RN going with 15' or 16' for KGV BB - pros cons?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

The Lion would have been a decent Battleship - having good speed, firepower and protection - but it was decided to go ahead with the design too late. By the time they were starting to build the first of six, the aircraft carrier has superceded the battlewaggon as the ship to have to project power.
Having said that the RN gave it one last attempt with HMS Vanguard - she was the oly one of her class because we were bancrupt!
It is interesting to note that she reverted back to 8 x 15 inch armament and not 14 or 16 inch in triples or quads!
 
Yep, Vinnye, it sure would have; with it in mind you have to wonder about the wisdom of producing the KGVs, but I guess the British followed the treaties a lot closer than the other signatories and came up with the KGVs - from what I've read a better class of fighting ship than they are often given credit for since the end of the war. I remember reading that in 1942 someone in the admiralty wrote that there was some satisfaction with the ships and despite problems with the turrets to begin with there was no reason why the ships should not continue in service for years to come...
 
vinnye said:
Having said that the RN gave it one last attempt with HMS Vanguard - she was the oly one of her class because we were bancrupt!
It is interesting to note that she reverted back to 8 x 15 inch armament and not 14 or 16 inch in triples or quads!
Click to expand...

Vanguard was only intended to be a single ship class. She was designed because spare 15" mounts were available and the Admiralty wanted a fast carrier escort for the far east. The mounts take longer to build than the hull so it was thought to be a quick and cheap way to get a battleship in service by early 44. As it was the building went slowly as priorities changed and the Admiralty realised battleships were not needed as much as carriers and cruisers. Also the work to rebuild the mounts and hoists to make them meet modern safety standards took a longer time than expected.

As it was Vanguard never became a particulary good ship for the money she had stability problems, weight problems, propellor problems and she rarely sailed with the rear magazines loaded, the gun mounts gave a lot of trouble and never got the work needed to bring them up to the standard of the KGVs which had got over there initial problems and ended up reliable. She was a good looking ship though and its a crying shame that neither she nor one of the KGVs wasnt preserved.
 
Yep, Fastmongrel, a shame none of Britain's big gun ships were saved. Top of my list would have been Dreadnought, Warspite and Furious, being the very first carrier. Now all I have to do is go to Texas and visit the Texas.
 
nuuumannn said:
Yep, Fastmongrel, a shame none of Britain's big gun ships were saved. Top of my list would have been Dreadnought, Warspite and Furious, being the very first carrier. Now all I have to do is go to Texas and visit the Texas.
Click to expand...

Warspite was considered for preservation and should have been with such a record but the pounding she took in 2 wars meant that by 45 she would have needed a complete rebuild to keep her afloat. Britain didnt have the money at the time and we were desperate for steel.
 
Adhereance to treaties was something Great Britain was keen on - it meant that we would not be caught up in an arms race we could not compete in never mind win!
The USA also adhered to the treaties - meaning that such ships as the 1920's South Dakota class battle ship was cancelled. Although she was not fast, she was designed to be tough and had 12 x 16 inch armament - pretty potent in my opinion!

I comletly agree abought Great Britain not having any Capital ships as museum pieces - Warspite should have been saves and A KGV also.
We do have HMS Belfast - but compared to a battlewaggon she is small fry!
 
All nations tried to adhere the Treaties in principle - be it that they accepted a certain and limiting main gun calibre or a limiting number of vessels for each class. In detail, however, all nations broke the Treaties. For a long time I believed that at the very least, the NELSON class would be Treaty compatible in detail. It´s not. They turned out to be overweight because the naval architects choose to violate the definition of standart displacement as formulated in the Treaties and didn´t counted water liquid in the NELSON´s TDS to the displacement in stand.
Raven Roberts commented about this in their book.
That beeing said, the level of overweights for BB´s is different (the US and french beeing the most innovative in interpretation of the definitions, the italiens, german and japanese often didn´t even attempted to honor the qualitative limits) but none of the BB´s laid down after end of ww1 actually is within the detailed limits or Treaty compliant. Still, I do think that in principle, contracting powers agreed to the general limits imposed by the Treaties.
 

Has there ever been a better name for a ship than Warspite. Her name alone should have been enough to have her preserved. I was hoping one of the new RN carriers would Warspite rather than the predicable QE and PoW
 
Well, there is going over by 10% or under and there is going over by 20%.
Click to expand...
Who ever was under?

I don´t think it is right to assume there was a qualification demarcation at -say 11.7% over (or whatever number You may like) allowed by the Treaty. There simply was no such over-allowance. The fact that some design buereaus went into deep trouble to find any justification to misinterprete the treaty texts (which are very clearly laid out, as only boiler reserve feed water and fuel weight are to be substracted from max. displacement, anything else counts) is a clear indication of the intent of violating. They were fully aware that that´s not right.
However, that´s not a violation in principle, it´s a violation in detail, which has been reckoned with by all contracting powers.

The reported official displacement of NORTH CAROLINA class BB, f.e. was a Treaty comliant 34,000 ts stand. (well into the sixties) The BuShip figures, which were not published then listed them already at 36,600ts stand but even those were calculated according to the General Boards interpretation of standart displacement, which in it´s own was in violation to the Treaties (it was never negotiated let alone be accepted by other contractors). The actual standart displacement (Friedman, US battleships. An illustrated Design History, p.278, Tab.12.3) if You susbtract reserve feed water (=350t acc. to Raven Roberts) and fuel oil (=5,500t according to Friedman) from the designed deep displacement (=44,800ts acc. to Friedman) was 38,950ts, roughly 5000 ts or 15% more than officially reported and nearly 4000ts over the limit of the Treaties (later in ww2, these vessels picked up more weight and displacement and eventually ended all with a displacement well over 40,000ts stand). This remains to be a mild case of violation. Other examples (see LITTORIO or BISMARCK) are worse. Still, they along with others adhered to the Treaties in principle -not in detail. YAMATO didn´t, but didn´t need to as Japan retired from the Treaty.
 
All the post treaties "full" BBs were completed after the war broke so none was "actually" cheating
the alone new BBs completed before of war the D&S and G&S were within the treaties limit
 

Hello Delcyros
what exactly R&R commented? It is years when I read the book (British BBs or something like that) but I recall that they only noted the fact that liquid that made TDS effective wasn't counted in Nelsons' stand. displacement. My copy of R&R book is in attic but according to Brown's Nelson to Vanguard p. 196 Washington Treaty Standard Displacement was - the ship fully equipped for war but excluding oil fuel, reserve feed water and other liquids. And based on this clause both RN and USN thought they could conceal the use of water-filled spaces in torpedo protection.

Juha
 
I always find it odd that the RN and the USN are held to different standards than other navies. Just because the RN and USN designers were clever enough to use what was a loophole obviously not thought of by the Washington treaty writers that means they are cheating.

As has been mentioned none of the pre war designs was completed under Washington rules so it didnt matter that they had gained weight during construction but at least the USN and RN designs were close to the rules when they were on the drawing board.
 
Treaty text:


Thus, constructing of any vessel which is going to exceed 35,000 tons standart is a violation. The date of commissioning is not referred to in article V, construction is important. Juha, You will notice that the Treaty text explicitely means fully equipped with all liquids (even stores or fresh water!) except two aspects which have been explicitely mentioned as exception: Fuel oil and reserve feed water. I made a mistake with Raven Roberts. I have to point out that John Jordan made the point that British violated the Washington Naval Conference treaty in how they calculated the weight of the armor scheme in the NelRods according to John Jordan in his book Warships after Washington. Jordan notes on pp.75 and 80 that the British failed to include the water protection scheme into the final displacement. Everyone tried to cut corners in the treaties.
 

All German, British and American battleships, AFAIK, built under the treaty used water in their hull to augment and/or replace fuel oil in their torpedo defense systems since they had to be kept full or nearly full of liquids to work properly. - so doing so was not a violation of the treaty.
 
This is not correct. All equipment store or liquid to be intended to be carried in wartime has to be weighted in for standart displacement. TDS water is not fuel oil, nor is it reserve feed water. Keep also in mind, that TDS water was not just to replace fuel oil but it often- as in the case with the NELRODS- had to be carried additionally. If it only would have been replacing fuel oil it would be weight neutral. However, it´s not but a designed liquid factor in the ship´s wartime displacement state. The Treaties only accepted these two exceptions: Fuel oil and reserve feed water. TDS liquid is neither of those.
 

Sorry, but your logic is faulty. Bismarck's TDS, for example, was non functional if not liquid loaded, therefore, all liquids carried in the TDS, by your logic should be included in the standard displacement - but none of the naval powers did.
 
The non-fuel oil, non-reserve feed water liquid in BISMARCK´s TDS (all liquid) has to be counted as standart displacement. This is entirely correct.

BISMARCK´s designed deep displacement was
50,935 metric t.
now we substract only what the Treaty allows to substract:
- 7814 metr. t ship fuel oil
- 373 metr. t. reserve feed water

= 42,748 metr. t. stand. displacement (= 42,075 tons standart)
 
Given that Germany was not a signatory of the Washington Treaty, and merely gave a very generic hint in the AGNA about naval limitations, the whole discussion about it's displacement vs the Washington Treaty is moot... quite simply they did not apply to Bismarck or any other KM ship. Prior to that the Versailles Treaty applied, which the Panzershiffe more or less satisfied (in an ingeniously violating manner that is).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

German artillery what-if: going all-in with gun-howitzers past 1935
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
4K
Shortround6
S
S
Were the 15*69B cartridge a better option for early WWII fighters
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
tomo pauk
S
State-of-the-art Japanese fighters with western engines
Replies
10
Views
540
GregP
S
Adherent or Mafia?
Replies
6
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
S
Spitfire with proper meredith effect
2 3
Replies
41
Views
4K
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register