SMS BAYERN OR HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH?

In 1898 the Naval Arms race that was to conclude sixteen years later in the Great War, was begun. The culmination of that titanic struggle was to see the creation of the ‘Super-Dreadnought’. The British creation was the five vessels of the Queen Elizabeth class, Barham, Malaya, Warspite, Valiant and the Queen Elizabeth herself. (HMS Agincourt was to have been the sixth vessel in the class, but the outbreak of war brought her cancelation. The cancelled vessel’s name was to become as legendary as her five step -sister ‘super-dreadnoughts’. [1]

The Germans in turn created the four vessel class of the Bayern, comprising the Baden, Sachsen, Württemberg and the Bayern herself. Of the four, only two were to see completion and serve within the Kaiser’s navy, the Bayern and Baden. A century on and these two classes still have an impact on and divide the Naval lovers world. Members either love one or the other, but only the rare individual loves both with an equal passion.

I’m going to try and compare the two class leaders, Queen Elizabeth and the Bayern. One hundred percent comparison isn’t an easy thing to achieve when I am dictated to by both the surviving and available records. These records are not equal in their available subject matter, plus the retrospective records of the Queen Elizabeth’s class are more biased towards the legends they were to become in the Second World War, as well as the inter-war period. The Bayern’s moment in the limelight was a brief twenty-eight months before the war was lost to Germany. They came into service post Jutland when the day of the ‘line-of-battlefleet’ was past. They were creatures of an already obsolete concept, and from their anchorages would watch the rise and the first fall of the U-boats. But none of that detracts from either classes legend, and maybe now is the time to try and answer the question, which was the better vessel or design?

1) BIRTH

The first question to be tackled must be who came first, the Bayern or the Queen Elizabeth class? The Royal Navy had taken the decision to develop a 15-inch (381 mm) gun, in order to equip the dreadnoughts of the 1912 construction programme. The class lead ship, HMS Queen Elizabeth, was laid down in the Portsmouth dockyard, (the birth place of that other naval revolution, HMS Dreadnought, on the 21st October 1912. She was to be launched on the 16th October 1913, the construction work was declared completed during January 1914 and she was commissioned on the 22nd December that same year. From keel laying to commissioning was a total of 793 days.

The Bayern’s class design work was commenced in 1910, with the classes lead ship, the S.M.S Bayern’s keel being laid down at the Howaldtswerke yard in Kiel, on the 20th August 1913, where she was launched two years later on the 18th February 1915. The Germans were unware of the Queen Elizabeth’s calibre size until March of 1913. So the Bayern’s 15-inch guns weren’t a responsive move, but simply one of ‘like-minds’. Her commissioning date was 1061 days from the keel laying, on the 15th July 1916, ( another source gives the 18th March, but we’ll stick with the 15th). The Bayern could have been commissioned in time for Jutland in May 1916, and taken her place in the German battle line. But the ship’s crew, drawn mainly from the recently decommissioned pre-dreadnought S.M.S Lothringen, was granted leave between ships, and she was on her delayed trials when the two fleets clashed.

The net result was the Bayern’s building time exceeded that of the Queen Elizabeth by 268 days. But before we chalk one up to the Queen Elizabeth, the Bayern’s preceding classes lead ship, the S.M.S Konig, was completed from keel to commissioning in 1011 days, which was in total just under fifty days slower. The Queen Elizabeth’s preceding class lead ship, the Iron Duke, was 789 days from keel to commissioning, which was 4 days slower than the Queen Elizabeth. This confusing wave of dates and times simply illustrate that aside from sending the Bayern’s crew on leave, Germany just took longer to build her capital ships!

2) SIZE & WEIGHT

Next let’s compare the dimensions of the two vessels. The Queen Elizabeth’s overall length was 643ft, 0-inches, (196.2mtr), while the Bayern had a hull length of 590 ft 7 in (180 mtr). This left the Bayern at 52 ft 5-inch (15.97 mtr) shorter than the British ships hull. The Queen Elizabeth’s beam was on completion, 90ft ,7-inches (27.6mtr), but the shorter German hull was at 98 ft 5-inch (30 mtr) greater in the beam by 7 feet 10-inches ( 2.38 mtr). Finally the British deep draught was 33 feet 0-inch (10.1mtr), while the Bayern’s was between 30 ft 6 in and 30 ft 10-inches (9.3–9.4 mtr). The difference in draught was of two feet two-inch (0.64 mtr) in the Bayern’s favour. Of the two hull shapes, the Bayern’s was shorter, shallower and broader, but the two ships displacements also have a story to tell.

The Queen Elizabeth had a normal displacement of 32,590 long tons (33,110 t) which was increased to 33,260 (33,794 t) when fully loaded. Unfortunately the Queen Elizabeth class was fundamentally overweight, having been designed for a 31,500 ton displacement but completing at 32,590 tons, she was 5.1% over that design weight. The net result was that the unplanned extra tonnage increased her draught, and was party the reason her class were unable to reach that planned top speed of 25 knots.

In contrast the Bayern had a normal displacement of 28,080 long (28,530 metric tons) with a deep load of 31,700 long tons, (32,200 t), making them 4,510 tons (13.83%) at normal and 1,560 tons (0.46%) at full load, lighter than their British rivals. The famous German light cruiser, the Emden, had a displacement of 4,268 tons (4,201 long tons), meaning the Bayern ‘normal’ weight was more than one Emden greater than the Queen Elizabeth. It’s quickly obvious that the Bayern had a shorter, wider hull, (dare I use the word dumpier or fatter?), and somewhere between the two tonnage figures the Bayern’s takes on more weight. She is smaller and heavier in her weight per square foot comparison, which surely will have an impact on sea miles per ton of coal?

DISPLACEMENTS	Standard	Difference	Full/loaded	Difference
Bayern	28,080 long (28,530 metric tons)	-4,510 tons (13.83%)	31,700 long tons, (32,200 t)	-1,560 tons (0.46%)
Queen Elizabeth	32,590 long tons (33,110 t)		33,260 (33,794 t)

 

3) POWER

The major design departure was the British decision to power their new ‘super-dreadnoughts’ with oil, the German designers having retained coal as their preferred source of power.The Bayern’s coal bunkers had a capacity to hold 3,400 tons of coal, in addition to an oil tank with 620 tons capacity. This mix gave the ship a total fuel weight of 4,020 tons. The oil burning Queen Elizabeth’s tanks held 3300 tons, and in addition she had a coal “bin” containing 100 tons of coal. The fuel weight difference between the two classes was 620 tons, and to give the figure some scale, one of the British 15-inch turrets weighed around 770 tons.

But the adoption of oil as her fuel had further implications. The ship had no need of stokers to form so larger part of her crew. I don’t have the figures for the Queen Elizabeth, but the battlecruiser HMS Queen Mary carried a crew of 1262 personnel and of that number, 555 were stokers, which is 43.97% of the crew, a percentage of body weight the Queen Elizabeth class had no need to carry. But as we will see, the crew numbers for ships did not differ by any thing like that figure.

One major drawback to the adoption of oil was the loss of the solid mass weight of coal within the ships below the waterline. Coal bunkers provided a further solid mass of protection from incoming shell and torpedo fire. But these two weight savings, did allow an extra-inch of belt armour to be added to the design. Oil also burnt cleaner with less funnel smoke omissions and as a result a clearer line of sight for the ships gunnery crews.

The Queen Elizabeth was built with three of Brown-Curtis’s steam turbines as well as twenty four Yarrow boilers, giving a designed 56,000 shp delivering 24 knots. These in turn drove four 11 foot (3.35 mtr) bladed propellers at 275 rpm. These huge propellers were framed by two 30 foot (9.14 mtr) rudders, that were set just behind them. One was between the first and second propellers and the second between the second and third, allowing a 360° turn.

The Bayern in her turn was built with three Schichau/Parsons steam turbines, three oil-fired and eleven coal-fired Schulz-Thornycroft, plus three petrol boilers. This combination equated to 55,202 shp driving her, on her trials to 22 knots. This combination of turbines and seventeen boilers powered three 12 foot, 10-inch (3.87 mtr) propellers, which were supported by the same number of rudders.

The number of boilers, propellers and rudders are in terms of ship-to ship-comparison, a support act to the output they generated. The Queen Elizabeth had been designed, as we have already seen, as a 25 knots ‘fast-battleships’, but in service the class was to achieve a one knot shortfall at 24 knots. The Bayern had been designed for a slower speed, achieving 22 knots. This was based on the incorrect German assumption, that the British would remain with the 21 knot average speed of their dreadnoughts.

I did find a solitary source that credited the Baden with achieving a speed of 22.3kts on her trials (at 52,815 shp). It was added, correctly that the two completed Bayerns had been forced to run their wartime trials over a shallow measured mile, which duly resulted in achieved speeds well below what would have been possible in the more usual deep mile off Borkum or under peacetime rules. The source also adds that the lack of high quality Welsh steaming coal, lighter displacement and “more overload tolerated”, impacted on the results. They claim the vessels being capable of speed of in-between 23.5kts and 24.0 kts in ‘normal’ trials. If the vessels had been capable of 24 knots then their scope of operational roles would have been greatly expand and more on a par with the Queen Elizabeth’s. If!

The Queen Elizabeth’s steaming endurance was a distance of 5000 nautical sea miles at 12 knots, a figure the German vessel matched. This illustrates the error of the old ‘wives tale’ that the Kaiser’s battle fleet was designed purely for service in the North Sea. But given their low freeboard for the German design, they would been “lively platforms” in the open North Atlantic. However the Bayern crew still had to face the dreaded and despised task of ‘coaling-ship’, followed by the job of cleaning both ship and themselves of the gritty black coal dust. No matter what the fuel consumption, the Queen Elizabeth’s crew had the advantage, in that their fuel was pumped onboard through a sealed pipe.

 

4) THE 15 INCH GUNS

Both ships were to be fitted with their nations first experiment in 15-inch guns, and these were to be carried in four double turrets. The British used the (BL) 15-inch (381 mtr) Mk I and the Germans, the 14.96-inch gun (38 cm), the SK L/45 model.

The Queen Elizabeth’s eight guns were of wire wound construction but the Germans opted for the format of shrunken hoops onto tubes. The debate as to which construction method is one that to this day, remains unresolved. The British weapon weighed 224,000 lbs (101,605 kg) which included the breech mechanism, and it had both a length of 650.4-inches (16.520 mtr), as well as a bore of 630 feet 0-inches (16.002 mtr). The German weapon made use of the Krupp horizontal sliding wedge breech block and had a weight of circa 176,370 lbs, (80,000 kg), with a length of 673-inches (17.100 mtr), making it both 74,765 lbs heavier and 23-inches longer than the Queen Elizabeth’s guns. The bore length varied by 4-inches, with the Bayern being the larger figure. The Queen Elizabeth’s guns recoil was 46-in (117 cm) and they had the capacity to be loaded at between -5 and +20 degrees.The life of the Queen Elizabeth’s barrel was 335 rounds and a rate of fire, by a proficient gun crew, was on average two rounds per minute, with a reload time of 36 seconds.

The Bayern’s eight barrels had an individual life of 300 firings, which was 35 less than the Queen Elizabeth. But the Bayern had a faster rate of fire at 2.5 rounds per minute and a reload in 23 seconds. The difference between the two guns, was due partly to Bayern’s much faster cycle for the process of firing, recoil, runout and return to loading position (2.5 seconds as against 6 seconds). In addition, the Queen Elizabeth required a much longer time (5 seconds as opposed to 1.5 seconds), to open the breech and a similar amount of time to close it, due to its use of a “long-arm mechanism.”

The magazines on board the Queen Elizabeth held 100 rounds per gun, plus six shrapnel shells. The German magazines held a supply of 90 shells, (which was comprised of 60 APC and 30 HE) per gun. This was ten less, (per gun), than was contained within the Queen Elizabeth’s magazines.

The Queen Elizabeth’s 15-inch guns were contained in pairs within 770 ton (782 t) turret’s. These four turrets could elevate at a rate 5 degrees per second, and their training arcs was between -150 and +150 degrees, with a ‘rate-of-training’ of 2 degrees a second. The weapon had a loading angle of -5 to +20 degrees.

The Bayern had the same turret configuration, and each of her 853 ton turrets [2], could train to 150°, at a rate of 3° per second, either side of the centreline. The gun’s recoil was 49-in (125 cm) and a loading angle of 2.5 degrees and could range between -8° and 16° in elevation, at 5° per second.

Turrets	Weight	Train	Elevate	Loading angle
Bayern	853 tons	3° per second	-8° to +16° at 5° per second	2.5°
Queen Elizabeth	770 tons	2° per second	5°per second	-15 to +20°

 

The aim of off all this technology was to deliver up to eight shells per salvo, onto a target and to inflict as much harm as was possible to the enemies vessel. The Queen Elizabeth’s gun fired a 1,938 lb (879 kg) Mk XVIIB shell at a muzzle velocity of 2,458 ft/s (749 m/s). In reply the German armor-piercing shell weighed 1,653 lb (750kg), 285 lb lighter and was driven by a 277 kg (610.7 lb) RPC/12 propellant charge in a brass cartridge. The shells were fired at a muzzle velocity of 800 mps (2,625 ft/s). This gave the Queen Elizabeth’s a broadside of 15,505 lbs (1938 x 8) or 6.9 tons and the Bayern a broadside of 13,224 lbs (1653 × 8), or 5.90 tons, a difference of 14.7% to the British advantage.

The Queen Elizabeth 15-inch (381 mm) guns were to prove be a complete success and were to prove to be both reliable and extremely accurate, being able to fire a tight groups of shells at 20,000 yards (18,000 mtr). The weapon had a reported range of 19,500 yards (17,800 mtr) at Jutland, a record at that time.

With a 1,920 lbs (871kg) armour piercing shell the Queen Elizabeth’s guns could reach out to a range of 8,629 yards (7,980 mtr) and then penetrate through 16-inches (406 mm) of side armour. The Bayern, using her lighter 1,653 lbs (750 kg) APS could at 10,936 yards (10,000 mtr) penetrate 15.35-inches (390 mm).

With an increase of out to 14,853 yards (13,582 mtr) the depth of armour Queen Elizabeth could pierce dropped by 4-inches to 12.0-inches (305 mm).The Bayern, with her lighter shell, could at 13,670 yards (12,500 mtr) pierce 13.78 inches (350 mm) of side armour.

This decrease continued as the range increased until at 23,734 yards (21,702 mtr) the depth of the armour the Queen Elizabeth’s shell could penetrate had declined to 9.0-inches (229 mtr) of side armour. The Bayern at the shorter 21,872 yards (20,000 mtr) could penetrate 10.43 in (265 mtr) of steel.

Finally at 27,340 yards (25,000 mtr) the Bayern’s shells could break through 8.66 in (220 mtr) of metal but there are no figures for the British gun at this range that are clearly from the ‘Bayern-time’ period.

Shell penetration
Bayern	15.35 in at 10,936 yards	13.78 in at 13,670 yards	10.43 in at 21,872 yards	8.66 in at 27,340 yards
Queen Elizabeth	16 in at 8,629 yards.	12 in at 14,853 yards	9 in at 23,734 yards	No available ww1 figures

 

On commissioning the Bayern’s main battery had a range of 22,309 yards (20,400 mtr), but the weapons were modified during service, increasing their elevation by up to 20 degrees, effectively increasing the range to 25,371 yards (23,200 mtr). It’s difficult to obtain a definitive maximum range for the Queen Elizabeth’s guns during her World War One services, as most of the readily available records are for her inter-war and World War Two period of service. But one lone source states the guns range in World War One as 23,400 yards. Unexpectedly there are similar problems with German weapons records as it went on to serve into World War Two, but NOT as is commonly believed in the Bismark class. [3] There are even records of the Bayern gun serving as a Coastal Artillery weapon (HE L/4,1) and achieving a range of 51,950 yards (47,500 mtr), but with no date for this achievement. So in neither case can I provide the final range of either weapon. But we know the Queen Elizabeth reached out to 23,734 yards (21,702 mtr) during the war, [4] and Bayern to 25,371 yards (23,200 mtr). Maybe the Bayern had the edge in the range her guns were capable of, but nothing can be definitive.

Main calibre	Weight	Rounds per minute	Broadside	Range (approximate)
Bayern	176,370 lbs, (80,000 kg)	2.5 per min	13,224 lbs	25,371 yards (23,200 mtr)
Queen Elizabeth	224,000 lbs (101,605 kg)	2.0	15,505 lbs	23,734 yards (21,702 mtr) (?)

 

5) SECONDARY BATTERY

The Queen Elizabeth’s secondary armament was comprised of sixteen BL 6-inch (152 mtr) Mk XII guns mounted into casemates, which like the majority of their kind, suffered from being unusable in anything but a calm sea [5].The weapon could range out to 21,500 yards (19,660 mtr).

The Bayern’s secondary weapon was also casement mounted and was the Krupp 15 cm (5.9-inch) SK L/45 gun. The weapons were spaced out into four pairs in order to avoid a disabling hit and to allow for better fire control. The weapon offered a range of 14,763 yards, but with modifications in 1915 the range increased to 16,800 mtrs. The ranges achieved gave the advantage to the Queen Elizabeth.

The Queen Elizabeth’s 6-inch gun had a weight of 15,428 lbs. (6,998 kg), with an overall length of 279.7 in (7.105 mtr). The Bayern’s weighed 12,630 lbs (5,730 k), with a length of 22 ft 0-inches (6.71 mtr).The barrel had a life that was far superior with 1,400 firings been achievable, 730 above the Queen Elizabeth’s barrel life. With these weapons a good gunnery crews the Queen Elizabeth could achieve a rate of 5 to 7 rounds per minute was achievable, which the Germans matched.

The British, firing a 100 lbs. (45.36) CPBC shell with a standard charges, at an elevation of 15 degrees, could achieve a range of 13,500 yards (12,344 mtr). The range steadily increased with greater elevation, until reaching at 40 degrees out to 21,500 yards (19,660 mtr). At 7,500 yards with a 100 lbs (45.3 kg) CPC shell, striking onto KC Side Armour, the 6-inch shell could penetrate 3.5-inches (8.9 cm). The Bayern, using a fractionally lighter 99.8 lb (45.3 kg) shell, even with modifications, her gun’s range still fell short of the Queen Elizabeth’s 6-inch range by 4,700 yards. But another source claims that at 45 degrees on “Proving Grounds” the German weapon could achieve 20,120 yards (18,400 mtr), which would bring it to within 1,380 yards of the Queen Elizabeth. The Bayern’s gun shells were all of the same weight: Armor Piercing 45.3 kg (100 lb), High Explosive Base fused 45.3 kg (100 lb), High Explosive Nose fused 45.3 kg (100 lb), Common Shell 45.3 kg (100 lb)), which bar a few ounces was the same weight of shell as the Queen Elizabeth’s guns fired. The Queen Elizabeth’s magazines held 130 rounds plus 100 stars shell for each individual gun, and the Bayern’s magazines held 160 rounds per gun.

6) ANTI-AIRSHIP DEFENCE

At the time of these two classes being designed, the threat to them from the air was not considered a major risk, as any bombs dropped onto the ships, it was believed, would only be a minor cause for concern. Plus, (pre-war), the threat was seen as coming from airships, and not the new fangled aeroplane. Queen Elizabeth’s anti-aircraft defence was provided by two quick-firing (QF) 3-inch (76 mtr) 20 cwt Mk I guns. They had an elevation range of -10° to +9° and could fire 16 to 18 rounds per minute. They gave the Queen Elizabeth an effective firing range of 16,000 ft (4,900 mtr), but could range out to 23,500 ft (7,200 mtr) with a 12.5 lb shell. The Bayern anti-aircraft defence was also two guns, but the 8.8 cm (3.5 in) SK L/45 guns. It was a weapon that was to be widely used by the German capital ships through out the First World War period, and was to ultimately see service though to the Second World War. It had a rate of fire of 15 rounds per minute and a barrel life of 7000 round. In the First World War it had a range of 12,900 yards (11,790 mtr) based on a 45° elevation. It’s elevation range was -10° to +70°and a ceiling range of 9,150 m at 70 °. The Queen Elizabeth also carried four 3pdr saluting guns.

7) TORPEDOS

The Queen Elizabeth carried four submerged 21-inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes, depressed to 2°, with two on each broadside. The forward tubes bore 80° and the aft 100°. In 1917, these tubes were firing the 21-inch Mark IV torpedoes. The Mark IV had a weight of 3,206 lb (1,454 kg), a length of 22 ft 7.5 inches (6.896 mtr) and a diameter of 21-inch (533 mtr). Its TNT warhead weighed 515 lb (234 kg) and the weapon had a range at 45 knots of 4,500 yards, 29 knots to 11,000 yards, 25 knots to 15,000 yards and 21 knots to 18,000 yards.

The Bayern had five submerged 60 cm (24 in) torpedo tubes, two as with the Queen Elizabeth, on each beam, but an additional tube was placed in the bows. The Bayern held 20 torpedoes in reserve. Both the Bayern and the Baden were to strike mines in 1917 and the damage that resulted revealed a structural weaknesses caused by the torpedo tubes and as a result both ships had their lateral tubes removed. The twenty torpedoes carried were of the H8 type, which were 8 meters (26 ft 3 in) in length and carried a 210 kg (463 lb) Hexanite [6] warhead. The torpedoes had a range of 6,550 yd (6000 mtr) when set at a speed of 36 knots; at a reduced speed of 30 knots, the range increased significantly to 15,310 yd, (14,000mtr).

Torpedo	Warhead
Bayern	210 kg (463 lb) Hexanite warhead	6,550 yards at 36 knots	15,310 yd at 30 knots
Queen Elizabeth	515 lb (234 kg) (TNT)	4,500 yards at 45 knots	11,000 yards at 29 knots	18,000 yards at 21 knots

8) ARMOUR

The Queen Elizabeth’s armour was a modified version of the proceeding class, the Iron Duke’s, but with a with a thicker belt and an enhanced underwater protection.The Queen Elizabeth’s belt was 13-inch, (an-inch more than the Duke), tapering to 6-inch forward and 4-inch aft, while the upper belt was 6-inches. The Bayern’s Krupp cemented steel armour belt was 14-inches (350 mm) thick over the central citadel of the hull, where the most important parts of the ship were located [7]. The citadel held the ammunition magazines and the machinery spaces. The belt reduced over the less critical areas, to 7.9-inches (200 mm) forward and aft of the hulls waterline. There it thinned further to 5.9-inches (150 mm) and was 1.18-inches (30mm) as it reached the bow. Above it the armour belt thinned to 9.8-inches (250 mm) and 6.6-inches (170 mm ) below it’s bottom edge. A 2.0-inch (50 mm) thick torpedo bulkhead ran the length of the hull, located several meters behind the main belt. The Queen Elizabeth’s bulkheads were between 4 and 6-inches both forward and aft.

The four 15-inch turrets on the Queen Elizabeth had 11-inch armoured sides, 13-inch faces and a 4.25-inch roof. The Bayern turrets in reply had armoured sides of 7.87-inch (200mmtr). Their front was 13.77-inches (350mm) and the rear 11.41-inches (290 mm). Over the top 3.93-inches (100 mm) formed the armoured roof.

The British barbettes were between 7 to 10 above the belt and 4 to 6 below the belt, compared to 13.77-inches (350 mm) above deck for the German the ship. The secondary 6-inch guns were protected by 6-inch armour, and the central placed German 6-inches came within the 6.69-inches (170 mm) superstructure length belt that ran above the main armoured belt. The Queen Elizabeth’s conning tower was covered by 11-inch on the sides, 3-inch’s on its roof and a 4-inch revolving hood. The Bayern’s was between 9.84-inches (250 mm) and 13.77-inches (350 mm), with the aft conning tower being protected by 6.69-inches (170 mm). The Bayern’s decks armour scheme ranged between 2.3 and 3.9-inches (60 mm–100 mm). In reply the Queen Elizabeths main deck was 1.25-inches at the forward and aft ends, while the middle deck was 1-inch, (being upgraded to 2-inches after the Battle of Jutland). The lower deck was 3-inches at extreme ends, 2.25-inches over her steering gear and 1-inch forward. In total she had 5 armoured decks which were thinner than the Iron Dukes. Underwater protection improved by addition of two 2 inch longitudinal bulkheads covering between the torpedo flats.

The Bayern’s double bottom ran for 88% of the ships length, but her bow and stern were both unprotected. She also had 17 water tight compartments. The Fred Janes Fighting Ships 1919 edition shows the Queen Elizabeth with 26 watertight compartments, but in the comparative Bayern entry she is shown with 24 compartments, accompanied by a note warning of its un-reliability. It was also noted post the Royal Navy tests, that the Bayerns watertight compartments were prone to seepage of water through pipes and doors that pierced the watertight bulkheads. But this must be taken with caution, as the she had suffered from neglect since November 1918 and had undergone an attempted scuttling. The vessel would hardly be in ‘service condition’ when the British conducted their tests.

The Bayern four turret roofs were thinner overall, and the barbettes on the Queen Elizabeth were a maximin of ten inches but in reply the Bayern was nearer fourteen inches maximum. The casements varied by 0.9-inches with Bayern having the advantage at 6.9-inch.The Queen Elizabeth’s Conning tower was the better protected and the Bayern had the thicker decking at between 2.3 and 3.9-inches (60 mm–100 mm), compared to the Queen Elizabeth’s 1.25 to 3-inches.

There is much debate over the quality of metal used within the Bayern, but as I have already stated, I’m of the opinion that the Bayern’s plates would have been ordered prior to the quality problems with German steel becoming to serious. I partly disagree with Gary E. Weir “Building of the Kaiser’s Navy”, Naval Institute Press, 1992, where he states “that by mid-1916, when the S.M.S Baden was being built, there was already a shortage of nickel, copper and tin. That shortage was probably constantly present in Germany. One could imagine that the composition and quality of some of the steel was not always exactly as the specifications and tests stated”. For the two latter Bayern’s (Sachsen, and Württemberg), he has a valid point, but in 1914 to 1915 when the Bayern and Baden’s steel was being produced, the problems to come for German foundries had yet to be a serious issue. Post war tests conducted on the captured Baden in 1919, showed only a slight difference between British and German steel. When they were fired on during the 1919 tests, the Baden’s plates did not meet the strict standards required of British plates. But the difference were ‘slight’ and not cataclysmic that so many sources claim or hint at.

Armour	Belt	Conning Tower	Deck	Turrets
Bayern	6.7–13.8 n	?-16 in	2.3–3.9 in	13.8–3.9 in
Queen Elizabeth	4-13 in	3-11 in	1-6 in	4.25-13 in

9) COST

Now we come to the cost of the two vessels. The Queen Elizabeth was constructed for a price of £3,014,103 and the Bayern’s for a stated price of 49,000,000 gold Marks, (a gold Mark was a coin as opposed to the paper mark). A Mark pre-war according to Professor Harold Marcuse of history.U.C Santra Barbara was 20.429 to the pound Sterling, which converts the Bayern’s 49 million gold Marks to £2,398,551 Which makes her 20.42% cheaper than the Queen Elizabeth. If you calculate the cost of the vessels per normal ton you obtain the sums of the Queen Elizabeth at 92.48 and the Bayern at 85.41 tons per pound Stirling. If you carry the calculation through to include fixtures and fittings (or full load), and divide cost by weight, you have Queen Elizabeth at 90.62 and Bay at 75.66 tons per pound sterling.

10) CREW

The Queen Elizabeth’s crew level during the war was between 925 and 951, and in 1920 she is recorded as having 1262 crew in board whilst serving as a flagship. The Bayern’s had a crew comprising of 1171 (42 officers 1129 enlisted) and while serving as a flag ship that increased to 1271 ( with an additional 14 officers and 86). But it must be remembered that with her oil power the Queen Elizabeth had no need for stokers, a luxury the Bayern’s did not enjoy.

11) TO CONCLUDE

So to (try) and conclude….Conclusions are to me like politics, personal. Some who read this may judge me insane, but maybe a few might just agree….

The Queen Elizabeth’s were laid down first and completed first, that’s clear and undeniable. The Bayern was delayed by her crews leave, but she would still have entered service in 1916 and never 1914 as with the Queen Elizabeth. She was laid down after the Queen Elizabeth’s, taking the usual time to be built within a German shipyard and was conceived before or around same time as the Queen Elizabeth. She was not a response but a like minded result. The 15-inch calibre were already under design on learning of the Queen Elisabeth’s calibre. Plus she was cheaper, both in total by 20.42% and for the pound to ton comparison.

Next the hull figures show that the Bayern was a shorter and broader vessel. The Queen Elizabeth’s were over their design weight, costing them one knot. The Bayern was lighter than the Queen Elizabeth but the gap grew less when compared at deep load.

The Bayerns four turrets weighed 3,400 tons and the Queen Elizabeth’s 3080 tons, If we combine the main and secondary actual barrel weights, we can see the difference between the two ships was large. Between the Bayern’s turret and casement weight 720 tons (731 t) and the Queen Elizabeth equivalent 910 tons (924 t) was 193 tons (196 t ) According to Google the average family car weights just under two tons. That’s 96 cars difference…. This all concludes to a shorter wider Bayern and a heavier Queen Elizabeth in both barrel weight and hull weight.

When we look at speed the Queen Elizabeth was at 24 knots, 2 knots faster than her Germanic rival. How much faster would the Bayern’s have been if they were leaner? One knot, maybe two, but they still, I believe would not have caught up with the British.

Plus Bayern had been designed for that 22 knot speed and more importantly the Bayern achieved the speed she had been conceived for. The Germans were unaware of the British 24 knot plan and were wrong footed.

A huge difference was the source of fuel. Oil is cleaner and creates less smoke, which improves the visibility for her Gunners. With her oil the Queen Elizabeth achieved less miles per ton, but the difference is small, 1.47 tons compared to 1.24 tons per sea mile. Despite her more “rotund” shape the Bayern was more economical. But her dependence on coal makes her, for me, a creature of the 19th and early 20th century. But the Queen Elizabeth with her oil was solely an animal of the 20th century.

The two vessels the Germans completed, the Bayern and Baden, became in there short time of service to be regarded by their crews as excellent sea boats. Bayern’s and her sister were both found to be stable and extremely maneuverable. The ships did suffer a slight loss of speed in a heavy seas and with the rudders hard over, the ships lost up to 62% of their speed and heeled at 7 °. With a metacentric height of 2.53 m (8 ft 4 in), which was larger than their British equivalents, the Bayern’s proved to be stable gun platforms for the confined waters of the North Sea.

Following the trails and tests on the Baden, the Royal Navy concluded in 1921 that the design of the Baden’s 38 cm gun was compared with that of the British 15 in. Mark I 42 calibre gun. The main differences being the German gun is not re-lineable. The German gun was a heavier, longer weapon and if you look at photos of her 15-inch guns head on, they had unusually thin tube walls. The weapon also had a shorter number of firings in it before it needed replacing.It was considered that the German heavy guns owed their longer life to the use of a cooler propellant. The two vessels ( Queen Elizabeth and Bayern) turrets training arcs were similar but the British could both rotate and could elevate faster by a number of seconds. The Queen Elizabeth could fire one shell per gun every 30 seconds, but the Bayern managed the same in 6 seconds less, at 24 seconds. The Bayern with all eight guns firing continuously would empty her magazines in 36 minutes, while the Queen Elizabeth took 50 minutes to empty her magazines, but with the German rate of fire, in those 36 minutes, there would be more shells per minute landing around or on the target. The Bayern sadly did not have the legendary strike rate of the earlier German capital ships. The British guns had a good reputation for accuracy and would remain, with modifications, in service until their last service in the Vanguard. Maybe that was the weapon, maybe the crew, but at the days end, if a shell hits the target less often, that’s not good. Having looked at the impact results and range of the vessels, I believe at a closer range the Queen Elizabeth had the edge, but further out the Bayern was the more dangerous. But some of the differences are of such a tiny difference, I think they are almost insignificant. The only outstanding gunnery factors were the Bayerns rage of fire, but reputation for striking the target was not as formidable as Germany’s other capital ships. As to the question of broadside weight, it was clearly won by the Queen Elizabeth’s four turrets with the 14%+ advantage.

With the secondary weapons , the Bayern had the longer firing life, but the Queen Elizabeth’s guns vastly outraged them. German weapons were to be prove to be less accurate than their predecessors, and fired a lighter shell than their equivalent British guns. I see the Queen Elizabeth as the better 6-inch gunnery platform. But as I can find no figures for the destructive powers of the German shell, we will move on. The Queen Elizabeth’s AA defence was as limited as the German vessel, but it must be remember at the design stage these were seen as anti-airship and planes were not yet seen as a threat. But given the range advantage of the Queen Elizabeths two guns, she would offer the better defence. With the torpedoes the Bayern’s torpedo were faster and longer ranged.

The entire question of the vessels armour is complex. But we can conclude that the Bayern’s armoured belt was one inch thicker over the citadels vitals, but the Queen Elizabeths was more comprehensive reaching further and thicker towards the hulls bow and stern. Her four turret roofs were thinner overall but she had the advantage with the casement weapons armour protection. But the Queen Elizabeth’s Conning tower was the better protected and the Bayern had the thicker decking at between 2.3 and 3.9-inches (60 mm–100 mm), compared to the Queen Elizabeth’s 1.25 to 3-inches. But with Warspite’s survival at Jutland from 150 shell holes, and 15 main calibre hits on her,[8] she clearly illustrates the effectiveness of the classes protection.The Queen Elizabeth class would time and time again, through nine years of world wars prove themselves to be tough ships. With her 150 holes Warspite made it home and lived to fight again, and again and again….

When I set out to write this article, it started as a direct comparison between the two ‘super-dreadnought’ classes Bayern and Queen Elizabeth. But the deeper I looked into the design and abilities of the classes I came to realise there was a fundamentally error in both the majority, as well my own view point, in regards to the Queen Elizabeth and Bayern class. They are in fact two different types of vessels and comparing the Bismark to the Admiral Scheer’s would be as meaningless. First we all know the Queen Elizabeths were ships that could be at home in the battle line with Jellicoe or in supporting Beatty. They had the combination of speed, armour and hitting power. They were if I may suggest, the final meld of the dreadnought and battlecruiser into one type of vessel. The Hood’s Admiral class [9] with all her tragic flaws followed, but the day of the battlecruiser was over. There was no need of her, the super-dreadnought, the modern battleship had been created by the Queen Elizabeth. The Bayerns were a superb design, and had no real standout flaws. But they were designed for a different purpose. They were not capable of operating with Hipper’s 1st Scouting group. It was tried in August 1918, but they were fortunate that they did not meet the British squadrons. If Hipper had found the need to press the accelerator pedal for his battlecruiser, the 22 knot Bayern’s would habe soon been parted. Remember the Blucher ? The Bayerns were design to stand shoulder to shoulder with Scheer’s dreadnoughts.The class had more in common with the 23 knot Revenge class than they did the Queen Elizabeth. Popular history holds the Queen Elizabeth and Bayern as rivals, but its a fallacy, as the Royal Navy concluded, the Bayerns were from the Revenge class gene pool. Both the Queen Elizabeth and Bayern classes were excellent designs, but it is, I believe, an error to see the Bayern as the German answer to the Queen Elizabeth’s. They were never in reality that or could ever be honestly regarded as such.

12) CHOICES ?

It’s a cold January North Sea morning and I’m in a small ship’s boat. As the sun lifts it’s head and burns off the morning mist, two lines of mighty ships emerge from the gray. The line to the north flies the White Ensign and are two of the Queen Elizabeth super-dreadnoughts. To the south are two mighty Imperial Bayerns [10]. To which do I row? On board which would I feel safest from the on coming storm of 15- inch steel?

I gather my oars and turn my small fragile boat towards……….

the Queen Elizabeths.

NOTES

[1] https://www.facebook.com/HMS-Agincourt-1608090449272530/)).

[2] A: 853.7 tons (867,440 kg),B: 856.1 tons (869,880 kg),C: 853.3 tons (866,950 kg),D: 836.8 tons (850,240 kg))

[3] The gun was tested in the 1930’s and the Bismark class guns designed using the information gained.

[4] The Queen Elizabeth’s class ship, Warspite in July 1940 made one of the longest hits ever scored by a naval gun on an enemy ship when she struck the Italian battleship Guilio Cesare at approximately 26,000 yards (23,770 mtr).

[5] Hexanit was a German explosive developed early in the 20th century for the Imperial Navy, intended to augment supplies of trinitrotoluene (TNT), which were then in short supply. Hexanite was more powerful than TNT on its own.

[6] Her sister ships were only to mount 14 of the weapons.

[7] During the course of Jutland, Seydlitz was hit 21 times by heavy-caliber shells, twice by secondary battery shells, and once by a torpedo.

[8] The Bayern’s belt was thicker than the Tirpitz 12.6-inches (320 mm) belt.

[9] https://m.facebook.com/The-Admiral-Class-1916-1920-2275941839303089/?ref=bookmarks

[10] https://www.facebook.com/SMS-Bayern-Class-202244717135760/