KGV or Lions in response to ATL German BB

[CaptainCalvert]

The British had an excellent twin 15 inch gun that worked better for longer than ever expected. The British had the triple 16 inch gun on the Nelsons and it was severely compromised by the weight saving measures but once the kinks got worked out was fairly good. If instead of 16 inch guns you mount a new Mk 2 50 cal 15 inch gun your going to have it ready before the twin and quad 14 inch turrets.

16 inch is great but the 15 inch was just fine unless your going up against Yamato. I could not see the KGV class being built to 35,000 tons if the Germans have built two 43,000 ton ships.

Would you see the altKGV with 3x triple 16" so it can use the existing Nelson turret design? - I'm assuming the three turret set up is kept.
The alternatives would be either 3x double 15" which looks too few guns, 3x triple 15" turrets which will take time, or a new design with 4x 15" .
I'd want the 3x3x16" since the turret's already been designed, although the ship would need a bit of a redesign. My second preference of 4x2x15" would presumably mean a new ship rather than a redesign.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Would you see the altKGV with 3x triple 16" so it can use the existing Nelson turret design? - I'm assuming the three turret set up is kept.

That's the Lion Class.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

This is the big one, what outside BB building will GB do in response? ie will they simply decide they need to support France on land and prevent the German threat growing any more?

AGNA made the British think that Adolf and his bunch of Berlin criminals were people with whom they could deal with

They saw that Germany was building a balanced fleet which was great as far as they were concerned (no cruiser fleet to threaten British SLOCs)

Without it Britain does not think Herr Hitler is a reasonable man with whom deals can be made and instead will treat him as a loose canon

OTL the Germans abandoned AGNA in April 1939

Britain introduced Limited Conscription less than a month later

If Germany was to abandon AGNA earlier or not even sign up to it in the first place then I would expect to see:

• A far more hard nosed political attitude to things like reoccupation of the Rhineland in 1936
• A negative reaction to the abandonment of Versailles
• Certainly not turning their backs on Czechoslovakia
• While we would not see conscription in 1935 (its hard for us to understand the attitudes of the day but there was a large anti war movement in the 30s) we would certainly see greater and earlier rearmament especially for the army and greater focus on providing a 2nd BEF and RAF forces to operate on the Continent and more likely a much earlier limited conscription act.
• Greater efforts on swaying the neutrals (Belgium, Netherlands, USA) and with this British opposition Italy might make the only winning move!)

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Would you see the altKGV with 3x triple 16" so it can use the existing Nelson turret design? - I'm assuming the three turret set up is kept.
The alternatives would be either 3x double 15" which looks too few guns, 3x triple 15" turrets which will take time, or a new design with 4x 15" .
I'd want the 3x3x16" since the turret's already been designed, although the ship would need a bit of a redesign. My second preference of 4x2x15" would presumably mean a new ship rather than a redesign.

Whatever gun calibre the British choose it would be a new gun, turret and internal gubbins

So be it 14", 15" or 16" it would likely suffer the same initial reliability problems the KGVs suffered OTL until they were resolved

Personally I think 14" was good enough - there is very little a 16" can do that the OTL 14" could not in the same circumstances - the only thing IMO that a 15" or 16" system does is increase weight and when you have the primary trio compromise of Armour/Speed/Firepower - having 16" guns would mean that armour and/or Speed would suffer.

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

The British had worked the bugs out of the triple 16" gun turrets and were building triple 8" turrets for the Southampton etc. classes.

And the 15" gun was "just" a new version of a known gun.

I can't really see why the British would have the same problems with a triple 15" turret as with the brand new quadruple 14" ones ontne OTL KGV class.

So my guess is the alt-KGVs (3×3 15") would be ordered in this scenario and be completed earlier than OTL.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

The British had worked the bugs out of the triple 16" gun turrets and were building triple 8" turrets for the Southampton etc. classes.

And the 15" gun was "just" a new version of a known gun.

I can't really see why the British would have the same problems with a triple 15" turret as with the brand new quadruple 14" ones ontne OTL KGV class.

So my guess is the alt-KGVs (3×3 15") would be ordered in this scenario and be completed earlier than OTL.

The issues with the OTL KGV 14" was not the calibre or the layout - it was the very very complicated anti flash and safety arrangement for ammunition handling

Something to do with their ships exploding in WW1 - tended to focus the British on preventing it from happening again

So if they had picked 15" the similarity to the Mk1 twin turrets found on the pre Jutland designs would be that the calibre was the same!

Time saving would be to not delay choosing calibre and then not switching from 3 x Quad to changing the B turret to a twin to save weight to allow increased armour on the same overall tonnage.

And new gun systems did take time to make reliable

The Twin 8" guns on the British heavy Cruisers took most of the 30s to get right

 

[Naval Aviation Fan]

So my guess is the alt-KGVs (3×3 15") would be ordered in this scenario and be completed earlier than OTL.

The departure from OTL construction is that the S/G are armed with {8 x 15"} rather than their historical {9 x 11"}.

Keeping in mind my mistake, and just assuming that the Brits would be able to be convinced to allow the 42,000 ton displacement of OTL, and that the Germans would argue for this, amend that to, the Germans claiming that their ships will be 35,000 ton limitation compliant.

That being so, there will not be a change in the historical 5 ships of the KGV class (10 x 14" guns on 35,000 tons), because the Italians are already building a pair of ships laid down in late October, 1934 that have (9 x 15" guns supposedly on 35,000 tons), compared to the Germans laying down their own pair with one less 15" each, also supposedly on 35,000 tons, there is no basis for the KGV class to be changed, as the alt German ships are actually weaker armed than the Italians ships.

Historically, the Lion class was laid down in 1938, but wouldn't be in service until 1943, and so were canceled, because of the triple 16" gun turrets they were going to be equipped with. So no earlier Lions than historical are going to appear. This leave two options, both of which see the OTL 5 ship KGV class being built as is:

Build a quick design using twin 15" gun turrets, because you have these ready to hand, or
Cobble together a larger KGV, with (4 quad 14" turrets on 45,000 tons), as all these guns and turrets are already in current production.

I'm not looking for what would be the perfect design, just something that could be produced once the deception is realized, and the escalator clause is invoked, which historically happened in 1938, when the UK was laying down a pair of Lion class ships.

The 14" guns were selected in late 1935, and were put into production shortly thereafter, while no new 15" guns nor triple turrets for them were in the works, so a 15" gunned version of the KGV cannot be designed/built as a response to these two German BB, and so any new triple 15" gun designs will take longer than the KGV, rather than being touted as faster and in the water sooner.

 

[Naval Aviation Fan]

So my guess is, sometime in 1938, the British lay down a pair of Lion class as historically, but then also discover either or both the German or Italian ships are exceeding the 35,000 ton cap, and lay down a pair of 45,000 ton Vanguards with 8x15" guns using stockpiles of existing guns and turrets to speed construction, and/or, and emergency design of an enlarged KGV on 45,000 tons, with 16 x 14" guns.

Historically, we know the Lions laid down in 1938 cannot be ready till 1943, and so got canceled, but when could a pair of Vanguards be ready, or an enlarged KGV?

 

[ArtosStark]

The issues with the OTL KGV 14" was not the calibre or the layout - it was the very very complicated anti flash and safety arrangement for ammunition handling

According to D.K Brown the problem, or at least part of it, was actually due to the requirement to be able to pass ammunition into the turret at any angle of training. This involved the use of a transfer ring. When the ring was designed not enough allowance was made for the flexibility of the ship.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

That's the Lion Class.

Oops. Posting when tired is rarely a smart move

 

[jsb]

So my guess is, sometime in 1938, the British lay down a pair of Lion class as historically, but then also discover either or both the German or Italian ships are exceeding the 35,000 ton cap, and lay down a pair of 45,000 ton Vanguards with 8x15" guns using stockpiles of existing guns and turrets to speed construction, and/or, and emergency design of an enlarged KGV on 45,000 tons, with 16 x 14" guns.

Historically, we know the Lions laid down in 1938 cannot be ready till 1943, and so got canceled, but when could a pair of Vanguards be ready, or an enlarged KGV?

If S&G are started at 42,000 ton, 8X15 laid down in 35 and Launched in 36 then AGNT is dead and GB/RN will go mad..... 2LNT is dead before it starts the issue is that the 14" guns can't be redone by this time but the 35,000t limit can hard.

The easiest is to build 2 Vanguards starting on 1 JAN 37 as they have the 8 mounts and also use the quad 14" in larger super "KVG" 40kt with 12 guns in 3 quads, that would give you 5 larger ships that should be able to fight them to ready to start hard and fast from 1st Jan 37 with money no object and full overtime working from the start, so slightly faster completion that OTL.

They would presumably then start on a full class of "lions" that are full 45,000t 9x16" balanced ships looking at what others are doing? The main issue is that treasury control will be removed from the RN in 36 rather than 38 in OTL, so they get 2 more years of full unlimited spending?

 

[jsb]

The main issue is that Germany has clearly been deliberately (42,000t is far too much to be a mistake over 35,000t ship limit of WNT) broken the AGNT 18 June 1935 has been by when the first of S or G are Launched OTL 3 October 1936 (but larger ship would slow this down?) if not earlier as GB talked about the 11" guns during construction and had very good contacts in the industry & shipyards in Germany.

This will lead to massive diplomatic and none navy construction PODs as GB will start to think war is coming by 36/37 and that make the changes to KVGs/RN ships almost irrelevant?

 

[Naval Aviation Fan]

If S&G are started at 42,000 ton, 8X15 laid down in 35 and Launched in 36 then AGNT is dead and GB/RN will go mad..... 2LNT is dead before it starts the issue is that the 14" guns can't be redone by this time but the 35,000t limit can hard.

Yes I know.

Which is why I have been trying to change the stuff I did wrong in the first couple posts and amend them to the Germans go with 8 x 15" guns, but claim they are 35,000 ton ships, which would make them treaty compliant and weaker than the pair of Italian ships laid down in 1934, with 9 x 15" guns, also supposedly on 35,000 tons.

Basically, I done goofed, and need to ask whether to end this thread and repost with the corrected OP/Poll?

The easiest is to build 2 Vanguards starting on 1 JAN 37 as they have the 8 mounts

Thank you, you're the only other poster that is also thinking of the vanguards as a class of two ships, and built as soon as possible, once the Italian/German ships are known to be in excess of the 35,000 ton limit. The Jan 1st, 1937 is premature, as the escalator clause is 1st April, 1937, so KGV and POW will be laid down as OTL.

Remember, only my dunderheaded mistake in the first few posts gives the British a heads up, in 1935, so once we amend that, the UK is going to have to wait till 1938 (OTL laying down of the two historical Lion class), or tumble onto the duplicity of the Italian's 40,000+ ton ships, or the Germans duplicity of the 42,000 ton ships.

and also use the quad 14" in larger super "KVG" 40kt with 12 guns in 3 quads, that would give you 5 larger ships that should be able to fight them to ready to start hard and fast from 1st Jan 37 with money no object and full overtime working from the start, so slightly faster completion that OTL.

1st Jan, 1937 isn't going to be alt KGV, as the game won't be given away yet, so 2nd LNT goes down as historical, and the to ships laid down will be OTL KGV and PoW, with 10 x 14" guns on 35,000 tons, but...

Later on, when the gig is up, would a 45,000 ton KGV class, with 4 quad 14" turrets might be a thing, either instead of 12 gun version or as an additional class.

They would presumably then start on a full class of "lions" that are full 45,000t 9x16" balanced ships looking at what others are doing? The main issue is that treasury control will be removed from the RN in 36 rather than 38 in OTL, so they get 2 more years of full unlimited spending?

While I agree with you, based upon my mistaken initial posts, and supposing that the Germans demand 42,000 ships, instead they claim their ships are 35,000 tons until discovered to be in excess of that, either that, or the Italians ships are discovered to be in excess, or OTL laying down of the 2 Lion class (I don't know when those ships were laid down, actually), so Vanguards in 1938 at the latest, maybe earlier in mid to late 1937, if the Axis ships are found out.

Would an emergency expansion of the KGV class be a possibility, along the line of "Gentlemen, the Germans are building ships bigger than they let on, you have 30 days to alter the existing KGV class into a 4 full quad 14" gun design, so construction can begin immediately thereafter."

 

[jsb]

Thank you, you're the only other poster that is also thinking of the vanguards as a class of two ships, and built as soon as possible, once the Italian/German ships are known to be in excess of the 35,000 ton limit. The Jan 1st, 1937 is premature, as the escalator clause is 1st April, 1937, so KGV and POW will be laid down as OTL.

Remember, only my dunderheaded mistake in the first few posts gives the British a heads up, in 1935, so once we amend that, the UK is going to have to wait till 1938 (OTL laying down of the two historical Lion class), or tumble onto the duplicity of the Italian's 40,000+ ton ships, or the Germans duplicity of the 42,000 ton ships.

While I agree with you, based upon my mistaken initial posts, and supposing that the Germans demand 42,000 ships, instead they claim their ships are 35,000 tons until discovered to be in excess of that,

The German ships will be obviously over 35,000t even on the slipways building once they get close to launch date OTL 3 October 1936 they are just too big, and it's not Japan hiding behind special secret scaffolding ships were build in the open and I think GB commercial firm were buying merchants and fishing boats from the same yards due to the limits on not being allowed to move inconvertible Marks out of Germany?

GB will invoke escalator clause, if not simply rip up all treaties immediately (I doubt it gains anything from walking out of WNT early so 1 Jan 37 start due to industrial limits) once Germany doesn't respond to its questions of why it's breaking AGNT after a single year?

 

[Naval Aviation Fan]

The main issue is that Germany has clearly been deliberately (42,000t is far too much to be a mistake over 35,000t ship limit of WNT) broken the AGNT 18 June 1935

And this was my mistake, I had tried to have the Germans openly declare their actual tonnage, when historically, they claimed that they were actually 35,000 ton ships.

has been by when the first of S or G are Launched OTL 3 October 1936 (but larger ship would slow this down?)

Exactly this. I have no idea then these alt S/G are getting launched, but I am trying to find input for these launch dates. I'm going with 51 months total construction time, which was the historical longest time for the Bismarck class, but there too, how much time was taken up with developing their 15" guns/turrets, and how much faster would the secon pair be to build to an identical design, having just built the S/G?

 

[Naval Aviation Fan]

The German ships will be obviously over 35,000t even on the slipways building once they get close to launch date OTL 3 October 1936 they are just too big,

When I looked this stuff up, the Bismarck's were what, 51 feet longer and 20 feet wider than the S/G? I agree that announcing their intentions right off was something that came out of my brain dead head, when they could just as easily claim they were 35,000 ton ships.

True enough, a bigger ship is going to be looked at, and for all I know, the Lion class ships were laid down in 1938 in response to the B/T while still under construction, so that is a possibility, and with the S/G being the larger ship design, when would the UK tumble to this, do you think. I discount the idea that an incomplete hull is going to be proof positive, as there is no way of actually weighing such ships, and without actually being allowed to take a guided tour, British intel isn't going to be complete, so while late 1936 they could well have suspicions about the eventual total displacement, it won't actually be known for sure.

The other thing is, the British started working on the quad 14" turrets in late 1935/early 1936, so they are not going to get Lions before 1938 (and never complete them), so we are back to two different KGV class ships, the 12 x 14" gunned version pretty much as scheduled because this change is very minor, or the OTL class if the first pair would be delayed if the change would not be done in time.

I guess my main problem with what the UK built in 1937-1938, was, if they were planning on 5 Lions, couldn't they have just laid down two Lions and two Vanguards in 1938? For that matter, I keep hearing that the Vanguards would be faster to build, but how much faster? Dreadnought was very fast, and I don't see that being possible with the pair of Vanguard class ships, but two 45,000 ton, 8 x 15" gunned ships, a year or two earlier than the 9 x 16" gunned ships can be ready in 1943 has to be worth something?

and it's not Japan hiding behind special secret scaffolding ships were build in the open and I think GB commercial firm were buying merchants and fishing boats from the same yards due to the limits on not being allowed to move inconvertible Marks out of Germany?

GB will invoke escalator clause, if not simply rip up all treaties immediately (I doubt it gains anything from walking out of WNT early so 1 Jan 37 start due to industrial limits) once Germany doesn't respond to its questions of why it's breaking AGNT after a single year?

 

[CaptainCalvert]

Naval Aviation Fan have you added an edit to the original post to point out the error - you could just say 'see post 55' to save typing.
As well as saving some typing, it will help future readers.

 

[Naval Aviation Fan]

Naval Aviation Fan have you added an edit to the original post to point out the error - you could just say 'see post 55' to save typing.
As well as saving some typing, it will help future readers.

Done, and thanks for the help!

 

[CaptainCalvert]

Done, and thanks for the help!

You're welcome.

 

[Naval Aviation Fan]

Ok, so questions remain.

The Bismarck class design is 51 feet longer, and 20 wider than the S/G class, but remember, the twins were 3 triple 11" gun turrets historically, but 4 twin 15" guns turrets here.
The Bismarck class took as much as 51 months to build, but what part of that was due to delays in 15" guns and turrets? TTL Germany already has both guns and turrets.
The Bismarck class was never a repeat class OTL, but what time savings could be had, if ships three and four are repeats of already built designs?

Post #27 has the amended OP, and this post is to get things focused properly. My apologies for making a mess of the poll, because of a bad choice of wording.

For the British shipbuilding, my ongoing research has finally uncovered the laid down dates of the first (and only...?) pair of Lion class laid down. Previously I had thought they had been laid down sometime in 1938, but it turns out that they were ordered in 1938, but not laid down till June 1st, and July 4th, 1939, and with the new triple 16" guns/turrets, wouldn't have been ready until 1943 at the soonest.

There are no new 15" guns being built, and no triple turrets for them, either, so any newly designed 15" guns will delay British BB production, and the 16" guns under development are not going to be ready until 1943 as noted above, what therefore are the British to do?

Historically, on Oct 2nd, 1941, the British laid down a single Vanguard class BB. This ship was not a priority, though, and so didn't commision until 1946. The vital statistics were:

4 x twin 15" gun turrets, on 44,500 tons, @30kts. As I understand this, there were enough 15" guns and twin turrets for one (or two) such ships sitting around unused prewar.
One question I have is, just how long would new twin 15" gun turrets take to build, if they were exact copies of the guns and turrets no most British capitol ships left after the WNT? My idea would be to restart such gun/turret production, while building 6 Vanguard class ships, and to swap the guns/turrets off the old

21 kts, 29,500 ton Revenge class ships, and installing them on the new
30 kts, 44,500 ton Vanguard class ships as soon as they are ready,
and then, when the newly built guns/turrets are done, put the 'R' class back into service?

For the 14" gunned KGV's, just when the decision is made, and how far advanced they are in construction, would determine whether switching from 2.5 quad 14" gun turrets, to 3 quad 14" gun turrets would result in delays.