Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 3 of 5  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 4 5 »
Author Message
Krakatoa
Post subject: Re: King George V as originally planned 12x14"Posted: November 7th, 2014, 10:19 am
Offline
Posts: 2504
Joined: July 1st, 2014, 12:20 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact: Website
I must admit I am having trouble visualising 14N with single funnel aft starting from ship boats area forward, with 4.5" forward and aircraft somewhere in between. I can not see the area to be able to have a cross deck catapult within the confines left by the first two constraints. Would the idea of a standard longitudinal swivel catapult raised above and able to clear the 4.5" be an option?


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
smurf
Post subject: Re: King George V as originally planned 12x14"Posted: November 7th, 2014, 11:11 am
Offline
Posts: 207
Joined: October 25th, 2014, 7:46 pm
I agree its very tricky - I'll see if Raven & Roberts has any more to say.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Krakatoa
Post subject: Re: King George V as originally planned 12x14"Posted: November 7th, 2014, 11:43 am
Offline
Posts: 2504
Joined: July 1st, 2014, 12:20 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact: Website
Added Version 2 of 14N with swivel catapult.

The problem I can see most is accessing the Hangar area, there is no space to get aircraft in and out. Would RN have been happy with just one aircraft with no work area. Maintenance would have to be on the catapult.

Another edit.
Rather than the 4.5" on the 1/2 BD deck mount, can the 4.5's go directly into the main deck, that would lower that area considerably and allow access to a heightened hangar to the catapult.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Hood
Post subject: Re: King George V as originally planned 12x14"Posted: November 7th, 2014, 12:40 pm
Offline
Posts: 7150
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am
14N is tricky. A cross-deck catapult might fit if it fires over the 4.5in turrets (there is no reason why it couldn't), the 4.5in mounts might have been lower too.
How sure are we all these designs had cross-deck catapults, 1935 feels a bit early for them to me. I'm trying to remember when they were adopted for cruisers. I think it was after 35.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
smurf
Post subject: Re: King George V as originally planned 12x14"Posted: November 7th, 2014, 4:29 pm
Offline
Posts: 207
Joined: October 25th, 2014, 7:46 pm
Fixed cross-deck catapults were first installed at forecastle deck level in Amphions (46ft light) and Southamptons (53ft heavy). Decision taken 1933. The aircraft could be wheeled on to the catapult without using a crane.
Agree the 4.5s could be at main deck level,as were the lower 5.25s.
I've dug into R&R and have some comments, but they need diagrams to follow them, and I don't know how to post what I have done. They are not 'finished articles' just to illustrate my ideas. K. I'm e-mailing them to you.
Essentially, the idea is to take the hangers aft with the machinery and funnel, bringing the boats forward.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: King George V as originally planned 12x14"Posted: November 7th, 2014, 4:56 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7496
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
using an imagehost (like most of the images on this forum) might work too. (saying this because I'd like to see those diagrams too, while I might not have much use for them they always interest me :P)

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Krakatoa
Post subject: Re: King George V as originally planned 12x14"Posted: November 7th, 2014, 5:58 pm
Offline
Posts: 2504
Joined: July 1st, 2014, 12:20 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact: Website
From Smurf,
14N.
I agree this is all very tricky – perhaps that is why 14N, despite being favoured by the ACNS and the Controller, was not in the end adopted.

In the above, and in what follows, italics are quotes from Raven and Roberts.
14N saved weight with shorter prop shafts and with one funnel the ship's angle of inclination would be less easy to estimate.
The critical meeting was 2 Jan 1936, which discussed 14L and 14N, and resulted in 14O.
“the particulars of 14O were the same as for 14L except for the details given in Table 71”
That meant, summarising, that 14L,N & O all had 3x4 14in; 14L and 14N had 20x 4.5in while 14O had 16x5.25in giving greatly improved LA and HA fire.
14O differed from 14L in having slightly reduced armour thicknesses (generally about 1/2in) in some areas, as a result of rearrangement of the armour involving a substantial increase in weight. Machinery of higher power 110,000shp instead of 100,000 from higher forcing of the boilers cost 100tons. Standard displacement was up from 35,000 to 35,450 tons.
The ACNS emphasised the importance of raising the belt armour and fitting the armoured deck at main deck level instead of at middle-deck level, as in 14N. This would result in improved stability in the damaged condition, and a reduction in the volume of structure above the armoured eck vulnerable to SAP bombs. [Taking that to mean that 14N had the raised armour, explains why ACNS was keen]
Further later discussion centred on how to overcome the lower armoured strength sacrificed to raise the armoured deck. That led to 14P with 10x14in.

But we are concerned with the layout of 14N. Apart from the above, the only clues are the amidships layout of 14O (see diagram 1) plus any ideas about why the single funnel layout was not adopted.
[Note that the diagram is KGV in 1940, not 14O, and on the way from 14O to 14P changes in trim meant moving the citadel 4 to 6 feet forward to compensate for the reduced weight of the twin mounting. I take that to mean the whole citadel, so that the layout of the central part housing the machinery is not affected]

After this, we get a bit speculative. As the armoured deck is as shown in both 14O and 14N, there is room below the armoured deck for horizontal flues from two boiler rooms to a single funnel. Those are not very desirable but if not done, would mean sloping trunking to the funnel like that adopted in the first reconstructions of Queen Elizabeths. That encroaches on deck space for a cross-deck catapult.

First, let us move all the boilers and machinery aft, to shorten the shafts, using the space for the after DP guns and mags spaces 6 & 7, moving those mags forward to join the others.

I think you will see that this means very long flues if the funnel stays forward in your position – in my view impossibly long if above the armour. [I've 'borrowed' your 14N]

Now we the funnel placed further aft, as you have it in the position of the aft funnel in 2-funnel version. Diagram 14N a2
But we should move the funnel further aft over the aft boiler room. (diagram 14N a3) The hangers (which were alongside the forefunnel) go aft. The boats come forward. The 4.5s are concentrated forward and can be at main deck level like the lower 5.25s. I see no objection to having the catapult launch over them if needed. You could also have say two 4.5 turrets raised (the 5.25s were) allowing for their barrels to overhang the turrets below, though that produces a very cramped HA battery. I suspect that and long flues were the chief reasons not to pursue 14N rather than modify 14L into 14O and 14P. To have one lucky hit knock out ten HA guns would be very bad.

I have never looked at the actual reports of the meeting on 2 Jan 36, rather than R&R's summary, but that might throw a bit more light on the 14N design, even without a contemporary diagram.

Pic-1
[ img ]

Pic-2
[ img ]

Pic-3
[ img ]

Pic-4
[ img ]

Pic-5
[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
smurf
Post subject: Re: King George V as originally planned 12x14"Posted: November 7th, 2014, 10:56 pm
Offline
Posts: 207
Joined: October 25th, 2014, 7:46 pm
Thanks, Krakatoa, for posting those. My last one needs a bit of detail work!
Looking at it again, I thought a "14N 5.25" with 5.25 turrets as in 14O would overcome the objection to the concentrated DP battery, but you still can't put two DP turrets aft, as the DP magazine space has gone forward. That convinces me that it was the concentration of the DP turrets forward of the machinery spaces that was not liked. (I recall that sort of objection in several earlier designs of BBs and cruisers. It was raised in relation to the G3's 4.7in AA battery, all sited aft away from the blast of the 16in and so unable to cover air attack from forward or crossing the bows, while Nelson's 6in battery was criticized for the three turrets being too close to each other, vulnerable to a single hit and with forward arcs limited. The KGVs were supposed to overcome Nelson's shortcomings as seen in the late 1930s.)
If when moving the machinery aft, the forward boilers were placed aft of the forward engine room, it simplifies the trunking, but loses half of the weight saving of shorter shafts and makes all boilers vulnerable to a lucky hit (especially to flooding from a torpedo hit) in the middle of the two adjacent boiler rooms directly under the funnel - a point to aim at.
In short, 14O better than 14N5.25.
I liked the idea of a single funnel! So I also like K's 16B with no aircraft, though I don't think it was ever considered like that, for the Staff had concluded that trying to squeeze 9x16in into a 35,000 ton ship was unsatisfactory, needed at least 38,000 tons for a good balanced design.
(The First Sea Lord IIRC said to the designers something like "Last year we said we could only fit 10x14in not 3x4 14in into our 35,000ton design. Who will believe that now we can fit 3x3 16in?" But the USA was near to invoking escalation to 45,000tons and RN attempts at a 35,000ton 9x16in ship were abandoned (with some relief).

When drawing "neverweres" there is a fine line between a purist like me (who thinks that what should be drawn is what was actually known to be proposed, or for which there is strong evidence from written descriptions if no diagrams survive) and those who say in effect "the next alternative stage would surely have been like that if development had proceeded" which moves it towards being an "own design" or at least an "own modification". So I give K's 16B good marks, but reluctantly wouldn't include it in my collection of "KGV real neverweres". A good idea not considered at the time, I believe.
I remember several discussions on this topic on the old Warship Projects website. Each to his own.

PS the crane must handle the boats.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Hood
Post subject: Re: King George V as originally planned 12x14"Posted: November 8th, 2014, 9:51 am
Offline
Posts: 7150
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am
Nice analysis Smurf.
I wonder if the 4.5in wouldn't be raised above the main deck to avoid having large holes and pits in the deck? With ten holes at the same point in the hull, stresses might have become an issue. Raising the guns as in Nigel's first attempt would at least only require smaller hoists to pierce the deck.

I agree with you in the purist interpretation of never-weres.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
smurf
Post subject: Re: King George V as originally planned 12x14"Posted: November 8th, 2014, 10:22 am
Offline
Posts: 207
Joined: October 25th, 2014, 7:46 pm
Thanks Hood. Good point about the 4.5s. There is a deck space above the armour deck to avoid large holes in the edge of that, and I am not sure to what extent the deck you walk on contributed to structural strength, but every little helps and siting the guns higher keeps them dryer and gives them better command. The 4.5s would need quite large holes as they are the "countersunk" type fitted to Renown and the Formidable carriers, not the derived 'normal' above deck 4.5 DP turrets as fitted later to the Battle class destroyers. The 5.25s were 'normal' turrets with the whole body above deck and only the hoist going below.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 3 of 5  [ 44 posts ]  Return to “Never-Built Designs” | Go to page « 1 2 3 4 5 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]