My Dad worked at Harland and Wolfe Glasgow early in WWII. He was a turner on the 5.25in guns. He told me they had a complete working mockup of the 14in gun mounts over several stories in the factory. This included all the lifts and flash protection mechanisms. I understood this was constructed to solve some of the issues experienced on the Prince of Wales.
There is another thing many people tend to forget when discussing the issues with these turrets. And that is the length of the battles. With the exception of Prince of Wales at Denmarck Straight, both King Goerge V as well as Duke of York were fireing continously for a very long time in their respective surface actions. Far longer than the average battle. King George V was fireing at Bismarck for more than 1,5 hours, and both KGV and Rodney combined fired over 700 shells. This was basically uninterupted fire, all guns were fireing as fast as they could, and there wasnt a single tactical situation which forced a short pause. If I remember correctly Duke of York also fired around 350 shells at Scharnhorst during the battle of the North Cape over a period of 3 hours (though she interrupted her fire once for some of that time, but I dont know how long). There were also absolutely atrocious weather conditions in that battle (as mentioned in the video). For comparison: -At the battle of Jutland, none of the multiple different engagements were longer than 1 hour, but even those basically all had peroids with less intense fireing in them due to either long range or bad visibility. The night battle was of course much longer but this was definetly not continous fireing. -At one of the battles of Gudacanal, USS Washington engaged Japanese forces for just over an hour at night (including crippling Kirishima). -The battle at the Denmark Straight lasted for only 15 minutes (6 minutes before Hood was sunk). -The battle of Calabria, where Warspite scored the longest range hit in history at over 24km, lasted only around 10 minutes (at least the battleship engagement) She switched targets while doing so, which likely resulted in a somewhat reduced fireing rate for at least a few minutes. -When Scharnhorst and Gneisenau engaged HMS Glorious, they fired for about 50 minutes, split in a 30 and a 20 minute part. -At the battle of Suigaro Straight, 5 US Standard Battleships fired on IJN Yamashiro for around 25 minutes (of which one only fired a singel salvo, and the rest between 48 and 93). So TLDR, both King George V and Duke of York were fireing much more shells than normal, and they fired uninterrupted for much longer times than normal. This is another reason why they failed more often, as said in this video KGVs guns & turrets worked very well during the first 30 minutes for example.
I wonder IF the Americans had problems with the length of fire, when OUR ships were performing shore bombardments during the war in the Pacific. It would seem that these problems were peculiar to the British and their "engineering" principles.
@@cementer7665 I think you'll find that it is a different thing firing at your leisure at a stationary target and firing at a maneuvering target that's also shooting back. It's the equivalent of a fire fight and plinking some rounds over beers at a shooting range in terms of stress on personnel and equipment. And I'd refrain from pointing out the US Navy's issues with the Mk 14 torpedo because I have a lot of respect for the US Navy.
Excellent piece. Thank you. A fine demonstration that the performance of a given weapon system is more than a collection of caliber, range, speed and other quantifiable characteristics. Training, maintenance, design features, doctrine, scenario testing, all have a significant role in effectiveness and can get lost if we view machinery as living in hermetically sealed environment.
My father served during W.W.2 among other Battleships both the Nelson and Rodney. Prior to the introduction of better gunnery control probably radar, he told me as a teenager that the Nelson’s gunnery practice results were considered dreadful. 👍🏻🏴
An important difference was that the guns on the French quadruples were designed to be fired in pairs whereas the British turrets were designed to fire their guns independently. This added a great deal more complexity and more points of failure in the British turrets.
French battleships Richelieu and Jean Bart had troublesome quads, too, but not in the same way. Their problem was accuracy, which was outright awful before the upgrades in 1943 - after that "only" bad.
Excellent. Well done. Of course Prince of Wales had civilian workers aboard during the Battle of the Denmark Strait. Unlike other signatories to the Washington Naval Treaty the Board of Naval Construction attempted to adhere as closely as possible to the tonnage restrictions.
Its well known that the KJV class and the lead ship specifically had problems with their guns. Prince of Wales had at least one malfunction on every salvo against Bismark. Like crossing said these ships were built during the war and were rushed out
@@centralcrossing4732 Oh. I thought there might be a story behind it (like studying the Battle of the Denmark Straight and wondering about George V's performance.) I know that's how most of my rabbit hole searches start.
My Dad worked at Harland and Wolfe Glasgow early in WWII. He was a turner on the 5.25in guns. He told me they had a complete working mockup of the 14in gun mounts over several stories in the factory. This included all the lifts and flash protection mechanisms. I understood this was constructed to solve some of the issues experienced on the Prince of Wales.
Glad your back to doing this style of vids. Learn something new everytime.
Same
There is another thing many people tend to forget when discussing the issues with these turrets. And that is the length of the battles. With the exception of Prince of Wales at Denmarck Straight, both King Goerge V as well as Duke of York were fireing continously for a very long time in their respective surface actions. Far longer than the average battle.
King George V was fireing at Bismarck for more than 1,5 hours, and both KGV and Rodney combined fired over 700 shells. This was basically uninterupted fire, all guns were fireing as fast as they could, and there wasnt a single tactical situation which forced a short pause.
If I remember correctly Duke of York also fired around 350 shells at Scharnhorst during the battle of the North Cape over a period of 3 hours (though she interrupted her fire once for some of that time, but I dont know how long). There were also absolutely atrocious weather conditions in that battle (as mentioned in the video).
For comparison:
-At the battle of Jutland, none of the multiple different engagements were longer than 1 hour, but even those basically all had peroids with less intense fireing in them due to either long range or bad visibility. The night battle was of course much longer but this was definetly not continous fireing.
-At one of the battles of Gudacanal, USS Washington engaged Japanese forces for just over an hour at night (including crippling Kirishima).
-The battle at the Denmark Straight lasted for only 15 minutes (6 minutes before Hood was sunk).
-The battle of Calabria, where Warspite scored the longest range hit in history at over 24km, lasted only around 10 minutes (at least the battleship engagement) She switched targets while doing so, which likely resulted in a somewhat reduced fireing rate for at least a few minutes.
-When Scharnhorst and Gneisenau engaged HMS Glorious, they fired for about 50 minutes, split in a 30 and a 20 minute part.
-At the battle of Suigaro Straight, 5 US Standard Battleships fired on IJN Yamashiro for around 25 minutes (of which one only fired a singel salvo, and the rest between 48 and 93).
So TLDR, both King George V and Duke of York were fireing much more shells than normal, and they fired uninterrupted for much longer times than normal.
This is another reason why they failed more often, as said in this video KGVs guns & turrets worked very well during the first 30 minutes for example.
xxknightdriverxx9576, your response is very accurate. Thanks for such a thorough response.
Royal Navy always seems to have higher standards to call some technical solution "good' than other fleets.
Intelligent response
I wonder IF the Americans had problems with the length of fire, when OUR ships were performing shore bombardments during the war in the Pacific.
It would seem that these problems were peculiar to the British and their "engineering" principles.
@@cementer7665 I think you'll find that it is a different thing firing at your leisure at a stationary target and firing at a maneuvering target that's also shooting back. It's the equivalent of a fire fight and plinking some rounds over beers at a shooting range in terms of stress on personnel and equipment. And I'd refrain from pointing out the US Navy's issues with the Mk 14 torpedo because I have a lot of respect for the US Navy.
Excellent piece. Thank you. A fine demonstration that the performance of a given weapon system is more than a collection of caliber, range, speed and other quantifiable characteristics. Training, maintenance, design features, doctrine, scenario testing, all have a significant role in effectiveness and can get lost if we view machinery as living in hermetically sealed environment.
A very excellent breakdown, well done lad.
Royal Naval Study will be glad for this video.
Great winning video again.
Take care, and all the best.
Stories like this really fascinate me, and you tell it so well.
My father served during W.W.2 among other Battleships both the Nelson and Rodney. Prior to the introduction of better gunnery control probably radar, he told me as a teenager that the Nelson’s gunnery practice results were considered dreadful. 👍🏻🏴
An important difference was that the guns on the French quadruples were designed to be fired in pairs whereas the British turrets were designed to fire their guns independently. This added a great deal more complexity and more points of failure in the British turrets.
Honestly it’s nice to see him doing videos on the british battleships
Oooofff... A heavy subject, indeed.
Great video, Crosser.
Good video thanks
Nice explanation
Thanks
French battleships Richelieu and Jean Bart had troublesome quads, too, but not in the same way. Their problem was accuracy, which was outright awful before the upgrades in 1943 - after that "only" bad.
Excellent. Well done. Of course Prince of Wales had civilian workers aboard during the Battle of the Denmark Strait. Unlike other signatories to the Washington Naval Treaty the Board of Naval Construction attempted to adhere as closely as possible to the tonnage restrictions.
The worst interwar battleship mounting of WW2
75 rounds from the quadruple mount - that's a theoretical number? Last time I checked, 75 is not divisible by 4, so that does not seem correct.
Now, just hold on a minute there.
How is it you came to cover such a specific topic? It's not just about a single ship, or it's guns but the performance of it's guns.
I don't actually know, I just felt like covering it I guess. Just one of those random picks of a topic.
Its well known that the KJV class and the lead ship specifically had problems with their guns. Prince of Wales had at least one malfunction on every salvo against Bismark. Like crossing said these ships were built during the war and were rushed out
@@centralcrossing4732 Oh. I thought there might be a story behind it (like studying the Battle of the Denmark Straight and wondering about George V's performance.) I know that's how most of my rabbit hole searches start.
@@rohanthandi4903 KJV? King James Version class?
Where is the pic in the intro from
I just pulled it off Google, it's Prince of Wales sinking.