King George V vs. Rodney

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
northcape
Member
Posts: 249
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

King George V vs. Rodney

Post by northcape » Fri Oct 16, 2015 5:31 am

1941, daylight encounter. The newer ship should come out as a clear winner - otherwise what would this tell us about technology development? In particular since both ships had the 35.000 ts restriction. Would Rodney's armour withstand the 14inch - if yes, I think KGV would have a hard time. Is the 7 kts speed advantage of KGV of any relevance?
What do you think?

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4152
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: King George V vs. Rodney

Post by alecsandros » Fri Oct 16, 2015 8:49 am

northcape wrote:1941, daylight encounter. The newer ship should come out as a clear winner - otherwise what would this tell us about technology development? In particular since both ships had the 35.000 ts restriction. Would Rodney's armour withstand the 14inch - if yes, I think KGV would have a hard time. Is the 7 kts speed advantage of KGV of any relevance?
What do you think?
... Rodney was well protected against KGV's gunfire and vice-versa.

In 1941, both classes suffered troubles with their guns and turrets.

With similar optics and electronics, in 1941, I can't see any clear "winner" of a 1vs1 battle. Both ships would be badly shot up, and luck would make the difference...

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2973
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: King George V vs. Rodney

Post by Dave Saxton » Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:43 pm

If I read Raven and Roberts correctly the heavy deck armour on Rodney did not extend to over the machinery spaces. Additional, I find the KGV overall protection scheme a significant improvement over that of Rodney. The KGV's belt is external instead of internal, and covers more area, so it is less vulnerable to shells diving under the belt, and it provides better protection of the water plane.

KGV is going to need all if its armour protection, though. In post war tests, the Rodney 16" service rounds performed well against heavy armour, while RN 14" and 15" service rounds pulled from inventory at random performed poorly.

Neither can penetrate the other's decks (Rodney over the magazines) short of 30,000 meters.

Rodney can defeat KGV's belt out to ~22,000 meters. KGV (assuming ROF rounds) can defeat Rodney's belt out to ~18,000 meters.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7529
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: King George V vs. Rodney

Post by RF » Sun Nov 08, 2015 5:35 pm

alecsandros wrote:
With similar optics and electronics, in 1941, I can't see any clear "winner" of a 1vs1 battle. Both ships would be badly shot up, and luck would make the difference...
Given Rodney's unique status viz torpedoes I could imagine both vessels shooting each other to a standstill and Rodney closing in to point blank range and use its torpedoes to sink KGV.....
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

slaterat
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 6:01 pm

Re: King George V vs. Rodney

Post by slaterat » Mon Nov 09, 2015 4:13 am

I don't see how the KGV can lose. The speed advantage will allow it to completely dictate the terms and range of the battle. This is especially important when you consider the all front disposition of the Rodney's main armament. If the Rodney scores the first hit and say knocks out one 4 gun turret, the KGV can simply disengage and live to fight another day. If the KGV scores the first decisive hit and knocks out one triple turret, then the Rodney is down to a 6 versus 10 gun fight, with no means of escape and the KGV with a much better hit probability. This is the same scenario the Rodney would face if it had to take the Bismark on its own. The Rodney is also vulnerable to hits under the belt as Dave points out, and the internal sloped belt leaves it vulnerable to off center flooding from any shell that strikes the the side belt even if there is no penetration. The RN switched to the external belt in the KGV for good reasons IMO. The KGV has guns that are more modern and accurate with better quality armour in a better distribution. The KGV is the more modern ship and will win because of that.


Slaterat

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4152
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: King George V vs. Rodney

Post by alecsandros » Mon Nov 09, 2015 6:52 am

slaterat wrote:I don't see how the KGV can lose. The speed advantage will allow it to completely dictate the terms and range of the battle.
... Rodney's 16" guns had 5km more range than KGV's 14" guns.
The destructive power of a 16" projectile was considerably larger than that of a 14" projectile.

So even if Rodney was an older ship, she had advatanges in gun range and damage per projectile, which would help in evening the odds.

WIth same radars and fire control systems installed, IMHO this encounter would be decided by luck.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7529
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: King George V vs. Rodney

Post by RF » Mon Nov 09, 2015 11:51 am

alecsandros wrote: So even if Rodney was an older ship, she had advatanges in gun range and damage per projectile, which would help in evening the odds.

WIth same radars and fire control systems installed, IMHO this encounter would be decided by luck.
It takes more than just luck in a long battle that this would be.

If KGV is rendered immobile, then Rodney has is torpedoes.......
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4152
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: King George V vs. Rodney

Post by alecsandros » Mon Nov 09, 2015 1:54 pm

RF wrote:
alecsandros wrote: So even if Rodney was an older ship, she had advatanges in gun range and damage per projectile, which would help in evening the odds.

WIth same radars and fire control systems installed, IMHO this encounter would be decided by luck.
It takes more than just luck in a long battle that this would be.

If KGV is rendered immobile, then Rodney has is torpedoes.......
Luck meaning one early debilitating hit.

1 x 16" round in a quadrubble turret means 40% loss of main armament for KGV. There were also turret jams..

northcape
Member
Posts: 249
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: King George V vs. Rodney

Post by northcape » Tue Nov 10, 2015 3:04 am

slaterat wrote: The KGV is the more modern ship and will win because of that.


Slaterat
This is exactly the question why I started this thread. I find it remarkable that in the late 1930ies the RN did not manage to build a ship which would clearly outclass the previous generation. Both were built with the same constraints (35,000 ts), and the choice of 14in over 16in was deliberate.

slaterat
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 6:01 pm

Re: King George V vs. Rodney

Post by slaterat » Tue Nov 10, 2015 6:27 am

Alecsandros wrote
Rodney's 16" guns had 5km more range than KGV's 14" guns.
The destructive power of a 16" projectile was considerably larger than that of a 14" projectile.
You are pretty far out on the range, the 14/45 max is 38,560 yds while the 16/45 is 39,090 yds, from naval weapons
as for destructive power the bursting charges are pretty close 48.5lbs for the 14/45 and 51.2lbs for the 16/45
One full broadside for the KGV is 485 lbs of burster compared to 460 lbs for the Rodney

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7529
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: King George V vs. Rodney

Post by RF » Tue Nov 10, 2015 9:14 am

northcape wrote:
slaterat wrote: The KGV is the more modern ship and will win because of that.

Slaterat
This is exactly the question why I started this thread. I find it remarkable that in the late 1930ies the RN did not manage to build a ship which would clearly outclass the previous generation. Both were built with the same constraints (35,000 ts), and the choice of 14in over 16in was deliberate.
The issue isn't simply one of hitting power, but also of speed. The 35,000 ton constraint for a faster ship - faster in order to intercept - means sacrifices in terms of armoured protection and gun power. But for a battleship there is very little scope for compromise if it is to be effective. In the case of KGV a smaller calibre is used but more guns - originally 12 but reduced to 10 because of the weight limitation.

Obviously the way round the problem is to do what the Germans did - break the rules and build Bismarcks - but then Bismarck itself was a compromise, as its armament was not spectacular.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4152
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: King George V vs. Rodney

Post by alecsandros » Tue Nov 10, 2015 5:08 pm

slaterat wrote:Alecsandros wrote
Rodney's 16" guns had 5km more range than KGV's 14" guns.
The destructive power of a 16" projectile was considerably larger than that of a 14" projectile.
You are pretty far out on the range, the 14/45 max is 38,560 yds while the 16/45 is 39,090 yds, from naval weapons
as for destructive power the bursting charges are pretty close 48.5lbs for the 14/45 and 51.2lbs for the 16/45
One full broadside for the KGV is 485 lbs of burster compared to 460 lbs for the Rodney
16/L45 with Mark I rifling had max range of about 35.5 km firing AP, and 37km firing HE.
16/L45 with Mark II rifling increased range to 36.5km firing AP, and 38km firing HE.

14/L45 had max range of 35km firing AP.

So the KGV is out-ranged no matter what type of ammo or rifling is used. But the difference is not of 5km, I made a mistake.

Destructive power of a 930kg projectile is significantly larger than that of a 730kg projectile. [and the total broadside of Rodney is massively larger than that of KGV]

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3619
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: King George V vs. Rodney

Post by dunmunro » Tue Nov 10, 2015 7:13 pm

Dave Saxton wrote:If I read Raven and Roberts correctly the heavy deck armour on Rodney did not extend to over the machinery spaces. Additional, I find the KGV overall protection scheme a significant improvement over that of Rodney. The KGV's belt is external instead of internal, and covers more area, so it is less vulnerable to shells diving under the belt, and it provides better protection of the water plane.

KGV is going to need all if its armour protection, though. In post war tests, the Rodney 16" service rounds performed well against heavy armour, while RN 14" and 15" service rounds pulled from inventory at random performed poorly.

Neither can penetrate the other's decks (Rodney over the magazines) short of 30,000 meters.

Rodney can defeat KGV's belt out to ~22,000 meters. KGV (assuming ROF rounds) can defeat Rodney's belt out to ~18,000 meters.
The RN initially purchased 14in AP rounds from Hadfield and Firth-Brown and then switched to Hadfield exclusively before any KGV class ships entered service. In several dozen proof tests only two Hadfield 14in AP rounds failed after July 1939 onward, and one of those failures was understandable because the round was fired at a very low MV to try and find the lower limit of it's ability to penetrate 12in/30deg plate.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3619
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: King George V vs. Rodney

Post by dunmunro » Tue Nov 10, 2015 7:29 pm

alecsandros wrote:
slaterat wrote:Alecsandros wrote
Rodney's 16" guns had 5km more range than KGV's 14" guns.
The destructive power of a 16" projectile was considerably larger than that of a 14" projectile.
You are pretty far out on the range, the 14/45 max is 38,560 yds while the 16/45 is 39,090 yds, from naval weapons
as for destructive power the bursting charges are pretty close 48.5lbs for the 14/45 and 51.2lbs for the 16/45
One full broadside for the KGV is 485 lbs of burster compared to 460 lbs for the Rodney
16/L45 with Mark I rifling had max range of about 35.5 km firing AP, and 37km firing HE.
16/L45 with Mark II rifling increased range to 36.5km firing AP, and 38km firing HE.

14/L45 had max range of 35km firing AP.

So the KGV is out-ranged no matter what type of ammo or rifling is used. But the difference is not of 5km, I made a mistake.

Destructive power of a 930kg projectile is significantly larger than that of a 730kg projectile. [and the total broadside of Rodney is massively larger than that of KGV]
Broadside weight =
15900lb for KGV
18432lb for Rodney so about 16% neavier, but OTOH KGV has a slightly higher RoF.

slaterat
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 6:01 pm

Re: King George V vs. Rodney

Post by slaterat » Wed Nov 11, 2015 6:12 am

So the 14/45 has a range of 39,0000 yds , or about 13,000 yards farther than the longest hit ever made by a BB on a moving target in combat. I think we can all agree that the Rodney has no effective real world advantage in gun range.

Improvements made in the KGV vs Rodney
-The KGV has the advantage in number of heavy guns, bursting charge delivered per salvo, and accuracy
-5 knot speed advantage
-Thicker external main belt made of higher quality armour, covering a larger area protecting well below the waterline
-superb magazine protection

Vulnerabilities of the Rodney
-main armament concentrated in one area
-magazines vulnerable to low hits under the belt
-rapid wearing barrels, poor dispersion, mismatched barrels

Post Reply