2 x 3 x 16in battleship instead the KGV?

[Deleted member 94680]

Nope. You have to restart the tooling and facilities either way, so much better to go for a new design that isn’t obsolescent.

Fair enough. I suppose it’s true that after the last batch of guns were built in 1918 no more were made.

Looking at wiki though, they were: “removed from ships, refurbished, and rotated back into other ships over their lifetime.” - doesn’t that mean facilities still existed to produce more?

 

[Astrodragon]

A 6x16" BB was actually one of the suggestions for a move heavily armoured Lion, but tossed out as it had too little armament for the cost. With the fire control of the day, a 4/5 shell salvo gives noticeably better hit probability than 3 shell ones.

On the costs - the high US costs are mainly the high cost of US labour. You see it mentioned a lot in the pre and early war discussions about buying US ships, and its why the US shipbuilding industry only served the USA.

 

[ArtosStark]

On the costs - the high US costs are mainly the high cost of US labour. You see it mentioned a lot in the pre and early war discussions about buying US ships, and its why the US shipbuilding industry only served the USA.

It also reflected a level of infrastructure cost. AIUI part of the secret of the British shipbuilding industry was that they had a large pool of skilled labourers concentrated in shipbuilding areas that they were able to move between builders to keep them employed and avoid losing their training. Other nations couldn’t match this in the same fashion, so for less skilled work, they tended to use more infrastructure. This drove up the price, though it did help when standardized ships were needed later.

 

[1Big Rich]

...obviuosly the 2nd LNT does not happen. The layout of turrets - two, each with 3 guns - is akin to the French Dunkerque class, ie. both turrets forward.
Can this approach improve the timetable of the new British battleships?

Tomo,

You might find the second post in this thread

All the World's Battlecruisers-Alternate KGVs

Some playing with the KGV line-drawing. First off, an 'even' KGV, i.e., even fore and aft firepower like so many of her predecessors in the RN. I'

www.tapatalk.com

of interest.

Regards,

 

[tomo pauk]

Tomo,

You might find the second post in this thread

All the World's Battlecruisers-Alternate KGVs

Some playing with the KGV line-drawing. First off, an 'even' KGV, i.e., even fore and aft firepower like so many of her predecessors in the RN. I'

www.tapatalk.com

of interest.

Regards,

Thank you, Rich.
A question - could you remember, from the top of your head, whether someone did the 'all front guns' take on alt KGV on Shipbucket or the like?

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Thank you, Rich.
A question - could you remember, from the top of your head, whether someone did the 'all front guns' take on alt KGV on Shipbucket or the like?

I’ve had a quick scan of shipbucket and all the alt-KGVs are three turret, two forward/one aft designs.

 

[1Big Rich]

Thank you, Rich.
A question - could you remember, from the top of your head, whether someone did the 'all front guns' take on alt KGV on Shipbucket or the like?

I'll corroborate Stenz with my rusty memory; I can't remember anyone doing an all-forward KGV there. In a past incarnation of the BC board, our BC Renown did an all-forward Nelson that looked very much like the image Lascaris posted on the first page here, but that has been lost to the wastes of cyberspace...

I thought there was a NavWeaps discussion of KGV with a Richelieu all-forward 14in battery, but a quick check of the Design a Navy/Ship board, I find I had it reversed. It was Richelieu with KGV's layout.

Regards,

 

[1Big Rich]

Did anyone else actually “toe the 14” line”?

The QEs did sterling WWII service, to be fair.

It’s one of the biggest shames of the inter-war period that the British didn’t built more 16” ships than the NelRods - or even more fifteen inchers.

The USN did with the initial North Carolina design of 12 x 14in. But they delayed laying down and designed the three-gun 16in/45 turret to fit the same barbette diameter. The RN couldn't afford that kind of delay with the KGVs.

On more 15in ships, you might find this discussion of F2 and F3 of interest:

All the World's Battlecruisers-F2 and F3 Battlecruisers

I just stumbled across an image from the 3.0 version of Warship Projects. Red Admiral created the image, and I've enlarged it a bit. The image i

www.tapatalk.com

In an offline discussion with our John French of the BC board, he mentioned that the RN really wanted F3, but once the treaty was signed, they felt they were compelled to build a 16in gun ship, resulting in Nelsol and Rodol springing out of design O3. While hindsight show either 15in concept would have been more useful than the historic 16in battleship, we should remember that when completed, Nelson and Rodney were among the fastest battleships in the world. But the years in between their completion and World War 2 saw fleet speeds increase.

Regards,

 

[Deleted member 94680]

The USN did with the initial North Carolina design of 12 x 14in. But they delayed laying down and designed the three-gun 16in/45 turret to fit the same barbette diameter. The RN couldn't afford that kind of delay with the KGVs.

By building the NoCars with 16 inchers, they didn’t really toe the line did they? They did what the RN should have done - build what suited them as soon as it became apparent the Japanese were playing silly buggers.

On more 15in ships, you might find this discussion of F2 and F3 of interest:


In an offline discussion with our John French of the BC board, he mentioned that the RN really wanted F3, but once the treaty was signed, they felt they were compelled to build a 16in gun ship, resulting in Nelsol and Rodol springing out of design O3.

Interesting. Are there any good sources for the assertion that F3 was the original preferred design?

FWIW, I think new WWII ships with 15”/42s would have been perfectly fine and more than acceptable for the battle line.

 

[ArtosStark]

FWIW, I think new WWII ships with 15”/42s would have been perfectly fine and more than acceptable for the battle line.

Considering the reliability of the gun I certainly would not argue that. However, considering the advances in gun technology and the fact that it would likely be just as difficult to build what is basically a new 42 calibre gun to an old spec as it would be to use the new all-metal gun, I think updating the design is reasonable in this case. Nonetheless, I certainly take your point.

 

[1Big Rich]

By building the NoCars with 16 inchers, they didn’t really toe the line did they? They did what the RN should have done - build what suited them as soon as it became apparent the Japanese were playing silly buggers.

[/QUOTE]

They did, but like I said, they could afford a delay where the RN could not.

The escalator clause was invoked in two parts. The caliber increase comes on 1 April 1937. KGV and PoW were already laid down 1 January 1937 and the design set. DoY is laid down 5 May, Howe follows on 1 June and Anson on 20 July.

North Carolina was not laid down until 27 October 1937. Another difference was the US had the resources to develop two heavy guns at the same time. Where the RN could not do the same as the US did was the choices made late in the design process. In their account of the genesis of the KGV class, Raven and Roberts state that design 14L was the 12 x 14in/20 x 4.5n design. 14O then changed the secondaries to 16 x 5.25in. 14P was initially going to be 9 x 14in/16 x 5.25in, but it was decided to add another gun, so 14O's B turret got changed to a twin, and the historic KGV we know was almost done. The citadel had to be extended another 10ft forward to compensate for the weight. So while I think you are onto something with nine gun ship. I think with the 14in the RN wanted number of barrels, as that was part of their logic in going to the new, smaller caliber. But that 10-gun choice precluded doing what the US did and trading out a quad 14in for a triple 16in.

The tonnage increase comes along 31 March 1938, and that results in the Lions increasing to 40,000 tons and the Iowas. Initial Lion concepts were 16in on 35,000 tons.

Interesting. Are there any good sources for the assertion that F3 was the original preferred design?

FWIW, I think new WWII ships with 15”/42s would have been perfectly fine and more than acceptable for the battle line.

I don't know what John's source was, he just mentioned it in our off-line discussion. I'll ask him the next time I'm in touch with him.

I do agree with ArtoStark, new-build 15in would be updated to a built-up (as opposed to wire-wound) design. In the KGV genesis, the preferred design was 9 x 15in, (15A/36 and 15B/36) but Second London made the caliber a non-starter.

Regards,

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Considering the reliability of the gun I certainly would not argue that. However, considering the advances in gun technology and the fact that it would likely be just as difficult to build what is basically a new 42 calibre gun to an old spec as it would be to use the new all-metal gun, I think updating the design is reasonable in this case. Nonetheless, I certainly take your point.

How about uniformity of ammunition? Or would the 15”/45 use different shells?

 

[Spencersj345.346]

Fair enough. I suppose it’s true that after the last batch of guns were built in 1918 no more were made.

Looking at wiki though, they were: “removed from ships, refurbished, and rotated back into other ships over their lifetime.” - doesn’t that mean facilities still existed to produce more?

Nope it means facilities to reline the barrels existed

 

[Deleted member 94680]

They did, but like I said, they could afford a delay where the RN could not.

The OTL 14” KGVs were laid down in ‘37, how much of a delay would there be selecting 15” for them instead? Given the design existed already (for the 15”/42) how long would it take to build 45 new guns and could it be started alongside the alt-KGVs or even after hulls are laid down?

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Nope it means facilities to reline the barrels existed

Ah right. Thanks

 

[ArtosStark]

How about uniformity of ammunition? Or would the 15”/45 use different shells?

Ammunition would be interchangeable to the best of my knowledge. Breech and barrel diameters were the same, IIRC. If anything the new guns should be able to take more pressure, allowing a more powerful charge, though I would not count on that without confirmation.

 

[naraic]

North Carolina class was $76.7M (1940 USD), South Dakota class was $77-78M, Iowa class ran right around $100M. I was using $4.30 = £1, so a KGV was running in $30M range

All those figures are out of Janes' first post war edition.

Thanks for that. On checking again the wiki figures I gave were quotes from the ship builders rather than the actual costs.

The only references I can find for why the costs were so high is that the shipyards did a lot of capital investment specifically to handle battleships construction and they added this to the cost. This is especially mentioned in relation to the North Carolinas.

 

[1Big Rich]

The OTL 14” KGVs were laid down in ‘37, how much of a delay would there be selecting 15” for them instead? Given the design existed already (for the 15”/42) how long would it take to build 45 new guns and could it be started alongside the alt-KGVs or even after hulls are laid down?

An old thread, but you might find this

NavWeaps Forums-KGV with old 15" design

This one is right out there in fantasy land. Supposing the British decided they wanted the KGV class to be a 9 - 15" gun design, would it save time to

www.tapatalk.com

of interest as well. I don't recall the numbers, NavWeaps weapons page has them, but I think there were plenty of 15in/42 in the reserve stockpiles for the existing ships.

Regards,

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Ammunition would be interchangeable to the best of my knowledge. ... I would not count on that without confirmation.

The common assumption is that these guns would have used the same 6crh projectiles as were used for the older 15"/42 (38.1 cm) Mark I. The data in this table is for those projectiles used during World War II.
- NavWeaps

 

[Deleted member 94680]

I think there were plenty of 15in/42 in the reserve stockpiles for the existing ships.

They could have scrapped the various monitors to provide at least one ship’s worth of guns?