King George V vs. Rodney

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3986
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: King George V vs. Rodney

Postby alecsandros » Wed Nov 11, 2015 6:59 am

slaterat wrote: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.

KGV: 38600y with new gun and 36500y with 25% worn-gun.
Rodney: up to 42000y with new gun

The advantage in maximum range remains in cases of shorter ranges, due to the better angle of incidence, producing a larger number of probable hits on the target (faster m-v gun produces more hits per target).
http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2631

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


Advantages of Rodney over KGV:
- thicker armor in turrets and barbettes

- armored con tower

- better reliability of turrets and guns (allthough jams did occur, they wre not that spectacular as tthose of Prince of Wales and King George Vth, at least in 1941)

- massively more powerfull projectiles and penetration per range, giving higher probability of massive damage per hit.

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2866
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: King George V vs. Rodney

Postby Dave Saxton » Wed Nov 11, 2015 2:29 pm

dunmunro wrote:
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.


I'm talking about the post war tests when all the 14" service rounds tested failed, and only the Nelson class 16" service rounds performed as expected. Selected ROF 14" and 15" rounds did not fail.
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.

Guest

Re: King George V vs. Rodney

Postby Guest » Wed Nov 11, 2015 8:44 pm

Alecsandros wrote:
KGV: 38600y with new gun and 36500y with 25% worn-gun.
Rodney: up to 42000y with new gun


Lets compare new guns with AP projectiles

KGV 14/45 38,500 yds @ 2,483 ft/sec mv new gun
14/45 36,500 yds @ 2,400 ft/sec 25% worn gun
Rodney MK I 16/45 39,090 @ 2,586 ft/sec mv
MK II 16/45 39,780 @ 2,614 ft/sec mv
16/45 38,000 @ 2,525 ft/sec mv worn gun?

Rodney had a mix of mk I and II guns.

The difference is insignificant regarding naval ship to ship combat

The advantage in maximum range remains in cases of shorter ranges, due to the better angle of incidence, producing a larger number of probable hits on the target (faster m-v gun produces more hits per target).


Not always true, increase mv = increase barrel whip = increase dispersion

The RN was dissatisfied with the accuracy of the high mv 16" as the lower velocity 15/42 was more accurate and is the reason they went back to a lower mv for the 14/45.

Advantages of Rodney over KGV:
- thicker armor in turrets and barbettes

- armored con tower

- better reliability of turrets and guns (although jams did occur, they wre not that spectacular as those of Prince of Wales and King George Vth, at least in 1941)

- massively more powerfull projectiles and penetration per range, giving higher probability of massive damage per hit.


-Thicker armor on barbettes and turrets, offset by the higher quality armor of KGV

-armored conning tower, only beneficial if commanders are using it

-better reliability of turrets, certainly debatable

-massively more powerful projectiles, not true burster charges are similar in size and 16" is only marginally superior in penetration

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: King George V vs. Rodney

Postby dunmunro » Wed Nov 11, 2015 9:37 pm

Dave Saxton wrote:
dunmunro wrote:
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.


I'm talking about the post war tests when all the 14" service rounds tested failed, and only the Nelson class 16" service rounds performed as expected. Selected ROF 14" and 15" rounds did not fail.


Perhaps you could provide a reference? I know that the RN 14in performed well in post war testing against Tirpitz plates.

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

Re: King George V vs. Rodney

Postby slaterat » Wed Nov 11, 2015 9:44 pm

Alecsandros wrote:
KGV: 38600y with new gun and 36500y with 25% worn-gun.
Rodney: up to 42000y with new gun


Lets compare new guns with AP projectiles

KGV 14/45 38,500 yds @ 2,483 ft/sec mv new gun
14/45 36,500 yds @ 2,400 ft/sec 25% worn gun
Rodney MK I 16/45 39,090 @ 2,586 ft/sec mv
MK II 16/45 39,780 @ 2,614 ft/sec mv
16/45 38,000 @ 2,525 ft/sec mv worn gun?

Rodney had a mix of mk I and II guns.

The difference is insignificant regarding naval ship to ship combat

The advantage in maximum range remains in cases of shorter ranges, due to the better angle of incidence, producing a larger number of probable hits on the target (faster m-v gun produces more hits per target).


Not always true, increase mv = increase barrel whip = increase dispersion

The RN was dissatisfied with the accuracy of the high mv 16" as the lower velocity 15/42 was more accurate and is the reason they went back to a lower mv for the 14/45.

Advantages of Rodney over KGV:
- thicker armor in turrets and barbettes

- armored con tower

- better reliability of turrets and guns (although jams did occur, they wre not that spectacular as those of Prince of Wales and King George Vth, at least in 1941)

- massively more powerfull projectiles and penetration per range, giving higher probability of massive damage per hit.


-Thicker armor on barbettes and turrets, offset by the higher quality armor of KGV

-armored conning tower, only beneficial if commanders are using it

-better reliability of turrets, certainly debatable

-massively more powerful projectiles, not true burster charges are similar in size and 16" is only marginally superior in penetration

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: King George V vs. Rodney

Postby dunmunro » Wed Nov 11, 2015 9:47 pm

alecsandros wrote:
slaterat wrote: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.

KGV: 38600y with new gun and 36500y with 25% worn-gun.
Rodney: up to 42000y with new gun
.


Rodney AP round with Mk1 rifling = 39090 yds.
Rodney AP round with Mk II rifling - 39780 yds (data from Campbell)

A late war HE round gave a range of 41690/40890 yds with Mk II/I rifling.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3986
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: King George V vs. Rodney

Postby alecsandros » Thu Nov 12, 2015 7:33 am

slaterat wrote:
Lets compare new guns with AP projectiles

KGV 14/45 38,500 yds @ 2,483 ft/sec mv new gun
14/45 36,500 yds @ 2,400 ft/sec 25% worn gun
Rodney MK I 16/45 39,090 @ 2,586 ft/sec mv
MK II 16/45 39,780 @ 2,614 ft/sec mv
16/45 38,000 @ 2,525 ft/sec mv worn gun?

Rodney had a mix of mk I and II guns.

The difference is insignificant regarding naval ship to ship combat


I see 600yards for 16" Mark I vs 14",
1500yards between Mark II 16" rifling and 14" gun and
With HE shell, the difference is about 3000yards.

Perhaps not a big difference, but KGV was outranged no matter how you look at it.

There is also the aspect of muzzle velocity, which produced a different time of flight - shorter for Rodney, longer for KGV, meaning faster target aquisition by Rodney's artillery.

Not always true, increase mv = increase barrel whip = increase dispersion

The RN was dissatisfied with the accuracy of the high mv 16" as the lower velocity 15/42 was more accurate and is the reason they went back to a lower mv for the 14/45.

No, Lion class was building with 16"/L45.

-Thicker armor on barbettes and turrets, offset by the higher quality armor of KGV

Of course not, 350mm vs 305mm was not offset by armor quality.

-armored conning tower, only beneficial if commanders are using it

But there nonetheless

-massively more powerful projectiles, not true burster charges are similar in size and 16" is only marginally superior in penetration

burster charge propells the projectile fragments inside the enemy. It's one thing to propel 730kg of projectile, and another to propel 930kg.

At 20km, 14"/L45 had 370mm penetration, whereas 16"/L45 427mm.... So 15% more penetration for Rodney's guns...

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3986
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: King George V vs. Rodney

Postby alecsandros » Thu Nov 12, 2015 5:31 pm

Other aspects to consider:

KGV's entire volume , except citadel volume, is vulnerable to Rodney gunfire from 30km downwards (this includes turrets, con towers, stearing , forecastle, upper deck)

KGV needs to get within 21km of Rodney in order to get perforating hits on turrets and con tower (allthough non-perforating long ranged hits may also incapacitate the structure)

Citadel armor of KGV is vulnerable to Rodney's artillery starting at 20km. [average armor plate obliquity 10*]

Citadel armor of Rodney is vulnerable to KGV's gunfire starting at ~ 16-17km. [average armor plate obliquity 18*]

[however, KGV's citadel is LARGER than ROdney's, covering a considerably deeper portion of the hull]

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2866
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: King George V vs. Rodney

Postby Dave Saxton » Fri Nov 13, 2015 3:10 pm

dunmunro wrote:
I'm talking about the post war tests when all the 14" service rounds tested failed, and only the Nelson class 16" service rounds performed as expected. Selected ROF 14" and 15" rounds did not fail.


Perhaps you could provide a reference? I know that the RN 14in performed well in post war testing against Tirpitz plates.

If I recall correctly it is among the ADM281 files. I don't have it handy right now. 14" Rounds from the ROF used in tests performed well. It was the 14" service rounds pulled at random from inventory that all performed poorly.
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.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: King George V vs. Rodney

Postby dunmunro » Fri Nov 13, 2015 6:33 pm

Dave Saxton wrote:
dunmunro wrote:
I'm talking about the post war tests when all the 14" service rounds tested failed, and only the Nelson class 16" service rounds performed as expected. Selected ROF 14" and 15" rounds did not fail.


Perhaps you could provide a reference? I know that the RN 14in performed well in post war testing against Tirpitz plates.

If I recall correctly it is among the ADM281 files. I don't have it handy right now. 14" Rounds from the ROF used in tests performed well. It was the 14" service rounds pulled at random from inventory that all performed poorly.



AFAIK, the ROF never made any 14in AP, and all post war testing was done with service stocks of Hadfield 14in, for example:

http://www.panzer-war.com/Naab/Tripitz2.jpg

The ROF did produce a "Cardonald" 15in AP shell but AFAIK, they never produced any 14in AP and I've never seen any reference to a ROF 14in AP round.

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2866
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: King George V vs. Rodney

Postby Dave Saxton » Sat Nov 14, 2015 3:29 pm

These were not tests against Tirpitz plates, but research into new designs going forward. The 14" service rounds failed. The Nelson class 16" service rounds did not.
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.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: King George V vs. Rodney

Postby dunmunro » Sat Nov 14, 2015 4:23 pm

Dave Saxton wrote:These were not tests against Tirpitz plates, but research into new designs going forward. The 14" service rounds failed. The Nelson class 16" service rounds did not.

Again, I'd really like to see a source for that info, as the Hadfield 14in AP had a very good reputation.


Return to “Hypothetical Naval Scenarios”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest