Jump to content


Photo

An Armored Cruiser Killer


  • Please log in to reply
No replies to this topic

#1 W. Clark

W. Clark

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 604 posts
  • LocationOregon, out in the sticks

Posted 15 September 2015 - 01:34 AM

A Redesign of the Minotaur Class Armored Cruiser

 

Concept

Great Britain as an island unable to feed itself depended on trade to sustain itself as well maintain its economy. The armored cruiser was intended to be both a fast wing to the battle line and for trade protection. I do not agree with the fast wing concept (not that I expect RN Admirals heed my opinions) but trade protection against other nation’s cruisers was another matter entirely.

What IMHO was needed was a cruiser with the range, protection, firepower and speed that would allow it to catch any other navy’s armored cruisers and destroy them at a range that would be a slaughter as opposed to a fight. The Minotaur class as designed had plenty of firepower, but in a way that wasted a huge amount of tonnage and compromised the design in protection and above all in speed.

 

I intend to show that existing technology and the tonnage in the actual design allowed for a ship with a uniform heavy battery of eight 9.2” in four twin turrets with the B and X positions super imposed; a secondary battery of twelve 4” shielded guns (6 per side) on the upper deck for torpedo boat protection; 7” belt, bulkheads and 8” turret armor and a sustainable sea speed of 30 knots. Such a cruiser when coupled with director fire control is the master of any armored cruiser ever built, the cost and weight would be almost the same as the Minotaur as designed.

 

Minotaur Class as Designed

Displacement: 14,600t (long tons, 2,240lbs)

Length: 519 feet

Machinery: 4 cylinder Triple Expansion w/24 Yarrow (Babcock in Minotaur) Boilers, 27,000shp=23 knots

Bunkerage=2006t coal

Armor: 6” Belt thinning to 3” ends; 9.2” Turrets 8“; 7.5” Turrets 6”; Deck 1.5” thinning to .75”

Armament: 4 (2x2) 9.2”; 10 (10x1) 7.5”; 16 (16x1) 12pdr (3”) QF; 5 submerged 18” TT

Weights

The 9.2” twin turrets were the same as on the Lord Nelson class and weighed 240t each

The 7.5” turrets were a new design and weighed 94t each.

The 12pdr QF weighed 2,231lbs

The submerged Fore, Aft Torpedo flats and Rear Torpedo Tube weighed 850t plus

Ammo: 400 9.2” rounds 15,200lbs; 2000 7.5” rounds 40,000lbs; 2,400 12pdr rounds 30,000lbs; 18”T 1,622lbs

 

Adding two 9.2” twin turrets would add 480t (for the guns and turrets) and 15,200lbs of ammo for them. But the removal of the ten 7.5 turrets would same 940t and their ammo would save over 17.8t more for a total of almost 958t. The removal of the 12pdr and their ammo would save over 29.3t. The removal of the submerged torpedoes would save over 850t not counting the torpedoes. There were 5 torpedo tubes with at least one reload for a weight savings of 7.2t. I would replace the 7.5” and 12pdr QF with twelve with the Mark VIII 4” for a weight of 6t and 2,400 rounds at 33.2t.

 

I have thus arrived at my proposed armament of eight 9.2” in four twin turrets with 100 rounds per gun for a total weight of 973.6t. My proposed secondary of 12 (6 per side) shielded 4” mounted on the upper deck with 200 rounds per gun would add 39.2t more for a grand total of 1,012.8t. But, the removal of the 7.5”; 12pdr QF and torpedoes gives a net savings of 831.5t. I would increase the belt armor and bulkheads to 7” for an increase of about 300t. I would increase the deck armor to 2” for another increase of 300t leaving a net savings of 231.5t.

 

The Brits did a study and determined that oil gave a 30% increase in horse power and that the double bottom of the cruiser could store 800t of oil which gave about the same range as the cruiser’s coal Bunkerage. If the coal Bunkerage space is converted to oil storage that more than doubles the Bunkerage. The bulkheads on the Bunkerage would have to be strengthened to contain the oil.

 

Watts and May determined that coal fired steam turbines giving 41,000 to 42,000shp giving a 25.5 knot speed could be fit into roughly the same space as the Minotaur’s TE needed. An oil fire version would give a possible speed of 33 knots. Add DCT and you have the perfect cruiser killer. Faster than anything that could kill it and able to kill anything weaker at a distance that would render it almost immune.

 

Of course the design would have to get past the Admiralty’s love of and desire for submerged torpedoes and disdain for twin turrets (they really loved the 10 single 7.5” turrets) and their desire for a secondary battery that could damage heavy armor at close range; but that is why it is called a what if. I would call the lead ship the “Thunderbolt” as I envision it striking hard and fast.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users