Serious design flaws in King George V class Battleships?

Warship design and construction, terminology, navigation, hydrodynamics, stability, armor schemes, damage control, etc.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3990
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Serious design flaws in King George V class Battleships?

Postby alecsandros » Tue Jul 26, 2016 3:43 pm

Hello,
And thank you for your details...
I have been intrigued for some time about the number of torps which destroyed Prince of WAles. I seem to remember some eye wittnesses from the sinking battleship noticed 2 torpedoes exploding very close to one another, or , as some suggested, one torpedo hitting the ship and causing the other torpedo to explode before hitting the hull, but causing blast damage anyway.

On the drawings and renderings done after the 2012 (?) divings, I noticed one large opening in the hull, close to the stern - which appears significantly larger then the other ones... Could it be that there were 5 torps that caused damage to the battleship ?

Thanks,

Kev D
Member
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:27 am

Re: Serious design flaws in King George V class Battleships?

Postby Kev D » Tue Jul 26, 2016 8:46 pm

That large(r) torp hole is on starboard side aft. The torp that is consider to have exploded close to the hull, but not actually hit it, was on port side just forward of aft main turret. Hence why many previous reports refer to two hits to port, but definitely not so. Belief is it detonated very close to port hull from pressure / shock wave of the torp hit that basically killed her, i. e. the one no one seemed to notice hit / explode under the port stern at exit point of outer prop shaft. But did two hit in the same place just under outer stbd shaft 'A' bracket'? Who knows. But your right, that hole is much bigger than rest.
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant. HMS Repulse. Dec. 8 1941

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3096
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Serious design flaws in King George V class Battleships?

Postby dunmunro » Tue Jul 26, 2016 11:07 pm

Kev D wrote:Pardon for resurrecting this old thread and coming back on board, but just stumbled upon the last few posts again, so although had meant to comment earlier when I first saw them, what almost a years ago, some input is better late than never re following I suppose.

So first to a comment by “Dunmunro” aka Duncan.

dunmunro wrote:“…………………………………. I strongly disagree with the 2012 paper's conclusions. PoW was recovering from the 1st torpedo hit; she had established a flooding boundary, and was in the process of restoring power to the aft end of the ship when the subsequent 3 more torpedo hits, 6 near misses and one 1100lb bomb hit caused her sinking.”


Duncan, with all due respect, given that the water was literally lapping at the heels of Wildish, the last man out of his Engine Room when he exited said engine room through an overhead hatchway, so match so that he had trouble dogging the hatch - and I surely don’t have to spell out what that means in the grand scheme of things - PoW was lost from the beginning, the rest was just icing on the cake. Of course you’re entitled to your opinion, but it certainly doesn’t jell with the majority of conclusions.



The deckhead of B ER was well below PoW's loaded waterline, so it was hardly surprising that B ER completely flooded when it was opened to the sea via B prop shaft. PoW was in no way "lost" from having B ER flood.

In my previous posts in this thread I pointed out some of G&D's historical errors so you'll forgive me if I am skeptical of their revised conclusion in their 2012 paper. I know that others have their doubts about some of G&D's rather dubious conclusions regarding their interpretations of various aspects of the loss.

Regarding the starboard torpedo hit aft, it seems likely that it was a shallow runner and hit the hull higher than the port side aft hit. No doubt PoW was down by the stern, but she was also up by the bow, and so the 2 torpedo hits forward show evidence that they were shallow runners. The large hole made by the starboard aft hit indicates that it struck an unflooded area of the hull and that it must have let in a very large amount of water in comparison to the other 3 hits (excepting of course, the flooding along B prop shaft) and that flooding was probably the decisive factor in sinking PoW, but it's hard to give definite conclusions.

Someone needs to build a scale model and test out the effects of various flooding scenarios.

Kev D
Member
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:27 am

Re: Serious design flaws in King George V class Battleships?

Postby Kev D » Thu Jul 28, 2016 9:46 am

Duncan re your following;

dunmunro wrote:Regarding the starboard torpedo hit aft, it seems likely that it was a shallow runner and hit the hull higher than the port side aft hit. No doubt PoW was down by the stern, but she was also up by the bow, and so the 2 torpedo hits forward show evidence that they were shallow runners. The large hole made by the starboard aft hit indicates that it struck an unflooded area of the hull and that it must have let in a very large amount of water in comparison to the other 3 hits (excepting of course, the flooding along B prop shaft) and that flooding was probably the decisive factor in sinking PoW, but it's hard to give definite conclusions.

Someone needs to build a scale model and test out the effects of various flooding scenarios.


While I respect you posts and knowledge on naval subjects in general Duncan I find you above reasoning (now underlined) flawed. You are basically stating (it seems?) that all three stbd hits where from shallow runners, which I find just too much of a coincidence. The reason the aft stbd hit is so high (see schematics in the paper or our earlier survey report) is because she was already so low in the stern from just that one port hit aft; that is, basically, if slowly, sinking by the stern when those three stbd torps hit. Yes, the hodge podge of DC parties (no disrespect meant whatsoever to the men involved, just a reflection on the already chaotic situation aft) had established some flooding boundaries (from the port hit), but not all. So like I said, IMO she was already a doomed ship and those stbd hits, especially that aft one, just put the icing on the cake (again in my, and others, opinion, which I realise is not yours.)

And I cant agree that the large hole stbd aft was just 'cause it hit an unflooded area. The port aft area was unflooded before being hit and its more or less half the size (of that stbd aft one). Wasn't the stbd hit/s by the Kanoya(?) groups bigger torp warheads as it were? (Or was it the other way around, i.e. a Kanoya hit port? Sorry for the stupid question, but doing all this from memory as don't have access to papers at hand, nor the time / inclination to go surfing for the answer, as am out 'on the road'.)

Also I don't find the two fwd stbd hits abnormally high (as is the aft one) to attribute them to 'shallow' runners'. That is, the one 'under the bridge' so to speak hit just at top of armoured belt and bow one not any higher, possibly a little lower, even though she was up somewhat by the bow. But if the truth be known she was already slowly settling throughout her whole fwd / aft axis, but more so by the stern of course prior to those three stbd hits. Anyway I think the proof is in the pudding that even though she took three hits to stbd, she capsized to port. Thats gotta tell you something about the amount of water on that side, primarily from that one port hit.

Anyway I think on this whole issue / subject it looks like we will just have to agree to disagree Duncan.

And yes, anyone volunteering to make that model? It certainly would be fascinating to see the flooding result, but quite a task to build though, eh.
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant. HMS Repulse. Dec. 8 1941

Kev D
Member
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:27 am

Re: Serious design flaws in King George V class Battleships?

Postby Kev D » Thu Jul 28, 2016 9:48 am

Kev D wrote:Duncan re your following;

dunmunro wrote:Regarding the starboard torpedo hit aft, it seems likely that it was a shallow runner and hit the hull higher than the port side aft hit. No doubt PoW was down by the stern, but she was also up by the bow, and so the 2 torpedo hits forward show evidence that they were shallow runners. The large hole made by the starboard aft hit indicates that it struck an unflooded area of the hull and that it must have let in a very large amount of water in comparison to the other 3 hits (excepting of course, the flooding along B prop shaft) and that flooding was probably the decisive factor in sinking PoW, but it's hard to give definite conclusions.

Someone needs to build a scale model and test out the effects of various flooding scenarios.


While I respect you posts and knowledge on naval subjects in general Duncan I find your above reasoning (now underlined) flawed. You are basically stating (it seems?) that all three stbd hits where from shallow runners, which I find just too much of a coincidence. The reason the aft stbd hit is so high (see schematics in the paper or our earlier survey report) is because she was already so low in the stern from just that one port hit aft; that is, basically, if slowly, sinking by the stern when those three stbd torps hit. Yes, the hodge podge of DC parties (no disrespect meant whatsoever to the men involved, just a reflection on the already chaotic situation aft) had established some flooding boundaries (from the port hit), but not all. So like I said, IMO she was already a doomed ship and those stbd hits, especially that aft one, just put the icing on the cake (again in my, and others, opinion, which I realise is not yours.)

And I cant agree that the large hole stbd aft was just 'cause it hit an unflooded area. The port aft area was unflooded before being hit and its more or less half the size (of that stbd aft one). Wasn't the stbd hit/s by the Kanoya(?) groups bigger torp warheads as it were? (Or was it the other way around, i.e. a Kanoya hit port? Sorry for the stupid question, but doing all this from memory as don't have access to papers at hand, nor the time / inclination to go surfing for the answer, as am out 'on the road'.)

Also I don't find the two fwd stbd hits abnormally high (as is the aft one) to attribute them to 'shallow' runners'. That is, the one 'under the bridge' so to speak hit just at top of armoured belt and bow one not any higher, possibly a little lower, even though she was up somewhat by the bow. But if the truth be known she was already slowly settling throughout her whole fwd / aft axis, but more so by the stern of course prior to those three stbd hits. Anyway I think the proof is in the pudding that even though she took three hits to stbd, she capsized to port. Thats gotta tell you something about the amount of water on that side, primarily from that one port hit.

Anyway I think on this whole issue / subject it looks like we will just have to agree to disagree Duncan.

And yes, anyone volunteering to make that model? It certainly would be fascinating to see the flooding result, but quite a task to build though, eh.
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant. HMS Repulse. Dec. 8 1941

Kev D
Member
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:27 am

Re: Serious design flaws in King George V class Battleships?

Postby Kev D » Thu Jul 28, 2016 9:52 am

Double post. Removed.
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant. HMS Repulse. Dec. 8 1941

Kev D
Member
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:27 am

Re: Serious design flaws in King George V class Battleships?

Postby Kev D » Thu Jul 28, 2016 9:53 am

Double post. Removed
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant. HMS Repulse. Dec. 8 1941

Kev D
Member
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:27 am

Re: Serious design flaws in King George V class Battleships?

Postby Kev D » Thu Jul 28, 2016 9:58 am

Kev D wrote:Double post. Removed


Hmmmm, not sure whats happening here but no matter what I do I cant seem to remove the double post. Even though I edit it an remove the text, and leave the above 'message', it just posts a new additional post, as opposed to to 'reposting the edited one with above comment. How odd!

If a moderator is reading PLEASE remove double post. Thanks
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant. HMS Repulse. Dec. 8 1941

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3096
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Serious design flaws in King George V class Battleships?

Postby dunmunro » Thu Jul 28, 2016 5:37 pm

Kev D wrote:Duncan re your following;

dunmunro wrote:Regarding the starboard torpedo hit aft, it seems likely that it was a shallow runner and hit the hull higher than the port side aft hit. No doubt PoW was down by the stern, but she was also up by the bow, and so the 2 torpedo hits forward show evidence that they were shallow runners. The large hole made by the starboard aft hit indicates that it struck an unflooded area of the hull and that it must have let in a very large amount of water in comparison to the other 3 hits (excepting of course, the flooding along B prop shaft) and that flooding was probably the decisive factor in sinking PoW, but it's hard to give definite conclusions.

Someone needs to build a scale model and test out the effects of various flooding scenarios.


While I respect you posts and knowledge on naval subjects in general Duncan I find you above reasoning (now underlined) flawed. You are basically stating (it seems?) that all three stbd hits where from shallow runners, which I find just too much of a coincidence. The reason the aft stbd hit is so high (see schematics in the paper or our earlier survey report) is because she was already so low in the stern from just that one port hit aft; that is, basically, if slowly, sinking by the stern when those three stbd torps hit. Yes, the hodge podge of DC parties (no disrespect meant whatsoever to the men involved, just a reflection on the already chaotic situation aft) had established some flooding boundaries (from the port hit), but not all. So like I said, IMO she was already a doomed ship and those stbd hits, especially that aft one, just put the icing on the cake (again in my, and others, opinion, which I realise is not yours.)

And I cant agree that the large hole stbd aft was just 'cause it hit an unflooded area. The port aft area was unflooded before being hit and its more or less half the size (of that stbd aft one). Wasn't the stbd hit/s by the Kanoya(?) groups bigger torp warheads as it were? (Or was it the other way around, i.e. a Kanoya hit port? Sorry for the stupid question, but doing all this from memory as don't have access to papers at hand, nor the time / inclination to go surfing for the answer, as am out 'on the road'.)

Also I don't find the two fwd stbd hits abnormally high (as is the aft one) to attribute them to 'shallow' runners'. That is, the one 'under the bridge' so to speak hit just at top of armoured belt and bow one not any higher, possibly a little lower, even though she was up somewhat by the bow. But if the truth be known she was already slowly settling throughout her whole fwd / aft axis, but more so by the stern of course prior to those three stbd hits. Anyway I think the proof is in the pudding that even though she took three hits to stbd, she capsized to port. Thats gotta tell you something about the amount of water on that side, primarily from that one port hit.

Anyway I think on this whole issue / subject it looks like we will just have to agree to disagree Duncan.

And yes, anyone volunteering to make that model? It certainly would be fascinating to see the flooding result, but quite a task to build though, eh.


This is from the Naval Staff History:

Subsequent information from U.S. sources indicated that the Japanese Navy used a standard depth setting of about 12 feet for torpedoes, but at this time the depth setting was left to the choice of the attacking unit. Against the Prince of Wales and Repulse settings of 10, 13 and 16 feet were used by the Kanoya, Mihoro and Genzan Groups respectively.


It was the Kanoya group that scored the last 3 torpedo hits on PoW using 450lb warheads. It was the Genzan group that scored the first hit on PoW using a 330 warhead.

The diagram of PoW's stern, on page shows the SWL rather than the deep WL, and the deep WL was about 4ft deeper. Additionally, I suspect that the hole made by torpedoes are not symmetrical as the blast will tend to be above the point of impact due to the effect of water incompressibility.

Maciej
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 8:17 pm
Location: Poland

Re: Serious design flaws in King George V class Battleships?

Postby Maciej » Thu Jul 28, 2016 7:43 pm

she was already so low in the stern from just that one port hit aft; that is, basically, if slowly, sinking by the stern when those three stbd torps hit.

Low in the stern, means low in the stern.
No means "sinking"
see this ship
Image
Sinking?

Actually survived, and was later sunk on nuke tests.

In case of model. I made model of PoW about 16 years ago. Far from perfect, and really need update. But on "simplified" calculation good enough.
Sinking those compartments flooded historically after first hit, was not enough to sink ship.
Next flood was needed.
Capsizion to site when first hit occured means only that on that site was more water, than on other. But with no extra flood, weather deck was still over water, so it was enought buoyancy and righting moment to keep her afloat.
With small waved. Waves say 4 meters ( more or less ) high could be really dangerous in that condition.

Maciej
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 8:17 pm
Location: Poland

Re: Serious design flaws in King George V class Battleships?

Postby Maciej » Thu Jul 28, 2016 9:54 pm

OK some results from simulation.
Possibly some more rooms had to be flooded too. But program has own limitations, and some rooms are flooded too much.
For example - room is flooded up to current water line ( wave, roll, pich included ), and its volume is calculated as "empty room"
Clearly boilers, turbines and so one has it's volume, so there will be less water than volume of room.
To compensate it somehow I used 1 litre of water = 1 kg. In salt water its mass will be a bit higher.
Rooms shapes had its limitation too, so simulation is clearly far from perfect, but You can see tendency, and compare actual flooding in simulation to estimated historically, to have quick check of accuracy of simulation

No counterflooding. Ship more or less stable.
Don't look at small differences in water mass in hull. It all is dynamically. If room is submerged and open to sea it floods to all of its volume. If after roll some part of the room rises over water, water goes away from room. Less water in room less momentum of force, different "righting moment", different roll, different position of room and so one, so there will be small differences in current flooding.

For clarity I removed waves. In Kuantan there were small, if I remember correctly, so using height = 0 makes small difference.
KGV_hit_1.jpg
KGV_hit_1.jpg (29.26 KiB) Viewed 629 times

KGV_hit_2.jpg
KGV_hit_2.jpg (48.23 KiB) Viewed 629 times

KGV_hit_3.jpg
KGV_hit_3.jpg (41.92 KiB) Viewed 629 times
Last edited by Maciej on Thu Jul 28, 2016 10:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Maciej
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 8:17 pm
Location: Poland

Re: Serious design flaws in King George V class Battleships?

Postby Maciej » Thu Jul 28, 2016 10:10 pm

And to all those concerned bout longitunal bulkheads and "sure capsizing"
Not so. At last in this unit with adequate metacentric haight.
Sinking all machienry spaces on one site ( and machinery spaces only ) makes list onl ~2-4 degrees.
They are close to central bulkhead so mementum of force is minimal.
More list is from flooding smaller empty space of SPS - due to much further position from centerline.

Actually flooding machiery large machinery spaces like in WWII era US battleships ( not WWI turboelectic drived! ), and most British WWI era battleships, makes larger list.
Ship had to be very serious damaged, and be quite deep in water to fully flood une or two units. Usually they will be partially flooded. In that situation there is effect of large free surface area. What is effect of free surface - make experiment.
Take oven-pan, pour there 2 litres of water, and try to transport it.
Than take the same oven, put some longitunal and cross bulkheads, put the same amount of water and transpot it.

Actually in large centerline rooms there will be larger flooding than in smaller rooms, for obvious reasons.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3096
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Serious design flaws in King George V class Battleships?

Postby dunmunro » Thu Jul 28, 2016 10:14 pm

dunmunro wrote:
Kev D wrote:Duncan re your following;

dunmunro wrote:Regarding the starboard torpedo hit aft, it seems likely that it was a shallow runner and hit the hull higher than the port side aft hit. No doubt PoW was down by the stern, but she was also up by the bow, and so the 2 torpedo hits forward show evidence that they were shallow runners. The large hole made by the starboard aft hit indicates that it struck an unflooded area of the hull and that it must have let in a very large amount of water in comparison to the other 3 hits (excepting of course, the flooding along B prop shaft) and that flooding was probably the decisive factor in sinking PoW, but it's hard to give definite conclusions.

Someone needs to build a scale model and test out the effects of various flooding scenarios.


While I respect you posts and knowledge on naval subjects in general Duncan I find you above reasoning (now underlined) flawed. You are basically stating (it seems?) that all three stbd hits where from shallow runners, which I find just too much of a coincidence. The reason the aft stbd hit is so high (see schematics in the paper or our earlier survey report) is because she was already so low in the stern from just that one port hit aft; that is, basically, if slowly, sinking by the stern when those three stbd torps hit. Yes, the hodge podge of DC parties (no disrespect meant whatsoever to the men involved, just a reflection on the already chaotic situation aft) had established some flooding boundaries (from the port hit), but not all. So like I said, IMO she was already a doomed ship and those stbd hits, especially that aft one, just put the icing on the cake (again in my, and others, opinion, which I realise is not yours.)

And I cant agree that the large hole stbd aft was just 'cause it hit an unflooded area. The port aft area was unflooded before being hit and its more or less half the size (of that stbd aft one). Wasn't the stbd hit/s by the Kanoya(?) groups bigger torp warheads as it were? (Or was it the other way around, i.e. a Kanoya hit port? Sorry for the stupid question, but doing all this from memory as don't have access to papers at hand, nor the time / inclination to go surfing for the answer, as am out 'on the road'.)

Also I don't find the two fwd stbd hits abnormally high (as is the aft one) to attribute them to 'shallow' runners'. That is, the one 'under the bridge' so to speak hit just at top of armoured belt and bow one not any higher, possibly a little lower, even though she was up somewhat by the bow. But if the truth be known she was already slowly settling throughout her whole fwd / aft axis, but more so by the stern of course prior to those three stbd hits. Anyway I think the proof is in the pudding that even though she took three hits to stbd, she capsized to port. Thats gotta tell you something about the amount of water on that side, primarily from that one port hit.

Anyway I think on this whole issue / subject it looks like we will just have to agree to disagree Duncan.

And yes, anyone volunteering to make that model? It certainly would be fascinating to see the flooding result, but quite a task to build though, eh.


This is from the Naval Staff History:

Subsequent information from U.S. sources indicated that the Japanese Navy used a standard depth setting of about 12 feet for torpedoes, but at this time the depth setting was left to the choice of the attacking unit. Against the Prince of Wales and Repulse settings of 10, 13 and 16 feet were used by the Kanoya, Mihoro and Genzan Groups respectively.


It was the Kanoya group that scored the last 3 torpedo hits on PoW using 450lb warheads. It was the Genzan group that scored the first hit on PoW using a 330 warhead.

The diagram of PoW's stern, on page shows the SWL rather than the deep WL, and the deep WL was about 4ft deeper. Additionally, I suspect that the hole made by torpedoes are not symmetrical as the blast will tend to be above the point of impact due to the effect of water incompressibility.

From the 2012 update, page 45:
According to the testimony of Cdr Goudy the stern trim had increased from 5 ft to 8 ft at this point in the action, but it seems from the position of the torpedo hole that it was considerably more.


And considering that the IJN used a 10ft depth setting against the starboard side, versus a 16ft setting on the port side, Goudy's statement seems accurate.

Maciej, thanks for the simulation.

Maciej
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 8:17 pm
Location: Poland

Re: Serious design flaws in King George V class Battleships?

Postby Maciej » Thu Jul 28, 2016 10:54 pm

Of course sinking after only first torpedo was possible.
If there will be avfull damage control, more crew panicked and exit they station with no secure of watertight doors ( like 5.25" magazine crew ) and so one, there is possible progresive flooding. With such "help" from crew, sinking is quite possible. How likely You have to make own conclusions. I'm sure there are members sure that it will happen with 100% centainty. But I'm not sharing this point of view.

Maciej
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 8:17 pm
Location: Poland

Re: Serious design flaws in King George V class Battleships?

Postby Maciej » Fri Jul 29, 2016 9:45 am

I added waves - 1.2 meter ( 4 feet ) high, and added flooding to left aft universal magasine. In previous sim I forget about that room.
And changed display to show increased draft. Last position. Units: speed - knots, course - degrees, draft meters. So plus draft 2 meters means increased draft ~7 feet.
Increased raft of center of gravity. So with included trim, aft part of ship will be deeper than those 2 meters.

"bl" means "belt listning", actually a bit wrong description as it is roll with extra water in hull

Flooding "stabilized" on something betwee 6400 to 6600 tons ( chances trhoug time, as some water comes in some comes out due to wave interacion and small differe in roll )
No counterflooding, no pumping. In time when progresive flooding filled all compartments open to sea.
Speed to high, as still 3 shafts are running, I don't care about it. There is no simulation of increased pressure due to speed.
KGV_Hit_00.jpg
KGV_Hit_00.jpg (44.97 KiB) Viewed 588 times


Return to “Naval Technology”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest