Lion Class Battlecruiser (1910)

From The Dreadnought Project
Revision as of 14:58, 15 June 2011 by Tone (Talk | contribs) (→‎Torpedo Control)

Jump to: navigation, search

Armament

Guns

Torpedoes

The ships had two 21-in submerged broadside tubes forward depressed 2 degrees with the axis of the tube 1 foot 9 inches above the deck.[1]

Torpedo Control

Torpedo control arrangements for Queen Mary were generally similar to those of the King George V. class, except that she lacked a stern torpedo tube.[2]

Fire Control

Rangefinders

Sometime during or after 1917, an additional 15-foot rangefinder on an open mounting was to be added specifically to augment torpedo control.[3]

Evershed Bearing Indicators

All units were likely fitted with this equipment by late 1914.[4]

The transmitting positions were

  • Gun control tower
  • Conning tower (transmitters to port and starboard with a local switch to select one in use)
  • 'B' turret
  • 'X' turret[5]

The protocols for how her crew should handle wooding of the turrets was outlined in the Handbook for Fire Control Instruments, 1914.[6]

Mechanical Aid-to-Spotter

At some point, Lion and Princess Royal were equipped with two Mark I Mechanical Aid-to-Spotters, one on each side of the foretop, keyed off the Evershed rack on the director. As the need for such gear was apparently first identified in early 1916, it seems likely that these installations were effected well after Jutland.[7]

Gunnery Control

Queen Mary differed from her sisters by mimicking King George V whereas Lion and Princess Royal were likened to Orion.[8] The control arrangements were likely as follows, with some inferences being drawn due to fundamental differences between these ships and their dreadnought archetypes.

Control Positions

  • Control top (for Lion and Princess Royal)
  • Gun control tower
  • 'B' turret
  • 'X' turret[9]

Some ships had C.O.S.s within the control positions so they could be connected to either TS.[10] It is not clear if this applied to Lion and Princess Royal.

Control Groups

The four 13.5-in turrets were separate groups, each with a local C.O.S. so that it could be connected to

  • Forward TS
  • After TS
  • Local control from officer's position within turret

Directors

Main Battery

At some point, the ships were fitted with a cam-type tripod-mounted director in a light aloft tower on the foremast along with a directing gun (in 'Y' turret?).[11] The battery was divisible into forward ('A' & 'B') and aft ('Q' & 'Y') groups, and a C.O.S. in the TS allowed the following modes of control:[12]

  • All turrets on aloft director
  • All turrets on directing gun
  • Forward group on aloft, aft group on directing gun

In May, 1917, in recognition of shortcomings in the use of directing guns, it was ordered that Lion and Princess Royal should be fitted with a second tripod-type director aft,[13] at which time they would have been fitted with a 5-way C.O.S., possibly in the manner:[14]

  • All turrets on forward aloft director
  • All turrets on aft director
  • All turrets on directing gun
  • Forward group on forward director, aft group on aft director
  • Forward group on forward director, aft group on directing gun

It appears that Lion had her alternative director fitted in September 1918, and that Princess Royal may have never had hers installed, though the tower and sights had been delivered.[15]

Secondary Battery

The 4-in broadside guns are not listed as ever having had directors installed.[16]

Torpedo Control

Alternative Torpedo Director Position proposed c1911
In 1911, it was decided to equip the ships (or possibly just Queen Mary[17]) with hoods situated near the broadside tubes.[18]

The ships were to have had small armoured hoods added around 1911-12 which would enjoy frontal protection from the ship's side armour and obviate the need for tangent bars on the torpedo director. A 4-inch embrasure as drawn here gave a line of sight from 70 degrees before to 80 degrees abaft the line of the tube, but this was later modified before construction to do 80 degrees on either side of the tube. Hinged shutters allowed the embrasure to be closed when not in use, and the stand for the director could be swiveled to match any gyro angle in use at the tube.[19] There is no evidence that this work was ever undertaken. Iron Duke was completed with such hoods in place, and they were vacated in favor of the CT after testing revealed they were too susceptible to blast from the guns.[Citation needed]

By mid 1917 and likely a considerable time before,[Inference] Lion and Princess Royal were provided a Torpedo Control Plotting Instrument Mark I in the TCT. It is not certain that Queen Mary was so equipped at the time of her loss, but it seems likely.[Inference][20]

Transmitting Stations

Like most previous large British ships of the era, Lion and Princess Royal[21] had 2 TSs, but Queen Mary established the new pattern of using a single TS[22].

Dreyer Table

At the Battle of Jutland, Lion and Princess Royal carried the Mark III Dreyer Tables[23] they were completed with,[24] while Queen Mary was using a Mark II Dreyer Table when she was destroyed.[25][26]

Sometime prior to 1919, Lion and Princess Royal had been upgraded to Mark IV* Dreyer Tables, but had no Dreyer Turret Control Tables.[27]

Fire Control Instruments

Vickers F.T.P. Mark III instruments sent range and deflection data to gun sights (likely with cross-connected Mark III* range transmitters[28]), and Barr and Stroud (probably Mark II*[Inference]) instruments used elsewhere.[29]

Gun Ready signals mounted in the TS(s) and control positions indicated which which guns were ready.[30]

Lion and Princess Royal also had Target Visible signals mounted in their TSes and control positions to indicated which turrets could see the target. Queen Mary and later ships lacked this equipment.[31]

See Also

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Addenda (1911) to Torpedo Manual, Vol. III., 1909, p. 155.
  2. ↑ Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1913, p. 63
  3. ↑ Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1917, p. 198. (C.I.O. 481/17)
  4. ↑ Handbook for Fire Control Instruments, 1914, p. 37.
  5. ↑ Handbook for Fire Control Instruments, 1914, pp. 7-8, 37.
  6. ↑ Handbook for Fire Control Instruments, 1914, p. 37.
  7. ↑ The Technical History and Index: Fire Control in HM Ships, 1919, pp. 25-6.
  8. ↑ Handbook for Fire Control Instruments, 1914, p. 8.
  9. ↑ Handbook for Fire Control Instruments, 1914, pp. 7-8, 37.
  10. ↑ Handbook for Fire Control Instruments, 1914, p. 7.
  11. ↑ The Director Firing Handbook, 1917. pp. 88, 142.
  12. ↑ The Director Firing Handbook, 1917. p. 88.
  13. ↑ The Technical History and Index: Fire Control in HM Ships, p. 18.
  14. ↑ The Director Firing Handbook, 1917. p. 88.
  15. ↑ The Technical History and Index: Fire Control in HM Ships, 1919, pp. 18-9.
  16. ↑ The Director Firing Handbook, 1917. pp. 143.
  17. ↑ The Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1911, p. 43
  18. ↑ Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1911, Plate 14.
  19. ↑ Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1911, p. 43.
  20. ↑ Handbook of Torpedo Control, 1916, p. 38. Inferences based on Mark II gear being in place in other ships in 1915.
  21. ↑ Admiralty. Battle of Jutland: Official Despatches, p. 387.
  22. ↑ Handbook for Fire Control Instruments, 1914, pp. 6-7.
  23. ↑ Sumida, Jon. In Defence of Naval Supremacy, p. 300.
  24. ↑ Brooks, John. Dreadnought Gunnery and the Battle of Jutland, p. 8.
  25. ↑ Sumida, Jon. In Defence of Naval Supremacy, p. 252.
  26. ↑ Brooks, John. Dreadnought Gunnery and the Battle of Jutland, p. 166.
  27. ↑ Handbook of Capt. F.C. Dreyer's Fire Control Tables, p. 3.
  28. ↑ Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1910, p. 148.
  29. ↑ Handbook for Fire Control Instruments, 1914, pp. 72.
  30. ↑ Handbook for Fire Control Instruments, 1914, p. 11.
  31. ↑ Handbook for Fire Control Instruments, 1914, p. 11.

Bibliography

Template:CatClassUKBattlecruiser

Template:Lion Class (1910)

Retrieved from "http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/index.php?title=Lion_Class_Battlecruiser_(1910)&oldid=25612"