Shipbucket
http://67.205.157.234/forums/

King George V as originally planned 12x14"
http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=5620		 Page 1 of 5
Author:  Krakatoa [ September 28th, 2014, 9:08 pm ]
Post subject:  King George V as originally planned 12x14"
I was doing a KGV type ship for my AU when it came to me that I have not seen a KGV as originally planned in SB. I spent an hour this morning going through the various threads with King George in them and if I have missed a previous entry then I apologise to the previous creator.

I have done little other than removing the twin and replacing it with a quad. This added 10.5 feet to the length if the bow configuration is to be kept the same. That is the difference required for the extra clearance required by the quad from the superstructure and the extra size of the quad versus the twin.

[ img ]
Author:  heuhen [ September 28th, 2014, 9:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: King George V as originally planned 12x14"
interesting

since you started on here you could have updated parts on here, but that is just nitpicking.
Author:  ONI-Defense [ September 29th, 2014, 5:32 am ]
Post subject:  Re: King George V as originally planned 12x14"
Good job. :)
Author:  Krakatoa [ September 29th, 2014, 7:36 am ]
Post subject:  Re: King George V as originally planned 12x14"
The other leading candidate for the King George V main armament was a vessel armed with 9 x 15". Compared to the 14" quad turret, a 15" triple would need to be about 2 feet (4pixels) longer and 6" (1 pixel) higher. The guns would extend another 2 feet (4 pixels) beyond the existing 14" barrels. The barbette would be smaller as the triple-v-quad would have the triple narrower. I am still trying to quantify the difference in the barbette size and if anybody has an idea as to what the rule of thumb might be I would appreciate the help.
Thanks
Nigel.



Edit: I did read somewhere when researching the 12x14" version that the placing of the barrels for the quad were 96" apart (but I can not find the reference now when I want it). If I could locate that reference again that would help to fix the breadth of the triple 15" turret compared to the quad 14" turret. Then I could scale the barbette.


Edit 2: I have updated the 2pd pom pom's with the latest models. (Got to keep Heuhen happy)
Author:  KHT [ September 29th, 2014, 8:06 am ]
Post subject:  Re: King George V as originally planned 12x14"
I know it's mentioned on Navweaps, on the page for the 14"/45 Mk.VII, in the Mount/Turret data secction(Note 6, more specifically).
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_14-45_mk7.htm
Author:  Krakatoa [ September 29th, 2014, 8:07 am ]
Post subject:  Re: King George V as originally planned 12x14"
Thank you Hugo, I knew I had read it somewhere.


The size of the quad turret in width is the same width as the barbette (from photos and line drawings), which on SB original drawing is 81 pixels. Using 100" for the axes for the 15" this would give a width of 68 pixels for the triple 15". If anybody can give me a different figure I will happily use it.


Edit: This is the KGV with triple 15" using the above figures.

[ img ]

I am happy with the turrets, its the barbettes that I am not sure of.
Author:  Hood [ September 29th, 2014, 12:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: King George V as originally planned 12x14"
Nice work.

I know BH did these not so long ago, but with I'm sure these and the real ships could be given some great updating and detailing from the amazing refs at the site Heuhen found:http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/battle ... 939-a.html
Author:  emperor_andreas [ September 29th, 2014, 1:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: King George V as originally planned 12x14"
Very nice work!
Author:  Tempest [ October 2nd, 2014, 6:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: King George V as originally planned 12x14"
I wish Britain didn't build the King George V class to the Washington Treaty limits, if that were the case would they have been the Lion class or a a separate one?
Author:  smurf [ November 3rd, 2014, 10:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: King George V as originally planned 12x14"
Your first post:
"I have done little other than removing the twin and replacing it with a quad. This added 10.5 feet to the length if the bow configuration is to be kept the same. That is the difference required for the extra clearance required by the quad from the superstructure and the extra size of the quad versus the twin."
Compare the following data and sentences from Raven & Roberts British Battleships
Design 14L Nov 1935 Lengths 700'pp; 740'wl; 745'oa. 3x4 14in
Design 14P Sept 1936 Lengths 700'pp; 740'wl; 745'oa. 2x4+1x2 14in (Final design)
"The twin mounting involved a new design of mounting, re-designing the supports for B turret and recalculating the ship's trim. The latter meant moving the citadel four to six feet forward to compensate for the reduced weight of the twin mountings"
From the constructors' workbooks, on 7 Oct 35 Design 15C 3x3 15in was also 700ft pp, 740ft wl
Much design effort concentrated on keeping the citadel as short as possible to save weight, though at one point a version 770ft wl instead of 740ft was considered, to get 30 knots. The length reduced the hp needed, which lowered the engine weights and space.

@ Tempest. For the 1937 ships (DoY, Anson, Howe) some very tight studies were done to try to get 3x3 16in into a 35,000 ton ship. They got within 36,000tons, but policy was still to keep strictly to treaty limits, while dates for ordering mountings needed a decision before information was available about Japanese intentions and the Board approved repeat KGVs in Nov 1936.
Page 1 of 5 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/