RE improved KGV class.

4.7"/50 Mk XI is a much better gun than all of the other possible DP guns used for the KGV, it has the shell weight of the US 5"/38 with slightly better range, the between decks mount is useful for the classes I mentioned earlier on, and a single mount is needed for the war emergency class destroyers, anything smaller than a O/P class really needs a twin 4".

Like the 14" it was a great gun that needed a much improved mounting, if a good power trained mounting can be made then it's probably the best DD gun in it class during WW2.

Pom Poms, all well and good wishing for more MV, but it's no good having a better weapon coming on stream in 1942/43 when you have already taken the majority of the casualties your are going to take because you didn't have enough AA guns in the first few years of the war, make lots of standard pom poms and then replace them with Bofors as they become available. Long barrelled Mollins Automatic 6pdr as the replacement AA anyone?

One big thing to upgrade on the KGV, skegs, great big enormous over engineered skegs that wont detach when hit by torpedos.
 

NothingNow

Banned
The change to 10 guns was because it was discovered/feared that they would not be fully resistant against 16 inch caliber gunfire, so they trimmed down B turret to a double mounting to free up weight to thicken the belt by an inch as well as adding more to the decks and other internal workings.

And they'd have saved more weight deleting an additional gun, and shrinking all three turrets accordingly.
 

sharlin

Banned
True but then they would have to design a new turret, with the dual turret they just cut a quad in half from a design perspective.
 
It would seem the concensus is 3 triple turrets derived from(and improved upon)the Nelrods.(retrofitting the nelrods with the new turrets/guns would be nice too)As much aa as can be squezzed aboard.No drop in armour.And just barely hanging onto the hanger(cinema).Probably be even more over weight than OTL, so a certain amount of winking and nodding would be required.And we want longer legs.From what I understand the quality of fuel oil was one of the range issues.(new burners greatly reduced consumption)I'm thinking the most expedient way to increase range is by RAS.My sources have the RN's first RAS in 1906 with HMS Victorious towing a tanker!!!!. A flock of 20knot 25,000 ton tankers scattered around the world would do the trick.this would benefit not only the KGV's but all of the fleet......especially the thirsty little destroyers.On a 2800 ton dde we used to need one boiler and 3.5 fires to do 18 knots against 2 boilers and 4.5 fires in each to do 26 knots......fun ride tho.
 
It would seem the concensus is 3 triple turrets derived from(and improved upon)the Nelrods.(retrofitting the nelrods with the new turrets/guns would be nice too)As much aa as can be squezzed aboard.No drop in armour.And just barely hanging onto the hanger(cinema).Probably be even more over weight than OTL, so a certain amount of winking and nodding would be required.And we want longer legs.From what I understand the quality of fuel oil was one of the range issues.(new burners greatly reduced consumption)I'm thinking the most expedient way to increase range is by RAS.My sources have the RN's first RAS in 1906 with HMS Victorious towing a tanker!!!!. A flock of 20knot 25,000 ton tankers scattered around the world would do the trick.this would benefit not only the KGV's but all of the fleet......especially the thirsty little destroyers.On a 2800 ton dde we used to need one boiler and 3.5 fires to do 18 knots against 2 boilers and 4.5 fires in each to do 26 knots......fun ride tho.


It wasn't the RN didnt do RAS, it was just that they used the old, less efficient, astern method.

The RN didnt need much refuelling between the wars, they had plenty of bases.
The engineering design could have included economisers to increase the range, youd have to lie more about the weight though
 

sharlin

Banned
Which was something we was very scrupulious about, heck the Nelrods came in under weight, so did the Ark which was designed under weight and the 'Lusty' armoured carriers and we didn't go 'ooh tonnage..lets add stuff!'
 
I was thinking more inline with fast tankers....one set of machinery and 2 boilers from a tribal would about do on 25000 tons...and yes a more up to date and less weather sensitive refueling.At 20 knots they could pop up in rather handy places and run from any raiders....up to three seaplanes could be carried,limit the guns to AA and a few 4 inchers(anything bigger and the captain might think he's a warship instead of running away), and still be excluded from treaty requirments.a few would have come in handy during the hunts for Bismark and Graf Spee.And given a timely departure from Alexandria it's just barely possible for the Med fleet to rendezvous with the Indian ocean fleet for the Japanese Indian ocean raid......probably with tragic results unfortunately.(according to dk brown they were fibbing:eek: on the weight as designed......so a bit more wouldn't hurt)I'm of the opinion a balanced deisign on 35000 tons 16" guns and close to 30 knots isn t doable....prob not even with 15 inch guns...but then by the time all the new ships were being built Washington/London treaties were just a façade.:confused::confused:
 
The Royal Navy didn't need much refuelling between the wars, they had plenty of bases.
Which was fine until IIRC they got to the Pacific and had awfully short legs compared to similar American ships thanks to both higher fuel usage and less food storage facilities. You could of gotten around that by developing underway replenishment practices but that unfortunately didn't happen.
 

sharlin

Banned
Oh the RN did have underway refueling but they were not that proficient at it. The RN was a LOT more reliant on bases but the USN practically reinvented itself and became amazingly proficient with its fleet train.
 
Oh the RN did have underway refueling but they were not that proficient at it. The RN was a LOT more reliant on bases but the USN practically reinvented itself and became amazingly proficient with its fleet train.

I think it all brings us back to the nemesis of the RN in the interwar years....the dreaded Treasury for pinching the purse strings too tight and the government(s) not thinking through the implications of all the naval treaties.the biggest mistake in my mind is the extension of the capital ship building ban beyond 1931.:confused::confused:
 
Which was fine until IIRC they got to the Pacific and had awfully short legs compared to similar American ships thanks to both higher fuel usage and less food storage facilities. You could of gotten around that by developing underway replenishment practices but that unfortunately didn't happen.

Which isnt really the point. Prewar Britain had no real interests in the Pacific that mandated long ranges. There are lots of negative points involved with giving a ship a longer range. The British ships were designed with the range considered necessary for their intended role.
 
The turrets might well look like the Nelsons, but you will still have the same issues as the quads, because they will not just copy the Nelson turret design because it took more than 5 years to get them working right and the RN were never really happy with them.

Remember they will try to improve the turret design to incorporate the latest technology and development work, and the same issues will come along, if you want any new turret trouble free then let them work up slowly in peace time, not be rushed into service before they can be properly debugged.

The boilers and turbines were simple and rugged designed to be easy to maintain and repair at any station, which was the entire RN engineering ethos upto the early 50s YEAD/YARD series designs, there's an interesting article here about some of the reasons why.

http://thrustvector.wordpress.com/2...steam-turbine-plant-and-engineering-cultures/

Don't underestimate the amount of work the Admiralty did pre-war keeping it's suppliers of heavy plant and weapons as functioning concerns by just the method above while the capital ship building holiday was in place, of allowing the building of slightly out of date but very reliable engineering equipment by the yards just to keep the heavy design and manufacturing industry in business and keep the skilled men in the needed trades. Try and get a copy of G.A.H Gordons British Seapower and Procurement between the Wars to further expand on the fight the Admiralty had to keep heavy Naval engineering alive in the UK between the wars.
 
Last edited:
Which isnt really the point. Prewar Britain had no real interests in the Pacific that mandated long ranges.
Really? I was under the impression that from the start of the 30s that it was Japan who was considered to be the most likely military opponent, up until the Germans started making noises in Europe.
 
Really? I was under the impression that from the start of the 30s that it was Japan who was considered to be the most likely military opponent, up until the Germans started making noises in Europe.

AFAIK that's true (development of Singapore dockyard, main fleet to Singapore etc) but I've always had the impression that it would be a defensive deployment. The fleet wouldn't need to go charging into the Sea of Japan or even the East China Sea, because Japan would be attacking south.
 
Really? I was under the impression that from the start of the 30s that it was Japan who was considered to be the most likely military opponent, up until the Germans started making noises in Europe.

It was, but the RN had no need or desire to go swanning around in the mid-Pacific like the USN.
 
Copying the NelRod triple is a good idea, given the proviso that money and effort is found to fix the issue. These were pretty much known by 1936, and by the war they had them working well. Given the effort, the problems can be fixed for the new design and in the NelRods.

Or they could go for a new design triple, but spend extra money and build a test one early, then keep running it to find (and eliminate) the problems.

The triple would have fewer issues than the quad, the RN was used to deigning and building triples.
 
Copying the NelRod triple is a good idea, given the proviso that money and effort is found to fix the issue. These were pretty much known by 1936, and by the war they had them working well. Given the effort, the problems can be fixed for the new design and in the NelRods.

Or they could go for a new design triple, but spend extra money and build a test one early, then keep running it to find (and eliminate) the problems.

The triple would have fewer issues than the quad, the RN was used to deigning and building triples.

The problem is that they will not copy over a troublesome design that was still giving them some problems, it will be the new shape turret with the modern interlocks and precautions, so it will see the same problems as the quads.

Interesting point about the Nelsons though, maybe a redesigned turret for the Nelsons in the early 30s replacing the disappointing high muzzle velocity 16" with the shiny new 15" Mk2, so the new turret and guns have 8 or 9 years of debugging before the KGVs hulls see action.

Just as an aside, if this is the case is anyone else seeing HMS Warspite, Renown or the other rebuilds with a new twin 15" mounting using Mk2 guns in a KGV style dual turret, might be quicker to make new twin turrets than refurb the old 15"Mk1 guns and turrets.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
I think it all brings us back to the nemesis of the RN in the interwar years....the dreaded Treasury for pinching the purse strings too tight and the government(s) not thinking through the implications of all the naval treaties.the biggest mistake in my mind is the extension of the capital ship building ban beyond 1931.:confused::confused:

The budget limitations were real and cause by serious factors such as the debt from WW1 and the depression. While it is easy to say "spend more on the Navy", this choice means something else has to go such as going off the gold standard. Or higher taxes which might cause civil unrest and could cause governments to fall. And this is the same Navy that had had a mutiny over pay.

If you want to go back in time and help the UK, you would likely cancel even more capital ships if one assume a set military budget. The UK desperately needed more escorts, not more capital ships. Unless you believe Sea Lion was really possible, you don't need the ships to save the British Isles or white dominions. You do need escort ships to protect the merchant ships.

And then we can get to what was really needed. A bigger army.

And wouldn't a carrier or better naval aviation also be a better way to spend funds? It is easy to beat up on Treasury, but it is not he villain. Take you 1931 date. OK say the treasury builds 1 extra BB per year from then to start of WW2, this means less money for RAF, smaller army, smaller escort fleet. How do these BB the Germans from crossing the Marne? How do they stop the U-boats. For that matter, do they really even stop the Japanese carriers if you have 5 more battleships? While an exciting TL, I am not sure a few more battleships by Singapore really saves anything. My guess is a good case scenario is a fight with the main Japanese battleline with heavy landbased naval aviation support. They go to the bottom of the sea.
 
The point of no building ban is to preserve your industrial base so when needed you can produce what is required in a timely fashion.
A 14 year holiday tends to create holes in the industry.
Nowadays we call them economic recovery plans.....etc.
I would think one ship every 3 or even 4 years would do the trick.
the reason why surface ships were not much of a threat in the North Atlantic was because the RN dominated the surface.No battleships would put an end to that,so not building any is out of the question.
And why would an Island nation with a far flung empire want a large army when it couldn.t afford a navy large enough for it's needs.
And unless the UK leadership was following Mckenzie King's lead and consulting his dead mother and dog thru a crystal ball over policy matters it's pretty much ASB to respond to event's that wont happen for another 10 years.
Escorts......not enough r&d into asdic to show it wasn t as good as thought to be.Escorts can be built in months not years ....so whatever takes longer you build first.Escorts don't require vast amounts of armour plate.Escorts don t demand specialized large machinery,etc,etc
And after not building battleships for 14 years intead of 2.5 to 3 years it took 4 to 5 years to build.
 
Top