KGV article on wikipedia

Warship design and construction, terminology, navigation, hydrodynamics, stability, armor schemes, damage control, etc.

KGV article on wikipedia

Postby dunmunro » Mon Dec 07, 2009 2:26 am

I note that this wikipedia article is slated for deletion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison ... h_Carolina

it is a comparison of of the KGV and NC classes, drawn from data produced by the RN in WW2. So if anybody wants to read it or download it as a PDF for future reference they should do so ASAP.
dunmunro
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2210
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: KGV article on wikipedia

Postby Legend » Mon Dec 07, 2009 4:20 am

In 1940 and 1941 the Royal Navy and the United States Navy commissioned the lead ships of their latest battleship classes. The ships were nominally limited to 35000 tons standard displacement under the Washington Naval Treaty, although this figure was exceeded after the outbreak of WW2 led to the abandonment of the treaty limitations. Since both the USN and RN were tasked with building the same class of vessel, the comparison reveals differences in design philosophy dictated both by tactical and strategic requirements and by the historical context into which the two navies were operating on the eve of WW2.[1]

Battleship comparison
Ships: HMS King George V vs North Carolina
Length (WL): 740 ft vs 714 ft
Beam (Ext): 103-0 ft-in vs 108-3 ft-in
Draft (Deep): 32-9 ft-in vs 33-4 ft-in
Displacement(Std) (tons): 36,730 vs 36,600
Displacement(Full Load) (tons): 42,080 vs 44,800
Weight Equipment (tons): 1150 vs 1200
Weight Machinery (tons): 2770 vs 2900
Weight Armament (tons): 6570 vs 7000
Weight Protection (tons): 12,460 vs 11,300
Weight Hull (tons): 13,780 vs 14,200
Weight Oil (tons): 3770 vs 5500
Power (SHP): 110,000 vs 121,000
Speed(Deep) (knots): 28.25 vs 26.5
Main Battery: 10-14in vs 9-16in
Belt - 15in(magazines) and 14in(machinery) vs 12in (15 deg slope)
Barbettes: 13in vs 16in
Conning Tower: 4in vs 16in
Freeboard(Deep): 18-0 ft-in vs 16-0 ft-in
Armoured Freeboard(Deep): 9-9 ft-in vs 5 ft-in
Armour depth (deep): 13-9 ft-in vs 11 ft-in (below deep waterline)
Torpedo defence: 1000 lb vs 700 lb (warhead weight)
Metacentric height: 8.0 ft vs 8.5 ft
Turning circle(14.5kts): 930 yds vs 575 yds


Source: U.S. battleships: an illustrated design history, Friedman, p278 and "taken from ADM 1/15578 in the Public Record Office, Kew".

The information is from US Battleships, by Norman Friedman. The data was produced during WW2 by the RN Director of Naval Construction to explore the differences between RN and USN Battleships as there were concerns that the RN was falling behind it's foriegn counterparts in battleship design. Specifically there were concerns that the USN had produced a more powerful ship on the same displacement. The RN study made with full access to USN records and physical access to USN battleships showed, however, that the USN had achieved more fire power and range, by reductions in armour and speed while the USN torpedo protection was designed to protect against a much smaller warhead. The RN study argued that the USN had given up too much in the way of protection to achieve greater fire power and range.


Or you could just post it here!
AND THE SEA SHALL GRANT EACH MAN NEW HOPE, AS SLEEP BRINGS DREAMS.
User avatar
Legend
Senior Member
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 12:46 am
Location: Tomahawk, Wisconsin

Re: KGV article on wikipedia

Postby RF » Mon Dec 07, 2009 11:06 am

It isn't clear from the article as to the precise reasons for definition, beyond a claim that it is duplicating data in other articles. Presumably if people object to deletion then under Wikipedia rules the item stays.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
 
Posts: 6939
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: KGV article on wikipedia

Postby José M. Rico » Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:39 pm

KGV. Torpedo defence: 1,000 lb!!!!!!! :shock:
What is that, some kind of joke?
User avatar
José M. Rico
Administrator
 
Posts: 798
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:23 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: KGV article on wikipedia

Postby hammy » Mon Dec 07, 2009 3:44 pm

They seem to be very ill-tempered people over there .
I thought Wikipedia was a constantly refined and updated information asset for the general benefit of mankind , but that discussion is more like a handbag fight in a hostel for single mothers undergoing rehab .

( Glad I'm in here with a civilised bunch . Just ignore them . .... Tea , anyone ?)
" Relax ! No-one else is going to be fool enough to be sailing about in this fog ."
User avatar
hammy
Senior Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:52 pm
Location: by the Norfolk Broads , England .

Re: KGV article on wikipedia

Postby Lutscha » Mon Dec 07, 2009 5:43 pm

José M. Rico wrote:KGV. Torpedo defence: 1,000 lb!!!!!!! :shock:
What is that, some kind of joke?


Afair that was the designed resistance. These figures were sometimes (much) higher than the actual ones.
Lutscha
Member
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: KGV article on wikipedia

Postby dunmunro » Mon Dec 07, 2009 5:55 pm

José M. Rico wrote:KGV. Torpedo defence: 1,000 lb!!!!!!! :shock:
What is that, some kind of joke?


KGV's SPS was tested in a full scale model against an actual 1000lb charge and the SPS resisted the explosion and remained intact. The sinking of PoW placed a cloud over these results until the recent wreck surveys proved that the SPS is intact in the only place it was actually hit.
dunmunro
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2210
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: KGV article on wikipedia

Postby José M. Rico » Mon Dec 07, 2009 8:59 pm

dunmunro wrote:KGV's SPS was tested in a full scale model against an actual 1000lb charge and the SPS resisted the explosion and remained intact. The sinking of PoW placed a cloud over these results until the recent wreck surveys proved that the SPS is intact in the only place it was actually hit.

Interesting how two thin plates on a ship supposedly provide more resistance than a thicker Class B bulkhead on a US battleship with larger beam. :think: What was Richelieu's designed resistance by the way?
User avatar
José M. Rico
Administrator
 
Posts: 798
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:23 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: KGV article on wikipedia

Postby dunmunro » Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:19 pm

José M. Rico wrote:
dunmunro wrote:KGV's SPS was tested in a full scale model against an actual 1000lb charge and the SPS resisted the explosion and remained intact. The sinking of PoW placed a cloud over these results until the recent wreck surveys proved that the SPS is intact in the only place it was actually hit.

Interesting how two thin plates on a ship supposedly provide more resistance than a thicker Class B bulkhead on a US battleship with larger beam. :think: What was Richelieu's designed resistance by the way?


Here's KGV's SPS and several others:
http://premium1.uploadit.org/harold//schemata1.jpg

What bulkhead thicknesses are you referring to? The inclined belt extension on the SD and Iowa class was a failure as the belt was too brittle and blast from the hit would drive the pieces through the holding bulkhead. Yamato had a similar problem.
Note the void above the SPS to allow for venting. What matters is how the total SPS can contain the blast from a torpedo hit. The KGV design has thin hull plating to minimize splinters, a void to allow expansion, a liquid layer to absorb splinters, another void, an armoured bulkhead to stop splinters and contain blast, and then behind that there are additional voids or sacrificial compartments. All these designs are very different, but KGV's was tested full scale and worked. BTW, here's a summary of IJN SPS design studies:

Image
dunmunro
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2210
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: KGV article on wikipedia

Postby Lutscha » Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:41 pm

Richelieu was designed for 300kg, Yamato for 400kg TNT.

Richelieu's TDS should be better than KGV's with her many layers and much larger depth.
Lutscha
Member
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: KGV article on wikipedia

Postby Kyler » Mon Dec 07, 2009 10:12 pm

Ahh Wikipedia, the lazy college students dream!

Always loved history class when the prof's pointed out people who used it as a source in a paper or presentation.
"It was a perfect attack, Right Height, Right Range, Right cloud cover, Right speed,
Wrong f@%king ship!" Commander Stewart-Moore (HMS Ark Royal)
User avatar
Kyler
Senior Member
 
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:49 am
Location: Evansville, IN U.S.A.

Re: KGV article on wikipedia

Postby José M. Rico » Mon Dec 07, 2009 10:20 pm

Lutscha wrote:Richelieu was designed for 300kg, Yamato for 400kg TNT.

Richelieu's TDS should be better than KGV's with her many layers and much larger depth.

Yes, Richelieu's TDS is generally considered the best. That's why I find KGV data hard to believe.

Richelieu: 300 kg (660 lbs)
KGV: 453 kg (1,000 lbs)
User avatar
José M. Rico
Administrator
 
Posts: 798
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:23 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: KGV article on wikipedia

Postby dunmunro » Tue Dec 08, 2009 12:14 am

José M. Rico wrote:
Lutscha wrote:Richelieu was designed for 300kg, Yamato for 400kg TNT.

Richelieu's TDS should be better than KGV's with her many layers and much larger depth.

Yes, Richelieu's TDS is generally considered the best. That's why I find KGV data hard to believe.

Richelieu: 300 kg (660 lbs)
KGV: 453 kg (1,000 lbs)


There are some interesting features to Richelieu's TDS but all we can do is speculate. One key failing that I can see is a lack of vent space above the TDS,
dunmunro
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2210
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: KGV article on wikipedia

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Tue Dec 08, 2009 1:48 am

José:

Yes, Richelieu's TDS is generally considered the best. That's why I find KGV data hard to believe.


It is according to the navweaps and combinedfleet. However Friedman does not speak that well of it and I think (have to check, anyway) that R&R neither. Starting for the overall displacement and beam there are catches.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: KGV article on wikipedia

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Tue Dec 08, 2009 1:58 am

Weight Protection (tons): 12,460 vs 11,300


and

Belt - 15in(magazines) and 14in(machinery) vs 12in (15 deg slope)
Barbettes: 13in vs 16in
Conning Tower: 4in vs 16in
Armoured Freeboard(Deep): 9-9 ft-in vs 5 ft-in
Armour depth (deep): 13-9 ft-in vs 11 ft-in (below deep waterline)
(15 deg slope)


Shows, in certain degree, what Friedman and R&R mentioned in their respective books. With the exception of the conning tower protection all other areas present a much better protection in KGV than NC. Obviously that´s so because KGV stayed with a their original armament whilst the USN ships went to 16" and sacrificed their armour. Now, NC presented a better belt approach than that of SD by installing it sloped and attached from the outside whilst the SD (and Iowa) didn´t and went to the inside compromising the ATS as the caisson test just prior the war showed to the consternation of the USN design board. If we see the Montanas they did approach more to the NC instead of the SD.

Best regards,
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Next

Return to Naval Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests