Why couldn’t the Royal Navy build good battleships?

[Richard V]

I’m pretty new at naval history, but I’m quite puzzled why the British were so far behind others in battleship design by WWII. Their best battleship was the George V class that was badly outclassed by the much larger and newer American and Japanese designs. When HMS Vanguard was commissioned in 1946, it was much less powerful than the Bismarck which was built 6 years earlier. It’s guns were the old WWI guns used on the Revenge. Compared to the Bismarck, which was outclassed by the Iowa and Yamato, the Vanguard was inferior in guns, speed, and armor. The only thing in its advantage was modern radars.

It's understandable that the British didn’t build the best tanks of the war, but being left so far behind by all the major naval powers is surprising to me. So what happened?

 

[Derek Pullem]

You seem to have missed out the Hood (arguably a BC), Nelson and Rodney and whole King George V class.

You may want to use some more sources?

 

[Richard V]

You seem to have missed out the Hood (arguably a BC), Nelson and Rodney and whole King George V class.

You may want to use some more sources?

Yes I realized my mistake when I posted, since there is no delete feature I edited my post.

 

[sonofpegasus]

The QE class were not really surpassed until the new builds of the mid to late 1930's.R & N were treaty limited battleships and were considered benchmark ships when they were commissioned. As DP says in his post you can not say in any way that the KGV were that far behind anyone else and if they were that was solely down to political decisions out of the RN's control. Hopefully the OP is making sweeping judgements based on their lack of knowledge and not on bias. I suggest a perusal of the N and G class prepared by the RCNC for the RN prior to the WNT, these were game changing designs at the time. Politics ultimetly determined what the RN fought WWII with.

 

[Cockroach]

So what happened?

The Germans and Japanese blatantly cheated on the treaty system while the Yanks had an additional two years of peace to both get modern designs into service and learn what that could from Britain's experience (all the while not having their industry and infrastructure bombed or having resources redeployed to fixing up damaged merchentmen). The Japanese, like the Americans also enjoyed an extra two years of peace to build modern vessels...

Look at what the Japanese, Germans and Americans had in the water and fully operational in 1939, and the picture is MUCH more in the poms favour...

 

[Hammerbolt]

The Germans and Japanese blatantly cheated on the treaty system while the Yanks had an additional two years of peace to both get modern designs into service and learn what that could from Britain's experience (all the while not having their industry and infrastructure bombed or having resources redeployed to fixing up damaged merchentmen). The Japanese, like the Americans also enjoyed an extra two years of peace to build modern vessels...

Look at what the Japanese, Germans and Americans had in the water and fully operational in 1939, and the picture is MUCH more in the poms favour...

Also, the UK was severely short on cash, during the 1930s...

 

[Derek Pullem]

Also the lessons of the early war (Tarranto, Pearl Harbour) were that building bigger battleships just made bigger targets for the air force. So arguably the RN's relative under-investment in the big battleships was proven to be a wise decision.

 

[Richard V]

The Germans and Japanese blatantly cheated on the treaty system while the Yanks had an additional two years of peace to both get modern designs into service and learn what that could from Britain's experience (all the while not having their industry and infrastructure bombed or having resources redeployed to fixing up damaged merchentmen). The Japanese, like the Americans also enjoyed an extra two years of peace to build modern vessels...

Look at what the Japanese, Germans and Americans had in the water and fully operational in 1939, and the picture is MUCH more in the poms favour...

Yes you’re right King George V was pretty good for its time. The 14 inch guns though seem a bit lacking. Was there a plan to up gun them or was there no money for that?

 

[sonofpegasus]

As per my earlier post the 14 inch guns on the KGV class were a purely political decision. No there was neither the time nor the resources to change the guns. Without political interference it is quite likely that the KGV class would have been built to a design with three triple 15 inch guns of a new design similar to the 14inch used. FWIIW Vanguard was an emergency war design hence the reused turrets.

 

[fourthmaninaboat]

The Revenges were far from the best battleships available to the RN in 1939. They had been left un-modernised during the 1930s, and were in poor condition compared to the rest of the fleet; as a result, they were only used in peripheral or secondary roles, and saw little combat. More capable were the Queen Elizabeths, especially the heavily modernised Warspite, Valiant and Queen Elizabeth. These had thicker deck armour and a heavier dual-purpose secondary battery, making them highly useful ships for the WWII combat environment. The two Nelsons were highly effective ships. Though slow, they were well protected and well armed, and could stand up well to any contemporary design. The King George V class, while arguably undergunned, were still well armoured (their armour was thicker than any other battleship bar Yamato), and were used well during the war. Vanguard was a compromise design, intended as a quicker, cheaper design compared to the Lion class. The Lions would have compared well to the Iowas or Yamatos, but needed a lot of expensive R&D work to produce their guns, while British industry was struggling to produce the turrets needed for them and the KGVs. Using already existing guns and turrets allowed for a much quicker production cycle. Compared to Bismarck, Vanguard was more heavily armoured (a 14in belt and 6in deck against a 12.6in belt and 4.7in deck, with the British ship using superior steel and a more effective layout) and had a better secondary and light AA armament, in addition to Vanguard's better radar and fire control fit. D K Brown considered that Vanguard would stand up well to an Iowa - while Vanguard was more lightly armed and slower, she could stand up well to the 16in fire of the Iowa, while the comparatively lightly armoured Iowa would struggle.

Britain did have trouble producing battleships in the 1930s; this was down to the effects of the naval treaties, and to the decimation of the British armaments and shipyard industries that resulted from the naval cuts of the 1920s, and the Great Depression. The Washington Treaty ensured that the RN could not replace many of its older battleships with ships comparable to those built by the IJN and USN in the late 1910s. The First London Treaty continued the battleship building holiday, but the Second had a greater effect; to try and get everyone onside, the KGVs were kept to 14in guns. Unfortunately, everyone else cheated (or bent the terms of the treaty as far as they would go). Following WWI, the British government enacted major naval cuts; these were extended by the naval treaties. The treaties meant comparatively few new warships were built, while the cuts meant that ships could not be modernised. Between them, they destroyed the naval armaments industry in the UK. In 1919, Britain had 12 major naval armaments companies. By 1933, eleven of these had gone out of business. The shipbuilding industry survived the cuts somewhat better thanks to their ability to turn to the civilian market; unfortunately, the Great Depression removed this fallback. This reduced the number of slipways available for naval construction by just under 50%. The British government failed to effectively support either industry through spending. Had these industries survived better, then the Lions would likely have been built in a much shorter time, and there would have been no need to fall back on Vanguard.

 

[Dorknought]

It's understandable that the British didn’t build the best tanks of the war

Why? The Centurion was pretty good in May 1945.

 

[Dorknought]

The 14 inch guns though seem a bit lacking. Was there a plan to up gun them or was there no money for that?

The guns were limited by treaty. The US had the time to go to 16", the Europeans settled on 15" and the Japanese had no intention of remaining within the treaty. To find a more politically distorted design you'd have to turn to the Scharnhorst.

 

[SsgtC]

This really isn't true. Look I'm as a big a fan of American battleships as anyone on this board. And even I have to admit that the KGV class were at the very least the equal to the American North Carolina and South Dakota classes. And in many ways, superior to them. The American ships really only surpassed KGV in terms of their main armament and range. The KGVs were far better armored and faster than the American ships and by all accounts were better sea boats. The Iowa class are the only American battleships I would consider to truly outclass the KGVs.

As for Vanguard, saying she was less powerful than Bismark is frankly silly. They both mounted 8x15" guns. But the guns on Vanguard (the 15"/42) were considered to be some of the finest guns to ever put to sea. It wasn't until the development of the American 2,700 pound "Super Heavy" APC shell that they were truly surpassed. Until then, they were comparable to the 2,200 pound shells fired by existing 16" guns.

 

[Dorknought]

It’s guns were the old WWI guns used on the Revenge.

The Iowa's were going to reuse the 16"/50s in storage from the cancelled 1916 program but the ordnance bureau didn't talk to te design bureau and the guns were not going to fit the turrets so new 16"/50 were quickly designed and built - oops.

 

[weasel_airlift]

The guns were limited by treaty. The US had the time to go to 16", the Europeans settled on 15" and the Japanese had no intention of remaining within the treaty. To find a more politically distorted design you'd have to turn to the Scharnhorst.

This. The US designed the North Carolina from the outset to be able to be upgunned. She would have otherwise had quad 14" guns. Comparing KGV to cheaters isn't really fair, and the US quite frankly had buckets of money to throw to help improve ships. Things are always a compromise, though. The US needed range, and sacrificed some protection to get that. The KGV had superb armor, though it was at the expense of range, and to an extent, guns.

 

[Hood]

I’m pretty new at naval history, but I’m quite puzzled why the British were so far behind others in battleship design by WWII. Their best battleship was the George V class that was badly outclassed by the much larger and newer American and Japanese designs. When HMS Vanguard was commissioned in 1946, it was much less powerful than the Bismarck which was built 6 years earlier. It’s guns were the old WWI guns used on the Revenge. Compared to the Bismarck, which was outclassed by the Iowa and Yamato, the Vanguard was inferior in guns, speed, and armor. The only thing in its advantage was modern radars.

It's understandable that the British didn’t build the best tanks of the war, but being left so far behind by all the major naval powers is surprising to me. So what happened?

Nothing. For the situation GB had been postwar it built some brilliant warships.
the Nelson's were extremely powerful battleships, well armoured too. and their poor gun performance is overstated regularly. The KGV was a treaty battleship, while both Iowa and Yamato were not. And yet the KGV's were still very good battleships compared to them. They had the best armour of any treaty battleship, or indeed any battleship par Yamato, which was almost twice the tonnage. They've thicker armour than the NC's and the Sodaks, and their guns were more than capable of doing what they were required. (PoW was green when sent with Hood to intercept Bismarck). And indeed, the KGV's were the only class that proved time and time again that they could fight enemy battleships. Even PoW managed to mission kill Bismarck, despite her problems.

Vanguard was meant as a quick fix, to get more battleships online before the Lions. Obviously that wasn't how it turned out, but the resulting battleship was arguably the best built from War experience. very fast, very well armoured and powerful,despite her old guns, she would've kicked the shit out of Bismarck.
Hood herself was the best WW1 era battleship Britain had. When compared to ships of the interwar period she doesn't fair as well, but she doesn't fair badly either. She had the same belt thickness as the American interwar BB's and better speed than most, although this did decrease slightly over time. had she gotten her refit, she would've pretty much been a Vanguard with 2" less armour all round. 4 Hood's would've been one hell of a headache for any German or Italian admiral.
The QE's were very good battleships when compared to ships of similar age. Well armoured and armed, and not that slow either, they were some of the most useful battleships of both world wars. Warspite's service alone is good proof.
The R's were a cheaper QE. They did there job in WW1 and their lives were'nt meant to go much further than that. Without WNT they would've been replaced, likely by Treaty Vanguard's, which would've been very useful.

 

[Dorknought]

The KGV, built in British yards were very affordable at about £8m each vs £14m for a South Dakota or Yamato.

 

[SsgtC]

The Iowa's were going to reuse the 16"/50s in storage from the cancelled 1916 program but the ordnance bureau didn't talk to te design bureau and the guns were not going to fit the turrets so new 16"/50 were quickly designed and built - oops.

This is the definition of a happy accident. Seeing as the 16"/50 that the Iowas carried has proven itself to be possibly the best battleship gun ever built.

 

[Dorknought]

The big divider in all this is electronics. If you have a ship that has a long range hit rate of 1% and fancy radar and fire control lifts this to 2% then you have a 100% increase in effectiveness and doubled your battleship investment. USS West Virginia, a 1916 design, in 1944 tracked an enemy battleship at 42,000 yards, developed a firing solution at 30,000 yards and hit with its first salvo at 22,800 yards - in the dark.

 

[steamboy]

Well first this just seems like bait. But i'll bite

The KGV's had superior armour layout to anything afloat save the Yamato class, and, before you say "But the Prince of Wales...", any ship afloat would have been crippled by the hit that did her in. because no amount of design can counter the huge rotating mass of a propeller munching into the hull plating.

Yes the 14-inch guns seem a bit lack lustre, and again "Prince of Wales!" but ask the survivors of the Scharnhorst or Bismarck (if there are any left alive) how well their ships held up against 14-inch gunfire, the DoY had stoppages and jams but then again so did nearly every ship in combat, at the Battle of Surago straight the USN's battleships that were kicking seven shades of shit out of the Yamashiro (or was it Fuso, can't remember) that they had a number of jams, stoppages and faults in their gun turrets too.

The KGVs were a class that was always constrained by compromise and money, the treaties the UK had signed up to said "No bigger than 35k tons" and "No building for 10 years" the RN wanted to get a ship in the water as fast as possible as they were able to see the way winds were blowing in Europe with the rise of Hitler and friends. And they couldn't wait to see what the treaty said about battleship sizes and gun sizes without causing a rather long delay. So they went ahead and built a ship in accordance with the treaties of the time. They built a 35k ship with 14-inch guns, like anyone else who was allowed to was meant to do. And of course which everyone else either lied or cheated about about (italy/Germany) invoked escalator clauses after seeing that other countries either said fuck this or were cheating (France, USA), or just didn't bother their arse turning up (Japan). And the UK was then stuck, to order new guns (IE the 15-inch Mk2 and design the turrets for them) would have imposed a delay that was unacceptable as war was brewing and they needed the new ships IMMEDIATELY if not sooner.

So the KGV's were built with 14-inch guns but they were designed from the get-go to be armoured against 16-inch gunfire, and they were. The KGV's had a superb armour layout that was superior to the US, Italian and German designs. Also the 14-inch MkII wasn't a bad gun. It was accurate and had a very large bursting charge for a shell its size, meaning when it did go off it had a bang that was roughly equal to a 15-inch shell.

Yes there was some dumb design requirements, like the ability for A turret to fire over the bow at zero elevation, but the KGV's were still very good sea boats despite them taking a lot of water over the bow. And the UK/RN always had issues with boilers, they preferred heavier, reliable units that were not as efficient and required a lot of cleaning over the ligher but more maintenance intensive setup's used by the USN. And the Germans had absolute maintenance nightmares with their high pressure plants whilst Italian ships were built light and lacked the protection of other nations ships to get their speed.

Re the Guards Van vs Iowa

The Iowa sacrificed a LOT to get her speed, she had very weak torpedo protection that even alarmed the USN and was a point of concern, and an even more alarming concern when the USN was reactivating the Iowas in the Cold War as the class was hugely vulnerable to torpedoes. Also she 'only' had a 12-inch thick belt vs Vanguards 14-inch thick belt and the Vanguard used an armour layout that was an improved version of the KGV's. There was concerns about the Iowa's very long bow section being vulnerable to heavy gunfire as well, she was so long because to get that speed she had to be long and narrow, which meant the USN really had to chop back on her torpedo protection. Speeds not that different 31 vs 33 knots, the Iowas could in theory do 35 knots but this is if they were VERY light (IE not carrying a full load of fuel and ammo aboard, or even some of the crew).

The Iowa had the advantage of a superb 16-inch gun with a very very heavy shell, probably one of the finest weapon systems ever mounted on a Battleship. But the Vanguard's 15-inchers were not bad. Again, ask any Italian Warship crew who's ship got slapped by a 15-inch shell if those 'old' guns were useless, or the crew of the Scharnhorst and Gnisenau who were both hit by 15-inch rounds. The 15-inch Mk1 is one of the best battleship guns ever put to sea, long life, accurate with a heavy shell. The Vanguard was also a superb sea boat, far superior to the Iowas, during a NATO exercise where an Iowa and the Vanguard were sailing together a storm hit them and the Iowa had to drop speed to avoid storm damage, the Vanguard kept tanking along without issue.

If it ever came to a punch up between the Iowa and the Vanguard then it would probably come down to who got the first solid hit.