Shipbucket

What should have been if the Admiralty hadn't got cold feet and had carried on from the QEs towards the future of fast battleships, rather than worry about coal and cost.

(Hope Hood doesn't mind to much, I couldn't resist his beautiful drawing)



JSB

Howdy JSB,

I have always liked the concept of the Repulse/Renown being an extension of the QE's design of fast battleship, rather than a battlecruiser whose armour was worse than the preceding Tiger.

The 'R's were just an extension of the battleline ships of the Iron Duke type armed with 15", so speed and armour were kept the same. Having the 'R's with more speed would have been a waste as they would still have been tied to the battlelines maximum cruising speed. The Grand Fleet had one aim in WW1, bring the German fleet to battle where the GF's overwhelming firepower could carry the day. To do that required the GF to remain a cohesive unit and not be splintered by having 3 or 4 groups moving at differing speeds. The High Seas Fleets aim was to cut off a small portion of the Grand Fleet and overwhelm it so when the final confrontation took place the fleets would be more equal or the balance tilted the HSF's way.

Looking at your ship, the length at 724 feet is quite large when compared to the original 'R's (624) and QE's (640). Without knowing the stats you have given the ship it is difficult to make a comparison. Though I would note that Nelson was 710 feet. Looking at your ship and placing the 'R' class image over the top I can see that the original focsle and poop decks remain the same size as the original. A slightly longer forecastle might help to achieve any greater speed, which I can assume the greater propulsion power would give the ship. The 'R's and QE's were both quite 'wet' forward and tended to plunge in seas of more than moderate levels. This made operating the main guns a bit more difficult in rougher weather, and the casemates kept getting flooded. Thanks should be given that Jutland was fought in easy sea conditions.

24x6" is a mighty powerful secondary battery. Maybe you could space the casemates out a bit more and have a few less. 20 would match the Agincourt which had the biggest battery.

Other than what I have noted above there is nothing wrong with the concept, that's without knowing what values in speed you are trying to achieve with what engine power. Tiger (704ft) on about 32,000 tons made 28/29 knots with 100,000shp if that gives you something to work with.

The drawing is nicely executed and it is difficult to see where you have added the extra 100 feet.

Regards
Nigel

I'd love to see a WW2 version.

_________________
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich." -Napoleon Bonaparte
"Dulce bellum inexpertis." (War is sweet to those who have never fought.)

Having made it all by eye (from a mix of QE+ Hood+ R) I'm now siting down and Springsharping (yes probably the wrong way round to do it .

724ft x 95 x 29 gives me a reasonable 35,000t (just so I don't butterfly the WNT later ) With 100,000 SHP I get 27.5KN from spring sharp. (I will have to have a look what engine power I can fit in and have a think) I was just wanting 'fast' where fast = at least QE speed or better to join the slow BCs.
I was thinking that a fast wing would have to protect itself from DDs without much support. (and makes lots of tonnage for 4.5s later )
Yes its not like I did these so I can rebuild them in the 30s better than a QE .

My plan was that the RN built 5 of these instead of the OTL Rs (5 BB + 2 BC)

JSB

Very beautiful!

I too would like to see the various upgrades/rebuilds these received over the years.

Playing Devil's Advocate, surely the fast 'R' would be the Admiral Class?
I believe there were some discussions about fast battleships to replace the planned 1914 ships, of course those vessels became the R&R we know today.

Comparing with the Hood is interesting. The aft turrets are roughly in the same location but the Hood's after funnels is where your frefunnel is and Hood's forefunnel is where your superstructure is. A and B turrets are where your forecastle is. Of course Hood in longer and finer, but this shows how massive the engine spaces are in getting ships this big going fast. So my advice is more engine room/ boiler room space and perhaps shrinking the bridge tower back to normal proportions. Perhaps bigger funnels too?

16x1 6in should be an ample secondary armament, 24 seems overkill. Have look at Hood for spacing options. Of course casemates are actually quite poor so perhaps ditch them and go for upper deck mounts like Hood?

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft

In addition to the comments that Hood made

I honestly think that a better protected and ergo slower Admiral sounds like what you're looking for... Rather than trying to improve upon the basic QE design. 8x15 and 16-20x 5.5" pedestals would seem ideal too.

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire

Yes I will go and play with it.

My plan was for a ship that could have been built instead of the Rs, So I was trying to keep to similar systems as on the Rs but just stretched about 1/2ish as much as Hood. (rather than lots of hindsight improvements)

JSB

Made a few changes, hope it a bit improved.

JSB

Edit have modified the 6 inch guns

Immensely beautiful ship, but I would join the above and recommend using the above deck 6" guns (as mounted on HMS Hood) and not the casemates guns.

_________________
Thank you Kim for the crest

"Never fear to try on something new. Remember that the Titanic was built by professionals, and the Ark by an amateur"