RE improved KGV class.

[alspug]

Ok been following a few threads were the RN gets info to upgrade it's ships etc . From what research i have done it seems a POD needs to be no later then 1935 . This year is when the design for the KGV was frozen . it also offers the ability to modernise the AA guns and Destroyer guns into true DP weapons . My personal opinion is that the RN had terrible destroyer guns . they were fine for low angfle work but terrible at high angle . unlike many i actually think the pom pom was a brilliant weapon and actually the best fo the 1930's . unfortunately it was used in the 1940's . What i feel is needed is the foillowing .

1. The KGV class needs to recieve 15inch triple turrets.
Justrification will be .
A. we have large stocks of 15 inch shells . ( money saver )
B. if needed we can scrap the R class battleships and do a one for one replacement .
C . The French are building 15 inch , the Itakians 15 inch . The Germans 15 inch and the Americans 16 inch .
2. The destroyer guns and secondaries on all heavier ships need to change. Their is no reason for a fixed shell and cartridge weighing 35kg plus . suggested modifications to the guns include.
A. power rammer , this will increase rate of fire and crew exhaustion will be reduced.
B. Seperate loading ammunition . This reduces weight to be placed in rammer tray to around 25kg . this is heavy but manageable .
C. Higher elevation .
D. power traverse and elevation provided .
E. Add a fuze setter to the power rammer tray . ie Shell is placed on tray . rammer pushes shell and cartidge into contact with fuse setter . fuse setter sets fuse and is withdrawn shell loaded and fired .
F. Calibre to be used can be 4.5 or 4.7 .
3. Short range AA guns . Pom pom is good but low velocity , suggest increasing velocity and range with either a larger cartridge and longer barrels or same cartridge and smaller calibre. ie 30 mm . prefer 40 mm bofors shell to be used. Bofors Cartridge is 15 cm longer and contains much more propellant , MV is at least 150m/s faster . If possible mass produce the twin 40 mm bofors gun .
4. Spotter aircraft on battleships are a fire risk . if you are going to mount them do it on the fantail .

With all of these suggestions being acted upon by WW2 breaking out you have better AAA fleetwide. KGV class is armed with triple 15 inch turrets and probably 16 to 20 DP guns . ( double rate of fire of the 5.25)

 

[Some Bloke]

Would this have implications for other designs e.g. Tribal and Dido?

 

[alspug]

Definately , all RN destroyers built after this point would end up with true DP guns rather then the 40 degree elevation guns alot of them got . so a destroyer flottila will actually be able to put up a credible aa barrage .
i want to do a shipbucket versio of the conversion . hoefully i can do this , my paint skills are woefull lol .

 

[Some Bloke]

Seeing as the Tribal was initially conceived as a new kind of fleet escort I can see them getting the priority for DP guns after the KGV and the Dido never getting designed. So how does this affect cruiser production?

 

[alspug]

The Dido class were in my opinion not required if a decent DP gun existed . They did sterling work however the C class and D class cruisers were probably a better AA cruiser once converted , economically anyway .
If you look at realistic rate of fire the Dido class could fire ( using the 5 twin mounting version ) 7 to 9 RPMPG . this gives us 70 to 90 5.25 shells per minute as a barrage . this sounds impressive and given the burst radius of the shells a decent barrage of 5600 lb a minute . during a long Action however the rate of fire will drop off . If the DP weapon used is the 4.5 you end up with ( using the OTL 4.5 without the improvements like a powwer rammer etc ) 12 to 15 RPMPG , so 120 to 150 shells in a barrage with a throw weight of 6600 lb to 8250 lb . This is however comparing apples to oranges. The increased Bursting radius of the 5.25 does make a difference , were the smaller calibre with higher rate of fire comes into it's own is that the distance between shell bursts is reduced theirfore increasing the chances of damaging the attacking aircraft .

If you look at armour penetration figures at 10000 yards you are looking at the 5.25 having 3 inches of penetration ( side ) and the 4.5 having 2.5 inches . This is not as important in my opinion as the smothering effect of the number of shells arriving . Broadside weight becomes important . not every point on a warship is Armoured . Looking at the Battle of the river plate it can be seen the impact even a few shells can have on a battle .

If you look at the 5 inch mk 38 , ( probably the best destroyer gun ever made ) it was a true DP gun with a rate of fire of between 15 to 22 RPMPG ) the rate of fire enabled the phenominal records of the USS South Dakota with 20 claimed in a single action . The modifications i am suggesting come from looking at the 5 inch mk 38 design and the automaitic fuse setter and rammer system i saw used on the 90mm US Army aa gun .

 

[sharlin]

The 5.25 was a good gun but not great, its turrets were too small, if they had been enlarged, giving the ship a 8 gun broadside with larger turrets and things like power control for the guns and loading instead of having a lot of hand loading.

One big problem with the RN was that they chopped and changed with their light caliber weapons, even though the 4.7 was the semi standard gun in terms of size they had different mountings, different caliber barrels etc instead of doing what the USN wisely did and going with the 5 inch Mark 38 and sticking with it the RN seemed to try and mount a different type of gun on each succeeding class. They should have done what the USN did, choose one gun and stick with it.

The 4.7 was a fine gun and so was the 4 inch, usually seen as dual mounts on cruisers for their heavy AA guns. Ideally the RN should have stuck with the 4.5s on the armoured carriers and on the QE refits, they threw a big enough shell to worry destroyers and were good AA guns. Also you'd not run into the bottleneck of production issues the 5.25's suffered. A Tribal class armed with the same 4.5's as the carriers and with luck the same mounting would make them even more potent but they were really built to counter the 'super destroyers' being built abroad, mainly Italian and French ones.

 

[Some Bloke]

True but with 8 4.5s you have a formidable fleet AA escort.

The question is, with the Didos never being build, what gets built instead?

 

[alspug]

The Dido class Cruisers would most likely still occur . the need for a heavy AA escort is still their . As a convoy commanders ship their a good idea. as a heavy AA escort for a Battleship or carrier their still going to be valuable . What is going to change is the effectiveness of their AA barrage . The Town class cruisers however will likely end up with a 12 gun secondary from the outset , this improvement will greatly help the fleet AA . The KGV class will ikely commision with 3 *triple 15 inch , 20 * 4.5 inch and 10 twin 40 mm bofors. The lack of production bottleneck will help also . if the two calibres of gun kept in production are the new DP 4.5 in twin mountings for heavy destroyers and capital ships . The twin 4 inch mount would replace all single mounts if possible .

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

If I remember right there are 6 twin 15" turrets in store that were eventually used on Vangaurd and 2 monitors. With the choice to stick with 15" guns it might be worthwhile to use these turrets as well and build two slightly smaller three turret ships that could if needed be seen as prototypes for a class of BCs using turrets removed from the R class as they are decommisioned. Also with war firmly on the horizon these ships could be ready before your KGVs and be more than a match for any German or Italian ship then in service prewar. Bismarck and Tirpitz would be ships that might give the BCs pause for thought but provided the BCs were properly designed could be engaged without commiting suicide.

 

[alspug]

If I remember right there are 6 twin 15" turrets in store that were eventually used on Vangaurd and 2 monitors. With the choice to stick with 15" guns it might be worthwhile to use these turrets as well and build two slightly smaller three turret ships that could if needed be seen as prototypes for a class of BCs using turrets removed from the R class as they are decommisioned. Also with war firmly on the horizon these ships could be ready before your KGVs and be more than a match for any German or Italian ship then in service prewar. Bismarck and Tirpitz would be ships that might give the BCs pause for thought but provided the BCs were properly designed could be engaged without commiting suicide.

King George the fith, United Kingdom Fast Battleship laid down 1935
Displacement:
31,951 t light; 33,765 t standard; 35,927 t normal; 37,656 t full load
Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(758.04 ft / 754.59 ft) x 91.86 ft x (31.17 / 32.33 ft)
(231.05 m / 230.00 m) x 28.00 m x (9.50 / 9.86 m)
Armament:
6 - 15.00" / 381 mm 45.0 cal guns - 1,701.89lbs / 771.96kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1935 Model
2 x Twin mounts on centreline, forward deck forward
1 raised mount - superfiring
1 x Twin mount on centreline, aft deck aft
Main guns limited to end-on fire
20 - 4.50" / 114 mm 45.0 cal guns - 45.95lbs / 20.84kg shells, 400 per gun
Dual purpose guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1935 Model
6 x Twin mounts on sides, aft deck forward
4 x Twin mounts on sides, forward deck aft
24 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm 45.0 cal guns - 1.97lbs / 0.89kg shells, 1,500 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1935 Model
6 x Twin mounts on sides, aft deck forward
6 raised mounts
6 x Twin mounts on sides, forward deck aft
6 raised mounts
20 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm 45.0 cal guns - 0.25lbs / 0.11kg shells, 150 per gun
Machine guns in deck mounts, 1935 Model
20 x Single mounts on centreline, evenly spread
20 double raised mounts
Weight of broadside 11,183 lbs / 5,072 kg
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 490.49 ft / 149.50 m 11.50 ft / 3.51 m
Ends: 9.00" / 229 mm 264.09 ft / 80.49 m 11.50 ft / 3.51 m
Upper: 8.00" / 203 mm 490.49 ft / 149.50 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length
- Torpedo Bulkhead:
2.00" / 51 mm 490.49 ft / 149.50 m 29.14 ft / 8.88 m
- Hull Bulges:
1.50" / 38 mm 500.00 ft / 152.40 m 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 10.0" / 254 mm 8.00" / 203 mm 10.0" / 254 mm
2nd: 2.00" / 51 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 3.00" / 76 mm
3rd: 0.50" / 13 mm 0.50" / 13 mm -
- Armoured deck - multiple decks: 4.00" / 102 mm For and Aft decks
Forecastle: 3.00" / 76 mm Quarter deck: 3.00" / 76 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 137,265 shp / 102,399 Kw = 31.00 kts
Range 5,000nm at 18.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3,892 tons
Complement:
1,304 - 1,696
Cost:
£13.786 million / $55.143 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,919 tons, 5.3 %
Armour: 13,113 tons, 36.5 %
- Belts: 5,205 tons, 14.5 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,058 tons, 2.9 %
- Bulges: 555 tons, 1.5 %
- Armament: 2,607 tons, 7.3 %
- Armour Deck: 3,688 tons, 10.3 %
Machinery: 3,900 tons, 10.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 11,820 tons, 32.9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,976 tons, 11.1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 1,200 tons, 3.3 %
- Hull below water: 500 tons
- Hull void weights: 300 tons
- Hull above water: 300 tons
- On freeboard deck: 100 tons
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
55,707 lbs / 25,268 Kg = 33.0 x 15.0 " / 381 mm shells or 8.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.03
Metacentric height 4.7 ft / 1.4 m
Roll period: 17.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 95 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 1.49
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.90
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
an extended bulbous bow and large transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.582 / 0.588
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.21 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 31.55 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 54 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 5.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 17.50 %, 39.37 ft / 12.00 m, 39.37 ft / 12.00 m
- Forward deck: 35.00 %, 39.37 ft / 12.00 m, 39.37 ft / 12.00 m
- Aft deck: 30.00 %, 32.81 ft / 10.00 m, 32.81 ft / 10.00 m
- Quarter deck: 17.50 %, 32.81 ft / 10.00 m, 32.81 ft / 10.00 m
- Average freeboard: 36.25 ft / 11.05 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 84.3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 275.7 %
Waterplane Area: 51,937 Square feet or 4,825 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 112 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 142 lbs/sq ft or 694 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.72
- Longitudinal: 2.30
- Overall: 0.81
Caution: Hull subject to strain in open-sea
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

 

[Some Bloke]

6 X 15 inch? That's a bit light for a battleship I think. I think one design proposal called for 9 guns in triple turrets.

 

[sharlin]

Aye they also were planning a new caliber 15 inch gun, not just a repeat of the Mark 1 when the UK went 'Lets go for 14 inchers!'

9 x 15 inch guns would be perfectly fine, 6 is very weak for a battleship, they would be outgunned by any contemporary overseas so that would be a no no.

 

[Astrodragon]

A few points that need to be borne in mind.

The Dido class were NOT intended as AA escorts. End of story. That is why they had the 5.25" guns in the first place. They were built as destroyer leaders, light cruisers, a flagship for RA (destroyers). The 5.25" gun was a compromise - heavy enough to damage an enemy light cruiser or destroyer, but usable as an AA gun. On the small displacement of these ships this was felt more efficient than the traditional 6" surface plus 4" AA guns.

There is no point in building the KGV class with 6x15" rather than 9x15", the savings are not worth losing 1/3 of the striking power.
It also doesnt save much time. Sticking with a single (triple) design for the turret will save 6 months off the construction time, and any further savings by using old turrets are likely to run into the supply of engineering, hull, FC equipment, etc. Given that, best to go for a new, better 15" gun.

By all means save weight by using the DP 4.5" gun (the Dido arguments doesnt come in here); the 4.5" would have been a better anti-destroyer weapon due to its rate of fire. Also save weight by junking the pretty pointless aircraft arrangements (oh, and the fantail arrangement causes all sorts of other problems. Get rid of it completely).

Improvements to the 2-pdr are always good, the treasury may be a problem.

 

[sharlin]

Oh one thing that just struck me, give them a sheer forwards, that flat quarterdeck made them rather poor sea boats.

 

[Simon]

Slight digression but what sort of difference would removing the four seaplanes and associated equipment such as the double ended catapult, the two cranes, fuel tanks etc. make?

 

[sharlin]

Weight saving and space, mainly. The catapult arrangements as well as facilities for aircraft and their equipment took up a load of space and weighed quite a bit when all added together. It could be better used for AA mountings or a bit more armour on the superstructure. Also it removes a fire risk, a hanger could be very flammable if hit and avgas fires are a bastard to put out.

 

[pedmore1202]

Weight saving and space, mainly. The catapult arrangements as well as facilities for aircraft and their equipment took up a load of space and weighed quite a bit when all added together. It could be better used for AA mountings or a bit more armour on the superstructure. Also it removes a fire risk, a hanger could be very flammable if hit and avgas fires are a bastard to put out.

Agreed. Mainly weight saving, but also crew saving (though not much really). However, looking at some plans, the plane area takes up a rather large area, that could easily fit another 2 secondary weapon turrets (one per side) and a multiple pom-pom, or even up to 3 pom-poms (there would have to be a block filling in the centre for the pom-pom to be situated on though, otherwise it wouldn't be very useful - LOS would be blocked by the other pom-poms or by the turrets)

 

[Astrodragon]

Depending on the overall design, taking out the aircraft could also allow the ship to be shorter, reducing the weight of armour for the same protection.

Otherwise, use the space for some additional accomodation (again, this might allow a shortening), and put some light AA on top.

 

[sharlin]

I'd slap another two octuple pom-poms on it or a pair of dual bofors mounts if we're putting them on her.

 

[alfredtuomi]

If I understand it correctly the RN had decided to go for 3x3x15 inch(new design ....reverting to heavy shell/lower velocity????) turrets......and then along came Washington revisited and poof......we get wimpy 14 inchers(ok slightly less bang for the buck).

Now what about a Nelrod markII version with 3x3x16 turrets of new design using heavier shell/lower velocity...and lo...the new turrets fit into the old Nelrods.....now wouldn t that be interesting......ya I know they don t look pretty but who cares......and the pretty teak decks get ripped apart in major engagements(which happen how often)....and why exactly does a battleship need teak decks.