RN BBs

[piritskenyer]

Found something you lot might find interesting for the KGV class.

 

15"/45 Mk II guns design which was studied/planned for the KGV. Higher range and lighter construction than that of the 15"/42 Mk I, from what I can gather, they would have been arranged in a 3x3 layout on KGV.

[Getzamatic]

Mikasa did not represent the state of the art of British Pre-dreadnought designs at the point she was commissioned.  As such, she's effectively a bigger Formidable with a slightly more potent 6" battery, but lacking the latest turret designs found in the Queens which were commissioned at the same time as her.  She is, however, highly representative of all the British classic pre-dreadnought battleship up to the KE7s...

[Historynerd]

Found something you lot might find interesting for the KGV class.

 

15"/45 Mk II guns design which was studied/planned for the KGV. Higher range and lighter construction than that of the 15"/42 Mk I, from what I can gather, they would have been arranged in a 3x3 layout on KGV.

 

I cannot be sure, but I believe that the choice (for many reasons, mainly political) to have 14-inch guns was taken quite early, before a final design was picked. Therefore, I am not sure that it would be feasible to simply give the KGV the ability to switch from the ten 14-inchers to the nine 15-inchers.

 

I think, in any case, that there are some people here who can tell us more about the design history of the battleship, and the various proposals (with the various armaments) that were put forward.

[piritskenyer]

 

I cannot be sure, but I believe that the choice (for many reasons, mainly political) to have 14-inch guns was taken quite early, before a final design was picked. Therefore, I am not sure that it would be feasible to simply give the KGV the ability to switch from the ten 14-inchers to the nine 15-inchers.

 

I think, in any case, that there are some people here who can tell us more about the design history of the battleship, and the various proposals (with the various armaments) that were put forward.

 

Still, it could be a possible upgrade/alternative to the 10x 14" that many seem to find lacking. At T8 it would pretty much would be the equivalent to the Tirpitz/Bismarck, probably a bit superior due to it being a regular. After all, it'd be 3x3x 15" vs 4x2x 15".

[Historynerd]

I am of the opinion that it's possible to balance the KGV, and any inferiority that its guns may have, without resorting to anything drastic.

[RamirezKurita]

 

Still, it could be a possible upgrade/alternative to the 10x 14" that many seem to find lacking. At T8 it would pretty much would be the equivalent to the Tirpitz/Bismarck, probably a bit superior due to it being a regular. After all, it'd be 3x3x 15" vs 4x2x 15".

 

I think I'd rather see it as an entirely separate ship, considering how it would end up being a quite different design to the final one because of the significant differences in weight distribution. If they trimmed the ship down slightly in other areas, the preliminary design could even have the planned 4x3 14" guns, which had to be cut down on the final model to save weight for more engines and armour.

[Getzamatic]

I am of the opinion that it's possible to balance the KGV, and any inferiority that its guns may have, without resorting to anything drastic.

 

This.

 

Seriously, 14" is just a number.  These guns, designed in the mid 30's, where much, much more potent that the 1910's design 14" guns found on the US and Japanese battleships - just like the Tirptiz's 15" guns are a lot more potent than Warspite's.  If the guns are made long ranged, accurate and fast firing whilst still doing good damage then everyone will be crying about how OP the KGVs are, as they would have average speed, good AA and superb armour for tier 8.

[warsinger2]

 

This.

 

Seriously, 14" is just a number.  These guns, designed in the mid 30's, where much, much more potent that the 1910's design 14" guns found on the US and Japanese battleships - just like the Tirptiz's 15" guns are a lot more potent than Warspite's.  If the guns are made long ranged, accurate and fast firing whilst still doing good damage then everyone will be crying about how OP the KGVs are, as they would have average speed, good AA and superb armour for tier 8.

 

According to http://www.navweaps.com they were not. But hey maybe some internet armchair admiral is right and a bunch of experts is just wrong, who knows. The dogged devotion to make the KGV class a T 8 is amusing at least in the 10x14" variant. The British BB line is very easy to determine:

 

III Dreadnought

IV Colossus

V Iron Duke

VI Queen Elisabeth

VII King George V 

VIII Vanguard 

IX Lion

X N 3  

 

What is there to cry about at T VII the KGV would be rather strong, for the Vanguard you can pretend it to have received the 15" MK II. Nelson as T VII/VIII premium  

[creamgravy]

KGV at tier 7? 

...put Blyskawica back to tier 6 while your at it. Small calibre guns are rubbish 

 

 

[piritskenyer]

KGV at tier 7? 

...put Blyskawica back to tier 6 while your at it. Small calibre guns are rubbish 

 

 

 

Dunkerque and Strassbourg agree.

 

Huehuehuehue

[Getzamatic]

 

According to http://www.navweaps.com they were not. But hey maybe some internet armchair admiral is right and a bunch of experts is just wrong, who knows. The dogged devotion to make the KGV class a T 8 is amusing at least in the 10x14" variant. The British BB line is very easy to determine:

 

III Dreadnought

IV Colossus

V Iron Duke

VI Queen Elisabeth

VII King George V 

VIII Vanguard 

IX Lion

X N 3  

 

What is there to cry about at T VII the KGV would be rather strong, for the Vanguard you can pretend it to have received the 15" MK II. Nelson as T VII/VIII premium  

 

Okay.  Some facts and figures, taken directly from http://www.navweaps.com/

 

The 14"/45 Mk VII used on the KGV class;

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_14-45_mk7.htm

 

Projectile Types and Weights	APC Mark VIIB - 1,590 lbs. (721 kg)  HE - 1,590 lbs. (721 kg)
Bursting Charge	48.5 lbs. (22.0 kg)
Projectile Length	61.6 in (156.5 cm)
Propellant Charge	Standard:  338.3 lbs. (153.4 kg) SC 300
Muzzle Velocity	Ships (new gun):  2,483 fps (757 mps)
Working Pressure	20.5 tons/in2 (3,230 kg/cm2)
Approximate Barrel Life	340 rounds
Ammunition stowage per gun	100 rounds

 

Ranges;

 

Elevation	With 1,590 lbs. (721 kg) AP  MV of 2,400 fps (732 mps)	Striking Velocity	Angle of Fall
2.5 degrees	5,000 yards (4,570 m)	2,160 fps (658 mps)	2.8
5.5 degrees	10,000 yards (9,140 m)	1,927 fps (587 mps)	6.5
9.25 degrees	15,000 yards (13,720 m)	1,726 fps (526 mps)	11.5
13.75 degrees	20,000 yards (18,290 m)	1,563 fps (476 mps)	18.2
19.25 degrees	25,000 yards (22,860 m)	1,459 fps (445 mps)	26.4
26.2 degrees	30,000 yards (27,430 m)	1,432 fps (436 mps)	35.6
36.0 degrees	35,000 yards (32,000 m)	1,482 fps (452 mps)	46.1
40.7 degrees	36,500 yards (33,380 m)	1,523 fps (464 mps)	50.3

 

Armour pentration;

 

Range	Side Armor	Deck Armor
0 yards (0 m)	26.9" (668 mm)	---
10,000 yards (9,144 m)	15.6" (396 mm)	1.15" (29 mm)
15,000 yards (13,716 m)	13.2" (335 mm)	1.95" (50 mm)
20,000 yards (18,288 m)	11.2" (285 mm)	2.85" (73 mm)
25,000 yards (22,860 m)	9.5" (241 mm)	4.00" (102 mm)
28,000 yards (25,603 m)	---	4.75" (121 mm)
Note:  This data is from "Battleships:  Allied Battleships in World War II" for a muzzle velocity of 2,400 fps (732 mps) and is partly based upon the USN Empirical Formula for Armor Penetration and partly based upon official data.

 

Navweaps also has a second set of data which gives lower values.  I have included this set because it was calculated with the same USN empirical formula that was used to calcualate the perfomace of the US 14"/50

 

Speaking of which - the guns from the New Mexico class;

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_14-50_mk4.htm

 

Type	Bag
Projectile Types and Weights  (see Note 4)	Early AP - 1,400 lbs. (635.0 kg)  AP Mark 8 Mods 3, 7, 8 and 11 - 1,402 lbs. (635.9 kg)  Common - 1,400 lbs. (635.0 kg) Bombardment Mark 9 - 1,410 lbs. (639.6 kg)
Bursting Charge	Early AP - 31.5 lbs. (14.3 kg) Explosive D  AP Mark 8 - 34.3 lbs. (15.6 kg) Explosive D  Common - about 84.0 lbs. (38.1 kg) Explosive D Bombardment Mark 9 - 105.0 lbs. (47.6 kg) Explosive D
Projectile Length	AP Mark 8 - 49.44 in (125.6 cm)  Common - about 46.5 in (118.1 cm) Bombardment Mark 9 - 56.00 in (142.2 cm)
Propellant Charge	470 lbs. (213.2 kg) SPD
Muzzle Velocity	2,800 fps (853 mps)
Working Pressure	18.0 tons/in2 (2,835 kg/cm2)
Approximate Barrel Life	250 rounds
Ammunition stowage per gun	100 rounds

 

Armour Penetration:

Range	Side Armor	Deck Armor
6,000 yards (5,490 m)	17.2" (437 mm)	---
9,000 yards (8,230 m)	14.4" (366 mm)	---
12,000 yards (12,980 m)	11.9" (302 mm)	---
16,000 yards (14,630 m)	8.9" (226 mm)	---
20,000 yards (18,290 m)	6.7" (170 mm)	---
Data is from "Elements of US Naval Guns" of 1918 and General Board file 430 (1916).  It is corrected for angle of fall.

 

The gun has a higher muzzle velocity, but the shell is significantly lighter resulting in reduced penetration performance.  Ideally we would be able to compare the muzzle energy of the guns, which a better measure of precisely how powerful the gun is, however in the absence of that data, notice the higher working pressure of the British gun.  That strong (but not conclusive) evidence that the British gun is generating more power than the US weapon.

 

It is also worth noting that "medium velocity/heavy shell" paradigm used by the RN in most of their guns, including the 14" Mk VII, resulted in very accurate guns across all range bands, whereas the US 14"/50 was a notably inaccurate gun (especially in the New Mexico class where the guns were placed too close together) which the USN expended considerable time and effort to fix throughout the 20's and 30's.

 

And the Japanese 14" gun from the Kogo and Fuso

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_14-45_t41.htm

 

Type	Bag
Projectile Types and Weights  (see Notes 1, 2 and 3)	World War I     APC Type 3 - N/A, but probably 1,400 lbs. (635 kg)     Common Type 3 HE - N/A, but probably 1,400 lbs. (635 kg) 1925     APC Type 5 - N/A, but probably 1,400 lbs. (635 kg) 1928     APC No. 6 / Type 88 - 1,400 lbs. (635 kg) World War II     APC Type 91 - 1,485 lbs. (673.5 kg)     Common Type 0 HE - 1,378 lbs. (625 kg)     Common Type 3 IS - 1,371 lbs. (622 kg)
Bursting Charge	APC Type 91 - 24.5 lbs. (11.1 kg)  Common Type 0 HE - 65.1 lbs. (29.5 kg) Others - N/A
Projectile Length	APC Type 91 - 60.03 in (152.5 cm)  Common Type 0 HE - 47.25 in (120.0 cm)  Common Type 3 IS - 55.1 in (140 cm) Others - N/A
Propellant Charge	313.8 lbs. (142.3 kg) 85 DC
Muzzle Velocity	APC Type 91 - 2,526 - 2,543 fps (770 - 775 mps)  Common Type 0 HE - 2,641 fps (805 mps)  Common Type 3 IS - 2,641 fps (805 mps) Others - N/A
Working Pressure	19.0 to 19.2 tons/in2 (3,000 to 3,020 kg/cm2)
Approximate Barrel Life	250 - 280 rounds
Ammunition stowage per gun	About 90 rounds

 

Range

 

Elevation	With 1,485 lbs. (673.5 kg) APC	Striking Velocity	Angle of Fall
2.6 degrees	5,470 yards (5,000 m)	2,198 fps (670 mps)	3.5
6.1 degrees	10,940 yards (10,000 m)	1,890 fps (576 mps)	7.5
9.9 degrees	16,400 yards (15,000 m)	1,673 fps (510 mps)	12.4
14.4 degrees	21,870 yards (20,000 m)	1,506 fps (459 mps)	18.9
20.0 degrees	27,340 yards (25,000 m)	1,378 fps (420 mps)	27.5
28.7 degrees	32,810 yards (30,000 m)	1,358 fps (414 mps)	35.9
43.0 degrees  (maximum elevation  of turret)	38,770 yards (35,450 m)	---	---

 

Unfortunately Navweaps does not have penetration data for this gun, but you can clearly see that at almost all ranges the British 14"/45 Mk VII strikes at a higher velocity with a 190 lb (85 kg) heavier shell.

 

I invite everyone to draw their own conclusions...

 

Because Warsinger2's conclusions are exactly the opposite of what the data is telling us.

 

 

Edited to remove some superfluous data of coastal mounts.

[RamirezKurita]

 

According to http://www.navweaps.com they were not. But hey maybe some internet armchair admiral is right and a bunch of experts is just wrong, who knows. The dogged devotion to make the KGV class a T 8 is amusing at least in the 10x14" variant. The British BB line is very easy to determine:

 

III Dreadnought

IV Colossus

V Iron Duke

VI Queen Elisabeth

VII King George V 

VIII Vanguard 

IX Lion

X N 3  

 

What is there to cry about at T VII the KGV would be rather strong, for the Vanguard you can pretend it to have received the 15" MK II. Nelson as T VII/VIII premium  

 

You can't judge a ship entirely by its main guns' calibre though, even if the 14" guns aren't T8 material, the rest of the KGVs' specs are better than the other T8s, and in a few respects they are even better than the T9s. The poor main guns might render it relatively ineffective against other battleships but their slightly greater number would make them quite effective against destroyers and cruisers, while the ship has better armour than the Iowa, is slightly faster than the North Carolina and, assuming they include the final historical suite, the highest AA DPS of all of the T8 battleships (and I seem to remember being on par with or greater than the T9s). They might also have the best secondary battery at T8 too, depending on how decent they make the 5.25" guns. Putting a ship that is basically T8-9 in all respects into T7 would cause no end of problems.

 

Vanguard really shouldn't be in a higher tier than the KGVs, as the 15"/42s on Vanguard (as well as the QEs, Revenges, Hood and Renowns) actually had worse penetration then the newer 14" guns on the KGVs on top of there being fewer of them. Vanguard would have a slightly worse main battery in exchange for being slightly better in other respects. If the KGVs won't work at T8 because of their main battery, Vanguard won't either. Vanguard is literally a T9 battleship with the guns of a T6 battleship. Vanguard would work better as a T8 premium.

 

For the N3s, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, they are not T10 material, they are T9 at most. They would have had notably thinner armour, lower speeds, poorer turret placement (no superfiring turrets and a turret amidships) and their guns would have had lower penetration than the other T10s (their 18" MkIIs had the same design philosophy as the flawed 16" MkIs on the Nelsons, as the high velocity/light projectile combo didn't really work except at extremely short ranges). You can't really expect a ship to compete with ships that are ~40% larger and 20 years newer. Even some of the larger preliminaries wouldn't really make the cut for T10, as they mostly had minor improvements to turret layouts compared to the final N3 rather than the major improvements necessary such as armour, speed and firepower. The only designs the RN ever made that would work at T10 are some of the later lion designs, as they approached the size of the Yamatos/Montanas and carried some quite fearsome main batteries.

[BuccaneerBill]

Getzamatic, he must be referring to the the New Mexico we have in game which has the new Mk 7 guns firing Mk16 AP shells, which have higher side and, surprisingly, a bit higher deck penetration than the British 14/45.  Ofc this are not the original guns from WW1, which were quite frankly as you pointed out, very poor.

 

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_14-50_mk11.htm  (this is for Mk11 but Mk7 should be same I think).

 

The higher deck penetration is surprisingly considering the more acute impact angle and lighter shells of the Mk7 gun.  It has a marginally higher impact velocity though.  The British figures are based partly on official records which may be more conservative (especially if they were real life tests as Brit BB armour > US BB armour so would penetrate less) whilst the American are entirely USN empiral formula.   Their is wiggle room I think, especially considering this is a Wargaming game;).

 

Saying that, the penetration values on the 14/45 gun are good enough to totally mess up the other T8 BBs at 15km at under so not really seeing a problem. That and the bursting charge in the 14/45 shell is over double that of the American Mk16 AP. So give the KGV the following and it should be golden:

 

highest damage for 14" gun in game

2 ROF

high accuracy

high turret traverse

long range 5.25" secondaries 

quick turn time 

 

 

[BuccaneerBill]

 

Vanguard really shouldn't be in a higher tier than the KGVs, as the 15"/42s on Vanguard (as well as the QEs, Revenges, Hood and Renowns) actually had worse penetration then the newer 14" guns on the KGVs on top of there being fewer of them. Vanguard would have a slightly worse main battery in exchange for being slightly better in other respects. If the KGVs won't work at T8 because of their main battery, Vanguard won't either. Vanguard is literally a T9 battleship with the guns of a T6 battleship. Vanguard would work better as a T8 premium.

 

 

With the Vanguard you can have it firing supercharged rounds with a little bit extra pen that wargaming can make up ( they like doing that ). Won't be much but hey, definitely T8 material. Probably prem IMO.

[Eruantien_Aduialdraug]

 

With the Vanguard you can have it firing supercharged rounds with a little bit extra pen that wargaming can make up ( they like doing that ). Won't be much but hey, definitely T8 material. Probably prem IMO.

 

KGV as tier 8 BB with the VJ day AA suite, Vanguard as tier 8 premium (all dem bofors), Admiral as tier 8 CC with the AA suite Hood would have gotten had she not been forced to give chase to the Bismark? (Fun fact, the Bismark's decks have a maximum thickness of 100 mm, the Hood had 127 mm Derp, mixed up the Bismark-class and Scharnhorst-class armour layouts). Lion class (1939) could then follow on from the KGV, and the J2 from the Admiral (perhaps some fictionalising of the AA suite required?). N3 and G3 at tier 10?

 

The N3's guns would have been a slightly lower calibre than the Yamato's but would have fired a heavier AP shell; so would that mean slightly worse HE in exchange for slightly better AP? I would have thought a change of ~200 max damage either way would be fair, perhaps give the N3 a lower fire chance with it's HE too.

[Historynerd]

Fun fact, the Bismark's decks have a maximum thickness of 100 mm, the Hood had 127 mm

 

Hmmm... are you sure about that? She didn't have an exceptionally strong horizontal protection, true, but it was not so weak...

 

 

Within the citadel, it seems that her weakest combined deck protection amounted to 130 mm....

 

[Eruantien_Aduialdraug]

 

Hmmm... are you sure about that? She didn't have an exceptionally strong horizontal protection, true, but it was not so weak...

 

 

Within the citadel, it seems that her weakest combined deck protection amounted to 130 mm....

 

 

Yep, I can't read. I think I got Bismark mixed up with a different ship; probably the Scharnhorst class, I was looking at them around the same time.

[RamirezKurita]

 

KGV as tier 8 BB with the VJ day AA suite, Vanguard as tier 8 premium (all dem bofors), Admiral as tier 8 CC with the AA suite Hood would have gotten had she not been forced to give chase to the Bismark? (Fun fact, the Bismark's decks have a maximum thickness of 100 mm, the Hood had 127 mm). Lion class (1939) could then follow on from the KGV, and the J2 from the Admiral (perhaps some fictionalising of the AA suite required?). N3 and G3 at tier 10?

 

The N3's guns would have been a slightly lower calibre than the Yamato's but would have fired a heavier AP shell; so would that mean slightly worse HE in exchange for slightly better AP? I would have thought a change of ~200 max damage either way would be fair, perhaps give the N3 a lower fire chance with it's HE too.

 

The Admirals would work best at T7 considering the era they were from and their specifications, putting them at T8 would place them among the likes of the Amagi which was part of the next generation of ships, plus the HMS Vanguard would have been better than even a modernised HMS Hood in every respect due to a combination of 20 years of technological development and being several thousand tonnes heavier so they really can't be in the same tier. Also, comparing the Admirals to the QEs, the only real difference between them was that the Admirals were 7 knots faster, which isn't really enough to justify 2 entire tiers of difference. Some of the Admiral preliminary studies with 18" guns or the 15" triple mounts might work as T8s though. Putting them at T7 would also still allow them to face off against Bismarcks often enough to keep people happy, as they will find their way into T8 games fairly often.

 

As I have mentioned before in other threads, the G3s would fit well into T8 alongside their contemporary rivals, the Amagis. Compared to the Amagis, the G3s have better armour and speed (although WG seem to have limited capital ships to 30 knots in game, so they are likely to be gimped in this regard like the Iowas are), but the Amagis have more guns, a better turret layout and more effective guns (the RN 16" MkI was notoriously bad due to a flawed design, the high velocity/light projectile combo simply didn't work). There's also the point that the Nelsons are perfect T7 material, and the Nelsons were basically just 24 knot G3s; an 8 knot speed difference does not make 2 entire tiers of difference.

 

The N3s' guns suffered from similar design problems to the G3s' and the Nelsons', notably the terrible high velocity/light projectile combo. The 18" MkII guns did not fire the heavier shells, but were to actually fire shells weighing about 1300 kilos (the two different shell designs were 1323 and 1287 kilos), compared to the Yamatos' 1460 kilos. It was the 18" MkI gun that fired the heavier shells, but as far as I am aware there were no plans to mount them on anything other than the Courageous class large cruisers, a few monitors and some of the preliminary designs for the admiral class, although as the single mount turret fitted onto the same barbettes and weighed the same as the twin 15" MkI WG could allow more ships to interchange them if they wanted to stretch history a bit. Because of these flawed guns, I'm not even sure if the K3 battlecruisers would work into T10.

[Spellfire40]

What id rather miss from most lists are the Battlecrusiers. No Repulse or Hood. Remember IJN have Myogi, (early Kongo Hulls) and Amagi wich are BC mixed into its BB line.

[BuccaneerBill]

I think the 16" Mk1 will be OK in the meta of the game. Shortish ranges, fast flight time with a shallow trajectory, don't really see a huge problem less you try and snipe at 25km. Won't be quite as good as the Amagis guns but after playing a lot of North Carolina, I'd take less flight time over near much anything! I don't think the G3 have that bad turret placement either, just point her straight in and you get 6 guns to play with. The Amagis advantage is the guns you can bring to bear running away. Whilst the North Carolina's third turret is nearly useless anyway less you want to be citadelled.

 

Interesting to see how the G3 is to be honest, on paper its a more powerful ship than the Amagi and North Carolina.  Wonder were they will screw it, AA? Unless they make it tier 9, which is possible with some tweaks.

[Getzamatic]

G3 was to have much heavier armour than Nelson ended up with.  In fact, they'd have had more armour than every ship in the game except Yamato.  Really they're tier 9 material, especially if they are given a 1940's style AA fit.

[Trainspite]

G3 is tier 9. At tier 8, it would stomp on Amagi, and a prospective 12 gun Lexington study. The only advantage those two have over G3 is the more flexible turret layout. In every other respect, it is equal to, or better than, especially in the armour department. You can't exactly describe it as a battlecruiser either, it has comparable armour to Iowa. And comparable armament. And is just as fast. 

[Getzamatic]

G3 is tier 9. At tier 8, it would stomp on Amagi, and a prospective 12 gun Lexington study. The only advantage those two have over G3 is the more flexible turret layout. In every other respect, it is equal to, or better than, especially in the armour department. You can't exactly describe it as a battlecruiser either, it has comparable armour to Iowa. And comparable armament. And is just as fast. 

 

Better armour than an Iowa, in fact - at least at their respective strongest points.  The G3s were to be armoured against 18" gunfire and have a 7" deck...

[Jay135]

 

KGV as tier 8 BB with the VJ day AA suite, Vanguard as tier 8 premium (all dem bofors), Admiral as tier 8 CC with the AA suite Hood would have gotten had she not been forced to give chase to the Bismark? (Fun fact, the Bismark's decks have a maximum thickness of 100 mm, the Hood had 127 mm Derp, mixed up the Bismark-class and Scharnhorst-class armour layouts). Lion class (1939) could then follow on from the KGV, and the J2 from the Admiral (perhaps some fictionalising of the AA suite required?). N3 and G3 at tier 10?

 

There's really only 2 ways of handling Tier VIII. Either Vanguard (simplest solution) or give the KGVs their "escalator clause" armament as per design 16"A/38, either as stock or as a final unlock.

[Getzamatic]

As has already been pointed out, the KGVs armament was actually more potent than that of Vanguard, so if you think that Vanguard is good enough for Tier 8, then so are the KGVs.