KGV and PoW v Bismarck at the Denmark Strait

Wasn't an advantage of the British Boilers was that you could run them on something like 110% for many hours with no damage?
 
Losing the Aircraft Handling capacity is not something that could be considered OTL as in 1936 Radar is still in its infancy and can only see to the systems horizon - an Amphib can see much further and was an established 'system'

The 5.25" was intended to be able to engage DDs at long range - given the advances in torpedoes not such a bad idea in 1936 - and also the system was intended to engage very high altitude Aircraft - again given the increasing improvement in bombers not such a bad idea in 1936.

The Powerplant was intended to be run at high power for long periods and the machinary was very robust and its foibles and fortes well understood at the time

The 14" shells are capable of damaging any warship built during the period - even Yamato will know she had been hit by one!

I cannot fault any of the decisions made (made without hindsight)

The only real change I could counterneance is the use of 4.5 twins as used in Ark Royal and the Illustrious class instead of the 5.25 twins

I wonder what 3 x 3 x 15" might have weighed - NOMISYRRUC has provided evidence that had this design been chosen then the vessels might have been delivered on time

So okay I would switch to a 3 x 3 x 15" main gun pretty much only if it gets the ships built earlier otherwise Im happy to stay at 10 x 14"

What ever is chosen be it 14", 15" or 16" - its going to have the same amount of problems due to the paranoid level of antiflash devices built in - but the quicker the ship can be built the quicker those issues would be resolved.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Losing the Aircraft Handling capacity is not something that could be considered OTL as in 1936 Radar is still in its infancy and can only see to the systems horizon - an Amphib can see much further and was an established 'system'
But did they really need a hanger for that? Neither the North Carolina or South Dakota battleships had hangers but they still managed to carry several float planes. I can't really see a reason to have an actual hanger on board unless it was British requirement for the North Sea. Otherwise, just bolt em onto the fantail the way the USN did.

The Powerplant was intended to be run at high power for long periods and the machinary was very robust and its foibles and fortes well understood at the time
While true, with the American-style boilers and machinery, couldn't they install equipment that would give them the same amount of power without running it in an overload condition? And that still would have saved weight.
 

hipper

Banned
AFAIK the KGV class had a riveted hull and a DC electric systems while the contemporary American North Carolina and South Dakota classes had welded hulls and AC electrical systems, both of which were lighter.

Would a welded hull and AC electrics have saved enough weight for the KGV class to keep twelve 14-inch guns in three quadruple mountings?

Lots of rivets on American Battleships,

Rear Admiral Clark Woodward driving the first rivet for battleship Iowa at the keel laying ceremony, New York Naval Shipyard, New York, United States, 27 Jun 1940

https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/435934438908559758/
 

hipper

Banned
Wasn't an advantage of the British Boilers was that you could run them on something like 110% for many hours with no damage?

Not so much the boilers as the Gearing systems American barrleships used double reduction gearing enabling them toSpin their turbines st High revs where they are more efficient and still turn their propellers slowly enough to travel at 15 knots, the problem is that’s it’s then hard to increase the revolutions to go very fast.

British Battleships used single reduction gears so they had to slow down their turbines when they wanted to go slow which is not good for efficency. However it means that the British ships got a better response when they increased the turbine revs.

It was all a matter of options during design both nations got the Battleships they wanted.
 

hipper

Banned
But did they really need a hanger for that? Neither the North Carolina or South Dakota battleships had hangers but they still managed to carry several float planes. I can't really see a reason to have an actual hanger on board unless it was British requirement for the North Sea. Otherwise, just bolt em onto the fantail the way the USN did.
/QUOTE]

The Clue is in the name, you get more frequent storms in the North Atlantic than the Pacific. The British Isles are a long way north of Japan.
 

hipper

Banned
But did they really need a hanger for that? Neither the North Carolina or South Dakota battleships had hangers but they still managed to carry several float planes. I can't really see a reason to have an actual hanger on board unless it was British requirement for the North Sea. Otherwise, just bolt em onto the fantail the way the USN did.


While true, with the American-style boilers and machinery, couldn't they install equipment that would give them the same amount of power without running it in an overload condition? And that still would have saved weight.

The Americans were troubleshooting high pressure steam boilers in 1940 the RN did not have the time for inessentials. The KM tried to get fancy with steam plant and it Crippled them.
 
++Snip++

I wonder what 3 x 3 x 15" might have weighed - NOMISYRRUC has provided evidence that had this design been chosen then the vessels might have been delivered on time

++Snip++
Arguably a better choice here as the 15" was a good and proven design. Also allowed uniformaty of munitions across multiple ships.

The RN never designed a triple 15" as far as I know, and the closest foreign would be the triple 15" of the Italian Littorio Class. This was 1,570 tons (1,595 mt) according to Navweaps.
 
But did they really need a hanger for that? Neither the North Carolina or South Dakota battleships had hangers but they still managed to carry several float planes. I can't really see a reason to have an actual hanger on board unless it was British requirement for the North Sea. Otherwise, just bolt em onto the fantail the way the USN did.

The RN was intending to operate - among other places - in the Greenland - Iceland - UK GAP as well as the North Sea.

It be gnarly seas up there. A fan tail job would not serve and I imagine that if the BB had to operate her 'rifles' and the seas were too rough to launch/recover the AC then the blast of her own guns would prove detrimental to the AC - not so if they are stored amidships as on the Towns and KGVs

Also the RNs job is to patrol the sea lanes - they are the 'Police' and will need to maintain searches etc using the aircraft and the Hangers gave the ship the ability to maintain the AC on long patrols etc

While true, with the American-style boilers and machinery, couldn't they install equipment that would give them the same amount of power without running it in an overload condition? And that still would have saved weight.

The 'more' modern systems that the US would use took longer to maintain, clean etc and were less forgiving of abuse.

So a given ships annual refit would take less time.

I am satisfied with the decision that the RN made.
 
Arguably a better choice here as the 15" was a good and proven design. Also allowed uniformaty of munitions across multiple ships.

The RN never designed a triple 15" as far as I know, and the closest foreign would be the triple 15" of the Italian Littorio Class. This was 1,570 tons (1,595 mt) according to Navweaps.
There was a triple 16” on the NelRods however - scaling the design to work with 15” is probably easier than designing two 14” turrets as OTL.
 

SsgtC

Banned
The Americans were troubleshooting high pressure steam boilers in 1940 the RN did not have the time for inessentials. The KM tried to get fancy with steam plant and it Crippled them.

The 'more' modern systems that the US would use took longer to maintain, clean etc and were less forgiving of abuse.

So a given ships annual refit would take less time.

I am satisfied with the decision that the RN made.
Ok, I can see that reasoning. I was just suggesting it as a means to save weight during the design process in order to fit the third quad turret instead of the twin.
 
Ok, I can see that reasoning. I was just suggesting it as a means to save weight during the design process in order to fit the third quad turret instead of the twin.

Totally get what you are suggesting and its not without merit.

However in the triad compromise between speed, firepower and protection with the 4th aspect reliability I think the KGV design was balanced well enough for its role.
 
I was just suggesting it as a means to save weight during the design process in order to fit the third quad turret instead of the twin.
I think its far easier to simply get HMG to relax the rules in time to go for three quad 14" in a none 35,000t hull?
 

SsgtC

Banned
Totally get what you are suggesting and its not without merit.

However in the triad compromise between speed, firepower and protection with the 4th aspect reliability I think the KGV design was balanced well enough for its role.
Oh, I agree. The KGVs and the SoDaks are probably the best, most well balanced treaty battleships ever built. And are possibly the best ever built, period.
 
Last edited:
A possible AHTL: A fast battle group consisting of the aircraft carriers HMS ILLUSTRIOUS and INDISPUTABLE along with the battleships HMS KGV and POW the heavy cruiser HMS Gloucestershire and the light cruiser Manchester and 9 destroyers leave scapa flow at 18 knots when they are clear into the north sea,they increase speed to 32 knots and race for the Denmark straight.

The Battle group manage to get into position a head of the battleship Bismarck and the heavy cruiser Prinz eugan.
 
One of the problems the KGVs had with range was the bunker oil. They had been designed to run on Persian oil that was fairly light and free of contaminants. By the time the KGVs actually got to sea the Persian oil was being used for aviation fuel amongst other things and they had to use much thicker viscous oil that didn't suit the pumps and burners. Also because bunkers were flooded with seawater when empty to maintain the ships balance the oil was contaminated with salt water. This plus the deeper draught caused by wartime mods, higher electrical demand and a cruising speed set higher than the cruising turbines could manage meant range was cut by 20%. Howe and Anson had modified furnaces and burners and got almost the designed range.
 
A possible AHTL: A fast battle group consisting of the aircraft carriers HMS ILLUSTRIOUS and INDISPUTABLE along with the battleships HMS KGV and POW the heavy cruiser HMS Gloucestershire and the light cruiser Manchester and 9 destroyers leave scapa flow at 18 knots when they are clear into the north sea,they increase speed to 32 knots and race for the Denmark straight.

Not at 32 knots they won't. Manchester and the Destroyers could do 32 knots but would run out of fuel very quickly.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Would they be able to refuel at sea with fast replenishment ships as part of the battle group?
What replenishment ship can do 30+ knots? They'd have to be prepositioned. The USN's Cimarron class Fleet Oiler was considered "fast" at 18 knots.
 
Top