INTERWAR BRITISH BATTLESHIP DESIGN

[delcyros]

I have figures for 28.5 kts trial speed for Graf Spee (at 54.000SHP) and 26 kts. sustainable for cruise speed. This isn´t comparabel to a cruiser or battlecruiser, I think the range was the difference. Agreed.

 

[delcyros]

Nethertheless, the Nelson class was a quantum leap in ship protective design. I reread my posts and just want to underline this. Didn´t wanted to reduce her protective charckteristics by thinking it couldn´t match cruisers. It wasn´t designed to do and with enough ships You could bring her in serious trouble but no cruiser could feel save in such an engagement.

 

[Glider]

Don't worry, my money is still on the big fella.

 

[delcyros]

And this I can understand, too.

 

[carpenoctem1689]

Britain must have been aware of Japanese re-amrmament in the Pacific, and of expansion into the asian mainland. Yet one of the british thoughts was of many cruisers to defend the vast expanses of ocean it needed. Granted it was much more economical, but even in recognizing the japanese belligerence, they didnt make a "pacific Battleship". Range was always somewhat limited, requiring bases to refuel, but if the japanese went all out on england instead of the US, they would have undoubtedly lost more of these bases, limiting BB effectiveness. The british should have known about japanese armament and details, because they built two battleships for them. Does anyone know how the bristish thought of countering this problem, or whether they thought about it at all?

 

[Glider]

I think the thrust of your point is that the British ships lacked range. This I accept but it should be remembered that when we designed these ships we did have a number of bases to use for refueling. No thought was given in the RN to refueling at sea or deevelopmet of a fleet train to support our ships, and this remained our key problem for the rest of the war.
The pre war plan was to send a fleet to the Pacific to support our bases in case of conflict. As we know this was never going to work due to the importance of carriers of which we were behind in numbers compared to the IJN. We did send a fleet but without carriers and they basically spent all their time hiding from the IJN.

 

[carpenoctem1689]

and the POW and repulse were sunk at the beginning of the war, december 10th i think, by land based torpedo bombers. Two fine ships sent right to the bottom, remember hearing that was quite a blow to british morale when everyone found out. The british are just damn lucky the japanese attacked at pearl harbor, instead of trying to take out the british bases with all their forces. Because initially, the bases would have fallen, because englands main focuses were in the air over her own skies, and africa, two vital fronts, not to mention the atlantic, and hitlers U-boats.

 

[stug3]

HMS DUKE OF YORK in heavy seas on a convoy escort operation to Russia, March 1942.

A King George V-class battleship of the Royal Navy. Laid down in May 1937, the ship was constructed by John Brown and Company at Clydebank, Scotland, and commissioned into the Royal Navy on 4 November 1941.


HMS Duke of York in March 1942, while escorting Convoy PQ 12.

Gun crews

Refits
April 1942- 8 x single 20mm added.
December 1942 – March 1943- 14 x single 20mm added.
Early 1944- 2x single 20mm removed; 2 x twin 20mm added.
September 1944 – April 1945- 2x 4-barrelled 40mm added
2x 8-barrelled 2-pdr pom-pom added
6x 4-barrelled 2-pdr pom-pom added
14x twin 20mm added, 18x single 20mm removed
Aircraft facilities added
Type 273 radar removed, Type 281 radar replaced by Type 281B radar, Type 284 radar replaced by 2x Type 274 radar; 2x Types 277, 282 and 293 radars added.
1946- 4x 4-barrelled 2-pdr pom-pom added, 25 x single 20mm removed.

Post war
Duke of York was flagship of the Home Fleet following the end of the war and remained in service until April 1949. She was laid up in November 1951, and on 18 May 1957 she was ordered to be scrapped. She was broken up by Shipbreaking Industries, Ltd, in Faslane.

 

[vinnye]

What the Royal Navy should have built was the G3 Class Battlecruiser.
The Ship Model Forum • View topic - Calling all Royal Navy G3 Battlecruiser fans

 

[stug3]

That model is beautiful.

 

[vinnye]

From what I can see of the Rodney / Nelson design, if they were to zig zig - they could engage targets approaching from stern quarters with the X turret whilst engaging targets from different quarters with A and B turrets? This would make it difficult for a cruiser to sneak up on them - especially as they had radar fitted.

 

[stug3]

It doesnt seem like a problem they ever expected to deal with. I guess the radar was a factor in that. What about torpedo boats, etc.?

 

[Shortround6]

Shooting at torpedo boats, even steam powered 600 ton ones, with 16 in guns is like trying to swat flies with an 8 pound hammer. A lot of fury and energy used for not much result. Nelson and Rodney carried twelve 6 in guns in powered worked twin turrets three to a side. The firepower of a light cruiser on a more stable platform. This was the designed "anti-torpedo" battery.

 

[vinnye]

I would expect the destroyer escort to be dealing with any small torpedo type craft leaving the capital ships to engage larger targets.

 

[vinnye]

There were other designs being considered between the wars - notably the N3 Battleships - to complement the G3 Battlecruiser design. They would have had 9 x 18 inch guns and an "all or nothing" armour plan to keep weight down.
Also at 23 knots it was quite quick for the time.

 

[vinnye]

An alternative for the RN may have been to equip the KGV class with either 4 x tripple 16 inch guns or more likely 2 x tripple and 2 x twin 16 inch armament?
The latter would avoid adding too much top weightwhilst still increasing the firepower of the ships.

 

[Shortround6]

As a very rough rule of thumb you can assume that not only does the weight of the projectile go up with the cube of the caliber but so does the weight of the gun AND the gun mountings. Armor not included but elevating and traversing machinery, size of turn tables, ammo hoists etc.

Throw in that 4 turrets/barbettes will almost always weigh more than 3 turrets/barbettes and the idea of a 10-12 gun 16in armed KGVs fades fast unless something else is given up (armor or speed) or there is a very large growth in hull size.

 

[delcyros]

I agree. It would also add an unacceptable amount of topweight to the design. Remember, most of the revolving structure, all of the barbette and all of the turret weight are placed well above the GM, thus depleting the already low design metacentric height of the KGV class.
I cannot see why You want this to happen at all.

The G3 class was about as good as a battleship is ever going to be on about ~50,000ts.

 

[tomo pauk]

How good for the RN would be a BB with 3 x 3 16in cannons, layout being as in South Dakota BB?

 

[delcyros]

That´s the LION-class design of RN battleships. Basically the KGV-scheme with 3x3 16in MkII.
Roughly 43,300 to 43,700ts standart, 28.75kts max speed, armour and torpedo protection similar to the KGV (except for turret and barbettes which are slightly thicker).

Compared to the SOUTH DAKOTA´s, this design is slightly larger and faster, has comparable firepower and comparable or arguably better armour protection.