Hi there, I'm a newcomer to posting this forum although I have been following all the posts for some time and I have a question which I'm sure has been asked before somewhere (but I car'nt find it!).
A lot has been said about the relative strengths of the ships involved and it does appear to me that the KG 5 class seem to be underestimated as to both their strength, armament and fighting capacity.
If this is so, it would have been interesting to see the result of a fully worked up (and with all guns functioning) Prince of Wales alone against the Bismarck. I realise BS had 15" againt 14", but I believe the broadside weight of the POW was in fact greater than BS, also, POW had two extra guns with which to make make a hit. Obviously it all depends who gets in the first important hit (on the fire control for instance) but on the assumption that most of the modern WW2 battleships were almost invunerable to being actually sunk by gunfire, I wonder who would have been the first to turn away?
KG 5 class underestimated?
-
paul mercer
- Member
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:38 pm
- Location: Tavistock, West Devon
You´re correct in your observation. This is because of the mechanical breakdowns suffered by PoW, KGV and especially DoY. The first 2 had not the interlock problems solved and PoW´s crew was green, the latter fired far more rounds than any BB in a single engagement in extremely bad weather.
These problems get repeatedly blown out of proportion and lead to assumptions that PoW for example would have been sunk in barely half an hour which is idiotic at best.
Even the demise of Force Z gets mentioned in this respect but only a Yamato could have survived such an attack.
PoW got such an unlucky hit that made defending her extremely difficult.
The KGV were good ships imo not the best of the treaties which were the SoDaks and Richelieus but nothing to laugh at either and capable of defeating all the other treaty BBs.
Statements like at "least 1,5 times as good" are just blatantly false though BS was a little better albeit at a much larger displacement. Pit her against a Lion and she´d be outclassed.
These problems get repeatedly blown out of proportion and lead to assumptions that PoW for example would have been sunk in barely half an hour which is idiotic at best.
Even the demise of Force Z gets mentioned in this respect but only a Yamato could have survived such an attack.
PoW got such an unlucky hit that made defending her extremely difficult.
The KGV were good ships imo not the best of the treaties which were the SoDaks and Richelieus but nothing to laugh at either and capable of defeating all the other treaty BBs.
Statements like at "least 1,5 times as good" are just blatantly false though BS was a little better albeit at a much larger displacement. Pit her against a Lion and she´d be outclassed.
-
Karl Heidenreich
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4808
- Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
- Location: San José, Costa Rica
Lutscha:
Please do not refer to me in such a way.
I´m not fond in using pejorative terms to anyone. It´s quite obvious that we do not agree in some issues (i.e. my certainity that POW could and would be sunk by Bismarck if Lutjens gave such an order at DS and your certainity that something like that was imposible), which is no reason at all to use that kind of language and such an attitute that proves only a low cultural education and a moral stand of low quality. That´s why I haven´t answer your provocative and foul mouth posts and I will not do it again.These problems get repeatedly blown out of proportion and lead to assumptions that PoW for example would have been sunk in barely half an hour which is idiotic at best.
Please do not refer to me in such a way.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Sir Winston Churchill
-
paul mercer
- Member
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:38 pm
- Location: Tavistock, West Devon
Please gentlemen do not fight over this, I would really value your comments on my question as you are the experts on these matters.
Karl, in the light my observations in my post, could you explain why you think BS would have sunk the POW if she had been fully functional and would she have actually sunk the POW or just severely disabled her?
Thanks,
Paul
Karl, in the light my observations in my post, could you explain why you think BS would have sunk the POW if she had been fully functional and would she have actually sunk the POW or just severely disabled her?
Thanks,
Paul
I agree that the KGV's were good designs on the displacement they were limited to. They did have design deficiencies which made them mediocre compared to the competition.
The performance of the 14" gun was mediocre, even compared to contemporary 14" guns. The US 14" on the New Mexico class were more powerful. The 15" gun on the Bismarck had significantly better performance than either. Having two more guns IMO didn't make up for that. Also, the unreliability of the main battery was due to an unnecessarily complex design and gave trouble thoughout the war.
The 5.25" secondary battery turned out to be very poor AA weapons, and the 2lb pompoms were plaged by mechanical breakdown and had poor ballistic performance compared to the 40mm bofors. FC systems weren't up to the job, either. I'm sure these factors contributed to the loss of PoW. Bismarck wouldn't have done any better. In fact, noone had really good AAA at that point in the war. Unfortunately the KGV's didn't get a lot better as the war progressed.
In Bismarck you have a larger ship with more powerful guns. Bismarck would have an advantage in a gunnery duel. I don't think that necessarily means a KGV would lose such a fight, just that the odds were in favor of Bismarck. I don't think sinking a KG5 with guns would be easy, and I'm not one of those who think Bismarck could have sunk PoW, at least not quickly. It would have taken hours and Bismarck would have been further damaged and very low on ammunition.
The performance of the 14" gun was mediocre, even compared to contemporary 14" guns. The US 14" on the New Mexico class were more powerful. The 15" gun on the Bismarck had significantly better performance than either. Having two more guns IMO didn't make up for that. Also, the unreliability of the main battery was due to an unnecessarily complex design and gave trouble thoughout the war.
The 5.25" secondary battery turned out to be very poor AA weapons, and the 2lb pompoms were plaged by mechanical breakdown and had poor ballistic performance compared to the 40mm bofors. FC systems weren't up to the job, either. I'm sure these factors contributed to the loss of PoW. Bismarck wouldn't have done any better. In fact, noone had really good AAA at that point in the war. Unfortunately the KGV's didn't get a lot better as the war progressed.
In Bismarck you have a larger ship with more powerful guns. Bismarck would have an advantage in a gunnery duel. I don't think that necessarily means a KGV would lose such a fight, just that the odds were in favor of Bismarck. I don't think sinking a KG5 with guns would be easy, and I'm not one of those who think Bismarck could have sunk PoW, at least not quickly. It would have taken hours and Bismarck would have been further damaged and very low on ammunition.
-
Karl Heidenreich
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4808
- Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
- Location: San José, Costa Rica
paul mercer:
First of all, as a member of the HMS Hood Association forum, I regard the KGV Class as a good treaty design BB. By the way, I have the KGV and the PoW as 1:350 model displays at my house and this is a photo:
http://www.kbismarck.org/photos/kheidenriech001.jpg
When I took it I haven´t build my HMS Hood, which I have now beside Bismarck and PoW.
OK: I haven´t said that Bismarck could have sunk PoW at DS being the British ship fully operational, I said that Bismarck could and would have sunk PoW at DS the way the British ship was that very morning. If PoW was fully operational then I would never said something like that. Being it true, also, that being Bismarck fully operational on May 27th the British would have never been able to sunk her neither.
The KGV Class had the problem with their quadruple mounts which, in theory, had a heavier broadside than Bismarck, but it proves in practical terms, to fail. And that´s a problem we cannot deny; at DS it did in such a way that put in harms way the ship and her crew.
But the fact that it was a heavier broadside didn´t mean that she had a better punch than, for example, a 15" hit from Bismarck. The dispersion of any of the 14" mounts at the KGV at extreme ranges was much bigger than those of the German ship. Moreover, the Germans built Bismarck playing it safe, that´s why they had four quadruple mounts for their main battery, knowing that it will not let them down in a crisis, while the more agressive quadruple mounts were a new concept that proves risky.
The total amount of armour, in relation to the ship´s displacement, was less than that of Bismarck, protecting less lenght of the ship´s than that of her enemy.
And the extreme case was that at DS in which everything went wrong for British: Hood fired at PE believing her to be Bismarck; Hood´s fire didn´t achieve a single hit on her enemies even when she had more time to aim and straddle them; the failure in the quadruple mounts on PoW; the early hits that PE achieved on Hood and the early hits that Bismarck achieved too; the fact that Hood had the UP amunnition over the weather decks, etc. etc. If you read the accounts of survivors Briggs and Tilburn, etc, you began to understand the inferno that was Hood´s deck in those minutes around 6:01 am, May 24th, 1941. Simply put: Hood and PoW were into a killing zone the way they approached the German Squadron that morning.
If a fully operational KGV is put against a Bismarck Class I´m not saying that the Germans would be left untouched (they were in real life, either, PoW´s hits were lethal as it proved later), but my money is with the German dreadnought: is a stronger ship, that´s all.
Best regards and, again, excuse me, please.
Hi Paul. Please, excuse me but was a little bit troubled by the way this other guy express himself, that´s all.Please gentlemen do not fight over this, I would really value your comments on my question as you are the experts on these matters.
Karl, in the light my observations in my post, could you explain why you think BS would have sunk the POW if she had been fully functional and would she have actually sunk the POW or just severely disabled her?
Thanks,
Paul
First of all, as a member of the HMS Hood Association forum, I regard the KGV Class as a good treaty design BB. By the way, I have the KGV and the PoW as 1:350 model displays at my house and this is a photo:
http://www.kbismarck.org/photos/kheidenriech001.jpg
When I took it I haven´t build my HMS Hood, which I have now beside Bismarck and PoW.
OK: I haven´t said that Bismarck could have sunk PoW at DS being the British ship fully operational, I said that Bismarck could and would have sunk PoW at DS the way the British ship was that very morning. If PoW was fully operational then I would never said something like that. Being it true, also, that being Bismarck fully operational on May 27th the British would have never been able to sunk her neither.
The KGV Class had the problem with their quadruple mounts which, in theory, had a heavier broadside than Bismarck, but it proves in practical terms, to fail. And that´s a problem we cannot deny; at DS it did in such a way that put in harms way the ship and her crew.
But the fact that it was a heavier broadside didn´t mean that she had a better punch than, for example, a 15" hit from Bismarck. The dispersion of any of the 14" mounts at the KGV at extreme ranges was much bigger than those of the German ship. Moreover, the Germans built Bismarck playing it safe, that´s why they had four quadruple mounts for their main battery, knowing that it will not let them down in a crisis, while the more agressive quadruple mounts were a new concept that proves risky.
The total amount of armour, in relation to the ship´s displacement, was less than that of Bismarck, protecting less lenght of the ship´s than that of her enemy.
And the extreme case was that at DS in which everything went wrong for British: Hood fired at PE believing her to be Bismarck; Hood´s fire didn´t achieve a single hit on her enemies even when she had more time to aim and straddle them; the failure in the quadruple mounts on PoW; the early hits that PE achieved on Hood and the early hits that Bismarck achieved too; the fact that Hood had the UP amunnition over the weather decks, etc. etc. If you read the accounts of survivors Briggs and Tilburn, etc, you began to understand the inferno that was Hood´s deck in those minutes around 6:01 am, May 24th, 1941. Simply put: Hood and PoW were into a killing zone the way they approached the German Squadron that morning.
If a fully operational KGV is put against a Bismarck Class I´m not saying that the Germans would be left untouched (they were in real life, either, PoW´s hits were lethal as it proved later), but my money is with the German dreadnought: is a stronger ship, that´s all.
Best regards and, again, excuse me, please.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Sir Winston Churchill
Karl, You are putting things the way that suits you best for the actual moment, in another post you have prefered Tirpitz before two KGV and in this post they aren´t so bad after all. About behavior i think in this forum we all wins on to be a little thoghtful and show eachother some respect, discuss things and exchange opinions instead of trying to be a teacher telling people what´s wrong and what´s right. Am i wrong?
-
Karl Heidenreich
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4808
- Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
- Location: San José, Costa Rica
Quoting myself:
No more to add.If a fully operational KGV is put against a Bismarck Class I´m not saying that the Germans would be left untouched (they were in real life, either, PoW´s hits were lethal as it proved later), but my money is with the German dreadnought: is a stronger ship, that´s all.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Sir Winston Churchill
Re: KG 5 class underestimated?
The KGVs have been subject to ambivalence from their earliest days. I remember reading Churchill's history of WWII in which was appended some of his correspondence regarding the KGVs and caliber envy. The gigantic guns of the North Carolinas seemed a depressing contrast with KGV's 14-inchers. More recently, Tarrant's book on the KGV class bemoans, almost monotonously, the design's inferiority--and then goes on to credit the KGVs with saving the world.
I do not regard KGV as an especially good design. Like all other designs, she possessed both strengths and weaknesses, but her weaknesses are a bit more pronounced. That doesn't mean she was incapable; but I do think more could have been accomplished on the treaty tonnage.
KGV had poor torpedo defenses, disappointing weaponry, and short range. The torpedo protection doesn't need much discussion; the designers simply over-estimated the value of the provisions they made. As to firepower, the 14in caliber is not a dreadful blot; I have often mused that 14in was the ideal caliber for a treaty design. However, the mount problems were an issue in long engagements, and the secondary battery was a blatant under-achiever. The British had troubles with high-angle FC anyway, and KGV's weaponry made things worse. The lack of range may be the biggest shortcoming. The best ship that can't get to the fight isn't doing you any good.
On the positive side, KGV had some excellent armor. Not only were the vitals well protected, but the waterline was armored almost to the same extent as Bismarck's. I have never seen any calculations, but KGV may have had a greater percentage of protected buoyancy than any other modern battleship. Despite the mount trouble, the 14in guns gave regular performance with long barrel life, and with the addition of radar, the KGVs could probably have defeated any European opponent.
I do not regard KGV as an especially good design. Like all other designs, she possessed both strengths and weaknesses, but her weaknesses are a bit more pronounced. That doesn't mean she was incapable; but I do think more could have been accomplished on the treaty tonnage.
KGV had poor torpedo defenses, disappointing weaponry, and short range. The torpedo protection doesn't need much discussion; the designers simply over-estimated the value of the provisions they made. As to firepower, the 14in caliber is not a dreadful blot; I have often mused that 14in was the ideal caliber for a treaty design. However, the mount problems were an issue in long engagements, and the secondary battery was a blatant under-achiever. The British had troubles with high-angle FC anyway, and KGV's weaponry made things worse. The lack of range may be the biggest shortcoming. The best ship that can't get to the fight isn't doing you any good.
On the positive side, KGV had some excellent armor. Not only were the vitals well protected, but the waterline was armored almost to the same extent as Bismarck's. I have never seen any calculations, but KGV may have had a greater percentage of protected buoyancy than any other modern battleship. Despite the mount trouble, the 14in guns gave regular performance with long barrel life, and with the addition of radar, the KGVs could probably have defeated any European opponent.
-
Karl Heidenreich
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4808
- Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
- Location: San José, Costa Rica
In order to evaluate these ships it´s better to have this data:
Displacement:
Bismarck Std: 41,700 tons
KGV Std: 38,600 tons
Bismarck Full: 50,900 tons
KGV Full: 44,400 tons
Dimensions:
Bismarck lenght: 251 mts
KGV lenght: 227,1 mts
Bismarck beam: 36 mts
KGV beam: 31,9 mts
Bismarck draft: 10,2 mts
KGV draft: 10,3 mts
Armour:
Bismarck main belt: 320 mm
KGV main belt: 348-374 mm
Bismarck turrets: 130-360 mm
KGV turrets: 150-324 mm
Bismarck upper deck: 50-80 mm
KGV upper deck: -
Bismarck armoured deck: 80-120 mm
KGV armoured deck: 124-150 mm
Bismarck protected lenght: 70%
KGV protected lenght: 59%
Bismarck PC/TC: 17/22 (77%)
KGV PC/TC: 10/21 (48%)
Bismarck armour weight: 17,540 tons
KGV armour weight: 12,612 tons
Armament:
Bismarck main: 8 x 15" L/47
KGV main: 10 x 14" L/45
Powerplant:
Bismarck: 150,170 hp
KGV: 113,000 hp
Speed:
Bismarck: 30,1 knots
KGV: 28 knots
Draw your own conclusions
Best regards
Displacement:
Bismarck Std: 41,700 tons
KGV Std: 38,600 tons
Bismarck Full: 50,900 tons
KGV Full: 44,400 tons
Dimensions:
Bismarck lenght: 251 mts
KGV lenght: 227,1 mts
Bismarck beam: 36 mts
KGV beam: 31,9 mts
Bismarck draft: 10,2 mts
KGV draft: 10,3 mts
Armour:
Bismarck main belt: 320 mm
KGV main belt: 348-374 mm
Bismarck turrets: 130-360 mm
KGV turrets: 150-324 mm
Bismarck upper deck: 50-80 mm
KGV upper deck: -
Bismarck armoured deck: 80-120 mm
KGV armoured deck: 124-150 mm
Bismarck protected lenght: 70%
KGV protected lenght: 59%
Bismarck PC/TC: 17/22 (77%)
KGV PC/TC: 10/21 (48%)
Bismarck armour weight: 17,540 tons
KGV armour weight: 12,612 tons
Armament:
Bismarck main: 8 x 15" L/47
KGV main: 10 x 14" L/45
Powerplant:
Bismarck: 150,170 hp
KGV: 113,000 hp
Speed:
Bismarck: 30,1 knots
KGV: 28 knots
Draw your own conclusions
Best regards
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Sir Winston Churchill
-
Karl Heidenreich
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4808
- Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
- Location: San José, Costa Rica
-
paul mercer
- Member
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:38 pm
- Location: Tavistock, West Devon
-
Karl Heidenreich
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4808
- Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
- Location: San José, Costa Rica
Hi Paul,
thanks for your perception on my models
It´s been five years since I began with my collection. About the way I see the WWII dreadnoughts there is a thread in this forum´s Naval History chapter called the Battleship Top Ten which is now 8 pages long. I copy the last post that regards this "Top Ten" that includes the WWII dreadnoughts for their virtues regardless their nation:
Best regards
thanks for your perception on my models
It´s been five years since I began with my collection. About the way I see the WWII dreadnoughts there is a thread in this forum´s Naval History chapter called the Battleship Top Ten which is now 8 pages long. I copy the last post that regards this "Top Ten" that includes the WWII dreadnoughts for their virtues regardless their nation:
The most beautifull, I admitt it, is completely subjetive but look at the Most Powerfull in which the opinions of Tiornu, Macelo Malara, Antonio Bonomi, Bgile, etc. etc. is taken. And as far as I can see Bismarck is in 5th place (and in a draw with the Richelieu) below the Yamato and the US dreadnoughts. Almost everybody had agreed in the KGV Class rating, or at least nobody had appeal it. I have tried to be as open and fair as possible.Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 4:00 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi everybody! Until now I´m able to browse again the forum. I see that ostriker, Bgile and Antonio miss the Missouri. And Antonio´s remark of the most beautifull is right on the spot for Tirpitz. There is also some agreement about other ships. Since I asked your opinion I like to see everybody happy, so here is the list 10.2
I. Top Ten Most Famous WWII BBs and BCs
1. Bismarck
2. Hood
3. Arizona
4. Warspite
5. Schanhorst
6. Missouri
7. Yamato
8. Tirpitz
9. KGV
10. PoW
Note: USS Missouri is again on the list. The Royal Oak was striked out. The Tirpitz got a higher rank because Antonio´s comments, Repulse got out and KGV gets in. Arizona is still in because her historical importance.
II. Top Ten Most Beautifull WWII BBs and BCs
1. Bismarck Class
2. HMS Hood
3. HMS Warspite
4. Roma
5. Schanhorst
6. HMS Repulse
7. Richelieu
8. KGV
9. Yamato
10. Royal Oak
Note: Roma is in the list for the Littorio Class and switches places with the KGV.
III. Top Ten Most Powerfull WWII BBs and BCs
1.Yamato Class
2. Iowa Class
3. South Dakota Class
4. North Carolina Class
5. Bismarck Class
6. Richelieu
7. Nelson Class
8. Nagato Class
9. Littorio Class
10. KGV Class
Note: Because there has been a lot of discussion about the armament and armour of Bismarck and there seems to be evidence that it was below that of the South Dak and North Car classes the Bismarck is in 5th place. If someone can gives us evidence that it´s a wrong interpretation please come forward. I´ll be the most happy guy in the forum if I can put Bismarck ahead of those two classes.
Special Mention:
HMS Vanguard (post WWII BB)
Note: Vanguard is there because it is the last dreadnought built, so it had all the technological virtues of older ships. The problem is that she didn´t fought in WWII so can´t be in the Top Ten List 10.2
Most Ugly WWII BB:
Gangut
Note: Nobody says anything so there is an absolute agreement that this is the most ugly WWII ship ever.
Best regards
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Sir Winston Churchill
