Calling all King George V-class (WWII) fans

[EJFoeth]

The twins are on the aft deck between the aft mast and aft funnel in powered mountings (present in the KGV kit).

LINK

[Linz]

I'm thinking about the same thing myself. As far as I can tell, the only ship that had a camo pattern after the refit that deleted the catapults (and thus appropriate to the Tamiya KGV kit) is HMS Howe in mid- to late-1944. There is a photo of her in this scheme on page 63 of the Shipcraft book (and it's also been posted earlier in this thread) I am particularly curious about the AA fit for this period; it's clear that not all the single 20mm tubs on the fore and aft decks that Tamiya's KGV contains are present, and the refit table on the same page mentions 4 twin 20mm among the guns at the time - which might be there on the fantail. Hard to tell. Does anyone know of a plan view or other decent reference for Howe's AA layout at this period?

For a good camo pattern on any other member of the class, you'd need to start with the PoW kit so you'd have the catapults.

- Sean F.

Ah yes, good call. Tarant has an image of her port side dated 26 May 44 implying that it is after her refit and the Admiralty Intermediate Disruptive Type Scheme is clear. It certainly falls after her major refit and a couple of pages later the CO mentions more Marines for the increased AA fit.

Tarrant writes that from mid-44 onwards Howe had:

• 8x 8-barrelled Mark VI pom-poms
• 34x Mark IIIA single-barrelled 20mm Oerlikons
• 2x US Mark II 4-barrelled Borfors

Hope that helps.

[Bill Davidson]

Raven & Roberts in British Battleships of WWII have a plan view of KGV post refit showing the positions of the AA outfits for each of the class. According to them Howe had:

34 x single 20mm mountings
4 x twin 20mm mountings
8 x Mk VI pom poms, and
2 x quadruple bofors.

There is also a port bow shot of Howe post refit resplendent in her camo. There is also a stbd profile of Howe, which has some detail but not sufficient on its own.

During the refit in Durbin May-Sep 45 all 20mm mounts were removed and 18 x single bofors and 6 x mk VII pom poms added. By the end of 1945 12 x single bofors had been removed along with 2 x pom poms on the lower bridge platform - this would align with the general stripping of AA post the end of WWII.

cheers,

Bill

[Bill Davidson]

I'm currently in the process of building KGV in her Denmark Strait guise (or at least as close as I get her) and have a few questions on her main directors, which I'm hoping someone can answer/confirm.

The image below from the IWM collection is dated March 1941 with the caption "The crew of a director control tower of the battleship HMS KING GEORGE V going off duty"



Questions are:

have I correctly identified the components so marked?
is that a hatch on the port side and is it 'man' sized or just observation sized?
where was the second aerial for the 284 FC radar? Chesenau in Shipcraft shows one on top and one to the front of the director; R & R in British Battleships of WWII show it on the top only - either way I don't see any mounting brackets for a top mounted version.
did the ladders extend to just above deck level or ?
I think I've seen a picture/drwg showing a 284 aerial in front and on top of the director but none on the rangefinder, aka the Hood construct - if accurate does anyone know when the change occurred?
finally with the exception of the radar was the aft director of the same basic design with respect to ladders, hatches, hand rails etc or was this different again?

thanks,

Bill

[Atma]

Found this old 1941 Life magazine article:
http://books.google.com/books?id=-UgEAA ... ip&f=false
Some nice close up pictutes, plus notice that they call the last two HMS KGV as HMS Jellicoe and HMS Beatty.

[Dick J]

plus notice that they call the last two HMS KGV as HMS Jellicoe and HMS Beatty.

Those were the original names, but it was decided that they were too controversial. So the names were later changed to Anson and Howe. The change was not widely published, at first, with the intent that it might confuse the Germans.

[EJFoeth]

@ Atma: Nice find, I had not seen one of those images before (and it's a wonderful image)

[okram12]

Please help again. I'm looking for drawings, plans, photographs catapulty D III H mounted on PoW

[peppe]

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/battle ... 939-a.html
a interesting forum on the class
foto and drawing from polish pubblications
ciao peppe

[okram12]

Very nice photo, I do not have such. Certainly be useful. Figure, which have you placed with the entire publication)), but as you see it is not accurate. I put a link to a model of HMS Howe. On the fifth photo shows exactly catapult. The model is beautiful just a shame that so few pictures.
Link:
http://www.clydesite.co.uk/clydebuilt/v ... asp?id=935

[davey jones]

Has anyone else ever thought about a modern take on a KGV ala Iowa class? With Britains sea power at the end of WW2, she still had alot of far flung interests to protect. Has anyone ever thought about a modernized version of this ship?

[USS California BB44]

At the conclusion of WWII, the British were in no shape to opperate battleships for both financial and political reasons. The Vanguard, the last British BB completed, saw service for only a few years before she was scrapped. The same would apply to the KGV class. The British were among the first to recognize that the battleship would have little to no place in the post-war world which would be dominated by aircraft carriers.

[Guest]

.

Yes post-war studies looked at possibilities, it failed (simplistically) for two reasons ;

1: Couldn't find a sensible enemy

2: The studies centred around a 60,000-plus ton ship, with 12-inch decks and 6 (2 x triple) automatic 16-inch guns. This was seen as vastly too expensive, not flexible and due to "1" above unnecessary.

---------

There were (very) initial studies on mounting Seaslug on both KGVs and Vanguard, but they hardly lasted any time as they were seen as totally uneconomic and inefficient compared with new builds.

.

[Atma]

The last time a battleship design was under consideration in the Royal Navy was in late 1944, with the Design 1944 on the instructions of Sir Stanley Goodall, the HMS Lion class(HMS Lion, HMS Temeraire, HMS Conqueror and HMS Thunderer) was reexamined and new sketches made to embody wartime expiriences.
Raven and Roberts in their book "British battleships of World War II" indicate a sketch of the late 1944(Ocotber) design study as a 56500 tons HMS Lion class with 115 foot beam.

[davey jones]

I meant this as a 1/350 idea, not the real thing guys. Aircraft carriers proved their dominance over the battleship both at Pearl Harbor , and before that at Taranto Harbor. All I meant was as a 1350 scale take on a modernised KGV BB ala modern Iowa class.

[EJFoeth]

You can find images of HMS Prince of Wales at the Atlantic Charter meeting at the photographical archives of the United Nations here. I've copied the links to these images below, but if you register at the UN you can download high-res images (about 3x2.4 kpix). The first image is outstanding, clearly showing the 40mm bofors gun on the quarterdeck. Note the camera crew on the top of Y-turret, just in front of the quad pompom. The church service where a mixture of crews of all available vessels were present was recorded by this camera crew and is available at other sites (e.g., Critical past). Note the camouflage pattern on the guns and that not only the top, but the bottom of the barrels were painted as well in a multi-tone scheme of the lighter colors, as visible on many images taken aboard HMS Prince of Wales.

[Landlocked]

I meant this as a 1/350 idea, not the real thing guys. Aircraft carriers proved their dominance over the battleship both at Pearl Harbor , and before that at Taranto Harbor. All I meant was as a 1350 scale take on a modernised KGV BB ala modern Iowa class.

I like that idea. A 1970s-era KGV would be an interesting mix of armament, helicopter operation, radar etc. Perhaps a rebuilt "Atlantic" type bow and raked stacks with the fwd superimposed turret replaced by Exocet launchers would make a very handsome ship for the Cold War RN.

As for aircraft carrier dominance - no carrier can match the punch and precision of a battleship. And once a carrier has flown off its airwing, it is just as big a target as a battleship, and still needs defending by a huge armada of AA, ASW and support craft which are then tied down to defensive duties. If carriers had supported battleships rather than the other way round, outcomes may have been quite different. (Not in their finality, but the attrition of US carrier units and Atlantic merchant shipping could have been far worse, with their attendant strategic implications). Minority view I know, but we sure could use a few battleships these days!

[Timmy C]

I'm just going to preempt any battleship vs. carrier or modernized KGV discussion in this thread and say that the What-if section has your fix.
What-if KGV thread: viewtopic.php?f=67&t=44406
BB vs. CV(N) in the modern era: viewtopic.php?f=67&t=46033

[Captain pugwash]

Well New here and for my first posting Having read most of this section on HMS King George V and in the progress of building said ship.

I find this all very Informative and usefull(on the KGV that is)

Have noticed that threads do seem to come off the rails after a while, with sister ships and other details relevent to this one.
Thats life .

Hope to show pictures one day too

[Aidan]

I've already asked this question in the main forum and the What If forum but as yet no response so hopefully 3rd time lucky here, I'm building a KGV in it's 12 gun configuration, ie, 3 quads as opposed to 2 quads and a twin. Seeing as this was supposed to be the KGV's configuration, until they decided to loose 2 guns at "B", surely there must be a set of plans, drawings etc of the 12 gun layout somewhere. My reason for asking is on the as built version, there is insufficient room between "A" and the superstructure to fit a quad barbette and turret at "B" without fouling either "A" or the superstructure. To incorperate a quad at "B", was "A" moved forward, or did "A" remain where it was and the superstructure cut back? My guess is the superstructure would have been cut back so as not to require extending the main armour belt, but it's just a guess. Any help or ideas would really be appreciated as I'm at the point in the build where I need to start fitting "B" turret and barbette, thanks guys.