Not sure that 15" and QEs (+Rs) didn't get off lightly (admittedly like many of the earlier/later BB types of many nations) due to lack of actually having to fight top end WWII opposition ie post 37 ships with real large working guns that didn't run away faster than the QE/Rs could do..... I do think its a very good WWI gun but for service for probably the next 20 years (37-57) without total hindsight I don't think RN could agree to keep it as the main gun.
Given their druthers, the British admirals would have gone for a 40.6 cm/45 to counter the Colorados and the Nagatos.
The flag-waving of the time is a problem. I think the guns on the Rodney and Nelson fired a too light shell at too high a muzzle velocity. The three gun mounts in the gun houses did not help matters. Of the 3 navies which floated 16"/L45 or 50 or larger bore artillery,
all of them had shell dispersion problems with triple mounts. The Colorados and the Nagatos carried twin mounts but
even they had trouble with dispersion that had to be fixed with staggered war-shot firing linked to a clock delay mechanical solution.
The 14"/KVG also have the problem of being rushed a lot into service very fast in wartime as they had to do the job as nothing else could due to lack of other strong fast ships, and having to fight in North Atlantic storms in huge seas not the Med or Pacific.....I don't think they actually have anything deeply wrong with them if you look at the later war fights they worked as well as any other guns did and 14" was fine at least for the European war.
I would have gone with the
14"/45 (35.6 cm) Marks II, IV and V. They worked rather well in British service. Just one problem... though. Those guns, complete with trucks, turntables, hoists and barbettes
were American. Even the gun-houses were American.
Although the British were unimpressed with the overall design of these [American] guns and mountings, they did perhaps
perform better under fire than did contemporary British designs. In January 1918, HMS Raglan was holed through the barbette by a
28.3 cm (11.1 in) shell from the former SMS
Goeben, now the Turkish
Yavuz Sultan Selim. This hit ignited charges in the hand-up chambers between the handling rooms and gunhouse, but the flash was contained and did not spread below to the magazines. This may also have been due to the fact that the propellant was USN nitrocellulose and not British cordite.
Yeah... I would still say flag waving is a problem at both ends there. I see no reason to cite Americanisms when I KNOW for a fact; the Vickers 38cm/15"/L42 was a much superior gun to the Bethlehem Steel 35.6cm/L45 described ballistically and operationally.
The 16" N&R is just a mess early on probably due to cash flow and even then never had the money to get fully developed into something like the Lion 16" that did not ever get to sea....
Actually the RN did exactly what the USN did in the late 1920s.
From
inadequate firing trials, a mistaken theory was promulgated by the Director of Naval Ordnance (DNO) that held that a high-velocity, low-weight projectile would have superior armor penetration characteristics at large oblique angles of impact, a conclusion which was the opposite of previous findings. This theory was not substantiated by later trials, but these took place too late to affect the decision to use a lightweight APC projectile for new designs. As a result, these guns proved to be only marginally better in terms of armor penetration than the previous
15"/42 (38.1 cm) Mark I and much less satisfactory than those older guns in terms of accuracy and barrel life.
The USN nitwit was RADM
William D. Leahy who almost made that mistake for the Americans. RADM Harold B. Larimer reversed his stupid decision.
I don't think four twins work they just use to much weight especially in the extra length of the citadel that cripples any real 35,000t ship, I would be happy with 2 14" quads as 8 guns of any 14/15/16" should do and really RN needed ships yesterday, three old 15" twins would also be fine with hindsight but would never be accepted pre war.....
You could always consult the French. They were doing okay with their side by side twins. (Dunkirks.)
Just to add this is by far the most important part of any of the last generation ships, simply put almost any of the post 37 ships is acceptable if they are a year earlier than the alternative.
The question is do you need four or five? Can you pair them off in staggered construction? Of course after 1935 I'm building flattops and cruisers (Hindsight Harry is yakking in my ear.), but for battleships, I still go with what is proven to cut down design time, costs, construction costs and what I know will be PCO send back costs.
In the RN's case moving the KVGs ships a year (or even 1/2 a year) up or down would be far more important that what gun or number they had or really anything else, with hindsight they are only needed for a very brief time from 39 to 45 (basically 5 years) and the later part is so supported by other ships, navy's and aircraft that its just the 39-43 (3 years) part that really decisively matters. KVG was at least ready in late 40 so got to be useful for 2 of them but Howe was only ready in summer 42 and is virtually forgotten and far less worthwhile....
Shrug. Until 1935, despite Hindsight Harry, you have to have some battleships. You just don't know in the RN. Now the USN, the opinion was crystalized by almost 2 decades of testing that it was flattops. Still they got it wrong, too. They bungled on the subs. At least the RN got that part sort of right.
But now we are way off topic. What lessons learned here can we apply to the Alaska?
That flag-waving instead of mission needs is not the way to build or use a navy?
