Royal Navy Lion Class Battleship series 1938-1945

[Tzoli]

Yes but I'm not familiar with the TDS Systems. But the diagram shows the thinner decks of USN battleships compared to the other navies, especially near the center

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Those diagrams don't seem to include the STS layer that was laminated to the Class B deck armor. That increased the effective thickness somewhat.

 

[BDF]

Yes, the South Dakota's were 5" Class B laminated to 0.75" STS plates. Iowa's were 4.75" laminated to 1.25". Both had a 1.5" STS bomb deck. BuOrd considered the bottom plate worth 70% of it's actual thickness in terms of resistance to shellfire and a plate mounted on different decks are worth 50% of their actual thickness. Thus for the South Dakota's the equivalent ballistic protection is thus 0.75" + 5" + 0.525" for a total of 6.275" ballistic equivalent. Iowa's were a tad higher at 0.75" + 4.75" + 0.875" for a total of 6.375" ballistic equivalent. These formula were derived form sub-scale testing of deck armor systems. Both ships also had 0.675" splinter deck just below the armored deck over the machinery spaces and 1" armored deck one deck lower over the magazines.

 

[Hood]

The two images Tzoli posted above are from The Hybrid Warship by R. D. Layman & Stephen McLaughlin, Conway Press, 1991.
The first is a double reconstruction, a sketch based on a sketch in Antony Preston's Battleships 1856-1977 which was illustrating a hybrid Lion the DNC had drawn up in March 1941. This original sketch is lost. All we know is that all the main turrets were retained and the flight deck was too short. It had been the Controller, Rear Admiral Bruce Fraser who had asked the DNC, Goodall to base the hybrid design on Lion - Fraser pointedly rejected a hybrid based on Vanguard, presumably because she was more urgently wanted than the Lions.

Apparently the meeting hated the design. They proposed a Nelson-style arrangement of all turrets forward but they feared this would make the ship 50-55,000 tons. So it seems that the official design would have been a three-turret ship (A, B, Y layout). Preston's sketch was an illustration (I have never seen the 1977 original), we don't know what secondaries or dedicated carrier features were planned.
It was at this 12th March 1941 meeting that the Director of Plans proposed two quadruple turrets rather than the Nelson layout and sketched a doodle, which has ever since been interpreted - wrongly - as being based on Richelieu (which I have debunked elsewhere).
In any case by that September the official hybrid ship was dead.

The second drawing is based on a sketch by Rear Admiral Denis W Boyd, Flag Officer Mediterranean Aircraft Carriers. He submitted a report on 'Capital Ship Design' to Admiral Cunningham (C-in-C Med) in early 1942, no doubt heavily influenced by the destruction of Z Force a few weeks earlier. His proposal included a sketch of a hybrid battleship; 45,000 tons, 800 x 100 ft, 9x 15in or 16in guns, 16x 5.25in guns or smaller, an 80ft wide flight deck (wider if beam was increased to 110ft). It was simply a sketch and not with necessarily with Lion in mind at all. Cunningham sent the report to the Admiralty.
Goodall looked at it but as his own designs had been rejected as deeply flawed, this unsolicited design was of no interest.

Although not strictly relevant to this thread, I have come across the original drawings in the ADM file so am posting here for posterity as the originals are rarely seen compared to the redraws from Layman & McLaughlin.

 

[David Chessum]

The two images Tzoli posted above are from The Hybrid Warship by R. D. Layman & Stephen McLaughlin, Conway Press, 1991.
The first is a double reconstruction, a sketch based on a sketch in Antony Preston's Battleships 1856-1977 which was illustrating a hybrid Lion the DNC had drawn up in March 1941. This original sketch is lost. All we know is that all the main turrets were retained and the flight deck was too short. It had been the Controller, Rear Admiral Bruce Fraser who had asked the DNC, Goodall to base the hybrid design on Lion - Fraser pointedly rejected a hybrid based on Vanguard, presumably because she was more urgently wanted than the Lions.

Apparently the meeting hated the design. They proposed a Nelson-style arrangement of all turrets forward but they feared this would make the ship 50-55,000 tons. So it seems that the official design would have been a three-turret ship (A, B, Y layout). Preston's sketch was an illustration (I have never seen the 1977 original), we don't know what secondaries or dedicated carrier features were planned.
It was at this 12th March 1941 meeting that the Director of Plans proposed two quadruple turrets rather than the Nelson layout and sketched a doodle, which has ever since been interpreted - wrongly - as being based on Richelieu (which I have debunked elsewhere).
In any case by that September the official hybrid ship was dead.

The second drawing is based on a sketch by Rear Admiral Denis W Boyd, Flag Officer Mediterranean Aircraft Carriers. He submitted a report on 'Capital Ship Design' to Admiral Cunningham (C-in-C Med) in early 1942, no doubt heavily influenced by the destruction of Z Force a few weeks earlier. His proposal included a sketch of a hybrid battleship; 45,000 tons, 800 x 100 ft, 9x 15in or 16in guns, 16x 5.25in guns or smaller, an 80ft wide flight deck (wider if beam was increased to 110ft). It was simply a sketch and not with necessarily with Lion in mind at all. Cunningham sent the report to the Admiralty.
Goodall looked at it but as his own designs had been rejected as deeply flawed, this unsolicited design was of no interest.

Although not strictly relevant to this thread, I have come across the original drawings in the ADM file so am posting here for posterity as the originals are rarely seen compared to the redraws from Layman & McLaughlin.

Which ADM file are those from?

 

[Hood]

Which ADM file are those from?

The file is ADM 1/11950

Description:
This file was originally catalogued under more than one subject code. These subject codes and details of this file are as follows:
AVIATION (90): Proposal by Rear Admiral Mediterranean Aircraft Carriers for aircraft-carrying capital ships.
SHIP AND VESSELS (91): Proposals by Rear Admiral Mediterranean Aircraft Carriers for aircraft carrying capital ships.

 

[David Chessum]

Which ADM file are those from?

The file is ADM 1/11950

Description:
This file was originally catalogued under more than one subject code. These subject codes and details of this file are as follows:
AVIATION (90): Proposal by Rear Admiral Mediterranean Aircraft Carriers for aircraft-carrying capital ships.
SHIP AND VESSELS (91): Proposals by Rear Admiral Mediterranean Aircraft Carriers for aircraft carrying capital ships.

Thanks.

Regards

David

 

[Roodbaard1958!]

The two images Tzoli posted above are from The Hybrid Warship by R. D. Layman & Stephen McLaughlin, Conway Press, 1991.
The first is a double reconstruction, a sketch based on a sketch in Antony Preston's Battleships 1856-1977 which was illustrating a hybrid Lion the DNC had drawn up in March 1941. This original sketch is lost. All we know is that all the main turrets were retained and the flight deck was too short. It had been the Controller, Rear Admiral Bruce Fraser who had asked the DNC, Goodall to base the hybrid design on Lion - Fraser pointedly rejected a hybrid based on Vanguard, presumably because she was more urgently wanted than the Lions.

Apparently the meeting hated the design. They proposed a Nelson-style arrangement of all turrets forward but they feared this would make the ship 50-55,000 tons. So it seems that the official design would have been a three-turret ship (A, B, Y layout). Preston's sketch was an illustration (I have never seen the 1977 original), we don't know what secondaries or dedicated carrier features were planned.
It was at this 12th March 1941 meeting that the Director of Plans proposed two quadruple turrets rather than the Nelson layout and sketched a doodle, which has ever since been interpreted - wrongly - as being based on Richelieu (which I have debunked elsewhere).
In any case by that September the official hybrid ship was dead.

The second drawing is based on a sketch by Rear Admiral Denis W Boyd, Flag Officer Mediterranean Aircraft Carriers. He submitted a report on 'Capital Ship Design' to Admiral Cunningham (C-in-C Med) in early 1942, no doubt heavily influenced by the destruction of Z Force a few weeks earlier. His proposal included a sketch of a hybrid battleship; 45,000 tons, 800 x 100 ft, 9x 15in or 16in guns, 16x 5.25in guns or smaller, an 80ft wide flight deck (wider if beam was increased to 110ft). It was simply a sketch and not with necessarily with Lion in mind at all. Cunningham sent the report to the Admiralty.
Goodall looked at it but as his own designs had been rejected as deeply flawed, this unsolicited design was of no interest.

Although not strictly relevant to this thread, I have come across the original drawings in the ADM file so am posting here for posterity as the originals are rarely seen compared to the redraws from Layman & McLaughlin.

Thanks for both original drawings! Did you perhaps also photograph the file?
greetings
Ron

 

[Hood]

Thanks for both original drawings! Did you perhaps also photograph the file?
greetings

No, I came across the images somewhere else, but next time I get to Kew I might pull this file to have a look see.

 

[David Chessum]

The two images Tzoli posted above are from The Hybrid Warship by R. D. Layman & Stephen McLaughlin, Conway Press, 1991.
The first is a double reconstruction, a sketch based on a sketch in Antony Preston's Battleships 1856-1977 which was illustrating a hybrid Lion the DNC had drawn up in March 1941. This original sketch is lost. All we know is that all the main turrets were retained and the flight deck was too short. It had been the Controller, Rear Admiral Bruce Fraser who had asked the DNC, Goodall to base the hybrid design on Lion - Fraser pointedly rejected a hybrid based on Vanguard, presumably because she was more urgently wanted than the Lions.

Apparently the meeting hated the design. They proposed a Nelson-style arrangement of all turrets forward but they feared this would make the ship 50-55,000 tons. So it seems that the official design would have been a three-turret ship (A, B, Y layout). Preston's sketch was an illustration (I have never seen the 1977 original), we don't know what secondaries or dedicated carrier features were planned.
It was at this 12th March 1941 meeting that the Director of Plans proposed two quadruple turrets rather than the Nelson layout and sketched a doodle, which has ever since been interpreted - wrongly - as being based on Richelieu (which I have debunked elsewhere).
In any case by that September the official hybrid ship was dead.

The second drawing is based on a sketch by Rear Admiral Denis W Boyd, Flag Officer Mediterranean Aircraft Carriers. He submitted a report on 'Capital Ship Design' to Admiral Cunningham (C-in-C Med) in early 1942, no doubt heavily influenced by the destruction of Z Force a few weeks earlier. His proposal included a sketch of a hybrid battleship; 45,000 tons, 800 x 100 ft, 9x 15in or 16in guns, 16x 5.25in guns or smaller, an 80ft wide flight deck (wider if beam was increased to 110ft). It was simply a sketch and not with necessarily with Lion in mind at all. Cunningham sent the report to the Admiralty.
Goodall looked at it but as his own designs had been rejected as deeply flawed, this unsolicited design was of no interest.

Although not strictly relevant to this thread, I have come across the original drawings in the ADM file so am posting here for posterity as the originals are rarely seen compared to the redraws from Layman & McLaughlin.

Thanks for both original drawings! Did you perhaps also photograph the file?
greetings
Ron

The letters that go with these drawings have been published in

Jones, B (ed), 2018, The Fleet Air Arm in the Second World War Volume II, 1942-1943, Publications of the Navy Records Society No. 165, Routledge, London & New York

 

[MadRat]

I'm surprised by the continuous degradation of the design as cost realizations came into play. If the thought exercises continued at that rate, they eventually might have been down to two twins up front and forgone armor altogether except for the magazines.

 

[Magiaconatus]

Ships covers from the Brass Foundry archives. My freind went there and photographed the relevant covers as well as 2 of the Vanguard covers, both showing the as designed (aka KGV/Lion Proto Vanguard style superstructure, secondaries, catapult and pom-poms) and as finished drawings

Dear @Tzoli,

I have been looking for the man behind all those original blueprints of Lion and Vanguard, and now I have finally found it!


Perhaps my chances are low here, but is there any possibility that there are more blueprints in your or your friend's possession regarding Vanguard?


I have a sweet spot for genuine armour scheme diagrams, and was wondering if there was on the off chance any for Vanguard that may have not been part of the files you once had shared. That is similar to Lion's "Armour and Protection" sheets, to be more precise.

Thank you for your kind help, and have a good one!

 

[Tzoli]

Only two Vanguard covers were scanned, as laid down and as finished. Quoting my friend:

As far as I know I passed everything that I photographed on to you. That would be three ships covers for the 1938 Lion, one ships cover for the 1944-45 Lion and the "as designed" and "as completed" plans for Vanguard and the "as designed" plans for 1938 Lion. There is an armour plan for Lion (attached below) but none for Vanguard and I can't recall if there was one or not. I can have a look next time I visit the Brass Foundry; although I am not sure when that will be. However, the Vanguard plans do show the armour arrangement very well (attached below) even though they don't state the various thicknesses. The Vanguard ships cover would provide those figures but I don't have that yet.

 

[Magiaconatus]

Only two Vanguard covers were scanned, as laid down and as finished. Quoting my friend:

As far as I know I passed everything that I photographed on to you. That would be three ships covers for the 1938 Lion, one ships cover for the 1944-45 Lion and the "as designed" and "as completed" plans for Vanguard and the "as designed" plans for 1938 Lion. There is an armour plan for Lion (attached below) but none for Vanguard and I can't recall if there was one or not. I can have a look next time I visit the Brass Foundry; although I am not sure when that will be. However, the Vanguard plans do show the armour arrangement very well (attached below) even though they don't state the various thicknesses. The Vanguard ships cover would provide those figures but I don't have that yet.

Thank you for both of you for the answer! It was worth a shot.
I would gladly take up on your friend's kind offer to take a look at the plans next time he would be visiting Brass Foundry, if it isn't too big of a hassle. Alternatively, if the armour plans are not available, then Vanguard's ship cover could work as well.
If none of the above would work, then an original KGV armour diagram could suffice. But this is just my wishful thinking.
I think I definitely could honour all the hard work in some way.

Once again, thanks for all the Lion and Vanguard sheets! We are truly lucky that you guys made it public. They are truly sights to behold.

 

[Warlover1]

There were 6 units planned for the lion what were they?

 

[Oberon_706]

AFAIK...

Two per year were planned from 1938/9 to 1940/41;
- Lion and Temeraire (ordered - laid down but never finished)
- Thunderer and Conqueror (ordered but never laid down)
- Unnamed and Unnamed (never ordered - anyone know if they were allocated names??)

 

[Tzoli]

Never named as listed never ordered. Same way 8 Vanguards were considered mostly for Commonwealth nations but only one ordered / built.

 

[EwenS]

Of the two 1939 Programme ships, Conqueror was ordered from John Brown on 15 Aug 1939 but not laid down. Thunderer was due to be ordered on 15 Nov 1939, but with the outbreak of war the order was never placed.

As for the two unnamed 1940 Programme ships, they were a firm proposal from as early as July 1939. The most likely yards to receive the orders would have been Swan Hunter and Harland & Wolff and they would have been placed around July/Aug 1940, with delivery in early 1945 assuming guns, armour etc could all be supplied on time. They quietly drop out of Admiralty plans after the first few months of 1940 in the light of the postponements of earlier ships and the decision to proceed with what became Vanguard.

 

[spiritshiplover]

My RN battleship
View attachment 627519

I want to build a replica of the lion class in this picture but in full hull.Can you give me the plan(s) or the reference (imperial war museum,national maritime museum or british archives...) for ordering them? Sincerely yours.

 

[Ainen]

I'm surprised by the continuous degradation of the design as cost realizations came into play. If the thought exercises continued at that rate, they eventually might have been down to two twins up front and forgone armor altogether except for the magazines.

...which, given the ongoing development of automatic guns, FCS, and, potentially, guided shells(AA/AS) - was the absolutely right path to go. Fire control was going through a revolution, why keep the old (FC/probability) based gun numbers?

All other warship classes did the same, and they had(and have) far higher hit rates than their multi-gunned ancestors, at ranges unachievable before for same calibers.

But in 1940s there was just no battleship threat to build against, and 1950s brought a sea denial threat in form of Soviet nuclear submarine, missile bombers and tactical nuclear weapons, instead of aiming for sea superiority in any form, and didn't bother contesting it in any form until late 1970s.

 

[Temeraire]

- Unnamed and Unnamed (never ordered - anyone know if they were allocated names??)

I know the name Vanguard was proposed for Lion no.5 not sure if a name was proposed for the last one though

 

[Godzilla37]

Which Lion-class preliminary design is this:

I know its one of the X-series designs but I couldn't find any of its characteristics
It could be 2x3 406 or 2x4 381 mm and 11x2 114 mm secondaries
Original source can be found here: https://erenow.org/ww/rebuilding-royal-navy-warship-design-since-1945/2.php

 

[Tzoli]

Which Lion-class preliminary design is this:
View attachment 794430
I know its one of the X-series designs but I couldn't find any of its characteristics
It could be 2x3 406 or 2x4 381 mm and 11x2 114 mm secondaries
Original source can be found here: https://erenow.org/ww/rebuilding-royal-navy-warship-design-since-1945/2.php

None. Based on the official papers no design featured 11x 4,5" secondary turrets

 

[Arjen]

Original source can be found here: https://erenow.org/ww/rebuilding-royal-navy-warship-design-since-1945/2.php

For me, your link redirects almost immediately to aliexpress.

 

[cattalonX]

 

[Tzoli]

I can show you guys the original documents later, but my drawings are based on them

 

[Godzilla37]

For me, your link redirects almost immediately to aliexpress.

That's weird

 

[Godzilla37]

View attachment 794454
View attachment 794455View attachment 794456

Yeah that's the one

 

[Tzoli]

Official Papers:


Note the date and the info the British had on Yamato!







None of them featured 11 twin 4,5" turrets!

 

[drwells42]

View attachment 794454

The first two images are from John Roberts' article "Penultimate Battleships: The Lion Class 1937-1946" (Warship #19, pg 167 & Warship #20, pg 266) The image is on page 269.

The related text is on pg. 272-273, under "Design X". The upper design is the original Design X. The lower one is Design X1. Roberts does not provide dimensions, but he does mention that Design X was to have 16 4.5" (8x2) and 54 40mm (9x4). He does not discuss the secondary armament on X1.

Friedman, ("The British Battleship 1906-1946" pgs 365-366) OTOH, gives a little more data.
For Design X, he shows 35,540 tons standard. 42,500 full load, 720' (wl) 102' (beam) 34' (draught) 120,000 SHP, 29 knots.

Design X1 was 37,200 tons standard, 44,500 full load, and 106' in beam (same length) He mentions that the design had twelve 4.5" twin mounts.

Armor 9" belt, 6" deck, 15" barbette.

Friedman cites "Battleship Cover 1945", folio 34.

Hope this helps.

DRW

 

[Scott Kenny]

Yes but I'm not sure you can feed guns upside down (feed from below) in 1946-48, though belt feeding could solve the problem?

You can, but you may have to get creative for feed rate.

Lots of bomber turrets fed from below. Although the MGs fed from the side, avoiding CofG changes as you fired off a few hundred kilos of .303 or .50 meant moving the ammunition out of the turret and into the fuselage. That left the feed train too heavy for the gun to pull, so ammunition boosters were fitted to power feed the ammunition up to the guns. And as feeding from below actually takes a 90 degree turn out of the feedtrain, this would be an even simpler application. TLDR: the technology already existed

Yes, powered feeds existed for smaller caliber weapons, like things 20mm and under.

You'd need to get creative for scaling those up. Scaling firearms stuff works better going down than scaling up. For example, 7.62 AR-10 getting developed into the 5.56 AR-15.

 

[Godzilla37]

Official Papers:
View attachment 794509
View attachment 794510
Note the date and the info the British had on Yamato!
View attachment 794511
View attachment 794515
View attachment 794516
View attachment 794517
View attachment 794518
View attachment 794519

None of them featured 11 twin 4,5" turrets!

So its basically a fake design?

 

[Tzoli]

So its basically a fake design?

More likely based on wrong information.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

View attachment 794454

None of them featured 11 twin 4,5" turrets!

Many of them had 12 mountings though, and I have always assumed that the conjectural John Roberts depictions of the 1945 Lion from Warship Volume V above assumed at least one set of two sided mountings either forward or aft for a total of 12.

 

[DWG]

Many of them had 12 mountings though, and I have always assumed that the conjectural John Roberts depictions of the 1945 Lion from Warship Volume V above assumed at least one set of two sided mountings either forward or aft for a total of 12.

I was just about to say much the same.

 

[Tzoli]

The magazine diagram of one of the 1945 Lions depicts sonething like that, will share it later. Sadly the texts did not provide description of the disposition of the secondary guns and the ship cover does not contain sketch drawings either.

 

[drwells42]

Which Lion-class preliminary design is this:

I should have mentioned earlier that "Design X" is not a preliminary design at all, (at least not for the 1938-39 Lion-class) but rather a sort of "post script" to the Lion-class. The later evolutions of the Lion-class had gotten quite large, and these were late attempts to bring them back to a more buildable size.

DRW

 

[Tzoli]

My iteration of the X variants:
Design X:

https://www.deviantart.com/tzoli/art/Lion-Class-Battleship-Design-1945-X-812474202
Design X1:

https://www.deviantart.com/tzoli/art/Lion-Class-Battleship-Design-1945-X1-812589958
Design X2:

https://www.deviantart.com/tzoli/art/Lion-Class-Battleship-Design-1945-X2-812703301
Design X3a:

https://www.deviantart.com/tzoli/art/Lion-Class-Battleship-Design-1945-X3a-812816131
Design X3b:

https://www.deviantart.com/tzoli/art/Lion-Class-Battleship-Design-1945-X3b-812925320
I draw these in 2019

 

[Tzoli]

The armour composition of X3:

 

[Tzoli]

Theoratically both HMS Lion and Temeraie were laid down and a few months of work was done on the hulls.
Now I have two questions:
Did actually an real work was done on the hulls / keels or only the materials were assembled but no actual work was done?

Second, if the keels were actually laid down, did anybody seen or heard of photos of them?

Though not sure how well the RN or the builder shipyards photographed their ships still in construction.