What if the King George V Class (1939) were completed as originally scheduled?


Saw that after I had responded ;)

I understand that the delays to the carriers were due to Guards van using up the then limited armor making facilities as well as other competing demands on ship building facilities (directors were another thing that there was never enough of)

So perhaps with 3 worked up KGVs in an analogous Denmark straights clash - Hood is given less onerous duties and survives - meaning that a Vanguard is not even needed and is never laid down

The competing demands on armor etc. are less and the Carriers are not delayed as much as OTL
 
Does this mean significantly fewer antisubmarine escorts, since much of the delays were a result of priorities shifting to those?
No they all got built pre 1 JAN 37 when they where clearly legal as just under 20Kn is fine..... (well who would have through that RN engines can later run at 150% overload...) ;)
 
This was originally Post 46 on the AHQ KGV class with 9x15" guns thread - Date 3rd March 2019

There is a copy of Anthony Preston's Battleships 1856-1977 on The Internet Archive.

This is the whole passage on the design of the King George V class from Pages 80 and 81.

The British Rearmament Programme

As early as 1934 the British Government realised that a war with either Germany or Japan and possibly both was likely by 1941, with Italy thrown in to lengthen the odds. What disturbed the Admiralty was the fact that the Royal Navy was considerably under-strength for such a struggle. Although nominally still the largest in the world, the RN had a large proportion of elderly capital ships, the majority of which would be unfit to fight their opposite numbers. It must be remembered that the aircraft carrier had not yet developed its full potential, and no major navy dared think of countering battleships with anything but its own battle fleet.

The leading naval powers were anxious to continue the limitations enshrined in the treaties, but not at the cost of their fighting efficiency. The London Naval Treaty was due to expire in December 1936, and a new conference was due to be convened to discuss how to continue the limitations of the world's fleets. With a view to rectifying what they saw was a serious weakness in the Royal Navy's strength, the Admiralty advised the Cabinet in May 1934 that the new naval treaty must allow Great Britain to build new battleships. The Admiralty was particularly anxious that they must be laid down as soon as the treaty expired, even if the new agreement reduced the permitted displacement and armament.

Design studies for new capital ships had begun in the spring of 1933 to allow the British delegates to have clear objectives at the 1935 conference, just as they had at Washington. Armour protection was given top priority, as it was recognised that even if the conference agreed to reduce the gun calibre the new ships would still have to face opponents with 15-in and 16-in guns for some years. Air attacks with bombs up to 2,000lb weight were taken into account. Speed was to be no more than 23 knots, the same as foreign battleships and the Nelson class. The decisive battle range was held to be 12,000-16,000 yards; it was felt that although high speed (30 knots) would permit action at greater distances, experience showed that destruction of an enemy battleship would only take place as shorter ranges.

The question of speed vexed the designers of what had now been labelled the "1937 Capital Ships". The 1935 conference led to the Three-Power Treaty among Great Britain, the USA and France. But the French, with an eye on Italy, would not renounce their right to build 35,000 ton ships with 15-in guns. The battle-cruiser Dunkerque and Strasbourg were also fast, as were the German replies to them, the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. Gun calibre was also the subject of violent changes of policy. At the conference in 1935 the British were still pressing for a reduction to 12-in guns for battleships, although the Americans wanted to retain the 16-in, while the French and Italians had secreatly already committed themselves to 15-in guns for their new ships. But the British remained optimistic about the reduction to 14-in calibre, and won the Americans round. As naval guns and their massive mountings take a long time to design and even longer to build, the guns had to be ordered before the end of 1935 if the first two battleships were to be ready in 1940.

The result was that in October 1935, two months before the convening of the London Naval Conference, the Board of Admiralty recommended that the new capital ships should be 35,000-ton, 28-knot ships armed with twelve 14-inch guns. The United States insisted on a clause to allow 16-in guns to be reinstated if the Japanese refused to accept the treaty terms by April 1937. In the event this happened, and so Great Britain ended up as the only country to build 14-in gunned battleships. This was the core of most of the criticism levelled at these ships, although experience during the Second World War was to indicate that the theoretically greater range and hitting power of the 14-inch and 16-inch made little difference in action. But in 1935 the British designers felt that to compensate for the lighter shell they should increase the number of guns from eight or nine to 12 in three quadruple mountings, a solution adopted by the Americans in their 14-in design.

As work on the new ships progressed several radically novel features were incorporated. A new 5.25-in surface/anti-aircraft gun mounting was adopted for the battleships in place of the planned 4.5-in gun; this was the first example of a dual-purpose armament. The thick horizontal armour against plunging shells and bombs was raised from the middle deck to the main deck to improve stability if the ship was damaged and to reduce the volume of structure vulnerable to semi-armour-piercing (SAP) bombs. The original requirement for six aircraft had been altered, but now provision was to be made for two aircraft hangars in the superstructure, the first time this had been done in any battleships. The underwater protection system which had proven such an important feature of the Nelson class was retained in a much improved form.

In February 1936 a provisional programme was drawn up for the two ships. It is quoted below to give some idea of the time-scale for building battleships, and the actual completion dates are given for comparison.

upload_2019-6-17_17-46-41.jpg

It can be seen clearly from this table that the main source of delay was the armament. The guns themselves presented no problems, unlike the turrets. Three quadruple turrets had been stipulated to achieve the maximum weight of broadside, although for a time designers toyed with the idea of nine 14-inch guns in three triple mountings. Finally it was decided to alter the number of guns to ten by substituting a twin mounting for one of the quads to save weight. As time was to show this sudden change can only be described as capricious. With hindsight it is clear that nine 14-inch would have been nearly as good as twelve, for the simple reason that a triple turret was roomier and easier to work than a quadruple one. But either arrangement was preferable to incurring further delay while a new twin 14-in turret was designed. In any case the design of the new turrets proved more complex than the Director of Naval Construction had envisaged, and the quadruple turrets were eleven months late because of a shortage of draughtsmen.

The first two ships were the King George V, ordered from Vickers-Armstrongs, Barrow, and the Prince of Wales from Cammell Laird, Birkenhead. The Board of Admiralty wanted to go to a 16-in gunned design to match the ships which it believed the Japanese were building, but to save further delay the next three battleships authorised under the 1937 programme were repeats of the King George V. Despite all the delays was still hoped to have the first ship at sea in September 1940 and the others in 1941, and King George V began her trials in October 1940. During the crisis at the time of Dunkirk, work on the last two ― Anson and Howe ― was stopped, but only for a few months; they joined the fleet in 1942.
Here's an enlarged version of the table.

Battleships 1856-1977.png
 

MatthewB

Banned
Of course, is any government procurement EVER completed as scheduled? Aren't we asking for a miracle here?
 
This is expanding into a discussion of what if more British warships were completed on time thread, which I think is fair enough because if the UK had been able to complete the KGV class on time it is likely that it would have been able to complete the aircraft carriers, cruisers and destroyers ordered in the last half of the 1930s on time too.

IOTL 9 battleships and 6 aircraft carriers were ordered in the 4 financial years from 1936-37 to 1939-40 as follows...

Battleships and Aircraft Carriers Ordered 1936-39 Mk 2.png

The estimated building time of a battleship was 3.5 years from laying down and it was 3 years from laying down for an aircraft carrier.

I don't know what the planned laying down dates were for Conqueror or Thunderer. However, I have "guesstimated" Conqueror as one month after Duke of York was launched and Thunderer as one month after Howe was launched.
 
This makes me ask how long did the twin (assuming that's the 3rd turret?) slow the building?

What date could you get for the KVGs if they simply accept 8x 14" in two quads?
I don't know. However, in the penultimate paragraph of the quote from Battleships 1856-1977, Preston wrote.
In any case the design of the new turrets proved more complex than the Director of Naval Construction had envisaged, and the quadruple turrets were eleven months late because of a shortage of draughtsmen.
 
I don't know. However, in the penultimate paragraph of the quote from Battleships 1856-1977, Preston wrote."In any case the design of the new turrets proved more complex than the Director of Naval Construction had envisaged, and the quadruple turrets were eleven months late because of a shortage of draughtsmen."
My (potentially faulty?) understanding was that the twin was even later as it was only ordered after they decided they needed to drop down from 12 to 10 guns to reduce weight and that the twin was basically quickly (ish) designed by halving a quad (not the other way round) if so it would be a later delay added to the existing late quads?
 
My (potentially faulty?) understanding was that the twin was even later as it was only ordered after they decided they needed to drop down from 12 to 10 guns to reduce weight and that the twin was basically quickly (ish) designed by halving a quad (not the other way round) if so it would be a later delay added to the existing late quads?
That's more or less my understanding too.

Preston also said that nine 14" in three triple turrets was considered as an alternative to two quads and one twin and his opinion was that nine guns would have been nearly as goods as twelve.

Therefore part of the POD might be that the naval powers that be decided on nine 14" in three triple turrets instead of twelve 14" in three quadruple turrets to begin with.
 
Preston also said that nine 14" in three triple turrets was considered as an alternative to two quads and one twin and his opinion was that nine guns would have been nearly as goods as twelve.

Therefore part of the POD might be that the naval powers that be decided on nine 14" in three triple turrets instead of twelve 14" in three quadruple turrets to begin with.
So what if they decide to do a few creative weight calculations and stick with the original 3 quad turrets?
Yes but with OTL situation I think a 8 guns rush job is potentially less of a diversion and would be IMO perfectly sufficient....

Since the RN was limited by the number of turrets they could build would accepting two quads get them to sea earlier and by how much?
 
So what if they decide to do a few creative weight calculations and stick with the original 3 quad turrets?
Or stick to nine 15" in three triple turrets?

Or use high pressure steam boilers?

Or have a welded instead of riveted hull?

Or have a lighter electrical system? AFAIK USN electrical equipment was lighter than RN electrical equipment. Also switching from DC to AC in the 1930s would make it easier to modernise the surviving ships in the 1950s and 1960s.

All of the above would produce a better ship on the displacement, but wouldn't reduce the building time. Introducing more new technology is likely to increase the building time and "teething problems" after they are finally commissioned.
 
Deciding on an armament of 9 15" guns in triple turrets would have saved time, because the equipment for producing 15" barrels already existed. Not to mention cost savings seeing as how the heavier shell design for the Warspite already existed.
 
Yes but with OTL situation I think a 8 guns rush job is potentially less of a diversion and would be IMO perfectly sufficient....

Since the RN was limited by the number of turrets they could build would accepting two quads get them to sea earlier and by how much?
A British Richelieu? So 5 ships with 2 turrets = 10 in all, instead of 5 with 3 = 15. If the limiting factor was the number of gun pits, that's interesting.
 
Deciding on an armament of 9 15" guns in triple turrets would have saved time, because the equipment for producing 15" barrels already existed. Not to mention cost savings seeing as how the heavier shell design for the Warspite already existed.
The new 15" gun wasn't the same as the existing gun so the ammunition was probably not compatible. It's a repeat of the 4.5" gun.

Unfortunately the problem wasn't the gun making capacity, it was the time required to design and manufacture the mountings.
 
As nobody has suggested it so far another option is the Treaty Vanguard with the OTL King George V and Prince of Wales using the turrets from Courageous, Glorious and the monitors.

The three 1937-38 Programme ships would be fitted with new twin 15" turrets, which would be updated version of the Mk II fitted to Hood.

@Cryhavoc101 has suggested something similar in his Austere class battleships thread.
 
Of course, is any government procurement EVER completed as scheduled? Aren't we asking for a miracle here?
Most of the ships ordered up to and including the 1935-36 Navy Estimates were built in a reasonable length of time. It was the 1936-37 Navy Estimates onwards when the building times began to become "elongated".

This table gives us a clue to the cause.

RN Warships ORdered 1922-39 Mk 2.png

Notes
  1. It only includes ships built in British yards, so it does not include the first 2 Tribals ordered from Australian yards and the 4 Grimsby class sloops ordered from Australian yards.
  2. It does not include ships ordered in the War Emergency Programme.
  3. It does not include the first 56 Flower class corvettes which were in supplementary estimates.
  4. It does not include the 2 A class destroyers built in the UK for the RCN or the 4 Tribal class destroyers built in the UK for the RCN.
  5. It does include the 2 O class submarines and 2 County class cruisers ordered by the RAN.
  6. It does include 4 sloops ordered by the RIN.
  7. Minor War Vessels are escort destroyers (the first 20 Hunt class), sloops, the Kingfisher class patrol vessels and fleet minesweepers (Halcyon and first 20 Bangor classes)
 
Top