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

Her condensers were retubed in a minor refit in 1940 before operation catapult. Her max speed was noted as limited to 26 knots before that refit but there's references to her operating at 29 knots after the refit.

I don't believe a deep refit of any sort was a foregone conclusion unless she suffered major battle damage. She did after all spend 2 months in refit in 1941 where new radar sets were fitted. I doubt that would have happened at that time if she was getting a deep refit upon the completion of the first few KGV.

Yeah. The problem is that Hood needs too much work. A proper rebuild will take, what, two years? It's pointless.
 
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.
The same projectiles could be used with no difficulty.
The equipment for boring 15" barrels did already exist. That is a money saver for a very cost-conscious government.
 
The same projectiles could be used with no difficulty.
Indeed, Britain's QF 75mm tank gun was different to the US gun but used the same ammunition. It all depends on what you design the gun to shoot. If you're already geared up to use 15" shells of one design, why would you design another type of 15" gun that needs a completely different supply chain.
 
The same projectiles could be used with no difficulty. The equipment for boring 15" barrels did already exist. That is a money saver for a very cost-conscious government.

Indeed, Britain's QF 75mm tank gun was different to the US gun but used the same ammunition. It all depends on what you design the gun to shoot. If you're already geared up to use 15" shells of one design, why would you design another type of 15" gun that needs a completely different supply chain.
This is what Naval Weapons said about the 15"/45 (38.1 cm) Mark II gun
During 1935 the Director of Naval Construction produced several design studies showing various alternatives for what became the King George V class battleships. One of these, designated 15C, was for a design with nine 15"/45 (38.1 cm) guns in three triple turrets. This design was considered to be one of the best proposals for these ships, but Treaty restrictions prevented the use of guns larger than 14" (35.6 cm). For this reason, work on designs with 15 and 16 inch (38.1 and 40.6 cm) guns was discontinued and only 14 inch (35.6 cm) designs were pursued.

Construction of these new 15" (38.1 cm) guns would not have resembled the older wire-wound 15"/42 (38.1 cm) Mark I. Instead, they would have been of an "all steel" design similar to the 14"/45 (35.6 cm) Mark VII guns actually used on the King George V class. They were to have had a new-gun bore diameter of 14.985 inches (38.06 cm) in order to reduce clearance and thus increase accuracy life with 6crh shells.

Each of these new 15"/45 (38.1 cm) guns would have been about 3 tons (3.1 mt) lighter than the old 15"/42 (38.1 cm) Mark I, even though the new guns were three calibers longer than the old ones. It must be kept in mind that weight reduction was an important consideration for all of the Treaty limited warship designs of the 1920s - 1930s. A weight savings of 27 tons (28 mt) for nine guns, plus the accompanying reduction in ship's structure, would be considered quite significant for that reason.

It is possible that the new 15" (38.1 cm) triple mountings would have had the same interlock and other reliability problems found with the 14" (35.6 cm) mountings actually used on the King George V class battleships, as they shared similar design concepts.

The data that follows is necessarily of a sketchy nature, as little formal design work was done on this weapon and no prototypes were ever produced.
In any case it was the time taken to design and build the gun mountings, not the guns themselves that delayed the KGV class.
 
But they still had to make a decision in 35, after that a change would delay things.....
True. It will help a lot if the decision on the main armament is made as early as possible and then stuck to. Time was of the essence if the ships were to be completed on time, if time is of the essence is the correct expression.

However, that wasn't what my note of caution was about.
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.
It was a new gun, made with new methods. Therefore, the equipment used for making the Mk I gun might not have been capable of making the new Mk II gun. So, the time and money needed for the factories to retool to build the 15" Mk II gun ITTL would be the same as the time and money needed to retool and build the 14" Mk VII IOTL.

However, sticking to the 15" Mk II and it's mounting means that an earlier start can be made on retooling the factories to build the new gun. Hopefully, this is where the time saving would have come from.

Also the 15" Mk II gun had a different bore to the 15" Mk I so they might not be able to use the same ammunition. So no cost reduction there. I hope that I'm proved wrong on this point, but it has to be borne in mind.
 
It seems that the slightly smaller bore for the new 15" was to reduce 'windage' with existing shells, rather than producing new projectiles incompatible with older versions.
 
There were two main reasons for delays.
First, the turret descision. This has been estimated to add 6 months (while the actual time saved would likely have been more, there were other constraints)
Three triple 15" would have been the best choice IMO.
Second was the disruption caused by the war. If KGV and POW were 6 months earlier, they would almost certainly have been rushed to completion to get them out of the way and into service. As it was, they just didn't delay them.
In OTL the later ships were delayed by the need for escorts. This would almost certainly affect the last 2 ships, Anson would depend on how long it would have taken to complete.

Welding would have been nice, but probably unlikely in a BB at this time. What they missed was welding the bottom - its not the saved weight, its a smooth bottom and extra speed.
 
Her condensers were retubed in a minor refit in 1940 before operation catapult. Her max speed was noted as limited to 26 knots before that refit but there's references to her operating at 29 knots after the refit.

I don't believe a deep refit of any sort was a foregone conclusion unless she suffered major battle damage. She did after all spend 2 months in refit in 1941 where new radar sets were fitted. I doubt that would have happened at that time if she was getting a deep refit upon the completion of the first few KGV.

Yes she broke herself (stripped turbine blades) chasing some French ships running after Mers El Kebir

She had a Refit I believe at Davenport which repaired the turbines - which restored her near top speed in time for Denmark Straight
 
Second was the disruption caused by the war. If HMS King George V and HMS Prince of Wales were six months earlier, they would almost certainly have been rushed to completion to get them out of the way and into service. As it was, they just didn't delay them.
How much urgency was there in the original building plans? Adding a second shift is one way to speed things up, but of course only works if they were operating single shifts to begin with.


Deciding on an armament of nine 15-inch guns in triple turrets...
I’d say we see HMS Vanguard before Victory in Europe Day.
Supposing for a moment that due to changes they had gone with 15-inch Mark II main guns and completed all five ships by their planned completion dates would HMS Vanguard be an attractive option as opposed to starting a sixth King George V-class ship? On the one hand HMS Vanguard did have a number of improvements, on the other it would be a step back with one fewer main gun and their being an inferior design. I don't know enough and industrial limitations and competing building priorities to say.
 
Yeah. The problem is that Hood needs too much work. A proper rebuild will take, what, two years? It's pointless.
Yes she broke herself (stripped turbine blades) chasing some French ships running after Mers El Kebir

She had a Refit I believe at Davenport which repaired the turbines - which restored her near top speed in time for Denmark Straight
Hood indeed stripped her turbines chasing Strasbourg. Her refit brought her up to about 29 knots. That's on a 21 year old ship that has another 5,000 extra tons, compared to her original speed of 31 knots. I'd say hats pretty good.
Nonetheless, if I wanted to give Hood a refit I'd delay her midlife refit for whatever reason so she really needs it by 1934 35 and they decide to just go full rebuild instead.
You probably get her out by 1938 or 39.
Torpedo the London Naval Treaty and the ever lengthening Battleship holiday.
This.
I don't really want to just make the thread a duplicate Austere Battleship thread, but let's say someone finds out the Littorios are way bigger and everyone says fuck the battleship ban.
So building starts around 35, where can we go from there?
 

Ian_W

Banned
Torpedo the London Naval Treaty and the ever lengthening Battleship holiday.

That is possible.

But you'd need to outline how that affects other powers, including the butterflies from the Anglo-German Naval Agreement that followed it.

Now, the Navy did get it's share of rearmament money, and that could be wasted - I'm sorry, I meant spent - on new battleships.

But if the London Naval Treaty goes, then what happens in Japan and Washington ?
 
How much urgency was there in the original building plans? Adding a second shift is one way to speed things up, but of course only works if they were operating single shifts to begin with.




Supposing for a moment that due to changes they had gone with 15-inch Mark II main guns and completed all five ships by their planned completion dates would HMS Vanguard be an attractive option as opposed to starting a sixth King George V-class ship? On the one hand HMS Vanguard did have a number of improvements, on the other it would be a step back with one fewer main gun and their being an inferior design. I don't know enough and industrial limitations and competing building priorities to say.

A second shift doesn't necessarily speed things up. Only if you have lots of unused skilled manpower, and no other bottlenecks. Given that the British yards were already building faster than anyone else, and that manpower would have to be stolen from other builds, I cant see it happening.

If they had 5 fast 15" BB's by 40-41, I suspect Vanguard wouldn't have been laid down.
 

MatthewB

Banned
How much urgency was there in the original building plans? Adding a second shift is one way to speed things up, but of course only works if they were operating single shifts to begin with.




Supposing for a moment that due to changes they had gone with 15-inch Mark II main guns and completed all five ships by their planned completion dates would HMS Vanguard be an attractive option as opposed to starting a sixth King George V-class ship? On the one hand HMS Vanguard did have a number of improvements, on the other it would be a step back with one fewer main gun and their being an inferior design. I don't know enough and industrial limitations and competing building priorities to say.
I would have gone the other way around, skipped all five KGV class, and pulled the guns off the Revenge class and made six smaller Vanguards. That would have required the RN to reject the 14” gun size in the WNT.
 
How about going the other way, with the treaty negotiations on going the Admiralty order the modernisation and refurbishment of the four spare 15 inch turrets. The idea being that they can squeas in one more hull early and build a KGV style Hood Replacement without delay the moment the battle ship holiday is over, Just say "yes governor its only eight times 14' guns" and then once she is working up send Hood in for a deep rebuild. If you push it an start building VG on 01/01/37 with everything pre ordered and stock piled you could launch in around 1 months and fit out in the same. Giving a 3 month build cycle (turret fitting etc is a known task) so there are not just design savings but construction/fitting out savings as well. If the RN outright lie and claim she is only 14" guns what is the earliest date she can be started? If you lay down the fifth KGV the moment VG's keel gets wet in mid 1938 on a 40/41 month build cycle then she would be ready around June 1942, which is two months earlier than the last KGV in OTL, Plus Hood comes out of a three year rebuild in June 1941. Borderline ASB but possibly not impossible.
 

SsgtC

Banned
But if the London Naval Treaty goes, then what happens in Japan and Washington ?
Not sure about Japan, probably nothing since they were already planning the Yamato class, but in the US, the North Carolinas probably get designed and laid down from the start as 16" gunned ships. That would give them better armor and would probably result in them looking more like the following South Dakota class. In that they would probably be shorter to save weight and with more installed power to brute force their way to 27 knots
 
How about going the other way, with the treaty negotiations on going the Admiralty order the modernisation and refurbishment of the four spare 15 inch turrets. The idea being that they can squeas in one more hull early and build a KGV style Hood Replacement without delay the moment the battle ship holiday is over, Just say "yes governor its only eight times 14' guns" and then once she is working up send Hood in for a deep rebuild. If you push it an start building VG on 01/01/37 with everything pre ordered and stock piled you could launch in around 1 months and fit out in the same. Giving a 3 month build cycle (turret fitting etc is a known task) so there are not just design savings but construction/fitting out savings as well. If the RN outright lie and claim she is only 14" guns what is the earliest date she can be started? If you lay down the fifth KGV the moment VG's keel gets wet in mid 1938 on a 40/41 month build cycle then she would be ready around June 1942, which is two months earlier than the last KGV in OTL, Plus Hood comes out of a three year rebuild in June 1941. Borderline ASB but possibly not impossible.

reusing the old turrets and guns was considered, but was thought to be 'putting old guns ins a new ship'.
Also, in the late 30's, the armour was a bottleneck, so you wouldn't actually have saved much time.
 
I think the easiest way to get the KGVs commissioned on time is to finalise the design sooner.
Torpedo the London Naval Treaty and the ever lengthening Battleship holiday.
How about going the other way, with the treaty negotiations on going the Admiralty order the modernisation and refurbishment of the four spare 15 inch turrets.
Ok the fastest (post LNT) way, what if RN gets more money (30-37) and does more QE/R&R rebuilds earlier (ie like USN/IJN as soon as LNT is signed!....), they then remember that they have 8 spare turrets and rebuild a couple of them as well as spares......

Once IJN declares on December 29, 1934 they will walk from WNT/2LNT RN wakes up and thinks that it can make a couple of kit battleships in a nice pile ready to go and it can hide this in the estimates from the later rebuilds.........

Come 37 they lay down 2 "KVGs" that are,
35,000t
6x 15" 3xtwin
20x 4.5"
etc

Since they are already based on well understood rebuild technology and the parts have been pre assembled quietly in 35-36 they get built fast from 1 JAN 37 to commissioning in August and September 39........
 
Top