First- class video on the KGVs. Mass of detail masterfully delivered in a concise manner. Hard to see how you can improve on this format- but you undoubtedly will. WELL DONE...
Bismark was nicer and powerful after the Denmark Straight engagement POW was found in dry dock with a 15 inch shell at her magazines had it exploded would maybe have caused what HOOD experienced really all capital ships should have been replaced by the vanguard and lion class the older ww1 designs were slow couldnt keep up with a carrier and used as escorts to merchant shipping.
My father helped build the KGV and then joined the RN and served in her throughout WWII including the Bismarck action, the Pacific Fleet and Nagasaki after the war. Interesting to note that photos confirm that the lack of sheer forward made this class very wet up front in any kind of sea, which is why Vanguard was completed with a pronounced up slope to the bow area. (Some artists try to include this incorrectly on paintings of KGV class vessels.) The KGV and other British designs were sometimes compromised by trying so hard to adhere to various naval treaties, which turned out to be more trouble than perhaps it was worth, given that the Germans in particular disregarded them as soon as they could.
If Germany had built the z plan would have had 10 battleships 6 would be like the IOWA CLASS with double funnels with 16 inch 60 000 displacement the other 4 Bismark class plus cruisers with 11 inch destroyers, and carriers , and subs, would have ruled the atlantic.
Anyone done a comparison of these 14" British guns versus the bigger guns of the equivalent American and Japanese battleships? Would these ships have had any chance against those ships?
Probably as both the US & Japanese ships had All or Nothing Armour designs that while covering the "Citadels" they wouldn't stop 14-15-16" Guns from destroying everything outside the main Armour belt. Edit, Optics and Accurate Gunnery would count for more than Calibre IMO.
Yes. They were roughly equivalent to the North Carolina class. They wouldn't have stood much chance against an Iowa class, but that's not fair considering the difference in displacement.
@@philiphumphrey1548 At some point comparisons have to drop to what ships were similar and available. Plenty of critical materials went to roles and concepts that never saw any combat at all, like most of the American coastal batteries.
In a big gun duel of heavyweights all AP shells whether 14",15",or 16" will do serious damage with a direct hit. Just a matter of what vitals are hit or disabled. Weight of broadside is a mis-used metric as rarely did battleships fire full broadsides. Salvo's were bracketed between guns/turrets to aid in the spotting of shell splashes for fire control correction. If one views the Bismarck film footage firing on the Hood, the bracketing fire I described is seen. First turrets Anton and Bruno fire, then after a gap in time turrets Caesar and Duluio fire. This sequence repeats as the film progresses. There are instances when full broadsides are fired and shore bombardment would be one.
@@philiphumphrey1548 What's 'fair' in war? To paraphrase someone, you fight with the navy you have, not the navy you'd like to have. Would have really liked more detail on why the Royal Navy was so keen to build battleships that they knew would be outgunned even before they were built, particularly given that they already had an outstanding 15" gun design.
It was all such a fine balancing act, wasn't it? Protection Vs armament Vs displacement Vs speed. I wonder if CAD was set to work within a 35,000 ton limit, what it could come up with? I doubt very much improvement on the KGVs would be possible.
I would love to see video on the technical details of funnel design and operation, particularly on battleships. What determines their number, location, size and height? Why are they so big? Aren't they very susceptible to battle damage? What happens to a ship whose funnels are hit and damaged or destroyed?
The number, size and location of the funnels usually relates to size and placement of the boiler rooms. Tall funnels provide natural draft which assists the blower fans that feed air to the boiler furnaces, and also help keep smoke and soot away from the ship. The large size is needed because it's undesirable to have the gases flowing through the boiler too rapidly, a larger cross section keeps the flow velocity down. Forcing exhaust out through a too small funnel would also require a lot more power from the fans. Hits to the funnels are usually not critical, but a funnel that has holes in it may not do a very good job of keeping the smoke away from the ship! This could range from a minor inconvenience to a significant problem depending on circumstances.
Nice build photos. Remember looking at Completion photos on a wall in a Pub in North Shields. Of HMS Anson, She was built by Swan Hunter and Wigham Richardson Shipyard on the River Tyne
The main reason they went with 14" guns was because the British had been advocating for a smaller gun size and the US agreed to 14" if the Japanese would also agree. On top of that it would have delayed construction if the RN had waited for development of a 16" gun. They had been testing a 15"/50 gun since the early 30's so it could have been made ready in time. A 15" would have simplified logistics since, with the exception of the 2 ships of the Nelson class, all the other battleships and battlecruisers used 15" guns. I also think 9 15" in three turrets would have been a better choice than the 10 14" guns in a 4, 2, 4 arrangement.
Not so. Very strong well protected ships KGVs had thicker armour than any American battleship and Prince of Wales was able to keep pace with Hood flat out (29 knots) at Denmark Straight. Thats faster than all but the massively more powerful Iowas.
Neither of which applies to the KGV class so what's your point? Anyhow Lions would not have been available in time to be of any use. Unless we told Hitler and Tojo if they would mind postponing the war until say 1944 so we could be ready. The Reichsmarine would have been happy with that, but probably nobody else. Top speed at sea is often irrelevant as you can't maintain that indefinitely due to sea state, the capabilities of your escorts or your fuel reserves.
I have often felt these ships are underrated. They were tough boats that answered the call when needed - and just in time !! Great video, thanks.
There seems to have been a serious flaw in the propulsion. A single Japanese torpedo hit fatally disabled Prince of Wales.
@@scootergeorge7089 that's a problem all ships have
That Japanese torpedo was vastly superior to all others.
@@Joe-u9l - The ship launched "Long Lance" was vastly superior. The aerial launched weapon was smaller and less powerful.
Excellent work, I love the fact that you showed the design during each stage since it's rarely done elsewhere. Keep up the good work.
First- class video on the KGVs. Mass of detail masterfully delivered in a concise manner. Hard to see how you can improve on this format- but you undoubtedly will. WELL DONE...
And it is worth to mention that ships of this class are the coolest looking battleships ever built.
Bismark was nicer and powerful after the Denmark Straight engagement POW was found in dry dock with a 15 inch shell at her magazines had it exploded would maybe have caused what HOOD experienced really all capital ships should have been replaced by the vanguard and lion class the older ww1 designs were slow couldnt keep up with a carrier and used as escorts to merchant shipping.
Wow, great video. Look forward to learning of the service histories of these ships. Thank you.
Fantastic video on one of the greatest class of Battleship ever constructed.
My father helped build the KGV and then joined the RN and served in her throughout WWII including the Bismarck action, the Pacific Fleet and Nagasaki after the war. Interesting to note that photos confirm that the lack of sheer forward made this class very wet up front in any kind of sea, which is why Vanguard was completed with a pronounced up slope to the bow area. (Some artists try to include this incorrectly on paintings of KGV class vessels.) The KGV and other British designs were sometimes compromised by trying so hard to adhere to various naval treaties, which turned out to be more trouble than perhaps it was worth, given that the Germans in particular disregarded them as soon as they could.
If Germany had built the z plan would have had 10 battleships 6 would be like the IOWA CLASS with double funnels with 16 inch 60 000 displacement the other 4 Bismark class plus cruisers with 11 inch destroyers, and carriers , and subs, would have ruled the atlantic.
Fabulous video, Presser. The KGV class were the best British battleships.
I love the look of this ship, the bridge looks imposing and awesome.
thank you for the video this is one of my favorite ships of all time
HMS Prince Of Wales was a truly legendary ship she died with all guns blazing and put up a good fight
KGV photos building will be at Vickers-Armstrongs, Newcastle upn Tyne.
Very good, thank you.
Anyone done a comparison of these 14" British guns versus the bigger guns of the equivalent American and Japanese battleships? Would these ships have had any chance against those ships?
Probably as both the US & Japanese ships had All or Nothing Armour designs that while covering the "Citadels" they wouldn't stop 14-15-16" Guns from destroying everything outside the main Armour belt. Edit, Optics and Accurate Gunnery would count for more than Calibre IMO.
Yes. They were roughly equivalent to the North Carolina class. They wouldn't have stood much chance against an Iowa class, but that's not fair considering the difference in displacement.
@@philiphumphrey1548 At some point comparisons have to drop to what ships were similar and available. Plenty of critical materials went to roles and concepts that never saw any combat at all, like most of the American coastal batteries.
In a big gun duel of heavyweights all AP shells whether 14",15",or 16" will do serious damage with a direct hit. Just a matter of what vitals are hit or disabled.
Weight of broadside is a mis-used metric as rarely did battleships fire full broadsides. Salvo's were bracketed between guns/turrets to aid in the spotting of shell splashes for fire control correction. If one views the Bismarck film footage firing on the Hood, the bracketing fire I described is seen. First turrets Anton and Bruno fire, then after a gap in time turrets Caesar and Duluio fire. This sequence repeats as the film progresses.
There are instances when full broadsides are fired and shore bombardment would be one.
@@philiphumphrey1548 What's 'fair' in war? To paraphrase someone, you fight with the navy you have, not the navy you'd like to have. Would have really liked more detail on why the Royal Navy was so keen to build battleships that they knew would be outgunned even before they were built, particularly given that they already had an outstanding 15" gun design.
Well done thank you!
It was all such a fine balancing act, wasn't it? Protection Vs armament Vs displacement Vs speed. I wonder if CAD was set to work within a 35,000 ton limit, what it could come up with? I doubt very much improvement on the KGVs would be possible.
Decent presentation with beautiful and informative photos, however some of the data sheets were rather bleached out making reading difficult.
I would love to see video on the technical details of funnel design and operation, particularly on battleships. What determines their number, location, size and height? Why are they so big? Aren't they very susceptible to battle damage? What happens to a ship whose funnels are hit and damaged or destroyed?
The number, size and location of the funnels usually relates to size and placement of the boiler rooms. Tall funnels provide natural draft which assists the blower fans that feed air to the boiler furnaces, and also help keep smoke and soot away from the ship. The large size is needed because it's undesirable to have the gases flowing through the boiler too rapidly, a larger cross section keeps the flow velocity down. Forcing exhaust out through a too small funnel would also require a lot more power from the fans.
Hits to the funnels are usually not critical, but a funnel that has holes in it may not do a very good job of keeping the smoke away from the ship! This could range from a minor inconvenience to a significant problem depending on circumstances.
Nice build photos. Remember looking at Completion photos on a wall in a Pub in North Shields.
Of HMS Anson, She was built by Swan Hunter and Wigham Richardson Shipyard on the River Tyne
Boom
"too weak to fight and too slow to run away"
The should have just built the Lions
The main reason they went with 14" guns was because the British had been advocating for a smaller gun size and the US agreed to 14" if the Japanese would also agree. On top of that it would have delayed construction if the RN had waited for development of a 16" gun. They had been testing a 15"/50 gun since the early 30's so it could have been made ready in time. A 15" would have simplified logistics since, with the exception of the 2 ships of the Nelson class, all the other battleships and battlecruisers used 15" guns. I also think 9 15" in three turrets would have been a better choice than the 10 14" guns in a 4, 2, 4 arrangement.
Not so. Very strong well protected ships KGVs had thicker armour than any American battleship and Prince of Wales was able to keep pace with Hood flat out (29 knots) at Denmark Straight. Thats faster than all but the massively more powerful Iowas.
The stood their ground against Bismarck and Scharnhorst.
Scharnhorst would disagree.
Neither of which applies to the KGV class so what's your point? Anyhow Lions would not have been available in time to be of any use. Unless we told Hitler and Tojo if they would mind postponing the war until say 1944 so we could be ready. The Reichsmarine would have been happy with that, but probably nobody else. Top speed at sea is often irrelevant as you can't maintain that indefinitely due to sea state, the capabilities of your escorts or your fuel reserves.