KGV Class 14-in Turret Problems

[Bgile]

dunmunro,

I'm sorry, but you are completely wrong here. You are trying to use Idaho as an example, and we all know that if you fire all of your ammunition there are going to eventually have errors in drill and some breakdowns. That isn't what we are talking about with the KGV class and you know it.

Lets compare apples with apples. The examples you gave are missed salvoes due to errors in drill and normal breakdown. Now I ask that you come up with known deficiencies in turret design which caused these problems. That is what we are dealing with in the KGVs and that is different. Give me examples of entire turrets routinely out of action for 30 minutes at a time after being engaged for only 5 min or so. In the case of KGV class, the RN was very upset and documented these deficiencies and attempted to correct them thoughout the war, with some success as demonstrated by DoY.

Try comparing Rodney with KGV during the bismarck engagement and then tell me there wasn't something wrong with KGVs turrets. Try comparing the failure rate of the KGV two gun turrets with the four gun turrets.

S & G's problems are irrelevant to this comparison. They were not caused by problems with turret design, they were caused by the ship's poor weatherkeeping qualities resulting in flooding. Even if they were, and I do criticize the electrical problems - they should have been more water resistant - that doesn't mean there weren't design problems with the KGV four gun turrets.

The problems with the four gun turrets were well known and I don't understand why you are apparently trying to deny them here. Yes, we all know there are breakdowns and errors in drill in any navy, but not ones directly related to a particular design deficiency.

[Tiornu]

Of course the KGV's had issues...all BBs had issues, but the KGV's are blown out of proportion

I agree. They had issues, and they're often blown out of proportion. That doesn't mean they "look pretty good." It means they look like they had problems, which they did.
You are making no distinctions in cause but lumping all RoF together. And please note that 117 + 14 = 131, not 135.
If DoY's experience is comparable to the Germans' against Renown, tell me how many salvoes, DoY missed due to a shell hit to one of her turrets.

[dunmunro]

dunmunro,

I'm sorry, but you are completely wrong here. You are trying to use Idaho as an example, and we all know that if you fire all of your ammunition there are going to eventually have errors in drill and some breakdowns. That isn't what we are talking about with the KGV class and you know it.

Lets compare apples with apples. The examples you gave are missed salvoes due to errors in drill and normal breakdown. Now I ask that you come up with known deficiencies in turret design which caused these problems. That is what we are dealing with in the KGVs and that is different. Give me examples of entire turrets routinely out of action for 30 minutes at a time after being engaged for only 5 min or so. In the case of KGV class, the RN was very upset and documented these deficiencies and attempted to correct them thoughout the war, with some success as demonstrated by DoY.

Try comparing Rodney with KGV during the bismarck engagement and then tell me there wasn't something wrong with KGVs turrets. Try comparing the failure rate of the KGV two gun turrets with the four gun turrets.

S & G's problems are irrelevant to this comparison. They were not caused by problems with turret design, they were caused by the ship's poor weatherkeeping qualities resulting in flooding. Even if they were, and I do criticize the electrical problems - they should have been more water resistant - that doesn't mean there weren't design problems with the KGV four gun turrets.

The problems with the four gun turrets were well known and I don't understand why you are apparently trying to deny them here. Yes, we all know there are breakdowns and errors in drill in any navy, but not ones directly related to a particular design deficiency.

I have given examples of availability rates of contemporary BB's and I've shown how they do not very widely from the KGV class. I cited the Idaho example, because it is one of the few on record where a BB fired her main armament for an equivalent length of time to KGV and DoY, and not surprisingly there were problems with her shoot, even though it was carried out in calm weather and low speeds. If we were to substitute KGV for PoW then, her engagement in the DS would not have resulted in any main armament breakdowns, yet as I've pointed out PoW had barely had time to let the paint dry before she was rushed into service. Even KGV was rushed into service, however maintaining a high salvo rate for 30 minutes is no mean feat, and certainly does not reflect poorly on KGV, and you will note that Rodney had main armament problems as well.

If you feel the KGV class armament was unreliable, then provide some examples of equivalent ships performing better over a similar time frame and similar weather conditions.

S & G's problems are irrelevant to this comparison. They were not caused by problems with turret design, they were caused by the ship's poor weatherkeeping qualities resulting in flooding.

PoW, and the other KGV class had to deal with flooding, in A turret, as did all BB's that had to steam at high speed into heavy seas, and this was one more factor that complicated their gunnery. if you read PoW's report over at: http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 09guns.htm
you will see that this is the case. However, any WW2 BB would have had to deal with A turret flooding in similar circumstances.

It is a dangerous assumption to conclude that Bismarck would always face a KGV class ship with troublesome turrets. The historical record does not support that conclusion.

[dunmunro]

Dear Duncan,

PoW had only completed the physical installation of two of her turrets on April 27, 1941. IE, less than one month prior to meeting Bismarck. PoW had carried out one (yes, just one) live practice shoot, prior to going into combat.

is that true?
i ask some weeks ago, why Lütjens did not used the Tirpitz at Rheinübung.
Sombody told me that PoW was in better exercise conditions as Tirpitz.
So your sentence makes me wonder.
Kind regards,
L.

That info was based upon Battleships by G & D, and British BB's by Raven.

cheers

Duncan

[dunmunro]

If DoY's experience is comparable to the Germans' against Renown, tell me how many salvoes, DoY missed due to a shell hit to one of her turrets.

"Gunnery Report, 'C'turret, 9.4.40:
I. General."

You will note that this report was from C turret on Scharnhorst, the turret least affected by weather, and it suffered no hits during the action.

All I am trying to say, is that under similar conditions, most BB's performed similarly.

cheers

Duncan

[Tiornu]

It is a dangerous assumption to conclude that Bismarck would always face a KGV class ship with troublesome turrets.

No, it would be a correct assumption. Whether or not the troubles would manifest themselves, that's another issue. Have you looked into when KGV's problems arose?

All I am trying to say, is that under similar conditions, most BB's performed similarly.

I know what you're trying to say, but you are incorrect. Your own information shows the American ships having roughly one third as many missed salvoes. Comparison with Scharnhorst is doing no credit to KGV. Scharnhorst's guns were notably unreliable. One wonders how poorly KGV would have done if she'd been tossing around the way Scharnhorst did.

[dunmunro]

I know what you're trying to say, but you are incorrect. Your own information shows the American ships having roughly one third as many missed salvoes. Comparison with Scharnhorst is doing no credit to KGV. Scharnhorst's guns were notably unreliable. One wonders how poorly KGV would have done if she'd been tossing around the way Scharnhorst did.

The USN ships, had all been in service for long periods of time and they maintained a 83 to 89% availability rate, for extremely short periods of time where only about 15 salvos were fired. Over a similar time frame PoW maintained 74 or 85% availability for an average of 79% over 30 salvos. KGV fired 50 salvos without incident. Idaho's performance was arguably worse than DoY's.

I have read many posts where the question of whether a Scharnhorst could defeat a KGV, due to the latter's unreliable guns, is raised, yet the question of Scharnhorst's own guns are never raised, but if any ship took a "tossing around" it was DoY at North Cape, and yet she fired 450 rounds in 85 minutes and maintained a 68% availability rate. Doy would have fired about 65, full gun, salvos at North Cape, or about twice as many 1/2 gun salvos. Given the weather conditions her performance was outstanding.

It is my understanding that there was Gale force winds blowing during Bismarck's final battle. I'm sorry but any analysis of BB versus BB combat, seems to indicate that the KGV class guns performed similarly to other BBs.

cheers

Duncan

[Bgile]

"Gunnery Report, 'C'turret, 9.4.40:
I. General."

You will note that this report was from C turret on Scharnhorst, the turret least affected by weather, and it suffered no hits during the action.

All I am trying to say, is that under similar conditions, most BB's performed similarly.

cheers

Duncan

Turret C was trained aft, in a direction where water was entering the shell case ejection ports. This was a uniquely German problem because other navies didn't have them.

This doesn't mean KGV didn't have problems unique to their own design which interfered with their firing cycles more than ships without such problems and which only suffered from errors in drill and normal wear and tear and fatigue.

[dunmunro]

Have you looked into when KGV's problems arose?

Investigation of the gunnery records of King George V and interviews with several of her officers reveal that there were problems with the mechanical safety interlocks designed to prevent explosions within the turrets from being transmitted to the powder magazines below. Her gunnery during the battle averaged 60% between 0920-0950, with only the twin turret performing at 100% effectiveness.

from: http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_Bismarck_p2.htm

However, KGV opened fire at 8:48, 32 minutes before she began having problems, and long after most WW2 BB combats were over.

cheers

Duncan

[Bgile]

Over a similar time frame PoW maintained 74 or 85% availability for an average of 79% over 30 salvos.
Duncan

I'm assuming that you conveniently "stopped the clock" here when PoW's entire main battery armament had failed due to various reasons and so she "ceased fire" and attempted successfully to withdraw from the engagement.

In fact, isn't it true that her captain gave that as the primary reason for his decision to disengage? Is this "normal battleship" operation?

[Tiornu]

The figures that you yourself provided show the American ships with 88-90%, not 83%. You are trying to show that, in this context, 68% looks "pretty good." If you want to believe that a failure rate that's three times as great is "similar," you may do so.
If you have read threads in which Scharnhorst's unreliability is overlooked, why haven't you brought it up? It's no news. Everyone who's read about the Renown encounter knows about it. Scharnhorst was tossed around far more than DoY. The British never designed a dreadnought that performed as poorly as Scharnhorst with regard to seakeeping--at least, not as far as I know.
If you can show the comparability of Idaho's experience with any other ship's, then please do so. Otherwise, why mention it at all?
How come you haven't mentioned that part of PoW's problems resulted from errors in drill rather than mechanical problems? Do you understand the topic you are trying to address?

[Nellie]

I agree with Tiornu and Bgile, the quadruple turrets on KGV wasn´t an average performer when it comes to reliability, the history proves it and it is a fact! The KGV couldn´t keep up with Rodneys rate of fire (main guns)under the final battle with Bismarck, despite she had 1 gun more and a faster firingcycle, it was because of mechanical breakdowns and nothing else.

[dunmunro]

Over a similar time frame PoW maintained 74 or 85% availability for an average of 79% over 30 salvos.
Duncan

I'm assuming that you conveniently "stopped the clock" here when PoW's entire main battery armament had failed due to various reasons and so she "ceased fire" and attempted successfully to withdraw from the engagement.

In fact, isn't it true that her captain gave that as the primary reason for his decision to disengage? Is this "normal battleship" operation?

PoW withdrew because of an unfavourable tactical situation. PoW was found itself in a close range gun duel with a BB and a torpedo equipped CA, and withdrew. At the time she withdrew all her turrets were in action, although some guns were having loading problems, hence her 74% output. If anything it was PoWs lack of a functioning secondary that might have tipped the scales in the decision to withdraw as PoW had no way to engage PE:

22. The Commanding Officer of Prince of Wales in his report says:

"Some explanation remains to be made as to my decision to break off the engagement after the sinking of H.M.S. Hood - a decision which clearly invites most critical examination. Prior to the disaster to the Hood I felt that, together, we could deal adequately with the Bismarck and her consort. The sinking of the Hood obviously changed the immediate situation, and there were three other considerations requiring to be weighed up, of which the first two had been in my mind before the action was joined namely:-

a. The practical certainty that owing to mechanical "teething troubles" a full output from the main armament could not be expected. (note Leach states: A "full output", not "none of my main battery was firing")

b. The working up of the ship after commissioning had only just reached a stage where I felt able to report to the Commander-in-Chief, Home Fleet, that I considered her reasonably fit to take part in service operations. This was the first occasion on which she had done so. From the gunnery point of view the personnel was immensely keen, but inexperienced.

c. The likelihood of a decisive concentration being effected at a later stage

In all the circumstances I did not consider it sound tactics to continue single-handed the engagement with two German ships, both of whom might be expected to be at the peak of their efficiency. Accordingly I turned away and broke off the action pending a more favourable opportunity."

As I have pointed out PoW, had not had any reasonable opportunity to address her armament issues, through a prolonged practice firing, and it is unlikely that any other BB could have done better with a similar working up period.

cheers

Duncan

[dunmunro]

The figures that you yourself provided show the American ships with 88-90%, not 83%. You are trying to show that, in this context, 68% looks "pretty good." If you want to believe that a failure rate that's three times as great is "similar," you may do so.
If you have read threads in which Scharnhorst's unreliability is overlooked, why haven't you brought it up? It's no news. Everyone who's read about the Renown encounter knows about it. Scharnhorst was tossed around far more than DoY. The British never designed a dreadnought that performed as poorly as Scharnhorst with regard to seakeeping--at least, not as far as I know.
If you can show the comparability of Idaho's experience with any other ship's, then please do so. Otherwise, why mention it at all?
How come you haven't mentioned that part of PoW's problems resulted from errors in drill rather than mechanical problems? Do you understand the topic you are trying to address?

I quoted availability figures that were produced by other's on the BC board thread. and they range from 83 to 89%, for Washington and WV, for brief actions. DoY fought a prolonged action in a Force 10 gale, I have provided info showing that the output achieved by DoY is probably typical for a action of that length, but perhaps you can point to figures which indicate that another class of BB could have done better under the same or similar circumstances? Yes, there were crew training issues on PoW, but it seems to me that the KGV's are tagged with an unwarranted label, since they fought:

a) when the ships main armament was less than 4 weeks old, and

b) they fought prolonged engagements in severe weather conditions, where the available evidence seems to indicate that other classes of BBs would have performed the same or worse, under the same conditions. Rodney was consistently closer to Bismarck, and it is not surprising that she would maintain a higher RoF, although she also suffered main armament failures.

Idaho did not have an unreliable main armament, but in a prolonged firing her availability rate declined to a similar level to DoY and KGV. Howver, there is every reason to suppose that Idaho's availability rate would have fallen even further if she was steaming at high speed in a full gale. or wouldn't you agree? I mention Idaho because data on the subject of prolonged, forced, firings of BBs in WW2 is scarce. Do you honestly believe that another class of BB could have achieved a higher availability rate than DoY, under the same circumstances?

cheers

Duncan

[Tiornu]

I quoted availability figures that were produced by other's on the BC board thread.

Yes, we know, you are parroting information from a second-hand source even though you don't understand what it means. You have been given corrected information and analysis--why don't parrot this now?