Questions on Royal Navy

[Kingfish]

1) What was the rational for the 4-2 main gun layout on the KGV class?

2) What unit(s) provided NGF for the attack on Maltot during Operation Jupiter in July '44?

Thanks in advance

[Kingfish]

1) What was the rational for the 4-2 main gun layout on the KGV class?

2) What unit(s) provided NGF for the attack on Maltot during Operation Jupiter in July '44?

Thanks in advance

[JasonC]

10 gun layouts had been standard in the RN as far back as the Dreadnought, though mounted in 5 turrets each with 2 guns. At first 2 of them were mounted off the centerline. It was found that gunnery was impaired, compared to centerline turret placement, because of things like timing firing to the bottom of the ship's roll. (Guns farther from the roll axis are moving about more).

The next layout favored was 8 turrets each with 2 guns, but 15 inch rather than the 12 to 14 inch that had been the standard for 10 gun BBs. Note that the Brits were initially slow to adopt turrets firing over each other, because their original location for the gun directors was on top of the turrets, rather than atop a central mast - and they wanted to avoid concussion to the director. That reason went away still back in the WW I era, though, when all guns moved to synchronized firing.

When they were building the KG Vs, the first weapon layout considered was 9 15 inch guns in 3 turrets. But they decided instead on the 14 inch, for better ROF and higher hit probability per salvo. They believed their improved 14 inch guns could penetrate any BB in the world, so they were not worried about the slight reduction in caliber. They saw the trade off as 12 14 inch vs. 9 15 inch and preferred the 12 14 inch. They were to be mounted in 3 quad turrets.

The superior turret forward was reduced to 2 guns later in the design stage. The reason was primarily to allow thicker armor on the higher turret, within weight constraints. The KG Vs were among the most heavily armored BBs every built.

As for Jupiter, HMS Rodney fired in support of that operation. I don't know about other ships. Rodney carried 9 16 inch guns in triple turrets, all forward. She is most famous for her role in sinking the Bismarck (along with KG V, of course).

[JasonC]

10 gun layouts had been standard in the RN as far back as the Dreadnought, though mounted in 5 turrets each with 2 guns. At first 2 of them were mounted off the centerline. It was found that gunnery was impaired, compared to centerline turret placement, because of things like timing firing to the bottom of the ship's roll. (Guns farther from the roll axis are moving about more).

The next layout favored was 8 turrets each with 2 guns, but 15 inch rather than the 12 to 14 inch that had been the standard for 10 gun BBs. Note that the Brits were initially slow to adopt turrets firing over each other, because their original location for the gun directors was on top of the turrets, rather than atop a central mast - and they wanted to avoid concussion to the director. That reason went away still back in the WW I era, though, when all guns moved to synchronized firing.

When they were building the KG Vs, the first weapon layout considered was 9 15 inch guns in 3 turrets. But they decided instead on the 14 inch, for better ROF and higher hit probability per salvo. They believed their improved 14 inch guns could penetrate any BB in the world, so they were not worried about the slight reduction in caliber. They saw the trade off as 12 14 inch vs. 9 15 inch and preferred the 12 14 inch. They were to be mounted in 3 quad turrets.

The superior turret forward was reduced to 2 guns later in the design stage. The reason was primarily to allow thicker armor on the higher turret, within weight constraints. The KG Vs were among the most heavily armored BBs every built.

As for Jupiter, HMS Rodney fired in support of that operation. I don't know about other ships. Rodney carried 9 16 inch guns in triple turrets, all forward. She is most famous for her role in sinking the Bismarck (along with KG V, of course).

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by JasonC:

The superior turret forward was reduced to 2 guns later in the design stage. The reason was primarily to allow thicker armor on the higher turret, within weight constraints. The KG Vs were among the most heavily armored BBs every built.

Thanks. For some reason I thought the purpose of the 4-2 arrangement was so that the 'B' turret would act as a range finder, bracketing the target, and then followed up by a 4-gun salvo from the 'A' turret.

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by JasonC:

The superior turret forward was reduced to 2 guns later in the design stage. The reason was primarily to allow thicker armor on the higher turret, within weight constraints. The KG Vs were among the most heavily armored BBs every built.

Thanks. For some reason I thought the purpose of the 4-2 arrangement was so that the 'B' turret would act as a range finder, bracketing the target, and then followed up by a 4-gun salvo from the 'A' turret.

[The_Enigma]

usless bit of info i read somewhere:

The main battery of guns where placed forward of the funnels due to the RN idea that British ships never ran away from battle, they didnt need to fire astern and could take on the enemy head on.

[The_Enigma]

usless bit of info i read somewhere:

The main battery of guns where placed forward of the funnels due to the RN idea that British ships never ran away from battle, they didnt need to fire astern and could take on the enemy head on.

[Sergei]

Is that factual information?

[Sergei]

Is that factual information?

[The_Enigma]

not sure, i do remember reading it somewhere so i dint make it up

id propably say no though, looking at some of the pics.

The Vanguard, the Hood and Nelson being 3 examples i picked out only half there armement is up front.

although saying that the prince of wales looks like all its main guns are up front and the same for the dreadnought ... but am no ship expert i could be wrong on those.

[The_Enigma]

not sure, i do remember reading it somewhere so i dint make it up

id propably say no though, looking at some of the pics.

The Vanguard, the Hood and Nelson being 3 examples i picked out only half there armement is up front.

although saying that the prince of wales looks like all its main guns are up front and the same for the dreadnought ... but am no ship expert i could be wrong on those.

[dieseltaylor]

I remember this tale but I am afraid it had more to do with treaty restrictions I believe .Having said that fi you have to come within treaty restrictions you could still change the design, but if you have a battleship supremacy over your likely opponents it is odds on you will be pursuing them. And as for crossing the T having a preponderance* of guns upfront means you can make someone pay for it.

* always thought it should be a battleship name : )

[dieseltaylor]

I remember this tale but I am afraid it had more to do with treaty restrictions I believe .Having said that fi you have to come within treaty restrictions you could still change the design, but if you have a battleship supremacy over your likely opponents it is odds on you will be pursuing them. And as for crossing the T having a preponderance* of guns upfront means you can make someone pay for it.

* always thought it should be a battleship name : )

[dieseltaylor]

Nelson pics

[dieseltaylor]

Nelson pics

[The_Enigma]

it would seem his guns are all up front.

there soemthing i dont get about the treaties after ww1 ... why did anyone (well mainly us the UK) agree to them?

[The_Enigma]

it would seem his guns are all up front.

there soemthing i dont get about the treaties after ww1 ... why did anyone (well mainly us the UK) agree to them?

[JonS]

Nah, sounds apocryphal to me. AFAIK, the Rodney and the Nelson were the only ships that had their main batterys all forward of the bridge, and that was because of the Washington Treaty. And even then the C turret was mounted lower than the B turret, meaning that all three turrets can only be bought to bear broadside, which is the way it had been since well before Nelson's (the Admiral, not the ship) time.

KGV page, incl rationale for turret arrangement.

[ February 28, 2006, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[JonS]

Nah, sounds apocryphal to me. AFAIK, the Rodney and the Nelson were the only ships that had their main batterys all forward of the bridge, and that was because of the Washington Treaty. And even then the C turret was mounted lower than the B turret, meaning that all three turrets can only be bought to bear broadside, which is the way it had been since well before Nelson's (the Admiral, not the ship) time.

KGV page, incl rationale for turret arrangement.

[ February 28, 2006, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Originally posted by the_enigma:

it would seem his guns are all up front.

I would reckon this would be to save weight. It's one less magazine to armour and structurally strengthen.

there soemthing i dont get about the treaties after ww1 ... why did anyone (well mainly us the UK) agree to them?

Because the people who signed the treates also paid for these ships. And what with WW1 being the last war everyone downsizing their Navies in a way so as not to disadvantage established naval powers (or those that were l33t hAxxOrs in the Great War) made splendid sense.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Originally posted by the_enigma:

it would seem his guns are all up front.

I would reckon this would be to save weight. It's one less magazine to armour and structurally strengthen.

there soemthing i dont get about the treaties after ww1 ... why did anyone (well mainly us the UK) agree to them?

Because the people who signed the treates also paid for these ships. And what with WW1 being the last war everyone downsizing their Navies in a way so as not to disadvantage established naval powers (or those that were l33t hAxxOrs in the Great War) made splendid sense.

[JasonC]

Before WW I, Britain tried to maintain a 2 power rule - it would keep a capital ship force sufficient to defeat the two largest other naval powers simultaneously. After WW I, Britain was much poorer than before it, having run up considerable debts and liquidated large overseas investments to finance the war. They did not think they could afford to keep the two power rule. The US was not impoverished by the war and was interested in maintaining a strong navy. The naval treaty was an attempt to substitute for the missing past supremacy of the RN, by limiting overall capital ships and insuring the UK and US would have the largest, and between them still effectively maintain a new version the 2 power rule, just not toward each other. The only other initial party was Japan, and capital ships were to be limited to a ratio of 5 5 3 for the UK US and Japan. Italy and France later joined as well.

[Kingfish]

[hijack my own thread] Assume HMS Vanguard survived into the 80's much like the Iowas - mothballed but operational - and Argentina decided to invade the Fauklands anyway.

How would she be employed, if at all?

How would Argentina respond?

What affect would she have on particular battles (Goose green, Wireless ridge, etc) and the campaign as a whole?[/hijack my own thread]

[JasonC]

Before WW I, Britain tried to maintain a 2 power rule - it would keep a capital ship force sufficient to defeat the two largest other naval powers simultaneously. After WW I, Britain was much poorer than before it, having run up considerable debts and liquidated large overseas investments to finance the war. They did not think they could afford to keep the two power rule. The US was not impoverished by the war and was interested in maintaining a strong navy. The naval treaty was an attempt to substitute for the missing past supremacy of the RN, by limiting overall capital ships and insuring the UK and US would have the largest, and between them still effectively maintain a new version the 2 power rule, just not toward each other. The only other initial party was Japan, and capital ships were to be limited to a ratio of 5 5 3 for the UK US and Japan. Italy and France later joined as well.