Lion class battlecruiser

The "Lion" class was class of battlecruisers of the British Royal Navy that saw service during World War I. They were nicknamed the "Splendid Cats".

Design

The class was adapted from the design of the first "super-dreadnought" (or 13.5-inch gunned) class, the "Orion" class of 1910. The ships were the first battlecruisers to be armed with the new model 13.5 inch gun (343 mm) by Vickers. The design of the "Lions" remedied some of the shortcomings of the preceding "Indefatigable"-class, which suffered from an inability for the "en echelon" amidships turrets to safely fire across-deck, limiting them to a three turret broadside. As such, all four turrets in the "Lions" were arranged on the centreline, although 'Q' turret was located amidships and was unable to fire directly aft (this would be remedied in the following ship, HMS|Tiger|1913|6).

The "Lions" were also to be faster, than the "Indefatigables", and thus were some convert|111|ft|m|0 longer, for convert|27|knot|km/h. The increased armament and weight of machinery caused a rise in displacement of some 8,000 long tons. Like their predecessors, the "Lions" achieved their speed and weight of armament by a one-sided sacrificing of armour protection; like all British battlecruisers, their staying power did not match their fighting power.

Only "Lion" was completed to the original design, which had the foremost funnel placed between the compass platform and the foremast. This had two profound flaws. Firstly, it meant that hot clinker and flue gases from the boilers made the spotting top on the foremast completely unworkable when the ships were steaming at high speed. Secondly, the light compass platform had to be built on top of the conning tower, and would be prone to collapsing on, and obscuring the view form, the latter after battle damage. Consequently, before commissioning, "Lion" was altered at a cost of £60,000, moving the forefunnel behind the pole foremast, and relocating the superstructure between funnel and conning tower. The after funnels were raised to the same height as the fore funnels to balance the appearance. Her sister "Princess Royal" was completed to this design.

"Queen Mary"

"Queen Mary" was a half-sister of "Lion" and "Princess Royal", with some alterations to the design. Beam was increased by ¾ feet and displacement rose by 700 tons. The central funnel was rounded instead of oval in cross-section, and she suppressed the upper forward pair of 4-inch guns. Additionally, she carried a rangefinder on the conning tower.

Building Programme

Although the standard British practice was to quote the cost without armament, the data available for the "Lions" includes guns.

* = estimated cost, including guns

** = including guns

Modifications

"Lion" and "Princess Royal" received a rangefinder as per "Queen Mary". The pole foremast was modified to a tripod, in "Queen Mary" prior to 1916 and in her half-sisters later. This was due to the increased weight of masthead fire-control equipment associated with director firing. "Princess Royal" and "Lion" received searchlight towers on the after funnel and mainmast in 1917, and lost 1 × convert|4|in|mm|0|adj=on gun each from the after battery, as these weapons were more urgently needed in other ships. Three 12-pounder anti-aircraft guns were fitted in lieu. In 1918, "Lion" and "Princess Royal" received flying-off platforms on 'Q' and 'X' turrets, for Sopwith Pup or Sopwith 1½ Strutter aircraft.

ervice

Both ships were heavily involved in the Battle of Jutland in 1916: "Lion" came close to blowing up after a hit on its "Q" turret and "Princess Royal" was heavily damaged. During the battle, she disappeared behind a salvo from the German battleline and was believed to have sunk. Vice-Admiral David Beatty, embarked aboard "Lion" and having already lost the battlecruisers "Invincible" and "Queen Mary", was noted to have said: "There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today".

Some have often cited the weaker armour on British battlecruisers compared to their German counterparts. The Lion's closest contemporary was perhaps the "Seydlitz". Both were similar in displacement and speed. German battlecruisers did sacrifice gun calibre for thicker armour but they were not significant such that they made the difference in battle. Both the "Lion" and "Seydlitz" had their magazine armour penetrated at some point during their careers. Rather, it was the cordite handling procedures; the near destruction of the "Seydlitz" at Dogger Bank had convinced the Germans that they had to take more precautions. The British were still unaware of this danger, continuing to store too much cordite charges outside the magazine in unprotected areas as well as leaving the flash-protection doors open, mainly because that could increase their rate of fire and compensate for poor accuracy. [cite web |url=http://www.worldwar1.co.uk/outcome.html |title=Battle of Jutland Outcome |accessdate=2007-08-30]

Jutland was the last major engagement that the "Lions" were involved in. Both ships were scrapped as part of the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922.

References

* Hythe, Viscount (ed) The Naval Annual 1914
* Breyer, Siegfried "Battleships of the World, 1905-1970", , 1973, Macdonald's and Jane's, (Translated from the first edition of "Schlachtschiffe und Schlachtkreuzer, 1905-1970", 1970, J. F. Lehmanns Verlag), ISBN 0831707054
* Gardiner, Robert and Gray, Randal (ed) "Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1906 - 1921", Conway Maritime Press, London, 1982. ISBN 0-85177-245-5.
* Parkes, Oscar "British Battleships", first published Seeley Service & Co, 1957, published United States Naval Institute Press, 1990. ISBN 1-55750-075-4
* Richardson, Sir Alexander and Hurd, Archibald (ed) Brassey's Naval and Shipping Annual 1924

Notes