lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964 
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Oct 9, 2020 17:41:21 GMT
So why did battlecruiser HMS Incomparable, a name given by Admiral John "Jackie" Fisher which was suggested in 1915 never being build and would she be a good desgin. Image I: Artist's Impression - Incomparable behind, with Dreadnought foreground
 Image II: what if drawing of a Incomparable Class battlercruiser |
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Feb 13, 2021 23:09:34 GMT
So why did battlecruiser HMS Incomparable, a name given by Admiral John "Jackie" Fisher which was suggested in 1915 never being build and would she be a good desgin. Image I: Artist's Impression - Incomparable behind, with Dreadnought foreground
Image II: what if drawing of a Incomparable Class battlercruiser
The sketches show a handsome ship (I like the Rodney-esque camouflage painting), but eggshells armed with hammer taken to the extreme. Or maybe sledge hammers in this case....
My thoughts,
|
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Feb 14, 2021 7:40:40 GMT
Why?
There was a war on and Fisher resigned in 1915; he was thought to be too old and eccentric to warrant bringing him back, again.
With him went through greatest advocate of the lightly armoured and heavily armed battlecruiser.
On a practical level, there would not have been many facilities that could build a 1000ft long ship or dock her afterwards. To build infrastructure on that level would take perhaps 60-70 million pounds and quite a long time. As such, it isn’t a good design on the level of sheer practicality. Her armour was deficient for a ship of that size and time.
Building 20” guns is the least problematic part of the design for me, as there was capacity to build guns of that size; there was an interesting account on the physical limitation of what could be built on Warships Projects many years ago.
The more interesting “never were” of the RN in that period is the K2 battlecruiser. Far more potential for reworking.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 14, 2021 8:26:20 GMT
Why? The more interesting “never were” of the RN in that period is the K2 battlecruiser. Far more potential for reworking. What about these then which designs where made in 1921. K2 885 feet, 53,100 tons, 144,000 shp, 8 x 18" 16 x 6" K3 885 feet, 52,000 tons 144,000 shp, 9 x 18" 12 x 6" J3 860 feet, 43,100 tons 151,000 shp 9 x 15" 12 x 6" I3 925 feet, 51,750 tons 180,000 shp 9 x 18" 16 x 6" H3c 860 feet, 46,500 tons 180,000 shp 6 x 18" 16 x 6" Set I of Battlecruiser designs of the 1921 RN construction program Set II of Battlecruiser designs of the 1921 RN construction program Set III of Battlecruiser designs of the 1921 RN construction program |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Feb 14, 2021 8:35:41 GMT
Yes, that is the one I was referring to. The belt could be thicker and inclined like the G3s and the engines could have been more powerful to get above 30kts, but it is the most conventional of the series.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 14, 2021 8:48:52 GMT
Yes, that is the one I was referring to. The belt could be thicker and inclined like the G3s and the engines could have been more powerful to get above 30kts, but it is the most conventional of the series. Why not go for the K3 then, seems to be bigger then the K2.  |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Feb 14, 2021 9:08:44 GMT
It isn’t just a matter of size; indeed, as explained in my first post, the larger the ship, the harder it is to dock. The armour is also not ideal.
Then we get into the issue of twin turrets vs triples. The advantage of triples is that you can fit more firepower into a shorter space, thus lessening the length of an armour belt, among other requirements. Twins are lighter and 4x2 has one big advantage over 3x3: losing a turret or having it out of operations results in a loss of 25% of gunpower, rather than 33%.
The G3’s have a very big reputation as a very powerful design, but their layout and gun choice was informed ultimately by economy. If the RN didn’t have the same dock limitations, then something like a faster K2 with better protection would be arguably the Andrew’s first preference. There is also a lot of space for anti-aircraft guns, but that is a matter for the future and didn’t enter calculations at the time.
It is somewhat ironic that the time to build up the docks and infrastructure is before WW1 and before ships even reached that size. After the war, there are other priorities.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 14, 2021 9:12:41 GMT
It isn’t just a matter of size; indeed, as explained in my first post, the larger the ship, the harder it is to dock. The armour is also not ideal. Then we get into the issue of twin turrets vs triples. The advantage of triples is that you can fit more firepower into a shorter space, thus lessening the length of an armour belt, among other requirements. Twins are lighter and 4x2 has one big advantage over 3x3: losing a turret or having it out of operations results in a loss of 25% of gunpower, rather than 33%. The G3’s have a very big reputation as a very powerful design, but their layout and gun choice was informed ultimately by economy. If the RN didn’t have the same dock limitations, then something like a faster K2 with better protection would be arguably the Andrew’s first preference. There is also a lot of space for anti-aircraft guns, but that is a matter for the future and didn’t enter calculations at the time. It is somewhat ironic that the time to build up the docks and infrastructure is before WW1 and before ships even reached that size. After the war, there are other priorities. Looking at all these post the Fisher design is the lightens in the 1921 RN designs. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Feb 14, 2021 11:36:52 GMT
It isn’t just a matter of size; indeed, as explained in my first post, the larger the ship, the harder it is to dock. The armour is also not ideal. Then we get into the issue of twin turrets vs triples. The advantage of triples is that you can fit more firepower into a shorter space, thus lessening the length of an armour belt, among other requirements. Twins are lighter and 4x2 has one big advantage over 3x3: losing a turret or having it out of operations results in a loss of 25% of gunpower, rather than 33%. The G3’s have a very big reputation as a very powerful design, but their layout and gun choice was informed ultimately by economy. If the RN didn’t have the same dock limitations, then something like a faster K2 with better protection would be arguably the Andrew’s first preference. There is also a lot of space for anti-aircraft guns, but that is a matter for the future and didn’t enter calculations at the time. It is somewhat ironic that the time to build up the docks and infrastructure is before WW1 and before ships even reached that size. After the war, there are other priorities. Looking at all these post the Fisher design is the lightens in the 1921 RN designs.
If you mean his Incomparable that would be largely because he left it with very little armour. Fisher tended to prefer speed as the best protection for ships rather than armour, which can be lethal if/when you get hit. Plus it leaves you vulnerable to lighter units while your trying to hit the big guys. Agree with 1bigrich, description of them.
As simon darkshade, says size is a problem as well as an advantage. Such huge ships are very costly and also need a lot of facilities, many of which would need to be constructed at considerable cost in themselves. There is an argument for more, smaller ships as both being easier to deploy and also being able to be in more locations when needed.
This isn't just at the very large scale. You often see the suggestion in AH post WWI scenario's that the original I class HMAS Australia be replaced by one of the Lion's say but that would be very costly for Australia as the I class were the largest ships their facilities could handle. Hence they would have to increase their facilities considerably to operate such a ship.
Remember as well that while those designs were referred to as battle cruisers they were to all intents and purposes fast battleships, with very good protection for their magazines and engines as well as strong deck and gun protection.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 14, 2021 11:40:00 GMT
Looking at all these post the Fisher design is the lightens in the 1921 RN designs. If you mean his Incomparable that would be largely because he left it with very little armour. Fisher tended to prefer speed as the best protection for ships rather than armour, which can be
Was that not a good thing then, speed over armor. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Feb 14, 2021 12:04:09 GMT
If you mean his Incomparable that would be largely because he left it with very little armour. Fisher tended to prefer speed as the best protection for ships rather than armour, which can be
Was that not a good thing then, speed over armor.
Not really. Superior speed is very useful both strategically and also tactically, in having the ability in many cases to decide whether to fight or not. However without adequate armour your very vulnerable to catastrophic damage - classic example being Hood at Denmark Straits where the probable cause of the loss is a shell penetrating a weak spot in the armour - or even lesser damage that could mean a mission failure or possibly being damaged enough that your caught later by other enemy forces even if you win the initial clash. Plus of course, although it needs some foresight, air power, or subs in an ambush situation, make lightly protected large ships increasingly vulnerable as time goes on.
To be fair to Fisher one other reason why he argued for fairly lightly protected ships was that he suggested that all capital ships would be obsolete within IIRC a decade [think this was about the start of WWI] due to developments of aircraft and subs. In that he was rather over optimistic for air power especially but by the end of WWII the uses of traditional capital ships without air security was very limited.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 14, 2021 12:12:33 GMT
due to developments of aircraft and subs. In that he was rather over optimistic for air power especially but by the end of WWII the uses of traditional capital ships without air security was very limited. Land bases aircraft ore was Fisher speaking about aircraft carriers which was not a thing in 1915. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Feb 14, 2021 12:22:40 GMT
due to developments of aircraft and subs. In that he was rather over optimistic for air power especially but by the end of WWII the uses of traditional capital ships without air security was very limited. Land bases aircraft ore was Fisher speaking about aircraft carriers which was not a thing in 1915.
To be honest I'm not sure. The only sea based a/c in 1915 were seaplanes operating from carriers, which had to use a crane to place them on the water to take off then pick them up again when they landed in the sea. Which apart from the limited development of a/c at the time posed further problems. Such a/c couldn't land/take off in any rough weather, the floats of the seaplanes restricted their performance further and since the carrier - and probably some supporting ships - would have to slow/stop to pick up the seaplanes they would be vulnerable to attack, especially by subs. However he was a naval man so he could have been thinking they would develop quickly or of land based naval a/c, but suspect the latter as the former would be a huge leap. Remembering that until 1-1-1918 when the RAF was formed the navy completely controlled the FAA which includes a lot of land based a/c.
|
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Feb 14, 2021 12:57:13 GMT
K2 885 feet, 53,100 tons, 144,000 shp, 8 x 18" 16 x 6" K3 885 feet, 52,000 tons 144,000 shp, 9 x 18" 12 x 6" J3 860 feet, 43,100 tons 151,000 shp 9 x 15" 12 x 6" I3 925 feet, 51,750 tons 180,000 shp 9 x 18" 16 x 6" H3c 860 feet, 46,500 tons 180,000 shp 6 x 18" 16 x 6" Set I of Battlecruiser designs of the 1921 RN construction program
I have always been of the opinion K2 and K3 were the best designs, world-beaters for their time.
J3 always seemed to me like the ship the RN SHOULD have gone for, a chance to do Hood right....
Thanks for the images, those are our of Raven's and Roberts' British Battleships, IIRC...
Regards,
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 14, 2021 13:07:01 GMT
K2 885 feet, 53,100 tons, 144,000 shp, 8 x 18" 16 x 6" K3 885 feet, 52,000 tons 144,000 shp, 9 x 18" 12 x 6" J3 860 feet, 43,100 tons 151,000 shp 9 x 15" 12 x 6" I3 925 feet, 51,750 tons 180,000 shp 9 x 18" 16 x 6" H3c 860 feet, 46,500 tons 180,000 shp 6 x 18" 16 x 6" Set I of Battlecruiser designs of the 1921 RN construction programI have always been of the opinion K2 and K3 were the best designs, world-beaters for their time. J3 always seemed to me like the ship the RN SHOULD have gone for, a chance to do Hood right.... Thanks for the images, those are our of Raven's and Roberts' British Battleships, IIRC...
Regards,
Have created a seprate thread called: Royal Navy 1921 Battleships and Battlecruisers designs as i felt that we where drifting away from the 1915 Fisher design, unless that design first into the 1921 designs. |
|
