1906 armoured cruisers built for the Royal Navy

[JSB]

What if the RN cancelled the Lord Nelsons pre dreadnaughts as they would be irrelevant with HMS Dreadnaught now showing the new way forward.

The 12 inch guns get used for dreadnaught (as OTL) but what to do with the 9.2s ?

So somebody comes up with the great idea of making a class of fast armoured to follow on from the Minotaur class !



8x 9.2' (4 x 2)
10x 6' (10x1)
turbines for fast speed

Still WIP... any coment welcome . (and I know that the QE style layout is a bit modern for them but just cant bring myself to think of a worse one, can you ?)

JSB

[eltf177]

I like!

[Hood]

I've often played around with the idea of a 9.2in armed Invincible. I'd never thought about superfiring guns though. Perhaps a tad early for 1906 but I like the looks of this and the light-cruiser style secondaries in open mounts with shields.

[JSB]

Yes super firing is my only reservation about it . (It would easily work but would they accept it ?)

I like the 8 x 9.2 as it should defeat any armoured cruiser and allows you to get even faster (or cheaper) and stops anybody thinking that fighting BBs would be a good idea .

I had a through about using the single 9.2s as wing turrets giving,
A (twin) 2xB (not super firing singles on wings) X and Y (on same level one forward and one rear not super firing) and other layouts.
This only give 7 gun broadsides and just thinking up worse ways to do it doesn't make me very interested .

Using 6 inch in shields is also a bit cheating (not that it couldn't be done with the displacement saved and they where in service so available) but does give it a better capability IMO.

JSB

[eltf177]

Yes super firing is my only reservation about it . (It would easily work but would they accept it ?)

I like the 8 x 9.2 as it should defeat any armoured cruiser and allows you to get even faster (or cheaper) and stops anybody thinking that fighting BBs would be a good idea .

I had a through about using the single 9.2s as wing turrets giving,
A (twin) 2xB (not super firing singles on wings) X and Y (on same level one forward and one rear not super firing) and other layouts.
This only give 7 gun broadsides and just thinking up worse ways to do it doesn't make me very interested .

Using 6 inch in shields is also a bit cheating (not that it couldn't be done with the displacement saved and they where in service so available) but does give it a better capability IMO.

JSB

I hate wing turrets, especially cross-deck firing turrets; they just give a ship an asymmetrical look I can't stand. This looks a lot better.

Agree with your comments on the 6-inch, although at this time the RN was still sticking with the 4-inch. Can you do a version with those in casemates, those deck mounts just look a bit odd...

[JSB]

re 6 inch secondary's. (BL 6 inch Gun Mark VII in single deck mounted shields)

I looked at the previous RN ships,

AC - 7.5' on deck
PD - 6 inch - 3 inch
Dreadnought - 3 inch
Invincible - 4 inch
Later BB/BCs - 4 inch then 6 inch casements or on deck

The BL 6 inch Gun Mark VII in single deck mounted shields (1901–72 !) isn't therefore at all impossible (all you need to do is not be fisher, but as you have gone for 9.2 rather than 12 you probably already are ).

My thinking was that this AC would have guns on deck like the other ACs but would drop down to 6 inch as 7.5 where not needed with all the 9.2s in turrets ?

JSB

[Krakatoa]

Howdy JSB,

I like the look of these cruisers. Unfortunately they would have only had a 6 to 12 months of dominance that would end once the French (Renan/Quinet), Japanese (Ibuki/Tsukuba) and German (Blucher) big armoured cruisers were completed. Even the large US AC's would have been a threat. The reason the Invincibles were such a revolution is that the British had managed to dupe the other navies that they would be armed with 9.2" (like your ship is) rather than the 12" they did appear with. 1906 would also be a couple of years early for these, the Minotaurs and Invincibles you are replacing all completed in 1908.

Until the completion of the Elswick pattern E 9.4/9.2 sleeved guns of 1917-18, the UK's current 9.2's as fitted to the AC's were inferior to the German 8.2". The German 5.9" was also seen as superior to the equivalent UK 6". If you want your ship to be better than its competitors you really need to go to the 10"-12". My favourite is the 10" (built for Russian Rurik II, and Japanese semi-dreadnoughts) which was a decent gun and was superior to the German 8.2". If fitted to Invincible the lighter/smaller sized twin 10" turret would allow you a bit more armour than the original Invincible.

[Hood]

Good call Nigel. Calibre progression was inevitable and a mid-step to 10in is an interesting move and one that could be very feasible, though probably without superfiring.
Secondaries are tricky, with the 9.2in I think 4in would be suitable as an anti-destroyer weapon but if you go to 10in perhaps 6in would be a better fit despite the lower rate of fire? Light cruisers had a mix of 6in and 4in in this period, a mix here might be very wasteful however. Hmmm, if it were me drawing this I'd probably stick to the 4in.

[smurf]

Late again, but I'm still finding my way around to things I'm interested in.
This thread may be a case of great minds think alike, even a century apart. Folk may be interested in this handwritten memo from Watts (DNC) to the Controller of the Navy, 26 Nov 1907.
"Herewith are legend particulars for the new Armoured Cruiser of 25 knots speed and 9.2inch armament, which was discussed and generally approved at the meeting of the Sea Lords on the 12th November, compared with the corresponding particulars for the 'Invincible'."
Other notes from Watts indicate that the ship would have been 14,000tons with 8x9.2in and 16 x 4in arranged as Invincible.
Jellicoe, then Director of Naval Ordnance, had wanted the 9.2inch because it gave twice the bursting charge and much greater armour penetration than the 7.5inch, while the 12in was not needed, making ships too expensive to be built in numbers to match all 'existing or contemplated armoured cruisers except one new German cruiser which the Invincibles outmatched'. He wrote "Other recent cruisers carrying an armament superior to one of 9.2in guns such as the Japanese vessels and the 'Rurik' have not sufficient speed to become a menace to the ships under discussion"
In the end, 1907 was not a good year financially for initial planning of new large warship projects, with only Indefatigable and Neptune laid down in 1909.
PS there was also a cheaper 13,000ton version with three twin 9.2in turrets all on the centreline.
PPS I found a more complete memo with a proper spec dated 26.11.07 (it also said 'the attached tracings', not with it)
562ft oa x 74ft x 25ft mean draft; Displacement 15,750tons; range 8000 Nmiles; armour basis 6in, 2985tons - Invincible 3460tons
The wing turrets were to be en echelon to allow cross deck firing. Guns L50, not the L45 as in Minotaur.

[seeker36340]

Interesting to see the changeover completely from hull-mounted secondary armament. That is a big improvement. What sort of speed is projected?