Stand-ins for HMS Hood?

[philgollin]

Oh really? In 1936? Where?

SOURCE PLEASE!!!

 

SUPP 6 files at the TNA:PRO and not "1936" - why "1936" ?

[philgollin]

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.

 

NO. The only possible 15-inch designs were quick paper tentative designs, not properly worked through outline designs. The ships cover contains almost nothing about any 15-inch designs (except the beginnings of the Vanguard type which was, except for one paper, always seen as a separate class). However there are quite a few looks at the slower 16-inch design. The new 15-inch was NEVER anything other than a paperwork design. The design process was always 12-inch to 14-inch (as "lead design") then 16-inch (as developed 14-inch) and 15-inch as ONLY a paper exercise.

 

The 16-inch was continuously developed "trailling" the 14-inch. As mods were introduced into the 14-inch they happened to the 16-inch. Once the 14-inch was approved for construction the 16-inch continued development. There is no way that the KGVs (as opposed to the early outline sketches) were considered for 3 x triple 15-inch. The ships cover and ADM files shows that the DNC and Admiralty considered 14- and 16-inch versions seriously, but NOT a 15-inch version. I mentioned above that there was one exception and that was a quick paper on the feasability of mounting three existing 15-inch turrets on a KGV hull (which was rejected).

[philgollin]

Re. Aircraft Carriers

 

The Fighting Instructions did envisage the main aim of Aircraft Carriers as scouts and to slow the enemy "fleet" down.

 

The Aircraft Carrier Handbook, however, also envisaged massed attacks (up to 3 carriers) on enemy ships.

 

There are some points not covered.

 

1: The main reason that Victourious was not carrying her full airgroup was that she was acting as an aircraft ferry with crated aircraft on board.

 

 

2: There was a lack of fleet carriers to cover all the areas that required them. The loss of Corageous and Glorious meant that only Ark Royal and Furious survive from pre-war (Eagle was useful but too slow and Argus and Hermes not regarded as suitable). Illustrious and Victorious had joined but the RN needed carriers for the Home Fleet, Force H and Mediterranean.

 

 

3: The main reasons for the RN's lack of reliance on aircraft carriers were (in no particular order) ;

 

a: Lack of numbers

 

b: Inability (or rather limited ability) to attack at night and poor weather - This was just changing at the time of the Bismarck sortie as ASV equipped Swordfish but was seen as a disadvantage considering the need to operate worldwide, 24 hours per day.

 

c: Low performance aircraft

 

 

4: The duplex pistol equipped air dropped 18-inch torpedo was regarded at the time* as capable of defeating any ship (from below the keel), but the duplex pistol was unreliable (although it SEEMS to have been effective at Taranto. The replacement magnetic exploder (CCR - late '43/early '44) was regarded as effective - but not deployed on aircraft torpedoes..

 

[* Actually the review of the performance of Duplex pistols was already underway by the time of the Bismarck sortie, but hadn't reached its conclusion to withdraw (or actually modify the pistol for contact only operation) until afterwards).

[Redbeard]

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.

 

Perhaps because Bismarck by that time had a heavy overdraw on her "Act of God account". Scoring that hit on Hood before being overwhelmed herself must have been expensive! (incl. services like Hood mistaking Bismarck and PE, and later a tilting shell in PoW jamming Y turret ).

 

Well actually I don't believe in such accounting, but at least it shows that both sides had their share of good/bad luck.

 

If 10 "reruns" could be made I think Bismarck would be sunk in Denmark Straits in most of them.

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

[KingSargent]

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.

There WERE two CVs after Bismarck, Victorious with Home Fleet and Ark Royal with Force H from Gib. True they didn't manage to team up, but they might have if the Brits had built enough range into their ships - Vic and Repulse both ran out of fuel on the high=speed chase (OK, not empty out, but they had to return to port to refuel).

 

Ark Royal may have played THE decisive role in stopping Bismarck, but it was a fluke not to be counted on or planned for. Of course as Mark says poor German design helped; but poor design or no it was an incredibly lucky hit.

 

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?

No, I said they could build prototypes and maybe get started on mass production. And they entered the war AFTER the Bismarck Episode. And the program would have cost money, which the Brits were even more reluctant than Congress to spend.

 

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)?

Because they were frigging cheap and stupid, that's why. The USN kept more planes on the decks of any two of six CVs (except Langley ) than the whole RN had in 1939. That's why the Brits were so safety conscious, they couldn't afford to lose planes or injure airmen. The USN looked on planes as expendable items. That 'safety consciousness' caused the British to have CV deck procedures that would never allow them to launch more than six planes - more and he first would have to come back for gas before the last was up. So a massed USN or IJN-style attack on Bismarck would be impossible even if the RN had the CVs and planes. BTW, the RN only adopted more operations-oriented procedures after they got the FAA back from the RAF and after the US provided planes to play with - the Air Ministry wouldn't.

 

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).

Yes, and it was Prince of Wales that did it with a 14" hit, not Vic's single torpedo hit.

 

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.

Oh yes, but try to run a plan depending on that through any staff college and you'll be busted back to E-1. Just because an 'Act Of God' occurs is no reason to think He will make a habit of rescuing you from your own folly.

 

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.

Yes, by repeated strikes using more planes than the whole British Fleet possessed in 1941. And even those were only a fraction of what TF58/38 could mass. And any one of those hits was by weapons more powerful than Brit naval a/c had in 1941.

 

BTW, it's 'succumbed', not sucame.

[Ken Estes]

A torpedo hit on a single rudder are going to be curtains for that ship if the rudder is over. I am not sure if the twin skegs/rudders of USN designs had enough separation to do the trick either. The IJN was dismayed to find that the auxiliary rudder of the Yamato was unable to overcome a jammed main rudder, hence a waste of effort.

 

I do not see how anybody can fault the KG V design as completed. Does anybody think the North Carolinas should have been altered to be Iowas? The complexity of such designs would mean years lost in recasting the KGVs as 16" ships or changing them from 35 to 40,000 ships. There are no computers available for scaleups, just hundreds, thousands of draftsmen and slide rules; many other new ships are also in design and on the ways at the time.

 

Andrew Gordon's first book [as G. A. H. Gordon] British Seapower and Procurement Between the Wars: A Reappraisal of Rearmament is useful.

[savantu]

Perhaps because Bismarck by that time had a heavy overdraw on her "Act of God account". Scoring that hit on Hood before being overwhelmed herself must have been expensive! (incl. services like Hood mistaking Bismarck and PE, and later a tilting shell in PoW jamming Y turret ).

 

Well actually I don't believe in such accounting, but at least it shows that both sides had their share of good/bad luck.

 

If 10 "reruns" could be made I think Bismarck would be sunk in Denmark Straits in most of them.

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

 

The german gunners were better , if 10 reruns would have been made , Hood would be sunk in 9 of them.Secondly the fire control on the Hood was obsolete.

 

Thirdly , a total of 2,876 shells were fired at Bismarck , most at relatively close ranges.During that time, it is possible that as many as 300-400 shells hit the German ship.

 

THe ship didn't blow up , nor sink.If that isn't engineering excellence , I don't know what else can be.

Edited July 6, 2007 by savantu

[BJE]

Thirdly , a total of 2,876 shells were fired at Bismarck , most at relatively close ranges.During that time, it is possible that as many as 300-400 shells hit the German ship.

 

THe ship didn't blow up , nor sink.If that isn't engineering excellence , I don't know what else can be.

Me thinks that engineering excellence would have been a ship that wasn't put out of effective action within twenty minutes. That the wreck then took a long time to sink is another thing.

[KingSargent]

A torpedo hit on a single rudder are going to be curtains for that ship if the rudder is over. I am not sure if the twin skegs/rudders of USN designs had enough separation to do the trick either. The IJN was dismayed to find that the auxiliary rudder of the Yamato was unable to overcome a jammed main rudder, hence a waste of effort.

Not exactly a waste; AIUI the auxiliary rudder improved steering, something those behemoths needed. Of course it wasn't big enough to counteract the main rudder, that's why it was called auxiliary .

 

I do not see how anybody can fault the KG V design as completed. Does anybody think the North Carolinas should have been altered to be Iowas?

There were proposals to do just that after 1945; or at least to raise speed to 33 knots which would make them effectively Iowas. Very expensive and rather silly - if you wanted more Iowas, complete Illinois and Kentucky.

 

The complexity of such designs would mean years lost in recasting the KGVs as 16" ships or changing them from 35 to 40,000 ships. There are no computers available for scaleups, just hundreds, thousands of draftsmen and slide rules; many other new ships are also in design and on the ways at the time.

I didn't propose to turn them into Lions. They came out around 38,000 tons anyway. The DNC had to design a new twin turret and its barbette, modify the hull layout and armor, and add deck armor anyway. I don't see where just adding the deck armor and minor changes to bow and stern conformation would have been all that difficult - lots of navies did it.

 

I am reconsidering my idea of blistering to restore buoyancy, however. I doubt a KGV could be blistered and still fit into docks and locks.

 

Andrew Gordon's first book [as G. A. H. Gordon] British Seapower and Procurement Between the Wars: A Reappraisal of Rearmament is useful.

Oh damn! Something else to buy! sigh.... What's the ISBN?

[Ken Estes]

A torpedo hit on a single rudder are going to be curtains for that ship if the rudder is over. I am not sure if the twin skegs/rudders of USN designs had enough separation to do the trick either. The IJN was dismayed to find that the auxiliary rudder of the Yamato was unable to overcome a jammed main rudder, hence a waste of effort.

Not exactly a waste; AIUI the auxiliary rudder improved steering, something those behemoths needed. Of course it wasn't big enough to counteract the main rudder, that's why it was called auxiliary .

 

I do not see how anybody can fault the KG V design as completed. Does anybody think the North Carolinas should have been altered to be Iowas?

There were proposals to do just that after 1945; or at least to raise speed to 33 knots which would make them effectively Iowas. Very expensive and rather silly - if you wanted more Iowas, complete Illinois and Kentucky.

 

The complexity of such designs would mean years lost in recasting the KGVs as 16" ships or changing them from 35 to 40,000 ships. There are no computers available for scaleups, just hundreds, thousands of draftsmen and slide rules; many other new ships are also in design and on the ways at the time.

I didn't propose to turn them into Lions. They came out around 38,000 tons anyway. The DNC had to design a new twin turret and its barbette, modify the hull layout and armor, and add deck armor anyway. I don't see where just adding the deck armor and minor changes to bow and stern conformation would have been all that difficult - lots of navies did it.

 

I am reconsidering my idea of blistering to restore buoyancy, however. I doubt a KGV could be blistered and still fit into docks and locks.

 

Andrew Gordon's first book [as G. A. H. Gordon] British Seapower and Procurement Between the Wars: A Reappraisal of Rearmament is useful.

Oh damn! Something else to buy! sigh.... What's the ISBN?

 

 

Last one first: http://www.amazon.com/British-Seapower-Pro...1020&sr=1-1

has five for sale used: NIP might have a copy leftover also, did not check.

Publisher: Naval Inst Pr (March 1988)

Language: English

ISBN-10: 0870218948

ISBN-13: 978-0870218941

 

King, there were so many examples of USN victory disease evident in post45 planning that I cannot but think this is another. The early postwar fleet planning called for 10 CV and a division-lift of amphibs on each coast. Remember we lost Enterprise (CV-6) from its national hist relic status because the USN convinced Truman they needed i for the 22 CVS force....

Does Friedman cover it the 35 kt NC upgrade?? I imagine they must have thought of reboilering with the new 1200lb steam plant...boy would they have been surprised!

 

Well yes auxiliary usually adds up to less-than. I think the IJN did some testing when Bismk was lost and were disappointed with the results.

[Garth]

There were proposals to do just that after 1945; or at least to raise speed to 33 knots which would make them effectively Iowas. Very expensive and rather silly - if you wanted more Iowas, complete Illinois and Kentucky.[/b]

 

King, I don't recall there being a post-war plan to modernize the North Carolinas. There was, iirc, a proposal to modernize the SoDaks, which would raise their speed by yanking the aft turret and replacing it with additional propulsion machinery. In that case you don't really have an "Iowa". You have SoDak with better speed but 2/3rds of it's main battery (the 16" 45s, rather that the Iowas' 50s).

 

--Garth

[KingSargent]

King, I don't recall there being a post-war plan to modernize the North Carolinas. There was, iirc, a proposal to modernize the SoDaks, which would raise their speed by yanking the aft turret and replacing it with additional propulsion machinery. In that case you don't really have an "Iowa". You have SoDak with better speed but 2/3rds of it's main battery (the 16" 45s, rather that the Iowas' 50s).

 

--Garth

Hey, are you trying to snitch my role as Petulant Pedant?

 

IIRC there was first a proposal which involved lengthening the SoDaks to add propulsion. This was obviously too expensive, so they looked into the 'pull a turret' plan. Also too expensive.

 

But a BB without the aft turret could use the rear third of the ship to carry Marines. Six 16"/45s and a short bn of Marines would be a great little brushfire force. Later of course they could have put missiles on it.

[Detonable]

SNIP

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.

 

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.

 

You cannot blame Lutjens, although many do, for not topping off Bismarck. He had a refueling ship north of Iceland and one south of Greenland. Perhaps another in the Atlantic. He had the conflicting requirement of leaving Norway before the British engaged him. You cannot assume the British would still have failed to intercept him had he departed later. Perhaps he waited as long as he could. His fatal mistake was overestimating the range of British radar, not his fuel state. It was the impossibility (in his mind) of breaking away long enough to refuel that caused the panicked run home.

 

Some of the Bismarck hits weren't likely to detonate. One went through the thin bridge armor. Another went through underwater, probably backwards. (Although perhaps the water hit should have armed it).

 

Was there 1 rudder and 3 screws? I don't think thats right. Whatever, the Bismarck stern design is remarkably flawed. Perhaps there were weight issues - the Bismarck was well overweight.

[AdmiralB]

Was there 1 rudder and 3 screws? I don't think thats right.

 

Three screws, looks like two rudders to me:

 

www.kbismarck.com/bismarck741.jpg

Edited July 6, 2007 by AdmiralB

[Redbeard]

The german gunners were better , if 10 reruns would have been made , Hood would be sunk in 9 of them.Secondly the fire control on the Hood was obsolete.

 

Thirdly , a total of 2,876 shells were fired at Bismarck , most at relatively close ranges.During that time, it is possible that as many as 300-400 shells hit the German ship.

 

THe ship didn't blow up , nor sink.If that isn't engineering excellence , I don't know what else can be.

 

IIRC Bismarck fired some 40 shells at Hood of which one hit. That is a worse percentage than 300-400 out of 2876. In the final action Bismarck didn't hit at all. Of the British hits on Bismarck in the final action about 80 were from the main guns, which makes a more comparable and even better score. Had Tovey known the armour layout of Bismarck he probably would have stayed at longer range, as Bismarck's turrtledeck layout was optimised for short-medium range battle. At longer range Bismarck actually would be vulnerbale to a plunging deck hit, but both KGV and Rodeny were relatively safe with their 6" decks.

 

Hood's FC system was fully capable of bringing Bismarck under overwhelming fire in a few salvos and in no way obsolete. I would even hesitate to call it obsolescent, but even more effective systems were in service. Bismarck had a tremendous luck in Hood initially taking PE for Bismarck, as that probably saved Bismarck from a hit or two in the crucial first minuttes of the action. Had Hood not been taken out at the historical time or before she and PoW would have brought their full batteries to bear on Bismarck, which judging from the final action very quickly would have reduced Bismarck's fighting capacity to nil. Although very difficult to sink Bismarck's main battery was weakly protected. In the final action a single hit from Rodney took out all her forward 15" guns, and her turrets were seen pierced numerous times.

 

Hood isn't as vulnerable as is usually claimed. Bismarck's guns had relatively flat trajectories meaning both that Hood's decks actually offer some protection and that penetrating hits are less likely to go into magazines. The catastrofic hit at Denmark Strait probably hit a very narrow achilles heel through the upper (7") belt and then onto the 2" sloped turtle deck and into the after magazine while Hood was heeling during the turn. But at the closer end of the range at which Denmark Strait action was fought no ship afloat in 1941 would actually be totally safe from a belt hit from Bismarck. Considering the dud rate of Bismarck's shells they were lucky that it was the one hitting Hood that worked and not one of the other hits. The probable path of the fatal hit had actually been identified by the RN prewar as a weak spot in Hood's protection, but a reconstruction was not due and it was found too small to seriously worry about (!).

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

[AdmiralB]

IIRC Bismarck fired some 40 shells at Hood of which one hit.

 

According to Jurens' paper, it was five salvos, the first four of which were four-gun.

 

IIRC I read that after the Ballard expedition, they found that the only holes in Bismarck's main belt were from Rodney, that there was evidence of 14" shells bouncing off. Which makes sense I guess since the various histories seem to indicate that Rodney closed in and KGV held back to effect plunging fire.

[Guest pfcem]

NO. The only possible 15-inch designs were quick paper tentative designs, not properly worked through outline designs. The ships cover contains almost nothing about any 15-inch designs (except the beginnings of the Vanguard type which was, except for one paper, always seen as a separate class). However there are quite a few looks at the slower 16-inch design. The new 15-inch was NEVER anything other than a paperwork design. The design process was always 12-inch to 14-inch (as "lead design") then 16-inch (as developed 14-inch) and 15-inch as ONLY a paper exercise.

 

The 16-inch was continuously developed "trailling" the 14-inch. As mods were introduced into the 14-inch they happened to the 16-inch. Once the 14-inch was approved for construction the 16-inch continued development. There is no way that the KGVs (as opposed to the early outline sketches) were considered for 3 x triple 15-inch. The ships cover and ADM files shows that the DNC and Admiralty considered 14- and 16-inch versions seriously, but NOT a 15-inch version. I mentioned above that there was one exception and that was a quick paper on the feasability of mounting three existing 15-inch turrets on a KGV hull (which was rejected).

No, all work on 16" guns for the King George Vs STOPPED (which also never got beyond quick paper tentative designs) when the final decision was made to go with 14" guns.

 

How many times do I have to say that the reality the King George Vs were NEVER realistically going to have anything other than 14" guns but if you are playing the "what if" game, 15" guns would have been more likely than 16" guns.

[Garth]

But a BB without the aft turret could use the rear third of the ship to carry Marines. Six 16"/45s and a short bn of Marines would be a great little brushfire force. Later of course they could have put missiles on it.

 

Or a hangar and flightdeck for Harriers ...

 

--Garth

[Ken Estes]

....

 

How many times do I have to say ....

Perhaps it is the way you 'say' things that makes people ignore it, especially if you give no credit for any other point of view.

[Tiornu]

Yes, Bismarck had three screws and two rudders. A ship with a single rudder that gets jammed is not necessarily up a creek...if you know what I mean. The US cruiser Marblehead had a rudder jammed in a turn and still managed to regain some control before the rudder was freed.

[Tiornu]

It is not possible to distinguish between 14in and 16in calibers in the hits to Bismarck's belt, and the wreck gives no evidence of 14in shells bouncing off. All the large-caliber hits perceptible on the wreck's belt are penetrations.

Bismarck is now usually credited with two hits on Hood, the first to the foretop. Prinz Eugen's shells definitely performed poorly, but the evidence regarding 15in duds is unremarkable. The underwater hit on PoW was a dud, but any shell might have malfunctioned under those conditions.

At the time of the fatal hit, Hood was just approaching the range where Bismarck's shells would be unlikely to achieve a deck penetration. If that salvo hadn't been fatal, the chances of a catastrophe would have been minimal.

I remain unconvinced that a single hit disabled both of Bismarck's forward turets, though it's certainly possible, as Scharnhorst showed. Bismarck's turret armor was a joke.

[savantu]

I remain unconvinced that a single hit disabled both of Bismarck's forward turets, though it's certainly possible, as Scharnhorst showed. Bismarck's turret armor was a joke.

 

??

 

Bismarck :

front 360mm thick

rear 320mm

sides 150mm to 220mm

top 130mm-180mm

 

Hood

front 381 mm

side 280 to 305 mm

top 127 mm

[AdmiralB]

the wreck gives no evidence of 14in shells bouncing off. All the large-caliber hits perceptible on the wreck's belt are penetrations.

 

Here's what I read that gave me that impression:

 

The third survey found no underwater penetrations of the ship's fully-armoured citadel and only four direct hit holes on it above the waterline, all of them on one side, as delivered by the Rodney's 16 inch (406 mm) guns. Each of those hits killed an estimated 150 to 200 sailors. Huge dents showed that the 14 inch (356 mm) shells fired by the King George V bounced off the Wotan type German belt armour. Interior ROV footage showed that the "terrible destruction" the Anglo-American expedition reported was in fact the torpedo bulges, which were designed to absorb the energy of torpedoes and plunging shells. Underneath the torn bulge sheeting, the ship's 320 mm (12.6 inch) thick main belt armour appeared to be intact.

 

The American expedition's final conclusions were strikingly different from the findings of the Anglo-American team. They estimated that Bismarck could still float for at least a day when the British vessels ceased fire and could have been captured by the Royal Navy. They concluded the direct cause of sinking was due to self-scuttling, the sabotage of engine room valves by her crew, as claimed by German survivors. A detailed look at a modern computer analysis of the hull's eventual impact on the sea bottom explains some damage as a result of hydrodynamic impact shock inside the ship, which was still apparently girded by an uninterrupted curtain of armour.

 

In all 2,876 shells of various calibres were fired by the British ships. Approximately 300-400 hit. Only two hits fully penetrating the main armour were located. These holes were on the starboard side, suggesting that they were 16" shells from Rodney. Two other penetrations were found on the port side, albeit above the main armor belt, and appeared to be 14" shells. In all 714 14 inch and 16 inch shells were fired by the two battleships, of which about 80 hit the Bismarck. Only four penetrated the belt. In successive hits main gun shells destroyed A turret, B turret, each director and the bridge.

[philgollin]

According to Jurens' paper, it was five salvos, the first four of which were four-gun.

 

IIRC I read that after the Ballard expedition, they found that the only holes in Bismarck's main belt were from Rodney, that there was evidence of 14" shells bouncing off. Which makes sense I guess since the various histories seem to indicate that Rodney closed in and KGV held back to effect plunging fire.

 

The second expedition couldn't identify which shell strikes were 14-inch or 16-inch

[philgollin]

No, all work on 16" guns for the King George Vs STOPPED (which also never got beyond quick paper tentative designs) when the final decision was made to go with 14" guns.

 

How many times do I have to say that the reality the King George Vs were NEVER realistically going to have anything other than 14" guns but if you are playing the "what if" game, 15" guns would have been more likely than 16" guns.

 

There was never any "work" done on a 16-inch gun specifically for a KGV. There were outline designs for 16-inch armed KGV designs - very different. The 16-inch was developed for general use - following on from the 14-inch (whilst the 15-inch was never developed from the paper design) and eventually the 16-inch emerged for use on the next class (Lion) by Board choice. The gun designs were overseen by the Ordnance Board (and DNO) whilst the ship design by the DNC (and Board).

 

There is no "what-if" game going on. There is no design work done on any sort of 15-inch KGV, whilst there is for the 14-inch and 16-inch versions (very limited). The only 15-inch versions are intial outlines prepared for board guidance - nothing else, which were never taken forward (as opposed to the 14-inch ones and to a limited extent the 16-inch slow ones).

 

You seem not to understand how the British design process worked.

Edited July 6, 2007 by philgollin