1930s Washington Battleship designs ?

I'd agree with most of that but it wasn't just the safety interlocks the need to redesign the B turret down to 2 guns was also a delay to the ships. Also correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the quads have problems with accuracy as well for some time due to shell interference?

The 14" were good guns but I'd have to think that the RN would have been better served not having to make another new gun design and instead be able to reuse the 15".

But yes the KGV's were there when needed and were a good enough design based on what they knew at the time.


I'm not aware of any accuracy issues regarding the 14" quads, but I cant access Navweaps or my referance books from work, I belive that the guns had a wider spacing in comparison to the Richelieu class which did have dispersion problems untill delay coils were fitted after the war.

The 15"/L42 Mk1s could not be reused in a 40° degree turret due to the position of the trunnions in comparison to the 14"/45 Mk7 if i remember correctly, I'm not sure of the exact reason but I belive it would require a higher profile turret in comparison to a new gun because of a greater clearance needed below the gun to elevate it to 40°, also I wonder if the tendancy of wire wound guns to droop would be increased at higher elevations.

It's not just the turret design but also the shell handling equipment and magazine arrangements that would need to be rearanged, would bigger magazines be needed to fit the required number of shells, what needs to be moved to accomodate it, do you need an increase in beam to allow for the greater weight being stored in the ship and the increased weight of the guns in the turret as the 2nd quad had a detrimental effect on the stablity of the Design so a triple in that position may once again compromise stablity.
 
Counter DD Fire

The specifications for Richelieu were to have DP from the start, this being the 6 inch tripple turrets actually placed on her. The guns and turrets finally proved troublesome and had a slow rate of fire, making them less usefull in the AA role, dispite having a full 90 degrees elevation (later corrected to 70, when the AA use was no longer in use, after refitting in the USA). US 5 inch/38 was fine, but lacked stoppingpower opposed to large destroyers, specified in the French design, so the much more powerfull 6 inch was build in the design. (All European battleships were designed with a more heavy secondary outfit than the USN, as the relatively short ranged 5inch/38 was fireing too small a shell to trouble the larger types of DD's found in European waters. The USN did not require such a specification, as her new breed of BB's was not to be deployed in confined waters from design, lessened the need to have a heavy anti destroyer secondary outfit.) The French at first considered the 5.1 inch, as in Dunkerque, but thought the shell it fired was too small, henche the change to the 6 inch gun. The Royal Navy at first wanted the very effective 4.5 inch DP b'tween deck mounting in their King George V class, but although fireing a heavier shell than the US 5 inch/38, it was seen as too small, so the heavier twin 5.25 inch DP was selected, which proved to be a bit too complex as a mounting and lacked the needed AA rate of fire, although it was in itself a good weapon.


Norway gives some examples of BB firing on DD, but the counter destroyer role of the secondaries, making sense in ships without strict weigh limits, is arguable on ships trying to stay under 35K. The 4.5 option used in the rebuilt QE and Renown was a sensible choice, and would make sense for an alternative KGV design. Droping the aircraft, and the space they took, would also have been a viable option for units meant to operate with the fleet. The Germans, having to design their heavy units with "solo" use in mind. had of course to retain both a powerful secondary and aircraft, but for the major navies this two areas could have been weight saving possibilities. I'm not only thinking in just terms of the weight of the equipments, but in the gains from rationalizing the space they occupied.
 
I would vote for the KGV or the Richelieu... Didn't the KGV's lose 6 months making B turret a twin? Making all 3 turrets 14" quads or even triples could mean POW is worked up (since 6 months earlier) and Holland's flagship at Denmark Straits. Everyone else was cheating, I would have the British cheat with 9 15" (triple) or 12 14" (quad). The 14" was good, so 9 14" works. But please make A turret not need zero degree elevation....
 
I'd build a battleship armed with 9x16 inch rifles. I'd weld the hull rather than bolt it like the Germans did on the Deutschland Class Cruisers. That could save I believe 20% of the ships overall tonnage. Using a bulbous bow would reduce water resistance to the hull increasing the top speed though by how much I'm not sure.
 

sharlin

Banned
With the three quad turrets the designers looked at the ships and thought their protection would not be capable of withstanding 16 inch gunfire so they saved weight by reducing one quad to a twin turret.

Personally if I was going to design a KGV, I would have not obeyed the almost artificially enforced 'keep the size and gun size small to set an example' the RN was made to operate under. Invoke the escalator clause and go up to 40000 tonnes, have three tripple 15 inch turrets and instead of the 5.25s which were only really good when put on the Vanguard and given RPC i'd settle for the already built and common dual 4.5s that were fitted on our carriers and the refitted Queen Elizabeth and Valiant. They were good AA weapons and threw a heavy enough shell to be a threat to destroyers.

That said the KGVs were good designs and once the problems with the guns were mostly worked out the class did well. They had no more stoppages and jams than other warships in action, its problems were inflated because the PoW fought in a major surface action when she really should not have. The Duke of York and King George still had stoppages but these were nowhere near as bad as those that afflicted the PoW. The armour scheme on the KGV's was superb, a thick, very deep belt, well protected decks and turrets and the 14 inch guns were powerful enough. All that on a 35k tonne design is a pritty good thing.
 
Well the best answer of course would have been a political one to abandon the Washington Treaty. British shipbuilding capability was still far larger than any two potential European enemies. If you stick with the treaty limitations I would think up gunned KGV.
 
Well the best answer of course would have been a political one to abandon the Washington Treaty. British shipbuilding capability was still far larger than any two potential European enemies. If you stick with the treaty limitations I would think up gunned KGV.

I would consider that British shipbuilding capacity shrunk during the 1920s and 1930s precisely because of the WNT and the general national and world economy following the war. Also one can't forget that even the British government was searching for a breather when, was it in 1920 or so, that they basically decreed that there wouldn't be any wars for ten years.
 
I would consider that British shipbuilding capacity shrunk during the 1920s and 1930s precisely because of the WNT and the general national and world economy following the war. Also one can't forget that even the British government was searching for a breather when, was it in 1920 or so, that they basically decreed that there wouldn't be any wars for ten years.

The limiting factor for ship construction in the UK between the wars was the production of armour plate and the manufacturing of the turrets, ship building facilities were still available to make more ships, but we can’t arm and protect them.

I think the British government ordered armoured plate from Czechoslovakia for the Didos and Crown Colony class as there was no capacity for further manufacture in the UK.

Beardsmore in Glasgow had closed taking quite a large facility for the production of plate out of the picture and the removal of the Gun pits also reduced the manufacturing capacity. Coventry Ordinance Works had also closed its main factory in Coventry in the 20s removing another manufacturer of gun barrels
 
The Royal Navy at first wanted the very effective 4.5 inch DP between deck mounting in their King George V class, but although fireing a heavier shell than the US 5 inch/38, it was seen as too small, so the heavier twin 5.25 inch DP was selected, which proved to be a bit too complex as a mounting and lacked the needed AA rate of fire, although it was in itself a good weapon.
Depends on whether we're stuck with what was available at the time or if we're allowed to nudge things a little by not researching one thing and concentrating on another to bring it into service a little early, which seems allowable since we're allowed hindsight. If you are then I'd probably say use a combination of 4 inch Mk XVI/XIX and the 4.7 inch L45 but fitted into the high-angle twin mountings the 4.5 inch guns used and firing the improved 62lb shell - this would be the nudge, not bothering with the other two or three calibres they developed during the inter-war years. The 4 inch isn't as heavy as the 4.5 inch but being faster to fire gives it a better throw weight and higher volume means you're probably more likely to get a hit, plus it was a much better AA gun. For the 4.7 inch with the newer shell it would of had a similar or better performance than the newer guns and been almost as good as the 5.25 inch but be much lighter so you either get to save the weight or have more mountings for the same amount, plus have it in a true high-angle 80 degree AA mount. Top it off with as many 20mm Oerlikon and 40mm Bofors as you can and you've got a pretty good mix I'd say.

Disclaimer: Not being greatly knowledgable about WW2 naval guns and the like this is mostly put together from the notes I made of couple of internet sites I found a few years back when looking into it which for the life of me I can't find again now. So yeah, if I've made any glaring errors please be gentle. :)
 

Delta Force

Banned
Depends on whether we're stuck with what was available at the time or if we're allowed to nudge things a little by not researching one thing and concentrating on another to bring it into service a little early, which seems allowable since we're allowed hindsight. If you are then I'd probably say use a combination of 4 inch Mk XVI/XIX and the 4.7 inch L45 but fitted into the high-angle twin mountings the 4.5 inch guns used and firing the improved 62lb shell - this would be the nudge, not bothering with the other two or three calibres they developed during the inter-war years. The 4 inch isn't as heavy as the 4.5 inch but being faster to fire gives it a better throw weight and higher volume means you're probably more likely to get a hit, plus it was a much better AA gun. For the 4.7 inch with the newer shell it would of had a similar or better performance than the newer guns and been almost as good as the 5.25 inch but be much lighter so you either get to save the weight or have more mountings for the same amount, plus have it in a true high-angle 80 degree AA mount. Top it off with as many 20mm Oerlikon and 40mm Bofors as you can and you've got a pretty good mix I'd say.

Disclaimer: Not being greatly knowledgable about WW2 naval guns and the like this is mostly put together from the notes I made of couple of internet sites I found a few years back when looking into it which for the life of me I can't find again now. So yeah, if I've made any glaring errors please be gentle. :)

Having two gun types so close in size complicates fire control and logistics, which is why compromise dual purpose guns were invented. Why have 4 inch and 4.7 inch when a 4.5 inch is a nice compromise and makes fire control, training, procurement, etc. much more simple?
 
Beardmore in Glasgow had closed taking quite a large facility for the production of plate out of the picture and the removal of the Gun pits also reduced the manufacturing capacity. Coventry Ordinance Works had also closed its main factory in Coventry in the 20s removing another manufacturer of gun barrels
Funnily enough we had a thread a couple of months back about what might of happened if William Beardmore and Company hadn't gone bankrupt in the post-war period thanks to being a little better financially managed. Unfortunately looks as though the author Just Leo has stopped posting to it which is a shame as it looked interesting.
 
Having two gun types so close in size complicates fire control and logistics, which is why compromise dual purpose guns were invented. Why have 4 inch and 4.7 inch when a 4.5 inch is a nice compromise and makes fire control, training, procurement, etc. much more simple?


The Twin 4" was a lighter mounting suitable for Firgates, sloops, destroyers and secondary armament on the RN cruisers where there might not be room for a between decks mounting as used with the 4.5" mountings.

The 4.7"/50 MK XI was a very good gun, possibly the best RN gun upto 6" size, but it was let down by poor mountings. The 4.7"/50 would have made a very good cruiser main gun or Capital ship secondary.

Standardising on the 4.5" seems the wise move, good combination of hitting power, rate of fire and shell weight, the 4.5" Didos were reguarded as the best AA cruisers by far, as were the 4" L class destroyers.

Standardising on the 4.7"/50 with true DP mounts would mean that the admiralty would have to accept that Aircraft are a greater threat to Battleships than surface forces well before the KGVs were laid down.
 

sharlin

Banned
If I was to design a KGV and with it becoming painfully obvious that absolutely everyone but you was ignoring the treaty restrictions I'd arm them with a tripple 15 inch gun. Either a newer longer 15 inch or go with the mark 1 that armed the Queen Elizabeth and Revenge classes.

The 15 inch gun is my choice because it's available there and then and the RN was actually looking at a longer caliber 15 inch weapon. The Mark 1 was a bloody successful gun and remained competative throughout the war.

A triple turret would weigh less than the planned quads and may well be less of a pain in terms of stoppages, although the RN did go a bit OTT on anti-flash measures on the KGV's turrets which may feature in a triple 15 inch design.

For secondary armament go with the dual 4.5s planned for the new carriers and the refits of the Queen Elizabeth class, as Brazen said they were a good weapon. If possible i'd look at getting some US advice on the machinery as the USN's machinery was always more efficient than the RNs and much more fuel efficient.

I'd also look at getting rid of that stupid idea that the KGV's must be capable of firing over their bow on 0 degrees elevation.
It was never used, and just made the ships rather poor sea boats that shipped a lot of water over their bows.

The armour scheme on the KGV was very good, they were tough ships with thick protection where it mattered although apparently their TDS was a bit suspect.
Speeds fine, 28 knots is just a bit slower than the the planned carriers flank speed but good enough to escort them.
 
If I was to design a KGV and with it becoming painfully obvious that absolutely everyone but you was ignoring the treaty restrictions I'd arm them with a tripple 15 inch gun. Either a newer longer 15 inch or go with the mark 1 that armed the Queen Elizabeth and Revenge classes.

The 15 inch gun is my choice because it's available there and then and the RN was actually looking at a longer caliber 15 inch weapon. The Mark 1 was a bloody successful gun and remained competative throughout the war.

You should consider using the 15in guns from the Revenge class and then just scrap them.
 
You should consider using the 15in guns from the Revenge class and then just scrap them.

You cant use the Mk1s on a mounting above 30° because of the position of the trunnions on the guns. Thats why HMS Vanguard carried super charges.

No love for the 14" guns? They were every bit as good as the 15"Mk1 with excellent barrel life, very good accuracy and as far as I can see better penetration all round. I'd be happy with 9 x 14" guns and 30 knots with the OTL armour. Also the 15" MK2 was only developed on paper, no actual models were made.

There was nohting wrong with the TDS, as long as the torp doesn't hit the bloody Skegs carrying the props.:(
 

sharlin

Banned
I'd rather have the heavier shell of the 15 inch than the 14, also whilst scrapping the R's would be nice its highly implausable the RN needed ships and even though the R's aged badly they gave good if limited service.

Given full foresight I'd not fully upgrade the QE's. That money and dockyard time would be better spent on the Repulse and Hood getting the refits they deserved. Upgrading the QE's would be nice but say 'only' as far as the Warspite modifications got instead of the full blown Valiant changes.

Cruiser wise i'd not upgrade the London, a good idea but far too expensive and her hull suffered for all the additional weight. I'd also begin laying off or converting all the late WW1 early 1920's cruisers, those that remained would be turned into AA cruisers, remove some engine space if possible to increase bunkerage.

Also Re carriers, use the full tonnage allocated instead of trying to scrimp and save to come in under weight.

Re the KGV's TDS I read that their protection against torpedo strikes was comparitively 'thin' when compaired to contemporaries like the Richelieu and Washington's. Whilst the hit on the POW's skeg was a bloody lucky/unlucky hit, further hits did breach her TDS and she should have resisted them better than she did.
 
Last edited:
Mediterranean designs...

There was a comment about "Typical Mediterranean shortfalls," or something like that---short range, light hull, etc. But in their intended working enviroment, short range isn't a shortfall, as it simply isn't likely to be needed. A light hull is a weakness, as it means the ship can't take as much damage. The ships also don't need to worry overmuch about North Sea weather...though storms can get bad, it's usually not the equal of a North Sea winter storm or a southern hurricane...
 

sharlin

Banned
The KGVs were not built for just Med/North sea work though. And the North sea can get pritty damn nasty in terms of weather.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lH1f1DwRSDQ

The Italians built their ships light, they wanted speed for their ships especially their cruisers, whilst their Battleships save the Littorio's were heavily modernised WW1 dreadnoughts. The Littorio's were fine fine designs, and possibly one of the most pritty battleships to look at. Good armour, superb (if slow firing) guns, only drawbacks were its AA armament but thats something of the time, when launched they were fine, but never evolved beyond what they had.
 
Top