HMS Casey

Dafmeister wrote:The KG5s were armed with 14" guns because they were built to the limits of the Second London Naval Treaty between the US, UK and France, which imposed a 14" maximum. There was an escalator clause which allowed an increase to 16" Japan or Italy (who had signed the Washington treaties but not the new London treaty) didn't sign the London treaty by April 1937, but the RN felt they needed to get the ships as early as possible. By the time the escalator clause deadline expired, the first three KG5s had already been ordered, and KG5 had actually been laid down. The USN, by contrast, waited until the deadline had expired and built 16" ships.

And the UK didn't have the excess gun and turret manufacturing capabilities that the US did (no-one did; really).

So switching to 16" guns would be a massive delay as it would obsolete all the long lead time 14" work they'd already done. (And if they'd had the same turret/gun fitting miscommunication that the Iowa-class designers did it would have been IIRC a multi-year delay; rather than a minor amusing anecdote in the ships' history)

Dafmeister wrote:The KG5s were armed with 14" guns because they were built to the limits of the Second London Naval Treaty between the US, UK and France, which imposed a 14" maximum. There was an escalator clause which allowed an increase to 16" Japan or Italy (who had signed the Washington treaties but not the new London treaty) didn't sign the London treaty by April 1937, but the RN felt they needed to get the ships as early as possible. By the time the escalator clause deadline expired, the first three KG5s had already been ordered, and KG5 had actually been laid down. The USN, by contrast, waited until the deadline had expired and built 16" ships.

The reason why the U.S. was able to get away with it was the U.S.Navy designed the North Carolina class to take both sizes of guns. The turret ring was designed to accommodate either a quad 14in or a triple 16in.

Here's an off topic question.

Do you think the Bismarck is overrated?

To me she was way overrated, if Prince of Wales was fully operational (IIRC PoW had electrical problems, 7 guns operational and fresh from the building yard with shipyard workers aboard) she would have handed Bismarck her head in know uncertain terms. Even with the loss of Hood it still would've happened.

saber964 wrote:

Dafmeister wrote:The KG5s were armed with 14" guns because they were built to the limits of the Second London Naval Treaty between the US, UK and France, which imposed a 14" maximum. There was an escalator clause which allowed an increase to 16" Japan or Italy (who had signed the Washington treaties but not the new London treaty) didn't sign the London treaty by April 1937, but the RN felt they needed to get the ships as early as possible. By the time the escalator clause deadline expired, the first three KG5s had already been ordered, and KG5 had actually been laid down. The USN, by contrast, waited until the deadline had expired and built 16" ships.

The reason why the U.S. was able to get away with it was the U.S.Navy designed the North Carolina class to take both sizes of guns. The turret ring was designed to accommodate either a quad 14in or a triple 16in.

Here's an off topic question.

Do you think the Bismarck is overrated?

To me she was way overrated, if Prince of Wales was fully operational (IIRC PoW had electrical problems, 7 guns operational and fresh from the building yard with shipyard workers aboard) she would have handed Bismarck her head in know uncertain terms. Even with the loss of Hood it still would've happened.

She was overrated, but perhaps not for the reason you are suggesting. Your post essentially visualizes a face off between the Bismark and a fully operational Prince of Wales. Given your point it probably would have turned out as you think.

However, IIRC, the Prince of Wales herself was sunk in the South China Sea a few months later by aircraft. Therein we find the critical point. This was a foretaste of things to come as the Japanese demonstrated that battleships in general were unable to survive without effective aircover.

While airpower did not deliver the coup de grace to Bismark, it did locate her and slow her down by rendering her rudder inoperable. Airpower was central in limiting Tirpitz's scope of operations and eventually destroying her.

And of course, not long after the destruction of Prince of Wales, the Japanese destroyed the US Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor with airpower, adding explanation points to what had already happened.

So yes, Bismark was overrated...along with battleships in general. Although they continued to play a role in the war, their place as a decisive instrument of force projection was over as that role passed to the aircraft carrier.

Don

saber964 wrote:

Dafmeister wrote:The KG5s were armed with 14" guns because they were built to the limits of the Second London Naval Treaty between the US, UK and France, which imposed a 14" maximum. There was an escalator clause which allowed an increase to 16" Japan or Italy (who had signed the Washington treaties but not the new London treaty) didn't sign the London treaty by April 1937, but the RN felt they needed to get the ships as early as possible. By the time the escalator clause deadline expired, the first three KG5s had already been ordered, and KG5 had actually been laid down. The USN, by contrast, waited until the deadline had expired and built 16" ships.

The reason why the U.S. was able to get away with it was the U.S.Navy designed the North Carolina class to take both sizes of guns. The turret ring was designed to accommodate either a quad 14in or a triple 16in.

Here's an off topic question.

Do you think the Bismarck is overrated?

To me she was way overrated, if Prince of Wales was fully operational (IIRC PoW had electrical problems, 7 guns operational and fresh from the building yard with shipyard workers aboard) she would have handed Bismarck her head in know uncertain terms. Even with the loss of Hood it still would've happened.

Hood's lack of deck armor was a known flaw- that was supposed to be corrected (the cost was rejected at several points in the 30s , and was the Hood was scheduled for an armor refit in '41 - 2 years too late.) And of course, what did her in - plunging fire through the deck armor. The Hood had a (good) WWI BC armor scheme, against WWII Gunnery angles, and just wasn't prepared.

If the Bismark had run into any other RMN ship, that first encounter would have been very different.

It's been widely held that it was plunging fire that caused Hood's sinking, but more recent accounts seem to cast doubt on that. The thinking is that the range had closed to the point where shells striking the deck would do so at a shallow enough angle for the armour to hold - the sort of ranges that were envisioned when she was built. It may be that she suffered, in effect, a golden BB - a (un)lucky hit that got through her armour and ignited the 4" magazine, which in turn ignited the aft 15" magazines.

In regard to the suggestion that against any other British battleships, the outcome would have been different, I have to agree - against any ship other than King George V herself it would almost certainly have been worse from the British perspective. The reason is simple - speed. If Bismark went to full speed, the only RN ships that could keep pace were KG5 (same design as Prince of Wales, but fully worked up, though she still suffered reliability problems in her quadruple turrets, as happened when she fought and sank Bismark in company with Rodney) and Renown and Repulse, which were battlecruisers but with far weaker armour than Hood. Any other British battleship was too slow to keep up.

Dafmeister wrote:It's been widely held that it was plunging fire that caused Hood's sinking, but more recent accounts seem to cast doubt on that. The thinking is that the range had closed to the point where shells striking the deck would do so at a shallow enough angle for the armour to hold - the sort of ranges that were envisioned when she was built. It may be that she suffered, in effect, a golden BB - a (un)lucky hit that got through her armour and ignited the 4" magazine, which in turn ignited the aft 15" magazines.

In regard to the suggestion that against any other British battleships, the outcome would have been different, I have to agree - against any ship other than King George V herself it would almost certainly have been worse from the British perspective. The reason is simple - speed. If Bismark went to full speed, the only RN ships that could keep pace were KG5 (same design as Prince of Wales, but fully worked up, though she still suffered reliability problems in her quadruple turrets, as happened when she fought and sank Bismark in company with Rodney) and Renown and Repulse, which were battlecruisers but with far weaker armour than Hood. Any other British battleship was too slow to keep up.

Up to the moment when those torpedo planes managed to put Bismark's rudder out of order making it impossible for her to steer. That slowed her up considerably.

Don

Theemile wrote:If the [Bismarck] had run into any other RMN ship, that first encounter would have been very different.

(emph added)
Sure would! The merest frigate could have blown her to smithereens with one kinetic shot.

Bill Woods wrote:

Theemile wrote:If the [Bismarck] had run into any other RMN ship, that first encounter would have been very different.

(emph added)
Sure would! The merest frigate could have blown her to smithereens with one kinetic shot.

I suspect a well-built RMN cutter could handle Bismarck by ramming. Or thruster backwash.

Theemile wrote:If the [Bismarck] had run into any other RMN ship, that first encounter would have been very different.

(emph added)

JeffEngel wrote:

Bill Woods wrote:Sure would! The merest frigate could have blown her to smithereens with one kinetic shot.

I suspect a well-built RMN cutter could handle Bismarck by ramming. Or thruster backwash.

I figured it needed to be a hyper-capable vessel, to close the range from light-years to light-seconds.

JeffEngel wrote:I suspect a well-built RMN cutter could handle Bismarck by ramming. Or thruster backwash.

I figured it needed to be a hyper-capable vessel, to close the range from light-years to light-seconds.

Fair point. Still, if the Bismarck could make it to PD 1922, I'm confident an RMN cutter (along with a lot else) could visit Sol any time it cared to.