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.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'
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 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
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?
Wasn't an advantage of the British Boilers was that you could run them on something like 110% for many hours with no damage?
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.
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.
Arguably a better choice here as the 15" was a good and proven design. Also allowed uniformaty of munitions across multiple ships.++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++
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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?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.
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.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.
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.
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.Would they be able to refuel at sea with fast replenishment ships as part of the battle group?
Would they be able to refuel at sea with fast replenishment ships as part of the battle group?