lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 65,083 
Likes: 46,292
|
Post by lordroel on May 7, 2024 15:07:19 GMT
Never knew of this (see below).
|
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on May 8, 2024 9:39:07 GMT
It is fairly widely available in most books on the KGVs.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 65,083
Likes: 46,292
|
Post by lordroel on May 8, 2024 11:08:47 GMT
It is fairly widely available in most books on the KGVs. So would it make a difference. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on May 8, 2024 11:20:55 GMT
At what? The displacement would be very similar, whilst the characteristics of the gun are described here: www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_15-45_mk2.phpIt would be adequate, slightly moreso than the 14” version of @, and good enough to engage Bismarck and Scharnhorst, but these scenarios do require both foresight and hindsight. That the RN ultimately preferred the 16” for the larger and less restricted Lions speaks volumes. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,552
Likes: 12,152
|
Post by stevep on May 8, 2024 15:24:53 GMT
It is fairly widely available in most books on the KGVs. So would it make a difference.
Well it would have made for individual shells hitting somewhat harder, have given commonality in shells with older ships and probably have been available a bit faster. Also the turrets would have been a bit roomier than the quad turrets of the OTL ships.
The big problem was that the government had decided to push for a maximum of 14" for guns on new treaty delimited BBs. As it turned out Japan rejected such limits, which lead to the Yamato class ships and the US, with less pressing need for new construction were able to go for an alternative 16" design. Other nations has already committed to 15" armed ships so it ended up with only Britain building a 14" design.
As Simon says the Lion class, which were designed without treaty limits would have had 16" triple turrets but weren't built due to the demands of war, which was probably a good thing for Britain as assuming things don't go drastically different they would have been largely redundant by the time they entered service.
|
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on May 8, 2024 16:51:18 GMT
Quite right. I’d simply say that the additional cost of the 16” wasn’t so great beyond the 15” ; and that smaller calibre ships were the stuff of France, Germany and Italy, with the Yanks and Japanese going for 16” with only momentary dalliances in other directions.
|
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on May 11, 2024 3:40:09 GMT
Some material of relevance: www.tapatalk.com/groups/warships1discussionboards/cost-of-the-latter-kgv-class-battleships-t47838.html?sid=2b428540b9a0fbfe43fc44954378ea51- "Duke of York they give her cost as £7,426,000" (Buxton and Johnston, 'The Battleship Builders') - "Of this cost, about £3,378,937 was paid to the shipbuilder, John Brown. This essentially covered the hull and machinery. Another £2,250,000 was the armament, supplied by the Admiralty. The balance of £1,800,000 was mostly armour plus specialist equipment such as fire-control equipment, aircrasft, radar and radio, anchors and cables, salvage pumps etc." - "It is very difficult to compare shipbuilding costs across nations. Buxton and Johnston include the following comparison to US practice: "It is interesting to compare the costs of US-built battleships of similar size. Figures were published in The Shipbuilder for June 1943 for Massachusetts and South Dakota completed in private yards in 1942. Their hull and machinery costs, i.e. excluding armour and armament, averaged $44.4 million or £11 million each at the official exchange rate of £1 = $4.03; over three times Duke of York. US shipbuilding wage rates were about three times higher than UK." " So, we have a figure of £2,250,000 for 10 x 14", 16 x 5.25", 48 x 2pdr and 6 x 20mm Oerlikons. Ballpark guesses as to the cost of a turret is 600,000 for a 14" quad and 350,000 for a 14" twin; there might be material on that in published works on the KGVs. "In April 1945, the Admiralty set up a "Committee on the Size of Battleships" to evaluate designs for new battleships. This committee issued a report on 1 May 1945 which recommended that new battleships of about 45,000 tons (46,000 mt) should be built. In regards to main armament, the committee evaluated main battery designs of 9 x 14" (35.6 cm), 9 x 15" (38.1 cm) and 9 x 16" (40.6 cm). The committee noted that the 15" (38.1 cm) design would save not more than 3,000 tons (3,050 mt) over the 16" (40.6 cm) design and that the 14" (35.6 cm) design would save an additional 2,000 tons (2,030 mt). In its evaluation of the effectiveness of each caliber in terms of inflicting damage, the committee determined that the 16" (40.6 cm) gun was 27% more effective while the 14" (35.6 cm) gun was 25% less effective than the 15" (38.1 cm) gun. As a result of these evaluations, the committee concluded that the 16" (40.6 cm) caliber should be used for arming any future battleship." www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_16-45_mk2.php(As a side note, 3 million of Vanguard's 11 million went to refurbishment of the 15"/42 guns and turrets, giving us 750,000 per turret. Not the cost free option it is sometimes portrayed as) So, we have some idea about the cost, some idea of the relative weight savings and the difference in effectivity. My position is that if they can be afforded in terms of design weight, the 16" gun "pays off" the extra cost in effectiveness, range and how it effects the relative value of certain French, Italian, Japanese, German and Soviet ships. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,552
Likes: 12,152
|
Post by stevep on May 11, 2024 11:28:14 GMT
Some material of relevance: www.tapatalk.com/groups/warships1discussionboards/cost-of-the-latter-kgv-class-battleships-t47838.html?sid=2b428540b9a0fbfe43fc44954378ea51- "Duke of York they give her cost as £7,426,000" (Buxton and Johnston, 'The Battleship Builders') - "Of this cost, about £3,378,937 was paid to the shipbuilder, John Brown. This essentially covered the hull and machinery. Another £2,250,000 was the armament, supplied by the Admiralty. The balance of £1,800,000 was mostly armour plus specialist equipment such as fire-control equipment, aircrasft, radar and radio, anchors and cables, salvage pumps etc." - "It is very difficult to compare shipbuilding costs across nations. Buxton and Johnston include the following comparison to US practice: "It is interesting to compare the costs of US-built battleships of similar size. Figures were published in The Shipbuilder for June 1943 for Massachusetts and South Dakota completed in private yards in 1942. Their hull and machinery costs, i.e. excluding armour and armament, averaged $44.4 million or £11 million each at the official exchange rate of £1 = $4.03; over three times Duke of York. US shipbuilding wage rates were about three times higher than UK." " So, we have a figure of £2,250,000 for 10 x 14", 16 x 5.25", 48 x 2pdr and 6 x 20mm Oerlikons. Ballpark guesses as to the cost of a turret is 600,000 for a 14" quad and 350,000 for a 14" twin; there might be material on that in published works on the KGVs. "In April 1945, the Admiralty set up a "Committee on the Size of Battleships" to evaluate designs for new battleships. This committee issued a report on 1 May 1945 which recommended that new battleships of about 45,000 tons (46,000 mt) should be built. In regards to main armament, the committee evaluated main battery designs of 9 x 14" (35.6 cm), 9 x 15" (38.1 cm) and 9 x 16" (40.6 cm). The committee noted that the 15" (38.1 cm) design would save not more than 3,000 tons (3,050 mt) over the 16" (40.6 cm) design and that the 14" (35.6 cm) design would save an additional 2,000 tons (2,030 mt). In its evaluation of the effectiveness of each caliber in terms of inflicting damage, the committee determined that the 16" (40.6 cm) gun was 27% more effective while the 14" (35.6 cm) gun was 25% less effective than the 15" (38.1 cm) gun. As a result of these evaluations, the committee concluded that the 16" (40.6 cm) caliber should be used for arming any future battleship." www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_16-45_mk2.php(As a side note, 3 million of Vanguard's 11 million went to refurbishment of the 15"/42 guns and turrets, giving us 750,000 per turret. Not the cost free option it is sometimes portrayed as) So, we have some idea about the cost, some idea of the relative weight savings and the difference in effectivity. My position is that if they can be afforded in terms of design weight, the 16" gun "pays off" the extra cost in effectiveness, range and how it effects the relative value of certain French, Italian, Japanese, German and Soviet ships.
Simon
Just to say that my point at the end of my previous post about probably a good thing that Britain didn't build any Lion's towards the end of WWII was based on the facts that: a) They would be expensive both to construct and then to operate, even without the supporting ships that would be needed and the possible costs of base improvements for a 43-45 thousand ton ship, which in the dire economic situation Britain faced and the other military demands would be a poor funding decision. b) Such ships were increasingly secondary to carriers and other forms of air power and even for the USN had been largely reduced to a primary role of shore bombardment and this was unlikely to change. c) In the aftermath of WWII none of those potential hostile powers had a surface fleet that needed countering by battleships. The only large naval fleets left standing were those of Britain and the US and there was neither a likelihood of war with the US nor any chance of the RN winning such an encounter. The other powers were ravaged by war and the defeated Axis powers were also limited by arms restrictions, Potentially the Soviets could have built big ships but given their priority for ground and air forces, the lack of experience at such construction and their geographical limitations even if the Soviets did take such a route it wouldn't do them a lot of good.
If somehow Britain could have received a couple of Lion's, whether in their initial or later designs, in early 1941 say they would have been very useful additions to Britain's naval strength and they would have overmatched any ships build by hostile powers other than the Yamato's. However by 1945 there was no real purpose for such ships and it would have been a drain on British resources. If such had been in place they might have replaced a number of the KGV class which would have been retired/put in reserve earlier than OTL.
|
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on May 11, 2024 11:40:47 GMT
Yes, that much was clear to me. My comments on the Lions and 16" gunned battleships in general were based on them being 1930s construction, hence the reference to 'certain French, Italian, Japanese, German and Soviet ships'.
|
|
