WW2 Royal Navy Ship Discussion - Are the King George V class of battleships overlooked in terms of WW2 BBs in spite of their service record?

[OnTheBranchline]

People always talk about the Yamato class, Bismarck class and Iowa class but don’t mention about the KGV’s.

 

They either sank or mission killed 2 German battleships (Scharnhorst and Bismarck) which is something more than some of the other highly acclaimed BB classes can claim. The KGVs are the proverbial Hurricane to the other ships being the Spitfire (one gets the glory, the other actually did the killing).

 

Yes, it was too late to redesign them when the escalator clause dropped due to the collapse of the naval treaties but still ten 14’ guns is still a bunch of hurt.

[jjb1970]

The KG-V class was an excellent balanced design within treaty limits. Overall I'm not sure the design could have been meaningfully any better within those limits.

 

The armament was lighter than the Japanese, USN, Littorio and Bismarck class battleships but 10 14" guns was still a formidable main battery. The 5.25" secondary armament has had a lot of criticism and although it was not as good as the superb 5" dual purpose gun of USN ships it was an improvement over the mixed secondary battery of the Bismarck and Littorio classes which retained separate secondary anti-ship and AA guns.

 

The protective arrangement was very good and they demonstrated that they could absorb severe punishment from shell fire. Prince of Wales was lost to air attack and the wing shaft arrangement contributed to that.

 

Not the fastest battleships, they weren't especially slow either. Although range was short at high speed that is true for most warships (maximum range figures reflect economic cruising speed, very different from speed in battle).

 

The main design criticism was probably that they were very wet fwd.

 

The biggest problems were more build quality than design. Delivering ships which were sent into action with all sorts of builders issues to resolve was not a great idea. And even in wartime faults like swarf in gun mechanisms was a poor show and reflective of a British culture that you can't make something like a warship without having a lot of problems to sort out after delivery which persists today.

 

I always thought they were lovely looking ships, I like the clean and still surprisingly modern style of the late RN battleship citadel design. Though no battleship has ever outdone Vanguard in terms of aesthetic appeal for me.

[OnTheBranchline]

The turrets on Vanguard look comically tiny though compared to the size of the ship (the 15 inch guns having been repurposed from many years before)

[The White Rabbit]

Courtesy of DeAgostini (the models - 1:1250 I think) and a former client who changed his mind (pah...) about a commission, I ended up with some small models of some of these ships. Unfortunately, I have no KGV class models (some were made) but for comparison of some of the other battleships of the period, have uploaded two snaps. 

 

 

Rear, Iowa class; middle, Vanguard; front, Bismarck. 

 

 

Iowa at rear again, then three German ships, from rear middle, Bismarck (15" main armament), Scharnhorst (11" guns, so arguably a battlecruiser than a battleship) , Prinz Eugen (8" Hipper class heavy cruiser). 

 

3 hours ago, OnTheBranchline said:

The turrets on Vanguard look comically tiny though compared to the size of the ship (the 15 inch guns having been repurposed from many years before)

 

They certainly look small compared to Bismarck, Iowa too but obviously the latter has three guns to accommodate. The thing which has always struck me about Vanguard is the bridge island's height and narrowness. 

 

[jjb1970]

To me Vanguard was the aesthetic pinnacle of the big gun capital ship.

 

The glorious hull lines with that sheet curve and transom stern. The classic 2 x2 fwd and 2x2 aft main battery. The clean citadel. Twin funnels. Glorious.

[eastglosmog]

1 hour ago, The White Rabbit said:

.............. 

 

 

They certainly look small compared to Bismarck, Iowa too but obviously the latter has three guns to accommodate. The thing which has always struck me about Vanguard is the bridge island's height and narrowness. 

 

The turrets (strictly Barbette hoods) of Vanguard are smaller than those of Bismarck because of the inefficient German design (for naval purposes) of the breech block mechanisms, which required much more room sideways than those used by the British and Americans.

[OnTheBranchline]

6 minutes ago, eastglosmog said:

The turrets (strictly Barbette hoods) of Vanguard are smaller than those of Bismarck because of the inefficient German design (for naval purposes) of the breech block mechanisms, which required much more room sideways than those used by the British and Americans.

Everything about Bismarck was inefficient - that’s why she was so heavy in the first place.

[jjb1970]

HMS Vanguard has often been derided as a bit of a low rent second-best effort because the main battery re-used the old 15" gun. That tends to ignore the fact that the 15" remained a superb heavy gun in WW2 and that the installation in Vanguard was improved with greater elevation and first class fire control (naval warfare in both world wars gave plenty of illustration that top trumps type comparison of guns was much less important than whether the guns had much chance of hitting the target).

[The White Rabbit]

I recall a distinguished naval historian commenting on calibre and accuracy/range matters in a gunnery duel and saying something very similar. 

[Ozexpatriate]

Without intending to be a party pooper, comparing the best world war two "battleship" designs is a bit like deciding on the best sunroof for a submarine.

 

They were all essentially obsolete by the start of the war - as demonstrated by the RN with their propelled kites at Taranto and the IJN with more updated equipment at Pearl Harbor, and off Malaya, then the Coral Sea, Midway, etc, etc.

 

The large German ships were ultimately incapacitated (if not destroyed) by aircraft as well - not to mention being spotted/tracked by aircraft (and not battleship-launched aircraft) as well.

 

I'll grant you they were very 'glamorous' in the 1930s. Lines of battleships with an aerial screen of Zeppelin-launched patrol aircraft is very evocative, if not utterly obsolete by the time they were needed.

[ERIC ALLTORQUE]

On the Bismarck break out and her destruction two KGV ships did what they were built for, Prince of Wales hitting her and causing enough damage to sow the seed for His destruction and King George V herself in the final battle on 27th.We also had the last RN gun duel of two capital ships with the sinking of Scharnhorst in December 43 by Duke of York,the other two,Anson and Howe were just to late to see action in Europe.

[ERIC ALLTORQUE]

Heres the man who was gunnery officer and in control of HMS Prince of Wales in the Denmark Strait battle with Bismarck, Colin McMullen RN when they did interviews for IWM

quite soft spoken but he was there when Hood was destroyed and knew they had the range and had hit Bismarck,reel two i think.....

 

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/80010751

 

Edited February 5, 2023 by ERIC ALLTORQUE

[jjb1970]

19 hours ago, The White Rabbit said:

I recall a distinguished naval historian commenting on calibre and accuracy/range matters in a gunnery duel and saying something very similar. 

 

Gunnery control is probably the most overlooked aspect of warship design. It's a very technical subject, and rather mathematical, which may explain why very few specialised books on warships and/or naval history approach the subject in any detail, let alone more generalized works.

 

Some seem to think it is a case of looking at a target through a gun sight, bringing the gun on target and firing.

 

However, if we imagine two ships, each manoeuvring at speeds of 25 - 30 knots and zigg zagging, at ranges of typically 10 - 20 miles trying to hit a target which really wasn't very big then it starts to become clear just how difficult it was, it was necessary to:

 

-establish range;

-establish heading;

-caculate relative speeds;

-calculate deflection;

-control guns to bring them on target and correct elevation by communicating with the gun turrets;

-fire;

-monitor shell fall and correct.

 

All of that had to be done in battle conditions extremely quickly using electro-mechanical fire tables (primitive computers) and until radar the critical input data relied on optical range finders which in turn relied to a great extent on the skill of the operators.

 

That naval gunners were as good as they were was quite remarkable, but in a typical big gun battle only a tiny percentage of shells hit. 

 

[The White Rabbit]

17 hours ago, Ozexpatriate said:

Without intending to be a party pooper, comparing the best world war two "battleship" designs is a bit like deciding on the best sunroof for a submarine.

 

They were all essentially obsolete by the start of the war - as demonstrated by the RN with their propelled kites at Taranto and the IJN with more updated equipment at Pearl Harbor, and off Malaya, then the Coral Sea, Midway, etc, etc.

 

The large German ships were ultimately incapacitated (if not destroyed) by aircraft as well - not to mention being spotted/tracked by aircraft (and not battleship-launched aircraft) as well.

 

I'll grant you they were very 'glamorous' in the 1930s. Lines of battleships with an aerial screen of Zeppelin-launched patrol aircraft is very evocative, if not utterly obsolete by the time they were needed.

 

Like any weapons system, they are as good - or bad - as the directing 'management' allows them to be. Yes, only a fool would try and argue big gun battleships were not vulnerable to air power, though a very similar argument could be made today about the supercarriers seen by many as today's capital ships/battleships. It's the old, old story of warhead and armour. And I would define 'armour' very widely and include concealment (as in both stealth of surface ships and submarines' ability to submerge). If you can't detect a target then you can't hit it and destroy it. 

 

They had their place and like any article in a combatant's armoury, their most effective use was in combination with other weapons. If Bismarck had been supported by the Luftwaffe and U-boats (as was promised) on their run to Brest for repairs then a sizeable portion of the Royal Navy could very easily have been lured into a trap and (to use a phrase from WW1) destroyed in an afternoon. That could have altered the course of the war. 

 

I agree the USN did develop carrier warfare into a fine art in the Pacific and battleships were little more than the 'big sister' escorts to the carriers. But if the IJN's heavy surface units had evaded the USN aircraft and got within big gun range of a carrier group, then the US battleships and heavy cruisers could buy time for the carrier aircraft to redeploy or rearm and engage. Without them, scratch one carrier group.  

 

Of the German heavy units, many were tied to their bases due to a fuel shortage. U-boat fuel was given priority as they were seen as producing more 'cost' effective results. So ships such as the Tirpitz were not usually fueled to allow them to have free rein in the open sea, either to act as offensive weapons or to evade RAF attacks. Limiting a ship's mobility and opportunity to create a threat to an enemy is the fastest way I know to turn an asset into a liability (or target as our friends in the silent service would say). 

[ERIC ALLTORQUE]

On the gunnery thing,Bismarck was so effective on the Demark Strait engagement with Hood then PoW as Adalbert Schneider fired 4 gun salvoes to find the range rather than full eight gun ones until they straddled the target.

[OnTheBranchline]

19 hours ago, Ozexpatriate said:

Without intending to be a party pooper, comparing the best world war two "battleship" designs is a bit like deciding on the best sunroof for a submarine.

 

They were all essentially obsolete by the start of the war - as demonstrated by the RN with their propelled kites at Taranto and the IJN with more updated equipment at Pearl Harbor, and off Malaya, then the Coral Sea, Midway, etc, etc.

 

The large German ships were ultimately incapacitated (if not destroyed) by aircraft as well - not to mention being spotted/tracked by aircraft (and not battleship-launched aircraft) as well.

 

I'll grant you they were very 'glamorous' in the 1930s. Lines of battleships with an aerial screen of Zeppelin-launched patrol aircraft is very evocative, if not utterly obsolete by the time they were needed.

 

That's pretty much a revisionist/hindsight view. In 1939, it was not clear that the aircraft carrier was the only way of the future (carriers were since as a support unit - like at the Battle of Matapan, carrier planes were supposed to show down the Italian fleet and then the RN BBs were supposed to engage at night which they did spectularly).  One must have an appreciation for the fact that alot of procurement/strategy is based on 'the last war'.

 

The big nations were very much 'still fighing the last war' as evidence by:

Japan was designing/building Yamato/Musashi - the biggest battleships ever.

USA was designing/building North Carolina class with designs of the Iowa class started.

UK was building King George V class Battleships

France was building Richelieu/Jean Bart.

Germany was building Bismarck/Tirpitz. 

 

Only after the pacific war in earnest started, did people realize that the carrier was the way of the future. That point was definitely slammed home by the sinking of Yamato by massive aerial assault in Operation Ten-Go. If the IJN was so forward thinking in 1939, why build Yamato and Musashi at all?

Edited February 5, 2023 by OnTheBranchline

[ERIC ALLTORQUE]

5 hours ago, OnTheBranchline said:

 

That's pretty much a revisionist/hindsight view. In 1939, it was not clear that the aircraft carrier was the only way of the future (carriers were since as a support unit - like at the Battle of Matapan, carrier planes were supposed to show down the Italian fleet and then the RN BBs were supposed to engage at night which they did spectularly).  One must have an appreciation for the fact that alot of procurement/strategy is based on 'the last war'.

 

The big nations were very much 'still fighing the last war' as evidence by:

Japan was designing/building Yamato/Musashi - the biggest battleships ever.

USA was designing/building North Carolina class with designs of the Iowa class started.

UK was building King George V class Battleships

France was building Richelieu/Jean Bart.

Germany was building Bismarck/Tirpitz. 

 

Only after the pacific war in earnest started, did people realize that the carrier was the way of the future. That point was definitely slammed home by the sinking of Yamato by massive aerial assault in Operation Ten-Go. If the IJN was so forward thinking in 1939, why build Yamato and Musashi at all?

The Japanese had a third battleship of the Yamato class what was stopped and the hull used for Shinano a huge carrier,i think they got the message when they sunk PoW AND Repulse.

Edited February 5, 2023 by ERIC ALLTORQUE

[30851]

5 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

 

Gunnery control is probably the most overlooked aspect of warship design. It's a very technical subject, and rather mathematical, which may explain why very few specialised books on warships and/or naval history approach the subject in any detail, let alone more generalized works.

 

 

 

And even when you find a book on the topic that is supposed to be in laymen's terms https://www.amazon.com/Naval-Firepower-Battleship-Gunnery-Dreadnought-ebook/dp/B00KTI0T0E/ref=sr_1_24?crid=39R0EBLGK976G&keywords=norman+friedman&qid=1675622444&s=books&sprefix=norman+fre%2Cstripbooks%2C637&sr=1-24  by an author you normally understand (Norman Friedman) then this stuff still leaves me scratching my head!

 

Rob

[Michael Hodgson]

6 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

 

That naval gunners were as good as they were was quite remarkable, but in a typical big gun battle only a tiny percentage of shells hit. 

 

Much the same could be said of aerial bombardment by the Luftwaffe, RAF et al.  A 1000-bomber raid carpet bombing an area was how you made the result statistically inevitable. 

[Ozexpatriate]

5 hours ago, OnTheBranchline said:

If the IJN was so forward thinking in 1939, why build Yamato and Musashi at all?

I didn't say anywhere that they were "so forward thinking".

 

When most of the big battleships were designed/laid down (or at least envisioned), aircraft technology (as covered in the other thread) was not nearly as threatening and the inertia/hubris of naval architecture seemed to believe that more anti-aircraft guns would be adequate.

 

The aircraft design revolution in the mid-1930s changed everything and not unlike the limited ability of a battleship to maneuver quickly, the inertia of naval architecture changed slower than aircraft innovations.

 

HMS King George V was laid down on January 1, 1937 - before the Gloucester Gladiator was introduced to the RAF (February 1937) and FAA.

 

Work began on the Iowa class in 1938 and USS Iowa was laid down in mid-1940. The planned Montana class was never built.

 

Edited February 5, 2023 by Ozexpatriate
Links

[Ozexpatriate]

5 hours ago, The White Rabbit said:

But if the IJN's heavy surface units had evaded the USN aircraft and got within big gun range of a carrier group, then the US battleships and heavy cruisers could buy time for the carrier aircraft to redeploy or rearm and engage. Without them, scratch one carrier group.  

Leyte Gulf  - Battle off Samar. The IJN tried. The IJN failed. The bravery of the tin can sailors cannot be forgotten.

[Ozexpatriate]

4 hours ago, OnTheBranchline said:

That's pretty much a revisionist/hindsight view. 

It is not "revisionist". It is a "hindsight" view.

[Ozexpatriate]

5 hours ago, The White Rabbit said:

Yes, only a fool would try and argue big gun battleships were not vulnerable to air power, though a very similar argument could be made today about the supercarriers seen by many as today's capital ships/battleships.

Yes. It could. Let's hope it doesn't get tested.

[62613]

7 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

 

Gunnery control is probably the most overlooked aspect of warship design. It's a very technical subject, and rather mathematical, which may explain why very few specialised books on warships and/or naval history approach the subject in any detail, let alone more generalized works.

 

However, if we imagine two ships, each manoeuvring at speeds of 25 - 30 knots and zigg zagging, at ranges of typically 10 - 20 miles trying to hit a target which really wasn't very big then it starts to become clear just how difficult it was, it was necessary to:

 

-establish range;

-establish heading;

-caculate relative speeds;

-calculate deflection;

-control guns to bring them on target and correct elevation by communicating with the gun turrets;

-fire;

-monitor shell fall and correct. 

 

Then your ship rolled or pitched or did both, Just as the gunnery officer pressed his button to fire the guns, and all your calculations were for nothing! It's why British (at least) battleships fired their guns to give the fall of shot a "spread", rather than all be concentrated at the same range. The fall of shot spotter had three choices on his machine: "Short", "Straddle" and "Over", which tells its own tale.

 

[Ozexpatriate]

5 hours ago, ERIC ALLTORQUE said:

The Japanese had a third battleship of the Yamato class what was stopped and the hull used for Shinano a huge carrier,i think they got the message when the sunk PoW AND Repulse.

The USN converted hulls of the planned Lexington Class battlecruisers to be the USS Lexington and USS Saratoga. Their scrapping as battlecruisers on the ways in 1922 was related to the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 rather than a prediction of the obsolescence of battleships.

 

It turned out well for the USN, despite their disdain for the abrasive gadfly Billy Mitchell whose assertion:

Quote

1000 bomber aircraft could be built and operated for the cost of one dreadnought and that his airplanes could sink a battleship.

Was ultimately proven correct in essence even if only 132 or so B-29s were around the cost of an Iowa Class battleship.