I have a feeling that the Furious will see service as a gun armed ship for a very very short time and because EVERYONE else is going "REEEEEEEEEEEE!!!" in various accents because of her 18-inch guns and that the RN finds her to be kind of a hazard and oddball design that does not fit in anywhere. The barbette is only so wide, so you'd probably not be able to fit a triple mount in there without horribly crowding the guns and mounting, so dual 15 or probably dual 16-inch makes sense, but you've then got a 1,000 foot long ship that's less well armed and armoured than your latest 'battlecruisers' with the Rodney's.

So something tells me the Admiralty will chalk her and her two half sisters up as 'interesting experiments' from the fertile brain of Fisher, and then gut them and turn them into carriers.

You can then do what you want with the 15 and 18-inch guns, those 18-inchers would make fine coastal defence weapons in say..Singapore or His Majesties Naval Base Sydney for example if Sydney was turned into the big RN base in the region.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 94680

Just thinking about it, but any rearmament of Furious would be using the existing barbettes, so fitting twins is only going to save you the weight of the gun itself. The turret will be the same size regardless of whether there are two or three guns mounted in it. So any weight savings would be marginal at best.

That would be the simplest way of re-arming a ship on rebuild, for certain.

I’ve also spitballed the sums on replacing the guns and turrets. It doesn’t produce an awful lot in the way of weight saving.
 
I'd be a little careful with that data, some of those range numbers are far lower than are quoted in most reference books - although to be fair real-world ranges were always less than the theoretical maximum.
On a related point, Tiger actually had capacity for about 3,200t coal and 3,200t oil (although she never carried a full load of both).
Typically at this time British ships were designed with longer ranges than German ones, but less than American or Japanese vessels, as the UK had a far better network of bases and coaling stations.
British BCs after the Invincibles and before Hood were relatively heavy on fuel, partly because they weren't equipped with cruising turbines.

Oh, that's a big difference; and of course, the ranges are all theoretical, but my point was that certain people were right on their reserves about the battlecruisers capacities, and the wise of the economics
 

Deleted member 94680

Don't forget that the Furious has dual 18-inch mounts, not singles.

I took that into account, for the weight of the guns. The turrets is a bit more guesswork, but there won’t be that bigger a percentage of weight gain for a two-gun turret compared to a one-gun unit.

The end result was so small, the two-gun 18” turrets would have to be stupendously huge to make any serious weight savings if they were to be replaced with 15” twins.
 
Don't take me wrong, I love the battlecruiser, they are the most beautiful ships I ever saw, actually still think that they were the next logical step in warship design ( taking apart the follies). Just say, because of that, I haven't realized of the real handicaps involved
 

Deleted member 94680

Don't take me wrong, I love the battlecruiser, they are the most beautiful ships I ever saw, actually still think that they were the next logical step in warship design ( taking apart the follies). Just say, because of that, I haven't realized of the real handicaps involved

I can’t say for certain, but I would hazard a guess that the Anglo-German Naval Arms Race had an effect in regards to range. When it became a certainty that Germany - just across the North Sea - was the main target of the Fleet, range becomes less of a priority.
 
I can’t say for certain, but I would hazard a guess that the Anglo-German Naval Arms Race had an effect in regards to range. When it became a certainty that Germany - just across the North Sea - was the main target of the Fleet, range becomes less of a priority.


That's highly unlikely due to the RNs world wide commitments, even with the worldwide network of bases a minimum is necessary and that minimum wouldn't be a few days in the north sea.

With regards to TTL HMS Furious and the follow on Admiral and Rodney classes they will become the new baseline for any coming treaty between the naval powers, I can't see 35000 tons being the upper limit and no need to change turrets for a single glass cannon battle cruiser as it will be viewed as an outlier, and may even be held in contempt by other powers once it's fragile nature is understood.

I find it amusing that people question the DNC and British shipbuilders abilities to build a triple turret, this is the same group of people and companies that have revolutionised the naval arms race 3 times in this time line, HMS Dreadnought, oil fired 15" battleships and then the fast battleship concept I just under 10 years, a triple turret is well within the abilities of these people if the RN required it.
 
I can’t say for certain, but I would hazard a guess that the Anglo-German Naval Arms Race had an effect in regards to range. When it became a certainty that Germany - just across the North Sea - was the main target of the Fleet, range becomes less of a priority.

Not really as far as capital ships were concerned. For cruisers, yes (the C and D classes were very much built with the North Sea in mind), and everyone found their destroyers were too short ranged.
If anything, the design range of British capital ships increased during the war as machinery efficiency improved.
 

Deleted member 94680

That's highly unlikely due to the RNs world wide commitments, even with the worldwide network of bases a minimum is necessary and that minimum wouldn't be a few days in the north sea.

Tiger had a range of 3,300 miles, Queen Elisabeth 5,000.

No one is talking about the 500 miles between Portsmouth and Hamburg.

My point was range was not the obsession for design as it was not an overly critical factor of Britain’s strategic position in the way, say, it was for Japan.

Anyway, Britain’s network of worldwide stations alleviated the constraints of range as it allowed regular refuelling on any long range cruise.
 
I have a feeling that the Furious will see service as a gun armed ship for a very very short time and because EVERYONE else is going "REEEEEEEEEEEE!!!" in various accents because of her 18-inch guns and that the RN finds her to be kind of a hazard and oddball design that does not fit in anywhere. The barbette is only so wide, so you'd probably not be able to fit a triple mount in there without horribly crowding the guns and mounting, so dual 15 or probably dual 16-inch makes sense, but you've then got a 1,000 foot long ship that's less well armed and armoured than your latest 'battlecruisers' with the Rodney's.

So something tells me the Admiralty will chalk her and her two half sisters up as 'interesting experiments' from the fertile brain of Fisher, and then gut them and turn them into carriers.

You can then do what you want with the 15 and 18-inch guns, those 18-inchers would make fine coastal defence weapons in say..Singapore or His Majesties Naval Base Sydney for example if Sydney was turned into the big RN base in the region.
Can you say ?"post war aircraft carrier conversion"
Because I think you are spot on with what's going to happen to them in the future
 
Not really as far as capital ships were concerned. For cruisers, yes (the C and D classes were very much built with the North Sea in mind), and everyone found their destroyers were too short ranged.
If anything, the design range of British capital ships increased during the war as machinery efficiency improved.

Quite true actually, due to Imperial commitments and the increasing threat of other navies Fisher thought of the battlecruiser as a universal ship capable of being everywhere or at least a good number of them to make real naval presence in all the important points around the globe, I imagine that Machinery efficiency and range endurance was of prime importance.
 
Not totally impossible. During the war, there were official studies into whether the later Admirals could have 4x3, or 3-2-2-3, based on access to Russian and Italian designs (several Italian yards were British-owned).

I find it amusing that people question the DNC and British shipbuilders abilities to build a triple turret, this is the same group of people and companies that have revolutionised the naval arms race 3 times in this time line, HMS Dreadnought, oil fired 15" battleships and then the fast battleship concept I just under 10 years, a triple turret is well within the abilities of these people if the RN required it.

It's not that the RN couldn't do it, actually slapping together a three gun or triple turret isn't as much of a hurdle as you would think, even a backwater naval power like Austria-Hungary could do such a thing. The British designed a three gun turret fairly quickly after deciding they wanted one. The problem is making three gun/triple turrets that are satisfactory in service, which firstly the RN didn't particularly like the idea of moving from twins and secondly, had issues multiple times with three gun and up turrets. The same people who helped bring all of these important developments forward also managed to strip down and rush Nelson/Rodney's turrets into service which was a good few years in rectifying it's issues, KGV was as well a similarly rushed job.

Being able to do something is not the same thing as doing it well, and that's assuming everybody is onboard with using them.
 
Until it’s Over, Over There
Until it’s Over, Over There

On the 6th April 1917, the United States declared war on Germany. President Wilson had narrowly won re-election in 1916 with qualified promises of neutrality, but even before then, increasing numbers of Americans were demanding war. When Germany began a new campaign of unrestricted U-boat warfare in February, their calls became irresistible.
This was an immense moral and financial boost to the Allies, but its immediate practical effects were comparatively minimal. The USA had only a small army, although when the first regular US infantry and cavalry units arrived in France in June, they were greeted by vast cheering crowds, and had an effect on morale out of all proportion to the size of the force. The US Navy was far better prepared, and an American squadron reached Britain at the end of May, tilting the balance of maritime power even further in favour of the Allies. Six American battleships and a destroyer flotilla joined the Grand Fleet at Scapa Flow.
At Rosyth, the Battle Cruiser Fleet had been reinforced just a few weeks earlier by the Japanese Kongo and Hiei, under a deal that had been agreed in February. In return for the loan of the ships, the British government agreed to Japanese sovereignty over several ex-German Pacific islands.

In the words of Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg, ‘Germany is finished’. He had given up on the idea of winning the war at the end of 1916, ultimately leading to his dismissal. However, the Generals and Admirals were determined to continue, in the belief that stopping now would make the sacrifices of the past two and a half years meaningless.
Food shortages during the winter of 1916-17 had since pushed parts of the German population to the brink of starvation, even though the ‘Dutch trade’ had helped a little. With the USA now their enemy, the Germans no longer had any overseas suppliers whose merchants were prepared to look the other way, while the British cut off all but the most limited supplies to the Netherlands.
Despite that, there was still the hope that the war could be won in 1917, through a swift U-boat campaign that would bring Britain to her knees before America could mobilise.

For the surface fleet, the idea that the British Fleet could be ‘divided and conquered’ had been shown to be highly questionable. Repeated attempts to lure squadrons to their destruction had failed, and the High Seas Fleet had been lucky to escape more severe losses at Stavanger. Aside from guarding the Baltic, the only remaining plan for aggressive action was to stage a breakout by cruisers, raiders and submarine supply ships, which would be covered by the surface fleet. However, even the aggressive Admiral Hipper regarded the idea as suicidal and argued that the fleet was more valuable in deterring the British and in supporting new attacks in the Baltic.

To the south, Austria-Hungary was exhausted. Although the conquest of Serbia had avenged their murdered Archduke, their armies had suffered catastrophic losses against the Russians in the East, the Italians in the West and the Anglo-French-Serbian forces in the south. By the spring of 1917, their position was that they might be able to defend themselves through the summer, but neither resources nor morale would support any attack.

In Britain, the early results of the U-boat campaign had been a shock, but with reinforcements from the US Navy the system of convoys was expanded further. American destroyers were deployed to bases in Ireland, and the go-ahead attitude of the first American liaison officers helped to push other schemes forward. Within weeks of their declaration of war, the Americans began a vast construction programme, expanding their yards to mass-produce their own standard ship designs.
A British programme to speed construction by using standardised designs and prefabricated parts started under a new Controller of Shipping in May, and despite concerns from senior officers in the Fleet, resources were temporarily diverted away from building capital ships and cruisers towards repairing merchantmen and swiftly assembling light patrol craft.

In January, Admiral Bacon had been joined at Dover by Admiral Keyes, an aggressive officer with friends in both the fleet and government. Keyes’ first task was to improve the Dover Barrage, and his scheme quickly gathered support as the U-boat campaign began. By April, new minefields were being laid and surface patrols had been re-organised.
Between the start of the war and January 1917, only two U-boats had been sunk in the Straits. In February and March 1917, another two were sunk, while in April, two more were sunk and another two damaged. The Americans soon proved themselves keen to assist, as defeating the U-boats would make the Atlantic safer for their troopships. Six USN destroyers were sent to supplement Keyes’ forces in June, when a combination of surface attacks, mines, depth-charges and newly installed sound detection gear aboard Motor Launches succeeded in sinking four U-boats in and around the Dover Strait.
The success of this campaign was suspected by the Allies the following month, when only one submarine was sunk near Dover. However, the number of sightings and detections had dropped too, leading Keyes to believe that the Germans had re-routed many of their long-range boats. It was confirmed after the war that on 24th June, departing U-boats had been ordered to use the longer route around the north of Scotland.

Despite Keyes’ success in the Channel, and rarer successes by convoy escorts or Q-ships out at sea, German submarine construction kept pace with losses through the first six months of the year. Allied shipping losses only fell below 400,000 tons in August, when other actions disrupted the U-boat campaign.
 
Last edited:
Great update and it seems that things are still going OTL but that loan of the two Kongo's in exchange for ex German possessions could have some butterflies in the future. But in the short term, it nets the RN two very capable and well armed/protected battlecruisers that are roughly similar to the Lions/Puma but have a better and more extensive protection scheme and of course, 14-inch rifles. Also the pre-refit Kongo's were very handsome ships!

Haruna_at_Yokosuka_1916.jpg


The Convoys and Keys are good things and the Germans are now pretty much comically outnumbered at sea so this would probably deter any final grand sacrifice of their surface ships. And note that the BatDiv 9 isn't the most modern Standards but older ships armed with 12 and 14-inch guns in the more tradtional turret farm arrangements the USN had before they went for the Standards.
 
At Rosyth, the Battle Cruiser Fleet had been reinforced just a few weeks earlier by the Japanese Kongo and Hiei, under a deal that had been agreed in February. In return for the loan of the ships, the British government agreed to Japanese sovereignty over several ex-German Pacific islands.

Thank you so much.

Great update and it seems that things are still going OTL but that loan of the two Kongo's in exchange for ex German possessions could have some butterflies in the future. But in the short term, it nets the RN two very capable and well armed/protected battlecruisers that are roughly similar to the Lions/Puma but have a better and more extensive protection scheme and of course, 14-inch rifles. Also the pre-refit Kongo's were very handsome ships!

Very very handsome ships indeed, as for protection is just decent for ww1 standards, although his future reclassification as fast battleships its tricky, because is difficult take seriously a battleship with 8 inch of armor
 

Deleted member 94680

... the Battle Cruiser Fleet had been reinforced just a few weeks earlier by the Japanese Kongo and Hiei, under a deal that had been agreed in February. In return for the loan of the ships, the British government agreed to Japanese sovereignty over several ex-German Pacific islands...


German New Guinea (the northeastern part of the island of New Guinea) the other islands included New Pomerania, the Bismarck Archipelago, the northern Solomon Islands, the Caroline Islands, Palau, the Mariana Islands, the Marshall Islands and Nauru.

528-CD4-BD-37-A5-431-B-87-DE-2236-C6-AA0-E49.png


It’s the granting of (or agreeing to) sovereignty of the islands that’s interesting. If it goes through, they won’t be Mandates, they’ll be Japanese colonies, pure and simple. What resources can Japan draw from them? How does it affect the inter-War period if Japan has territory that much closer to Australia and the DEI?

According to wiki:
However, in every case the Mandatory power was forbidden to construct fortifications or raise an army within the territory of the mandate.

This won’t apply ITTL if Japan has sovereignty.
 
State of the Fleets – Capital Ships, May 1917
State of the Fleets – Capital Ships, May 1917

Royal Navy
Except where noted, ships are as OTL.
HMAS Australia is a ‘Lion’ class instead of an ‘I-class’
HMS Panther is a sister to Queen Mary, built instead of the real Tiger.
Five ‘Royal’ class battleships were built instead of the ‘R’ class. Still 8x15”, but capable of 23-24 knots and with a uniform 12” belt. Royal Oak of this class was sunk at Stavanger.
HMS Newfoundland is the ex-Chilean Latorre.
Courageous
and Glorious – 4x14” Mk.I, 15x4”. Otherwise as OTL.
Renown and Repulse – ‘super Tigers’. 8x15”, 16x4”, oil-fired, 31+ knots, but only a 6” belt.

Under Construction:
Furious – six ‘15” Type B’ (that’s still the official name), 12” inclined belt - but it’s narrow.
Hood – 8x15”, 31+ knots, wide 9” inclined belt. 850’ x 101’, so a little smaller than the real one.
Howe – improved Hood with 9-11” belt and more deck armour
Rodney, Hardy – Fast battleships. 8x16”, 12” inclined belt, 28+ knots (only just laid down).

War losses to date: Audacious (mine), Indomitable (torpedo), Inflexible (gunfire/fire), Queen Mary (gunfire/explosion), Royal Oak (gunfire & torpedo)

Furious.png
Furious

Renown3.png
Renown, Repulse

X2 mod SB.png
Royal George, Royal William, Royal Sovereign, Canada, Royal Oak (sunk).

hood 1920b.jpg
Hood, Howe


Imperial German Navy
All ships to date are designed as OTL.
The Hindenburg has been completed a little early. The British believe she has 14” guns, but she has 12” as OTL.
Bayern and Baden are fully operational – 8x15”, 9-13½” belt, 22+ knots.

Under Construction:
4 ‘Mackensens’ (Mackensen herself has been launched) - 8x13.8”, 8-12” belt, 28 knots.
3 ‘Ersatz Yorcks’ – 8x15”, 8-12” belt, 27 knots.
2 further ‘Bayerns’ (Sachsen has been launched, Wurttemburg due for launch May ’17)

War losses to date: Markgraf (gunfire/explosion), Derfflinger (gunfire/flooding)


United States Navy
All 14” ships are designed as OTL. The ‘Tennessee’ class will be delayed due to more urgent war needs.
The four ‘Maryland’ class have been ordered, to the OTL design. All four have been or are about to be laid down but are likely to be delayed.
A design for ‘Lexington’ has been submitted, with 10-14”, a 7” belt and capable of 32½ knots. Orders to lay down six ships have been suspended following the declaration of war.
Design of the six ships of the ‘South Dakota’ class is still ongoing.

A squadron consisting of USS New York, Wyoming, Arkansas, Utah, Delaware and Florida has been sent to join the Grand Fleet. The ‘South Carolinas’ may follow to fulfil other roles.


Austro-Hungarian Navy
Four 'Tegetthoff' class completed. The two survivors and the pre-dreadnought fleet are bottled up at Fiume.
No further war construction is planned.

War losses to date: Tegetthoff (gunfire), Viribus Unitis (gunfire/beached)


Imperial Japanese Navy
The ‘Settsu’ class and all 14” construction is as OTL.
Two ‘Nagato’ class ships have been ordered, to the OTL design.

Plans for a counter to the US 1916 Naval Bill are being prepared.
Japan has sent a pair of ‘Kongo’ class ships and a destroyer flotilla to Britain.


Italian Navy
Dante Aligheiri, ‘Cavour’ and ‘Duilio’ classes completed as OTL.
Deployed in the Adriatic and at Taranto.

Four ‘Caracciolo’ class under construction, but only Caracciolo herself prioritised for completion.

Losses to date: Da Vinci (explosion in harbour)


French Navy
‘Corbet’ and ‘Bretagne’ classes are all in service.
All other construction halted at the outbreak of war.

Most of the French Fleet is in the Med supporting operations against Austria. A heavy squadron is at Malta, partly to help guard the Otranto Barrage and partly to dissuade any potential Ottoman adventurism.
War losses to date consist of pre-dreadnoughts and semi-dreadnoughts of the ‘Danton’ class mined or torpedoed in the Adriatic.


Changes to Non-belligerent Navies
Netherlands – Due to complete the Piet Hien (ex-Greek Salamis), 8x14” guns, 10” belt, 23 knots.

Ottoman Empire – Reshadieh (OTL HMS Erin) and Osman (OTL HMS Agincourt), both delivered in 1914.
 
Last edited:
German New Guinea (the northeastern part of the island of New Guinea) the other islands included New Pomerania, the Bismarck Archipelago, the northern Solomon Islands, the Caroline Islands, Palau, the Mariana Islands, the Marshall Islands and Nauru.

528-CD4-BD-37-A5-431-B-87-DE-2236-C6-AA0-E49.png


It’s the granting of (or agreeing to) sovereignty of the islands that’s interesting. If it goes through, they won’t be Mandates, they’ll be Japanese colonies, pure and simple. What resources can Japan draw from them? How does it affect the inter-War period if Japan has territory that much closer to Australia and the DEI?

According to wiki:
However, in every case the Mandatory power was forbidden to construct fortifications or raise an army within the territory of the mandate.

This won’t apply ITTL if Japan has sovereignty.

Wow, that's a big chunk of territory, hope that satisfy their colonial appetites for some time
 
Top