King George V battleships - better with only 8 guns?

[Tim Smith]

I think the British King George V class battleships would have been more useful with 8 x 14" guns, instead of 10 x 14". Having 8 guns in two 4-gun turrets would remove the need for the 2-gun 'B' turret, and save a lot of space and weight. That would increase the speed of the KGV's from 28 knots to at least 30 knots, making them better able to catch the fast Axis battleships. Also it would make them better carrier escorts, since the modern British carriers could all do 30.5 - 32 knots.

Note: The King George V's were originally designed to have 12 x 10" guns in three 4-gun turrets, but this would have cut the speed to only 26 knots, which was far too slow. So the British had to design a new 2-gun turret, which delayed the construction of the ships.

The British were usually in a position to compensate for inferior firepower with superior numbers, so I think an 8-gun ship would have been a more useful design overall.

[Polynikes]

Of course fitting them with 16" guns would be an even better solution.

Battleships were obsolete by the end of WWII and some argue they were already obsolete at the start.

Fitting the KGV with 8 x 14" guns and increasing speed seems like a plan to convert them into battle-cruisers which would probably be a good idea.

[Tiornu]

"Battleships were obsolete by the end of WWII and some argue they were already obsolete at the start."
And some would argue they weren't obsolete at the end of WWII either.
The KGVs were battlecruisers. Well, that's how they were referred to in some Admiralty documents. After WWI, the British developed the habit of calling any fast capital ship a battlecruiser. Lion and Vanguard were occasionally referred to as such.

[Tiornu]

The switch from twelve 14in guns to ten 14in guns was related more to increased protection rather than increased speed.
The design of the twin turret caused no appreciable delay. It was estimated that the new design would slow things by two months, but in the end, the estimated time requirements were all off, and the delays for the quad turrets were much greater than those for the twins. And it must be pointed out that the twin was the only mount that attained true reliability.

[Andy H]

"Battleships were obsolete by the end of WWII and some argue they were already obsolete at the start."

And some would argue they weren't obsolete at the end of WWII either

or some would just say that their primary role had changed

Andy H

[Polynikes]

Tiornu

...and some would argue they weren't obsolete at the end of WWII either.

Yes but those people can be safely ignored.

The KGVs were battlecruisers. Well, that's how they were referred to in some Admiralty documents. After WWI, the British developed the habit of calling any fast capital ship a battlecruiser. Lion and Vanguard were occasionally referred to as such.

28 knots is hardly a fast capital ship.

After WWI, the idea of large fleets of capital ships firing en masse at an opposing force was dropped due to the absense of large battleship fleets.

Capital ships of WWII fought in small numbers of 1 or 2 ships with escorts so speed was important but so was punch.

I've never seen the KGV class referred to as battle-cruisers but then again with no battleship fleets anymore, the distinction is somewhat blurred.

[Tiornu]

"Yes but those people can be safely ignored."
Yeah, that Ray Spruance, his views don't warrant any consideration.
"28 knots is hardly a fast capital ship."
Incorrect.
"After WWI, the idea of large fleets of capital ships firing en masse at an opposing force was dropped due to the absense of large battleship fleets."
I guess "large" is a relative term. The fleet action continued to be the centerpiece in the planning of the major fleets.
"Capital ships of WWII fought in small numbers of 1 or 2 ships with escorts so speed was important but so was punch."
I think they were always important. In the post-treaty world, one could argue that range became increasingly important.
"I've never seen the KGV class referred to as battle-cruisers but then again with no battleship fleets anymore, the distinction is somewhat blurred."
I think you'd have to get into ADM documents to find it. I tend see the distinction between BB and BC as effectively obiterated by 1930. After Hood bridged the gap between the two types, Nelson was the only pure BB design to reach completion, and a BC is even harder to find. Lexington and "O"?

[Andy H]

Just as an aside. In Whitley's book "Battlships of WW2", it shows a picture of KGV on page 140, with a piece of equipment I don't recognize near its stern.

It looks like a multi-barrelled rocket launcher. The piece of equipment is at an angle to its mounting and there are some 16holes/tubes (arrayed in 4x4 rows) within the piece of equipment.

Cure my curiosity please

Andy H

[Tiornu]

Yeah, it looks like a UP projector--unrotated projectile AA rocket launcher. Useless gimickry. The Germans and Japanese waited until the end of the war to put AA rockets into service and see how useless they were.

[Mark V]

My preferred solution:

3 similar turrets with 3 guns each.

Makes not much difference are they 14" or 15" - if 16" could not be mounted - and at that displacement, they propably couldn't...

[Tiornu]

I've often mused that the ideal treaty battleship would mount nine 14in guns.

[Polynikes]

Tiornu

Yeah, that Ray Spruance, his views don't warrant any consideration.
"28 knots is hardly a fast capital ship."

They don't if he's saying that battleships are not obsolete (and very expensive) lumps of metal by the end (if not during) WWII.

Good for shore bombardment & that's about it...and there's much cheaper and effective ways of bombarding a coastline.

I guess "large" is a relative term. The fleet action continued to be the centerpiece in the planning of the major fleets.

Yes it is relative.

Up to 1916, the major fleets expected to group large numbers of their most powerful ships and basically slug it out.

That changed with the great depression and the rise of airpower.

In the Mediterranean the RN did enage a couple of Italian battleships with their own.

In the Atlantic the Bismarck (with a heavy cruiser as escort) engagaed a former British battle-cruiser upgraded to battleship and then engaged a battleship and battlecruiser. After being crippled by an air launched torpedo, battleships finished pounded her before she was either scuttled or topedoed.

And as far as Britain (not counting the attack on the French fleet at Oran), German and Itlay go, that was it.

I'm not aware of any Soviet capital ship actions.

The USN didn't fight any capital ship battles that I can readily think of...the Japanese super-battleship Yamoto never engaged another ship with its prime armament.

At the start of WWII, perhaps admirals still dreamt of battleship engagements as generals had dreamt of cavalry charges in August 1914...the war however was to show that these dreams belonged in the past.

I think they were always important. In the post-treaty world, one could argue that range became increasingly important.

Yes up to a point. The visual horizon though presents a very practical problem.

The Germans had the right idea with their battle-cruisers (panzer-schiffe). Their 11" guns outranged British cruisers and their speed took them away from the heavier British ships. They presented a serious problem that the RN struggled to overcome.

The Graf Spee and Scharnhorst were sunk due to British cunning rather than power.

The rest were done in by airpower.

I think you'd have to get into ADM documents to find it. I tend see the distinction between BB and BC as effectively obiterated by 1930. After Hood bridged the gap between the two types, Nelson was the only pure BB design to reach completion, and a BC is even harder to find. Lexington and "O"?

Certainly all web pages on the RN in WWII class the KGV class as BB's.

http://www.swampworks.com/Kits-KGV.html

You could also say that the Bismarck even better bridged the BB-BC gap.

It became clear very early in WWII that capital ships need speed to be relavent in modern naval warfare. The older slower ships were judged to be too slow to act as carrier escorts and acting alone they just didn't have the speed to engage faster (sometimes equally powerful) ships.

Like tanks, there are 3 prime aspects; speed, firepower & protection. I would say firepower and speed vie for primacy with protection last.

Then again, I wasn't on board the Hood...

[Tiornu]

"They don't if he's saying that battleships are not obsolete (and very expensive) lumps of metal by the end (if not during) WWII. "
Spruance considered battleships a vital component of the Pacific surface fleet, as indicated in the ComPacFleet report at the end of 1945. Not obsolete. Not just for shore bombardment.

"In the Atlantic the Bismarck (with a heavy cruiser as escort) engagaed a former British battle-cruiser upgraded to battleship and then engaged a battleship and battlecruiser."
At Denmark Strait, Bismarck fought a BB and a BC. In her last fight, the main opponents were two BBs.

"I'm not aware of any Soviet capital ship actions."
Soviet battleships did not fight any enemy battleships, mostly because there weren't any. Germany didn't make any aggressive moves with their capital ships.

"The USN didn't fight any capital ship battles that I can readily think of."
American and Japanese battleships fought each other at Guadalcanal and Surigao Strait.

"The visual horizon though presents a very practical problem."
The typical range figure for an American BB design was 15,000nm at 15k knots.

"The Germans had the right idea with their battle-cruisers (panzer-schiffe). Their 11" guns outranged British cruisers and their speed took them away from the heavier British ships. They presented a serious problem that the RN struggled to overcome."
The panzerschiffe were not battlecruisers. They were just over-gunned heavy cruisers. Their gun range was not important. British cruisers could fire to the furthest reaches of cruiser fire-control. By 1939, the surface raider was no longer the same sort of threat as it had been in ages past.

"The Graf Spee and Scharnhorst were sunk due to British cunning rather than power."
Both were overwhelmed by superior British numbers.

"Certainly all web pages on the RN in WWII class the KGV class as BB's."
That's because they were BBs.

"You could also say that the Bismarck even better bridged the BB-BC gap."
Faster, worse protection, larger--yeah, she does look more like a BC.

"Like tanks, there are 3 prime aspects; speed, firepower & protection."
Speed is not an adequate heading. As already mentioned, range had increased importance. Mobility is a better heading, as it includes speed, range, and seakeeping.

[Polynikes]

Tiornu

Spruance considered battleships a vital component of the Pacific surface fleet, as indicated in the ComPacFleet report at the end of 1945. Not obsolete. Not just for shore bombardment.

The USN was the only navy that continued with BB's after WWII (though the RN kept HMS Vanguard with her ancient 15" guns) on until 1960.

Did not Halsey leave the surviving battleships behind after Pearl Harbor as they were too slow to keep up with the carriers?

Nimitz shared this vire too:

"The fast carrier task force had been born of necessity in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor...Nimitz studied his assets and reassembled them as best he could into a fighting force. Despite the manifest success of naval air power at Pearl Harbor, and despite the manifest vulnerability of even battleships to air attack, many traditionalists in the navies of America and Great Britain continued to insist that nothing could take the place of the heavily armored and heavily gunned behemoths. Nimitz boldly rejected that view, assigned the few surviving battleships of the Pacific Fleet to convoy duty between Hawaii and the West Coast, and began perfecting the high-speed hit-and-run techniques that carriers made possible."

http://worldwar2history.info/Midway/ambush.html

At Denmark Strait, Bismarck fought a BB and a BC. In her last fight, the main opponents were two BBs.

Yes, I had already alluded to the fact that battleships in the Atlantic fought in small numbers (ones an twos) and acted like BC's.

Soviet battleships did not fight any enemy battleships, mostly because there weren't any. Germany didn't make any aggressive moves with their capital ships.

Further indication that the day of the BB was over after 1916?

American and Japanese battleships fought each other at Guadalcanal and Surigao Strait.

I wasn't aware of that - apparantly one IJN battleships was sunk after engaging 3 USN battleships at Guadalcanal - a bit like the Royal Navy's experiences in the Atlantic.

The typical range figure for an American BB design was 15,000nm at 15k knots.

That's what I mean.
Contrast this with the typical range of an aircraft strike.

The panzerschiffe were not battlecruisers. They were just over-gunned heavy cruisers. Their gun range was not important. British cruisers could fire to the furthest reaches of cruiser fire-control. By 1939, the surface raider was no longer the same sort of threat as it had been in ages past.

A battle-cruiser was supposed to be a ship with the speed of a cruiser but the firepower of a battleship.
The panzer-schiffe were most definitely battle-cruisers as envisioned by Jackie Fisher.

The Graf Spee & her sisters were christened "pocket-battleships" by the British press and were battle-cruisers by another name. Gneisnau & Scharnhorst were definitely battle-cruisers.

Bismarck & Tirpitz were BB's but their speed gave them an edge - the finest capital ships of the war IMO.

Gun range was important too...at the battle of the River Plate, 3 British cruisers struggled to get to grips with Graf Spee because of her range advantage. It was only by the bravery of the British captains and the mechanical nous of the chief engineers who tilted the balance.

Both were overwhelmed by superior British numbers.

Both were superior ships and could easily have escaped. A trap was set for the Scharnhorst and it was snared and slower, older British ships were able to pound it to death.

The Graf Spee could also have escaped & fought its way clear had its captain been fully aware of the facts.

Both were victories for British naval intelligence and cunning more than ship design.

That's because they were BBs.

Errr...yes, that's what I was trying to tell you.

Faster, worse protection, larger--yeah, she does look more like a BC.

WORSE protection?

Are you familiar with the beating she took before going down? (similar story with the Scharnhorst)

Speed is not an adequate heading...mobility is a better heading, as it includes speed, range, and seakeeping.

Range can be a factor but cruising speed is more important as range can be added or at least accommodated.

[Tiornu]

"The USN was the only navy that continued with BB's after WWII (though the RN kept HMS Vanguard with her ancient 15" guns) on until 1960."
France completed Jean Bart postwar. The Soviets actually started an entirely new dreadnought program postwar.

"Did not Halsey leave the surviving battleships behind after Pearl Harbor as they were too slow to keep up with the carriers?"
It appears that the web site you cited has rehashed some popular but incorrect information. The fast carrier task force predated the Pacific War. The prewar battle plans for the Pacific Fleet started off with carriers in independent formations attacking Japanese positions in the Mandates. In the context of Midway, US battleships would have been largely irrelevant in that they lacked the strength to fulfill their intended role (command of the sea) and would simply have introduced heterogeneity into the American force (speed) while complicating logistics. The fighting around Guadalcanal was relatively BB-free because of logistical concerns.

"Yes, I had already alluded to the fact that battleships in the Atlantic fought in small numbers (ones an twos) and acted like BC's."
What you said was, "In the Atlantic the Bismarck (with a heavy cruiser as escort) engagaed a former British battle-cruiser upgraded to battleship and then engaged a battleship and battlecruiser." I'm not sure what you mean by "acting like BCs."

"Further indication that the day of the BB was over after 1916?"
Or that the Germans were willing to repeat their mistakes from a previous war.

"I wasn't aware of that - apparantly one IJN battleships was sunk after engaging 3 USN battleships at Guadalcanal - a bit like the Royal Navy's experiences in the Atlantic."
Kirishima was engaged by two battleships, Washington and SoDak.

"That's what I mean. Contrast this with the typical range of an aircraft strike."
Okay: 15,000nm versus 200nm.

"A battle-cruiser was supposed to be a ship with the speed of a cruiser but the firepower of a battleship."
No, it was not. It was supposed to be an armored cruiser with all-big-gun weaponry.

"The panzer-schiffe were most definitely battle-cruisers as envisioned by Jackie Fisher."
No. They were far too small and weak compared to battlecruisers.

"Gneisnau & Scharnhorst were definitely battle-cruisers."
Actually, they were schlachtschiffe--battleships.

"Bismarck & Tirpitz were BB's but their speed gave them an edge - the finest capital ships of the war IMO."
An edge over what? Richelieu? Iowa? Littorio?

"Gun range was important too...at the battle of the River Plate, 3 British cruisers struggled to get to grips with Graf Spee because of her range advantage."
The fighting began at a range under 20,000m. All the fighting took place within the range of British 6in guns, not to mention 8in guns.

"A trap was set for the Scharnhorst and it was snared and slower, older British ships were able to pound it to death."
DoY was older than Scharnhorst?

"The Graf Spee could also have escaped & fought its way clear had its captain been fully aware of the facts."
Which facts? That he'd been found by three ships that were five knots faster than his?

"WORSE protection? Are you familiar with the beating she took before going down?"
Extremely. If you are familiar with it, you know that Bismarck lost her guns relatively quickly and then sat there while her upper works were shot up. You could have put almost any battleship in the world there and gotten a similar result. So far, only three BB-caliber hits have been identified on Bismarck's belt. All three were penetrations.

"(similar story with the Scharnhorst)"
Well, Scharnhorst suffered only a baker's dozen of heavy hits and more torpedoes than Bismarck.

"Range can be a factor but cruising speed is more important as range can be added or at least accommodated."
You can't cruise there if you don't have the fuel. Consider the British experience late in the Pacific War.