kgv's with triple 15"

[alfredtuomi]

Time for a Brit wank...just to balance the not-Nazi wankers.

What if the admiralty beat the 1st lord around the head a lot and convinced him that downsizing to 14" guns was not a wise thing.
So the KGV's get designed from the beginning for three triple turrets with 15" guns as the admiralty wanted in OTL.
No extra turret to design so do we just save 6 months on construction time or do we get the snowball effect of all five being so far advanced at the start of the war that repair work and escort construction doesn t cause their construction to be slowed down.
Basically then they are all fully operational by the end of 1940.
How does that change things?

 

[Simon]

Granted I'm no naval expert but I'm not really sure it would change all that much, I mean if you look at what they achieved they seem to have done exceedingly well with their 14-inch guns.

 

[vizzer]

It probably means the Prince of Wales is fully worked up when/if it meets the Bismark

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Time for a Brit wank...just to balance the not-Nazi wankers.

What if the admiralty beat the 1st lord around the head a lot and convinced him that downsizing to 14" guns was not a wise thing.
So the KGV's get designed from the beginning for three triple turrets with 15" guns as the admiralty wanted in OTL.
No extra turret to design so do we just save 6 months on construction time or do we get the snowball effect of all five being so far advanced at the start of the war that repair work and escort construction doesn t cause their construction to be slowed down.
Basically then they are all fully operational by the end of 1940.
How does that change things?

Well the turret would still have to be designed - the exisitng turret design was a twin - Im assuming that you are using the same BL 15 inch Mark I that adorned so many of Britains Capital ships?

I think the idea is sensible although Im not sure you are saving much time as the new turrets including machinery and hoists will still need to be designed.

Another idea would be to activate the escelator clause all the way and build improved versions of the NelRods Triple 16" as the US would do

As for how much change? Not very much - Super Dreadnaughts be they armed with 14", 15" or 16" or even 18" guns were no longer the masters of the high seas.

I guess with the KGVs avaialble earlier the pressure is off the older ships and more can be done to improve them or the crews can be used elsewhere (ie some of the Rs effectively decommisioned and the Hood may get a better refit)

 

[King Augeas]

It probably means the Prince of Wales is fully worked up when/if it meets the Bismark

If that means that POW takes the lead, then things likely go very badly for Bismarck.

Alternatively, Hood blows up as OTL, but then POW, with functioning armament, probably decides to stay in the fight. One or both of POW and Bismarck gets battered and decides to withdraw, and we're largely back on OTL.

 

[johnboy]

How about this one-instead of building the five KGV Class, they order 5 ships in 1936(instead of 3 KGV's) and then 3 more in 1937(instead of 2 KGV's)(slips were available for an extra 3, ie 8 total ships), all based on a 28-30,000 ton well protected ship with 6x15 inch using existing 15 inch guns turrets(modernized). Big saving in cost, fair saving in time. That would require 24 turrets. Six were in storage, two more aboard old monitors, 16 more aboard modernized R Class ships(only Royal Oak was modernized).

 

[hipper]

Time for a Brit wank...just to balance the not-Nazi wankers.

What if the admiralty beat the 1st lord around the head a lot and convinced him that downsizing to 14" guns was not a wise thing.
So the KGV's get designed from the beginning for three triple turrets with 15" guns as the admiralty wanted in OTL.
No extra turret to design so do we just save 6 months on construction time or do we get the snowball effect of all five being so far advanced at the start of the war that repair work and escort construction doesn t cause their construction to be slowed down.
Basically then they are all fully operational by the end of 1940.
How does that change things?

you can get the same effect if the Admiralty had kept the original 12 gun 4 x 3 arrangement and had made the belt armour thinner to compensate or been a little economical with the truth and increased the belt armour anyway without reducing the number of guns

you get KGV & POW 6 months ahead, DOY Anson & Howe were going to be caught in the shipping slow down anyway - ordered 6 months after the first pair.



no real changes. the OTL POWs hit rate was very good for that period of the war,

 

[jsb]

The problem is that,

A) you have huge lead times on equipment (guns/mounts) and they have to start being designed before 35/36 if you want to lay down in 37 when the treaty's allow you to.

B) GB(HMT) was very supportive of the treaty's so no cheating/planning to cheat is allowed.

C) you don't have hindsight that the BBs you are building will only need to last 5/10 years.

D) after Jutland RN will not accept less belt/deck.

C) Production is limited by speed you can make turrets (as OTL).

So you have to build something under 35kt that will last for years using the 14inch gun you have developed and must have a full belt/deck and you MUST have it yesterday.

Personally the KVGs where not bad considering that the RN had been put into a tight spot by treaty's and 10 year rules.

Still If you want AH why stick to improved KVGs think of a G3 and Super post G3 running into Bismarck on 24 May.......

JSB

 

[alfredtuomi]

I guess I should have made things a bit clearer.
The OTL was designed originally as 3 quads...as one poster pointed out...but in an attempt(kgv's as built were all over) to stay under the treaty limit of 35000 tons the decision was made to design a twin turret thereby causing a six month delay in building.Specifically if instead of designing the 14 inch gun and a quad turret and a twin turret,the decision could have been to design just the triple turret and the 15 inch mark II gun then potentially all 5 would have been available 6 months earlier and maybe even avoid delays caused by the diversion of material and labour for repair work and new build of escort vessels.
So potentially we have all 5 of the class fully worked up with the crew and the turrets functioning properly by the end of 1940.....making the Bismarck excursion somewhat different.

 

[jsb]

But if in 1934(ish) you are willing to give up treaty's i.e. 14 inch guns (14 inch was totally political not RN driven),

Why not give up 35k as well go for a new 16inch gun with 9 of them on 45 kt ?

or


If you know its 39 kick off then you could just build vanguard's 8 x 15 on 45 kt ? (reusing old stuff to speed up production)

Both will play better with Bismarck than OTL ships....
But if you are willing to comit to fight Germany in 34 you can just support the French in the Rhine land and its over before they get to sea....

JSB

 

[sonofpegasus]

This 'what if' has been discussed endlessly on other forums including the Navy Weapsons one. In his Novel "the Foresight War" the author Tony Williams had his pragtagonist build 5 Vanguard type ships using the Revenge class ships as a source of turrets. In order to ahieve a different KGV design you need a POD, Find that and everything else will follow.

 

[plenka]

Look for "Whale has wings". It is mostly centred on FAA, but I think that in that TL KGV, was built with 15 inch main armament.

 

[Astrodragon]

Look for "Whale has wings". It is mostly centred on FAA, but I think that in that TL KGV, was built with 15 inch main armament.

3x3 15" was the Admiralty's prime option until very late in the process. Some unnamed civil servant seems to have thought going for 14" would somehow persuade other aggressive powers to do the same...

So it only needs that NOT to happen, and we get 9 15" guns. No real difference in gun design time, its basically the OTL 14" but a bit bigger. Not having to design a second turret type saves about 6 months, so PoW would be fully worked up by the time Bismark sticks its nose out. Which means PoW leads, not Hood. Its not likely to end well for Bismark...

Three triple 15" weighs about the same as 10 14", so not much else changes. The turret design is probably a little simpler - there are issues with 4 gun turrets.

 

[Simon]

One thing I've wondered about is if rather than changing the main armament calibre, or possibly as well as, you got rid of the four Supermarine Walrus spotter/scout planes and associated facilities e.g. hangars, catapults, recovery cranes, aviation fuel tanks etc. and what could be done with the freed up tonnage. Now of course to get that you'd have to have the Royal Navy assuming that they would only be operating with aircraft carriers to provide replacement aircraft meaning likely more carriers and an enlarged Fleet Air Arm. Tried doing a search over on the Nav Weaps forum but didn't find anything, probably not using the right search terms since I can't think someone hasn't thought of and done it before.

 

[Astrodragon]

One thing I've wondered about is if rather than changing the main armament calibre, or possibly as well as, you got rid of the four Supermarine Walrus spotter/scout planes and associated facilities e.g. hangars, catapults, recovery cranes, aviation fuel tanks etc. and what could be done with the freed up tonnage. Now of course to get that you'd have to have the Royal Navy assuming that they would only be operating with aircraft carriers to provide replacement aircraft meaning likely more carriers and an enlarged Fleet Air Arm. Tried doing a search over on the Nav Weaps forum but didn't find anything, probably not using the right search terms since I can't think someone hasn't thought of and done it before.

*cough*
Whale Has Wings Vol 1
*cough*


They did leave the aircraft off in my design, basically the FAA had by then got the bit between their teeth. In OTL, there was actually a considerable body in the RN that thought the catapult launched planes worse than useless.

 

[Cymraeg]

*cough*
Whale Has Wings Vol 1
*cough*


They did leave the aircraft off in my design, basically the FAA had by then got the bit between their teeth. In OTL, there was actually a considerable body in the RN that thought the catapult launched planes worse than useless.

OI! (Pokes at the Dragon with a flame retardant special poking stick) Get back to proofing Volume 4!!! There are people here waiting to read it!

 

[Simon]

[SNIP]

I meant more in actually sitting down, looking at the different possible technical specifications and working it out properly in one of the design programmes. IIRC you worked out that they would be a touch faster but mostly relied on authorial fiat.

 

[Astrodragon]

I meant more in actually sitting down, looking at the different possible technical specifications and working it out properly in one of the design programmes. IIRC you worked out that they would be a touch faster but mostly relied on authorial fiat.

I based it on the provisional design they actually did, then took off what the aircraft arrangements on other BB's cost them. Basically close to the OTL displacement (possibly a little lighter), but really so close to make little difference. The savings on the aircraft affect space much more than displacement.

 

[alspug]

When I was thinking through my design for the KDV with triple 15 inch guns I looked at the Aircraft spaces and went . HMMM nice spot for a mass of AA guns and other facitlities . KGV with no aviation is able to carry a lot more AAA

 

[Cryhavoc101]

When I was thinking through my design for the KDV with triple 15 inch guns I looked at the Aircraft spaces and went . HMMM nice spot for a mass of AA guns and other facitlities . KGV with no aviation is able to carry a lot more AAA

So What would this look like - 4 more 5.25" Twins and 4 more Sextuplet Pom pom guns?

Is it possible that the weight saved could have allowed the B turret to become a quad?

Here is a picture of a KGV and a Lion just to wet your palettes