Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The King George V Class battleship (1939)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61

    HMS King George V (1939) – PRDobson.com
    (an excellent 3-D model of KGV, many pictures!)
    Originally posted by Gun Boat View Post
    This question is in relation to the Prince of Wales and the torp hit that jammed one of her screws.

    Is there a weak point designed into the machinery that will control damage when all that rotatiing steel is 'stopped' suddenly?

    If there is not than I would hate to be in that particular engine room when this happened. Or on the ship at all for that matter.
    I don't know if the weakness was specific to the PoW or the class, the torpedo was very lucky and hit the shaft while PoW was at speed. The machinery didn't stop immediately - it bent the shaft, which subsequently tore open the bottom of the ship before coming to a stop. The damage was done very quickly so shutting the engine down would have been too late. Being in the engine room probably would have meant being crushed or drown. The nature of geared turbines requires long shafts, turbo-electric battleships were less vulnerable to this kind of damage. It would be interesting to see how well another type of fast battleship would have handled this kind of hit. This hit was particularly devastating since took out power to the 5.25" AA guns and weakened the ships defenses, the pumps were also knocked out, so training any of the AA guns was very difficult due to the uncorrected list.


    KGV viewed from Anson at Portland
    Attached Files
    Last edited by USSWisconsin; 01 Feb 11,, 16:18.
    sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
    If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

    Comment


    • #62
      more pictures


      Howe in the Suez canal

      KGV firing



      Pendant numbers

      HMS Anson (79)
      HMS Duke of York (17)
      HMS Howe (32)
      HMS King George V (41)
      HMS Prince of Wales (53)


      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



      Est. Name Builder Machinery Laid down Completed
      1936 King George V Vickers-Armstrongs (Tyne) V.A. (Barrow) Jan. 1, 1937 11/12/40
      1937 Duke of York Clydebank Clydebank May 5, 1937 4/11/41
      1937 Anson Swan Hunter Clydebank July 20, 1937 22/6/42
      1937 Howe Fairfield Fairfield June 1, 1937 29/8/42
      1936 Prince of Wales Cammell Laird Cammell Laird Jan, 1 1937 31/3/41



      General Notes. - Name of second ship was changed December, 1938, and those of third and fourth ships in February, 1940. A fifth ship (Prince of Wales, built by Cammell Laird & Co.) was lost in Dec. 1941. Superstructure, abaft bridge, designed as hangar, is now used as a cinema.
      Engineering Notes. - Improvements in boiler design have reduced boiler weights by about 15 per cent as compared with Nelson and Rodney. On trials these ships exceeded 28 kts. Easily with about 112,000 S.H.P.
      Gunnery Notes. - 14 inch guns are a new model, with an effective range greater than the 15 inch mounted in earlier ships, as measured by the perforation of any given thickness of armour. From photographs, elevation of 14 inch guns would appear to be at least 40°. Inclusive cost of armament (including fire control installation costing GBP 213,000) has been officially stated as GBP 2,900,000.
      Armour Notes. - Turret weights are 1,500 tons for quadruple 14 inch; 900 tons twin 14 inch; 80 tons 5,25 inch.
      Attached Files
      Last edited by USSWisconsin; 03 Feb 11,, 02:09.
      sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
      If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

      Comment


      • #63
        WWII 14” Naval Guns
        US 14”/45 Mk 12: AP 1500#, 2600 fps, max range 34,300 yards @ 30 deg
        US 14”/50 Mk 11: AP 1500#, 2700 fps, max range 36,800 yards @ 30 deg

        British 14”/45 Mk VII; AP 1590#, 2483 fps, max range 38,560 yards @ 40 deg

        Japanese 14”/45 M1908; AP 1485#, 2543 fps, max range 38,770 yards @ 43 deg

        The European WWII 15” Naval Guns
        British 15”/42 Mk I, AP 1938#, 2575 fps, max range 36,500 yards @ 30 deg
        German 15”/52 SK C/34 (Bismark), AP 1764#, 2690 fps, max range 39,589 yards @ 30 deg
        Italian 15”/50 M1934, AP 1951#, 2789 fps, max range 46,807 yards @ 36 deg
        French 15”/45 M1935, AP 1962#, 2723 fps, max range 45,600 yards @ 35 deg

        The four major 15” guns were all effective, while the French and Italian specs looked very good on paper, they didn't perform as well in combat. The British and German guns both proved very effective though they were very different in concept, the British gun had a heavy projectile at moderate velocity, while the German projectile was light at high velocity.

        WWII 16” Naval Guns
        British 16”/45 Mk I; AP 2048#, 2614 fps, max range 38,000 yards @ 40 deg
        US 16”/45 Mk 8 (Colorado class, WWII refit); AP 2240#, 2520 fps, max range 35,000 yards @ 30 deg
        US 16”/45 Mk 6 (fast battleships); AP 2700#, 2300 fps, max range 36,900 yards @ 45 deg
        US 16”/50 Mk 7; AP 2700#, 2500 fps, max range 42,345 yards @ 45 deg
        Japanese 16.1”/45 type 98: AP 2249#, 2645 fps, max range 42,350 yards @ 43 deg
        Soviet 16”/50 M39: AP 2443#, 2854 fps, max range 49.869 yards @ 45 deg. (not used on ships)
        German 16”/52 SK C/34: AP 2271#, 2657 fps, max range 40,245 yards @ 33 deg. (not used on ships)

        The Japanese and US guns had very similar potential with standard weight shells, but the US 2700# projectile made all the difference in action. The British 16” gun turned out to be somewhat disappointing, but it was acceptable and soldiered on through out the WWII.

        18” Naval Guns
        British 18”/40 Mk I; AP 3320#, 2270 fps, max range 32,600 yards @ 30 deg (used on monitors only)
        British 18”/45 Mk II; AP 2837#, 2700 fps, max range 42,000 yards @ 40 deg (never used, for N3 class)
        Japanese 18.1”/45 Type 94; AP 3219#, 2559 fps, max range 45,960 yards @ 45 deg
        US 18"/47 Mk A; AP 3850#, 2400 fps, max range 43,453 yards @ 40 deg

        The Japanese had the only 18”guns ever to be placed in service on a battleship .

        20” Naval Guns (proposed)
        German 21”/52 Gerat 36: AP 4850#, 2690 fps, max range 51,950 yards @ 50 deg.
        Japanese 20.1”/45 Type 98: AP 4409#, ~2500 fps, max range ~50,000 yards @ 45 deg.
        British 20”/45 Mk I: AP 4347#, ~2500 fps, max range ~40,000 yards @ 30 deg
        Last edited by USSWisconsin; 01 Feb 11,, 17:37.
        sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
        If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

        Comment


        • #64
          Pow

          The Sinking of HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse | War Machine Information



          note the degaussing cable on KGV hull
          Attached Files
          Last edited by USSWisconsin; 02 Feb 11,, 16:17.
          sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
          If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

          Comment


          • #65
            PoW Sinking details

            http://www.rina.org.uk/c2/uploads/de...battleship.pdf




            Another detailed survey of the damage
            http://www.pacificwrecks.com/ships/h...ull-damage.pdf

            An excellent WAB discussion on the way to sink a battleship - it looks like the Japanese did their homework...
            http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/bat...e-part-bb.html
            Attached Files
            Last edited by USSWisconsin; 02 Feb 11,, 21:54.
            sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
            If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

            Comment


            • #66
              Technical



              Nice stern view of HMS Howe with two quad 2pdrs on the stern and four quad 40mm Bofors on the boat deck behind the after funnel. This is added to the 20mm Oerlikons in the superstructure and the six octuple 2pdrs (one each on B and X turret, and four near the forward funnel). She is equipped to fight off kamikazis in this configuration (56 x 2 pdrs and 16 x 40mm Bofors).


              Attached Files
              Last edited by USSWisconsin; 04 Feb 11,, 17:51.
              sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
              If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

              Comment


              • #67
                tech 2




                Commands listed for HMS Howe (32)
                Commander From To
                1 Capt. Charles Henry Lawrence Woodhouse, RN 3 Apr 1942 2 Mar 1944
                2 Capt. Henry William Urquhart McCall, DSO, RN 2 Mar 1944 13 Feb 1946

                Commands listed for HMS Anson (79)
                Commander From To
                1 Capt. Harold Richard George Kinahan, RN 10 Feb 1942 29 Jul 1943
                2 Capt. Edward Desmond Bewley McCarthy, DSO, RN 29 Jul 1943 ???
                3 Capt. Alexander Cumming Gordon Madden, RN 6 Nov 1944 21 Nov 1945
                4 Capt. Frederick Secker Bell, RN 21 Nov 1945 Apr 1946

                Commands listed for HMS Duke of York (17)
                Commander From To
                1 Capt. Cecil Halliday Jepson Harcourt, RN 15 Apr 1941 29 Sep 1942
                2 Capt. George Elvey Creasy, DSO, RN 29 Sep 1942 6 Aug 1943
                3 Capt. Brian Betham Schofield, RN 6 Aug 1943 9 Dec 1943
                4 Capt. the Hon. Guy Herbrand Edward Russell, RN 9 Dec 1943 3 Sep 1944
                5 Capt. Andrew Dacres Nicholl, DSO, RN 3 Sep 1944 31 Jul 1946

                Commands listed for HMS King George V (41)
                Commander From To
                1 Capt. Wilfrid Rupert Patterson, RN 15 Jul 1940 6 May 1942
                2 Capt. Philip John Mack, DSO, RN 6 May 1942 15 Feb 1943
                3 Capt. Thomas Edgar Halsey, DSO, RN 15 Feb 1943 10 Apr 1945
                4 Capt. Brian Betham Schofield, RN 10 Apr 1945 Late 1945

                Commands listed for HMS Prince of Wales (53)
                Commander From To
                1 Capt. John Catterall Leach, RN 15 Feb 1941 10 Dec 1941 (+)
                Attached Files
                Last edited by USSWisconsin; 03 Feb 11,, 07:50.
                sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post

                  Question: What does this ship have to do with KGV?
                  Earlier post said this was the blighter that got rammed and sunk by it.
                  Ego Numquam

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Chunder View Post
                    Earlier post said this was the blighter that got rammed and sunk by it.
                    thats the one

                    1 May 1942: KGV collides in fog with HMS Punjabi. The destroyer is sliced in two by the battleship, and sinks. Punjabi’s

                    depth-charges explode, blowing a 40ft gash in the bows of the battleship, requiring repairs and refitting at Liverpool.
                    Last edited by USSWisconsin; 04 Feb 11,, 17:36.
                    sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                    If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      the POW exchange with Bismark

                      POW got 3 hits on the Bismark, the Bismark hit POW four times. Both ships recieved a trivial hit amidships (POW got her stack clipped, Bismark had some boats smashed). Both got hits amidships on the hull below the waterline, niether one mattered much. The Bismark got a bridge hit and a director hit on POW, but the POW got a hit on Bismark's forward fuel tanks, in the big picture the deadliest of the all- though it was not appearent during the battle. POW was more visibly damaged in the exchange and it appeared that the Bismark had come out on top. With the sinking of HMS Hood, the Bismark was way ahead and wisely retired, though the POW still had two cruisers with her and could have concievably continued, and had slightly better odds with two cruisers to Bismark's one - the Bismark appeared undamaged - and was clearly deadly - IMO, POW did the right thing in breaking off the action, she did quite well considering her lack of preparation, and even managed a golden bb hit on Bismark.


                      Note: POW has 4 UP launchers (one on fantail, two on X turret, and one on B turret), 4 octuple 2pdrs, and 4 20mm Oerlikons on the aft superstructure in this configuration (fresh from the builders yard with workmen still aboard finishing up)


                      I know a lot of people choose Bismark as the best looking battleship, but PoW looks better to me, even without Bismark's turret symmetry, PoW with her dual stacks and spacious superstructure just has more of that battleship look...
                      Attached Files
                      Last edited by USSWisconsin; 04 Feb 11,, 19:01.
                      sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                      If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        The quality of British armor was unsurpassed, which makes KGV's hull protection all the more impressive.You'll notice that the armor deck is relatively high, giving the ship a lot of reserve buoyancy, even if its target are is increased. The original design had some D steel splinter protection around the magazines, and this was increased in most ships after the experience of Denmark Strait. The bow is given some surprisingly thick armor (this has to be a case of buyer's remorse after Nelson and her naked bow). The stern is not very well protected, and I think KGV had the thinnest protection for the rudder gear among all treaty battleships. But generally, the degree of hull protection may be the design's best point.
                        Gun accuracy was also very good. At North Cape, DoY opened fire three times on Scharnhorst, and I believe she got first-salvo straddles each time.
                        I always thought that the Nelson class looked more modern--if by "modern" you mean "ugly."
                        The purpose of mounting Nelson's guns forward was to save weight. The heaviest protection was over the magazines, so the design concentrated the mags in a fat portion of the hull. This was not a trade-off that anyone else ever found worthwhile. It did not increase forward firing arcs that I know of. In fact, the third turret had very restricted arcs. No special clause was necessary for Nelson to have 16in guns. That was the limit at the time for all battleships.
                        Strange as it may seem to us, Nelson was among the fastest battleships in the world in 1927.
                        Littorio and Bismarck were treaty battleships, and while they did cheat on tonnage, they did not require an escalator clause for their guns. The 15in caliber was permissible under the treaties signed by the Italians and Germans.
                        I'm a big fan of the 4.5in gun, and I think all these ships would have benefited from having them as secondaries. The 5.25in gun gave a gratifying rate of fire in surface gunnery, but was slow against aircraft. Vanguard received a much better mount with good HA rate of fire.
                        The hit to PoW's port screw caused the shaft to, basically, blow apart. The results in the machinery spaces were so dramatic that many accounts tell you she received one or two torpedo hits amidships; examination of the wreck has revealed what actually happened. The hit to the stern caused flooding there but also along the shaft alley and straight into the engine room. I don't believe there were any casualties in the engine room at that time.
                        As I recall, KGV's bow damage resulted from the collision with Punjabi. The depth charges went off as USS Washington was steaming over the spot.
                        The 14in hit amidships on Bismarck did have some consequence; it disabled the catapult, which was not discovered until later when the Germans attempted to launch a plane.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Tiornu View Post
                          The quality of British armor was unsurpassed, which makes KGV's hull protection all the more impressive.You'll notice that the armor deck is relatively high, giving the ship a lot of reserve buoyancy, even if its target are is increased. The original design had some D steel splinter protection around the magazines, and this was increased in most ships after the experience of Denmark Strait. The bow is given some surprisingly thick armor (this has to be a case of buyer's remorse after Nelson and her naked bow). The stern is not very well protected, and I think KGV had the thinnest protection for the rudder gear among all treaty battleships. But generally, the degree of hull protection may be the design's best point.
                          Gun accuracy was also very good. At North Cape, DoY opened fire three times on Scharnhorst, and I believe she got first-salvo straddles each time.
                          I always thought that the Nelson class looked more modern--if by "modern" you mean "ugly."
                          The purpose of mounting Nelson's guns forward was to save weight. The heaviest protection was over the magazines, so the design concentrated the mags in a fat portion of the hull. This was not a trade-off that anyone else ever found worthwhile. It did not increase forward firing arcs that I know of. In fact, the third turret had very restricted arcs. No special clause was necessary for Nelson to have 16in guns. That was the limit at the time for all battleships.
                          Strange as it may seem to us, Nelson was among the fastest battleships in the world in 1927.
                          Littorio and Bismarck were treaty battleships, and while they did cheat on tonnage, they did not require an escalator clause for their guns. The 15in caliber was permissible under the treaties signed by the Italians and Germans.
                          I'm a big fan of the 4.5in gun, and I think all these ships would have benefited from having them as secondaries. The 5.25in gun gave a gratifying rate of fire in surface gunnery, but was slow against aircraft. Vanguard received a much better mount with good HA rate of fire.
                          The hit to PoW's port screw caused the shaft to, basically, blow apart. The results in the machinery spaces were so dramatic that many accounts tell you she received one or two torpedo hits amidships; examination of the wreck has revealed what actually happened. The hit to the stern caused flooding there but also along the shaft alley and straight into the engine room. I don't believe there were any casualties in the engine room at that time.
                          As I recall, KGV's bow damage resulted from the collision with Punjabi. The depth charges went off as USS Washington was steaming over the spot.
                          The 14in hit amidships on Bismarck did have some consequence; it disabled the catapult, which was not discovered until later when the Germans attempted to launch a plane.
                          Great points Tiornu, thanks for clarifying and explaining, I was thinking that the Nelson had 16" guns to give the British parody with the US and Japanese 16" gun ships (which was a British concern), but I misstated the treaty clause - the only clause was that only the British could build any ships during the builder's holiday. I found little information on the Punjabi/KGV collision - some of it was apparently incorrect, do you know of where I could find a good account of that?


                          Too bad they didn't upgrade the KGV's with 4.5" turrets, they could have carried at least 10, and the sextuple 40mm Bofors mounts, about a dozen - it would all fit by eliminating the hangers and catapult.
                          Attached Files
                          Last edited by USSWisconsin; 06 Feb 11,, 02:03.
                          sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                          If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            The previous class - Nelson/Rodney



                            The Nelson class had 24.5" submerged torpedo tubes, one of the last ships to be equipped, Rodney even fired torpedoes at Bismark. The big torpedoes were oxygen fueled and may have inspired the Japanese Long Lance torpedoes.


                            The limits of the treaty inevitably led to compromises in the design of two new ships, and the resulting Nelson class sacrificed installed power (and hence speed) in order that they be well-armed and defended. They were often referred to as the "Cherry Tree class", because they had been "cut down by Washington".
                            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_class_battleship
                            Attached Files
                            Last edited by USSWisconsin; 07 Feb 11,, 04:04.
                            sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                            If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              The Lion Class

                              Never completed, the Lions were to be improved 16" gun KGV's, with slightly increased diplacement, they would have corrected a number of issues. They would have carried similar secondaries, three triple 16"/45 turrets and heavier armor - particularly on the deck and turrets. The Lions would have had transom sterns, for improved steaming efficiency, like the one on the Vanguard. A proposed 1944 plan called for 58,000 tons with a 12" deck. The first two; Lion and Temerarie were laid down in 1939, and scrapped in 1942-43, the last two, of the class of four, were never started.


                              Attached Files
                              Last edited by USSWisconsin; 06 Feb 11,, 01:12.
                              sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                              If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                I don't know where you can find details on Punjabi's loss, but the incident gets a mention in Washington's DANFS entry: http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/battlesh/bb56.htm
                                Lion would have been a powerful ship, and her 16in guns look formidable on paper. One wonders if she might have avoided the teething problems that KGV had with her main battery.
                                Torpedo protection was inadequate in both ships.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X