Re: Serious design flaws in King George V class Battleships?
Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2016 4:25 am
Montana (and CV Midway with the same arrangement) was completely different from the preceding fast battleships, with much greater subdivision.
Warships, naval battles, technology, weapons, navies of all eras, modeling, etc.
http://kbismarck.org/forum/
The engineering spaces were smaller in Montana/Midway, and there were multiple longitudinal bulkheads, not just one on the centerline. The lower level of the ships featured much greater subdivision. Also, the outboard shafts went to the aft engine rooms, so there weren't any long outboard shaft runs. The inboard shafts went down the center of the ship through a special subdivided shaft alley.Maciej wrote:Yes. And Montana had numerous longitudinal bulkheads. So if those bulkheads were so bad and flawed, what we should think about that design?
Or those bulkheads in reality were not so bad?
I think reason was different.This isn't my idea, you know. The USN decided, presumably from testing, that they didn't want large engineering spaces running all the way across the ship, only divided by center line bulkheads. You obviously think they were wrong.
You must read different posts than I do. Every country has it's fans. I admit that for a number of years after WWII most of the internet posters were from the USA and anything US was automatically better. I don't think that is true anymore, at least for people who have actually done some studying of the subject.Maciej wrote: And mostly British ships are described as a peace of conservatic junk full of flaws. Virtually everyone else made better ships.
How it is possible? And what is difference between "paper" and "real" fighting capabilities?
... Compare then Lion with Iowa and with H-39 and see what you get.Maciej wrote:
But comparing KGV to Iowa is as fair as comparing Texas, or Arizona to Hood.
Compare class to class designed more or less the same time and see what really happened.
Who had the least amount of installed electrical power on their battleships, of all contemporary (post-1935 builds) existing battleships ?Maciej wrote:
Electric power was used extensively on British ships build for export. But electricity was problematic in heavy seas. Electric equipment “don’t like to be showered by salt water” ( I’m thinking about 100+ years ago times, not modern equipment! ), so on won ships hydraulic power totally insensitive to such water was used.
Yes.And mostly British ships are described as a peace of conservatic junk full of flaws. Virtually everyone else made better ships.
How it is possible? And what is difference between "paper" and "real" fighting capabilities?
And I have Lions.alecsandros wrote:... Compare then Lion with Iowa and with H-39 and see what you get.Maciej wrote:
But comparing KGV to Iowa is as fair as comparing Texas, or Arizona to Hood.
Compare class to class designed more or less the same time and see what really happened.
Electric power is instaled not for reasons of „impress” and show „how many electic we can produce”, but to fulfil requirements.alecsandros wrote:Who had the least amount of installed electrical power on their battleships, of all contemporary (post-1935 builds) existing battleships ?Maciej wrote:
Electric power was used extensively on British ships build for export. But electricity was problematic in heavy seas. Electric equipment “don’t like to be showered by salt water” ( I’m thinking about 100+ years ago times, not modern equipment! ), so on won ships hydraulic power totally insensitive to such water was used.
oh yes, China is really biger. As we can see on this picture. Now I get it, and fully agree. About everything.Yes.And mostly British ships are described as a peace of conservatic junk full of flaws. Virtually everyone else made better ships.
How it is possible? And what is difference between "paper" and "real" fighting capabilities?
Why is China bigger then Russia ?
... If muzzle velocity is that stated on Navweapons, then the 16"/L45 MkII had the slowest m.v. of the ships enumerated - so it is impossible to have more penetrating power , at least in vertical armor attacks. IN horizontal armor - yes.Maciej wrote:
Strongest main battery (largest bursting charge, and if FaceHD is right – strongest penetrating power of vertical armour )
No, Lion had 16 x 133mm guns, versus Iowa 20x127mm guns and H-39 12x150mm guns and 16x105mm guns.Middle of power secondary guns against surface targets
... When Lion was (still) in design-phse, in 1943, Iowa was already in operations... Lion was stretched for many years on design...Strognest light AA guns ( Iowa was designed with 12x28 only, we compare design or final configuration? )
... Most sources give 28kts for Lion, 32kts for Iowa and 30kts for H-39.The same speed as rest ( or slower than Iowa – depends which version we take
Lion had the same armor citadel as KGV had... It is at least dubious to say it was "best", in comparison with H-39 (80+120mm armored decks, 300+150mm+45mm vertical protection) and Iowa (total >200mm of armored decks, but in more layers, and vertical armor 37+310mm declined at 19*).Best armour of citadel.
Again, dubious.Best torpedo protection.
Conclusions - you are skim-reading through the sources to offer you clues in the direction of your thinking...So what conclusions?
Exactly. Reserve power capacities is key when main power is ... lost.Maciej wrote:
Electric power is instaled not for reasons of „impress” and show „how many electic we can produce”, but to fulfil requirements.
Strongest power receivers on battleships were main battery turrets. They were electrically powered on most WWII battleships ( except British and Japan ), so large amount of electric power was required to power them.
With requirements of 50 to 100% reserve ( depends on navy ), it still increases required electric power. Remove those turrets from electric requirements, and You have something like KGV power generators. Simply no more power needed.
Ducnan, re above,dunmunro wrote:One of the things that I keep overlooking was the damage to the ship's side from the 1100lb bomb hit. Apparently this hit burst on the MAD and splinters blew numerous holes in the ship's port side. It may have been this flooding that caused PoW to capsize to port (Which was also thought likely by the 2009 paper).
Kev D wrote:Ducnan, re above,dunmunro wrote:One of the things that I keep overlooking was the damage to the ship's side from the 1100lb bomb hit. Apparently this hit burst on the MAD and splinters blew numerous holes in the ship's port side. It may have been this flooding that caused PoW to capsize to port (Which was also thought likely by the 2009 paper).
If I am not mistaken, the bomb penetrated the upper deck and burst on the main deck, no(?), which if I am again not mistaken is well above the waterline, so any purported 'hull holes' from that explosion would have had negligible effect (if they exist that is), until very, very, very, repeat very late in the game.
Now re what I underlined. I and my group or surveyors are completely unaware of, or should I say that there is no physical evidence whatsoever to support the assumption that that bomb caused any holes in the hull below the waterline (where it counts!); i.e. the part of the port hull that can still be seen on the wreck, as above the waterline is now (or was during our survey) covered by built up sand So maybe the bomb did, or maybe it didn't, cause some splinter damage to upper hull, 'cause we didn't find any holes whatsoever along that port hull belwo the waterline that could be directly related to the bomb that actually hit the ship / penetrated the deck and exploded internally. (As for exterior damage from near misses, well that might be another story.)
Now, as to postulating that three stbd torps may have been or all were 'shallow runners', I think the attached schematic from our survey should dispel that erroneous belief and show that the only hit that can be classed as 'high / shallow' is stbd aft, and that because she was already so very low in the water, while the other two are fairly consistent with hitting a ship already settling lower in the water forward than it 'should normally be' i.e. along its fore / aft axis.
NOTE. Black dots the actually hits, white dot the reported / previously historically accepted hit that is simply not there.