King George V class - Design, Service and Myths
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- The first 1,000 people to use this link will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare: skl.sh/drachin...
Today we talk with historian Matt Warwick on the development history of the King George V class battleships, why they were built, what they could have been, how they performed and what is and isn't accurate when it comes of common perceptions of them.
Follow him on Twitter @mpwarwick
An archive of Drydock Questions and free naval photos - www.drachinifel.co.uk
Model ships of many periods - store.warlordga...?aff=21
Want to support the channel? - / drachinifel
Shirt/mug/hoodie - shop.spreadshi...
Poster? - www.etsy.com/u...
Want to talk about ships? / discord
Want to get some books? www.amazon.co.uk/shop/drachinifelDrydock
Pinned post for Q&A :)
Hi, Since WW1 era submarines were mostly used in attacks when surfaced/at periscope depth, taking advantage of their small size and weather/night cover, it seemed like the ability to submerge is not as critical to convoy raiding/disrupting duties. Has there been any ideas around making torpedo boats (which also attack taking advantage of spotting limits) more ocean-going and long range, thus more adept at convoy raiding? Or, is it that to make something that size you might as well build a destroyer?
do aircraft carrier decks have drains or/and does the top have a camber like a road, to reduce water pooling?
I heard that HMS Warspite when doing shore bombardment of Normandy during the D-day landings was able to successfully jam the radar of the German's guns was this common during WW2?
Damage assessment of Jean Bart after the Casablanca Battle, please :) especially the 16inch hits
What would’ve happened if the U.S knew about the Pearl Harbor attack?
Just recently found this channel and have been so busy devouring all the content. Your channel is simply the best resource for WW1-WW2 sea power. My Grandfather was a Gunners Mate on the Massachusetts and said he had the privilege of seeing the Rodney in Boston during her refit and then the King George V with the British Pacific Fleet. He said the Rodney just looked like raw brutal power personified. He said the KGV actually had an aura about her they all knew she was part of the duo that dismantled the Bismarck. He told me at some island they were doing shore bombardment and they were in awe of the pace the KGV and either Howe or Anson can’t remember the name of the sister there but he said they were putting out a barrage that they could only dream of he said it was about 5 for every 3 the Mamie got off. So while many like to disparage the 14” guns he was thoroughly impressed. One question as well I love the Adm King and Lee videos any plans for Halsey or Tovey, Cunningham, Somerville, Vian and the rest?
I visited USS Massachusetts a few years ago when I first visited the USA.
Impressive ship and thank you for your grandfather's service
He is awesome and very informative. His guadalcanal and age of sail videos are my favorite.
Any of his guests are the top knowledge on said subject. I learned more about the zero by his guest because he had more info then what every video on the zero repeats. Things like the navy wasnt as interested in it being an awesome dogfighter because they knew zoom tactics would tactically be more important.
Welcome in the Drach's dimension... Drachinifel did an amazing video about fire support
Thanks for sharing your pops story. My pop was in Skandinavia, trying to shoot down British bombers, I hope you won't hold that against me. Thanks to men like your pop I'm not wearing a brown or black shirt today. I'm thankful for that.
Folowed drach from before The drydock. I realy love The Chanel. And The british humor. But we need to Get irn brew to make The original drachsnifiel lube in bigger quanteties.
Probably the most cost-effective of all the new battleships. One of the few new battleships that really were needed, and they were ready early enough to take part in the decisive actions. Three KGVs did cost less than one, single Iowa. And it was the only battleship class where more than one vessel did what battleships are designed to do; fighting enemy battleships; 3 out of 5 KGVs fought other battleships.
"3 out of 5 KGVs fought other battleships".
And all of them either sank the enemy or mission-killed it.
Well said.
They were ready when needed and did what they needed to do.
Only one of those three (DoY, at North Cape) were actually necessary for the battleship action in question, however. The engagements involving Bismarck were in good visibility, enough for carrier strikes, and in KGV’s case, Rodney already had the upper hand over the badly wounded Bismarck even if carriers couldn’t have been used instead.
The KGVs were well-designed, and probably win the gold medal for protection, but I really don’t think this class was strategically all that useful any more than other contemporary battleship classes were, especially with Hood being a much more capable vessel than often assumed to be (even w/out potential refits) and being able to fill in for them. At the very least, Anson and Howe should have been cancelled.
Edit: and when I say the KGVs weren’t more useful than other classes, I mean that WWII-era battleships in general were stupid ideas that shouldn’t have existed, KGVs included.
@@bkjeong4302 Well, strategically speaking, one fast battleship is little different to another. It's big, it's got big guns and it goes at a decent clip. You could add on other details, such as the increased endurance of the American fast battleships, but broadly speaking, they amount to the same thing.
In that regard, Britain needed every fast battleship they could get their hands on during WW2, especially after the loss of Hood, Prince of Wales and Repulse. Even after sinking Bismarck and finally containing the Regina Marina, the Royal Navy still had enormous obligations and not enough capital ships (battleships or carriers) to do it as well as they liked. The British offensives in the Indian Ocean and Pacific were delayed in part because so much of the navy's strength was still needed at home, even after Overlord and Dragoon. Even in 1945, it's easy to say that Anson and Howe weren't needed in retrospect, but there was no way to know that at the time. For all the British knew, Anson and Howe might've ended up fighting Yamato through some strange confluence of circumstances.
One additional note: I think that you might be overestimating British carriers in the early war. British carrier strike power in 1941 (and American, really) was a far cry from 1944/45.
@@bkjeong4302 Hood entered the fight against Bismarck without her main rangefinder, the only thing better than local control she had was the little rangefinder on top of the conning tower; the top of the main mast had no rangefinder on it
About the HMS Hood, it had reasonable armor in both belt and deck, the total thickness of deck is actually very respectable at over 6”, unfortunately it was in multiple layers which reduced the effectiveness. The shell hit from Bismarck struck under the main belt (at the time Hood exploded she was actually angled well, and well within the range where plunging fire is a non-issue, so the shell must’ve penetrated underwater where there is no armor)
A few years ago I attended a silversmithing course, and one of the other students, a chap called Peter, was a former crew member on HMS Anson, this being post WII. He told me about being punished for some misdemeanour, resulting in him standing on the afterdeck holding a rifle out in front of him with the muzzle pointing directly at him and the butt end furthest away. This had to be maintained for a considerable time. This was on the day King George VI was visiting Portsmouth (I think it was Portsmouth) and was being taken out by launch to another ship. He spotted the hapless rating and enquired as to what was happening. On being told, he there and then requested that this punishment be stopped immediately as a sanction. Peter was the last person in the Navy to receive this punishment apparently.
His next posting was on a minesweeper and the crew detested the captain, but had sussed out that for some reason he in turn detested any extraneous noises that weren’t a part of the ship’s daily working. Peter volunteered to place a large empty tobacco tin inverted on top of the mast, such that it would clang incessantly in the wind. The entire crew denied they could hear anything.
Sheffield?
Wow, how much do you have to suck as a commander when the entire crew would do that? lmao! 🤣🤣🤣
The hit on the Prince Of Wales' propeller shaft mounting is roughly analogous to the hit near Bismark's rudder, in that it didn't create terminal damage on its own but the knock-on effect was ultimately catastrophic.
At least in Whales' case it was because said hit (from a larger warhead) resulted in greater damage to the ship. Damage which, in addition to flooding, would result in loss of power, speed, and control. As opposed to the "invincible" Bismarck where it was more: Oh noes, Our rudder box (along with other systems on the ship) weren't properly protected! Now one of our rudders is jammed, and our triple screw layout doesn't allow for effective thrust differential to compensate.
As I see it, Bismarck stubbed its toe, and Whales got a broken leg.
Any damage to the screws and rudders of a ship is deadly.
@@richardschaffer5588 THAT'S PRETTY MUCH MY POINT.
@@airplanenut89 I think it's broadly accepted a hit in the rudders, props, of any battleship is catastrophic. I think that's what these guys imply and also the Iowa museum guy says much the same.
The Cruise of the Bismarck
The 400 men assigned to the Bismarck's anti-aircraft guns maintained a furious barrage, but the crews, which had been on watch almost continuously for 5 days, were near exhaustion and their fire was not as effective as previously. The planes attacked simultaneously from a number of points, diving to the attack at an angle of about 50 .
One torpedo struck amidships on the port side, one on the starboard quarter, and possibly a third on the port quarter; The torpedo which hit the starboard quarter wrecked the steering gear, jamming the rudders and causing the Bismarck to turn slowly in circles to the starboard. Frantic efforts were made to repair the damage: It was announced that the man who succeeded in freeing the rudders would be given the Knight Insignia of the Iron Cross. Divers succeeded in centering one rudder, but the other could not be freed, Efforts were made to steer the ship by her engines, but after a short period, instead of proceeding on her intended southeasterly course, the Bismarck was actually northwest of her position when the attack was made. There appears to have been further controversy among the officers. The captain, when asked by an officer whether he should try to blow off the jammed rudder, is reported to have replied, "Do what you like; I am through with it." The ship's best speed was now reduced to 10 to 12 knots.
In terms of armour thickness and steel quality the KGV are the best armoured ships of their time and the fact that the 14 inch gun penetrated the heaviest armour of Bismarck shows that it was at least adequate
Yet a lot of sources (including some actual naval historians) wrongly claim the KGVs were underarmoured compared to things like the Iowas, which is total BS.
The accounts I've read, show no penetration of Bismarcks belt armour by any of the British ships in the action. Rodney and King George V pummeled Bismarcks superstructure and turrets creating havoc, but not going through the deck armour. That's why torpedoes were used at the end of the action. Prince of Wales effectively ended the Bismarck's mission by destroying its forward oil tanks beyond its belt armour. All the Bismarck could do was abort and run for repairs. Prince of Wales actually did quite well considering its bridge was hit and most of its main armament was out of action, due to the fact that the ship was not worked up, and suffering many problems with the quadruple turrets. Dockyard matey's were still on board trying to rectify the faults.
@@malcolmtaylor518 kgv and Rodney both hit and penetrated Bismarcks conning tower. Also half of Bismarcks side is buried so it’s impossible to tell if any hits penetrated the belt on that side
@@malcolmtaylor518 Rodney did penetrate the belt armour several times.
@@malcolmtaylor518 This comment makes no sense at all. Bismark was listing, she was listing heavily. That means flooding. Given the design of battleships that flooding is not going to be coming from outside the citadel as the citadel is literally designed to maintain buoyancy even if the rest of the ship is a ruined scrapheap.
What this means is rounds from PoW and/or Rodney HAD to have penetrated the Bismarks armour, otherwise her buoyancy would not have been affected enough to create a list, she may have settled somewhat but not listed. The fact she was listing is corroborated and noted by British witness on multiple vessels, as well as from German survivors.
This myth that the British guns did not penetrate Bismarks belt is exactly that, a myth. Fast sinkings of battleships such as what happened to Hood are relatively rare, generally even if pummelled into utter wrecks with multiple holes through the armoured belt battleships tend to sink slowly. The torpedoes were not used because Bismark was not sinking, they were used to hasten the process, because she WAS sinking before either torpedoes were used, or the order to scuttle was given. And as I said, that means there WERE penetrations of her main armoured belt.
I enjoyed Drach bringing on a new naval histiographer. The guest was bright and knowledgeable showing that "formal" education doesn't necessarily mean competence. Passion and diligent research is just as good.
Arguably better, and I’m saying this as someone pursuing a history degree.
I’ve often found that many times, formally educated (as you put it) historians tend to adhere to the historiographical orthodoxy. Always playing it safe, generally they’re all dead boring, and can best be described as “beige.” Or in other words, I find they often practice bad history as they don’t really scrutinize the work which has gone before them. This is a general statement from my own experience, it is not a rule.
Those who approach it from the angle of the amateur more often than not, bring something new to the table. Specifically a different angle of understanding the topic, one in which the formally trained historian wouldn’t.
This might be about the best video you've made yet, Drach! Truly an in-depth analysis of the KGV design that shows us almost a "Bill Garzke, or Norman Friedman-like" view of the design development and the decisions that eventually created this important Treaty battleship. The other expert who gave us digests of the official design history (didn't catch his name) was an excellent choice, he'd obviously spent many hours poring over the original documents and had reached the conclusion that these ships hadn't received their due from history. Well, I'm convinced. Given Treaty restrictions the RN created a formidable ship and got them into commission in time to play an important role in the war. That's what matters in the time of "The Gathering Storm." The details about the turrets jamming in the Bismarck engagement and the Battle of North Cape were previously unknown to me and don't reflect as badly on the ships as the impression you get from more broad-brush accounts in secondary sources.
Good going!
The talk about the turret was fascinating I just presumed it was all faults with the design, and hadn't thought about the human element or the sea states they were fighting in or the fact they were firing more rounds than 6 battleships over an entire battle.
Or the fact that they only really got to stress test them in combat, and that they actually worked fine for a good 30 or 40 salvos or so before they started running into problems. Very informative.
@@RCAvhstape Old saying.... "Fight like you train. Train like you fight."
Same, I always assumed it was teething problems that were solved over time...I had never looked at firing duration or sea conditions😊
Yep, it really shows the difference when you realize that Oldendorff's entire fleet only fired 285 shells at Surigao Strait and even KGV beat 300 rounds handily, and DoY almost 450.
Rate of fire is suuper important.
ON the reliability of the turrets/gunnery systems - the 'fire to exhaustion' exercise performed by the USS Idaho during WW2 gives a very good example of how even in the best of circumstances you will not get 100% output.
(The exercise was designed around firing all the main battery guns until the magazines were empty)
I assume the exercise is successful if you run out of shells before your crew drops.
@@lostpony4885 It was an interesting read - to check how the crew, systems and processes stood up to continuous firing." expending 597 rounds in 156 salvos. The average salvo interval was 1 minute, 24 seconds, but only 20 of these were full six-gun salvos; the average was 3.82. She suffered no fewer than 205 separate casualties during the firing, mostly requiring adjustment of the gas check pads or rammers. Powder handling, however, was flawless, 2,400 one-hundred pound bags of powder being handled without mishap” - casualties being a failure of 'something' preventing a full salvo.
So when compared to the KGV class, they performed remarkably well considering.
@@philipdawes2661 I bet they did not perform this exercise in a force 10 gale [a la Duke of York v Scharnhorst].
@@fyorbane Exercise conditions, so no external 'circumstances', only internal procedures and equipment reliability.
@@philipdawes2661 Exactly my point. Exercise conditions is one thing, but in the real world of combat in very difficult conditions things are very different.
My favorite ship of all time, very underrated. Always thought they looked very modern with their blocked superstructure and wouldn't be so out of place today. Built many models of these ships. Thank you for the very informative discussion.
Yeah I never really was interested in ships or battleships but thought I haven't got one an picked KGV purely on how she looked
"Build ships for brawling rather than sniping" somewhere Adm. Nelson smiled.
I never thought the KGVs were bad ships, and I'm an American. I always thought the British were a bit too obsessed with downsizing their main batteries but this video at least explained that there were very good reasons for it. I mean, look at their combat histories, clearly not a bad design one bit.
They were in general a very good design considering they were the only ones to stick to the treaty.
Engine rooms were hot. Workspace temperatures of 130 degrees F were not uncommon in period warship boiler rooms. They lived on water and salt tablets. Imagine for a minute if you will how much worse it had been for coal fueled ships of the previous wars, stoking the boilers with a shovel, while a mate sprayed the pile with oil for an "extra kick".
I've heard stories of the stokers in warships being covered in burns due to boiling water dripping from overhead steam lines, and near lethal temperatures inside the boiler spaces.
My grandfather was a merchant mariner on various ships postwar, and has quite a few stories about this sort of thing. Including seeing the chief engineer coming off shift naked except for a towel hanging from his 'member.' A delightful sight to see coming down the corridor, I'm sure.
He also notes that one of his captains was always placed in command of steamships because he couldn't bring a diesel ship into dock: large ship based diesels take some time to switch from forward into reverse, and this particular skipper was a student of the '30 point turn' method of berthing. You can imagine the frustration in the engine room when the telegraph changed from 'ahead' to 'astern' *again*
Definitely not OSHA approved working conditions, but then again, these guys weren't Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard or MIT material.
I was literally looking for a documentary on the KGVs last night and all I could find were your old 5min guides. The world truly works in strange ways.
I'm convinced he knows the thoughts of subscribers, he's done this on me more than once
@@JevansUK believe in Drachism!
@@JevansUK
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,. .
, ,?
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
44
. .
@@JevansUK
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,. .
, ,?
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
44
. .
@@splenditsanguinor.. what's your point with the endless nothing post?
I always found the KGV class to be a very good design, although in my opinion they should have cheated the treaty by a few hundred tons and installed the 2 additional 14inch guns, since it was obvious that both Axis powers were cheating massively (we are talking 5000 tons and more)
There were designs with 12 14" guns, but the decrease in armour wasn't considered to be worth it, and so the twin turret was adopted. The King George V simply can't accommodate due to the smaller B barbettes, and the increase in weight would also present its own problems. And even with only 10 14" guns, the KGV still have higher broadside weight than the Bismarck and Richelieu. If the Royal Navy intended to cheat, then 15" would be the best choice, but a broadside of 9 15" guns are considered to be uneconomical. Examinations at 15" designs also reveal some ugly features such as lower top speed, turret-mounted catapults,...
The King George V are lovely as they're, and i'll fight anyone who unjustifiably question their abilities.
It probully wouldn't have gotten past parliament and also if britan cheats on the treaty it discredits the whole idea and it would allow the axis powers to get away with more or abandon it all together.
Better option: slightly more cheated and 9x16” aka Lions. Or 9x15” but there were no guns except those 4 twin barrel turrets for Vanguard. Economy before war, reality during war.
@@captain61games49 cheating by a few hundred tons is not obvious, how exactly should the Axis powers know about this? The Brits also didn't know the exact size of the Axis BBs, although it was obvious that they were overweight.
Fully agree on Parliament, however.
@@frostedcat So you think they're on an equal footing with the NorCals and Bismarcks?
I have always been impressed by the ability of the Royal Navy to plan long term. They don't always succeed, and their long term focus can sometimes leave them on the back foot when faced with rapid technology advancement. That said, the RN is always thinking about the long term consequences of their decisions for building ships. This cannot always be said for other nations (*cough, cough Germany cough*). The Admiralty doesn't always make accurate predictions, but they're always thinking years ahead, and plan their building programs accordingly.
You seen the state of the Royal Navy lately?
historicaly, definieltly. But nowdays the RN is a bit less independent, and has a lot, lot less clout in the political spectrum, compared to the 1930s Admiralty, to actually be able to enforce such a long term plan
“Long term consequences”
Proceeds to equip its cruisers with ww1 levels of common shells, with mild steel caps attached.
Proceeds to equip cruisers with old Fire Direction Equipment, (specifically Leander herself), didn't actually use fire control direction equipment, as well as a large number of cruisers post-Leander. They got refurbished WWI equipment.
@@chnghemeng2845 with what money would they be able to replace them? Britian was broke after WW1, WW2 just took the Empire behind the shed and shot it.
Wars aren't fought by what you wish you had but what you have
I would love to see more videos in future with Matt, he’s incredibly knowledgeable and interesting to listen to!
WOW !!! Thanks for this. Been waiting for a deeper dive from you into the KGVs Always liked these ships. Given the RNs worldwide commitments, these ships gave terrific service all over the globe in some extreme conditions from the Arctic, N Atlantic to Indian and Pacific oceans. The RN got it's money's worth.
I love that half a million people are into this level of detail! I would think a channel like this (Despite being amazing) would not get so many views due to how detailed it is and how not clickbaity it is. It makes me optimistic to see that people can get past the surface BS on youtube and find real quality like this!
The rate of fire vs. fewer but bigger shells per hit debate started long before the KGV (II) class was developed and the things being discussed here. This was seen in the RN going from 12" to 13.5" to 15" where as the German Navy went 9.5" to 11" to 12" then a big jump to 15" in service though they did plan to build ships with 13.8" or so Austro-Hungarian guns.
There is also the economics behind all this. Great Britain mortgaged the Empire to pay for W W I. Then in reaction to the start of the Great Depression the United Kingdom defaulted on the loan payments. There was also the rebuilding of the Renown and the QE's that was done in the latter 1930's.
There is also the fact that the RN Design Office was run down in the 1920's, especially the battleship section. So in the 1930's there was great pressure placed on fewer designers for not only BB work but CV, CA, CL, DD, DE and Sub work as well.
POW and Arizona were both killed by Golden BB's. In Arizona a bomb that detonated above the armor deck caused a paint locker to catch fire. Burning paint went into a black powder magazine above the main gun magazine via an open hatch. The black powder was put there for the aircraft catapults on top of the turrets. Since the only other way to fire them was with compressed air and that would have involved making a hole in the turret top. In both ships cases prewar damage study and planning could not have accounted for the damage hat actually occurred.
Great topic and fascinating discussion. This reminds me of the Friedman Design History books on the USA.
Thanks, didn’t know that about Arizona. Hood and Bismarck were also destroyed by unlikely hits, and Scharnhorst might also be considered unlucky. The trouble with assigning these losses to golden BBs is that shells that hit have to hit somewhere, and every hit has a good chance of doing some unforeseen catastrophic damage. Battleships are highly complex machines so stuffed full of explosives and flammable material that magazine explosions are not as rare as you would like them to be, while shock damage from torpedoes can lead to loss of power and machinery damage even if the torpedo defense system is not breached. Makes writing wargame rules difficult when you don’t have any “average” damage.
This was a fantastic video. Thank you for collaborating with Mr Warwick on the story of the King George V class battleships. I find these to be the most interesting ships in the British WWII fleet. It's such a shame KGV or Duke of York were both scrapped. One of them would have made a fantastic museum ship.
I agree it would’ve been nice to have a museum ship but the reality was Britain was broke for a long time after World War II
Fascinating My Grandfather was on HMS Anthony and escorted POW back to Iceland after the Battle of the Denmark straight, he always maintained that we (the Royal Navy) came a lot closer to losing POW in that battle than most realised, she was very low in the water.
His brother, my great uncle, was the meteorological rating on KGV when engaging Bismarck, interestingly he pointed out how much damage, firing a broadside did to things like trunking even just in practice, so its no great surprise that the guns ran into minor issues in protracted engagements with all that procession force on the ship structure.
Arrived home seriously pissed off from a bad day at work... and then I see this. Thanks!
This was really informative for a specific class. I hope more will follow thanks drach!
Imagine a KGV with similar layout to a Nelson and 12 guns, That would have been quite something!!
British actually wanna make kgv class with 3 triple turret 16inch
@@soto1649
Known as the Lion-Class.
1:31:08 The kind of questions I really do appreciate, as so often a ship is mentioned as being at a particular engagement, then it just appears to vanish after that. Case and point the 6 escort carriers at the Battle of Samar, we all know about the heroic story of the Roberts, yet the escort carriers appear to just materialize just for that engagement, then almost no one mentions where they went after that as if the crews just ceased to exist after the Battle of Samar.
My favourite class of Battleships hands down
absolutely gorgeous ship and design, indeed looks they managed to make the inevitable compromise as favourable as they could and the Torpedo Protection does look very interesting and very logical
Thank You! please never listen to anyone that tells you videos like this are to long, the longer it is the more info.
As a former soldier, I know that the only guarantee is that a weapon system will fail. A rifle will jam, for example. It takes second to clear a stoppage when the round is less than an ounce. When the round weighs over a ton, a stoppage can become a real problem. A 66% success rate is very good under fire, in moving seas with ice. I have always loved the KGVs. Really handsome, purposeful looking battleships.
Thank you for this video. You have done great job in dispelling the myths and other naval historians' dim views of the King George V classes as being useless. Due to KGV effectively-being unarmed, always broken 42000 ton ocean going gunnery target due to KGV classes defective guns. In reality, this idea is vastly overstated. Your video and the Official Battleship New Jersey's YT channels video by the curator Ryan Szimanski video on the King George V class really help in my mind remove the opinion that KGV was useless due to defective gun design and poorly trained RN crews. Really the KGV class was a victim of being rushed into service due to WWII without the usual ship development program. Usually, the first ship of the class is built and undergoes seas trials to find what needs to be fixed before the rest of the class is built. If sea trails had happened with the KGV class the Quad turret issues would have been discovered and corrected, unfortunately, WWII started too soon. One of the most brutal assessments of the KGV class was by a British author ( sorry his name escapes me) in a book reviewing RN ships in WWII in his twenty-page chapter's closing on the KGV class loosely quoting " The steel would have found better use being ship to American and returned as Sherman Tanks, Savage firearm produced No.4 Mk 1 * SMLE's and the difference sent to Canada to produce Hi power 9mm pistols and Bren guns. Or the real B slap to KGV class he suggested the steel would have been better spent and send back to England in the form 5 Kaiser steel built Casablanca class escort carriers Ouch! Oof ! Thank you again for the great video and for giving an accurate historical context around the KGV class of battleships.
I have always felt Prince of Wales was a hard luck ship. What I mean is before she was had a proper shakedown and trials, she is called upon to combat Bismark. At the time of her loss, the task group was undersized, it was what RN had to send and in some circles too much. HMS Hermes is questionable as an asset or just another target. It is like all the luck for the class skipped Prince of Wales.
In addition, having a greater number of guns (albiet smaller ones) increases the chances of actually hitting something, rather than missing. So it appears that the 14" quad was good after all, as suggested by the author Anthony Preston I believe?
Wonderful. That answers questions I didn’t even knew existed. Thanks very much.
Hell yes, I’m going to be listening to this tonight.
I worked on the refurbishment of hms Hermes when she was sold to the Indian navy. I remember the turbo blowers for the boilers where the drawings were titled king George V battleship clas.
What an enjoyable hour, with my favourite battleship class! One area not mentioned was fire control, which was adequate for surface action (although not as good as US or German systems) throughout the war but entirely inadequate for AA fire until lend-lease US equipment was installed late in the war. Anson and Howe, being later to complete, both benefited from improvements in radar directed gunnery control, especially in AA gunnery and had the most up-to-date radar fit out and Gun Directors. The 5.25” guns could not train or elevate fast enough to follow high-speed German and Japanese aircraft, but did receive Remote Power Control by 1945 for the Pacific deployment. They were also not very watertight.
As far as changing things in the KGV design is concerned, I agree with all the suggestions in the video but also would have replaced the 5.25” with an equivalent number of 4.5” in between-deck mountings (as on the Aircraft Carriers, Valiant and Renown) - faster firing, faster training, and just as effective against the actual air threat of torpedo bombers and dive bombers. Saves quite a lot of weight and frees up the 5.25” mountings for use in the AA Cruisers. The other thing I would have changed is putting in a proper Electical system - a system split into 2 ring mains was very old-fashioned and vulnerable to damage, US BBs had much better electrical systems and used electricity for many things that the British used hydraulics or steam power for (not sure about other nations but judging by their automobiles , Bismarck would have been well served by Robert Bosch electrics). The use of oil lamps rather than battery powered emergency lights is another indication of the backward state of some of the RN’s standard systems.
I also thought the comparative review of BBs was very fair. If you had to ask yourself, which of all these ships would I want to go to war in, my pick would be USS Massachusetts (they have ice cream) , but Anson (they have Pink Gin) would be a pretty close second.
I have a newfound respect for these ships now.
Look. Up till “World of Warships “ nobody outside of those who were naval geeks cared.
They were a solid design. There biggest failure was that the U.K. needed them earlier - as in 1939-40. POW was phenomenally unlucky with her first hit and no design of her generation would have done better given the human factors. Given the Mk1 retroscope neither Howe or Anson were needed. But by that time we’re any of the Iowas?
In modern speak. They weren’t the sexiest. But they were available.
World of Warships is cancer, just like all modern battle royale bullshit "games"
@@XH1927 ...You may want to look up what a "battle royale" game is.
Oh boy, this is one I want to have some popcorn out
Say what you will about her practical aspects, but the KGVs have a certain beauty to there design
Nice lecture - reminds me of the short story 'Superiority' by Arthur C Clark - KGVs designers had obviously read it (aside from the minor point that it had yet to be written)
It was required reading at MIT according to Clarke.
RE Loss of HMS Prince Wales and HMS Repulse. HMS Prince of Wales was lost more to lack of defensive air cover than any potential design issues. The flaw the cost both of these fine ships was in the commanders of Singapore and the fleet commander. They were just about 2 years into the war the threat of air attack had been clearly demonstrated to the RN before they were deployed to Singapore.
Thanks for this video. I love the King George V class. Duke of York is my favorite. They are such beautiful ships
When I was young, I did look at battleship designs with too much of a Top Trumps mentality; so the KGV's were slow, under-gunned, shipped water everywhere and broke down a lot.
But since actually taking time as an adult to read the Treaty requirements and seeing the absolute armour requirement, a lot of things started to make sense and at the end of the day, these were Treaty-compliant designs that fought WWII from start to finish and were still viable units at the end of the war, which is pretty impressive.
The accuracy of the 14" guns is pretty impressive and that bursting charge is vicious, those guns hit hard, which is very much in line with the "Make sure we can get into range to make sure we land hits, and then make sure they can hit hard" mentality.
I also very much like the armour mentality; it's the Speed/Protection/Firepower compromise; and they were designed to be able to go up against any contemporary and at least have a change of being able to get penetrating hits, at which point, that monstrous bursting charge makes all kinds of sense and all they did was sacrifice a little of outright top speed.
The top speed sacrifice wasn’t worth it in the end, they were to slow to keep in service as it was 30+ knots or nothing as the fleet carriers were fast and battleships needed to keep up with them.
The 10x14” gun where decent hard hitters but the 9x15” guns would’ve been more advantageous for the RN as a Whole; You could refit the all RNs Capital Ships with the new guns (except the Nel/Rods), already have the 15” L/45 MK2s in production from the 1935 onwards, Accelerate the older 15” armed ships refits to fit the new guns and all be refitted within a closer timescale.
Not mention increase of range, stopping power and Superb accuracy (life) over the MK1 15” guns.
This is all with hindsight however. For what the KGVs were, they gave as good as they got. and a shame Duke of York was not saved as some museum vessel.
To say that the torpedo defense was just fine is like saying that you have a perfect shield that will stop anything, but it's only about 6 inches square. Also, the first hit taking out half of the AA armament proves that the AA was insufficient, not the other way around.
They were definitely an interesting class of battleship especially in layout of their guns. The quad turret design though a revolutionary step forward did have its drawbacks. Such as if you get one quad turret knocked out in battle you just lost 40% of your firepower. I believe there was actually a preliminary design to arm them with the nine 15 inch guns that armed most of the other Royal battleships and battlecruisers in three triple turrets, but it was rejected in favor of 14’s due to the treaty limitations with base tonnage displacement.
Also the 14 inch gun had better penetration and range
This is my favourite class of battleships. Thank you so much for this!
There are quite a few comments here stating that all the modern BB’s were a waste of money and did not achieve much, if anything, to justify their cost. These comments fail to consider a number of points. The first is what would have happened if, for example, Germany built Bismarck and Tirpitz and the U.K. did not build any new battleships? Would the Hood, Renown and Repulse be able to guarantee to protect the Atlantic sea lanes in 1941 against such a force? Probably not. Would the the U.K. carriers be able to do this? Probably not, due to the limited ability of carriers to operate in poor weather, which is a regular feature in the North Atlantic, even in the summer, and, there total inability to operate at night. The fact is that countries could not take the risk of not building BB’s when potential enemies were building them. Particularly when carrier air power was still an unproven concept, and still not a decisive weapon in all circumstances during WW2 eg at night or in bad weather.
You should definitely make a video on ark Royal and her design and why she was the only ship made by her design
He covered ark royal and her sinking in quite a bit of detail already
Any increase in thickness of armor regardless of whether it's on the hull sides protecting the citadel war of the decks, it's not just the weight of the armor. It is supporting structure and the mounting system also that increases in weight.
My father served on KGV On P4 Gun. Great video thanks
1h 51min of big chonky battleships? Praise the Omnissiah!
Thank You both for compiling and sharing this information.
Has it occurred to anyone that a vertical armour belt is a *de facto* angled belt for anything incoming from greater than, let's say, 5000 yards?
Of course, but it is still less angled than a belt that is angled against shells coming in from point blank.
Where you run into problems is where turret faces are angled to deflect upwards, the longer the range the less angled those surfaces become. On some German turrets there are angled plates that rapidly become weak spots as the range opens.
Would the RN have been better of if the had kept HMS Tiger and refiting her with KV5 14 inch twins to help testing and bedding the problems down. And after they get a ship of more use the iron duke
Most US Navy armored warships made for WWII had the Second Deck (one deck below the weather deck) being the prmary armored deck. Most also had a thin armor steel (STS) weather deck to set off HE bombs instantly.
You should go into detail about the British CA and WWII-era APC shells (14" Mark IB and 8B). The new CA had a thin face (25-30%) and the APC were desogned to bend and not breaik up whether or not they penetrated in most cases. The CA was not quite as good as to steel as US Navy WWII Thick Chill Class "A" armor, but that US metal had a 55% face. Against larger shells, this meant that the British armor did not suffer as large a scaling effect and ended up stronger than the US armor against such battleship AP shells -- cruiser armor was better for the US if CA was used. US shells did not bend and they could penetrate roughly 1.3 times their diameter in US Class "A" plate intact, but the British 14" APC just bent and made a dimple in 17.4" US armor (Class "A" (KC type) or "B"/STS homogeneous, ductile type, like British NCA). Thus, British APC was NOT designed to hit US battleship barbettes or turret faces or most YAMATO VH heavy armo anywhere. British battleship armor in WWII was better, but its new APC shells against the thickest plates were essentially useless.
Brilliant work guys. Thank you for sharing. Is something I have always wondered about, the design requirements/restrictions and engineering decisions that tell the story of how they came to be the way they are.
The last few videos I've seen on this channel have been preceded by adverts for The Tank Museum. It's almost appropriate for this channel.
Imagine the sound of that shaft flailing at full speed wrecking a 42k tons vessel...
Probably one of my favorite battleships of all time. I have a scale model of it, I have it in my port in WoWS and I even made a 1:1 replica of it in Kerbal Space Program lol
Thank you for this video, really appreciate it
Having visited USS Massachusetts on a cold rainy October day, the heat retention by the Armor made the CT &main turrets unbearably hot. I don't want to imagine what it would be like in the hot tropical sun.
Brilliant and comprehensive analysis, thank you.
Will very much appreciate episode (s) devoted to seminal books on Naval History like Correlli Barnett's Engage the Enemy More Closely; The Graet Ships Pass : British Battleships of 1939-1945 etc
like the one you did on Alfred Thayer Mahan
Insomnia begone. Draf is here
draf
@@redtob2119 draf
Draf Zeppelin?
Draf Spee.
King Draf V
What I find amusing is that many of the 35,000 ton designs (even a number of treaty compliment ships) were so well design that they could take on the more larger ships made by the axis, maybe except Yamato, a team effort is need to take her down.
It is a bit unfair to compare the US Battleship engagements to what the Royal Navy faced. The second night battle of Guadalcanal saw a close range battle between a treaty battleship armed with the most powerful guns the Japanese could face against a modified WWI battlecruiser. That was going to be over quickly. Surigao Straight was basically a rebuilt West Virginia against the oldest Japanese Battleship in service at medium to long range. The was also going to be over quickly especially since the Yamishiro had already taken three torpedoes. The US never engaged a hard target that would take more than a few minutes to dispatch.
The other big difference was that the US battleships were mainly built for the vast distances, calm seas and unlimited visibility of the Pacific where the RN's were built to fight first and foremost in the North Atlantic. That made a difference to the best balance between range, speed and armament. It is also why the Brits thought they could live without crew comforts like air conditioning - they did not expect to be at sea for as long as the US ones.
A great analysis, thank you 👍
This is definitive Drach at his finest, yet again. 3 rd time too.
It's a damn shame the British didn't keep one of the KGV class battleships or perhaps HMS Vanguard as a museum ship! There will be nothing like these WWII battleships ever again. An aircraft carrier, large as it may be, is just a floating airport. It's the battleship alone that has the impressive look of a real warship.
Regarding torpedo damage, one must look at the damage to the Italian battleships at Taranto. All had the Pbottomugliese underwater protection system, which was not strong enough to withstand shock (the bolts connecting the torpedo bulkhead to the bottom of the hull were not strong enough) , nor was the full system extended for the entire central citadel. Heavy flooding was the result.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littorio-class_battleship#Pugliese_torpedo_defense_system
Thank you Drachinifel.
A long presentation but well worth the watch. Oddly, the time pressures placed on the designers may have aided in coming to good choices. The result was a ship that was there and functioned well when it was most needed. Perfect design puts a five year delay on delivery like the Vanguard which became a White Elephant project.
take care
rwmccoy
Can't wait to see 3D model of Thunderchild!
You'd think that you'd want to get everything you could onto a ship within a weight restriction since any potential adversary would be doing that. Especially if there are also limits on the number of these ships you're allowed to build.
1:31:26 That is probably so true, I think I heard of them in Atlantic fleet, then I forgot about them for a while (a few years maybe?) only to remember them again.
Amazing video yet again! I love your channel 👍
Brilliant Video
regarding vertical armor if a shell comes in at angle i would have thought that the armor would now have the same effect as a shell coming in horizontal into angled armor ?
The sloped armor on a battleship belt has the bottom of the belt farther in. Thus the shell will impact at an increased angle compared to vertical. It eats a ton of internal volume for a given ship beam though.
I forgot why I sub to this channel
An hour long KGV video? This is indeed a good ration of rum this week
Seeing that 1929 Battleship image, the first thing I thought was that it oddly reminded me of semi-dreadnought designs. I know this probably sounds odd but it seemed almost like it was the dreadnought version of a semi-dreadnought (that is, if dreadnought is the all big gun version of the pre-dreadnought)
This went away when I took a closer look at the larger of the secondary batteries due to them not being large enough, but that was the weird first thought I had.
Superb video, thank you both.
An excellent discussion. Thank you
Personal thought.
Armoring. I wonder if armor schemes on ships would benefit from the same engineering considerations used when designing mine resistant ground vehicles. Could one say mine/torpedo proof a modern hull by shaping its underside to disperse the concussion wave? Air is compressible, of course, while water is not. But I was curious, remembering all the effort put into TDS (torpedo defense systems) for large size warships. Could armored skegs be used to mask the prop(s) or rudder(s) from torpedoes?
I wonder how vulnerable a-say-LCS is to mines. Does its odd hull provide a measure of protection?
Please do a similar discussion video regarding Iowa class with Ryan!
24:25 This would seem to resonate with the fate of Hood.
Sometimes all it takes is a lucky hit. A hit to the prop shaft. A hit to the rudder in the case of the Bismark. Or the Hood ...
Prince of Wales and Repulse were sunk due to a lack of both sea-borne and airborne escort, an appalling lack of communications and cooperation, and finally, a command that refused to accept the reality of their dire situation. Bismark was immobilized by a handful of stringbag torpedo planes, but this lesson was not heeded in the Pacific. Likely as well, the Indomitable would have been hunted down and sunk if she'd made the trip. It might, however, have given them a chance to hurt the Japanese a little, first, and provide scout planes to help ease the aforementioned lack of communication between land and sea forces.
@1:34:35 what could of been said is that you don't hear the army complaining about the heat while carrying 50+ pounds of equipment
These ships were my favourites when playing Avalon Hill's "War at Sea." HMS
Prince of Wales appears in the sister game "Victory in the Pacific."
A shame the Prince of Wales of the KGV is assumed a cursed ship when she was merely actually just dispatched so often she never got the proper maintenance to have full function such as a lack of gel of her turrets and other problems.
In David Brown's book "Nelson to Vanguard" he states that the armour plate of KGV was upto 25% stronger than US and some other nations' of comparable thickness. Is there any other evidence of this, either in practice or theory?
Yes, changes in the alloy formula meant the hardened face retained some ductile behaviour (less shattering, therefore more resistance) whilst still remaining hard enough resist shells, and the softer back had a significantly higher tensile strength than anything other than the latest German plate, so a shell was more likely to be damaged/slowed by the face and then had to exert a huge amount of energy to rip apart the backing face.
Although I think 25% is overstating it, 5-10% better than US plate at battleship calibre thicknesses seems to be the consensus.
My late father worked on HMS Anson before going into the RAF.
O shit. It’s going to be a good day when you see this first thing in the morning
For World War II era battleships operating without radar, as in the early war, what is the minimum distance at which a major caliber shot is virtually guaranteed to hit another battleship? Basically, what is "point blank range?" And related to this, what is the maximum distance that one could see another battleship at sea?
I wondered the guest did not mention possibly improving the bow to something similar to Vanguard. The KGV’s bow seems shockingly low for the North Atlantic. I have read the sea keeping between the Iowa’s and Vanguard was much in favor of Vanguard. Would the Admiralty, in hind sight, have considered throwing out the forward firing requirement a bit sooner, or in this case, did it just plain work well enough?
In terms of looks. These are my favorite ships ever built. This is what I think of when I think “battleship”
super interesting, thank you..