'QE' and 'R'class ships

From the Washington Naval Treaty to the end of the Second World War.
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

'QE' and 'R'class ships

Post by paul.mercer »

Gentlemen,
Yet another couple of questions for you I'm afraid!
i was looking up the QE and R class ships and cannot really understand why the 'R's' were built except possibly in an effort to save some money as they were smaller and slower than the ships they went before them and seemed inferior to the QE class and even more so after the three QE's were rebuilt?
Also, when the RN were trying to design the new KG's, I wonder why they did not just take the QE drawings and build a larger,faster more and heavily armoured version of them as in overall weight they had at least two or three thousand tons to play with and perhaps more if they removed the side turrets before they got to the 35000 ton limit- or would they have ended up with a Vanguard?
Finally, why did the RN abandon the idea of centre turrets that they had on some of the WW! ships - did this make them suspect as regards amour penetration in the middle?
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: 'QE' and 'R'class ships

Post by dunmunro »

paul.mercer wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 6:02 pm Gentlemen,
Yet another couple of questions for you I'm afraid!
i was looking up the QE and R class ships and cannot really understand why the 'R's' were built except possibly in an effort to save some money as they were smaller and slower than the ships they went before them and seemed inferior to the QE class and even more so after the three QE's were rebuilt?
Also, when the RN were trying to design the new KG's, I wonder why they did not just take the QE drawings and build a larger,faster more and heavily armoured version of them as in overall weight they had at least two or three thousand tons to play with and perhaps more if they removed the side turrets before they got to the 35000 ton limit- or would they have ended up with a Vanguard?
Finally, why did the RN abandon the idea of centre turrets that they had on some of the WW! ships - did this make them suspect as regards amour penetration in the middle?
The R's were essentially repeat QEs but they were redesigned to run on coal due to fears that oil might become unavailable. However, they were more heavily armoured than the QEs. They have suffered in comparison to the QEs but were generally faster than other WW1 RN battleships and in 1934:
Trial figures Ramillies after refit, July 1934:
4 Hours, Tolland Mile.
Displacement: 29,540 tons load condition.
Draught: 28ft 8in.
Speed: 22.03 knots. (RA Burt)
By WW2 they were approaching the end of their useful lives as their unmodernized machinery was no longer equal to the task, especially as their displacements steadily increased. However, in Dec 1939:
During the early months of the Second World War the Captain of Ramillies (H. T.
Baille-Grohman) had nothing but praise for the old ship and some of his comments
disperse criticism which in many cases were unfounded:

No difficulty was experienced entering or leaving Fremantle, but immediately after
leaving the port at 06.30 on Thursday 21st December it was found necessary to
anchor owing to overheated condensers. This overheating was caused by immense
quantities of particularly stringy weed which had entered the condensers. It would
appear that Fremantle as dredged is not suitable for warships of this draught.
Strong head winds were experienced on the first part of the voyage to Melbourne
and subsequently a fairly heavy swell on the starboard beam or quarter. This
necessitated an increased in revolutions in order to arrive on time as arranged. The
ship arrived at Melbourne at 13.45 on Christmas Day, Monday 25th December 1939.
The ship remained in Melbourne for 63 hours which time was not enough to allow
boilers to cool down sufficiently for work to be carried out on them.
The distance steamed by HM Ship under my command in December 1939 is of interest,
and likely to be a record up to date for a month’s steaming by a battleship of any Navy,
with also a possible record for the best day’s run.

Distances are as follows:
On patrol to Aden (1st and 2nd December) 500 miles.
Aden to Wellington, calling at Socotra (4th to 31st December) 8,985 miles.
Total distance for month 9,485 miles.
Average speed for whole distance 16.5 knots.
Best day’s run: (24th December) 464 miles.
Average speed for best days run 19.3 knots.
Fastest run was from Fremantle to Port Philip Heads, 1,757 miles.
Average speed 19.2 knots.
The distance steamed for the first year of commission will be over 40,000 miles.
A comparison with peace-time steaming is as follows:
Average annual distance steamed for period 1930–1938, 6,861 miles at an average speed
of 11.5 knots.
Ramillies was docked 28th October to 6th November 1939 at Alexandria, otherwise she
has had no refit since February 1939.
The need for increased power necessitated the removal of the centre turrets, but also it is much more economical in terms of space and armour to have fewer turrets, with increased firepower per turret. Hence the triple turret KGV class.
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: 'QE' and 'R'class ships

Post by paul.mercer »

Thanks for your reply,
I often wonder when the 3 QE's were extensively rebuilt, the RN did not take the opportunity to 'Up engine' then (if there is such a word) and make them faster and even more heavily armoured, particularly as the 'Treaty was being ignored by most of the other nations'. This would have surely made them into quite formidable ships -or is it a case of the old adage of trying to make a 'silk purse out of a sows ear'?
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: 'QE' and 'R'class ships

Post by dunmunro »

paul.mercer wrote: Sat Apr 04, 2020 9:34 am Thanks for your reply,
I often wonder when the 3 QE's were extensively rebuilt, the RN did not take the opportunity to 'Up engine' then (if there is such a word) and make them faster and even more heavily armoured, particularly as the 'Treaty was being ignored by most of the other nations'. This would have surely made them into quite formidable ships -or is it a case of the old adage of trying to make a 'silk purse out of a sows ear'?
The QE class were up engined and uparmoured. Power went from 75k shp to 80k and over 1000 tons of armour was added (about 500 tons was removed) or redistributed mainly as increased deck and magazine armour. Due to their hull design, and the general physical limitations of power versus hull length, it would have required considerably more power to have substantially increased speed, and that would have ate up the weight savings of the new machinery:
Warspite
Before / After
Armament 4,970 tons / 5,264 tons
Machinery 3,691 tons / 2,300 tons
Equipment 1,287 tons / 1,420 tons
Armour 5,431 tons / 5,980 tons
Hull & Protective Plating 16,250 tons / 17,130 tons
Oil fuel 3,431 tons / 3,735 tons
Reserve Feed Water 497 tons / 267 tons
Draught Forward / 33ft 2in mean
Draught Aft / 32ft 1 in
GM / 6.63ft normal load
/ 6.82ft deep load
Displacement 33,842 tons \ half oil condition,
/ 34,228 tons ordinary deep condition,
/ 31,446 tons standard,
/ 36,911 tons deep (including water protection)
Boiler weights 1,461 tons / 900 tons
Engine Room 1,737 tons / 967 tons
Conning Tower 339 tons / 102 tons
Battery Protection 339 tons / 105 tons
Deck over (protective) magazines forward / 260 tons
Deck over (protective) magazines aft /189 tons
Deck over (protective) Engine Rooms / 253 tons
Deck over (protective) Boiler Room /456 tons
Hull weights 16,250 tons / 17,130 tons
(Data from RA Burt)
HMSVF
Senior Member
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: 'QE' and 'R'class ships

Post by HMSVF »

paul.mercer wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 6:02 pm Gentlemen,
Yet another couple of questions for you I'm afraid!
i was looking up the QE and R class ships and cannot really understand why the 'R's' were built except possibly in an effort to save some money as they were smaller and slower than the ships they went before them and seemed inferior to the QE class and even more so after the three QE's were rebuilt?
Also, when the RN were trying to design the new KG's, I wonder why they did not just take the QE drawings and build a larger,faster more and heavily armoured version of them as in overall weight they had at least two or three thousand tons to play with and perhaps more if they removed the side turrets before they got to the 35000 ton limit- or would they have ended up with a Vanguard?
Finally, why did the RN abandon the idea of centre turrets that they had on some of the WW! ships - did this make them suspect as regards amour penetration in the middle?
What Dumunro said.

The Q.E’s were an old design designed prior to WW1. You might as well start with a clean sheet and start a fresh. Great ships,but I’d have rather have had 5 new builds rather than 3 rebuilds and 2 modernised.
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: 'QE' and 'R'class ships

Post by wadinga »

Fellow Contributors,

The ships which did get much more power through rebuilds even more extensive than some QEs were the Cavours and Duilios. By eliminating the midships turret a vast amount more machinery space became available and with bow lengthening, despite carrying more armour, their speed went from 21 knots to almost 28. SHP from 31,000 to 75,000. They were limited by their rebored 13" guns but the speed increase made them very valuable units.

The rebuilt Renown was a useful ship with a superb war record, but her rebuild, by cramming lots of new wine into a very lightly built bottle, led to some severe structural weaknesses when driven hard in war service. The book Hit Fast, Hit Hard describes that the old hull was so strained amidships there was real worry a single torpedo strike might break her in half. Bits of her bulges were always coming adrift and turning into water brakes, limiting her speed when she most needed it.

I think the lessons of the First World War, namely that the fastest capital ships always got to the action first, had the best chance to cross the "T" and took on the brunt of the fighting, should have meant Hood was first in line for rebuilding. Her size and hull space gave the opportunity for a very successful rebuild. In WWII, antiques like the R class and unrebuilt QEs were left floundering at the back too slow to come into action, or condemned to convoy work where the hope was a faster enemy would choose to come to them and choose to dook it out at a range to suit their limited-elevation guns. Numerically weaker fleets generally chose not to, but take on easier pickings elsewhere.

Another interesting project would have been to "un-Washington" Nelson and Rodney with a completely new aft hull section with 80 or 100,000 SHP machinery to turn them back into the mighty ships the G3 battlecruisers would/should have been.

All the best in troubled times

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
HMSVF
Senior Member
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: 'QE' and 'R'class ships

Post by HMSVF »

I'd also add that the R class were "tight" design. Their protection scheme was apparently better than the Q.E's but I believe that there metacentric height and compactness meant that there was bugger all that could be done to modernise them to say the likes of HMS Malaya,let alone for instance HMS Valiant. Unfortunately the best of the class was the only one sunk. HMS Royal Oak had flame cut armoured plates fitted (4 inch I believe) to her decks, as well as various other small modifications. The rest of the class were supposedly meant to receive similar modifications but war and a lack of dockyard space meant that they never received them.

I always thought they were good looking ships if nothing else. They just 'look' right. And in the 20's and early 30's they were probably reasonably competitive. 8 x 15 inch isn't to be sniffed at. By 1936 onwards? I suggest they were very second string once the other nations modernised vessels came back into commission. They did a valuable, though drab job as convoy escorts and Ramillies had one last moment of glory off Normandy.

I'm away from my books but, again,I don't think any of the R's had their elevation increased to 30 degrees. If you look at the gunhouses of HMS Ramillies in 1944 you see that the gun ports are unaltered from original. That would indicate to me that they were never altered (look at HMS Renown.QE,Valiant and Warspite) and stayed at 20 degrees.


Also from Navweaps

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_15-42_mk1.php



"As noted above, super charges were never issued to ships whose gun mountings could elevate past 20 degrees. For that reason, in this table, elevations above 20 degrees apply only for weapons employed as Coastal Artillery."


Which to me would indicate that Ramillies may well have had supercharges to achieve the ranges she did, as according to the same link she couldn't have achieved it with a standard charge.
HMSVF
Senior Member
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: 'QE' and 'R'class ships

Post by HMSVF »

wadinga wrote: Fri May 01, 2020 4:54 pm Fellow Contributors,

The ships which did get much more power through rebuilds even more extensive than some QEs were the Cavours and Duilios. By eliminating the midships turret a vast amount more machinery space became available and with bow lengthening, despite carrying more armour, their speed went from 21 knots to almost 28. SHP from 31,000 to 75,000. They were limited by their rebored 13" guns but the speed increase made them very valuable units.

The rebuilt Renown was a useful ship with a superb war record, but her rebuild, by cramming lots of new wine into a very lightly built bottle, led to some severe structural weaknesses when driven hard in war service. The book Hit Fast, Hit Hard describes that the old hull was so strained amidships there was real worry a single torpedo strike might break her in half. Bits of her bulges were always coming adrift and turning into water brakes, limiting her speed when she most needed it.

I think the lessons of the First World War, namely that the fastest capital ships always got to the action first, had the best chance to cross the "T" and took on the brunt of the fighting, should have meant Hood was first in line for rebuilding. Her size and hull space gave the opportunity for a very successful rebuild. In WWII, antiques like the R class and unrebuilt QEs were left floundering at the back too slow to come into action, or condemned to convoy work where the hope was a faster enemy would choose to come to them and choose to dook it out at a range to suit their limited-elevation guns. Numerically weaker fleets generally chose not to, but take on easier pickings elsewhere.

Another interesting project would have been to "un-Washington" Nelson and Rodney with a completely new aft hull section with 80 or 100,000 SHP machinery to turn them back into the mighty ships the G3 battlecruisers would/should have been.

All the best in troubled times

wadinga
You only have to look at the Battle of Calabria. Warspite was on her own as HMS Royal Sovereign was able to get enough speed up to get into range. I believe this was one of the reasons that it was suggested to modify the turrets of A and B to give them a fighting chance of getting a shot in. Again nothing came of this (and to be honest I can see why - Resolution and Revenge were laid up by 1943,both being in poor shape).
BuckBradley
Member
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 12:29 am

Re: 'QE' and 'R'class ships

Post by BuckBradley »

If I remember my Freidman correctly, Winston was presented with an option: four "Super QEs" or five "Rs" for the same cost. To what I am imagining must have been his eternal regret, he permitted himself to be persuaded to go with the Rs.
Post Reply