Serious design flaws in King George V class Battleships?

Warship design and construction, terminology, navigation, hydrodynamics, stability, armor schemes, damage control, etc.
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 » Fri Jul 29, 2016 8:24 pm

Thanks, that's very interesting.

After the first hit PoW actually shut down 'Y' prop shaft as well because of excessive vibration. It's rather amazing that 'B' shaft was ever restarted considering that 'Y' shaft, which suffered much less damage, never was.

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 10:42 pm

that's very interesting.

More interesting what happend to other ships with similar hits.
In short.
North Carolina - if hit on left an 3 Uniths flooded + some compartments outside, just at the limit of sinking. If damaged right shaft, all 4 UNITS flooded = sunk. ( difference due to asymatrical placement of shafts )
South Dakota - see North Carolina. With a bit of luck some hit aft to flood more after compartments + 2 or even 1 aft units and she is sunk.
Iowa - model unfinished, but I think similar to those before. Yes she is larger, but had longer shafts. But still will have some boilers
Montana - I don't have model yet
Added
Yes I know, I have read on many forums that many times. On US Battleship such scenario as on PoW will neve happen
1. You have skegs, so shaft could not be disorted, so no flooding. Actually it could so
2. Shaft will be shot down at once for sure
3. If not there will be no damage, as US equipment is better
4. If not will be not restarted as communication for sure will not be cut
5. If not, shafts goes through larger compartments, so there will be more time for countermeasures, and American damage control will patch any holes
Did I miss something?
And I'm still interested how holes like that
Bez tytułu.jpg
Bez tytułu.jpg (31.31 KiB) Viewed 429 times

could be patched.
Oh I forget - it will never happen, so whole simulation is pointless, but if crew by its own ( say enemy agents ) started flooding of those compartments - result as described


Richelieu - just at the limit of sinking. Still had boilers, so had some hope
Dunkerque - see Richelieu, but model is not finished.

Bismarck - just some listning. Nothing critical. Turbine room is quite close to centerline. Model not finished. I have no suoperstructures, so I put ballast to compensate it. Mass is more or less correct, but center of gravity too low, so metacentric height too high, but I don't think full model will make big difference.

Yamato - similar to Bismarck. Compartment is further from centerline, but ship is quite beamy and stable ( BTW flooding machinery paces to keep her on even keel in final Yamato action could not help, and did not help )

As usual - something for something.
British refused for some time using alternate boiler and turbine room compartments to fear that disorted shaft will flood large portion of ship.
But placement of all turbines in one place and boilers in another gives opportunity of immobilizing whole ship by just one well placed bomb or heavy shell, so alternate compartments were used.
You can't have everything. Ever.

After the first hit PoW actually shut down 'Y' prop shaft as well because of excessive vibration. It's rather amazing that 'B' shaft was ever restarted considering that 'Y' shaft, which suffered much less damage, never was.

Indeed.
Sometimes I start to thinking that PoW crew had enough of that ship and really wanted to finish her.
With such attitude, first torpedo is more than enough. Just excuse to scutling ;)

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 » Sat Jul 30, 2016 1:28 am

One of the things that I keep overlooking was the damage to the ship's side from the 1100lb bomb hit. Apparently this hit burst on the MAD and splinters blew numerous holes in the ship's port side. It may have been this flooding that caused PoW to capsize to port (Which was also thought likely by the 2009 paper).

Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

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

Postby Steve Crandell » Sat Jul 30, 2016 4:25 am

Montana (and CV Midway with the same arrangement) was completely different from the preceding fast battleships, with much greater subdivision.

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 » Sat Jul 30, 2016 12:01 pm

Yes. And Montana had numerous longitudinal bulkheads. So if those bulkheads were so bad and flawed, what we should think about that design?
Or those bulkheads in reality were not so bad?

Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

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

Postby Steve Crandell » Sat Jul 30, 2016 5:42 pm

Maciej wrote:Yes. And Montana had numerous longitudinal bulkheads. So if those bulkheads were so bad and flawed, what we should think about that design?
Or those bulkheads in reality were not so bad?


The engineering spaces were smaller in Montana/Midway, and there were multiple longitudinal bulkheads, not just one on the centerline. The lower level of the ships featured much greater subdivision. Also, the outboard shafts went to the aft engine rooms, so there weren't any long outboard shaft runs. The inboard shafts went down the center of the ship through a special subdivided shaft alley.

This isn't my idea, you know. The USN decided, presumably from testing, that they didn't want large engineering spaces running all the way across the ship, only divided by center line bulkheads. You obviously think they were wrong.

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 » Sat Jul 30, 2016 11:19 pm

This isn't my idea, you know. The USN decided, presumably from testing, that they didn't want large engineering spaces running all the way across the ship, only divided by center line bulkheads. You obviously think they were wrong.

I think reason was different.
Simple simplification + weight + space savings.
If You put everything into one compartment, You clearly save space. No need to access on both sides on bulkhead.
No need for any cross connection of steam lines between various boilers and turbines. Any cross connection is useless in that configuration. If comparment flooded – both boilers and turbine will be lost, so what the reason of such connection? So simplification and weight savings.
Putting turbogenerator and some other auxiliaries into the same room is next level of simplification and weight savings for the same reason.
But You pay for it.
Large compartment from belt to belt with possible large flooding area. To avoid excessive list, such large compartments had to be on centerline. Free surface area is a cost to pay. If 3 such units will be flooded ship is practically doomed. But witch such excessive damage, what is chance of survival anyway?
So something for something.
There is no such a thing as a free lunch.
If decision for such machinery configuration will be described that way, I will fully agree with that, and will have absolutely no problem with that.
But it is usually described as some kind of miracle genious configuration best from all possibles.
And the same authors with description of “The best NC configuration” writes something about “the best turboelectric drives”, but both simply can’t be best the same time! So I have problem with that.
British used such a large boiler rooms from belt to belt from Majestic class predredanoughts up to and including Hood. Count Yourself how many ship classes and ships it is. And add export ships.
And later switch do different configuration for some reason. Idiocy? Design flaw?
Calculation of stability show something different. So some other compromise. Better compartmensation, with cost of complication, weight and space ( compared to possible machinery in less rooms, actually KGV machinery was smaller and lighter than NC ).
That is a problem I have. Sometimes ( or usual? ) my posts could be a bit “offensive” or “attacking”, but it is best for me to show what I mean. I can’t write complex explanations. English is not my primary language, so I do what I can.

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 » Sun Jul 31, 2016 12:40 am

Added
One thing
British build 100+ heavy units ( including exports ) before Americans or Germans even start thinking about building ocean going battleships or armoured cruisers.
And later build more than those two included.
So who had most experience, and why all designs for sure were flawed, and German or American superior?
I know – such experience could produce over conservatism, but close examination show “over conservatism” when You compare classes designed with different eyars.
Sometimes British are themselves to blame, as I have seen British complains about clear superiority of Iowa machinery in efficiency and mass per SHP compared to KGV.
But comparing KGV to Iowa is as fair as comparing Texas, or Arizona to Hood.
Compare class to class designed more or less the same time and see what really happened.
Yes British were reluctant to incorporate innovations unless it was clearly superior to existing construction. With such a large building program it is logical. 3 or 4 next classes of battleships were designed before first were finished and any experience could be gained, so putting some not 100% superb and safety innovation was very very risky.
But if something was clearly superior, they bought licence and produced it in practical ship sometimes before navy in country where such innovation was invented.
See for example Harvey or Krupp armour. First Majestics with Harvey armour were finished before any American ship with such armour was finished.
Canpus with Krupp armour more or less the same time as German.
Electric power was used extensively on British ships build for export. But electricity was problematic in heavy seas. Electric equipment “don’t like to be showered by salt water” ( I’m thinking about 100+ years ago times, not modern equipment! ), so on won ships hydraulic power totally insensitive to such water was used.
Who put first turbines on ships?
Who put first high pressure boilers. They become unreliable, so were not used massively until real reliability was done ( compare to German problems )
They throw away AoN armour scheme before Americans even laid down its first “ocean going coastal defence battleships”
Putting “water exclusion material” were stopped to be used on British battleships ~70 years before Richelieu/Dunkeque. On how many times I had to read how “innovative” that usage was on French battleships.
And so one and so forth.
And mostly British ships are described as a peace of conservatic junk full of flaws. Virtually everyone else made better ships.
How it is possible? And what is difference between "paper" and "real" fighting capabilities? :think:

Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

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

Postby Steve Crandell » Sun Jul 31, 2016 1:29 am

Maciej wrote:And mostly British ships are described as a peace of conservatic junk full of flaws. Virtually everyone else made better ships.
How it is possible? And what is difference between "paper" and "real" fighting capabilities? :think:


You must read different posts than I do. Every country has it's fans. I admit that for a number of years after WWII most of the internet posters were from the USA and anything US was automatically better. I don't think that is true anymore, at least for people who have actually done some studying of the subject.

Kind of like USN carriers, that were supposedly worthless because they didn't have armored flight decks, and an entire thread started by Dave Saxton about why USN cruiser gunnery was so bad. Kind of like saying "why is your girlfriend so ugly?". I'm waiting for the sequels; "Why was USN battleship gunnery so bad?" and "Why was USN destroyer gunnery so bad?"

On this site you have dunmunro defending anything British.

Dave Saxton loves the design of Bismarck. Whenever he posts about the best aspect of some battleship area of design, he doesn't always say so, but the "best" is seemingly always just like Bismarck.

USN fast battleships had some significant deficiencies. They weren't armored very well, especially when you consider that USN policy was supposedly to protect a ship against it's own weapons. The Iowas sacrificed a lot for speed, and even then weren't much faster than Bismarck and KGV, neither of which had anything near as much power. The South Dakota and Iowa classes had weak TDS due to the interaction of the extended belts and the rest of the system.

... and so on ...

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 » Sun Jul 31, 2016 9:45 am

Maciej wrote:
But comparing KGV to Iowa is as fair as comparing Texas, or Arizona to Hood.
Compare class to class designed more or less the same time and see what really happened.

... Compare then Lion with Iowa and with H-39 and see what you get.

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 » Sun Jul 31, 2016 9:47 am

Maciej wrote:
Electric power was used extensively on British ships build for export. But electricity was problematic in heavy seas. Electric equipment “don’t like to be showered by salt water” ( I’m thinking about 100+ years ago times, not modern equipment! ), so on won ships hydraulic power totally insensitive to such water was used.

Who had the least amount of installed electrical power on their battleships, of all contemporary (post-1935 builds) existing battleships ?

And mostly British ships are described as a peace of conservatic junk full of flaws. Virtually everyone else made better ships.
How it is possible? And what is difference between "paper" and "real" fighting capabilities? :think:

Yes.
Why is China bigger then Russia ? Why is the water wet ? How is that possible ?

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 » Sun Jul 31, 2016 11:29 am

alecsandros wrote:
Maciej wrote:
But comparing KGV to Iowa is as fair as comparing Texas, or Arizona to Hood.
Compare class to class designed more or less the same time and see what really happened.

... Compare then Lion with Iowa and with H-39 and see what you get.

And I have Lions.
Smallest of those 3
Strongest main battery ( largest bursting charge, and if FaceHD is right – strongest penetrating power of vertical armour )
Middle of power secondary guns against surface targets
Middle ( best? ) heavy AA guns
Strognest light AA guns ( Iowa was designed with 12x28 only, we compare design or final configuration? )
The same speed as rest ( or slower than Iowa – depends which version we take )
Largest freeboard and possibly seakeeping ( we don’t know for sure, but Vanguard was similar, and we had direct comparizons of Iowa and Vanguard post war )
Best armour of citadel.
Armour extensionf forward and aft of citadel existed in H39, not on Iowa ( forward )
Best torpedo protection.

Cost – smallest numbers of main shells per gun ( only 100, Germans 120, Americans ~130-150, depends of magazine, different size of different turret ), possibly smallest range
But range again problematic. I accepted long time ago, that KGV was short leged for various reasons, but Friedmas cited KGV ships covers with range 15 – 16 000 miles in 10 knots. Quite longer than usually staed 4 000. Who is right?

So what conclusions?

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 » Sun Jul 31, 2016 11:36 am

alecsandros wrote:
Maciej wrote:
Electric power was used extensively on British ships build for export. But electricity was problematic in heavy seas. Electric equipment “don’t like to be showered by salt water” ( I’m thinking about 100+ years ago times, not modern equipment! ), so on won ships hydraulic power totally insensitive to such water was used.

Who had the least amount of installed electrical power on their battleships, of all contemporary (post-1935 builds) existing battleships ?


Electric power is instaled not for reasons of „impress” and show „how many electic we can produce”, but to fulfil requirements.
Strongest power receivers on battleships were main battery turrets. They were electrically powered on most WWII battleships ( except British and Japan ), so large amount of electric power was required to power them.
With requirements of 50 to 100% reserve ( depends on navy ), it still increases required electric power. Remove those turrets from electric requirements, and You have something like KGV power generators. Simply no more power needed.
I can reverse those thing. They had strongest hydraulic power in the world.
And so what?
And mostly British ships are described as a peace of conservatic junk full of flaws. Virtually everyone else made better ships.
How it is possible? And what is difference between "paper" and "real" fighting capabilities? :think:

Yes.

Why is China bigger then Russia ?

oh yes, China is really biger. As we can see on this picture. Now I get it, and fully agree. About everything.
Image

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 » Sun Jul 31, 2016 12:31 pm

Maciej wrote:

Strongest main battery (largest bursting charge, and if FaceHD is right – strongest penetrating power of vertical armour )

... If muzzle velocity is that stated on Navweapons, then the 16"/L45 MkII had the slowest m.v. of the ships enumerated - so it is impossible to have more penetrating power , at least in vertical armor attacks. IN horizontal armor - yes.

Middle of power secondary guns against surface targets

No, Lion had 16 x 133mm guns, versus Iowa 20x127mm guns and H-39 12x150mm guns and 16x105mm guns.

Strognest light AA guns ( Iowa was designed with 12x28 only, we compare design or final configuration? )

... When Lion was (still) in design-phse, in 1943, Iowa was already in operations... Lion was stretched for many years on design...

But, as the war showed, all shps had substantialy increased AA suites, and a Lion could have as much, or even more AAA then any other contamporary BB.

The same speed as rest ( or slower than Iowa – depends which version we take

... Most sources give 28kts for Lion, 32kts for Iowa and 30kts for H-39.

Best armour of citadel.

Lion had the same armor citadel as KGV had... It is at least dubious to say it was "best", in comparison with H-39 (80+120mm armored decks, 300+150mm+45mm vertical protection) and Iowa (total >200mm of armored decks, but in more layers, and vertical armor 37+310mm declined at 19*).

Armored percentage of citadel ?

Also, the armored elements above the deck (turrets, con towers) were the least well protected in Lion.
Best torpedo protection.

Again, dubious.

So what conclusions?

Conclusions - you are skim-reading through the sources to offer you clues in the direction of your thinking...
Last edited by alecsandros on Sun Jul 31, 2016 12:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.

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 » Sun Jul 31, 2016 12:33 pm

Maciej wrote:
Electric power is instaled not for reasons of „impress” and show „how many electic we can produce”, but to fulfil requirements.
Strongest power receivers on battleships were main battery turrets. They were electrically powered on most WWII battleships ( except British and Japan ), so large amount of electric power was required to power them.
With requirements of 50 to 100% reserve ( depends on navy ), it still increases required electric power. Remove those turrets from electric requirements, and You have something like KGV power generators. Simply no more power needed.


Exactly. Reserve power capacities is key when main power is ... lost.


Return to “Naval Technology”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest