Lion-class battleship

File:HMS Anson (79) at Devonport, March 1945.jpg

The design of the Lion-class battleships was influenced by the terms of several arms control treaties of the 1920s and 1930s. The Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 had banned new battleship construction, with certain specified exceptions, for a decade. The London Naval Treaty of 1930 extended the ban for five more years, which meant that almost all the First World War-era ships would be eligible for replacement by the Washington Treaty's rules when the London Treaty expired. The British government intended for the 1935 Second London Naval Disarmament Conference to prevent a naval arms race that Britain could ill afford, but the Japanese refusal to sign the resulting Second London Naval Treaty of 1936 thwarted that hope.

The three signatories, Britain, France and the United States had agreed to limit the size and gun calibre for the battleships that would be built by the signatories. They were restricted to {{convert|35000|LT|t|0|lk=on}} standard displacement and a main armament calibre of {{convert|14|in|0}}. This dictated the choice of the 14-inch gun for the main battery of the King George Vs (KGV). The treaty contained an "Escalator Clause" that would increase the maximum allowable calibre to 16 inches if the Japanese government failed to sign; this was triggered in April 1937.Raven and Roberts, pp. 108, 158, 280, 315

As it was too late to modify the KGVs to avoid delays in construction, the Board of Admiralty then began preliminary design work on a 35,000-long-ton ship armed with 16-inch guns and it was promising enough that the Director of Naval Construction (DNC) was ordered to further investigate such designs. To save design time, many of the features of the KGVs were incorporated in the new design, but the limited size of the ship was a real challenge for the designers. Maintaining the same speed, protection, and secondary armament as the older ships while using 16-inch guns proved impossible while remaining within the treaty limits. In an effort to remain within treaty limits, the overall weight of armour was slightly reduced and two twin {{convert|5.25|in|adj=on|0}} gun turrets as well as aircraft and their facilities were eliminated.Raven and Roberts, p. 315

The treaty-imposed design problems became irrelevant on 31 March 1938, when the signatories of the Treaty invoked the tonnage escalation clause because the Japanese refused to provide any information about their battleship construction programme and the signatories feared that their new ships could be outclassed by the new Japanese battleships. Due to limitations of docking facilities particularly at Rosyth and Portsmouth as well as costs, the Admiralty hoped to have the new limit at {{convert|40000|LT|t|0}}; the limit was eventually settled at {{convert|45000|LT|t|0}} because the Americans would accept only that figure or none at all.Friedman, pp. 329–330 The Admiralty in any case decided to limit itself to 40,000 long tons and nine 16-inch guns on the grounds that larger vessels would be unable to dock at the major Royal Navy dockyards at Rosyth or Portsmouth.Brown, p. 37 A new design was prepared with more armour, more powerful machinery, the two twin 5.25-inch gun turrets restored, and four aircraft added. The Admiralty approved this design on 15 December and bids were solicited very shortly afterwards.Raven and Roberts, pp. 316–317

The 1938 version of the Lion class had a waterline length of {{convert|780|ft|m|1}}, an overall length of {{convert|785|ft|m|1}}, a beam of {{convert|105|ft|m}},Garzke and Dulin, p. 263 and a maximum draught of {{convert|33|ft|6|in|m|1}}.Raven and Roberts, p. 318 They would have displaced {{convert|40550|LT|t|0}} at standard load and {{convert|46400|LT|t|0}} at deep load. The appearance of the Lions closely resembled that of the KGVs, but included a transom stern to improve steaming efficiency at high speed. The crew complement was estimated to be about 1,680 officers and ratings.Garzke and Dulin, p. 274

In the interests of saving time, the four-shaft unit machinery design from the KGVs was duplicated with alternating boiler and engine rooms. The Lion-class ships would have had four sets of geared Parsons steam turbine sets housed in separate engine rooms, each driving one propeller shaft. They were designed to produce a total of {{convert|130000|shp|lk=in}} at overload condition and a speed of {{convert|30|kn|lk=in}}. The turbines were intended to be powered by eight Admiralty three-drum boilers in four boiler rooms at a working pressure of {{convert|400|psi|kPa kg/cm2|0|abbr=on|lk=on}} and temperature of {{convert|700|°F}}. The turbines and boilers could be cross-connected in an emergency.Garzke and Dulin, pp. 263, 273 The ships were designed to carry {{convert|3720|LT|t|0}} of fuel oil. Their maximum estimated range was {{convert|14,000|nmi|lk=in}} at a speed of {{convert|10|kn}}. They would have been equipped with six {{convert|330|kW|hp|adj=on}} turbogenerators and two 330-kW diesel generators that supplied the common ring main at 220 volts.Garzke and Dulin, pp. 278–279

File:HMS King George V secondary turret SLV Green.jpg

The Lion-class ships' main armament consisted of nine newly designed 45-calibre BL 16-inch Mark II guns in three hydraulically powered triple-gun turrets. The maximum elevation of the turrets was increased to +40° although the guns were loaded at +5°. They fired {{convert|2375|lb|kg|adj=on|0}} projectiles at a muzzle velocity of {{convert|2483|ft/s|m/s|abbr=on}}; this provided a maximum range of {{convert|40,560|yd|0}}. Their rate of fire was two rounds per minuteCampbell, p. 24 and the ships carried 100 shells per gun. The secondary armament consisted of sixteen 50-calibre QF 5.25-inch Mk I dual-purpose guns in eight twin-gun mounts. They had a maximum depression of −5° and a maximum elevation of +70°. They fired an {{convert|80|lb|kg|adj=on}} high-explosive shell at a muzzle velocity of {{convert|2672|ft/s|m/s|abbr=on}}. At maximum elevation, the guns had a maximum range of {{convert|24070|yd|m|0}}. Their normal rate of fire was about 7–8 rounds per minuteCampbell, pp. 44, 46 and 400 rounds were provided for each gun. Short-range air defence was provided by 48 QF 2-pounder "pom-pom" guns in six octuple mountings. The 2-pounder gun fired a {{convert|40|mm|adj=on}}, {{convert|1.684|lb|kg|adj=on}} shell at a muzzle velocity of {{convert|2400|ft/s|m/s|abbr=on}} to a distance of {{convert|6800|yd|m}}. The gun's rate of fire was approximately 96–98 rounds per minuteCampbell, pp. 71–72, 74 and 1,800 rounds per gun were carried by the ships.

Their armour scheme was virtually identical to that of the KGVs. The waterline belt was intended to be made from Krupp cemented armour (KCA) {{convert|14.7|in|mm|0}} thick and was {{convert|433|ft|m|0}} long. The main portion of the belt would have been {{convert|15|ft|m|1}} high, but a lower strake, {{convert|8|ft|3|in|1}} high, extended an additional {{convert|40|ft|1}} past the ends of the armoured citadel. It was intended to be tapered vertically from 14.7 inches in thickness to {{convert|5.5|in|mm|0}} at the bottom edge of the belt, while the plates at the end of the belt would have been only {{convert|11|in|0}} thick at the top. Transverse bulkheads {{convert|10|-|12|in|mm|0}} thick would have closed off each end of the armoured citadel. At the aft end of the steering gear compartment would have been a {{convert|4|in|adj=on}} transverse bulkhead. The KCA face-plates of the main gun turrets were intended to be 15 inches thick and their roofs would have used {{convert|6|in|adj=on|0}} non-cemented armour plates. Their sides remained {{convert|7|-|10|in}} in thickness. The barbettes for the 16-inch guns were intended to be 15 inches thick on the sides, tapering to {{convert|12|-|13.5|in|0}} closer to the centreline of the ship.

Intended to resist the impact of a {{convert|1000|lb|adj=on}} armour-piercing bomb dropped from a height of {{convert|14000|ft}}, the Lions{{'}} deck protection was identical to that of the KGV class. It consisted of {{convert|6|in|0|adj=on}} non-cemented armour over the magazines that reduced to {{convert|5|in|0}} over the machinery spaces. The armour continued forward and aft of the citadel at the lower-deck level. Forward it tapered in steps from five inches down to {{convert|2.5|in|0}} near the bow. Aft, it protected the steering gear and propeller shafts with {{convert|4.5|-|5|in|0}} of armour. Unlike the Germans, French and Americans, the British no longer believed that heavy armour for the conning tower served any real purpose, given that the chance of hitting the conning tower was very small, and protected the forward conning tower with only {{convert|3|-|4.5|in|0}} of armour.

The underwater protection, also virtually identical to that of the KGVs, would have consisted of a {{convert|13.25|ft|m|abbr=on|0}} wide three-layer system of voids and liquid-filled compartments meant to absorb the energy of an underwater explosion. It was bounded on the inside by the {{convert|1.75|in|adj=on}} torpedo bulkhead. Both of the inner and outer voids were fitted with pumps to flood them with water to level the ship (counter-flood) in case she began to list. Over the length of the citadel, this system was found to be proof against {{convert|1000|lb|abbr=on}} of TNT during full-scale trials.Raven and Roberts, pp. 294, 297 The Lion-class ships would have had a double bottom with a depth of {{convert|4|ft|1}}.Garzke and Dulin, p. 278

Naval historians William Garzke and Robert Dulin believe that the design of the Lion class would have corrected some of the deficiencies of the KGVs with the notable exceptions of the too-shallow torpedo protection system, caused by limits of the existing infrastructure, and the limited endurance, both of which were addressed in the revised 1942 design. Their 16-inch main battery, although not the most powerful in the world, were superior to the earlier guns used in the {{sclass|Nelson|battleship|2}}s, and they "would have been the most powerful and fastest battleships to have served in the Royal Navy."Garzke and Dulin, pp. 274–275

Construction was suspended shortly after the war began and the Admiralty took advantage of the time to refine the design in light of war experience in late 1941. The beam was increased to {{convert|108|ft|m|1}}, the maximum width allowed by the locks of the Panama Canal, to increase the depth and effectiveness of the ships' torpedo protection system, and almost {{convert|1100|LT|t}} of fuel oil were added to increase the ship's endurance. The beam increase meant that many of the Royal Navy home docking facilities, including Rosyth and Portsmouth, could no longer accommodate these ships. The requirement that 'A' turret had to be able to fire directly ahead at 0° elevation was rescinded as it radically reduced freeboard forward and caused the KGVs to take a lot of water over the bow in head seas. To partially compensate for the additional weight, the belt armour was reduced in thickness by {{convert|1|in}} to {{convert|13.7|in}} except over the magazines, and the aircraft and their facilities were removed. The space in the superstructure freed up by these changes was used to increase the light anti-aircraft armament to nine octuple and one quadruple 2-pounder mounts.Garzke and Dulin, pp. 264–265

The overall length of the Lion class increased to {{convert|793|ft|1}} and the displacement grew to {{convert|42,550|LT|t|0}} at standard load and {{convert|47,650|LT|t|0}} at deep load. No changes were made to the propulsion machinery, but the speed decreased to {{convert|28.25|kn}} because of the greater displacement. The {{convert|4800|LT|t|0}} of fuel increased their endurance to an estimated maximum of {{convert|16500|nmi}} at a speed of 10 knots. The freeboard forward was increased by nearly {{convert|9|ft|1}},Garzke and Dulin, p. 276 and the radar suite was increased to match that of the battleship {{HMS|Vanguard|23|2}}, then under construction. Because the light cruiser {{HMS|Belfast|C35|2}} lost all steam power when she struck a mine early in the war, two diesel generators were substituted for two turbo-generators. The extra beam was used to increase the depth of the torpedo protection system amidships from 13.25 ft to {{convert|15|ft|1}}. The ships' crew was estimated at 1,750 officers and ratings.Garzke and Dulin, pp. 272–273, 278–279

The RN's Plans Division set a requirement for a dozen battleships for the post-war navy and the DNC began another design in February 1944 that would incorporate wartime lessons, but they soon concluded that "the power of modern weapons had increased so much that ever-increasing armour and torpedo protection was required until it became incompatible with the limited offensive power of the ship."Garzke and Dulin, p. 266 The main armament was revised to an improved Mk IV version of the 16-inch gun in a new Mk III turret that fired a heavier shell at a marginally lower velocity, mounted in three triple turrets. They would also carry twelve twin QF 4.5-inch Mk I – V naval guns as their secondary armament and one twin and ten sextuple Bofors mounts plus fifty 20 mm Oerlikons for anti-aircraft protection. Calculations for a preliminary sketch design were completed in October and revealed a {{convert|26|kn|adj=on}}, {{convert|50,400|LT|t|adj=on|0}} ship at standard load and {{convert|60700|LT|t|0}} at deep load. More detailed studies were conducted in January 1945 and showed that the ship would actually displace {{convert|59850|LT|t|0}} at standard load and {{convert|69500|LT|t|0}} deep. This design was too large, so multiple variants were considered over the next several months, examining the effects of reducing side armour, underwater protection and the number of main and secondary gun turrets. The provisional staff requirements were issued in March and increased the speed to {{convert|29|kn}} and set the endurance equal to that of the original design, which was slightly modified in April as 'Design B'. This greatly hampered the ability of the designers to reduce the size of the design as only those variants with two main gun turrets were below {{convert|55500|LT|t|0}} at standard displacement. The most radical variant, christened 'Design X', had an armour arrangement similar to the modernised battlecruiser {{HMS|Renown|1916|2}} with a pair of 16-inch and eight 4.5-inch turrets and had only minimal underwater protection, relying on tight compartmentalisation and strengthened internal bulkheads to localise damage. This yielded a {{convert|36800|LT|t|adj=on|0}} ship at standard load.

Friedman, pp. 363–365, 433–434

That same month a committee headed by Rear-Admiral Reginald Servaes reviewed all the proposals and the Admiralty requested a sketch design of 'X' with two 16-inch turrets, both forward of the superstructure as in the French {{sclass|Richelieu|battleship|4}}, and a thicker waterline belt in May that the DNC designated 'X3'. This displaced {{convert|45350|LT|t|0}} at standard load. The following month the Admiralty asked that the 16-inch turrets be replaced by quadruple {{convert|15|in|mm|adj=on|0}} turrets and the DNC replied that no design work had been done on such turrets and would thus delay construction by 15 to 18 months and add about {{convert|2000|LT|t|0}} to the ship's displacement. The DNC asked permission to investigate further methods of reducing the size of 'B3' in July and work continued on both designs through October. By this time the impossibility of even maintaining the existing battle fleet, much less building such large battleships, had become clear in light of Britain's economic difficulties and further design work was informally suspended on all but the new Mk IV gun and its Mk III turret; this was finally cancelled by the First Sea Lord on 10 March 1949.Friedman, pp. 366–367, 433–434

On 8 January 1941, Rear-Admiral Bruce Fraser, Third Sea Lord and Controller of the Navy, asked the DNC to work up a hybrid aircraft carrier based on the Lion-class hull. Two months later, a sketch design was presented for consideration, but it was not well regarded by the participants. This design retained all three main gun turrets and the flight deck was deemed too short to be useful.Layman and McLaughlin, p. 66 A revised version with only the two forward turrets retained was requested and was ready in July. In this design, the displacement ranged from {{convert|44,750|LT|t}} at standard load and {{convert|51,000|LT|t}} at deep load. The design's dimensions included a waterline length of {{convert|800|ft|m|1}}, a beam of {{convert|115|ft|m|1}} and a draught of {{convert|29|ft|6|in|m}}. The flight deck was {{convert|500|ft|m|1}} long and had a width of {{convert|73|ft|m|1}}. The machinery was unchanged, but another {{convert|600|LT}} of oil increased her endurance to {{convert|14750|nmi}} at 10 knots. The hybrid's armament consisted of six 16-inch guns in two triple turrets, sixteen 5.25-inch guns and eight octuple 2-pounder mounts. Twelve fighters and two torpedo bombers could be carried. The Director of Naval Gunnery's assessment was that "The functions and requirements of carriers and of surface gun platforms are entirely incompatible ... the conceptions of these designs ... is evidently the result of an unresolved contest between a conscious acceptance of aircraft and a subconscious desire for a 1914 Fleet ... these abortions are the results of a psychological maladjustment. The necessary readjustments should result from a proper re-analysis of the whole question, what would be a balanced fleet in 1945, 1950 or 1955?"Layman and McLaughlin, p. 67 The design was rejected.Garzke and Dulin, p. 264

Six Lion-class ships were planned, two each in the 1938, 1939, and 1940 Naval Programmes.Raven and Roberts, p. 317 The first pair, Lion and Temeraire, were ordered on 28 February 1939 from Vickers Armstrongs and Cammell Laird, respectively. Lion was laid down at Vickers' Walker, Newcastle upon Tyne shipyard on 4 July; Temeraire preceded her at Birkenhead on 1 June. The contract for Conqueror was awarded on 15 August to John Brown, and that of Thunderer was scheduled for 15 November for Fairfield. After the start of the Second World War in September, construction continued desultorily until early October, when it was suspended by the Admiralty for one year; construction of the 16-inch guns and their turrets was to continue. The second pair of Lions were now expected to be laid down in January and April 1941. On 15 November 1939, work on Lion and Temeraire was authorised to resume whenever there was available labour, but it was suspended again in May 1940. In November, the decision to suspend construction was reaffirmed and steel from Lion was ordered transferred to Vanguard.Friedman, p. 334 After thoroughly revising the design in late 1942, the RN's Director of Contracts wrote to Vickers Armstrongs and Cammell Laird "requesting them to clear the slipways and reuse the material on other naval contracts where possible".Johnston and Buxton, p. 47 All design work ceased in April 1943 and armour plates made for Lion were to be scrapped.Friedman, p. 336 Only four 16-inch guns, and no turrets, were ever completed. One of the guns was used to test aspects of the Mk IV gun.

{{Reflist|30em}}

• {{cite book |last=Brown|first=David K.|title=Nelson to Vanguard: Warship Design and Development 1923–1945|year=2006|location=London|publisher=Chatham Publishing|isbn=978-1-59114-602-5}}
• {{cite book|last=Campbell|first=John|title=Naval Weapons of World War II|year=1985|publisher=Naval Institute Press|location=Annapolis, Maryland|isbn=978-0-87021-459-2}}
• {{cite book| last=Friedman|first=Norman|title=The British Battleship 1906–1946|year=2015|publisher=Seaforth Publishing|location=Barnsley, UK|isbn=978-1-84832-225-7}}
• {{cite book|last1=Garzke|first1=William H. Jr. |last2=Dulin|first2=Robert O. Jr. |title=British, Soviet, French, and Dutch Battleships of World War II|year=1980|publisher=Jane's|location=London|isbn=978-0-7106-0078-3}}
• {{cite book |last1=Johnston |first1=Ian |last2=Buxton |first2=Ian |title=The Battleship Builders: Constructing and Arming British Capital Ships |date=2013 |publisher=Seaforth |location=Barnsley, UK |isbn=978-1-84832-093-2}}
• {{cite book |last1=Layman |first1=R. D. |last2=McLaughlin |first2=Stephen |title=The Hybrid Warship: The Amalgamation of Big Guns and Aircraft|year=1991 |publisher=Naval Institute Press |location= Annapolis, Maryland|isbn=978-1-55750-374-9}}
• {{cite book|last=Raven|first=Alan|author2=Roberts, John |title=British Battleships of World War Two: The Development and Technical History of the Royal Navy's Battleship and Battlecruisers from 1911 to 1946|publisher=Naval Institute Press|location=Annapolis, Maryland|year=1976|isbn=978-0-87021-817-0}}

{{Lion class battleship}}

{{Late battleships}}

{{WWII British ships}}

{{featured article}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Lion Class Battleship}}

Category:Abandoned military projects of the United Kingdom

Category:Battleship classes

Category:Ship classes of the Royal Navy