They shouldn't have been open in the first place.
Closing them while the ship is sinking is certainly the last thing on a desperate sailors mind, but it shouldn't be a problem since they were supposed to be closed
Best battleship post 1930
- Thread starter johnboy
- Start date
Closing them while the ship is sinking is certainly the last thing on a desperate sailors mind, but it shouldn't be a problem since they were supposed to be closed
I am not entirely sure on that. The guns mostly werent the problem (though there were problems with the breech) nor was it the turret (though there were jams because the tolerances were too tight on the main bearing) it was mainly the safety interlocks on the shell and powder hoists in the barbette . A 15" triple would probably have been built to the same design standards so I imagine it would have suffered the same teething problems.
How would the engineering crew who were working on saving the ship till the last minute get out if all the hatches were shut.
The problem was flooding.
Having hatches wide open contributes to that.
F the ship is at risk of sinking , the preference would be to close off the area of flooding rather than to repair the damaged shaft. No point repairing a shaft of a doomed vessel.
Cryhavoc101
Donor
IIRC the damage control board for that section of the HMS POW became 'uninhabitable' due to the heat for more than a few seconds at a time - this probably explains why the doors were open - an attempt to 'air' that area of the ship
However the shaft was still immediately stopped as soon as the hit was incurred - the problem then was as follows - that particular shaft drove power via a dynamo to most of the ships Twin 5.25s so stopping it suddenly stopped 3/4s of force Zs most effective AAA firepower at a critical moment - and confused orders and misunderstanding of the damage resulted, in the heat of battle, in the shaft being re-engaged.
This subsequantly caused a lot of damage before the shaft was again stopped.
So with the subsequant loss of AAA and speed that ensued, coupled with the Ammunition problem for the fleets pom poms left her wide open to a concerted attack and this subsequantly doomed her.
This design flaw (6 of 8 AAA turrets driven from a single shaft driven dynamo) was subsequantly rectified in POWs 4 sisters at the earliest opportunity.
I would also add that any ship having its prop shaft popped is in trouble - and you could probably drop any combination of treaty or pre treaty BB / BC into that battle and their fates are likely the same - being that Battleships are inferior to airpower in late 1941+ without effective freindly aircover - a handful of Buffelos or Hurricanes overehad probably would have saved both ships as it would have prevented the Japanese formations for attacking as they pleased.
However the shaft was still immediately stopped as soon as the hit was incurred - the problem then was as follows - that particular shaft drove power via a dynamo to most of the ships Twin 5.25s so stopping it suddenly stopped 3/4s of force Zs most effective AAA firepower at a critical moment - and confused orders and misunderstanding of the damage resulted, in the heat of battle, in the shaft being re-engaged.
This subsequantly caused a lot of damage before the shaft was again stopped.
So with the subsequant loss of AAA and speed that ensued, coupled with the Ammunition problem for the fleets pom poms left her wide open to a concerted attack and this subsequantly doomed her.
This design flaw (6 of 8 AAA turrets driven from a single shaft driven dynamo) was subsequantly rectified in POWs 4 sisters at the earliest opportunity.
I would also add that any ship having its prop shaft popped is in trouble - and you could probably drop any combination of treaty or pre treaty BB / BC into that battle and their fates are likely the same - being that Battleships are inferior to airpower in late 1941+ without effective freindly aircover - a handful of Buffelos or Hurricanes overehad probably would have saved both ships as it would have prevented the Japanese formations for attacking as they pleased.
I believe the Torpedo hit the Skeg supporting the shaft and the rapidly spinning unsupported shaft then whipped around ripping the guts out of the hull.
Its a tiny target to hit a true Golden Shot. Go to http://www.prdobson.com/2017/12/20/hms-king-george-v/ for more brilliant 3D images of KGV.
The usefulness of a battleship has also got to be judged in its employment. The RN rarely hesitated to commit a vessel to battle; sending Warspite up the fjords to Narvik when they were infested with destroyers, Revenge was positioned at Plymouth to interdict convoys and carried out a lengthy bombardment mission against Cherbourg. PoW engaged and crippled Bismarck, smashing open her bow, lowering her speed and piercing her fuel bunkers. King George V and Rodney hunted down the wounded Bismarck and dispatched it - even as they ran their own fuel bunkers empty. Again and again the Queen Elizabeths sortied from Alexandria, Malta and Gibraltar, with the result that the Italian battlefleet's immense capability was never properly utilised for fear of Cunningham and Sommerville. Renown ran down Scharnhorst and Gneisenau off the Lofoten Islands, and in the most hideous conditions, fought a gunbattle, hilariously outgunned against two better-armoured opponents and sent them scuttling back to Wilhelmshaven with damage from shell and sea alike. Then of course there was the fateful battle at North Cape, where Robert Burnett's cruisers tore at Scharnhorst's flanks, harrying her until Duke of York ran her down, crippled her and left her a blazing wreck for the torpedoes of the cruisers and destroyers.
If we are to judge a battleship by its employment, where daring, courage and cunning bled and bruised an enemy, then I fear that no fleet equal the Royal Navy, working with elderly equipment, low in numbers compared with the many foes ranged against them. With the cities of Britain blasted and burning, her industries long-neglected, the Royal Navy delivered final victory in battle, fighting with such commitment, professionalism and sheer bloody stubbornness as has rarely been equalled. The toll of this 'victory' is a horrific one that we all well know - shells, torpedoes and nature itself do not easily differentiate between man and child.
According to the report restarting the engine made no difference, the shaft had already done the damage and broken off. The ship's engineer was told this just before he passed away, up until then he'd felt he'd been the one to doom his ship.
Part of the RN's postwar dives was to find out why the hydraulics for the 5.25-inch turrets failed. It was found that putting these lines near the outside of the ship where bombs and torpedoes are hitting is not a very good idea.
This is what the report stated as well, then it broke off. This overloaded the engine which shut down. Restarting it had no effect since the shaft and screw were already on the bottom.
A very valid point but the OP is looking for the best battleship not best crew. Ask yourself, how would a South Dakota or Richelieu perform in British hands? Would they have been better than KGV? I think that is the central question here--one of equipment and materiel rather than of personnel and tactics.
I like the SoDak comparison with Bismarck. I’m not sure we are judging Bismarck in a fair Way. It had superb staying power, but got blinded by plunging fire when she was a sitting duck. What is the evidence that a ship like Bismarck should expect 30000+ yards engagements in the atlantic and north Sea? The H-39 would have added 2 inch to the deck and had a deeper belt and a better punch.
Terrible AA fir both, but no BB of the list could hold their own against air craft.
PS. The reason why h39 needed to be so heavy was also an adaptation to long range at19-20 knots. No other bb had that requirement.
Last edited:
FBKampfer
Banned
I'd agree with the Bismark. German capital ships have always had reputation for being able to soak up ludicrous quantities of enemy fire, and I think Bismark proves this is true.
Its a very open question of whether any other battle ship could have done better.
To quote British Admiral Fraser, "Gentlemen, the battle against Scharnhorst has ended in victory for us. I hope that if any of you are ever called upon to lead a ship into action against an opponent many times superior, you will command your ship as gallantly as Scharnhorst was commanded today"
The problem wasn't the German ships, they simply were outmatched from the start.
Its a very open question of whether any other battle ship could have done better.
To quote British Admiral Fraser, "Gentlemen, the battle against Scharnhorst has ended in victory for us. I hope that if any of you are ever called upon to lead a ship into action against an opponent many times superior, you will command your ship as gallantly as Scharnhorst was commanded today"
The problem wasn't the German ships, they simply were outmatched from the start.
Not sure I agree any night battle will be at short range until the very end of the war and the availability of really good radar.
The Twin was the main delay in construction as the swap from three quads to two quads and a twin required a new design rather late in the process.
I think this is like all comparisons is biased by what you pick as the criteria....
"BEST ALL-AROUND TREATY BATTLESHIP using, Guns, Armor, and Fire-Control are all equally important, followed by Tactical Factors, and then Underwater Protection."
I would ague that that is like discussing the best army's by concentrating on who has at any point of the war the best rifle, tank and radio follow by everything else that's far less important like artillery and logistics to name just a few....
The largest weakness I think to the analysis is the lack of any discussion of cost/displacement/resources used to build them as well as the date in service both are far more important than most actual ship characteristics for the conduct of the war. Even rating the tactical factors as only worth 1/2 the weight of guns or armor, when it covers all the major things such as speed, survivability and damage control is very questionable IMO for the true worth of a warship.
For me I think it is the South Dakota Class ships, although their underwater protection was not all it might be. On 35,000 tons they were very well balanced ships and far superior from a cost POV to the Iowas. The last two Iowas that were never built, had corrected some of the underwater weaknesses.
Next for me is Vanguard. Built at a very reasonable cost and far more seaworthy than the KGV Class. Excellent gun platform.
Third to me is Richelieu Class, probably the best underwater protection, poor AA though.
Honourable mention for light BB to Strasbourg.
Next for me is Vanguard. Built at a very reasonable cost and far more seaworthy than the KGV Class. Excellent gun platform.
Third to me is Richelieu Class, probably the best underwater protection, poor AA though.
Honourable mention for light BB to Strasbourg.
hipper
Banned
Hi
That’s one point of view, the other point of view is that or was the best ever shooting by a Battleship in a Force 8 gale. All battleships shooting for extended periods had problems.
That’s one point of view, the other point of view is that or was the best ever shooting by a Battleship in a Force 8 gale. All battleships shooting for extended periods had problems.
Certainly didn't effect her much against Scharnhorst, if she did.
The gunnery radar wiring was severed by one of Scharnhorsts hits on DoY, but it was repaired quickly.
Scored a very long range hit, if I remember correctly. Pierced Scharnhorsts belt, utterly destroying a boiler room.
from navweaps.com
During the early part of her action against Scharnhorst at the Battle of the North Cape on 26 December 1943, HMS Duke of York scored 31 straddles out of 52 broadsides fired and during the latter part she scored 21 straddles out of 25 broadsides, a very creditable gunnery performance. In total, Duke of York fired 450 shells in 77 broadsides. However, HMS Duke of York still fired less than 70% of her possible output during this battle because of mechanical and "errors in drill" problems.
from https://books.google.com/books?id=JRImDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA180
four of ten tubes having troubles