Shipbucket

With the Chilean battleship Almirante Cochrane slated to be converted to HMS Eagle, this left a pool of 10x14" guns available for placement on another ship. As a personal design I postulate they go to arm a 3rd Renown class battlecruiser. I fit 9x14" in three triple turrets. This requires a slightly broader hull to take the triple 14" in place of the twin 15". Laid down later than the earlier two ships, the superstructure was entirely of different design, reflecting the Courageous class ships rather than the Renowns. The Australian Government put in toward the cost of the new ship and named the ship HMAS Australis on launching. (thanks to Hood for allowing me to use his drawings)



Taken in hand in 1937 for rebuilding along the lines of the other Renowns and Queen Elizabeth class ships. The major difference between my PD and real life is the fitting of the 4.5" guns into altered twin turrets with 80 degree elevation instead of the circular twin 4.5"BD with their in deck mounting. Returning to duty in 1940.

Nice, A few Qs ?

- Why not 15 inch ?
- How much bigger will it be than R&R ? almost Hood sized ?
- How does the WNT/LNT change to keep her ?

JSB

JSB:
15" - there were not enough spare turrets left to build another BC, besides as I say there are the spare 14". 9x14 gives as good a weight of broadside as 6x15. Other factor is you are more likely to achieve a hit with 9 guns than you are with 6. Only down side is the smaller shell. Remember the 14" was good enough for KGV 20 years later.
Size: same length, I have added 6 foot of beam for the triple versus twin turrets.
WNT/LNT: I would not see any change, probably lose an R class BB to a training ship around the 1935/36 20 year limit.

Oh dear boyo, think you've strayed into my area

I'm assuming Australia didn't get the Indefatigable Class ship HMAS Australia of 1911?


This also might be of interest http://www.navyhistory.org.au/a-battles ... 1937-49/2/ Which suggested the Renown or a similar R class ship for purchase in the late 30's


One problem I see is until, 1944 there is no repair facility in Australia capable of handling her length, the Captain Cook Drydock being the one I'm thinking of, the ones at Cockatoo island (Alfread Graving dock is too small and the ship would run aground before she entered, the Cockatoo Island docks may have been lengthened 50+m but it would have resulted in one being shortened to fit)

_________________
Work list(Current)
Miscellaneous|Victorian Colonial Navy|Murray Riverboats|Colony of Victoria AU|Project Sail-fixing SB's sail shortage
How to mentally pronounce my usernameRow-(as in a boat)Don-(as in the short form of Donald)Dough-(bread)
"Loitering on the High Seas" (Named after the good ship Rodondo)
There's no such thing as "nothing left to draw" If you can down 10 pints and draw, you're doing alright by my standards

Howdy Rodondo,

I cant see any reason why the HMAS Australia (1911) could not still exist. I could have named my ship HMS Redoubtable or any of the other 'R' names available but I had it in mind for a future AU that Australia could have an R class BC to back up the CA's and CL's. I named it Australis to slightly differentiate it from Australia, the other name contender I had was Oceania as a 'regional' name that could be applied to a Capital Ship without going to a State or Capital name.

I don't see the lack of a dockyard in Oz at 1918 a problem as they would have a few years to extend or build facilities to take the ship. The Australis could stay in European waters till the end of 1919, get a service and oil change at a UK dock before returning to Australian waters. That would give Australia 2 1/2 years to get something ready.

I have in mind something like Australis-v-Kongo some time in 1942. Should be interesting.

I like this, very sleek!

My question re 15 inch was really why not triple 15 inch ?

I don't think triple 14 inch weight the same as twin 15inch ! (just using spring sharp gives a weight of 863t v 690t both with no armourer in 1916) So I don't think you can just swap without totally redoing the hull to a hood sized one.

The cost of designing a new turret (and a triple at that ! 1st in the RN) would be a lot and slow the project down.

Didn't the British have spare 15 inch turrets ? (monitors, LLC, vanguard etc.)

Would Britain be able to build a new ship design during the war, why not just work on finishing more admiral class ?

JSB

JSB:

Why not triple 15", mainly because that would have required a ship of Hood size. Not only the guns but the speed of the hull to keep the speed at 30-32 knots with the extra breadth required of the hull with the twin-v-triple turret barbette widths. Also the type of machinery available in 1916-1920 meant that to produce the 30-32 knots on a Hood hull required a huge set of machinery that needed the larger hull to contain it. Also to create the triple 15" would have required ordering even more 15" guns. The 14" guns are already on hand ready to go.

The extra weight and size of the triple 14" over the twin 15" is the reason for the increased breadth of the hull. The ship does not need to be any longer than it already is.

The spare 15" turrets fitted to the monitors were already in service before this ship was laid down and they were proving valuable as they were.

The 'R' class battlecruiser is not a new design. Britain had two ships of the class about 75% complete when this ship is ordered/laid down. Making a modification to an existing design to take the triple turrets is not a huge change.

Why not more Admiral class? The Admirals had not been started when this ship was laid down. Being more in advance of the Admirals this ship would probably have received priority as being nearer to completion.

The British completed the first two R class in 18 months and I've allowed 2 years for this ship for the new turrets and other design changes necessary. The UK was really on a construction frenzy during 1915-1917 and they completed ships faster than anybody till the US building programme of 1942-44.

Remember the Kongo's and HMS Tiger with 8x14" were nearly a 100 feet shorter than the R class.

I just think (and in not a expert) that,
I think the weight of triples will be much bigger than twins, (as in just Gun Weights 14' 86.110kgx3=258.33mt v 15' 101,605kgx2= 203mt) so 20% more without thinking about anything else. This will force massive redesigns.(taking time, slowing speed if wider etc.)

I think that the turrets will take the time to build not just the guns so going for triple 14 (when the 14s started in twins) will not save time v building more 15inch twins.
Why not just build another one with twin 15inch ? (apart from not making a nice new drawing, and I do like your ship )

JSB

The triple 14" was not a new design. The Vickers company already had designed one for the Russian Borodino class battlescruisers in 1913.

The triple 14" (Russian) was 1400 tons. Twin 15" (UK) was 800 tons. A difference of 1800 tons over three turrets. The extra breadth of hull will take care of that easily.

I keep saying, "the 14" guns for this ship have already been completed". They are ready to go. Building more 15" would add more to the building time, not less. The reason Refit and Repair were completed so quickly is that they had all the equipment assembled for the extra two R class BB's that they replaced. Their guns were also ready to go.