King George V main batteries

Discussion in 'Weapons, Technology & Equipment' started by superpumper, Jul 26, 2006.

  1. superpumper

    superpumper Junior Member

    What was wrong with the main batteries on the KG V class battleships? I believe they had trouble throughout their lives. I don't remember where I got this idea but I think it was because the RN wanted all angle loading to improve their rate of firing. The main batteries of other BB's had to be below 5 degrees elevation to be loaded. Can anyone help clear up my mind?
     
  2. adrian roberts

    adrian roberts Senior Member

    Try this link

    http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_14-45_mk7.htm

    Doesn't answer your question directly, but gives background and suggests that the problems were largely, but not entirely, fixed by 1943.
    Seems there were several problems; your theory sounds very plausible and this issue could well be one of the main problems.

    Adrian
     
  3. spidge

    spidge RAAF RESEARCHER

    What was wrong with the main batteries on the KG V class battleships? I believe they had trouble throughout their lives. I don't remember where I got this idea but I think it was because the RN wanted all angle loading to improve their rate of firing. The main batteries of other BB's had to be below 5 degrees elevation to be loaded. Can anyone help clear up my mind?

    Very good synopsis here of all of them.

    http://www.chuckhawks.com/treaty_battleships.htm


    KING GEORGE V class.
    The five ships of the British KG V class: King George V, Prince of Wales, Duke of York, Anson, and Howe, were all laid down in 1937. They are often criticized as inferior to the contemporary German Bismarck class, but their critics fail to recognize that the Royal Navy ships were originally designed within the 35,000 ton treaty limit, while the German ships exceeded the limit by approximately 7,000 tons. The KG V's should properly be compared to the German Scharnhorst class, which were of approximately the same size. Or the French Richelieu or the American North Carolina class, also designed to treaty limits.
    Such comparisons are interesting because they reveal something about the military and political thought of the period. The British government desperately wanted to limit main battery guns to 14 inches. So they insisted that their new class of battleships be designed to carry 14 inch guns. The United States was lukewarm to this idea, really preferred the 16 inch gun, but went along and initially designed the North Carolina class for 14 inch guns. The French wanted ships equal to their Italian rival's latest design, which required 15 inch guns and armor sufficient to protect against 15 inch shells. But they also wanted to stay within the 35,000 ton treaty limit (which the Italians ignored). The Richelieu was an unusual and compromised design, but she had the balance of gun and armor desired, and did it on 35,000 tons. She was authorized before the 14in gun limit came into effect.
    Initially, the KG V design called for 12-14 inch guns in three quadruple turrets. Twelve guns was regarded as necessary to achieve the total broadside weight desired for the new ships, given the 14 inch bore restriction. Unfortunately, stability and protection considerations later required that the superfiring "B" turret be reduced to a twin mount. This gave the ships only 10 guns, and required the design of two new types of turrets rather than just one. Fortunately, the new twin mount could be based on the tried and true 15 inch twin mount, but the new quadruple mount was complex and took a very long time to sort out.
    I think it would have been better to design one new triple mount that could be made to function, settling for 9-14 inch guns in mounts that worked rather than gamble on the ultra complex quadruple mount, and have to design a new twin mount to boot.
    At any rate, these ships were criticized because of their main battery for the rest of their lives, and some of the criticisms were justified. In service, the 14 inch quadruple mount had a very poor record. At times during the action against Bismarck, only POW's 'B' position twin turret was able to fire at the enemy. And it is reported that KG V also suffered from turret breakdowns in her action against Bismarck. This has received much less attention that POW's problems, probably because the Royal Navy certainly did not want the word to get out that their new battleships had defective main battery turrets, and also because Rodney was there to take up the slack in the final fight against Bismarck. The other big fight involving one of the KG V class was DOY against Scharnhorst, and I have read mixed reviews. At least one source claimed that (at last) the quadruple turrets worked as designed, but others (including Conway's) suggest that trouble with the quadruple mounts still persisted. I do not know the truth of the matter. But Scharnhorst was sunk at the end of 1943, three years of continuous war duty since the introduction of the 14 inch quadruple mount. One would think that if it had not been made to work by then, it never would be. All in all, the service record of the British 14 inch quadruple mount is not inspiring.
    The KG V class has also been (justifiably) criticized for being wet forward, and they were hampered by a very short range due to their small oil capacity. This limited their usefulness in the Pacific war, as they carried only a little over half of the fuel a similar size U.S. battleship carried. The KG V's tactical diameter was rather large at 930 yards.
    The dual purpose 5.25 inch secondary mounts proved to be too slow firing in the heavy AA role, they only elevated to 70 degrees, and they were crowded. On the other hand, they were certainly better value for the weight than the single purpose secondary battery of the third generation German and Italian battleships.
    The KG Vs also had their good points, a fact sometimes overlooked by their critics. Their armor was generally heavy and extensive, except on the secondary turrets and CT. The main belt was very deep, extending 13 feet below the waterline at mean draught. The main deck armor was 6in over the magazines, and 5in otherwise. The underwater protection scheme was designed to withstand a 1000lb TNT charge at its most favorable point. All of this made the KG Vs generally better protected than their contemporaries, with the possible exception of Richelieu.
    Their internal layout was certainly better than Bismarck's and their radar fire control was superior to anything possessed by the Axis powers. Scharnhorst, for example, was completely surprised when DOY opened fire on her using radar control in thick fog off the North Cape of Norway in the middle of winter.
    Also, the 14 inch gun itself was a potent weapon. It fired a 1,590 projectile at a MV of 2,483 fps to a range of 38,550 yards at 40 degrees elevation. It was claimed that the 14in AP shell penetrated any given thickness of armor at a greater range than the earlier British 15in shell. Simple arithmetic shows that a full broadside from KG V weighed 15,900lb, and a full broadside from Richelieu weighed 15,504lb. Bismarck's broadside weight was somewhat less than Richelieu's. Seen in this light it is apparent that the KG V's were not particularly under gunned compared to other contemporary European battleships.
    Their specifications were:
    Displacement: 36,727t standard; 42,076 deep load Dimensions: 700ft pp, 745ft oa x 103ft x 29ft mean, 32ft 7in at 42,076t Machinery: 4-shaft Parsons geared turbines, 8 Admiralty 3-drum boilers, 110,000shp = 28kts. Oil 3,700t, later 4030t Armor: Belt 15in-4.5in, bulkheads 12in-4in, barbettes 13in-11in, turrets 13in-6in, CT 4.5in-2in Armament: 10-14in/45 Mk VII (2x4, 1x2), 16-5.25in/50 DP (8x2), 32-2pdr pompom (4x8), 2 aircraft Complement: 1422 Because the war broke out and the Treaty lapsed while these ships were still under construction, they were allowed to grow above the old Treaty limit in displacement. They were to grow still more as the war went on and new equipment was added, particularly radar and more light AA guns (up to 65-20mm Oerlikon, 8-octuple 2pdr pompoms plus 6-quadruple pompoms, and up to 14-40mm Bofors in quadruple and single mounts). By 1945 Anson's extreme deep load displacement was up to 45,360t. Stability decreased accordingly.
    King George V was completed in December of 1940, Prince of Wales and Duke of York in 1941, and Anson and Howe in 1942. POW was sunk at the end of 1941; the four survivors were broken up in 1957.
    They all had very active war careers. Their most spectacular moments were POW's fight against Bismarck in company with Hood, May 1941, in which POW was hit repeatedly, but none of her vital systems were put out of action by enemy shellfire; KGV's participation in the defeat and sinking of Bismarck a few days later (as Home Fleet Flagship); and DOY's defeat of Scharnhorst in late December 1943.
    The only wartime loss was POW, which (along with the battlecruiser Repulse) was sunk off the coast of Malaya by a series of air strikes made by Japanese land based Naval aircraft on 10 December 1941. She became the first battleship sunk underway at sea by aircraft, and this event, more than Pearl Harbor, signaled the end of the battleship's years as the dominant class of warship.
    NORTH CAROLINA
     
    Dave55 likes this.
  4. superpumper

    superpumper Junior Member

    There is one thing I found out if the info is correct. That is the Iowa class main battery could elevate or depress faster then any other BB's made.
     
  5. MikB

    MikB Senior Member

    It was probably simply the newness of the complex quad mountings, as hinted by others, compounded by the huge rotating mass of 1500 tons. KGV is did suffer during the final Bismarck action, to the point of only 20% effectiveness by the end, whereas Rodney had been punching out 9 gun broadsides whenever she could bring them all to bear for about an hour and a half. But Rodney's effectiveness and reliability had been bought at the cost of several extensive reworks and endless modifications during the 30s.

    DoY produced an average of 68% effective output during the Scharnhorst action, and only one gun was trouble-free throughout - though this was distinct improvement on PoW and KGV's showing, and the accuracy provided radar direction and ranging was what really clinched matters.

    Incidientally, according to Peter Hodges' "The Big Gun", where quite a lot of my info comes from, the KGV class 14" gun had a fixed 5 degree loading angle. I think he makes the point somewhere that high loading angles were not much liked by gunners, because of the impossibility of guaranteeing the shell would stay in the leed until the charges were rammed and the breech closed, especially if the mounting should train or a near miss cause heavy vibration. One of those rounds falling out into the gunhouse would cause anxiety about more than just the loss of gunfire output!

    Regards,
    MikB
     
  6. spidge

    spidge RAAF RESEARCHER

    One of those rounds falling out into the gunhouse would cause anxiety about more than just the loss of gunfire output!

    Regards,
    MikB

    I think it would be a very smelly gunhouse if that did occur.[​IMG]
     
  7. superpumper

    superpumper Junior Member

    MilB thanks for the info on that. That make sense that they would depress to degrees. But do you know did any navies have all angle loading? I just can't lose that idea. It seems I read that some where and I must read it wrong. Maybe some one tried that.
     
  8. superpumper

    superpumper Junior Member

    I'm sorry for that mess in the last post. I didn't proof read it before posting and it is early for me since I retired. MikB I assume "the Big Gun" is a book. Could you tell me when it was published. I'm sure I'd like to read it.
     
  9. MikB

    MikB Senior Member

    The book "The Big gun" is ISBN 0-85177-144-0, first published 1981.

    I didn't comment in it because it wasn't in the KGV class, but the 15" Mk.1 mounting used in the QEs and RSs had "any angle" reloading. In the mountings as built this saved a bit of time because a precise elevation didn't have to be set, but the problems I alluded to made it unpopular to do it at the higher angles. The rammer has to push the shell into the chamber so that the soft metal driving band deforms elastically and sticks into the start of the rifling with a ringing clang, so as to be sure the shell doesn't slide back as the rammer retracts to allow the gunloading cage to advance to the first half-charge position. As the elevation increases, this process becomes more uncertain with rounds approaching a ton in weight - and needs more hydraulic power to achieve, a possibly scarce resource in battle with all systems working at high demand. Then, of course, on some of the QEs, max elevation was increased to 30 degrees between the wars, but the max reloading angle couldn't be increased to match and stayed at the original 20. Succeeding designs made no attempt to perpetuate "any angle" reloading. It was very demanding of gunhouse space and led to great additional complexity. So it had some value in speeding and simplifying reloading, but not as much as might appear.

    Regards,
    MikB
     
  10. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Senior Member

    The actual initial problems with the 14" gun turrets on the KGV class only effected the quad mount not the twin. It had primarily to do with poor alignment and workmanship of the shell 'carousel' in the handling room below the turret. This device was a circular set of trays on which the 14" shells were placed from the shell room for movement the shell hoist and then into the turret itself.
    What frequently happened early on in the quad mounting was that the trays were too flimsy and would distort or were misaligned and would get caught in the turret train as it rotated. The first problem resulted in a misalignment or even breaking of the trays making power handling of the shells up to the turret impossible. When this happened the turret could continue to fire the few salvos of shells already in the hoist or turret after which no more ammunition could be hoisted up. With the later problem the turret would be jammed in train and no longer be able to traverse making it useless. Both problems cropped up on the PoW during her fight with Bismarck. Both generally required the better part of an hour or more to clear up before the turret could be brought back into action.
    An additional problem with the KGVs was that A turret was very wet in heavy seas. Flooding through the gun ports was a common complaint and in some cases degraded (working in freezing water ankle to knee deep is not helpful) or even disabled (electrical failrues usually) the turret operations.

    As an additional note, most large naval guns (typically 8" and up) had fixed loading angles due to the ramming equipment being set in a fixed position. Therefore, firing at high elevations was slowed due to the need to depress the gun, load, then re-elevate the gun to firing position. By trying to make a system "all angle" one would be introducing alot of weight and complexity unnecessarily into the system. This is why it was not attempted on a wide basis and usually proved a failure where it was tried.
     
  11. davidbfpo

    davidbfpo Patron Patron

    For those interested in such matters I recently discovered a series of tweets by Matt Warwick using @mpwarwick . So far he has covered armour, guns, fire control and more. The tweets have photo, diagrams and more.

    An aside: the RN did odd things publicly pre-war (from a tweet 12/12/20):
     
  12. Dave55

    Dave55 Atlanta, USA

    A RN study found that during WWI officers almost always stayed on the bridge and never went in to the conning tower during battle so they saved top weight by making the conning tower on the class only four inches thick.
     
  13. Ewen Scott

    Ewen Scott Well-Known Member

    The main armament of the KGVs always comes in for criticism due to the problems it had. But the 16” Mk.I turrets in the Nelrods proved less than perfect when the ships entered service in 1927. It took until the early 1930s to iron the bugs out of them. Difference was that happened in peacetime rather than the heat of war.
    United Kingdom / Britain 16"/45 (40.6 cm) Mark I - NavWeaps
     
  14. Ewen Scott

    Ewen Scott Well-Known Member

    British Battleships up to and including the KGVs lacked much sheer on the hull forward which tended to make them wet in heavy seas. The reason for this was Admiralty policy that they be able to use their main armament around the dead ahead position at low elevations, as the RN preferred to fight at closer ranges than some other navies. The Lions were initially designed this way and it was only in 1942 that Vanguard was redesigned, almost a year after being laid down, to incorporate much more sheer in the hull forward. By then it had become clear that big gun battles were being fought at longer ranges and seakeeping was rated as more important. But it was not universally approved of in the RN at the time. Postwar Vanguard was rated much better than the USN Iowas in heavy seas.
     
  15. Alec1935

    Alec1935 Active Member

    ISTR That at the time of the Bismark action the KGV had been on a shake down cruse and went in to action with a lot of dockyard workers on board snagging the various problems including the turrets.
     
  16. davidbfpo

    davidbfpo Patron Patron

    I think it is true as it may have appeared in the recent tweets by Matt Warwick using @mpwarwick Otherwise I know nowt.
     
  17. Alec1935

    Alec1935 Active Member

    Oops! That should have been PoW and not KGV !

    Note to self engaged brain before typing reply!
     

Share This Page