HMS Courageous (BC-1917)
For this drawing(s) I decided to see how far I could push a 13.5" battlecruiser.
Give the ship twelve guns, this would be a 50% increase over the Lion/Tiger
types. 32,000 ton standard displacement the same as the Renown class in size.
Armour would have been the same 9-10" belt of the earlier ships. A ship
with triple 13.5" would have the barbette size that would take a twin 15". That
would mean that I could probably put 8x15" as an armament. The moment you have a
Battlecruiser with 8x15", everybody thinks 'Hood'. So what would the difference
be, between my Courageous and the RN's Hood? The Hood was conceived as a
battlecruiser based on a standard 36,000 ton displacement with 8x15", but most
of all with a specified speed of 32 knots. The RN already had the Queen
Elizabeth class with 8x15" but at 28,000 tons and 24 knots. So what happened to
the Hood? After Jutland, a further 6,000 tons of armour and stiffening was
worked into the design, to now give the ship the 42,000 ton standard
displacement. But why did the Hood have to be so big? It was the speed specified
at 32 knots that was the problem. All ships have a natural speed of hull and a
horsepower figure to achieve that speed. To make a hull go faster more-larger
propulsion systems have to be fitted which can require a larger hull to contain
it. That is what happened with the Hood. To achieve the 32 knots specified for
the 36,000 ton hull, the Hood had required 144,000 shp (shaft horsepower). To
contain the guns, armour, and propulsion systems, required an 860 by 108 foot
hull. That was huge by those days standards. If the RN had specified 29/30 knots
speed they could have got away with an 800x100-104 foot hull with a 110,000shp
propulsion system. Which is close to what my Courageous class turned out to be.
While being a large ship with a good armament, the entry of the 15" gun made
it virtually obsolete and the ship would never have got off the drawing board
unless some South American country wanted something with lots of guns to match
some other 13.5" gunned ship they had to keep the gun size the same. Ease of
supply for shells. Armed with 15" guns, It would be a replacement for the
Renown, and Hood types, though I would prefer to have an uprated Queen Elizabeth
type, bigger with more speed, a true fast battleship and dispense with the
battlecruiser entirely.
I like this ship as an alternative to the R's and Admirals, better armed and
armoured than the R's and much more practical than the Admirals.
Displacement | 32,250 tons standard, 36,700 tons full load | 34,000 tons standard, 39,500 tons full load | ||
Length | 815 ft | |||
Breadth | 96 ft (106 over bulges) | |||
Draught | 28 ft | |||
Machinery | 4 shaft Steam turbines 110,000shp | 4 shaft Geared turbines 120,000shp | ||
Speed | 28 knots | 28 Knots | ||
Range | 7000 miles at 14 knots | 8500 miles at 14 knots | ||
Armour | 10" side, 3" deck, (9"/6"/5" turrets 13.5") | 10" side, 5" deck, (12"/8"/5" turrets 15") | ||
Armament | As completed Courageous 12 x 13.5" (4x2) 21 x 4" (7x3) 2x4" AA (2x1) |
As completed Glorious 8 x 15" (4x2) 21 x 4" (7X3) 2 x 4" AA (2x1) |
Courageous to 1939 12 x 13.5" (4x2) 16 x 5.25" (10x2) 64 x 2pd (8x8) 28 x 20mm (28x1) |
Glorious to 1940 8 x 15" (4x2) 24 x 4.5" (12x2) 64 x 2pd (8x8) 40 x 20mm (40x1) |
Aircraft | nil | nil | 3 | 3 |
Torpedoes | 8 x 21" (8x1-fixed) | 8 x 21" (8x1-fixed) | nil | nil |
Complement | 1350-1450 | 1500-1550 | ||
Notes | HMS Courageous, 06/1917 - Sunk by Bismarck at Battle of
Denmark Strait. HMS Glorious, 07/1917 - Sunk by Tirpitz at Battle of North Cape. |
So, what would the same ships look like with a WW2 rebuild. Lets have a look.
13.5" Armed HMS Courageous with rebuilds and refits to 1940.
15" armed HMS Glorious with rebuilt bits through to 1940.