An Alternative KGV Battleship

Designed to conform to the expected results of the 1935/36 2nd London Naval Treaty in mind these OTL 35,000 Ton fast Battleships where initially intended to mount 12 * 14" Guns in 3 turrets - however the threat of an escelator clause and non-signitories like Japan resulting in some nations developing modern ships with 16" guns the design was reduced to 10 guns with the Superfiring 'B' Turret redesigned as a twin and improvements instead made to the design's armor scheme while keeping the 'Dry' weight to 35,000 Tons.

In an ATL I am creating a 'Cold war' during this time between Britain and France vs Italy over the invasion of Ethiopia that raises tensions greater than OTL effectively resulting in the 2nd LNT failing.

So the DNC (Director of Naval Construction) freed from the artificial constraints but concious of the need to build new ships sooner rather than later is directed to use the best parts of the existing and previous KGV Design's to come up with a happy medium

My suggestions are as follows

Return to the previous design of 3 Quad Turrets rather than 2 and a superfiring twin

Continue to use the 14" Gun as the ground work is already laid out and they are ready to be built.

The main delay as I understand it was the Superfiring twin that had to be designed (the quads where already designed)

- I had considered using Triple 15" mk2s or even Triple 16" mk2s but both would result in unacceptable delays and when you cut through all of the negativity surrounding the 14" guns they performed no worse than anyone else's gun systems and were quite capable of punching holes in all other peoples Battleships then under construction or in service. And the potential ROF advantage of a 12 gun ship vs a 8 or 9 gun ship is obvious
- The other option was to build multiple 'Vanguards' using existing stock and removing turrets from the Revenges (effectively scrapping them).
The problem with this is that while initially it looks simple - pull the turrets out of one ship and plop them into another - improving the twin 15" to the 'n' standard (as per a 'Warspite' refit) required a lot of work (the shell and powder rooms were reversed for example) and is not nearly as simple as you might think.

And while the Revenges might not have been modern they were well armed and armoured and a threat to any other Battleship in the late 30s - and they represented 1/3rd of Britains Captial ship fleet at this time (and more so as a number of the Queens and BCs are also under refit during this period) - so I cannot see them being withdrawn from service before new ships can replace them. They were also useful as Convoy escorts where their slow speed (approx 20 knots) was not a handicap.

Armor scheme wise make the suggested improvements to the armour layout taking the weight hit - the ship will have to be slightly longer as well to incorporate the 3rd Quad turret instead of the Twin and so improvements to the machinery should be made to bring the total 'Emergency' SHP to 150,000.

I am guessing that this should be good for 30 odd Knots?

Secondaries - again the twin 5.25" gets a bad press but like the 14" it proved to be a useful duel purpose gun system - although it did not deliver the promised ROF it was still quite impressive

10 Twins are incorporated into the design - with 5 twins per side - with 2 Directors

AAA - events in the Med during the late 30s (in my ATL) result in the effectiveness of the 2 pounder pom pom and quad .50 cals being seriously questioned - and a study reveals that the Bofors 40/60 and 20mm cannon systems make for better AA weapons and these are used in the design (both the Pom pom and .50s Vickers quad still see a great deal of service but are generally replaced in all new builds and refits from 1938).

The UP system is stillborn in this time line and not used

8 Quad Bofors and are fitted along with 4 Twins and 12 single 20mm Cannon (this will have tripled by 1944)

Hanger and Launch facilities

The temptation is to drop these in favor of saved weight and additional / improved weapons etc after all these are not needed as much as we would expect - largely due to radar - however in 1937 when these ships are laid down - thats still an unknown - and in the early part of the war the aircraft can prove to be useful (See Warspites Aircraft at 2nd Narvik) - so I am keeping those as OTL - 4 Walrus, Hanger facilities and a catapult.

Despite being slightly larger and heavier I would actually expect these ships to be built slightly faster as My understanding is that the Superfiring Twin 14" turret redesign caused a significant delay.

Anyway bit of a thought dump - thoughts?
 

Delta Force

Banned
There are a few options that come to mind:
-- King George V Design 15C: It would have been equipped with the new 15"/45 Mark II gun.
-- Vanguard program: There were proposals for scrapping the Revenge class and using their turrets and guns to arm new construction. The historical Vanguard was built with surplus turrets and guns from the Courageous class. Scrapping the Revenge class would free up enough equipment for five more Vanguard class battleships, for a total of six.
-- Lion class battleship: An improved version of the original/historical King George V class battleship. Features the 16"/45 Mark II/III/IV gun.
 
Do me a favor. If you follow this timeline have the RN full modernizations on the Rs and QEs. I know it will not do much for their speed but it could at least give them modern fire control, modern secondary armament, and modern AA. Look at what the US did to some of its old BBs post Pearl Harbor as examples. While you are at it, find a way to improve the water generation capacity on the Rs.
 

sharlin

Banned
Do me a favor. If you follow this timeline have the RN full modernizations on the Rs and QEs. I know it will not do much for their speed but it could at least give them modern fire control, modern secondary armament, and modern AA. Look at what the US did to some of its old BBs post Pearl Harbor as examples. While you are at it, find a way to improve the water generation capacity on the Rs.

Problem is that was of course when money wasn't a thing nor were treatys. The RN was lacking in money, dock space and was bound by treaties that all added up to limit the modernisations available. The QE and Valiant were what all the QE class would look like if time and money had been available, the R's probably would have been similar to Royal Oak.
 
Do me a favor. If you follow this timeline have the RN full modernizations on the Rs and QEs. I know it will not do much for their speed but it could at least give them modern fire control, modern secondary armament, and modern AA. Look at what the US did to some of its old BBs post Pearl Harbor as examples. While you are at it, find a way to improve the water generation capacity on the Rs.

Problem is that was of course when money wasn't a thing nor were treatys. The RN was lacking in money, dock space and was bound by treaties that all added up to limit the modernisations available. The QE and Valiant were what all the QE class would look like if time and money had been available, the R's probably would have been similar to Royal Oak.

In my proposed POD the 2LNT fails and there is a 'Mediterranean Cold War' that also impacts among other things the Spanish Civil War - this effectively kicks off British and to a lesser extent French Re-armament 18 months earlier than OTL. So post 1937 there is no treaty and the Axis nations are ignoring it anyway

Britain has the ship building capacity and skills

So on another site there are several things that need to be considered - Britain had 9 large 'gun pits' - where the Twin 15"s would be modernised or new turrets constructed such as the Quad 14"s and another 9 that could have been opened up for a couple of £Million (they had been abandoned and filled in) - in addition one of the delays for all types of ships was gun directors of all types - this should be expanded

What I am going to propose is that these are opened up for the refurbishment of the remaining Queens and BCs (I would dearly love to refit Hood in 1937 - but would have to create a POD - perhaps she gets bombed by one of the Spanish factions or some such?)

Warspite took 3 years to refit and commission - but if the penny has dropped in 1937 then I would imagine more resources and money be thrown at any refit and subsequent Queens / BCs would be refitted in a year - 18 months?

I would love to refit all 5 Queens and all 3 BC's - but time is tight (the money could be found) - realistically we are looking at 4 Queens and 3 BCs deep refitted from 1936 - 1942 (ie new superstructure, turrets, secondary's and AAA - 6" removed etc)

The 5 Rs are a different problem - their machinery layout made it very problematic for a refit - however like you I would like to see a fire control / Radar and AAA refit and perhaps removal of the 6" guns - not familiar with the water generation issue (what was required to fix that?) - the other issue is that by taking more Queens and BCs off line for Deep refits between 1936 and 40 - you are reducing the Capital ship fleet by 2 - 5 vessels at any point - not including any ships needing dock time due to aches and sprains.

I feel that the Rs are quite rightly last in the queue for everything and would not get a deep refit or improved turrets (Mk1 15" N). They would have a lot to do in the late 30s!

Therefore it makes sense to replace them with new builds.

In practice these new builds would of course simply add to the fleet and the Rs would be given secondary tasks in secondary theatres - ie supporting landings, convoys escorts etc freeing up the modernised and newer ships for more important taskings as happened in OTL.
 
I know what you are saying, I just feel bad for the Rs. Especially since I just had two of them whacked in my TL. I would like to see them get some love.
 
There are a few options that come to mind:
-- King George V Design 15C: It would have been equipped with the new 15"/45 Mark II gun.
-- Vanguard program: There were proposals for scrapping the Revenge class and using their turrets and guns to arm new construction. The historical Vanguard was built with surplus turrets and guns from the Courageous class. Scrapping the Revenge class would free up enough equipment for five more Vanguard class battleships, for a total of six.
-- Lion class battleship: An improved version of the original/historical King George V class battleship. Features the 16"/45 Mark II/III/IV gun.


The new 15" gun was untested and would have resulted in delays - after you cut through the popular oft repeated failures of the type the 14" quads were not all that bad and once sorted out where able to maintain a high ROF for long periods. Certainly no worse than other guns of the time period.

Vanguard program makes sense if you know when you are going to war - short of ASB this date is not known and you cannot simply scrap 1/3rd of the fleet at once - especially when a number of the Queens and BCs are under deep refit.

In the mid / late 30s the Rs are still more than capable of holding their own vs other nations capital ships - They will remain the Cinderella's of the fleet!

Again the Lions would have taken an extra couple of years to design and prepare for and in 1936 there is nothing afloat or building that cannot be dealt with by the 14" guns. The enemy of the Perfect is the good enough!

I would love to have seen 5 Lions rather than 5 KGVs but the Navy needed modern fast Battleships earlier not later (as it was they were late) - the Lions I cannot see being in service much before 43/44
 
I know what you are saying, I just feel bad for the Rs. Especially since I just had two of them whacked in my TL. I would like to see them get some love.

I agree - but new builds are needed and the Queens and Repulse/Renown + Hood make more sense to refit with their greater machinery space and better armour schemes!

Needs of the Service and all that
 
Last edited:

Redbeard

Banned
I think the overriding priority will have to be to have the KGVs in service as soon as possible. With all the axis powers having fast modern or modernised designs quickly approaching completion a mediocre design at sea is a million times better than a super design on the slips. I.e. no major design changes!

Keeping the 3 triple quads might speed up completion but protection will also be slightly less. You might save weight by replacing the 5,25 secondarys with 4,5" or 4" - or deleting them altogether - DK Brown suggested that!

I doubt quad Bofors will be available by 1941 unless you make separate PoD - but not impossible. After all the Bofors was in service from 1936. But the octuble pom-pom wasn't that bad. The original 6x8 was an impressive outfit by 1941.

I guess you could make a compromise about completing the first two or three ASAP and the last two or three to an alternate design. Or perhaps if the "cold war" with Italy has UK say: "Those Italian designs are no way 35.000 tons - we will build 40.000 + ships too ASAP (Lions)!"

Anyway it is an intriguing thought to have UK start its rearmament a few years ahead of OTL. The OTL rearmament naval programme of the late 1930 was the biggest ever seen by that time, but was to a large degree either deleted or delayed by the outbreak of war as escorts and destroyers were more needed than capital ships.

If we now give it a year or two more we might see a much more impressive RN by 1939. Italy might stay out of the war altogether and it will be much tougher to be Japan.

Regards

Redbeard
 
I think the overriding priority will have to be to have the KGVs in service as soon as possible. With all the axis powers having fast modern or modernised designs quickly approaching completion a mediocre design at sea is a million times better than a super design on the slips. I.e. no major design changes!

Agreed although I would not describe a KGV as 'Mediocre'

Keeping the 3 triple quads might speed up completion but protection will also be slightly less. You might save weight by replacing the 5,25 secondarys with 4,5" or 4" - or deleting them altogether - DK Brown suggested that!

I sort of agree but I cannot see the DNC of the day agreeing to it and the 5.25s do make sense at the time

I doubt quad Bofors will be available by 1941 unless you make separate PoD - but not impossible. After all the Bofors was in service from 1936. But the octuble pom-pom wasn't that bad. The original 6x8 was an impressive outfit by 1941.

Totally understand - in many situations the 8 x 40mm Pom pom was the superior weapon - particularly very close attacks or the 'divine wind' - but its several years before the Allies will be faced with the horror of suicide planes - where the fire power of multiple directed octuble pompoms was the better weapon system. The problem was it was very complicated, heavy and less reliable than bofors - the chief weapon engineer on POW spent the ships final battle racing between weapon system trying to keep them in operation. Also it had no tracer - so unless it hits the attacking aircraft it has little or no 'suppressive effect' on the enemy flight crews.

I'm working on a Lord Mountbatten led POD that leads to a change in weapon system on new builds and refits.

I guess you could make a compromise about completing the first two or three ASAP and the last two or three to an alternate design. Or perhaps if the "cold war" with Italy has UK say: "Those Italian designs are no way 35.000 tons - we will build 40.000 + ships too ASAP (Lions)!"

My 'appreciation' of building a 'pure' KGV with 3 quads is that the biggest delay was the redesign for the super firing twin. Adding armour and improved machinery is weight rather than dimension so by no longer being constrained to the 35,000 Ton limit this could be done with little impact or delay to the design.

I would hope that 5 or 6 ships would be commissioned by 1941 (with 3 in service during 1940).

While the Lions are planned I suspect that the reasons that led to their cancellation in OTL will exist in this timeline too

Anyway it is an intriguing thought to have UK start its rearmament a few years ahead of OTL. The OTL rearmament naval programme of the late 1930 was the biggest ever seen by that time, but was to a large degree either deleted or delayed by the outbreak of war as escorts and destroyers were more needed than capital ships.

If we now give it a year or two more we might see a much more impressive RN by 1939. Italy might stay out of the war altogether and it will be much tougher to be Japan.

Regards

Redbeard

Agreed!
 
... I am guessing that this should be good for 30 odd knots?
If you really want to guarantee a decent top speed then you need to look at the Royal Navy's boilers and turbines, in the 1930s whilst the Americans forged ahead they did some experimental work with HMS Acheron in 1930-31 but when they ran into problems seem to have retreated into general conservatism. Advancing the boiler and turbine design so that the systems work at a higher pressure and temperature generally means that the combined systems themselves are lighter, or at least the same weight, whilst offering an increased range for a lower fuel usage.


Secondary armament - again the twin 5.25-inch gets a bad press but like the 14-inch it proved to be a useful duel purpose gun system - although it did not deliver the promised rate of fire it was still quite impressive.
IIRC one of the main problems with the 5.25-inch guns was the cramped gunhouse which impacted on their effectiveness, later on they seem to have been fine on HMS Vanguard with a modified design. Depending on how wedded you are to the final design looking at enlarging the mountings slightly would give you a good improvement in performance.


Keeping the 3 triple quads might speed up completion but protection will also be slightly less. You might save weight by replacing the 5.25-inch secondaries with 4.5-inch or 4-inch - or deleting them altogether - D. K. Brown suggested that!
The problem of trying to swap the 5.25-inch guns for 4.5-inch or smaller ones is that you run into the gunnery officers, IIRC they argued that they needed the extra 3,000 feet range the 5.25-inch guns offered over the 4.5-inch to help keep torpedo carrying enemy destroyers at safe distance and when dealing with larger opponents. Just sort out the size of the gunhouse and look at fitting powered loading trays and ramming.
 
The three quad layout I agree with completely . As far as speed goes the KGV were no slouches and speed on the open seas was fine . Secondaries I really can not find anything except the actual barrel and shell I like about the 5.25 . The gun mounts were badly designed . Now if you make the mount big enough for the power rammer and separate ammunition etc you need to increase the mass required for this to occur . removing the aircraft will free up room for some more pom pom's . I think the gain in mass in around 700 ton but I could be wrong .

With each Secondary 5.25 weighing at least 85 tons and if the mount Is larger 95 ton plus , that's were any weight savings will come from .
(Vanguard achieved 9 RPG .)
changing to 4.7 mounts like the L and M class destroyers gives you a 58 ton turret and 10 rounds per minute
Changing to 4.5 inch BD mounts will be around 30 tons per mount . and a rate of fire of 12 rounds per minute
Change to a 4 inch mount ( not turret mount ie open at back lol) you get a 16 ton mount capable of 15 to 20 rounds per minute. heck you can fit 6 4 inch mounts in the same tonnage as a single 5.25 turret lol.

Everything about these ships was a political exercise from the gun calibre to the weight . if the Royal navy had been allowed a free hand they would have been far superior . and even then they were still as good as any other treaty battleship in the world .
 

hipper

Banned
If you really want to guarantee a decent top speed then you need to look at the Royal Navy's boilers and turbines, in the 1930s whilst the Americans forged ahead they did some experimental work with HMS Acheron in 1930-31 but when they ran into problems seem to have retreated into general conservatism. Advancing the boiler and turbine design so that the systems work at a higher pressure and temperature generally means that the combined systems themselves are lighter, or at least the same weight, whilst offering an increased range for a lower fuel usage.


American high pressure steam boilers used inter coolers which added weight to the engine systems the KGV engines weighed less than the equivalent American North Dakota BB's


IIRC one of the main problems with the 5.25-inch guns was the cramped gunhouse which impacted on their effectiveness, later on they seem to have been fine on HMS Vanguard with a modified design. Depending on how wedded you are to the final design looking at enlarging the mountings slightly would give you a good improvement in performance.

The gun houses on 5.25" guns were not more cramped than any other turret and there is no evidence that the 5.25 was ineffective as an AA gun

When firing time fused ammo it was more effective than the American 5" but that was due to better fire control methods.



The problem of trying to swap the 5.25-inch guns for 4.5-inch or smaller ones is that you run into the gunnery officers, IIRC they argued that they needed the extra 3,000 feet range the 5.25-inch guns offered over the 4.5-inch to help keep torpedo carrying enemy destroyers at safe distance and when dealing with larger opponents. Just sort out the size of the gunhouse and look at fitting powered loading trays and ramming.

Powered ramming was standard in 5.25" gun as was automatic fuse setting I'm not sure what a powered loading tray is.

Cheers Hipper
 

sharlin

Banned
Basically the shells in a 5.25 were loaded onto the trays by hand. The 5.25 was belived to be the biggest shell that could be hand loaded. A power loading tray is...err...lets see..

YOUTUBE TO THE RESCUE!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFWwPYB74ac

Great film for turret workings from a 15 inch turret on the Vanguard.

At 38.12 onwards you see the loader/rammer system in operation. A power loading tray is what the shells and powder is loaded onto before being rammed in. The 5.25's tray had to be manually lifted up, fixed into place and then removed every time you fired and reloaded. This was a lot of physical work especially considering the men were loading the shells onto the tray by hand and it just slowed the whole process of going BANG down.
 
Basically the shells in a 5.25 were loaded onto the trays by hand. The 5.25 was belived to be the biggest shell that could be hand loaded. A power loading tray is...err...lets see..

YOUTUBE TO THE RESCUE!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFWwPYB74ac

Great film for turret workings from a 15 inch turret on the Vanguard.

At 38.12 onwards you see the loader/rammer system in operation. A power loading tray is what the shells and powder is loaded onto before being rammed in. The 5.25's tray had to be manually lifted up, fixed into place and then removed every time you fired and reloaded. This was a lot of physical work especially considering the men were loading the shells onto the tray by hand and it just slowed the whole process of going BANG down.

Damn it man - that cost me 90 minutes of my day!!! :D
 
If you really want to guarantee a decent top speed then you need to look at the Royal Navy's boilers and turbines, in the 1930s whilst the Americans forged ahead they did some experimental work with HMS Acheron in 1930-31 but when they ran into problems seem to have retreated into general conservatism. Advancing the boiler and turbine design so that the systems work at a higher pressure and temperature generally means that the combined systems themselves are lighter, or at least the same weight, whilst offering an increased range for a lower fuel usage.


IIRC one of the main problems with the 5.25-inch guns was the cramped gunhouse which impacted on their effectiveness, later on they seem to have been fine on HMS Vanguard with a modified design. Depending on how wedded you are to the final design looking at enlarging the mountings slightly would give you a good improvement in performance.



The problem of trying to swap the 5.25-inch guns for 4.5-inch or smaller ones is that you run into the gunnery officers, IIRC they argued that they needed the extra 3,000 feet range the 5.25-inch guns offered over the 4.5-inch to help keep torpedo carrying enemy destroyers at safe distance and when dealing with larger opponents. Just sort out the size of the gunhouse and look at fitting powered loading trays and ramming.

I think that given the expansion of industry necessary to support the massive increase in Capital ships to Corvettes it wasn't really a good time to be experimenting with new boiler designs. Its a good idea in practice but if it proves to be unreliable at sea then it causes a great deal of issues - not a risk that the Navy would take - so I don't think this would realistically happen unless I turn it into a real Brit Wank which I am trying not to.

in 1937 there are few if any weapons that are better choices as secondaries than the 5.25 Twin.

Even during Force Z's Destruction they performed well - IIRC the first 2 waves of Jap level bombers suffered 14 damaged ac out of 18 due to the 5.25s on POW - We would have to wait until the Super Heavy US Battleships with their banks of radar directed twin 5"s and prox shells before this system got bettered - and this system was not available in 1937!

As for improving the gun houses for them IYO what POD would drive this (other than my POD of increased tension in the Med from 1935 initially with Italy - that results in the failure of the 2LNT and a earlier arms race - 1936 rather than late 1937)?
 
Top