it effectively has three main belts due to the 9" armour section over the machinery sandwiched between the 11" magazine belts.
Well don't say I did not give it a gaming try. Completely compromised torpedo defences to a mere 3 feet void per side, kept armor to the absolute minimums described, creatively interpreted away the upper belt, put deck armour in boxes over machinery and magazines, cut down range to 3300 miles at economical speed as opposed to the 8200 miles that would get the exact standard displacement mentioned... end result is of course a crappy seaboat.

I'll stick to my made out of cardboard claim, it needs ~4,000t more just to go to badly protected battlecruiser

HMs Fisher, Britain Enter ship type laid down 1927

Displacement:
25.462 t light; 26.888 t standard; 28.008 t normal; 28.904 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(745,14 ft / 728,00 ft) x 93,50 ft x (24,83 / 25,45 ft)
(227,12 m / 221,89 m) x 28,50 m x (7,57 / 7,76 m)

Armament:
8 - 16,00" / 406 mm 45,0 cal guns - 2.360,00lbs / 1.070,48kg shells, 76 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1927 Model
2 x 3-gun mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
1 x 2-gun mount on centreline, forward deck centre
1 raised mount
12 - 4,00" / 102 mm 45,0 cal guns - 32,28lbs / 14,64kg shells, 300 per gun
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts, 1927 Model
6 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
12 - 1,50" / 38,1 mm 45,0 cal guns - 0,99lbs / 0,45kg shells, 600 per gun
Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1927 Model
6 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 19.279 lbs / 8.745 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 9,00" / 229 mm 496,64 ft / 151,38 m 11,60 ft / 3,54 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 105% of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
1,50" / 38 mm 496,64 ft / 151,38 m 23,19 ft / 7,07 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 87,40 ft / 26,64 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 7,00" / 178 mm 3,00" / 76 mm 3,00" / 76 mm

- Box over machinery & magazines:
3,50" / 89 mm

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

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 132.034 shp / 98.497 Kw = 31,73 kts
Range 3.300nm at 16,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2.016 tons

Complement:
1.082 - 1.407

Cost:
£11,036 million / $44,142 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 3.332 tons, 11,9%
- Guns: 3.332 tons, 11,9%
Armour: 5.517 tons, 19,7%
- Belts: 2.189 tons, 7,8%
- Torpedo bulkhead: 639 tons, 2,3%
- Armament: 848 tons, 3,0%
- Armour Deck: 1.801 tons, 6,4%
- Conning Tower: 40 tons, 0,1%
Machinery: 4.168 tons, 14,9%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 12.446 tons, 44,4%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2.546 tons, 9,1%
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0,0%

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
31.564 lbs / 14.317 Kg = 15,4 x 16,0 " / 406 mm shells or 4,1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,18
Metacentric height 6,1 ft / 1,9 m
Roll period: 15,9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,92
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 0,87

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and large transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0,580 / 0,584
Length to Beam Ratio: 7,79 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 31,14 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 56 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 57
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: 15,89%, 29,68 ft / 9,05 m, 24,28 ft / 7,40 m
- Forward deck: 30,00%, 24,28 ft / 7,40 m, 18,89 ft / 5,76 m
- Aft deck: 38,22%, 18,89 ft / 5,76 m, 18,89 ft / 5,76 m
- Quarter deck: 15,89%, 18,89 ft / 5,76 m, 18,89 ft / 5,76 m
- Average freeboard: 20,90 ft / 6,37 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 104,9%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 179,9%
Waterplane Area: 50.901 Square feet or 4.729 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 98%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 206 lbs/sq ft or 1.005 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,96
- Longitudinal: 1,34
- Overall: 1,00
Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Poor seaboat, wet and uncomfortable, reduced performance in heavy weather
 
Well, they've done it. They've managed to get a full 16" broadside on a "light" battleship hull without hopelessly compromising either armour or speed.
And surprisingly - given the name - the Fishers have come out on the fast-battleship end of the BCL spectrum. Given the emphasis on lightness and @sts-200's hints I was half-expecting a true BCL, 3x3 13.5" and 35 knots to terrify every cruiser on the planet. At 31-32 knots they won't be chasing down any modern cruisers on the open sea, but they can chose whether to run or fight against even the newest fast battleship and with those 16" any BC that gets within gun range probably doesn't want to be there either.

The USN will be having kittens. These things have the same main armament as Lexington, roughly the same speed, a thicker belt and deck - and they're rated at 23,000 tons compared to the Lexington at 43,000?!

I did spot one Achilles' heel though - the boiler rooms are separated ... by the 4" magazine, which isn't under the thick part of the belt/deck. Here's hoping no enemy shell spots that flaw. And with unarmoured upperworks and only 4" HA as secondaries they're no brawlers - avoid trying to take on enemy cruisers at close range (c.f. Hiei at 1st Guadalcanal). But for what they're built for - classic daylight gunnery duels - they can beat down anything fast enough to close with them and quite a few things that aren't. Given decent gunnery/fire control, one of them could probably wreck most 14" battleships without taking a hit in reply.

The other people having kittens of course will be the Treasury. Since signing the Treaty that was meant to limit naval expenditures, they've had to fund 5 Fishers on top of 3 Nelsons. Yes, they've got rid of ~12 older ships in the same period, but 8 new ships in ~5 years is not what they were budgeting for. And if the Fisher does become the standard capital ship type, the Treaty allows a ludicrous 53 of them on 750,000 tons!
I can see votes for a more restrictive Treaty when the current one expires.

And then there's the Japanese - who amusingly enough are about the only people who haven't jumped though the "light battleship" loophole. Given their historical tendency to both lie about tonnages and overload their ships I wonder what they could come up with if they really tried.
 
And then there's the Japanese - who amusingly enough are about the only people who haven't jumped though the "light battleship" loophole. Given their historical tendency to both lie about tonnages and overload their ships I wonder what they could come up with if they really tried.
Remember the story is in different years in different countries. We've seen the 1921-3 (Nelson's) and 1924-5 (Fisher) program for the UK but the US has just laid down their second, 1924 batch of Columbia's and from Japan we've only seen the 1921-3 Program though it has been extended by the Earthquake. Also there will always be some lag time as people find out what the RN has done, design their response, and lay it down so it will probably by the 1926 before a response to the Fisher's starts construction.
 
Top