I see that nobody has answered yet to my arguments and questions (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8523&start=180#p83192
) and to Byron Angel annotations (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8523&start=195#p83195
), showing that KGV got less time than PoW to get "ready for active service" and was rushed into service.
Just to recap facts:
KGV 14" turrets were all installed on board by September 1940 (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8523&start=180#p83157
), ship commissioned October 1 largely incomplete, moved to Rosyth on October 17 (without 2 propellers...), formal gunnery trials started in December (3rd ?), ready for service by December 11 (https://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-01BB-KGV.htm
PoW 14" turrets were all installed by late 1940 (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8523&start=180#p83160
), ship commissioned on January 19, 1941 largely incomplete as well, moved to Rosyth on January 30 (without 2 propellers...), formal gunnery trials only
in early May (last one on May 15) ready for service only by May 21, 1941. (https://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chron ... _Wales.htm
Why this delay, from February till April
, if not due to her Captain requirement for further adjustments / exercises (especially gunnery exercises described by two different witnesses, 7 weeks working "day and lately night" (Brooke) or "with men working through the night and the following day" (Mr.Wilkinson)) as Leach was evidently reluctant to run the final formal acceptance trials (with Admiralty reps on board) and to declare his ship ready for active service ?
He was aware of the 14" mountings problems from his previous assignment as Ordnance Director, and possibly this influenced his "resistance" until May 21.
Please facts (material missing on both ships) and dates (trials, installations, etc.) only (to allow comparison between the two ships), not colorful and rhetorical explanations or generical claim that workers were on board (to do what exactly ?). Thanks.