King George V vs the other 35,000 BBs

[istvan47]

Often the KG V's are criticized for the relatively weak main armament, and the unreliability of the quad turrets. But what's the merit in this? The broadside of them was still around 18,000 pds (7,200 kg) while the Bismarks had around 6,500 kgs, the Warspite around 7,200 kg and the Rodney around 8,100 kg. Not bad, i'd say.

 

So, what's the real problem? The maximum range of the guns was around 32 km, enough for almost any occasion to fire. I'd say, instead that the piercing power of those guns was inadeguate, atleast vs armoured belts; i read that a 350/14 in belt would be pierced around 10-12 away, while a 380 mm could do it at over 20 km. But the deck perforation was not that different either.

 

Another issue is the 'all or nothing protection', quite thick when present, but it couvered only a very limited surface respect the Bismarks.

 

KG V's had overall a mixed bag of judgments, what was basically the truth about them? Can really stand up vs other similar BB's?

[binder001]

There are whole forums that debate, ad infititum, the merits or weaknesses of various battleship designs. As far as doing the job they were designed for, the KGV's did fine. Prince of Wales was brand new, untested and still managed to hit the Bismarck with a couple of shells. One of these (the forward fuel tank damage) can be said to have "mission killed" the Bismarck as she wasn't going commerce raiding while short of fuel. King George V also had turret troubles but scored many telling hits on Bismarck. Duke of York managed to get enough hits on Scharnhorst to slow her and allow a torpedo attack. So in the KGVs were battle tested and did what they were supposed to. Anson and Howe never got to prove themselves, but neither did a lot of other battleship designs of WW2. So after the merits of theoretical "one-on-one" engagements are done, you can say that the British taxpayer got a good return on investment on at least three out of the five (and the other two soldiered through less "adventurous lives, but did therir jobs).

[rmgill]

Often the KG V's are criticized for the relatively weak main armament, and the unreliability of the quad turrets. But what's the merit in this? The broadside of them was still around 18,000 pds (7,200 kg) while the Bismarks had around 6,500 kgs, the Warspite around 7,200 kg and the Rodney around 8,100 kg. Not bad, i'd say.

 

So, what's the real problem? The maximum range of the guns was around 32 km, enough for almost any occasion to fire. I'd say, instead that the piercing power of those guns was inadeguate, atleast vs armoured belts; i read that a 350/14 in belt would be pierced around 10-12 away, while a 380 mm could do it at over 20 km. But the deck perforation was not that different either.

 

Another issue is the 'all or nothing protection', quite thick when present, but it couvered only a very limited surface respect the Bismarks.

 

KG V's had overall a mixed bag of judgments, what was basically the truth about them? Can really stand up vs other similar BB's?

 

Have you checked Sci.military.naval? This was probably discussed ad nausium over there.

[istvan47]

Have you checked Sci.military.naval? This was probably discussed ad nausium over there.

 

Hello Ryan,

 

I checked in Warship.com but i don't like that forum structure, even if very interesting.

 

As we have the naval/air section, and the german battlecruiser concept, i'd say that the KG V's questions is worthing a thread anyway.

 

One of the most intriguing stuff for me was to know that those BBs should have 12 356 mm guns but they got only 10 as some weight (800 tons!!) was saved for the armour increase. Not a bad choice, probably.

 

I don't underestand how the P.o.W was lost, it seems that one of the propellor's shaft was bended and pierced the waterthing compartements, after the explosion of the first torpedo.

 

Another thing: the 133 guns were very fashinating: they looks cool and they, differently than the 127/38 mm, had a very long range as surface actions, over 21 km (almost on par with 152 mm, and superior to our beloved 135/45 mm: 36 kg*21,5 km vs 32,7 kg*19,6 km; the RoF was also superior, 7-8 rpm vs 6).

[Tony Williams]

The 14 inch guns were adequately powerful and the shells were relatively heavy, so penetrated well. The unreliability of the quad turret was disappointing, so it was indeed just as well that they had a twin in B position!

 

The 5.25 inch were also disappointing; ammo supply arrangements meant that they never got close to their designed rate of fire. The Vanguard was the only ship to have improved and roomier 5.25 inch mountings, which performed much better.

 

The PoW was lost to a freak torpedo hit which would probably have done for anything else too.

[istvan47]

Interesting the 356 mm piercing capability. According to navweapons.com:

 

Armor Penetration with 1,590 lbs. (721 kg) AP Shell

.

Range Side Armor Deck Armor

0 yards (0 m) 26.9" (668 mm) ---

10,000 yards (9,144 m) 15.6" (396 mm) 1.15" (29 mm)

15,000 yards (13,716 m) 13.2" (335 mm) 1.95" (50 mm)

20,000 yards (18,288 m) 11.2" (285 mm) 2.85" (73 mm)

25,000 yards (22,860 m) 9.5" (241 mm) 4.00" (102 mm)

28,000 yards (25,603 m) --- 4.75" (121 mm)

 

Note: This data is from "Battleships: Allied Battleships in World War II" for a muzzle velocity of 2,400 fps (732 mps) and is partly based upon the USN Empirical Formula for Armor Penetration and partly based upon official data.

 

Armor Penetration with 1,590 lbs. (721 kg) AP Shell

.

Range Side Armor Deck Armor

13,700 yards (12,530 m) 14.0" (356 mm) ---

15,800 yards (14,450 m) 13.0" (330 mm) ---

18,000 yards (16,460 m) 12.0" (305 mm) ---

20,000 yards (18,290 m) --- 2.0" (52 mm)

20,500 yards (18,750 m) 11.0" (279 mm) ---

23,700 yards (21,670 m) 10.0" (254 mm) ---

24,000 yards (21,950 m) --- 3.0" (76 mm)

28,000 yards (25,600 m) --- 4.0" (102 mm)

32,000 yards (29,260 m) --- 5.0" (127 mm)

 

Note: This data is from "British Battleships of World War Two." This table assumes 90 degree inclination and is based upon theoretical calculations performed in 1935, not actual firing trials.

Edited January 17, 2012 by istvan47

[Argus]

Having read many of those 'ad-infinitim' threads on this across several boards.

 

1/ the 14" turrets were not as 'bad' as popularly made out, they were about average in action on a pretty small sample. Given PoW was still working up for Bismarck, the DoY at North Cape is the usual example of unreliability offered, and that was hardly textbook either. A half gale in the Arctic is not the 90% norm for naval engagements, just a couple of degrees of pitch or roll (far less both) making 1500lb shells any easier to move around. The thing is with these big naval turrets, the guns are really semi-autonomous entities within the overall mounting, that only really train (rotate) together, for loading, elevation and firing they are operated more or less as individuals. The operational collective entity is the salvo, so the best measure of 'reliability' is missed salvos, that is occasions where the gun has been programmed to fire and hasn't been able to. People have gone though the gun logs, done the stats and comparisons to show the Quad was only slightly below the baseline set by the twin and both were pretty respectable. That the quad does worse than the twin is only to be expected, it has twice as many guns to suffer a problem.

 

2/ I've been in threads with people who have dived PoW (on mixed gasses), and had related the observations of one of that party who actually penetrated the wreck up the propeller shaft tunnel. Basically the shaft was made in sections like lengths of flanged pipe, and the torpedo hit cased the shaft to break up into its individual sections at the joints. Each of those sections has essentially 'rolled' around the inside of its compartment flattening all the bulkheads and reaming a 20'x20' square tunnel all the way from the hull plating into the gear room. That is in addition to the huge gash ripped in the stern plating by the prop and outboard section of the shaft as it bent like paperclip and thrashed itself free.

 

I think the best summation of the KGV's is still that they were 'working class BB's' nothing fancy but capable of getting the job done.

 

 

shane

Edited January 19, 2012 by Argus

[istvan47]

Having read many of those 'ad-infinitim' threads on this across several boards.

 

1/ the 14" turrets were not as 'bad' as popularly made out, they were about average in action on a pretty small sample. Given PoW was still working up for Bismarck, the DoY at North Cape is the usual example of unreliability offered, and that was hardly textbook either. A half gale in the Arctic is not the 90% norm for naval engagements, just a couple of degrees of pitch or roll (far less both) making 1500lb shells any easier to move around. The thing is with these big naval turrets, the guns are really semi-autonomous entities within the overall mounting, that only really train (rotate) together, for loading, elevation and firing they are operated more or less as individuals. The operational collective entity is the salvo, so the best measure of 'reliability' is missed salvos, that is occasions where the gun has been programmed to fire and hasn't been able to. People have gone though the gun logs, done the stats and comparisons to show the Quad was only slightly below the baseline set by the twin and both were pretty respectable. That the quad does worse than the twin is only to be expected, it has twice as many guns to suffer a problem.

 

2/ I've been in threads with people who have dived PoW (on mixed gasses), and had related the observations of one of that party who actually penetrated the wreck up the propeller shaft tunnel. Basically the shaft was made in sections like lengths of flanged pipe, and the torpedo hit cased the shaft to break up into its individual sections at the joints. Each of those sections has essentially 'rolled' around the inside of its compartment flattening all the bulkheads and reaming a 20'x20' square tunnel all the way from the hull plating into the gear room. That is in addition to the huge gash ripped in the stern plating by the prop and outboard section of the shaft as it bent like paperclip and thrashed itself free.

shane

 

Ok, but something here had to be discussed, after all..

 

It would be worthing to note, when RN Vittorio Veneto was hit by a torpedo at Gaudo/Matapan, she lost both the left propellers and only with great strain she reached the port, with the starboard engines pushed over their nominal power. The ship took 4,000 tons of water. I wonder, if the VV would have been by another torpedo, like the one hit in november 1941 (another 3,000 tons water), if she would have made port. It seems not. I don't know if 7,000 tons of water (around 16% extra displacement) were enough to sink her, but the loss of half engine shafts is already a big problem indeed.

 

As the Bismark was 'lost' because one rudder jammed, i'd say that the propulsion system of the BB's is really undervalued as vulnerability vs enemy offense. After all, it cannot be protected, unless duplicating the systems (Littorio's had 4 shafts and 3(!!) rudders).

 

When PoW and Bismark battled, it is also interesting to note that no hit occurred in the main belt or the main deck, even so the damages were quite heavy. I am surprised to see how the ammunitions fired by PoW tended to hit the underwater sector of Bismark. Even more surprising as the Bismark had a really extensive armour surface, for the most invulnerable to 356 mm. Such a 'intelligent' ammos had the british at the time!

[Redbeard]

As Angus posted a lot of research has been done about the reliability issue of the 14" turrets. I myself did a little part when I got access to the official data of the practice firings of all the ships of the class from 1942-45. These firings were of course done in relatively calm weather compared to the battle of the North Cape, but very clearly show that under normal conditions the worked up 14" had a very high reliability. I'm afraid my copies of the firing data were lost when my basement was flooded last summer, but IIRC the average output was above 95% and by the way showed a very impressive accuracy.

 

AFAIK no other naval battle invoving battleship main guns was performed under conditions like at North Cape, most were in realtively calm weather making the firing practices more relevant for comparing reliability.

 

Next it must not be forgotten, that the naval engagements where the KGV's used their main armaments were quite lenghty. IIRC it was 20-30 minuttes into the action vs. Bismarck before KGV's turrets started to show problems - and all turrets will give problems if they are in continious action, but most other battleship engagements did not involve 30 minuttes of continious firing.

 

During WWII the USN had a battleship (IIRC USS Idaho in 1942) fire its entire ammo in a continious firing practice, just to see what happened, and various mishaps taking out guns for one or several salvoes accelerated during the practice, making USS Idaho's ouput comparable to that of PoW or KGV in 1941.

 

When comparing the KGVs to other contemporary battleships their main assets IMHO were:

 

 

• 
   
  
• protection, they had the best side armour of her generation and her decks at least as good as any other.
  
• very accurate guns, if you can make more hits per gun per minute you can overwhelm an enemy even if you are not superior in broadside weight.
  
• they were relatively cheap, much cheaper than US ships
  
• but first of all they were there. If they had been redesigned to mount 16" triples (as the North Carolinas) they would not have been available for the Bismarck hunt - bad hair day for UK!
  

 

They main disadvantages:

 

• 
   
  
• Disappointing AAA. Not only the 5,25", but also inadequate fire control (compared to USN).
  
• Inadequate range. They were not designed for Pacific operations and suffered accordingly when there.
  
• No matter how well they would work under real condition having the smallest d... eh sorry guns, allways was a public humilliation that simply had to be followed by the dissolvement of the British Empire and the degradation of GB into a marginal province of the EU... (sorry Brittons, but I'm really on your side, we will follow you out )
  

 

Regards

 

Redbeard

Edited January 21, 2012 by Redbeard

[istvan47]

[*]No matter how well they would work under real condition having the smallest d... eh sorry guns, allways was a public humilliation that simply had to be followed by the dissolvement of the British Empire and the degradation of GB into a marginal province of the EU... (sorry Brittons, but I'm really on your side, we will follow you out )

 

Regards

 

Redbeard

 

Too bad that the new 381/45 mm gun was not choose, or we would have a sort of KG V/Littorio.

 

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

Edited January 21, 2012 by istvan47

[Redbeard]

Too bad that the new 381/45 mm gun was not choose, or we would have a sort of KG V/Littorio.

 

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

 

Yeah, I perhaps should have added one more bullit to the "disadvantages" list, that of being designed not just as a battleship but also as a political statement. The British government was anxious to have all nations restrain themselves to 14" guns and therefore wanted to go ahead as the good example - look were that got them! At least their financial trouble prevented them from redesigning when it became clear that the other powers ignored the 14" limit, a redesign wold have meant that no modern battleships would have been available for the Bismarck hunt.

 

The 14" proposal was naive and way too ambitious. With an international 14" limit for new construction the existing British stock of 15" ships simply would have been too big a pain in the b... of the other powers. They had no reason to give RN such an advantage and the British weren't strong enough to enforce it. A 15" limit would have been more realistic, and although I doubt if the USN or IJN would have followed, it would at least have left the RN with something a little more impressive. The interlocks and turntables would probably have been designed with the same tight tolerances as the 14", but in a triple mount everything ought to have been less complicated and more well proven. As I understand it the very large diameter of the 14" quad much contributed to twisting, friction and trouble during the North Cape action.

 

Anyway, given all the trouble, the 14" did extraordinary well - the girls on the dance floor just didn't know that beforehand...

[Tony Williams]

My favourite "what if" - as in The Foresight War - is the UK's promotion of a 15 inch treaty calibre, allowing the RN to recycle the guns and turrets from the outdated R Class battleships (as well as the available Courageous and Glorious turrets), thereby hopefully saving time and money in getting new ships in service. Furthermore, ones with tried, tested and very reliable guns and mountings as well as adequate performance (given the turret mods to increase elevation).

[Redbeard]

My favourite "what if" - as in The Foresight War - is the UK's promotion of a 15 inch treaty calibre, allowing the RN to recycle the guns and turrets from the outdated R Class battleships (as well as the available Courageous and Glorious turrets), thereby hopefully saving time and money in getting new ships in service. Furthermore, ones with tried, tested and very reliable guns and mountings as well as adequate performance (given the turret mods to increase elevation).

 

 

Yes that would have been very interesting. A 35.000 ship with three recycled twin 15/42s should be both fast, very well protected, cheap and quick to build - and with enough punch to be trouble for any axis ship before Yamato. Perhaps recycle some of the armour plating from the Rs?

 

I admit that they lack the "show off effect" but having say four such ships ready before WWII would solve a lot of real world problems for the RN, and meanwhile work could continue on ships with three 15" triples incl. a modern 15/45 barrel.

 

For my sake they could drop the reconstruction of the QE's, rather spend the effort on Repulse and Hood.

 

Next exchange Nelson and Rodney for Strasbourg and Dunkerque

 

Regards

 

Redbeard

[Getz]

For my sake they could drop the reconstruction of the QE's, rather spend the effort on Repulse and Hood.

 

Next exchange Nelson and Rodney for Strasbourg and Dunkerque

 

Regards

 

Redbeard

 

Nothing wrong with retaining the Nelrods, alongside the QE's they constituted a medium speed (23.5 knot) division which was usefully faster than anything in the Med or Atlantic. The only navy with a faster fleet speed than that in the mid 30's was the IJN, and then by only a narrow margin (24 knots). The Italians managed to raise their fleet speed to about 27 knots by 1939, but would you like to take on the QE's and Nelrods in the rebuilt Cavours?

 

Recycling the R class turrets into new ships, whowever, I can get right behind. I wonder if you could get a decent eight gun design out of 35,000 tons? I doubt it seeing that 28 knots was considered the absolute minimum for the KGVs, and Vanguard turned out at about 42,000 tons for a 30 knot design.

[Kentucky-roughrider]

I think the best summation of the KGV's is still that they were 'working class BB's' nothing fancy but capable of getting the job done.

That statement can be used to describe all British Battleship design from the Queen Elizebeth class onward and if not other types of British warships.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Kentucky-roughrider

[Tony Williams]

Recycling the R class turrets into new ships, whowever, I can get right behind. I wonder if you could get a decent eight gun design out of 35,000 tons? I doubt it seeing that 28 knots was considered the absolute minimum for the KGVs, and Vanguard turned out at about 42,000 tons for a 30 knot design.

That would entirely depend on your attitude to armouring. Given that the main battleship killers in WW2 were torpedoes, followed by aerial bombs, massive slabs of thick side armour turned out to be an insurance policy which wasn't really needed.

[Redbeard]

That would entirely depend on your attitude to armouring. Given that the main battleship killers in WW2 were torpedoes, followed by aerial bombs, massive slabs of thick side armour turned out to be an insurance policy which wasn't really needed.

 

Agree, but perhaps you could get the insurance for almost free anyway. A ship with a main armament of two superimposed triple turrets forward could utilize a tactic of approaching head-on (in a chase) but still having its entire main armament in action. Such a ship would not need heavy side armor, but could focus on very heavy protection of decks, forward bulkhead and turrets/barbettes – and still achieve superior speed. Ideally such ships should operate in pairs (which shouldn’t be impossible in a navy of RN’s size) and could as such take on any Axis ship (a la battle of River Plate) and would fit splendidly into the RN’s usual challenge of needing to enforce decisive action on the enemy.

 

If recycled 15”/42 barrels and turrets are a prerequisite triples are of course out of the question, but I wonder if it still would be possible to have three 15”/42 twins superimposed forward on a 35.000 design? Anyway for the new designs I mentioned in the post above to follow up on the “recycles”, I would happily give up the rear triple turret to achieve really superior protection and speed. BTW you could also consider doing a KGV with two superimposed 14” quads forward. A quad in B position was included in the original design, but cut down to a twin to give extra side protection. Now imagine the x quad deleted instead and the side armor reduced to say 10". The saved weight could be used for extra protection forward and on extra speed. Might require some thorough redesign though (weight distribution for one thing), and that might be prohibitive time wise.

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

[Redbeard]

Nothing wrong with retaining the Nelrods, alongside the QE's they constituted a medium speed (23.5 knot) division which was usefully faster than anything in the Med or Atlantic. The only navy with a faster fleet speed than that in the mid 30's was the IJN, and then by only a narrow margin (24 knots). The Italians managed to raise their fleet speed to about 27 knots by 1939, but would you like to take on the QE's and Nelrods in the rebuilt Cavours?

 

Recycling the R class turrets into new ships, whowever, I can get right behind. I wonder if you could get a decent eight gun design out of 35,000 tons? I doubt it seeing that 28 knots was considered the absolute minimum for the KGVs, and Vanguard turned out at about 42,000 tons for a 30 knot design.

 

A 23,5 knot squadron would be splendid in WWI, but by WWII that wouldn't catch up with any Axis ship. The slow ships would be fine in protecting convoys, but the hardly 20 knots of the old R's would be enough.

 

So instead of some fine 23-24 knot ships with 15-16" guns never getting into action I would prefer 28+ knot ships with 13-13,5" guns actually engaging the enemy. One-on-one they would be strong enough to take on the Deutschlands, the Scharnhorsts, the Cavours or the Kongos, and vs. stronger opponents you should anyway count on superior number like in the historical Bismarck action.

 

Actually I'm enough of a heretic to prefer a reconstruction of Tiger to Warspite

 

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

[Tony Williams]

I've always rather liked the two-forward-quad arrangement, if only because the Richelieus looked fantastic (although note that the French planned to change to one forward and one aft in the third of the Richelieu class). In fact, that would have been my preferred solution to the Nelrod design, it would have released weight and space for a higher speed. If that wasn't possible, then giving the Nelrods just A and B triples to get lots more speed would have been worth it.

 

However, the construction of gun mountings was probably even more costly and time-consuming than the production of big guns, so the time and money-saving aspects of reusing the existing twin mountings in the run-up to WW2 would be lost with any other gun layout.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Tony Williams

[Rick]

A 23,5 knot squadron would be splendid in WWI, but by WWII that wouldn't catch up with any Axis ship. The slow ships would be fine in protecting convoys, but the hardly 20 knots of the old R's would be enough.

 

So instead of some fine 23-24 knot ships with 15-16" guns never getting into action I would prefer 28+ knot ships with 13-13,5" guns actually engaging the enemy. One-on-one they would be strong enough to take on the Deutschlands, the Scharnhorsts, the Cavours or the Kongos, and vs. stronger opponents you should anyway count on superior number like in the historical Bismarck action.

 

Actually I'm enough of a heretic to prefer a reconstruction of Tiger to Warspite

 

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

 

If your doing what-ifs, I would go with five more Ark Royals than KGV's. Or even better, no KGV and use the 7,100 crewman saved for the British Army's infantry replacements.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Rick

[Rick]

My favourite "what if" - as in The Foresight War - is the UK's promotion of a 15 inch treaty calibre, allowing the RN to recycle the guns and turrets from the outdated R Class battleships (as well as the available Courageous and Glorious turrets), thereby hopefully saving time and money in getting new ships in service. Furthermore, ones with tried, tested and very reliable guns and mountings as well as adequate performance (given the turret mods to increase elevation).

 

Out of curiosity, how many 15" turrets and guns were available if this route was taken?

[Tony Williams]

Out of curiosity, how many 15" turrets and guns were available if this route was taken?

There were four turrets from Courageous and Glorious in store (later mounted on Vanguard) plus another 20 turrets on the five R class battleships. Enough for six battleships with four twin turrets.

[Getz]

That statement can be used to describe all British Battleship design from the Queen Elizebeth class onward and if not other types of British warships.

 

The R class? perhaps - but the QE's hardly qualifed as "working class." Biggest guns in the world? Check! Highest speed for a battle ship? Check! Heaviest armour? Well, maybe not, but not far off. Really, at the point they were commissioned they were a list of superlatives and there was nothing comparable afloat anywhere in the world. Sure - faster, better armoured and better armed ships would come along not too long later, but there was nothing working class about them in 1915.

 

I'd also argue that the Nelrods weren't exactly working class either. At the point they were commissioned they were the most radical and advanced warships afloat.

 

 

A 23,5 knot squadron would be splendid in WWI, but by WWII that wouldn't catch up with any Axis ship. The slow ships would be fine in protecting convoys, but the hardly 20 knots of the old R's would be enough.

 

So instead of some fine 23-24 knot ships with 15-16" guns never getting into action I would prefer 28+ knot ships with 13-13,5" guns actually engaging the enemy. One-on-one they would be strong enough to take on the Deutschlands, the Scharnhorsts, the Cavours or the Kongos, and vs. stronger opponents you should anyway count on superior number like in the historical Bismarck action.

 

Actually I'm enough of a heretic to prefer a reconstruction of Tiger to Warspite

 

To be fair, the RN managed to control the Med pretty well without any fast battleships and so long as you include some battlecruisers in your forces (Renown and Repulse would do) they probably wouldn't have believed they needed anything faster for the far east.

 

Of course, I'm trying to imagine what might have been possible in the context of the mid 30's rather than granting myself the full benefit of hindsight...

[istvan47]

AFAIK, the 381/42 mm guns were barely outclassed by the new 15' made in Europe, so UK should have spent a bit more money and buy new guns instead. 381/42 mm was a really good stuff in WWI, but the 380-381 mm installed in the new BBs were too superior, almost in the 406/50 mm guns reign.

[Tony Williams]

The RN considered the old 15 inch twin turrets good enough to arm their last battleship - the Vanguard.