RN Battleships: Queen Elizabeth Class World Naval Ships Forums Archive

Naval History by Country :

ROYAL
NAVY

US
NAVY

GERMAN
NAVY

FRENCH
NAVY

*VIEW ALL OF OUR CURRENT ART SPECIAL OFFERS ON ONE PAGE HERE*
NAVAL ART	AVIATION ART	MILITARY ART	SPORT ART

ALWAYS GREAT OFFERS :

20% FURTHER PRICE REDUCTIONS ON HUNDREDS OF LIMITED EDITION ART PRINTS

BUY ONE GET ONE HALF PRICE ON THOUSANDS OF PAINTINGS AND PRINTS

FOR MORE OFFERS SIGN UP TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER

RN Battleships: Queen Elizabeth Class World Naval Ships Forums Archive

RN Battleships: Queen Elizabeth Class

Posts 1 to 50

This five ship class were generally considered to be the first fast Battleships and were the first to use the very successful 15inch guns. The class performed with distinction during both the first and second world war. The only one lost in action was the least modernised of the class HMS Barham, torpedoed by U-331 on 25th November 1941...
Attachments :

That second picture of "Valiant" is of amazing quality, Terry. You can make out both "Repulse" and "Renown" in the background, as well as "Tiger". Fascinating. Simon

You are right Simon, it has always been one of my favourite photo`s. As you say there is so much to look at.

Knockout, Terry !! Have you any more small ships in your collection ?

Yes - I just stuck some in the RN Unusual ships section...

Terry, Do you have any of Valiant after her rebuild. From memory the side armament was removed, the casements smothed off and four twin turrets (4.5in ?) per side fitted as replacements. I was briefly assigned as ships company while waiting to transfer to Portland and only saw her while she was a training ship. I would like to add her to my collection. Ken

Ken most of the pictures I have of the Valiant are pre-mod but I do have these. Hope they are of some use...
Attachments :

Thanks Terry, they are just what I wanted. I particularly liked the third one as during the short time I served in her I was the motor cutter driver and regularly ran the trips into the dockyard to collect provisions and other chores. The important one was the early morning bread run so that the lads had something to dunk in their soup come midday. Ken

This may interest you Ken. I attended a talk by Ian Buxton (author of Big Gun Monitors and other books) last year on Admiralty Floating Docks. After he'd finished the late D.K. Brown recounted how when he was doing his RCNC course at the Royal Naval College, Greenwich in the early 50s, one of his instructors was a Rear-Admiral (E) - unnamed, and unfortunately it'll be difficult to find out now - who had been responsible for breaking the back of "Valiant" at Trincomalee in '44 thanks to his incompetent handling of the floating dock there. I have no idea how such a gaffe could result one day in Flag Rank! Harley

A pleasure to help Ken. Says it all, Simon!

HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH - prior to modernisation and in her final [1943] configuration...
Attachments :

Whatever to say the the Queen Elizabeth class ships were eye attracting Especially in their original configuration with two well ballanced funnels and light foretop Thanks Terry for nice gallery (what a rhyme;))
Attachments :

Thank you Miro. They were a fine, well proven and ultimately successful class of battleship - especially in their final modernised form.

Hi. German photo. "Barham" in Port Said, 1935. Best regards Alex
Attachments :

Hope you dont mind Alec - I thought your picture would be more suitable in this photo-gallery, along with other pictures of her and her class.:)

Here is a nice picture of the Queen Elizabeth taken in 1936, the year that I was born! Bob.
Attachments :

Great pics all! To me the ones of the modernized Valiant, several of which I hadn't seen, were particularly of interest. Miro's shot of the fairly early Barham was another "new" one to me. Very balanced "look" with the twin funnels. The RN certainly had a WINNER with this class and got fantastic "value" from them...excellent design. DFO :D:D

No doubt the finest battleships ever to sail the seven seas. For their final refit Valiant and Queen Elizabeth were much the same, and reconstructed along the lines of Renown. However, the five sisters were simply at their most purposeful and graceful as completed, it was a pity that the four present at Jutland as the 5BS were so poorly placed to the North West of the Battlecruisers. Although he never openly admitted it, Evan-Thomas must have been in total despair knowing his squadron were far and away the most capable ships at sea that day. Shame that Beatty in Lion was such an egomaniacal illusionist who was convinced that his ships were the be all and end all.

The QEs were an [COLOR="Red"]excellent WW 1 design[/COLOR], but even with the full mods the QE and Valiant got I rather suspect they would have come off poorly at the hands of a well handled 3rd gen. WW 2 BB.......notice the "well handled"! (yes I would pretty much exclude Italian VVs from that...) I would submit that Richilieu/Jean Bart and any of the USN's 12 3rd gen BBs, in particular the Iowas, would have given them a bad time, quickly. However, a bit of apples and oranges. DFO ;):D

Hi # 19 Yes true, they came off badly at the hands of the Italians in Alexandria when the pair were unceremoniously dumped on the harbour bottom courtesy of some daring and diligent planning. Additionally Valiant had her famous floating dock incident in Ceylon. I should mention however the dock was built by you Yankees. However and crucially, let us not forget that at the time of construction they were the finest, and their subsequent refits enabled the class to remain in front line service till post WW2. If you look at the state of Warspite by 1945, it is truly remarkable that she even floated, let alone continued to see active front line service. Anyway, US Navy battleships scarcely achieved anything of consequence, especially given the easy time they had floating about the Pacific. That is of course, those that survived Pearl. Fortunately for you, your carriers and their planes compensated.

[quote=Batstiger;127312]Here is a nice picture of the Queen Elizabeth taken in 1936, the year that I was born! Bob.[/quote] Obviously a vintage year then Bob! A really lovely picture of one of my favourite battleships so really appreciated. :)

[quote=culverin;127319]No doubt the finest battleships ever to sail the seven seas. For their final refit Valiant and Queen Elizabeth were much the same, and reconstructed along the lines of Renown. However, the five sisters were simply at their most purposeful and graceful as completed, it was a pity that the four present at Jutland as the 5BS were so poorly placed to the North West of the Battlecruisers. Although he never openly admitted it, Evan-Thomas must have been in total despair knowing his squadron were far and away the most capable ships at sea that day. Shame that Beatty in Lion was such an egomaniacal illusionist who was convinced that his ships were the be all and end all.[/quote] Never have I ever agreed so much with one of your posts as I do with this one. Excellently put! ;)

As I have looked through this thread again it has struck me that there is only one picture of Malaya so I might as well add a few which I have quickly selected from the ones I have at hand.
Attachments :

Thanks Terry, I have added a few more QEs and the Warspite to my personal collection! Edna

Re: Culverin post #20. Warspite by time of Normandy was, from what I've read, a battered floating hulk that still had some (6?) of her 15" able to fire. So I guess she was equal to 3 Monitors still? She was really a worn out hulk, as was Malaya, altho it certainly-given her magnificent record-is to bad the UK couldn't afford to save her as a Memorial. As far as USN BBs having an "easy" time of it; I would rather suspect that any USN BB sailors would tend to differ with that view. Did our 3rd Gen BBs get into "Jutland" style battles? No, but rebuilt survivors of Pearl did cross the T of the IJN off Suriago Str and sink both Fuso class BBs. As you noted CARRIER AIR took over as the ruler of the (surface) seas. Fortunately for the Allies the USN "figured" that out, much to the chagrin of the IJN. Despite that [I]all [/I]USN BBs served all over the world-from reinforcing your Home Fleet against Tirpitz, to North Africa, Med and of course the vast Pacific. Curiously, due to gunfire support missions, I'd suspect the gun tubes on the "old" USN BBs fired more rounds overall than did the 3rd Gen ships. It should be remembered that the Iowas served in 4 wars versus 2 for the QEs; so I'd say USN got good useage out of them despite[I] vastly different [/I]battle conditions than they were designed for in the 1930s. Both classes were superb designs...for their times (QEs and Iowas). Back to QEs...thanks again to all for the excellent photos, many that I haven't seen before...despite all my books on BBs and RN BBs!! Terry's FOURTH pic of Malaya is the configuration I scratchbuilt my little model of her in, many years ago. DFO :D

[QUOTE=designeraccd;127368]As far as USN BBs having an "easy" time of it; I would rather suspect that any USN BB sailors would tend to differ with that view. Did our 3rd Gen BBs get into "Jutland" style battles? No, but rebuilt survivors of Pearl did cross the T of the IJN off Suriago Str and sink both Fuso class BBs. D[/QUOTE] Dennis, Japanese DID cross themselves the T off Surigao Strait I think:D:D:D Concerning the QE Class it saved Mr. Beatty's a...s in Skagerrak Battle:p But it is hard to believe they were the finest class. Maybe carrying the biggest gun than and having a margin of speed (overestimated as NONE of them reached designed speed). Their armour was very conservative one when compared with US Navy Nevada and Pennsylvania Classes sporting an epogue ahead "all or nothing" system. Besides in spite being overall good design they suffered (like some RN ships than)from serious faults in details what almost drove HMS Malaya to 3 BC's fate when hit by inferior (in theory) 305 mm projectile:confused:

Miro, our old USN BBs did in fact cross the IJN's T at Suraigo......and unlike the HSF at Jutland (twice), the results for IJN were a total disaster. Back to QEs: good points...they really did have a hard time, even originally, reaching their designed top speed. Their armor etc was, as I understand it, an "outgrowth" of Iron Duke's design....unlike the[I] all or nothing principal [/I]started by Nevada and Penn. classes. From RN's pov tho...they got more use/value out of the QEs than any other class of BB they ever had. Overall a very good class of BB, but the BEST ever??? Gee...and I thought that UK citizens were famous for UNDER stating things!!! DFO :D:D

Re Miros comment about Malaya at Jutland (" Besides in spite being overall good design they suffered (like some RN ships than)from serious faults in details what almost drove HMS Malaya to 3 BC's fate when hit by inferior (in theory)[COLOR="red"] 305 mm projectile[/COLOR]") there is this........... "She was commissioned into the 5th Battle Squadron of the Grand Fleet in February 1916. At Jutland that squadron was part of Beatty’s battlecruiser squadron. As Beatty rushed south to catch the Germans in the first stage of the battle, the battleships fell behind, and so were absent when the British and German battlecruisers clashed. They arrived after the first of Beatty’s battlecruisers had been destroyed, and were unable to prevent the loss of a second, but probably saved the rest of his squadron from a further mauling. She was at the rear of the line when the squadron turned north after the High Seas Fleet arrived on the scene, and was subjected to half an hour of intense fire.[COLOR="Red"] She was hit by seven large shells, two below the waterline, causing her to list, and one close to the side that knocked out many of her 6in guns. She suffered the most casualties of any British battleship at Jutland – 63 dead and 33 wounded.[/COLOR] " A close call........too close for many RN sailors........DFO :eek:

Several views I found that I hope will be of interest. They were quite graceful in the original design.......DFO ;):D
Attachments :

Thanks, the photo of Barham at Scapa is wonderful!

Two more I found of Barham under construction.........DFO ;):D
Attachments :

Was the damage to Malaya really that bad? I know Warspites damage was exaggerated, some have described her as "close to foundering" which was rubbish. All 4 of her main turrets remained operational. Was Malaya really in danger of exploding due to a secondary mag almost going up?

Hello, "In Malaya, a 12-inch shell penetrated the forecastle-deck, and exploded in the starboard battery near "S3" gun, which was wrecked. Shell splinters penetrated some of the "W" cases containing ready-use charges, and started a cordite fire which caused more than a hundred casualties and put the entire battery out of action. The fire also penetrated the 6-inch shell room which was open to the magazine, and but for the quick action of two men, Malaya would probably have been lost", by A. Raven & j. Roberts, British Battleships of World War Two, page 85. All that was caused by not separated individual 6-inch guns casamates. Later they was separated by flash-proof screens. Concerning HMS Warspite: in fact all her main turrets remained operational;):D "An important strike on the after side of the communication tube which half-severed it, the shell than turned through and burst. The shell than struck in the area of the Captain's cabin caused difficulties inthe steering compartment and the rudder became jammed. This caused the ship to turn in large circle, and at one point she was steaming straight towards the enemy battle line, and was fired on and hit by many heavy shells", by R.A.Burt, British Battleships of World War One, page 268. She was out of control and couldn't keep the line, ie was eliminated from battle after this hit.

[B]All that was caused by not separated individual 6-inch guns casamates[/B] I suppose navies learnt as they went along, prior to Jutland there hadnt been any real combat between modern battleships

What about the Battle of Tsushima in 1905?? That really was the first case of large scale combat between battleships as we know them.

Does anyone know if the Royal Navy took notes from the 1905 battle and used the data to amend their future designs (with regard to armour)?

[QUOTE=GaryH;127748]Does anyone know if the Royal Navy took notes from the 1905 battle and used the data to amend their future designs (with regard to armour)?[/QUOTE] Hi, Captain W.C. Pakenham R.N., was the R.N.'s observer, and was attached to IJN Asahi. Apparently, according to 'The Fleet that had to Die', Richard Hough, the Mikado asked Admiral Togo to bring before him the most gallant sailor from the action. Togo summoned Pakenham! Pakenham was sat on a deck chair on the quarterdeck of the Asahi taking notes during the action. He had been with the Japanese fleet for 14 months in every action never going ashore in that period. I would have to re-read the book to confirm what technical details were taken by Pakenham, but he did send dispatches on the actions, so I imagine they are available as Public Documents. Cheers, Hugh Williams Edit - On back checking with the book 'Jutland - Analysis of the Battle' in the summary there is a reference to the battle of Tsushima, 1905, but there is a comment that no large scale trials had taken place with regards to the ammunition supply, which briefly can be summed up as relevant to the loss of the RN Ships at Jutland.

[QUOTE=GaryH;127748]Does anyone know if the Royal Navy took notes from the 1905 battle and used the data to amend their future designs (with regard to armour)?[/QUOTE] Not only RN but all Powers took notes from 1904-1905 battles. But most of them were general ("All big guns ship" was much common). Very few put any attention on details (as usual). Royal Navy had the most numerous observers but their reports were either neglected or owned somewhere in beaurocrats desks. Overestimation of HE shells slowed works on proper AP shells but there were allso other factors. Captain Packenham was brave (or maybe nonchalant) but I think much more usful for RN Tacticants was a report of nameless (for me at least) observer on board Armoured Cruiser Izumo who noticed Japanese practice to stow too much projectiles and charges in 203 mm Turrets and 152 mm casamates (up to 38 HE and 10 AP or even 40 HE and 10 AP!). From those six Armoured Cruisers so important in this war four were built in British yards and one in German and one in French. All of theme were, more or less, equal (armour, artillery,speed) but British built ships had much more ammunition stowage (120 against 80). Why? Because British designers located 80(sic!) ready use ammunition in every double 203 mm turret. During battle of Ulsan August 1st 1904 (August 14th in old style) between Armoured Cruisers Izuma, Tokiwa,Iwate (all built in Britain) and Russian Russia, Gromoboy and Ryurik (last one sunk) Russian 203 mm AP shell penetrated forward double 203 mm turred but failed to explode. Can't immagine what would happen if it didn't! Much less lucky was Iwate which was struck by other 203 mm projectile which acted properly. This one penetrated the deck over No. 1 152 mm gun casamate, hit rack of ready to use ammunition (6 charges) and caused its detonation what caused explosion of other charges which shouldn't be there (stowed there to speed rate of fire). All casamate was demolished (with shielded gun with standing above),but thanks to 51 mm armour of its rear the explosion vented through deck and tearning away 18 mm board shelling with bolts holding 152 mm side armour. 67 men were perished but the ship escaped of destruction. I don't know other Powers practice (French, American, Italian)but Germans Dreadnoughts used 30 mm armour separating 150 mm casamates and British used all direction enclosed casamates also on their Armoured Cruisers but dropped it on their capital ships with 152 mm secondary batteries. Faulty economy? Lack of foresight? Negligence? I don't know. If somebody had put more attention on this then on Mr. Packenham bravery(sorry) maybe 3000 men from HMS Indefatigable, Queen Mary and Invincible wouldn't have to sacrifice their lives in Skagerrak Battle and HMS Malaya would't have been experienced so hard? By the way. During Skagerrak Battle SMS Derflinger, Konig and Kaiser (if memory serves) got hits in their 150 mm casamates but damages (in spite of many casualties) were superficial and did not make any danger for ship's surviving.
Attachments :

just read the entire thread: fantastic: Terry your photograph collection is awesome. Barham went un modernised Malaya was partially modernised. Was this for financial reasons? Or did they run ut of time? If I recall Malaya at the end of her life was used for testing 'highball' the naval version of the bouncing bomb to be used by(never produced) navalised mosquitos. They were to be used in the pacific I think.

[B]By the way. During Skagerrak Battle SMS Derflinger, Konig and Kaiser (if memory serves) got hits in their 150 mm casamates but damages (in spite of many casualties) were superficial and did not make any danger for ship's surviving.[/B] The German ships obviously already had ther casemates partioned off with flash proof screens I assume? The Konigs were tough and rugged ships

[QUOTE=GaryH;127814][B]By the way. During Skagerrak Battle SMS Derflinger, Konig and Kaiser (if memory serves) got hits in their 150 mm casamates but damages (in spite of many casualties) were superficial and did not make any danger for ship's surviving.[/B] The German ships obviously already had ther casemates partioned off with flash proof screens I assume? The Konigs were tough and rugged ships[/QUOTE] They had the casamates separated by 20-30 mm armour as built. Strange enough that British specialists regarded enclosing of secondary batteries as serious problem in their control. Germans, having enclosed casamates, did not claim this problem. Frankly saying the effectivness of 150/152 mm fire during Skagerrak battle was less than poor and instead of "hell of fire" inflicted on oponent ship there was much of spoilt money and man power on both sides, doesn't matter enclosed batteries or not:( Only really good use of 150/152 mm batteries was night action of SMS Westfalen and Rheinland against British light forces but it was on very short distance and can not be objective.

Another photo to add to the really good selection already provided by members. This time its HMS MALAYA at Funchal in 1927. Regards......Paul
Attachments :

Thanks Paul - it is good to get back on topic! Nice picture of one of my favourite RN battleships. :)

HMS BARHAM at Port Said, 1930s:
Attachments :

Lovelly Picture Antione. Regards Dave

For those interested in seeing more of HMS Queen Elizabeth, there are some good shots here: [URL]http://www.worldnavalships.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107&highlight=elizabeth[/URL]

I've just unearthed this photo of a QE class which unfortunately carries no details of the ship's name, location or date. Suggestions would be welcome. Regards......Paul
Attachments :

As I can see this is the "Queen Elizabeth" herself.

Thanks Terry for you comments at post 43 regarding my photo of MALAYA. Thanks also to Antoine for your above suggestion which I've followed up by studying a detailed picture of QUEEN ELIZABETH dated November 1927, which looks identical in all respects to the vessel in my untitled photo. Maybe the mystery is now resolved. Regards.......Paul

Some lovely photos of powerful ships in this thread. Here's a couple of my old postcards (1930s, I think) which I hope are of interest. Obviously I haven't cleaned the scans up but have converted them to black and white. The originals are in sepia (were they printed like that, I wonder, or is it an age thing?). :confused: Peter
Attachments :

More Posts

Everything we obtain for this site is shown on the site, we do not have any more photos, crew lists or further information on any of the ships.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE. ALL IMAGES DISPLAYED ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW, AND ARE OWNED BY CRANSTON FINE ARTS OR THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS. NO REPRODUCTION OR COPYING ALLOWED ON OTHER WEBSITES, BOOKS OR ARTICLES WITHOUT PRIOR AGREEMENT.

Contact Details
Shipping Info
Terms and Conditions
Cookie Policy
Privacy Policy

Sign Up To Our Newsletter!

Stay up to date with all our latest offers, deals and events as well as new releases and exclusive subscriber content!

This website is owned by Cranston Fine Arts. Torwood House, Torwoodhill Road, Rhu, Helensburgh, Scotland, G848LE

Contact: Tel: (+44) (0) 1436 820269. Email: cranstonorders -at- outlook.com

Return to Home Page