I had this concept for a 1915 heavy coast defense ship

I had an idea that I could have a heavily-gunned coast defense battleship to be built in 1915. The profile is very anachronistic, in that it looks like a German armored ship (pocket battleship). The hull was flush-decked, and had a rather low freeboard. These are the specs:

• legend displacement: 28,000 tons
• dimensions: 585ft x 100ft x 29.1ft (50ft hull depth)
• armament: 4-18in/45 (180 ton), 20-5in (5 ton) QF (twin gun mounts)
• speed: 20 knots
• power: 25,000 SHP
• Cp: 0.62
• Cm: 0.97
• V/sqrt(L): 0.827
• machinery weight basis: 30SHP/ton of machinery
• oil fuel: 1000 tons
• feed water: 150 tons
• hull weight basis: 2.4 x 10^-3

Weights:

• hull: 7,000 tons
• machinery: 834 tons
• aux. machinery: 1,070 tons
• armament: 1886 tons
• protection: 14,970 tons
• miscellaneous: 2,240 tons

This was an attempt to achieve the "moderate proportions" battleship for which people like Sir Charles Beresford and Lord Brassey were always lobbying.

Large destroyers and scout cruisers

I have gone through phases where I was sure that large destroyers and small scout cruisers should be equipped with 6in guns. I had this concept to modify my Ger/CS/1905 scout cruiser design to carry 3-6in/50 on the centerline. I would have upgraded the torpedo armament to 4-21in torpedoes in twin tube mounts. These are the detailed specs:

• legend displacement: 2,500 tons
• dimensions: 370ft x 38ft x 13ft
• Cp: 0.56
• Cm: 0.85
• protection: 2in HT steel over machinery
• speed: 35 knots
• fuel: 500 tons
• machinery: 50,000 SHP

The problem with this design is that 6in guns are really too large for small ships. 5.5in guns are about as large as are suitable and about 5in is ideal. The shot weight is what really matters. Manhandling 100lb shot in a seaway is problemmatic. 5.5in shot weighing 85lbs is not much better. 50 or 60lb shot is about the largest that is reasonable. A 13cm (5.1in) gun with 68lb or 72lb shot is probably too heavy to be reasonable, although it was still used.

Ger/CB/1911 design

My German 1911 battlecruiser design evolved from a concept for a fast armored cruiser. the original concept was for a 14,000 ton ship with 8-9.4in (25 ton) guns and a 6in belt. The 9.4in (24cm) gun was intended to fire a 419lb APC shot. The next step in the evolution was a 20,000 ton battlecruiser with 6-12in/50 guns and a 6in belt. This design was filled out more, and the dimensions were 725ft x 80ft x 22.7ft. The Cp was 0.56 and the Cm was 0.95. The hoped for speed was 33 knots. The armor was restricted to a narrow patch amidships, with 3in+2in decks and a 1in A/T bulkhead. The final design was much larger: 35,000 tons legend displacement. The final dimensions were 750ft x 100ft x 30.1ft, with Cp=0.56 and Cm=0.97. The hull depth was 55ft. The armament was still 6-12in/50 (66 ton) and 8-6in (8 ton). The main armament was in two triple 12in turrets, superimposed forward. The power was 140,000 SHP. I was hoping for 30 knots. The weights broke down as follows:

• oil fuel=6000 tons (full load)
• feed water=750 tons
• armament=1062 tons
• protection=9128 tons
• hull=12,300 tons
• machinery=3,500 tons
• miscellaneous=2,260 tons

The protection was an inclined belt (4in-8in), 5in upper deck and 3in lower deck, and 2in A/T bulkhead. The uptakes had 4in armor above the upper deck and 2in between the decks. The turrets and barbettes were 8in. The conning tower was 8in with a 4in comm tube. The bulkheads on the citadel were 6in, as was the steering protection.

The GB/CB/1910 design

My friend Cliff's concept for the 1910 and 1911 building programs was for a battlecruiser with 4-4-13.5in/45 guns, 8-4in QF, and 9in side armor. The type retained the three funnel look with the first funnel raised. In this case, the funnels were equally spaced. In my early 1970's redrawing, I gave the ships an anachronistic bridge and tripod mast (more like 1918 or the 1920's rebuilds of the R-class and Queen Elizabeths). The specs were:

• legend displacement: 33,000 tons
• dimensions: 775ft x 94ft x 30ft-11in
• speed: 33 knots
• armament: 4-13.5in/45, 8-4in/50 QF
• protection: 9in belt, no conning tower

The basic concept was to sacrifice firepower to achieve higher speed, and providing moderate protection in battlecruisers ("Speed is armour"--Admiral Fisher).

19.75in guns are 50cm

The reason that we would have 19.75in guns is that if we were metric-oriented, we would prefer 50cm guns over 20in guns. Let's do a few "back of the envelope calculations":

• Weight of piece (19.75in/45): 210 tons
• AP Shot weight: 4175 lbs
• Muzzle velocity: 2640ft/sec

I need to run Nathan Okun's program to see what kind of performance it could achieve.

A "very large" battleship design

One of the largest battleships that I thought about 30-some years ago was 105,000 tons legend displacement. The armament was 9-19.75in/45 and 16-6in guns. The secondary armament was to be arranged in 8-twin turrets. The power was 280,000 SHP hoping to produce 31 knots speed.

The dimensions were 1,085ft x 140ft x 34ft (hull depth 66ft).

Let's see if we can add a little flesh to this outline:

• displacement: calculated to be 84,448.588 tons, far less than 105,000!
• L=1085 ft
• B=140ft
• d=34ft
• Cp=0.59
• Cm=0.97

To reach 105,000 tons, it would take dimensions like this:

• displacement: 105,000 tons
• L=1160ft
• B=145ft
• d=37ft
• Cp=0.60565
• Cm=0.975

The larger dimensions are necessary to keep the navigational draft from getting far out of hand (42ft). As it is, 37ft is deep, and would restrict access to harbors and docks.

Residual resistance tables

I have been working the issue of programmatically calculating power curves for ships for slightly more than two years. My previous approach had enough problems, that I set the problem down for about a year. I have picked it back up, and have taken a new tact. Instead of using sparse matrices, I am using complete matrices with all values populated. As The Speed and Power of Ships has graphs that do not cover the space for all ships, I have assumed that they can be extended. The underlying assumption is that residual resistance is a continuous function and has no discontinuities. Given that, it is possible to extend the graphs, by plotting resistance, given the prismatic coefficient and the speed-length ratio, in one direction. The other necessity is to extend the graphs for greater displacement-length ratios, so that we can calculate power for 1860's ironclads. That requires displacement length ratios up to 420. The higher speed-length ratios are needed for fast destroyers that are fairly short. I am only computing for speed-length ratios up to 2.5, but I expect to have to go above 3.0, eventually. I had done enough experiments that it seemed to be possible to get reasonable approximate figures, so I am going forward with the project. A useful aid has been the ability to look at data with line charts, using Excel spreadsheets. That speeds up the process, so I don't have to use paper and end up having to estimate numbers from pencil-drawn graphs.

My program for calculating power curves for ships

I decided that since data entry was a roadblock to finishing this program, I will reduce the amount of data to be entered. At least as an interim measure, I will use data for Speed-Length Ratios for whole tenths (0.3, 0.4, 0.5,...,2.5), Displacement Length Ratios in increments of 40 (20, 60, 100, ..., 420), and prismatic coefficients in increments of 0.04 (0.50, 0.54, 0.58, ..., 0.70).

That greatly reduces the data entry problem. I will still need to draw graphs to extend what is in The Speed and Power of Ships beyond what is found in graphs. For example, Speed Length Ratios only go to 2.0 and Displacement Length Ratios terminate anywhere from 60 to 250.

There are some ships which are on the margins (such as 1860's ironclads), but for which I would still like to be able to generate power curves, hence the need to extend the range of coverage.

My 2002 version of the Ger/CS/1905 design

I had this elaborate document (which I only have in hard copy, due to my hard disk loss in the fall of 2002) has a drawing and specs for the German scout cruiser that I had designed for 1905. This drawing is very spare, with three uncased funnels, pole masts, and a light bridge, still with a conning tower. There are no tubs for the guns and the torpedo tubes are shown on the centerline, although that wouldn't work, due to the beam being 38ft.

The basic specs were:

• LWL=370ft
• B=38ft
• d=13ft
• Cp=0.559
• Cm=0.85
• Cb (block coefficient)=0.475
• Legend displacement=2,480tons

At deep load:

• LWL=370ft
• B=38ft
• d=15ft-3in
• Cp=0.562 (estimated)
• Cm=0.86 (estimated)
• Displacement=2,962 tons

The designed speed was 36 knots at 44,000 SHP (original intent) The maximum overload was 52,800 SHP. I had hoped for 37.4 knots, but I doubt that was possible. It remains for me to do the calculations to see what was actually possible at legend displacement.

The armament was 5-4in/50 QF and 2-21in torpedo tubes. Both are not good choices, as the 21in torpedo didn't come into service until later, and not in the German navy, but the British. The contemporary German torpedo size was 17.7in (which is what the British 18in actually were). The guns should have been 10.5cm (4.1in, but were not).

There was also a small 2in high tensel steel belt, over the machinery. 2in might have been enough to "flash off" 12pdrs.

This design was inspired, as I may have said before, by the "Super Swift" type proposed in 1912 in Britain.

I have been an admirer of fast scout cruisers

When I first saw the Italian scouts that resembled large destroyers, I liked what I saw. In 1971, I needed to add faster scouts to my building program, I went with this sort of vessel. My design was for a 2,100 ton destroyer-like ship, with the following specs:

• legend displacement: 2,100 tons
• LWL=350ft
• B=37ft
• d=-12ft
• Cp=0.5564
• Cm=0.85

• V=36 knots
• SHP=45,000

• Armament: 4-5in/50 and 2-21in TT

The would have been built as part of my 1909 program as S-1 to S-7, and would have had three funnels, with the first one raised. The forecastle was raised, and stepped just forward of the first funnel. The 5in guns were arranged on the center line with one on the forecastle, one between the second and third funnels, and two in line on the quarterdeck.

The cost would have been about £ 245,205 each. We used the British pound as our standard measure for cost, so that we could directly compare expenditures.

Talk about extreme ships: GB/CB/1921d

I am looking at a version of a British 1921-style small battlecruiser that I designed in 2002. A feature of it is the extreme speed attained: 37 knots. To achieve it, the armament is just 9-10in/50, 12-5.5in/50, and 6-4.7in AA and the belt is 5in.

The specs are:

D=24, 500 tons

LWL=835ft

B=82ft

d=25ft

Cp=0.5445

Cm=0.92

V=37 knots

Belt=5in

SHP=215,000

The key to my abbreviations is:

Cp=prismatic coefficient

Cm=midship coefficient

LWL = length on the waterline

B=Beam

d=draft

D=displacement

V=speed

SHP = shaft horsepower

To give you an idea about what is possible

I have been looking at my designs for cruisers and cruiser killers from 2002. I have in front of me a prime example of what is possible. This version is 28,500 tons legend displacement. The hull is flush decked with high freeboard. The bow rises to about 35ft from the water, and has a considerable flare. The rest of the hull has a 25ft freeboard. The aft gun turret is 225ft from the stern while the forward gun turret is 200ft from the forward perpendicular. The stern has a narrow transom in same style as the cancelled British 1921 battlecruisers and the WWII Colony Class cruisers.

Here are the specs:

LWL=825ft

Lpp=789ft

B=85ft

d=28ft

Cp=0.53475

Cm=0.95

D=28,500 tons

SHP=225,000

V=36 knots

Belt=7in

Armament=9-11in/50, 12-5.5in/50, 6-4.7in AA

11in/50 AP shot=745lbs

5.5in/50 HE shot=85lbs

Frank Fox really likes "cruiser killers"

The American Alaska Class battlecruisers are one of Frank Fox's favorite ship types. I had sent him a copy of my design for a 1921-style armored cruiser. One version had 9-10in/50 guns, and 8in side armor. In 2001 and 2002, I did a series of new ship designs that included power calculations. Alas, the Excel spreadsheets were all lost when I had a hard disk go out in October 2002, so that work is almost all lost. thankfully, I have the pencil drawings that include some of the specifications. I am looking at those, and still like the "look". I had even made some planview wargame pieces, at 1:2400 scale. I have some of those, but the softcopy is gone. I may post some of the drawings, as they still seem to be noteworthy.

The original concept for the Ger/BB/1907 ships

My original concept for German battleships to be built starting in 1907 was for a 25,000 ton ship that carried 8-12in/50 guns and had 12-4in QF guns as the torpedo defense battery. The belt and turret faces would be 13in and the deck armor would be 3in + 1in. The anti-torpedo bulkhead would be 1.5in.

The designed power would be 54,000 SHP, which I hoped would produce 24 knots, given dimensions of 620ft x 105ft x 26ft. The form was Cp=0.56 and Cm=0.95.

The weights were:

Armament: 800 tons

Machinery: 4,000 tons

Protection: 6,700 tons

Hull: 11,500 tons

Miscellaneous: 2,000 tons.

The appearance would have been like the British King George V class, except without the fifth, amidships turret. The absence of the amidships turret allowed the forecastle to extend to the X turret. There was a tripod foremast, with a topmast for long range signalling. There was no mainmast. There would have been a derrick and kingpost near the second funnel, with boats stored aft of the second funnel.

A feature of the design was the restricted length of the armored citadel and the unprotected ends, except for splinter protection to the steering gear.

I am making progress on the Propulsion Calculations program

I have a new design for a ship propulsion calculation program, and I am moving along with it. I have all the Schoenherr resistance values entered in a table, and am working on entering data for residual resistance calculations. The calculations are straight forward, once you have the tables. I will just take the calculations from my Excel spreadsheet as the basis. I know for sure that they are correct. Admittedly, this is all "obsolete technology", in that in industry, they use a system involving interpolation from a database of known ship performance. Still, for ordinary people (admittedly amateurs), this works. Frank Fox had shown me how to do the calculations, and I implemented that in an Excel spreadsheet. The spreadsheet still required me to look up values from Gertler's book, A Reanalysis of the Original Test Data for the Taylor Standard Series. For the residual resistance data, I use the 1943 edition of The Speed and Power of Ships. The data is in the form of graphs, from which it is necessary to estimate the values.

Calculating power curves

I have a Smalltalk "program" (actually, a group of Smalltalk classes) that calculates power curves for ships, given their characteristics. The only problem with it has been getting the residual resistance graphs from David W. Taylor's book, Speed and Power of Ships, into a usable form. I have done some of that work, and then put it down, as it seemed as if I didn't have the right representation for the graph in my program.

The idea is to bring up a simple user interface, enter the ship characteristics, and then generate a power curve (SHP needed to drive the ship to a range of speeds). It is necessary to use a sparse graph representation, as it seems to be the obvious approach.

I am seriously thinking of doing a rewrite in a different language. I really want a program to do this. It is so time consuming to do the work, even with an Excel spreadsheet.

The Naval Annual: 1894

I am very fortunate to have an original copy of Lord Brassey's book The Naval Annual for 1894. The only thing about it that is not original is that my copy has a new spine.

I purchased the book in somewhat better times so that I would have a resource for Chinese ships for the Sino-Japanese War. It has some really good drawings (as well as some really drawings are sort of diagrammatic, not to any scale).

The best drawings seem to be taken from original blueprints. The worst are childish sketches.

The cool thing about early copies of The Naval Annual is the text. While there is much good ship data, often beyond anything you might find in modern reference books, there is some that is unreliable, as well.

This was in a period when essentially ALL data was published. This lasted until the early 1900's when the navies became security conscious. In the British case, ship capabilities were exaggerated after 1905.

Frank Fox,in the past, has blamed the British battlecruiser losses on Cordite

I have been privy to an ongoing discussion about the British battlecruiser losses at Jutland. Frank Fox is definitely in the camp that blames the losses on Cordite being fundamentally unstable and poor handling procedures. I have put David K. Brown into this camp, as well, although I may be mistaken. In The Grand Fleet, he addresses this problem, as well.

There is an alternate theory, which wants to blame Lyddite shells for the losses.

There is an interesting case from Jutland, where the battlecruiser Tiger received a hit on Q turret, but not only did not explode, but the guns were back in action after "a short time". The X turret barbette 9in armor was also penetrated, but again, the Tiger did not explode.

The Lion was almost lost due to a Cordite fire, after the Q turret hit. DK Brown thought that the ship was only saved due to the magazine flooding.

The Invincible was lost due to the hit on Q turret.

The dangers were perceived to be threefold:

1. poor quality in manufacture of Cordite
2. old Cordite would become unstable, and it was retained for too long
3. exposed igniter charges (but this may not really have been a factor)

The conventional wisdom, circa 1917, was that the deck and side armor was too thin. This really was not the issue. Instead, there was the inherent instability of Cordite and poor handling practices in the battlecruiser fleet (except where they were corrected on the Lion by Chief Gunner Grant).

Ger/DL/1915

I very much liked the large German destroyers in WWI. My attempt at such a ship was the Ger/DL/1915 (or 15). The displacement was 1,800 tons and the dimensions were: 332ft x 32ft x 12ft-4in. The armament was 5-5in/50 QF and 4-23.6in torpedo tubes (no reloads).

The designed full load displacement was 2,250 tons. The designed fuel capacity was 450 tons. The propulsion plant was 45,000 SHP, giving 20SHP/ton of displacement.

The machinery basis was 50 SHP/ton of machinery. The machinery would have been 900 tons. Fule consumption would have been 12.1 tons/hour, good for 37.4 hours, at full speed.

I believe that the nominal designed maximum speed was about 35 knots, but it is not listed. I don't think that I ever seriously considered producing this design (in the planning game).

Talk about an ambitious design: Ger/CB/15

I was amazed to see what I had hoped to achieve with my 1915 German fast battlecruiser design. It looks tremendously over-optimistic about achievable speed: 40 knots.

The dimensions were: 900ft x 100ft x 29.7ft deep load. The displacement was 40,000 tons, full load. The form figures were: Cp=-0.54 and Cm=0.97. The hull depth was 58ft.

The armament was 6-=16.5in BLR and 12-6in QF.

The power plant was 216,000 SHP. That would provide 5.4 SHP/ton of displacement.

The weights were:

40,000 tons full load 3,620 tons fuel oil 543 tons feed water 35,837 tons standard

Hull: 12,528 tons Machinery: 7,200 tons Armament: 2,875 tons Protection: 8,974 tons Miscellaneous: 2,860 tons Auxiliary machinery: 1,400 tons

Hoped for range:

2,500 miles at 40 knots for 62.5 hours

0.616/SHP or 57.80 tons/hr.

30 SHP/ton of machinery

My big gun designs

I was looking at my papers from my ship building program/planning game from 30-some years ago. I noticed a page with gun data. My 15-inch gun was pretty standard: 42 calibers and a weight of 97 tons. My 18-inch gun was 45 calibers and had a weight of 179.5 tons. The muzzle velocity was 2,800 feet/second and the AP shot was 3,645 lbs. The muzzle energy was 198,027 ft-tons. I don't really know how to use muzzle energy, but old Jane's Fighting Ships would generally supply this figure.

I am working on a 3D model of the 29,000 ton battlecruiser

I am working on a 3D model, and finished the hull above the waterline, as well as the barbettes. I have to add the turrets, funnels, superstructure, and secondary armament. Once I do that, I will post a jpg of the model. I intend to use it in a 3D naval warfare simulator for the period of 1903 to 1927. Hopefully, it would the first of many. It is slow going, as "I am learning as I go."

There is a scarcity of weight information about destroyers prior to 1918

If you want to do a meaningful general design of a ship, you need a model to follow. The most important aspect of doing a general design, for me, has been doing the weights analysis. That is where the greatest tradeoffs occur. The weights interact with dimensions and power when trying to achieve a particular speed. Speed will drive the optimal length for a given displacement.

For example, my attempt at a light battlecruiser was too short. The wavemaking resistence was higher with the shorter length that I had chosen, so the top speed was thereby limited. The available weight for propulsion was insufficient to overcome the losses caused by insufficient length. The only alternative would have been to lower the displacement, to achieve a better balance.

The bible for British destroyers has been March's book. It is quite old, but there is really no alternative. It is comparable to Oscar Parke's book, British Battleships. March's book has some really good drawings in it. In some cases, they are either from original plans, or from tracings from them.

I don't understand why he omitted detailed weight information for each destroyer class. That level of detail would have been of incalculable value. Instead, the book is very uneven. That has greatly detracted from the books usefulness as a reference for doing general design.

Cliff's "FG" design

My friend Cliff defined a new type of ship. He called it the "FG" (Frigate Gunboat). He already had a variety of destroyer types. This was yet another. The idea was to have a destroyer-type that was well-armed with guns, with a small torpedo capability. they had a modern look. They were to have superfiring guns, three funnels with the first raised and a 4in gun on a bandstand between the first and second funnels. The torpedo tubes were in a twin mount located between the third funnel and the aft superstructure.

The type was designated the "GB/FG/13": GB for Great Britain, FG for Frigate Gunboat, and 13 for 1913.

The specs were:

Displacement:	1200 tons legend
Dimensions:	315ft x 30ft x 10ft
Armament:	5-4in/50 QF, 2-21in TT
SHP:	25,000
speed:	32 knots
Fuel:	300 tons oil

We figured that war would break out in 1914, and that these vessels would become available by late 1914 or early 1915.

I'm looking for an "open" computer naval wargame

I want to be able to fight a campaign with the ships that we designed. It may not be easy to do, but I would like to be able to import user ship definitions and run battles with them. I really would like a game with a campaign map and with detailed regional and tactical maps. I want to be able to game with 30 or 40 ships on a side, and maneuver by divisions or squadrons. Doesn't that seem like something that we would want? What we really want is to be able to accommodate large numbers, so that we could refight the battle of Jutland with real numbers of ships. For sailing naval warfare, I can create my own ship definitions and scenarios, and fight battles with Privateers Bounty. Sadly, it can't accommodate really large numbers of ships, so we can't fight the large battles with the actual numbers of ships. Something like this is needed for the 1903-1927 period (this is my own time period of interest).

My 1907 German battleship design

From my 30 year-old planning and shipbuilding game, my 1907 battleship design was for a 25, 847 ton 24 knot ship. The displacement is quite large, compared to real ships of the period. The armament is not inappropriate: 8-12in/50 and 12-4in QF. The belt was intended to be 8in-13in with 3in + 1in decks.

The specs:

dimensions: 620ft x 105ft x 26ft
Cp = 0.56
Cm = 0.95

Machinery: 54,000 SHP

Weights:

Armament: 800 tons
Machinery: 4,000 tons
Protection: 7,547 tons
Hull: 11,500 tons
Misc: 2,000 t0ns (about 8% is what I allowed)

I wouldn't be surprised if the original intent was for a 25,000 ton ship. That would give protection as 6,700 tons.

The appearance of my sketch design is similar to that of the King George V class of super dreadnoughts (pre-WWI). The main turrets are superfiring, and there is a long forecastle that breaks about 75% of the length.

Large, fast ships

I like very large fast ships, preferably battlecruisers. The reason is simple: strategic mobility. Strategic mobility requires the ability for sustained speed. Tactical speed is of less importance, although it is useful in pursuit or in escape. Large, fast ships often will outrun their escorts. That is why their escorts need to be large, for their type, and fast. Still, in increasingly rough seas, the large battlecruiser will be able to maintain speed longer than smaller ships. It could well be that the large battlecruiser will have to slow to allow their escorts to keep pace. In operations such as the Falklands in 1914, the battlecruisers were able to cross from Britain quickly to bring Von Spee's squadron to action. This was just the sort of employment envisioned by Admiral Fisher, when he conceived of the battlecruiser type.

the Renown and Repulse could have been superships

If the latest technology had been used, the Renown and Repulse could have been superships. that would have required small tube boilers and geared turbines. That combination could have given them higher speed and a little more weight to have been put into armor. The weight savings from small tube boilers would have been considerable. They could have been given a greater SHP and with geared turbines, the propellor efficiency could have been increased. The net result could have been a greater EHP and, presumably, a higher speed. The basic hull was perfect for speed. The length to beam ratio was about 8.8, which was quite extreme for a capital ship. So, the "what if" design would be the same dimensions, with a slighter greater draft, 8-15in/42 guns, 16-4in/50, perhaps a 7in belt, inclined outward, about 28,000 tons legend displacement, 125,000 SHP, with small tube boilers and geared turbines. We should easily have seen 32 knots and could hope for 33. It would be interesting to do the calculations to see what was possible. Even in their original form, they were capable of 32 knots, if only on trial, and pressing their boilers.

The Renown and Repulse really should have had 8 guns

The only reason that the Renown and Repulse ended up with 6 guns each was the number of guns and turrets that were readily available. The ships were large enough to have carried four turrets. They were almost 800 feet long, and had plenty of room. Their displacement was small, but quickly grew, as equipment and, eventually, armor was added. They represented Admiral Fisher's latest ideas as of late 1914. They had the Invincible armor basis, but with much greater speed. They also had the advantage of the latest anti-torpedo protection and outward-inclined armor. They were very leading edge. Admiral Fisher had hoped for 32 knots but they had to be pressed to almost 120,000 SHP to make that. They could more comfortably make 31 knots, which was still faster than any existing capital ship.