2 x 3 x 16in battleship instead the KGV?
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Depends when the change was made. If the 2LNT was never contemplated then It is unlikely to change much as this design would have been completed around the same time as OTL and the guns would still be a new design. Not having to design a double at the last minute would help things.
However, I have to wonder at the current treaty situation. Is the 1LNT still in place? If so, what are they scrapping to remain inside tonnage quotas? If not, why in the name of all that is holy would they not design a ship with a better armament than 6 x 16”? Even on 35 kt you could probably use the painful experience of the Nelrods to get a more useful 9 x 16” armed ship. Or if you are worried about max weight, a 9 x 15” would still be very viable.
Coulsdon Eagle
Monthly Donor
3 x 3 x16" should be possible from the original 3 x 4 x 14" design - preferably newer & better 16" guns that mounted in the Nelrods.
That's Vickers project 892, proposed by Thurston in 1926. 26,500t, 6x16in, same armour with Nelson and 26 knots speed. Effectively a mini-Nelson with two thirds the armour and a three knots speed advantage. The Latin American navies remained uninterested but it's a pretty interesting design. Schematic courtesy of the Diminishing Returns: Small Battleship Designs, 1919-1953, by Stephen McLaughlin article in Warship 2008. But at 35,000 there is no reason not to go with 3 triples instead.
Deleted member 94680
Is that meant to be built instead of the KGVs? Would the NelRods still be built? Given the dates, I assume so. There is uniformity of armaments on newer battleships and hopefully the triple turrets would avoid the problems of the KGVs’ quads.
Building a ship at 26,500t instead of the 42,250t KGVs would mean you’d get 7 or 8 instead of the 5 built OTL? Would there be that much loss of effectiveness of, say, 8 ‘892’ ships instead of the 5 KGVs?
I'm trying to get UK making Shermans, not Tigers, so they can field enough of modern capital ships instead of ww1 left-overs. A situation where Bismarck & PE are met with 12 x 16in guns + 8 x 15 in guns instead of what historically happened, anyone?
Driftless
Donor
With Britains world-wide naval requirements, could you use the greater number of ships as sufficient justification for the design? North Sea, North Atlantic, the Med, Bay of Bengal/Malaya, South Pacific; and that's just the high spots. That takes a lot of ships. Historically, cruisers were tasked to cover more ocean against potentially heavier forces in several hot spots.
*edit* For example, how might these alternative-KGV's stack up against the Italians(new or old) or the Japanese Kongo's?
Last edited:
6x16" would be thought of as too few guns for a mid-30's BB design.
9x16" would be over 40kt (the original Lion design)
The best fit on a (nominally) 35kt KGV would be 3x3x15" guns. A new design 15", and the greenboy shells, would make holes in anything else afloat. It was one of the configurations considered, but for no obvious reasons they changed to 14" at the last minute
9x16" would be over 40kt (the original Lion design)
The best fit on a (nominally) 35kt KGV would be 3x3x15" guns. A new design 15", and the greenboy shells, would make holes in anything else afloat. It was one of the configurations considered, but for no obvious reasons they changed to 14" at the last minute
These 6 16 inch gun ships would probably handle the older Italians easily enough but would be heavily outgunned by the new Italian battleships. Likewise it would probably manage fine with the Kongos who despite rebuilds were essentially a 1912 or 1913 British battlecruiser.
You might see a world where the Germans go for an extra 3 scharnhorst class instead of Bismarck and Tirpitz.
Shortly before the design of kgv there was a study on the future of the fleet suggesting that all future ships should be 29 (or 30 I forget) knots or faster. Then kgv is designed at 28 knots.
You just couldn't get the speed they wanted with 10 14 inch guns and the tonnage requirements. Historically the British chose to forget their speed study.
Itf they went for the 6 guns instead it would be clear that it couldn't stand up to first class opposition.
Deleted member 94680
What were the 892s armoured against? Were they good against 15” or would they need to stay at range? I assume their 16” would give them range on 15” enemies and the speed would be useful for escort work. Tactically, they would be superior, as the crews won’t change and they’ll have the radar advantage they had OTL.
Edit: Just checked the Littorio class on wiki and their belt was good against “381 mm armor-piercing shells at ranges down to 16,000 m (17,000 yd), which was considered the inner edge of optimal combat range” the BL 16 inch Mk 1 had a range of 35,000 yards and could penetrate the Littorio belt somewhere over 15,000 yards (14.4” penetration) and under 20,000 (12.2” penetration) - 16-odd thousand yards? They’d be able to hole the Italians, could they stand against the Italian 15” at the range needed?
Edit 2: the Mk 2 16” (never in service, but possibly an idea for an improved gun if the British so desired?) could go through Littorio belt at around 22,000 yards going by NavWeaps.
I wouldn’t be too sure that the Kriegsmarine’s build plans would be based on logic, given the mess of their fleet plans OTL.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Sherman is good because it is good enough for most things and you can build a ton of them. The same economy doesn’t quite apply to Battleships when the numbers are going to be few anyway. Since we are considering a 6 gun ship I have to assume that tonnage limits are still in place. That means to build one of these you are still going to have to scrap a QE or an R. They are currently 26,000 tons. By the time you increase their speed to 28 knots (Which you will have to to have them at the fight with the Bismarck) they are likely to be close to 30,000. So you are not making enough savings on tonnage to allow for many more ships and you have significantly reduced its armament.
Personally I think the change is unnecessary. If heavier armament is allowed under the rules currently in force then 3 x 3 x 15” is probably your optimum. And avoiding having to design a twin will probably give you equal time savings, allowing more ships to be available for the Bismarck’s run.
AIUI the change was due to the gun armament that the British government wanted to push for in the 2LNT. What is less clear to me is why the change from 12 to 10 guns happened. I remember reading somewhere that the extra weight was unlikely to push the ship over the limit even had all three been quads. The delay o allow for a super firing twin seems kind of arbitrary.
Last edited:
Deleted member 94680
This is the ideal. KGVs with three triple 15”/42s would be more than good enough for WWII
Most likely it would be 3x3 15" guns
The admiralty originally wanted a 15-in main armament the evidence of that is the upgraded shells for the Warspite and the other fully modernized Queen Elizabeth's
The admiralty originally wanted a 15-in main armament the evidence of that is the upgraded shells for the Warspite and the other fully modernized Queen Elizabeth's
Problem isn't in designing the ship, that is relatively easy, they can literally trim one turret off the Nelson class, do some changes to the protection, small improvement to the machinery and hull form to get speed to 28 knots and you have what you are asking for. Bang, done.
Or simple go 3x3 and build a RN version of the American North Carolina or South Dakota class.
Problem is getting the Exchequer to spring for 16" gunned ships. 16" gunned balanced designs are much more expensive than 14" balanced designs (Vanguard, as an example, was 1/3 more expensive than the KGV class) and that was a bad thing. Four Vanguards = Six KGB, that was a math problem that the money folks really liked.
Convincing the other naval powers to continue to toe the 14" line also allowed the RN the ongoing front line use of its WW I designs, especially the Queen Elizabeth , and to a lesser degree the Revenge classes, not to mention the remaining BC. There were all marginal, but still generally usable against 14" modern designs, but the newer 16"/45 and 16"/50 (and as it turned out 38cm/51) were an entirely different matter.
Deleted member 94680
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.
Deleted member 94680
True. But the 15”/42s would have been more than good enough. Given that the “45s” never really got off the designing board, it might have been cheaper in the long run to build more of the proven existing 15” designs.