HMS New Zealand

[per ardua per mare per terram]

Jane’s does not give a plan for this ship but instead offers those for the ‘Invincible class’

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here's the Jane's listing from the 1914 edition.

[michaeldr]

Quotes; Me - Jane’s does not give a plan for this ship but instead offers those for the ‘Invincible class’

PA,PM,PT - Here's the Jane's listing from the 1914 edition.

Someone seems to have mixed up the line illustrations in the edition of Jane’s which I have - Sack the picture editor!

Contrary to what I said previously, the above diagram does in fact appear,

but under 1906 Battle Cruisers, Invincible Class [p.45 of Jane’s Fighting Ships of WWI (Random House, 2001)]

Many thanks for the correction

Michael D.R.

[ionia]

Here's the Jane's listing from the 1914 edition.

These ships (the INDEFATIGABLEClass) were the subject of much misleading hype. The plan in the pre-War editions of Jane's is hopelessly incorrect and optimistic. Armour protection was much less than stated, the increased spacing of the wing turrets did not enable much in the way of across-deck firing (the ships were still really six gun broadside ships) and the size of the TTs is wrong.

The virtual repeat of the INVINCIBLE design in these ships contrasts unfavourably with the contemporary VON DER TAN in Germany.

[Arthur]

Hi,

Here are a few pieces of information:

Dr. Oscar Parkes “British Battleships” and Capt. T.D. Manning & Cdr., C.F. Walker.

“British Warship Names”:

H.M.S. NEW ZEALAND

Battle Honours

HELIGOLAND 1914 DOGGER BANK 1915 JUTLAND 1916

Service:

Completed at Fairfields in November 1912 at the charge of the New Zealand Government and presented to the Royal Navy.

Was visited by the King at Portsmouth and on 7th February 1913 proceeded on a world cruise visiting the Dominions and several Colonies. Joined the Battlecruiser Force [b.C.F.] December 1913, for the visit to Russian Baltic ports.

War: Grand Feet 1st Battlecruiser Squadron. [b.C.S.]; Rear-Admiral Flagship 2nd B.C.S.] January – February 1915. Dogger Bank 24th January 1915 [Flagship Rear-Admiral Moore]. In action with BLÜCHER and succeeded to command when H.M.S. LION was out of action. In collision with H.M.S. AUSTRALIA in fog on 22nd April 1916 and in dock until May. Jutland battle. Received one hit on ‘X’ turret; no casualties. June 1916. 1st B.C.S replaced by H.M.S. RENOWN in September and reverted to 2nd B.C.S. for remainder of war.

1919 Conveyed Admiral Sir John Jellicoe for his tour of the Dominions, when he drew up a scheme of defence and future naval forces. Listed for disposal under Washington Treaty.

Fate: Sold December 1922.

Regards

Arthur

[Arthur]

Hi,

More information from Dr. Oscar Parkes “British Battleships” :

Name. H.M.S. NEW ZEALAND

Type. Battlecruiser.

Class. Indefatigable.

Sister ships. INDEFATIGABLE and AUSTRALIA

Builder. Fairfield.

Laid down. 20th June 1910.

Launched. 1st July 1911.

Completed. November 1912.

Cost. £1,684,990. [guns £94,200.]

Dimensions. 555ft[590ft] X 80ft X 24ft9ins/27ft = 18,800 ton [designed] Load displacement 18,500 tons; full load 22,080 tons.

Armament. 8-12in/50.: 16-4in/50.; 4 3pdrs.

Tubes 2 18in. Torpedoes 12 18in. 6 14in.

Protection. Belt 6ins – 5ins – 4ins [11ft deep]; bulkheads 4ins.

Barbettes 7ins – 4ins – 3ins; turrets 7ins.

Conning tower 10ins; communication tubes 4ins – 3ins.

Spotting tower 6ins – 3ins.

Magazine protection 2½ins.

Decks: main 1in; lower 1in; fore and aft 2½ins.

Funnel uptakes 1in - 1½ins.

Machinery. Fairfield.

44,000 I.H.P. = 25 knots. 4 screws.

Boilers 31 Babcock and Wilcox. [28 were fitted with three burners and three with two Burners all at 300lb pressure.]

Fuel. Coal 1,000/3,170 tons plus oil 840 tons.

Radius. 6,330/10 knots; 3,140/22•8 knots; 2,290/ 23•5 knots.

Complement. 800.

Constructor. W. T. Davis.

Notes:

1. No cruising turbines were fitted.

2. Searchlight towers were fitted in 1917.

Regards

Arthur

[per ardua per mare per terram]

A fascinating contemporary image, quite possibly pre-WW1 (the White Ensign is at the peacetime position)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

John Roberts in ‘Battlecruisers’ (Caxton 2003) dates this image to 1913 (thinks maybe I should have checked the book before firing my ranging shot).

[per ardua per mare per terram]

Roberts has these plans for the armour.

[per ardua per mare per terram]

I haven't seen an investigation into the reliance on coal for part of the armour, especially in relation to the possability of coal dust explosions.

[Guest mordi]

Talking of coal, they say there's always one in the coalpile.

The NEW ZEALAND was indeed a lucky ship, and deserved good fortune. But why should the Fates, or the Admiralty, smile on her anf frown on her sister the AUSTRALIA.

Despite the quaint wording on the postcard, absolutely no offence intended, both ships could be viewed as being part of the Southern countries' contribution towards the safety mantle of the Royal Navy.

AUSTRALIA was her country's only capital ship. She was sacrificed, and sunk, as a RN ship, under the terms of the Washington Treaty.

There was sometihng cockeyed somewhere

[Guest]

AUSTRALIA was her country's only capital ship. She was sacrificed, and sunk, as a RN ship, under the terms of the Washington Treaty.

There was sometihng cockeyed somewhere

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps it was an "easy win", because by then she was a very dated design and probably due for the scrapyard in the near future.

Ask yourself what use she would have been in a future war.

[per ardua per mare per terram]

no offence intended, both ships could be viewed as being part of the Southern countries' contribution towards the safety mantle of the Royal Navy.

AUSTRALIA was her country's only capital ship. She was sacrificed, and sunk, as a RN ship, under the terms of the Washington Treaty.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No offence taken I wasn’t aware that anyone thought that anything other than these ships were a huge contribution from the Southern counties, just as Malaya was. Imho, the Federated Malay States got the better deal, a couple more Queen Elizabeths, now that would have been something!

Did the authorities frown on Australia? There was a whole scale scrapping of ships in the 1920s New Zealand, Lion … too bad they kept Hood! Beatty wanted Lion to be preserved like Victory, even with his ‘smiles’ he got nowhere, so it wasn’t a conspiracy.

Australia was already obsolescent in 1914, do you think that her fate in 1941 would have been any different to that of Force Z?

[ionia]

AUSTRALIA was her country's only capital ship. She was sacrificed, and sunk, as a RN ship, under the terms of the Washington Treaty.

There was sometihng cockeyed somewhere

/quote]

The selection of a battlecruiser for Australia was based on the belief (which proved to be correct) that in a war the only problem in Australian waters would be from raiding cruisers, The best thing available to catch and destroy them was a battlecruiser. AUSTRALIA was quite good enough for that purpose in 1914.

Her removal under the Washington Treaty proved to be a convenient arrangement for the Australian Government. If you look at the history of the RAN in the 20s it is apparent that the most AUSTRALIA could have expected was to be permanently laid up. She would have gone long before WW2.