Stand-ins for HMS Hood?

[AdmiralB]

If the Admiralty was certain that Bismarck would be caught in the Denmark Strait - would Hood have been the first choice of combatant (assuming that PoW was a given, and still not worked-up)? It seems that it was known internally at least that Hood's protection scheme wasn't really sufficient.

 

Would KGV have been preferable? The NelRods?

 

I realize, to paraphrase, you go to sea with the task force you have, not necessarily the task force you want. I just wonder if Hood was still considered the go-to ship.

Edited July 4, 2007 by AdmiralB

[KingSargent]

If the Admiralty was certain that Bismarck would be caught in the Denmark Strait - would Hood have been the first choice of combatant (assuming that PoW was a given, and still not worked-up)? It seems that it was known internally at least that Hood's protection scheme wasn't really sufficient.

 

Would KGV have been preferable? The NelRods?

 

I realize, to paraphrase, you go to sea with the task force you have, not necessarily the task force you want. I just wonder if Hood was still considered the go-to ship.

The RN had a choice of Repulse (snicker), PoW (not worked up), KGV (still had turret malfunctions at the final Bismarck action AIUI), and Hood. Rodney was in the Atlantic, but on the way to a US refit and too slow to intercept near Iceland. There was an 'R' class BB on convoy escort that would have been a light lunch for Bismarck.

 

Figuring that no RN ship could go with Bismarck one-on-one, Tovey paired the weakest of the KGVs with the best of the battlecruisers, and the weakest battlecruiser with the more reliable of the KGVs. It was the best mix available, given that he needed two groups to cover the Greenland-Iceland gap and the Iceland-UK gap.

 

BTW, the Admiralty had NO idea where Bismarck was, except that she wasn't still in the Norwegian port where she was last seen.

[AdmiralB]

Figuring that no RN ship could go with Bismarck one-on-one

 

I didn't know the Admiralty was of that opinion (honestly, not a stick-poke). In any case, my scenario was intended to be less of a realistic "what ships could have been there", than "if the RN could miracle a pair of ships there, which would they be?".

 

Seems like the KGVs are the best-protected, and the Nelsons the best able to dish it out. Also seems a given that whatever is there, the Bismarck is going to chew it up to some degree since the gunnery skills are so much better.

Edited July 5, 2007 by AdmiralB

[KingSargent]

I didn't know the Admiralty was of that opinion (honestly, not a stick-poke).

The Admiralty may not have thought it, but Tovey did and he was CO Home Fleet. He said he was sending pairs and the Admiralty didn't question that decision.

 

In any case, my scenario was intended to be less of a realistic "what ships could have been there", then "if the RN could miracle a pair of ships there, which would they be?".

There weren't any others. What you see is what you get (rather, what the RN had). A fully worked up KGV with reliable guns would have had a good chance one-on-one, but there were none of those either. If you want to fantasy up a reliable KGV or a Nelson capable of 30 knots, either could have probably done it. Hood might have been able to if she had ever had a good refit -- fix the deck armor, re-boiler, and add the best gunnery radar available. Of course if you start talking fantasy you could give Bismarck shells that worked and an admiral who was smart enough to top up his fuel tanks before departing on a high-speed raiding mission.

 

Seems like the KGVs are the best-protected, and the Nelsons the best able to dish it out. Also seems a given that whatever is there, the Bismarck is going to chew it up to some degree since the gunnery skills are so much better.

Nelsons couldn't catch Bismarck unless she was damaged - as happened.

 

I don't think there is enough data to say that Bismarck had a blanket superiority in gunnery over the RN, and she had crappy shells. Of all the hits on PoW only one fully detonated and two didn't detonate at all.

[KingSargent]

What really bugs me is that the KGVs were planned with three 4x4" turrets, then cut 'B' turret back to two guns to try to stay below 35,000 tons (it didn't work). Having to design and build the 2x14" turret delayed production. Somewhere I have a schedule for turret production, and it boils down to the RN could have had KGV and PoW fully worked up with 12x14" each, and Duke of York about where PoW actually was in May 1941 - IF they had not tried to comply with a Treaty that had been abrogated and rendered null anyway!

 

The London Treaties were dead in 1938, when the changes were made in the KGVs' guns. The excuse for screwing with the turrets was to add more armor. By going over 35,000 tons (as they were free to do) they could have added the armor they wanted, kept the 12 guns and not delayed production, and blistered to restore buoyancy and increase range (assuming the revised TPS incorporated more oil). They could also have lengthened them forward and added sheer for better sea-keeping, and maybe gone to a transom stern a la' Vanguard.

 

I can't see where it would have cost any more to do that than to weaken the ships for the sake of a dead Treaty. Everybody else tossed the 35,000 ton limit out the window after the Treaties lapsed and the KGVs came out heavy anyway.

 

Now there is an 'alternate reality' that would have made ships able to fight Bismarck available!

[sunday]

What really bugs me is that the KGVs were planned with three 4x4" turrets, then cut 'B' turret back to two guns to try to stay below 35,000 tons (it didn't work). Having to design and build the 2x14" turret delayed production. Somewhere I have a schedule for turret production, and it boils down to the RN could have had KGV and PoW fully worked up with 12x14" each, and Duke of York about where PoW actually was in May 1941 - IF they had not tried to comply with a Treaty that had been abrogated and rendered null anyway!

 

The London Treaties were dead in 1938, when the changes were made in the KGVs' guns. The excuse for screwing with the turrets was to add more armor. By going over 35,000 tons (as they were free to do) they could have added the armor they wanted, kept the 12 guns and not delayed production, and blistered to restore buoyancy and increase range (assuming the revised TPS incorporated more oil). They could also have lengthened them forward and added sheer for better sea-keeping, and maybe gone to a transom stern a la' Vanguard.

 

I can't see where it would have cost any more to do that than to weaken the ships for the sake of a dead Treaty. Everybody else tossed the 35,000 ton limit out the window after the Treaties lapsed and the KGVs came out heavy anyway.

 

Now there is an 'alternate reality' that would have made ships able to fight Bismarck available!

 

If there is an invocation of the escalator clause, there is the possibility of going to three 3x16" then, as in the North Carolinas, using the Nelsons turret design, but that implies more protection, more design work, and the ships wouldn't be in time either. And, possibly, leaving some quadruple, 14" turrets unused...

[Tony Williams]

OTOH, the KGVs' twin turret proved to be far more reliable than the quads (which took years to sort).

 

Given that the manufacture - and debugging - of the main armament was the most time-consuming part of battleship building, the fast route to getting new battleships out there would have been to have settled for a 15" gun limit in the negotiations and recycled the main armament (suitably modified) from the R Class battleships. Add that to the spare turrets from Courageous and Glorious (actually used in Vanguard) and you could have six fast ships with 8x15" each - old guns, but very good ones. Spreading them out over four turrets would have caused some weight inefficiences so that the main belt armour would probably need to have been reduced somewhat to keep within the limit (unless they got that raised to 40,000T), but that turned out to be a non-critical aspect of battleship design anyway.

 

I took a look at British battleship design in THIS article (and also included the 15" gun proposal in The Foresight War)

[KingSargent]

If there is an invocation of the escalator clause, there is the possibility of going to three 3x16" then, as in the North Carolinas, using the Nelsons turret design, but that implies more protection, more design work, and the ships wouldn't be in time either. And, possibly, leaving some quadruple, 14" turrets unused...

The run-down British armaments industry could not make both 14" and 16" guns. After the Brits went with the 14" for political reasons, they were stuck with it.

[Guest pfcem]

The best possible pairing of ships to "engage" Bismarck & Prinz Eugen would have been the carriers Illustrious & Formidable. Note that if it had not been for Ark Royal, Britain may never have gotten Bismarck. Taking on the German ships in a gunfight was going to end badly for the British no matter what two capital ships they sent.

 

The best possible paring of capital ships would have been King George V & Hood (preferably with a couple cruisers). The Nelsons, Revenges & Queen Elizabeths were simply too slow. The Renowns were even less well protected than Hood. Prince of Wales was not even in full working order.

 

But if you really want to go "what if", the best bet would have been two King George Vs designed/built from the outset (without delay) with the proposed three triple 15"/45 Mark II & increased armor - appearing to stay within treaty limits be damned.

 

The 15"/45 Mark II were projected to have been equal or superior to the 16"/45 Mark I of the Nelsons.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_15-45_mk2.htm

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_Main.htm (all other British guns)

Edited July 5, 2007 by pfcem

[KingSargent]

OTOH, the KGVs' twin turret proved to be far more reliable than the quads (which took years to sort).

The quads might have come out more reliable without the distraction of effort to the twin turret design. They would also have had the first ships in hand much earlier to start de-bugging. In any case it could hardly have been worse.

Given that the manufacture - and debugging - of the main armament was the most time-consuming part of battleship building, the fast route to getting new battleships out there would have been to have settled for a 15" gun limit in the negotiations and recycled the main armament (suitably modified) from the R Class battleships. Add that to the spare turrets from Courageous and Glorious (actually used in Vanguard) and you could have six fast ships with 8x15" each - old guns, but very good ones. Spreading them out over four turrets would have caused some weight inefficiences so that the main belt armour would probably need to have been reduced somewhat to keep within the limit (unless they got that raised to 40,000T), but that turned out to be a non-critical aspect of battleship design anyway.

One problem is that they did not have a schedule saying "Sept 1939 - WAR!! (check)" Another problem is that the RN would be reduced to a "third-rate power" while they decommissioned the "R"s and until the turrets were moved, modified, installed, and the Vanguards were completed. With war scares practically annually from 1935 to 1939 the UK couldn't afford to take all the 'R's out of service at the same time they were rebuilding Renown, Queen Elizabeth, and Valiant.

 

Hmmm.... Do the first two ships (programs were two ships per year) with the spare Outrageous turrets and one set from a ship under refit, then keep rotating hulls and turrets two per year?

[sunday]

The run-down British armaments industry could not make both 14" and 16" guns. After the Brits went with the 14" for political reasons, they were stuck with it.

 

Point taken. There is a gap in UK BB construction between Nelsons and PoWs

[KingSargent]

Point taken. There is a gap in UK BB construction between Nelsons and PoWs

I'm not positive of the exact numbers (not without work and it's a holiday ), but in 1919 there were something like nineteen British firms that could make naval weapons and/or heavy armor. In 1939 there was one.

 

When I say "run-down" I mean "run-down." Which is why the RN used Czech armor in the armored hangar CVs and some of the "Colony" CLs.

[philgollin]

So many misconceptions.

 

1: Hood and the KGVs were regarded at the time as the best ships to counter Bismarck

 

2: It was policy (based on concentration) to send pairs of ships. The Home Fleet tended to have three ships nomnally available (depending on resources) to allow for the fact that at any one time one might be temporarily unavailable

 

3: Pre-Bismarck sortie there was no specific idea that any one capital ship shouldn't, or should, face any particular enemy capital ship. Post the sortie it was assessed that the Nelsons and KGVs were capable of individually facing Tirpitz and that Renown, refitted Royal Soverign and the modernised Queen Elizabeths could but it would be better if they were in company. The un-modernised QEs and other "R"s should only engage individually if necessary.

 

4: The KGVs' twin turret mounts were almiost exactly just the centre pair of a quad mount.

 

5: The British "could" make 14-inch and 16-inch guns at the same time, the problem was more in numbers of gun pits (i.e. total numbers at any one time). The new 16-inch design had been tested and finalised (although the design was looked at twice more before the Lions were finally cancelled for good)

 

6: The 15-inch Mark II was only ever a paper design - the idea of a "KGV" with 15-inch guns nothing more than a very short-lived paper exercise, never seriously considered. The British had the 12-inch experimental, 14-inch as "lead" design and 16-inch as follow on design. The 15-inch was merely a paper work gap-filler.

 

7: As has been shown elsewhere, the 14-inch guns reliability problems have been grossly over-stated - not so much that they didn't miss salvos but more that other guns were almost as bad in operational conditions.

 

8: Medium (thickness) armour production was a major bottleneck. The heavy armour for battleships was more economical to make IN TERMS OF TONS PER ENGINEERING FACTORY.

[Argus]

Given the terms of reference on this one amount to open slater, I propose a pair of G3's, suitably refitted with radar etc. Or a G3 and a Hood to even the score re PE being only a cruiser and all.

 

To be backed up by a slow force of of N3's for insurance obviously.

 

As a design set they might have lead the world in ugly, but even 20 years later they were hard to beat.

 

shane

[AdmiralB]

Given the terms of reference on this one amount to open slater

 

 

Nah, I would limit it to ships the RN actually possessed at the time!

[Guest pfcem]

1: Hood and the KGVs were regarded at the time as the best ships to counter Bismarck

True but given that Prince of Wales was not in full working order, paring Hood with King George V would have been better. But the problem with that would be that it would put your two best capital ships together in one group, significantly "weakening" any other group which might meet up with Bismarck.

 

And yes, in 1941 BBs & BCswere still considered THE major combat units of the British Navy but in hindsight sending carriers after Bismarck (assuming you could avoid Bismarck finding THEM at night) would have a MUCH greater chance of success. After all it was Swordfish torpedo bombers from Ark Royal which allowed the British Navy to close in on Bismarck with overwhelming force.

 

 

 

2: It was policy (based on concentration) to send pairs of ships. The Home Fleet tended to have three ships nomnally available (depending on resources) to allow for the fact that at any one time one might be temporarily unavailable

 

3: Pre-Bismarck sortie there was no specific idea that any one capital ship shouldn't, or should, face any particular enemy capital ship. Post the sortie it was assessed that the Nelsons and KGVs were capable of individually facing Tirpitz and that Renown, refitted Royal Soverign and the modernised Queen Elizabeths could but it would be better if they were in company. The un-modernised QEs and other "R"s should only engage individually if necessary.

Exactly, the British Navy new better than to engage enemy ships on a one-for-one basis.

 

 

 

6: The 15-inch Mark II was only ever a paper design - the idea of a "KGV" with 15-inch guns nothing more than a very short-lived paper exercise, never seriously considered. The British had the 12-inch experimental, 14-inch as "lead" design and 16-inch as follow on design. The 15-inch was merely a paper work gap-filler.

The King George Vs were NEVER reallly going to have anything other than 14" guns but if you are "playing the what if game" King George Vs with 15" guns would be more likely that with 16" guns.

[RETAC21]

Hmmm.... Do the first two ships (programs were two ships per year) with the spare Outrageous turrets and one set from a ship under refit, then keep rotating hulls and turrets two per year?

 

Guns were rotated around, so this should be doable.

[philgollin]

..................... Exactly, the British Navy new better than to engage enemy ships on a one-for-one basis.

 

The King George Vs were NEVER reallly going to have anything other than 14" guns but if you are "playing the what if game" King George Vs with 15" guns would be more likely that with 16" guns.

 

Yes, the policy was based on "concentration"

 

It's not me who's playing the "what-if" game. However, no, 15-inch guns were never seriously considered for the KGVs, even the 16-inch (with a slower hull) were considered more often than a 15-inch version. The gun policy was (very simplistically) 14-inch for the early ships in European waters with 16-inch for later ships in the Far East (and for later European ships if necessary). The 14-inch and 16-inch were developed, the 15-inch was merely a paer design.

[Tiornu]

As has been shown elsewhere, the 14-inch guns reliability problems have been grossly over-stated - not so much that they didn't miss salvos but more that other guns were almost as bad in operational conditions.

Was there any difference in reliability between the 14in quads and 14in twins?

[KingSargent]

So many misconceptions.

 

 

5: The British "could" make 14-inch and 16-inch guns at the same time, the problem was more in numbers of gun pits (i.e. total numbers at any one time). The new 16-inch design had been tested and finalised (although the design was looked at twice more before the Lions were finally cancelled for good)

Oh really? In 1936? Where?

SOURCE PLEASE!!!

[KingSargent]

And yes, in 1941 BBs & BCswere still considered THE major combat units of the British Navy but in hindsight sending carriers after Bismarck (assuming you could avoid Bismarck finding THEM at night) would have a MUCH greater chance of success. After all it was Swordfish torpedo bombers from Ark Royal which allowed the British Navy to close in on Bismarck with overwhelming force.

To hunt and attack BBs, CVs need airplanes, of which the RN had damn few in May 1941. Victorious for example was leaving the Clyde when shanghaied by Tovey with less than half of an already minuscule air group aboard (15 out of 33). The chance of the RN gathering a CVTF with full airgroups was nil after the loss of Courageous and Glorious and the damaging of Illustrious.

 

The hit by Ark Royal's Swordfish on Bismarck's rudder is in the "Act of God" category. Bismarck would have (and did) laugh at 18" hits in any other location.

[Mk 1]

To hunt and attack BBs, CVs need airplanes, of which the RN had damn few in May 1941.

Yep. But not just a question of needing a full complement of airplanes, but also of needing useful airplanes, with useful warloads, and useful anti-ship strike doctrines, and carriers that could carry useful numbers of them. Then, one can worry about whether they had a full compliment shipped when they sortied.

 

To my reading, the RN doctrine at that time, the equipment, the training, and the command expectations, never seriously considered an aerial attack as a means of destroying a capital ship. Coastal craft? Sure. Ocean-going merchants? You bet. U-Boats? If you could catch 'em. Cruisers or destroyers? Worth a try. Armored cruisers, battlecruisers, or battleships? Give me a break.

 

We are not talking about fleet carriers that could sortie up 24 torpedo planes and 24 dive bombers at a time, sending swarms of Devestators / Avengers and Dauntlesses, or Vals and Kates, to inflect ruin on their adversaries. We are talking about fleet carriers that could sortie up 8 or 9 Swordfish / Albacores and a handful of Skuas. Give them full complements of Swordfish or Albacores, and even more Skuas (maybe better to give them fewer Skuas), and you still have an enemic strike force for going after fast moving, hard-maneuvering warships with thick hides.

 

The RN didn't see carriers as capital ships for good reason. In RN service, they weren't. At least not in 1939/40/41.

 

The hit by Ark Royal's Swordfish on Bismarck's rudder is in the "Act of God" category. Bismarck would have (and did) laugh at 18" hits in any other location.

Give more credit to the Germans, not just to God. It was a lucky hit, no doubt. The Bismark could have shrugged off the hit in other locations. But the same hit on anyone else's battleship would have caused considerably less loss of control. Only the Germans were daft enough to build a ship the size of the Bismark with one rudder and three screws. It was a design flaw of the first magnitude, every bit as important as the Hood's deck armor, and likewise it turned out to be a fatal flaw, with the added bonus in the case of the Bismark that it turned out to be fatal on the ship's very first operational sortie.

 

-Mark 1

[Tony Williams]

Another problem is that the RN would be reduced to a "third-rate power" while they decommissioned the "R"s and until the turrets were moved, modified, installed, and the Vanguards were completed. With war scares practically annually from 1935 to 1939 the UK couldn't afford to take all the 'R's out of service at the same time they were rebuilding Renown, Queen Elizabeth, and Valiant.

 

Hmmm.... Do the first two ships (programs were two ships per year) with the spare Outrageous turrets and one set from a ship under refit, then keep rotating hulls and turrets two per year?

Yes, that was my proposal - two at a time. I also proposed much more limited modernisation of QE and Valiant - no more than the other QEs, so they wouldn't have been out of service for so long. Use the slipway time released (by quicker KGV builds) to upgrade Repulse and Hood, then focus on aircraft carriers.

[Guest pfcem]

It's not me who's playing the "what-if" game. However, no, 15-inch guns were never seriously considered for the KGVs, even the 16-inch (with a slower hull) were considered more often than a 15-inch version. The gun policy was (very simplistically) 14-inch for the early ships in European waters with 16-inch for later ships in the Far East (and for later European ships if necessary). The 14-inch and 16-inch were developed, the 15-inch was merely a paer design.

I didn't say you were playing the "what if" game but others here are. And in a "what if" game it is still more realistic/likely that the King Geoge Vs would/could have 15" guns than 16" guns. But as you & I have both said there was (in reality) next to no chance that they were going to have anything other than 14" guns - the British were going to at least try/appear to abide by the treaty limitations with the King Geoge Vs even if nobody else did.

 

All work on 16" guns was stopped/delayed untill the follow-on Lion class. Given that other European navies were using 15" guns & that the proposed 15" guns were lighter than the 14"guns (16" guns would NOT have been) that King Geoge Vs MAY have (given the political will to do so) been built with three triple 15" gun turrets. Placing 16" guns on the King Geoge Vs would have resulted in too many compromises that the British simply were not willing to accept - unless they were in twin turrets & 6 guns (even if the were 16") was not considered "adequite" for a BB at the time.

[Guest pfcem]

To hunt and attack BBs, CVs need airplanes, of which the RN had damn few in May 1941. Victorious for example was leaving the Clyde when shanghaied by Tovey with less than half of an already minuscule air group aboard (15 out of 33). The chance of the RN gathering a CVTF with full airgroups was nil after the loss of Courageous and Glorious and the damaging of Illustrious.

Even with reduced air groups, two fleet carriers would, in hindsight (I agree Britain did not place enough emphasis/faith in carriers yet to do so), have a better chance of finding & "stopping" Bismarck than ANY two capital ships. As it was they were only able to sortie one fleet carrier (Ark Royal) in time & as it turns out she (& her reduced airgroup) played THE decisive role in stopping Bismarck. Without her, Britain may never have gotten Bismarck as demonstrated by the numberious vain attempts to get Scharnhorst & Gneisenau throughout the war.

 

And I forget, wasn't it you who tried to convince everyone that the US could have build dozens of "fully developed/worked up" CVE/CVL BEFORE it even entered the war? Why couldn't have Britain at least built enough aircraft for each & every active carrier to have a full airgroup by May 1941 (it is not like it would have require THAT many planes)?

 

 

 

The hit by Ark Royal's Swordfish on Bismarck's rudder is in the "Act of God" category. Bismarck would have (and did) laugh at 18" hits in any other location.

Actually, hits other than the one to the rudder DID slow Bismarck down & cause him to leak fuel (which IS what forced him to head for safe harbor).

 

But yes, the "Act of God" lucky hit to the rudder is what then prevented Bismarck from reaching safe harbor, allowing the British to close in.

 

Even the mighty Yamato & Musashi eventaully sucame to multiple, multiple hits from bombs & torpedoes which indivindually (or in smaller numbers) were of not MAJOR threats to them.