Dread Nought but the Fury of the Seas

[snip]Well don't say I did not give it a gaming try.
Not bad. Just a few nitpicks:

Don't like the armored box but you were forced into it
Range short, ditto
Main Battery rpg is low, ditto
Secondary Battery guns not mount and hoist
Poor seakeeping

But given the parameters I think you did the best you could...
 
Not bad. Just a few nitpicks:

Don't like the armored box but you were forced into it
Range short, ditto
Main Battery rpg is low, ditto
Secondary Battery guns not mount and hoist
Poor seakeeping

But given the parameters I think you did the best you could...
I used the specs in STS200's post, which specified a low magazine capacity. The poor seakeeping was to be expected with the guns being carried, otherwise you need a finer longer hull and greater freeboard... both cost displacement, besides the dimensions were given to us . As for the range you had the options of having a 3in belt and normal range or 9in and no range.

Very, very compromised by design...
 
Also, the new Australia is going to be a beast with the extra tonnage...
I'm guessing that some of the extra tonnage available for Australia will be used to beef up her TDS, make the twin 16" turret a triple and add another quartet of 4" and 1lb guns among many other important improvements
Quite possibly a proper battleship if the 3-2-3 main gun layout is retained and the weights are used for armour and TDS
HMAS Australia will be a relatively mildly modified version. Bulged out by 2', lengthened by 6' to allow larger magazines.
An extra 0.5" on the armour decks (4.5" magazine, 4" machinery, 3.5" aft on lower deck), and the protective side plating goes up to 3".
Most obvious improvement is the secondary armament, now eight 6" in single mounts on the foc'sle, with directors amidships. 4-4" retained on the shelter deck for HA work. Better for dealing with heavy-hitting Japanese destroyers.
Various minor improvements to splinter protection associated with secondary guns.

Same machinery, so about a 1/3 knot slower. Main armament is the same.
Standard Displacement goes up to about 27,100 tons, Deep load to 32,200.
 
....

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.
I would think the next logical step is an 'armoured battlecruiser', taking what they've learned with these and applying it to a full scale ship. Using the 3,000-ton wheeze, they could go up to ~38,500 tons without worrying too much. D-steel, light machinery and intelligent use of armour, and you probably have something not a million miles off a G-3 (or the story's D-33).
However, I'm afraid that will have to wait for a while.
 
...

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.
I think you've already got there.
They've scrapped/converted Panther, Lion, Courageous, Princess Royal and Orion to 'pay for' the 3 Nelsons.
These ships are one-for-one replacements for the other 3 'Orions', plus Ajax and Centurion, the latter becoming a disarmed target ship, replacing Colossus.
Technically KGV can still be in service, but as the sole survivor she won't be for long (realistically all these old ships are in reserve anyway).
Australia will be a one-for-one for their existing Lion-class ship.
 
HMAS Australia will be a relatively mildly modified version. Bulged out by 2', lengthened by 6' to allow larger magazines.
An extra 0.5" on the armour decks (4.5" magazine, 4" machinery, 3.5" aft on lower deck), and the protective side plating goes up to 3".
Most obvious improvement is the secondary armament, now eight 6" in single mounts on the foc'sle, with directors amidships. 4-4" retained on the shelter deck for HA work. Better for dealing with heavy-hitting Japanese destroyers.
Various minor improvements to splinter protection associated with secondary guns.

Same machinery, so about a 1/3 knot slower. Main armament is the same.
Standard Displacement goes up to about 27,100 tons, Deep load to 32,200.
I'm not sure you could add all that and only get another 1,100 tons of SD and I'm really not sure you could do all that and only loose 1/3 knot. Also you implied here that they had an all foward layout:

Three huge holes seemed to dominate the foc’sle deck, deep cavities into the hull where the turrets would eventually sit.
foc'sle or forecastle
def: the section of the upper deck of a ship located at the bow forward of the foremast.

Why did they abandon the all forward layout if they were looking to minimise the length of the armour belt?
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure you could add all that and only get another 1,100 tons of SD and I'm really not sure you could do all that and only loose 1/3 knot. Also you implied here that they had an all foward layout:



foc'sle or forecastle
def: the section of the upper deck of a ship located at the bow forward of the foremast.

Why did they abandon the all forward layout if they were looking to minimise the length of the armour belt?
Extras:
Hull ~250 tons
1/2" deck ~ 400 tons
1" side plating ~ 150 tons
Swap 12-4" for 8-6" (allowing for ammo, hoists, directors etc..) ~ 160 tons
The rest is splinter protection and other tweaks.

If I'd said 'on the foc'sle' or something like that, I'd agree with you, but I was referring to the deck level.
The foc'sle deck level itself can extend over almost any length (c.f. Hood, Glorious).
Many designs would call this the 'upper deck' instead, but they tended to be battleships, which had a 'middle deck'.
This is a battlecruiser and therefore just has main, upper and foc'sle. Britain never built a flush-decked battlecruiser, so I can't say whether this naming tradition would have continued, but I've assumed it would.

All forward is quite restrictive on machinery space and shaft layout. In a powerful (and cramped) ship such as this, it's one step too far. A traditional arrangement also spread the weight over the hull rather more, which is a consideration here (the hull weights I've suggested are not unduly low, but they are towards the low end of the spectrum).
 
Sorry to say this story will now be on hold for a while.

I’ve long since run through my stock of material, and need to think about mapping out a more entertaining narrative than just a list of battleships (along with a few other projects I have in mind).

Lots of possibilities remain, both nautically and politically. Roughly we’ve reached 1925, and:
Germany is much stronger, and starting to look outwards once again.
The Ottoman Empire still exists.
Britain and Italy are notably better off.
The Dutch have a modest fleet.
Russia isn’t communist.
Japan, France and the USA ... relatively speaking, not much change there (but the devil’s in the detail!)

New rounds of capital ships are being built, aircraft carriers are not following the same path (at least not yet) and the patched-together Washington Treaty is under considerable stress; certainly the ‘Fisher’ class a has pretty much made a mockery of the ‘light battleship’ definition.

There’s the roots of the next part, which will jump forward some years, to tell the story of a ‘Second Great War’ (sorry, no hints yet, but it won’t be the real Second World War).
I’ll keep an eye on the thread if there are questions or suggestions, but it will be quite some time before there are any more updates (after all, there’ll be more history tomorrow than there is today… :) )
Thank you for reading so far.

Just to tease you …
At Stavanger, the BCF had Lion, Queen Mary, Princess Royal, Panther, Repulse and Indefatigable.
A Second War equivalent could include Furious, Hood, Howe, and several ‘Fishers’… if it's that type of war.
… and Hood is the least capable ship there!
 
To *really* frustrate your readers in terms of 2nd GW naval combat, the alliances should be as the are in "The Sun, the stars and the Sickle" with the US, UK and Japan on the same side (China and Japan switch places in the alliances)
 
Sorry to say this story will now be on hold for a while.

I’ve long since run through my stock of material, and need to think about mapping out a more entertaining narrative than just a list of battleships (along with a few other projects I have in mind).
If that’s what it takes to continue the quality of this story, I think everyone will wait patiently. I have really enjoyed this, sts-200, and I hope the eventual second part is as awesome as the first.
 
If that’s what it takes to continue the quality of this story, I think everyone will wait patiently. I have really enjoyed this, sts-200, and I hope the eventual second part is as awesome as the first.
Seconded, and I also appreciate that you are telling us now, shortly after releasing the latest update as opposed to several weeks from now and dashing our hopes then. In the meantime, I expect a lot of speculation as to how the various countries will respond to the Fishers.
 
When you'll have your sequel ready, we'll all be there to read it, there's no doubt about that.
I have no worries that when you'll come back, what you're going to have for us will be as good as this first part.
Thank you for delivering us such a good timeline and good luck with your writings!
 
Thank you for reading so far.
No, thank YOU. We only keep coming back because of the story and the writing. Since I'm a learning-junkie, I particularly like that my knowledge of battleship/-cruiser/etc design/concepts/etc has increased by about 1000% since I found this thread - I'm up to 'know just enough to know that I don't know very much' now! ;)
 
Thank you for writing such a detailed and engaging timeline and all I would say is this a naval timeline, while an outline of why country A and country B is going to war is necessary I don't think there is a need to get sucked down into expanding the scope of the tl and accounting and explaining all the butterflies, it would become unmanageable. Turkey can go to war with Greece and Russia over mistreatment of the Greek minority or escalating border clashes etc. with Britain surreptitiously assisting the Turks for balance of power reasons without explaining who is the current Ottoman Grand Vizier or the precise make up of the British government.
Anyway I really look forward to the next update whenever it should come.
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
I'll follow the other guys - thank you very much for a story that had great sweeps of history and so much technical detail. The quality is shown by the number of fascinating discussions that followed.

I will disagree with you on one point though: lists of battleships are never boring! :biggrin:
 
Somewhat disappointing to see the timeline stop for this moment however, I appreciate knowing when to take a break and consolidate your information to make a better timeline in the future. With all of the strange and interesting developments that went on, I'm looking forward to see how this all turns out. Keep it up!
 
Has been an amazing timeline so far . Has been a great distraction in these uncertain times . Look forward to whenever it restarts
 
Thank you for what you have achieved so far.

You have turned me into a Battle-cruiser convert (which despite their foibles were very useful) and I have now have a far greater appreciation for the genius of Fisher whose insistence on building prototypes at a '1 to 1 scale' makes a great deal of sense in that it greatly pushes development and understanding for the follow on ships which OTL due to the WNT and 20 odd year battleship holiday did not happen - but that you have 'explored' in TTL.

I look forwards to you continuing this.
 
Top