Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The King George V Class battleship (1939)

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

  • #76
    Someone sent me this link about Punjabi:
    British Armed Forces & National Service

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Tiornu View Post
      Someone sent me this link about Punjabi:
      British Armed Forces & National Service
      Thank You Tiornu!, Here are some key excepts from that link, it appears the secrecy of the event at the time (due to the shortage of RN battleships) may be why information is tricky to find

      "The Sinking of HMS Punjabi"
      by

      Kenneth Tipper

      On May 1st 1942 the Tribal Class Destroyer HMS Punjabi was part of a screen of destroyers on the flanks of a line of capital ships that included the battleship HMS King George V, the Carrier HMS Victorious, the battleship USS. Washington, and the Cruisers USS. Wichita and USS. Tuscaloosa.
      The force was covering P.Q.15 on its way to Murmansk in Russia
      The incident was kept secret until the end of the war, and a court of enquiry decided that Punjabi, in the fog, had turned across the bows of the battleship after being told to alter course to avoid a floating mine. Miraculously, only 49 of the Punjabi's crew were lost in what was one of the most bizarre incidents in World War 2. There were 201 survivors, who, in another twist of fate, were transferred to the battleship that sank their ship, in Iceland for the retuurn trip to Scapa Flow, the Home Fleet anchorage in the Orkney and Shetland Islands. The King George V, with a huge gash in her bows, needed to return to Liverpool for repairs.

      Press Cutting - Credit: Terry Hopkins (Ken Tipper points out disaster was off Iceland, not Ireland)

      another general KGV history link found in this investigation
      http://freepages.family.rootsweb.anc.../tehalsey.html
      Note: this appears to be the source of my incorrect info on the incident (my bad, I edited the passage to say gash, I knew the bow had not been blown off)
      1 May 1942: Collides in fog with HMS Punjabi. The destroyer is sliced in two by the battleship, and sinks. Punjabi's depth-charges explode, blowing 40ft from the bows of the battleship, requiring repairs and refitting at Liverpool.
      (The depth charges actually exploded under USS Washington, doing some minor damage, that was not discovered until later)
      During those operations, tragedy befell the group. On 1 May 1942, HMS King George V collided with a "Tribal"-class destroyer. HMS Punjabi, cut in two, sank quickly directly in the path of the oncoming Washington. Compelled to pass bet ween the halves of the sinking destroyer, the battleship proceeded ahead, Punjabi's depth charges exploding beneath her hull as she passed.

      Fortunately for Washington, she suffered no major hull damage nor developed any hull leaks from the concussion of the exploding depth charges. She did, however, sustain damage to some of her delicate fire control systems and radars; and a diesel oi l tank suffered a small leak.
      http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/battlesh/bb56.htm

      It is an interesting side note that Battleships sank or seriously damaged quite a few other ships in collisions. The strong hull and large size of the battleship, together with its high speed made collisions all the more devestating - during the days of the ram bow - the results were even more destructive.

      A few examples of accidental rammings by battleships over the years
      Sept 1, 1875 HMS Vanguard sunk by HMS Iron Duke. The two seagoing central battery ironclads were sister ships and the collision occurred in heavy fog. Problems with the boilers of Iron Duke prevented her foghorn from functioning and she had drifted off station, visibility was about 40 yards and the collision could not be avoided. The Vanguard took considerable time to sink and no men were lost.

      Jun 22, 1893.HMS Victoria sunk by collision with HMS Camperdown. Brought about by foolish maneuvering, an arrogant admiral and timid subordinates. The ram in action, the Victoria sunk in minutes, with great loss of life. Fortunately a young lieutenant John Jellicoe was among the survivors, he had been ill and was in his cabin when the incident occurred.

      Dec 27 1914, HMS Conqueror collides with HMS Monarch, ramming her in the stern near Scapa flow in heavy weather, seriously damaging both ships and reducing the strength of the Grand Fleet by two super dreadnoughts, over a quarter of these advanced ships available at this time, for several months during a crucial period in WWI.

      May 1 1942, HMS King George V collides with the destroyer HMS Punjabi while escorting convoy PQ15 to Russia in the North Atlantic between Iceland and Ireland. The collision occurred in a heavy fog, when the Punjabi veered into the path of KGV to avoid a mine. The Punjabi was cut in two and sunk with the loss of 49 men. The KGV suffered a 40 gash in the bows, reducing battleship strength at a key point in the war due to the damage, repairs were completed two months later and she returned to duty on July 1, 1942, the incident was kept secret until after the the war. The USS Washington also suffered some minor damage after steaming over the sinking Punjabi who depth charges exploded under her hull.

      Feb 1 1944, USS Washington and USS Indiana collided while refueling destroyers at night near the Marshall Islands. Both ships were severely damaged and required major repairs in stateside yards, putting 25% of the fast battleships then in service out of action for many months.

      May 6 1956 USS Wisconsin cuts into the destroyer Eaton for cutting across her bow. The captain of the Eaton missed the point of the fast battleship, and misjudged his own ships ability to out maneuver an Iowa class “super-cruiser”. The Iowa's were the fastest battleships ever built, much faster than all the others with speeds of 35 knots being possible under ideal conditions (light load, clean bottom and favorable seas), and over 33 knots attained in actual battle conditions. The Wisconsin subsequently got a new bow from canceled sister USS Kentucky, which was about 72% complete, while the Eaton was crippled and nearly sunk. While the Wisconsin was damaged and her speed was reduced, she was never in danger of sinking, had the damage been taken during battle conditions, her fighting ability would not have been significantly impaired. The USS Eaton was torn in half, and held together by anchor chains as she limped home.
      Attached Files
      Last edited by USSWisconsin; 07 Feb 11,, 16:13.
      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


      • #78
        A nice description:

        The King George V class battleships were the second to last class of battleships completed by the Royal Navy.

        The Washington treaty limiting post World War I battleship construction had been extended by the First London Naval Treaty but the treaty was due to expire in 1936. With increased tension between the various major naval nations, it was expected by planners that the treaty might not be renewed and the KGV class were designed with this in mind.

        Apart from Japanese super battleships Yamato and Musashi the class had probably the heaviest armour of warships of the period. The main belt was 391 mm thick amidships, 127-178 mm forward and astern. The lower belt was 3 inches (76 mm) thick. Deck protection was 178 mm. The main gun turrets were protected by 406 mm to the front and 280-305 mm on the sides. The conning tower and citadel was at its maximum 318 mm. Overall the armour weight was estimated as high as 14,000 t. However, the belt armor was not inclined, as it was on many contemporary battleship classes. Inclined armor presents a greater thickness and forces shells to glance off. In addition, there were weak spots under the waterline. On examination of the Prince of Wales after its encounter with the Bismarck and the Prinz Eugen three damaging hits were discovered; one of the Prinz Eugen's shells had penetrated the torpedo protection inner bulkhead, very close to the fourteen-inch magazine.

        The King George V and the four other ships of the class as built carried 10 14-inch (356 mm) guns, in two four-gun turrets fore and aft and a single two-gun turret behind and above the fore turret.

        While some argued that this gave the battleships an inferior broadside to the eight 15-inch (381 mm) guns of the German battleship Bismarck and her sister-ship the Tirpitz, the designers of this class pointed out that the ten guns of the 14-inch (356 mm) class had advantages over the eight 15-inch (381 mm) of the Bismarck type. They pointed out that at normal battle ranges the 14-inch (356 mm) gun could penetrate any practical naval armor, could shoot repeated rounds faster, and in the bad weather of the North Atlantic the extra range of bigger guns was not needed. The 10 guns of the British ship could fire larger salvos increasing hit probability.

        The original design called for nine 15-inch guns in three turrets, 2 forward and 1 aft. While this was within the capabilities of the British, they felt compelled to adhere to the Second London Naval Treaty signed in 1936 even though other signatory nations were violating the limits, especially with regards to gun calibre. As a result, the design was changed to twelve 14 inch guns in three turrets and this configuration had a heavier broadside than the nine 15-inch guns. In the end the second forward turret was changed to a smaller two gun turret for better armour protection, reducing the broadside weight to below that of the nine gun arrangement.

        In service, the quad gun arrangement of two of the turrets proved to be more of an operational curse than a larger salvo blessing. Placing four 14 inch (356 mm) guns into a single turret made it cramped, mechanically complex and difficult to service, leading to low reliability which plagued the class through out its career.

        The King George V class was built in an era where the aircraft carrier supplanted the battleship but nonetheless King George V, Prince of Wales, and Duke of York all saw the battleship-to-battleship action that they were designed for. The KGV and the Prince of Wales both fought the German battleship Bismarck in late May 1941, while the Duke of York dueled the German battlecruiser Scharnhorst in the battle of North Cape, contributing to the latter's sinking in December 1943.

        Four of the five King George V-class ships survived World War II; Prince of Wales was sunk near Singapore by air attack in December 1941. The remaining ships never suffered any serious wartime damage, except for King George V which accidentally collided with and sunk HMS Punjabi in May 1942. All of them, including the King George V, were scrapped in 1957.
        Home > 003 Military vessels > 003e Surface vessels (1920-1939) > Battleships - Super Dreadnoughts > British vessels - MaritimeDigital Archive Encyclopedia
        (has a good article on Rodney as well)

        The above description brings to mind some "what if's": a nine 15" gun version of KGV? or a twelve 14" gun version? How about replacing the octuple 2 pdr's with sextuple 40mm Bofors? What kind of AA supplement would fit where the catapult and hangers were?

        Another question I am looking at is the common stat that the KGV had 4.5" conning tower armor. The PoW took a 15" projectile bridge hit during the encounter with Bismark, would such thin armor have protected her Captain? Maybe he was behind something? The article above states "citadel" protection up to 12", this sounds plausible, given the performance of the ships under fire. I am hoping to find more detailed info on the KGV armor layout, particularly the coning tower.
        Last edited by USSWisconsin; 08 Feb 11,, 18:23.
        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


        • #79
          There are several good published references on the KGV armor scheme, though I don't think any of them adequately detail the forward and after extensions of the belt. The conning tower had 100mm sides. The 15in hit on PoW did not involve the conning tower but the compass platform. The casualties were probably all the result of fragments of the windscreen which flew apart upon impact with the bridge structure. If the shell had hit the conning tower, fragmentation would have been even greater, as the AP cap came off and chunks of 100mm armor flew around the interior. The shell might also have detonated, but that would probably have been after exiting the small space. I don't know what 12in citadel armor is supposed to refer to. I suggest looking for Battleships (Allied volume) by Garzke & Dulin, British Battleships of World War Two by Raven & Roberts, and British Battleships 1919-1939 by Burt.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Tiornu View Post
            There are several good published references on the KGV armor scheme, though I don't think any of them adequately detail the forward and after extensions of the belt. The conning tower had 100mm sides. The 15in hit on PoW did not involve the conning tower but the compass platform. The casualties were probably all the result of fragments of the windscreen which flew apart upon impact with the bridge structure. If the shell had hit the conning tower, fragmentation would have been even greater, as the AP cap came off and chunks of 100mm armor flew around the interior. The shell might also have detonated, but that would probably have been after exiting the small space. I don't know what 12in citadel armor is supposed to refer to. I suggest looking for Battleships (Allied volume) by Garzke & Dulin, British Battleships of World War Two by Raven & Roberts, and British Battleships 1919-1939 by Burt.
            Three excellent but expensive and out of print volumes - I'm still looking for them at a reasonable price (<100$ each)

            http://www.amazon.com/British-Battle...d=HNSRV3BL7JIO ~450$

            http://www.amazon.com/British-Battle...d=HNSRV3BL7JIO ~250$

            http://www.amazon.com/Battleships-Al...d=HNSRV3BL7JIO ~115$ (I am about ready to spring for this - I already have the other two)


            Here is another good one
            http://www.amazon.com/King-George-V-...d=HNSRV3BL7JIO ~90$


            The prices on these excellent old reference books are discouraging - but have encouraged me to write a book that will be more accessable (currently free)
            http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/bat...tml#post779877
            Last edited by USSWisconsin; 08 Feb 11,, 18:28.
            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


            • #81
              KGV Collage


              Trying out the features of Picasa - an excellent free Google image manager software.


              here is another link - while the KGV section is limited, searching through this site is rewarding
              http://www.royal-navy.org/lib/index....mates_(5_Ships)
              Attached Files
              Last edited by USSWisconsin; 08 Feb 11,, 18:25.
              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


              • #82
                Originally posted by Tiornu View Post
                There are several good published references on the KGV armor scheme, though I don't think any of them adequately detail the forward and after extensions of the belt. The conning tower had 100mm sides. The 15in hit on PoW did not involve the conning tower but the compass platform. The casualties were probably all the result of fragments of the windscreen which flew apart upon impact with the bridge structure. If the shell had hit the conning tower, fragmentation would have been even greater, as the AP cap came off and chunks of 100mm armor flew around the interior. The shell might also have detonated, but that would probably have been after exiting the small space. I don't know what 12in citadel armor is supposed to refer to. I suggest looking for Battleships (Allied volume) by Garzke & Dulin, British Battleships of World War Two by Raven & Roberts, and British Battleships 1919-1939 by Burt.
                *In many cases the "citadel" refers to the armored box that surrounds/protects the ships vitals such as Engineering, Plot,Gyro,Aux conning etc. On US battleships this would be considered the area of "Broadway" . It is made up of the ships belt line armor, the armored deck armor in the overhead and the armored bulkheads that form the end protection fore and aft. It should start just fore of turret #1 and extend to just aft of turret #3 pending the armor schemes origins.
                Last edited by Dreadnought; 08 Feb 11,, 14:28.
                Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Yes, but there is no 12in belt armor over KGV's vitals.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Then my guess is that they are refering to the 12" thick armored bulkhead forward of the citadel where as it is 10" thick for the after armored bulhead to protect from either Bow or Stern shots. From what they are calling the citiadel it would be the USN equivilent of Broadways armor deck.
                    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      I think we'd be wasting our time to try to figure out what the article is trying to say, since the things it does say are fairly inaccurate. A 391mm belt amidships--wrong. A 3in lower belt--what lower belt? Are we talking about Hood here? And what's that about PE's 8in shell penetrating the torpedo bulkhead? It's very hard to find correct data in this.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        This one isin't so bad and does follow them through their upgrades pretty well. And at minimum its nothing like Wiki and describes their armor scheme pretty well, that is with exceptions.

                        King George V battleships (1940 - 1942) - Royal Navy (United Kingdom)
                        Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Tiornu View Post
                          I think we'd be wasting our time to try to figure out what the article is trying to say, since the things it does say are fairly inaccurate. A 391mm belt amidships--wrong. A 3in lower belt--what lower belt? Are we talking about Hood here? And what's that about PE's 8in shell penetrating the torpedo bulkhead? It's very hard to find correct data in this.
                          Agreed, the info there seems to be incorrect, as far as the stats at least, I have a couple books ordered - I decided to go ahead with the 3rd Garzke & Dulin vol (Rusty had requested a scan of a diagram from it and I have been curious to understand his thoughts on the Soviet plans he mentioned), and I am getting the Tarrant volume on KGV V class. I hope to see if some of the interesting detail is substantiated in a reliable source

                          This one isin't so bad and does follow them through their upgrades pretty well. And at minimum its nothing like Wiki and describes their armor scheme pretty well, that is with exceptions.
                          Thanks Dread, I think those specs are accurate (they agree with other specs I have), and are more detailed than what I have.

                          Protection: External vertical main belt was 7.16m in height and 126.5m in length, it protected citadel between end barbettes. Upper part, 4.62m in height was 381mm abreast magazines and 356mm abreast machinery. Lower part, 2.54m in height, tapered from upper to lower edges from 381mm to 140mm abreast magazines and from 356mm to 114mm abreast machinery. Lower strike of belt continued for 12.2m fwd and 11.3m aft from citadel. Its thickness was 343 - 305 (upper edge) / 127 - 114mm (lower edge) fore and 343 - 280mm (upper edge) / 127 - 114mm (lower edge) aft. Thickness of bulkheads was 305 (fore) / 254 (aft)mm over lower deck and 51mm under lower deck.

                          Flat main deck within citadel was 152mm over magazines and 127mm over machinery, it connected with upper edge of main belt. There was a lower deck outside citadel, connected with upper edge of lengthened parts of lower belt strike. It extended fore up to first water-proof bulkhead and has thickness 127 - 64mm; its aft part was 114mm thick (127mm over steering gear), closed by 102mm bulkhead.

                          Thickness of barbettes was 330mm at sides, 280mm to amidships, 305mm to ship ends. Turret faces were 324mm, sides was 224 - 174mm. Conning tower had 114 - 76mm sides and 51mm roof, deck and communication tube.

                          Last longitudinal bulkhead was 44mm thick, underwater Protection deep was 4.1m. It could resist exploding of 454kg TNT.
                          http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/br...g_george_v.htm

                          Another thought on PoW, it seems she was damaged during construction by a Nazi bomb, and may not have had complete repairs, because of the urgency to complete her (some articles mention a torpedo hitting at a weak spot from this damage). It seems that the Germans managed to hurt the Prince twice (the Bismark and PE giving her the second beating).

                          At the time war was declared, Prince of Wales was fitting out in Birkenhead. The ship was damaged in August 1940 during the Merseyside Blitz. She suffered one near-miss that exploded between her port side and the wall of the basin in which she lay, severely buckling and springing her outer plates in this area. The Admiralty determined that she would be needed in case the Bismarck or Tirpitz were deployed, so her construction was advanced by postponing several tests, shortening builder's trials, and deferring post-shakedown availability.
                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Prince_of_Wales_(53)

                          Any thoughts on this?
                          Last edited by USSWisconsin; 08 Feb 11,, 23:13.
                          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


                          • #88
                            There was a time when that bomb damage was thought to have been a factor in the severe damage PoW from a torpedo hit there in December. Now we know it wasn't a factor because no torpedo struck her there. Rather it was the extreme effects of a torpedo that struck the propeller strut.
                            Don't forget that some expensive books are still available via Inter-Library Loan. You can get some great stuff that way.
                            I've read the Tarrant book, and I thought it was worth the reading. It doesn't have a lot of technical material, however. It was a bit amusing that the author tried to portray the ships as saviors to Britain while also saying they were inferior to the competition.
                            The TDS was designed to resist 1000 lbs of TNT, but that was wildly optimistic. In fact the system was the shallowest among treaty battleships, and it had some ominous discontinuities around the aft turret.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              It appears that the tests they did to generate those numbers were generally over optomistic. Air launched torpedoes, with their small warheads, proved adequate to damage anyone's TDS in WW II. Perhaps the torpedoes and their explosives improved after the tests as well?
                              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


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
                                It appears that the tests they did to generate those numbers were generally over optomistic. Air launched torpedoes, with their small warheads, proved adequate to damage anyone's TDS in WW II. Perhaps the torpedoes and their explosives improved after the tests as well?
                                A few to consider:
                                Aircraft launched torpedoes will run shallower then submarine launched torpedo's, several factors could be present. Perhaps the aircraft launched torpedo although smaller and running more shallow could in theory also be moving faster then a sub launched torpedo (aircraft would be moving much faster then a sub when released) at close range, also with whatever sea state the POW was torpedoed in could also add circumstances in theory. Displacement of the ship could also be a factor in where the torpedo strikes the belt, if the ship was in rising motion due to sea state etc. Yamato experienced failure in her torpedo protection being stuck at a critical point where the upper and lower belts meet. Or as in other cases perhaps more then one torpedo struck the same point in the belt as what happened with the Musashi and further opened a previous hit in the belt section from what is written.

                                As you note above with the near miss while she was at Birkenhead, nothing transfers shockwaves better then water in many cases especially when close. Perhaps the belt was already slightly damaged or rivets loosened at this point.
                                Either way, once her shafts were damaged she was a sitting duck with a bullseye on her. If the shaft seals opened, which probably gave way once they were racked now you have increased flooding quickly if not contained.

                                These are just thoughts mind you.
                                Last edited by Dreadnought; 09 Feb 11,, 18:23.
                                Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X