Shipbucket

So to bring KGV's with either 12x14, 9x15, into line with Raven and Roberts I need to take out the 21 pixels I added and move the whole superstructure and aft turret backwards 12+ pixels to clear the forward turrets.

Does that sound right? I am quite happy to make the changes to fall in line with what was supposed to happen. Should I also be doing a 9x16 version to the 36,000 ton design. That would be a different beast to what became the Lion project.

For designs at this stage the dates are critical:
14L Nov 1935 had 3x4 14in, but also 10x2 4.5in secondaries.
That means that 15C with 3x3 15in, abandoned early in October 1935, would also have 4.5s.
14O was developed in a meeting held 2 Jan 1936 and had 12x14in and 16x5.25
14P with 10x14in was finalized in September 1936.
(There was also 14N with a single funnel, the machinery further aft, and 4.5 mountings "concentrated forward of the machinery spaces") [I've not seen any diagrams]

The 1937 attempts at 16in were very definitely KGVs with hull small enough to be around 35,000tons, not Lions.
A Lion hull was 740'pp; 780'wl; 785'oa (1940 design, not the 1942 version with flared bow)
Hull weight 15,000tons compared to KGV's 13,215
KGV 1937 design arrived at 16A/38 by March 1938: at 35,540 tons that got closest to the treaty limit,
with 3x3 16in and 6x2 5.25in.It managed to include aircraft but was a very cramped design.
(Using KGV machinery, needing a longer citadel meant 16B/38: 35,640 tons and no aircraft)

So if I get the designs I should be looking at in order:

10/35 15C - 9x15 20x4.5
11/35 14L - 12x14 20x4.5 (the 4.5 would be the same twin BD mounts used on QE and Renown? or possibly new twin turret analogous of the 5.25 scaled down)
12/35? 14N - 12x14 20x4.5 (concentrated fwd, single funnel)
01/36 14O - 12x14 16x5.25
09/36 14P - Real life KGV as finally built.
03/38 16A - 9x16 12x5.25"
04/38 16B - 9x16 16x5.25? no aircraft

All are designed on KGV hull, machinery, superstructure, aircraft handling facilities, AA placement around hangar (except 16B and 14N)
To be able to utilise the Walrus requires the space between funnels of standard superstructure design. If that area is tightened they could probably still carry Swordfish and smaller, sacrificing Walrus.
Deleting the aircraft (16B) provides extra superstructure to take extra personnel needed to be resited by installing the bigger 16" installation. Should not be as cramped as 16A?

In 1938 was any thought given to 15" designs which could have fallen in with the 35,000 ton limit? 9x15 giving better broadside than the 10x14 design of 14P 9/36.

1. the 4.5s would be as on Renown. The KGV design process with these started in July 1935.
2. With the machinery further aft (to save weight by shortening prop shafts) I see no reason for there not being enough space between funnel and bridge for the same aircraft arrangements. After all, for the same flue area, two funnels occupy about 40% more centreline distance than a single funnel if all are circular.
3. I quoted from Raven & Roberts British Battleships. In Warship 19 and 20, 1981, John Roberts did a long 2-part article on the steps between KGV and Lion. There were a lot more design variations discussed (I don't know when the National Maritime Museum got the Constructors' Workbooks, but JR would surely have needed them. According to the later article, many options were considered before reaching 'final' end of 1937 designs 16A with boilers forced at a higher rate and 16B with standard KGV boilers to save future design workload but no saving in armoured citadel length. The first design had considered a turret top catapult to launch FR aircraft, but as presented neither had aircraft, though 16C/38 was developed from 16B for an extra 160 tons with standard aircraft facilities but only eight 5.25" with restricted arcs and blast damage to the boats.
4. A triple 15in had been considered in July 1937 with standard displacements 12x14in 37500 tons; 9x15in 36500; 9x16 38500 tons. The last two might have been reduced to 36250 and 38000 by cutting gun elevation (and range) with lower barbettes. As the 14in mounts were designed by then, weight reduction in the 14" ship meant lower speed. In Sept 1937 Pengelly (chief BB designer) observed 10 gun KGV best treaty design. If USA and Japan went to 16in, so would RN, with 15in intermediate an unlikely choice. He suggested various options to reduce the 16in designs to 35,000 tons by cutting speed and/or protection, leading by the end of 1937 to 16A,B and C noted in 3. By Feb 38 design effort shifted to 38,000 and 40,000ton ships on the expectation that Japan would not sign London 1936 Treaty and USA would invoke the escalation clauses.
[3. and 4. are very brief summaries of several pages in Warship 19.]

Thank you Smurf,

That info certainly gives me a bit of work to do to clean up the two never-weres I have done above and draw (kitbash) the four new ones.

Keep your eye on this space!

Using Smurfs information above I have reworked my drawings so that the major weaponry falls within the armoured citadel as shown on Bombheads original King George V drawing. The original drawings I did convert to 14O 01/36, but from Smurfs descriptions there is no 15" with 5.25" equivalent (and not wanting to lose a nice drawing) so I have labelled it 15D as if 15" were to be proceeded with a version utilising 5.25" would have had to follow to match 14O. (My opinion only.)

14O 01/1936


15D 01/1936


Seeing them side by side like this the main difference to easily pick out is the extra length of barrel between the 14" and 15". (Counting the number of railing squares between the end of the barrel and the wave deflector.)

Looks good!

_________________

MS State Guard - 08 March 2014 - 28 January 2023

The Official IJN Ships & Planes List

#FJB

Before I add the hull and main guns I have had a play with the superstructures for each of types 14", 15" and 16" layouts. I am open to suggestions for changes.

I think I like 16B the best.

_________________

MS State Guard - 08 March 2014 - 28 January 2023

The Official IJN Ships & Planes List

#FJB

An excellent range of drawings. I sympathise with not wanting to lose the drawing of 15C, but no "15D" was planned, and with hindsight some thought the 4.5in the better gun. Sometime with more time perhaps a "real neverwere" 15C?
However, I don't like your 14N. You were worried about space for aircraft with a single funnel, and I wrote
"(There was also 14N with a single funnel, the machinery further aft, and 4.5 mountings "concentrated forward of the machinery spaces") [I've not seen any diagrams]"
But I have seen a diagram - a section along the centreline - relating to the versions with two funnels.
Now " the machinery further aft" must mean moving it into the spaces occupied by the aft group of 5.25 guns and magazines. That is what necessitates "4.5 mountings concentrated forward of the machinery spaces". To save weight by shortening the prop shaft runs must also apply to the forward engine room between the two sets of boilers, so the forward engines and boilers would follow the after set towards the stern. Revised trunking for the uptakes would then take the single funnel well aft of the bridge, with the hangars alongside and the catapult immediately aft of the bridge, forward of the funnel. That also provides enough magazine space below deck forward of the front boiler set for five 4.5 turrets each side.
(I don't think 'machinery moved aft' would go so far as to give up the protection advantages of the unit system aftEBEBfwd layout, though I guess a single funnel would also save a little weight and its separation from the bridge would be a good thing in relation to smoke. It would also keep some gap between funnel and aft control positions.)
When considering what a ship would look like if modified, you need to consider what lies below deck as well as what is easily seen.