2 x 3 x 16in battleship instead the KGV?

[1Big Rich]

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

Or re-armed the monitors with some of the 52 x 13.5in/45 in reserve from the decommissioned battleships. Tiger's four turrets still existed, and there were still three on Iron Duke....

Someone (Mark Bailey?) suggested using the monitor guns and turrets for a second Vanguard. It might have been in the Washington Treaty Re-enactment exercise from a past incarnation of Warships1/NavWeaps discussion boards.

Regards,

 

[ArtosStark]

Or re-armed the monitors with some of the 52 x 13.5in/45 in reserve from the decommissioned battleships. Tiger's four turrets still existed, and there were still three on Iron Duke....

Someone (Mark Bailey?) suggested using the monitor guns and turrets for a second Vanguard. It might have been in the Washington Treaty Re-enactment exercise from a past incarnation of Warships1/NavWeaps discussion boards.

Regards,

Think this was one of yours?

All the World's Battlecruisers-13.5in light BC

Before Warship Projects 3.0 was destroyed, Badger had asked about a 13.5in armed 'mini' Vanguard. I responded with this drawing and called her Leopard

www.tapatalk.com

 

[Spencersj345.346]

Or re-armed the monitors with some of the 52 x 13.5in/45 in reserve from the decommissioned battleships. Tiger's four turrets still existed, and there were still three on Iron Duke....

Someone (Mark Bailey?) suggested using the monitor guns and turrets for a second Vanguard. It might have been in the Washington Treaty Re-enactment exercise from a past incarnation of Warships1/NavWeaps discussion boards.

Regards,

Speaking of all those 13.5" guns and the remaining turrets I'm always amazed that the UK didn't make any monitors out of them in WWII

 

[naraic]

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

Theres two things that are important.

1. Turrets.
2. Gun barrels.

There's no triple turrets to steal for a new king george v class. There is double turrets but that's not going to do any good on a KGV. Would you want a 6x15 inch gunned KGV?

If you have to order new turrets you might as well order new gun barrels.

If we are talking about triple 15 inch gunned King george v class imo there is no point in stealing guns from monitors.

 

[1Big Rich]

Think this was one of yours?

All the World's Battlecruisers-13.5in light BC

Before Warship Projects 3.0 was destroyed, Badger had asked about a 13.5in armed 'mini' Vanguard. I responded with this drawing and called her Leopard

www.tapatalk.com

Yes, that's one of mine. When Warship Projects 3.0 was active, I was the admin. To segregate the alternate from the historic, we started an Own Designs board. When 3.0 was hacked and destroyed, the owner started a 4.0 on World of Warships. Since he couldn't have an Own Designs there, I started one when I took over the late Bob Henneman's BC board. A number of members asked for images or sims of designs, that specific one was asked for by our BlackBat, aka badger1968 on the NavWeaps boards.

Speaking of all those 13.5" guns and the remaining turrets I'm always amazed that the UK didn't make any monitors out of them in WWII

They must have felt they had enough. More might have been useful, but I'm sure the RN had competing priorities once the international situation starts to go down hill in the late 1930s....

Regards,

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Theres two things that are important.

1. Turrets.
2. Gun barrels.

There's no triple turrets to steal for a new king george v class. There is double turrets but that's not going to do any good on a KGV. Would you want a 6x15 inch gunned KGV?

No, but you’d build a new turret anyway. It’d be the whole gun, not just the barrel, being moved over. They could move them in and out of turrets OTL (for repair and overhaul, etc) so it wouldn’t be impossible.

If you have to order new turrets you might as well order new gun barrels.

Like I said, it’s the whole gun, not just the barrel.

If we are talking about triple 15 inch gunned King george v class imo there is no point in stealing guns from monitors.

Probably, yes. But I suggested the monitor guns as a way to get 15” onto the hulls as quickly as possible.

 

[naraic]

Speaking of all those 13.5" guns and the remaining turrets I'm always amazed that the UK didn't make any monitors out of them in WWII

As far as I can tell the only cranes in shipyards capable of working on capital ship turrets were fixed installations at large slipways. So if you want to build a monitor during WW2 you need to compete with a battleship or aircraft carrier for slipway space.

As far as I can tell the Roberts class monitors (built during WW2 with 15 inch guns) took the slipways used by HMS Duke of York HMS King George V after the battleships launched.

These slipways were something of a waste for these ships.

 

[naraic]

No, but you’d build a new turret anyway. It’d be the whole gun, not just the barrel, being moved over. They could move them in and out of turrets OTL (for repair and overhaul, etc) so it wouldn’t be impossible.

I feel like the turret is as difficult a production process as the gun mechanism and the gun barrel. I really doubt there would be time savings.

 

[ArtosStark]

My understanding of the situation with the KGV's is that the need to design the twin turret relatively late in the design process led to significant delays. If that is the case, then designing the ship with all one type of turret (whatever that may be, though I favour the 3 x 15") would likely move up the in-service date as much as any re-use of old turrets without compromising on the design.

 

[1Big Rich]

My understanding of the situation with the KGV's is that the need to design the twin turret relatively late in the design process led to significant delays. If that is the case, then designing the ship with all one type of turret (whatever that may be, though I favour the 3 x 15") would likely move up the in-service date as much as any re-use of old turrets without compromising on the design.

Right, and the change of secondaries from 20 x 4.5in to 16 x 5.25 also added delay.

As I said above, 14L was going to be 12 x 14in. 14O changed the secondaries. So both only require quad turrets. 14P was going be 9 x 14in, so again, to your point, only one turret to design. Then the desire for more guns brought up two quads and and twin when 14P became a 10-gun design. If 10 guns was the goal, they might have been better off with two triples and a quad, as the smaller barbette diameters would be forward, and the larger barbette aft in the widest part of the ship. As it was, having the quad in A position meant the ships' hull form had to widen very quickly forward.

One of the USN's Montana precursors had a similar layout (BB65-C-6) with two triples and a quad. BB65-C-5 had a KGV-like two quads and a twin. See

Montana class genesis

Montana class general overview Last and final battleship class designed for the United States Navy with design process starting in paralel to the BB-61 Iowa class after the escalator clauses of the…

stefsap.wordpress.com

Regards,

My thoughts,

 

[marathag]

As far as I can tell the only cranes in shipyards capable of working on capital ship turrets were fixed installations at large slipways. So if you want to build a monitor during WW2 you need to compete with a battleship or aircraft carrier for slipway space.

 

[naraic]

I know the British didn't have many battleships converted into crane ships.

It does appear to be a solution but it didn't seem to be taken up in the UK.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

I’ve just had a look at my copy of Friedman’s Naval Weapons of World War One and it makes mention of Vickers’ 15”/45 Mk B originally built for the Brazilian navy and eighteen of which were sold to Spain in ‘29-‘35. So the facilities existed to make a 15”/45 gun in at least 1935.

It also mentions that Vickers had three designs for 15” gun triple turrets in 1920 which were reviewed by DNO. So a new turret would be basing on an existing design.

 

[ArtosStark]

I’ve just had a look at my copy of Friedman’s Naval Weapons of World War One and it makes mention of Vickers’ 15”/45 Mk B originally built for the Brazilian navy and eighteen of which were sold to Spain in ‘29-‘35. So the facilities existed to make a 15”/45 gun in at least 1935.

It also mentions that Vickers had three designs for 15” gun triple turrets in 1920 which were reviewed by DNO. So a new turret would be basing on an existing design.

Yeah the ones that went to Spain were used as coastal artillery. A couple covered the Gibraltar Strait in the latter part of WW2. The 3 designed in the 20’s were probably for the G3 project. AIUI there were three designs of multiple calibers put forward for the project. Each had one using wire wound construction similar to that of the 15”/42. One was partially wire wound (though was estimated to be the same weight as fully wire wound). And one was built up all-metal construction, which was several tons lighter.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Yeah the ones that went to Spain were used as coastal artillery.

Yes, those are the ones.

Each had one using wire wound construction similar to that of the 15”/42. One was partially wire wound (though was estimated to be the same weight as fully wire wound). And one was built up all-metal construction, which was several tons lighter.

The Vickers 15”/45 Mk B was wire wound, yes.

I understand that the guns bought by Spain are not the same guns as the proposed ones for a 15” KGV, but the fact Vickers could make them indicates there was some ‘new’ gun production facilities post-WWI that could be spun up for 15” builds.

 

[1Big Rich]

The NavWeaps page on the 15in/42 Mk I

15-inch (38.1 cm) Mark I - NavWeaps

www.navweaps.com

186 guns constructed, including two prototypes, and 58 turrets.

Regards,