KGV + PoW
Moderator: Bill Jurens
Re: KGV + PoW
.
The simple answer is "yes". The Admiralty considered a KGV capable of taking on the Tirpitz. Their pre-war ideas ALWAYS envisaged having more ships versus a foe, it was based on the advantages of "concentration" to achieve overwhelming victories. So two "fast battleships" were regarded as the standard response to a Tirpitz threat. As a by product the threat of two fast battleships, together if possible, with an aircraft carrier was regarded as the best way of bottling Tirpitz up.
The simple answer is "yes". The Admiralty considered a KGV capable of taking on the Tirpitz. Their pre-war ideas ALWAYS envisaged having more ships versus a foe, it was based on the advantages of "concentration" to achieve overwhelming victories. So two "fast battleships" were regarded as the standard response to a Tirpitz threat. As a by product the threat of two fast battleships, together if possible, with an aircraft carrier was regarded as the best way of bottling Tirpitz up.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1224
- Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm
Re: KGV + PoW
Thanks pgolin,
I think that this answers my question if we substitute Bismarck for Tirpitz.
I think that this answers my question if we substitute Bismarck for Tirpitz.
Re: KGV + PoW
.
The reason I mentioned Tirpitz instead of Bismarck is that the Admiralty had reports on Bismarck's details based on what the survivors said, plus details from the USA which were based on what Russia said about Bismarck's design. Therefore when they had that info they looked at which ships they should use against Tirpitz.
.
The reason I mentioned Tirpitz instead of Bismarck is that the Admiralty had reports on Bismarck's details based on what the survivors said, plus details from the USA which were based on what Russia said about Bismarck's design. Therefore when they had that info they looked at which ships they should use against Tirpitz.
.
Re: KGV + PoW
Wasn't that always the RN position (in regards to concentration)? France builds La Gloire - Britain builds HMS Warrior,Black Prince, Agincourt, Hector, Valiant etc. Germany builds the HSF - Britain ups the stakes and builds more ("We want eight" etc). WW1 and the Washington treaty brought an end to the process ( economics playing the massive part in this) but fortunately in regard to the resurgent Germany there was just enough to continue the premise of using superior numbers as the war came too soon for the Kreigsmarine.pgollin wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 10:05 pm .
The simple answer is "yes". The Admiralty considered a KGV capable of taking on the Tirpitz. Their pre-war ideas ALWAYS envisaged having more ships versus a foe, it was based on the advantages of "concentration" to achieve overwhelming victories. So two "fast battleships" were regarded as the standard response to a Tirpitz threat. As a by product the threat of two fast battleships, together if possible, with an aircraft carrier was regarded as the best way of bottling Tirpitz up.
You don't fight the seas on the basis of fairness, you fight to win. I suppose you could argue that the Germany went for quality over quantity as they did in other forms.Comes down to whether you want one excellent unit or 5 good ones which could still give a very good account of themselves and which in the right circumstances could win in a (very unlikely) 1 v 1 scenario. Personally I'd go for the 5 good ones and have the flexibility of greater numbers. However good Tirpitz was she couldn't be in 5 different places at the same time.
(Though I do remember an anecdote about the crew of HMS Minotaur proposing to fight with 1 less of her available guns if she met Scharnhorst in combat to ensure an equal match!)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4349
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
- Location: Bucharest, Romania
Re: KGV + PoW
Before the war started, KGV was built to counter Bismarck,pgollin wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 10:05 pm .
The simple answer is "yes". The Admiralty considered a KGV capable of taking on the Tirpitz. Their pre-war ideas ALWAYS envisaged having more ships versus a foe, it was based on the advantages of "concentration" to achieve overwhelming victories. So two "fast battleships" were regarded as the standard response to a Tirpitz threat. As a by product the threat of two fast battleships, together if possible, with an aircraft carrier was regarded as the best way of bottling Tirpitz up.
however after the Bismarck episode of May 1941, Admiralty instructions for KGV class ships were to mantain a target obliquity of 30 deg or more versus the enemy, so as to counter the possible effects of enemy shells "superperforations" (see details here viewtopic.php?f=14&t=6841&p=69095&hilit ... ion#p69095). IMHO, that was mainly because , after the Hood enquiries , the muzzle velocity of German 380mm shell was considered to be between 2900fps and 3100fps (higher then it actualy was - 2700fps). This type of defensive thinking doesn't appear to be hinting on a one on one engagement.
The Germans on the other side considered, in early 1942, that an encounter between Tirptiz and KGV would cause Tirpitz to have a very hard time reaching port (if ever), and that the risks of getting torpedoed or shelled , while badly damaged after the battle with KGV , were to great to risk a direct approach on a one on one basis.
Re: KGV + PoW
While on paper the KGV class was built to counter whatever German designs existed at the time one needs to remember one thing; the British stayed within treaty limits; the Germans did not. KGV displaced about 35,000 tons where as Bismarck displaced 43,000 tons. This disparity alone gave the Bismarck class more ability to absorb damage than the KGV class. Also the SK34 was opted for in an already tried and proven 4x2 mount where as the British opted for something incredibly weird. The results were the numerous breakdowns and general unreliability of the guns and turret mechanisms in the KGV. Neither Bismarck nor Tirpitz had these issues as their weapons were reliable.
So while on paper KGV+PoW should have damaged Bismarck beyond repair had they been at DS (probably one of them would have been badly shot up bar some insanely lucky hits like on the 27th), in practice this is not certain simply because of how unreliable the main armament on the KGV class was. For example, on May 27th, KGV lost 100% output on A turret for 30 full minutes. In a real battle that would be disastrous with 40% of output removed because of a mechanical failure. Fortunately for her that day Rodney was around and Bismarck had already been silenced at that stage. If the malfunctions had happened at the very start of the battle? Who knows what could have happened.
Hood would have done well had they not been firing at the wrong ship. The spread of her salvos was incredible as seen in the photos and had her shots landed on Bismarck; they would have done some serious damage. Had she not been destroyed when she was, I imagine that the battle at DS would have been a British victory.
Why didn't the British simply opt for 15" guns in a 4x2 layout actually? Were 10x 14" guns lighter?
That's just my 0.02 of course.
So while on paper KGV+PoW should have damaged Bismarck beyond repair had they been at DS (probably one of them would have been badly shot up bar some insanely lucky hits like on the 27th), in practice this is not certain simply because of how unreliable the main armament on the KGV class was. For example, on May 27th, KGV lost 100% output on A turret for 30 full minutes. In a real battle that would be disastrous with 40% of output removed because of a mechanical failure. Fortunately for her that day Rodney was around and Bismarck had already been silenced at that stage. If the malfunctions had happened at the very start of the battle? Who knows what could have happened.
Hood would have done well had they not been firing at the wrong ship. The spread of her salvos was incredible as seen in the photos and had her shots landed on Bismarck; they would have done some serious damage. Had she not been destroyed when she was, I imagine that the battle at DS would have been a British victory.
Why didn't the British simply opt for 15" guns in a 4x2 layout actually? Were 10x 14" guns lighter?
That's just my 0.02 of course.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4349
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
- Location: Bucharest, Romania
Re: KGV + PoW
KGV displaced 37500 tons standard and Bismarck 41700 tons standard. Yes, Bismarck was heavier , but not in the proportion usualy considered.
Tirpitz weighed 44200 tons standard, while Anson displaced ~ 42200 tons standard, both in 1942.
Contrary to popular opinion, KGV was heavier on a per meter basis then Bismarck was.
yes, the 3 turrets , with barbettes and ship length included were lighter then the 4 turrets, with barbettes and ship length included.Why didn't the British simply opt for 15" guns in a 4x2 layout actually? Were 10x 14" guns lighter?
Re: KGV + PoW
Thanks, that's interesting information.alecsandros wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:42 amKGV displaced 37500 tons standard and Bismarck 41700 tons standard. Yes, Bismarck was heavier , but not in the proportion usualy considered.
Tirpitz weighed 44200 tons standard, while Anson displaced ~ 42200 tons standard, both in 1942.
Contrary to popular opinion, KGV was heavier on a per meter basis then Bismarck was.
yes, the 3 turrets , with barbettes and ship length included were lighter then the 4 turrets, with barbettes and ship length included.Why didn't the British simply opt for 15" guns in a 4x2 layout actually? Were 10x 14" guns lighter?
How about 3x3 15"? Could that have been possible? The RN did later design a triple turret for the Lion class for example.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4349
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
- Location: Bucharest, Romania
Re: KGV + PoW
That was one of the original designs, dated c. 1935 IIRC. At that time, the competing design was the 12 x 14" guns in 3 quad turrets (2 forward, 1 aft), and it was decided that the increased firepower of 3 extra guns would be more, in combat, then having heavier guns.
DUring construction, it was discovered that a 12 gun ship couldn't possibly fit inside 35000 tons, therefore one turret was "cut" to 2 guns instead of 4. By then, everything was to advanced in terms of quad turret construction to switch back to designing/producing another new turret (the tripple 15" guns turret), thus they went ahead with what they already had - war was getting ever closer after all.
In the end, the ships were overweight anyhow, but that was not officialy published at the time (as no contemporary navy actualy published it's real ship displacements)
Something similar (somewhat) happened to Bismarck class - starting the design process with 8x330mm guns, being switched during design phase to 350mm guns and ultimately approved to 380mm, only to be regretted by the fuhrer in 1938 , when he wanted 8 x 406mm guns on her. Of course, every increase in gun caliber implied increase in gun weight, turret size (thus weight), barbette size (thus weight), shell mass and powder bags mass, and increased ship space needed to accomodate the extra sizes and weights. Hence every increase in gun size increased ship size, and ship weight. This is how the original ~35000 tons ship ended at around 41700.
Re: KGV + PoW
Bismarck's standard displacement was 43284 tons ( 43978 tonnes) as per:alecsandros wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:42 amKGV displaced 37500 tons standard and Bismarck 41700 tons standard. Yes, Bismarck was heavier , but not in the proportion usualy considered.
Tirpitz weighed 44200 tons standard, while Anson displaced ~ 42200 tons standard, both in 1942.
Contrary to popular opinion, KGV was heavier on a per meter basis then Bismarck was.
yes, the 3 turrets , with barbettes and ship length included were lighter then the 4 turrets, with barbettes and ship length included.Why didn't the British simply opt for 15" guns in a 4x2 layout actually? Were 10x 14" guns lighter?
http://www.kbismarck.com/bsweights.html
The KGV class gained weight over the years as more additions, especially AA guns, were made but Anson's standard displacement in 1942 was about 39k tons. Anson ran her trials at 42600 tons which were typically run at ~1500 tons under full load. Her Full load displacement in 1945 was 45360 tons which equals a standard displacement of about 40k tons. Tirpitz's standard displacement was well above that of Bismarck.
KGV
1940 = 38,031 tons (38,641 mt) Standard
1940= 41,630 tons (42,298 mt) Trials
1940 = 42,237 tons (42,905 mt) Full Load
1944 = 44,460 tons (45, 173 mt) Full Load (From Allied Battleships by G&D)
4x2 layouts were very wasteful in terms of weight. Vanguard had thinner armour than KGV despite a ~6000 ton increase in displacement.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4349
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
- Location: Bucharest, Romania
Re: KGV + PoW
Tirpitz also gained weight due to additions - radars, AAA guns, ammo, men, etc.dunmunro wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 6:21 pm The KGV class gained weight over the years as more additions, especially AA guns, were made but Anson's standard displacement in 1942 was about 39k tons. Anson ran her trials at 42600 tons which were typically run at ~1500 tons under full load. Her Full load displacement in 1945 was 45360 tons which equals a standard displacement of about 40k tons. Tirpitz's standard displacement was well above that of Bismarck.
KGV
1940 = 38,031 tons (38,641 mt) Standard
1940= 41,630 tons (42,298 mt) Trials
1940 = 42,237 tons (42,905 mt) Full Load
1944 = 44,460 tons (45, 173 mt) Full Load (From Allied Battleships by G&D)
4x2 layouts were very wasteful in terms of weight. Vanguard had thinner armour than KGV despite a ~6000 ton increase in displacement.
see here: https://www.bismarck-class.dk/technical ... rpitz.html
a more detailed description of weights of Bismarck.
see empty ship = 39931 tons; see type displacement = 42343 tons*.
compare to KGV/Anson.
*Data is from Koop/Schmolke, "Battleships of the Bismarck Class, pg 18-19"
Garzke/Dulin in "Axis Battleships" give 41881 tonnes as standard displacement of Bismarck in May 1941.
Their more recent article http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_Bismarck.php
give 41663 tons as standard displacemnet of Bismarck in 1941.
Last edited by alecsandros on Wed Sep 19, 2018 6:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4349
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
- Location: Bucharest, Romania
Re: KGV + PoW
The data on Kbismarck.com for Bismarck's weight has been arrived at after years of study by Mr Rico and has to be given a lot more consideration than earlier figures by Koop and G&D.alecsandros wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 6:32 pm
Tirpitz also gained weight due to additions - radars, AAA guns, ammo, men, etc.
see here: https://www.bismarck-class.dk/technical ... rpitz.html
a more detailed description of weights of Bismarck.
see empty ship = 39931 tons; see type displacement = 42343 tons*.
compare to KGV/Anson.
*Data is from Koop/Schmolke, "Battleships of the Bismarck Class, pg 18-19"
Garzke/Dulin in "Axis Battleships" give 41881 tonnes as standard displacement of Bismarck in May 1941.
Their more recent article http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_Bismarck.php
give 41663 tons as standard displacemnet of Bismarck in 1941.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4349
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
- Location: Bucharest, Romania
Re: KGV + PoW
The same consideration needs to be applied to KGV displacement,
and having the same authors publishing the two books on battleships ("Axis Battleships" and "Allied Battleships" respectively) makes them more comparable, IMHO...
In any case, according to G/D data, the standard displacement difference between Bismarck and KGV was about 3800 tons (4000 metric tons), in 1941, or about 10% more for the German battleship then for the British battleship.
Last edited by alecsandros on Wed Sep 19, 2018 7:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: KGV + PoW
The KGV class displacement data was carefully recorded by the Admiralty whereas Bismarck's data has not been so conveniently available. Hence the revised figures over the years. I am fully confident in Mr Rico's figures and I'm sure that most board members accept them as correct.alecsandros wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 7:16 pmThe same consideration needs to be applied to KGV displacement,
and having the same authors publishing the two books on battleships ("Axis Battleships" and "Allied Battleships" respectively) makes them more comparable, IMHO...