KGV in POW's place on 10th December 1941
-
- Member
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:38 pm
- Location: Tavistock, West Devon
Re: KGV in POW's place on 10th December 1941
KGv would have been sunk just like PoW, no doubt about it I'm afraid - it might have taken just a little longer to happen.
Re: KGV in POW's place on 10th December 1941
Perhaps, but I believe KGV would have survived the historical attack on PoW, which means that all would depend on the ability of the Japanese to launch further attacks of a similar magnitude to the original. And I'm not sure the Japanese could have launched those attacks, so KGV might have survived.paul mercer wrote:KGv would have been sunk just like PoW, no doubt about it I'm afraid - it might have taken just a little longer to happen.
Re: KGV in POW's place on 10th December 1941
Surely the key point in saying ''KGV would have been sunk anyway'' is of being sure that KGV would have suffered the crippling hits that POW took to its stern - if those hits were avoided KGV should survive on the grounds that the Japanese were not able to sustain air attack indefinately. Perhaps more to the point POW should have survived without that hit on the grounds it while it is a mobile target it is better able to dodge torpedoes. Much the same in fact as saying Bismarck would have escaped home without that hit on its stern....
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Re: KGV in POW's place on 10th December 1941
Nothing here has convince me that PoW's crew was less competent than KGV's or that her material condition was any worse. If either ship had survived more than two torpedo hits I believe it would have been a first in the history of battleships and certainly of historic note. I know it's theoretically possible, but it never happened. Usually at least one hit causes unanticipated problems and the ship eventually sinks, with lots of "but if that hadn't happened" kinds of statements afterwards.
- Karl Heidenreich
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4808
- Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
- Location: San José, Costa Rica
Re: KGV in POW's place on 10th December 1941
I have never understood this thread. If KGV was in the same position PoW was, and received the same punishment, she would sink as the other one did, they were the same design in the same characteristics. The only thing that changes is the name of the ship.
What if instead of PoW we had North Carolina?
Or Littorio?
Or Richelieu?
Or Tirpitz?
Then we have the same circumstance with another completely different vessel.
Best regards.
What if instead of PoW we had North Carolina?
Or Littorio?
Or Richelieu?
Or Tirpitz?
Then we have the same circumstance with another completely different vessel.
Best regards.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Sir Winston Churchill
Re: KGV in POW's place on 10th December 1941
I believe the point of this thread is that PoW was some way from the being best example of a KGV class battleship, and her defects contributed in part to her sinking. Several watertight compartments failed when they should not have done, this quite likely being down to the fact that PoW, unlike KGV, was not fully tested for watertightness, and of course there is the unfortunate act of restarting the hit prop shaft which was directly responsible for PoW sinking, since none of the other hits, in isolation or together, would have sunk PoW.Karl Heidenreich wrote:I have never understood this thread. If KGV was in the same position PoW was, and received the same punishment, she would sink as the other one did, they were the same design in the same characteristics. The only thing that changes is the name of the ship.
If you substitute KGV in PoW place but do not stipulate that KGV takes exactly the same hits, it is likely she gets away, because there are long odds on the shaft hit being repeated and I can't see another hit that would have been as damaging. If you do say that KGV takes exactly the same hits, then whether or not KGV survives depends on whether or not the shaft is restarted following the torpedo hits.
If the same shaft hit occurs, and the shaft was restarted following the hit, I believe any of these ships would also end up on the seabed. In Littorio's case, due to the less well subdivided engine rooms the results could be even more devastating.What if instead of PoW we had North Carolina?
Or Littorio?
Or Richelieu?
Or Tirpitz?
Then we have the same circumstance with another completely different vessel.
Re: KGV in POW's place on 10th December 1941
Recently information has come to light (diver examination of shaft alley) that indicates that restarting the shaft was irrelevant.
Is there documentation showing PoW never had compartment leak tests and that KGV did? Not doing that is so blatantly irresponsible I can't imagine it would be omitted. Essentially all ships have minor defects in compartmentation when first built.
Is there documentation showing PoW never had compartment leak tests and that KGV did? Not doing that is so blatantly irresponsible I can't imagine it would be omitted. Essentially all ships have minor defects in compartmentation when first built.
Re: KGV in POW's place on 10th December 1941
Intersting. Do you have a link to a site with this report? Because unless the shaft caused enough damage before being stopped to destroy all the seals between the prop and the engine room, then I don't see how this could be the case, and I would imagine that it would be near impossible for a diver to tell the difference between damage inflicted before and after the shaft was stopped.Bgile wrote:Recently information has come to light (diver examination of shaft alley) that indicates that restarting the shaft was irrelevant.
Sending a ship to fight with work still being carried out on the main armament and without conducting sufficient gunnery drill is also blatantly irresponsible, but these things happen in wartime. I believe that in the rush to get PoW ready to fight the compartment leak tests where omited, and when PoW was brought in to repair the damage recieved in her fight at DS the repairs were carried out with such haste that nothing further was done about the bomb damage PoW had previously recieved. Certainly there are reports of compartments flooding when they shouldn't have as PoW sunk.Is there documentation showing PoW never had compartment leak tests and that KGV did? Not doing that is so blatantly irresponsible I can't imagine it would be omitted. Essentially all ships have minor defects in compartmentation when first built.
Re: KGV in POW's place on 10th December 1941
Then I take it you have no documentation that leak tests were not performed on PoW. It is simply your supposition because the main armament was still being worked on.
Here is the link:
http://www.bobhenneman.info/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1466
Here is the link:
http://www.bobhenneman.info/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1466
Re: KGV in POW's place on 10th December 1941
I don't have any documentation, but it is a reasonable supposition considering the flooding that took place in supposedly water tight compartments and the haste with which PoW was commisioned. Thanks for the link, it answers many questions that have been asked over the years.Bgile wrote:Then I take it you have no documentation that leak tests were not performed on PoW. It is simply your supposition because the main armament was still being worked on.
Here is the link:
http://www.bobhenneman.info/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1466