KGv class with different guns

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: KGv class with different guns

Post by lwd »

Dave Saxton wrote:And what was your point?
Bgile used the term (which I don't think I would have used by the way) in a discussion concerning the protected areas of different battleships. The import was Bismarcks upper belt adds little to that vs battleship caliber shells.
Dave Saxton wrote:
lwd wrote:For some reason I thought it a convoy. Thanks for the correction. In any case Renown achieved her mission of covering the mine layers. When the twins attacked it implies that they were attempting to counter that action in this they failed. Thus Renown was the tactical victor. Other criteria could be used (such as "holding the field" or inflicted most damage) in most if not all Renown would stil be considered as winning at least a minor tactical victory.
How did they fail to cover the German invasion forces?
Covering the invasion forces was a higher level mission. They were on a scouting mission at the time of the engagement and were forced to retire. I.e. mission aborted and what's more they did so after recieving more damage than they gave out.
Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 919
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Bis Immunezone for parts above the Panzerdeck

Post by Thorsten Wahl »

the german protection approach is differentiating between vital and non essential parts for impacts of main battleship caliber shells.
in a technical sense ther is almost no IZ for parts above the panzerdeck but probably an IZ of 0-30 km for parts below the panzerdeck.

The vital parts like machinery and ammunition are situated within the citadel and are protected by the spaced array to keep survivor capacity against gunfire .
They hope to leave a slugfest with a functioning machinery if necessary.

But the reality show that other circumstances as a artillery duell became a more deadly risk for a lone warship on a looting tour in hostile waters.
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: KGv class with different guns

Post by Dave Saxton »

lwd wrote:
Dave Saxton wrote:And what was your point?
Bgile used the term (which I don't think I would have used by the way) in a discussion concerning the protected areas of different battleships. The import was Bismarcks upper belt adds little to that vs battleship caliber shells..
Why is this point of suppossed import applicable to a protection system better described above by Thorsten? Looks to be non applicable.
Covering the invasion forces was a higher level mission. They were on a scouting mission at the time of the engagement.
Really? So Luetjens aborted his higher level mission to go "scouting" instead of leading away from the German invasion forces and invasion ports such serious threats as an enemy battle group? :think:
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: KGv class with different guns

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Dave:

Really? So Luetjens aborted his higher level mission to go "scouting" instead of leading away from the German invasion forces and invasion ports such serious threats as an enemy battle group?
:D

It is because lwd make the argument change in order to suit him. Obviosly the invasion was the strategic goal of the Germans and any scouting goes peripherical in order to secure that invasion. Of course, if we reverse the sides here then lwd will state that the invasion is the important thing and the other activities are "irrelevant" as he brands everybody else.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: KGv class with different guns

Post by RF »

Gary wrote:KGV enjoyed good armour protection.
A heavier main battery would of course been welcomed but I dont suppose Bismarck would have sank any better or that North Cape would have been changed much
Bringing the discussion back to the title of the thread - if I may - a heavier armament on a KGV would have upset the weight restrictions on the ship the RN sought to comply with.

What realistic alternative armament is proposed given the weight restrictions?
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: KGv class with different guns

Post by alecsandros »

Hi RF,
The Admiralty had several options in 1935, the most important of which were:
desgin 14A : 12x356mm guns, 12.75inch belt, 40.000t full load, 110.000shp
design 15A : 9x381mm guns, 12.26inch belt, 40.000t full load, 110.000shp
design 16A: 9x406mm guns, 11.76inch belt, 40.000t full load, 110.000shp

If we are to focus on the final design plans - for a 37.000tons ship at standard disp, with 110.000shp installed and a very thick - 15" - belt, the situation is quite complicated.
The most powerfull solution that I see on this displacement would be a 8x381mm, arranged 2x3 + 1x2. So 2 triple turrets and 1 double turret. (The extra weight of a 4th turret, barbette, magazine protection and extra length in the ship couldn't have been contained, IMO on this desgin).

IF the Admiralty would have agreed on a lighter ammo load, a similar, 8x406mm mounting could have been possible, but with 50-60 shells/gun, as compared to the normal 80-100 of the period.

Of course, this would mean time spent designing a triple 381mm turret.. and probably a new 381mm gun... So quite complicated.
Cheers,
Alex
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: KGv class with different guns

Post by paul.mercer »

RF wrote:
Gary wrote:KGV enjoyed good armour protection.
A heavier main battery would of course been welcomed but I dont suppose Bismarck would have sank any better or that North Cape would have been changed much
Bringing the discussion back to the title of the thread - if I may - a heavier armament on a KGV would have upset the weight restrictions on the ship the RN sought to comply with.

What realistic alternative armament is proposed given the weight restrictions?
Gentlemen,
Would there really have been that much weight difference with 4 x15" given that the all up weight was over 40,000 tons anyway?
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: KGv class with different guns

Post by Bgile »

Four turrets are always heavier than three turrets, assuming equal armor thickness and equal number of guns. There are good reasons for both schemes.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: KGv class with different guns

Post by RF »

alecsandros wrote: Of course, this would mean time spent designing a triple 381mm turret.. and probably a new 381mm gun... So quite complicated.
Cheers,
Alex
But would it have been any more complicated than designing quad 14 inch turrets and a double 14 inch turret?

Given the RN already had experience of 15 inch double turrets anyway I would have thought the 15 inch gun might be the easier option - presumably the argument that 14 inch gave you two extra guns won the day....

But a POW with 8 x 15 inch at DS - the same armament effectively as Hood - might have been interesting....
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: KGv class with different guns

Post by dunmunro »

RF wrote:
alecsandros wrote: Of course, this would mean time spent designing a triple 381mm turret.. and probably a new 381mm gun... So quite complicated.
Cheers,
Alex
But would it have been any more complicated than designing quad 14 inch turrets and a double 14 inch turret?

Given the RN already had experience of 15 inch double turrets anyway I would have thought the 15 inch gun might be the easier option - presumably the argument that 14 inch gave you two extra guns won the day....

But a POW with 8 x 15 inch at DS - the same armament effectively as Hood - might have been interesting....
The UK hoped to make 14" guns the maximum size allowable and so they had to design a 14" gun and turret system, and quad turrets make the most sense. A 4 x twin 15" ship has be be either heavier, slower or less armoured than a triple turret layout since there are 4 barbettes instead of 3 and the citadel has to be longer to enclose the extra barbette. A triple or quad turret 15" gun system was basically the only viable 15" option.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: KGv class with different guns

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

The UK hoped to make 14" guns the maximum size allowable and so they had to design a 14" gun and turret system, and quad turrets make the most sense. A 4 x twin 15" ship has be be either heavier, slower or less armoured than a triple turret layout since there are 4 barbettes instead of 3 and the citadel has to be longer to enclose the extra barbette. A triple or quad turret 15" gun system was basically the only viable 15" option.
This issue is refered in extense in Raven and Roberts book and, in fact, there is a table with several options with 15" and 14" guns. Basically dunmuro is right: the ony way the British had to "balance" the design and fit the 35,000 ton Treaty displacement limit was go with 2 x 4 + 1 x 2 turrets and 14 inchers. The KGV was succesful, Treaty wise, where the Nelson, North Carolinas, Scharnhorsts and South Dakota's weren't. However I do believe, as many here do, that having 16" guns in whatever arragement possible was a better alternative of those 10 x 14", specially having quadruple mounts.

I read somewhere that there were also political reasons for the 14" instead of the 15".

Regards
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: KGv class with different guns

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Bgile wrote:Vanguard has more protected volume, i.e. a larger "citadel" and part of that is a deeper belt so less likely to be hit below it.
Just for the record. How deep was Vanguard's belt?
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: KGv class with different guns

Post by Bgile »

Herr Nilsson wrote:
Bgile wrote:Vanguard has more protected volume, i.e. a larger "citadel" and part of that is a deeper belt so less likely to be hit below it.
Just for the record. How deep was Vanguard's belt?
Same as KGV, which was 8 1/2 feet, with a total belt height of 23 1/2 feet.
User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: KGv class with different guns

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Thank you.
Is this at construction displacement?
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: KGv class with different guns

Post by Bgile »

Herr Nilsson wrote:Thank you.
Is this at construction displacement?
I presume so, but I don't know.
Post Reply