Talk:King George V-class battleship (1939)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the King George V-class battleship (1939) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months ![]() |
![]() | King George V-class battleship (1939) was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
POW/Bismarck
[edit]In the action against Bismarck it's perhaps only fair to point out that the brand-new POW had put to sea before being able to do any working-up and actually had shipyard personnel aboard, as it had not proved possible to put them ashore before she sailed. The gun crews were therefore practically raw when it came to operating the turrets, so it's hardly surprising they had problems.
Comparison with contemporary battleship designs - protection
[edit]The design of any battleship was a balancing act between speed, armament and protection. Earlier British battleship designs, before Nelson and Rodney, had tended to emphasise armament (and speed in the case of battlecruisers) to the detriment of protection. This was entirely changed due to experiences in WWI and subsequent testing (as is mentioned in the text). However, though there is plenty of comparison of the main battery to those of contemporary foreign battleship designs, there is no comparison at all for armour. The KGV battleships had a thicker main belt, and arguably overall better-designed protection, than any other contemporary battleship class, with the exception of the giant Japanese Yamato class battleships. This should be mentioned, as otherwise the reader will get a rather incomplete idea of these ships relative to their peers. Urselius (talk) 10:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- When I originally began editing this article, I tried to give comparisons showing the excellent protection of this class, and even created a separate article comparing Washington and KGV, based upon the data in Friedman's book on USN Battleships. That article ended up being deleted. Apparently comparisons are OK as long as they don't show off the KGV class in a good light...:) However, the climate for these things seems better now, but I would suggest that you proceed with caution and discuss any proposed changes here first.Damwiki1 (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ideally, comparisons should follow from what the sources say. But the sources don't don't always answer the questions we want to ask them. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sources for all contemporary battleship classes will give data for maximum thickness of the main armour belt - you do not need a specific source to put these statistics into a table, for example. That would give the reader some idea of how the KGVs measured up against other battleships.Urselius (talk) 12:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- True but that is only the thickest part, depth and length of belt and what it covers and how much overall weight is given to armour all make the picture more complex. Now if a source has included a table together with a useful statement describing how the KGV compared with their contemporaries that would be a help. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have a distinct impression that double standards are often at work in comparisons of British fighting machines to those of other countries. This is partly because Britain was a democracy and the failings of equipment were commented on and often minutely recorded, while dictatorships did not often allow such information to become public. This is why the Bismarck class is still held up as being a superior design, when the only real advantage it had was its astonishingly wide beam. Urselius (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- True but that is only the thickest part, depth and length of belt and what it covers and how much overall weight is given to armour all make the picture more complex. Now if a source has included a table together with a useful statement describing how the KGV compared with their contemporaries that would be a help. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sources for all contemporary battleship classes will give data for maximum thickness of the main armour belt - you do not need a specific source to put these statistics into a table, for example. That would give the reader some idea of how the KGVs measured up against other battleships.Urselius (talk) 12:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ideally, comparisons should follow from what the sources say. But the sources don't don't always answer the questions we want to ask them. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Exemplar of a comparison table for belt armour in combatant classes of battleships in WWII built after 1930, showing KGV class second only to the Yamato class:
Battleship class | Main armour belt (maximum thickness) |
---|---|
King George V (Britain) | 14.7in |
North Carolina (USA) | 12.0in |
South Dakota (USA) | 12.2in |
Iowa (USA) | 12.1in |
Scharnhorst (Germany) | 13.78in |
Bismarck (Germany) | 13.0in |
Dunkerque (France) | 11.1in (Strasbourg) |
Richelieu (France) | 13.0in |
Littorio (Italy) | 11.0in |
Yamato (Japan) | 16.0in |
All the information was gleaned from the relevant Wikipedia articles so de facto cannot be OR. Incidentally, the infobox for KGV-class gives a maximum armour belt thickness of 14.7in but the text gives 15in. I am aware that the above table needs conversions to metric measurements and links, but it is here as a point for discussion. Additionally, if the table were to be extended to give comparisons of displacement, speed and main armament it would be an invaluable resource for many WWII battleship-related articles.
To forestall pointless nitpicking the comparison is indeed crude, but this is an unavoidable consequence of producing a comparison table, such tables do not work for more complex nuances. It does, however, give a very useful shorthand way of comparing battleships. One battleship with a thicker main armour belt than another does accurately show that it has had more design and material investment in protection. Urselius (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Many of the above battleships had inclined belt armour, and the inclination plus the height of the belt would have to be shown to provide a fair comparison. The KGV class had 14.7in of belt armour over the magazines with a .8in (IIRC) backing plate of D steel for an effective thickness of ~15in. The RN usually rounded armour thickness to the nearest inch.
- No, that is exactly what you can't have in a simple table. It is a shorthand way of comparing things, not an in depth analysis. The only real way to compare protection in a totally accurate way is to have a ship of each class and fire the same gun, with the type of same shell, at them at a fixed series of elevations and ranges, then inspect the damage - obviously not a practical option. Showing that one battleship has armour 2 inches thicker than another makes a valid statement about the balance of armour against other considerations for those ships. Urselius (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- The KGV main belt is 600lb plate for the magazine spaces and 560lb plate for the machinery spaces. British constructors and naval text would refer to 600lb plate as 15". This is the case for all British warships IE Hood has 480lb main belt with 600lb turret faces. Vanguard has 560lb/520lb main belt same as Nelson except Nelson is an internal installation at 18 degree inclination. Only the KGV has had it's armour thicknesses adjusted to 1"= 40.8lb vs 1" = 40lb which makes for odd comparision with other British Battleships. 92.24.159.246 (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- Pounds per what? The comparison is with other nation's ships, not other British ships. All the references I have seen just give thickness of armour belts, not weight per surface area (I presume this is what is meant by your reference to weight). Urselius (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- Pound per sqft. 92.24.159.246 (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- Extract from Navweaps 15"/42 page
- Armor thickness given in "Naval Weapons of World War Two" and "British Battleships of World War Two":
- Except as denoted below, the Mark I and Mark I* turrets were armored with K.N.C. armor plate as follows:
- Face: 12.74 in (32.4 cm) (520 lbs.)
- Fore Side: 10.78 in (27.4 cm) (440 lbs.)
- Rear Side: 10.78 in (27.4 cm) (440 lbs.)
- Rear: 10.78 in (27.4 cm) (440 lbs.)
- Roof: 4.9 in (12.4 cm) (200 lbs.)
- Floor: N/A
- Differences:
- Face: 8.82 in (22.4 cm) (360 lbs.) - Glorious class, Repulse class
- Fore Side: 8.82 in (22.4 cm) (360 lbs.) - Glorious class, Repulse class, Vanguard
- Rear Side: 6.86 in (17.4 cm) (280 lbs.) - Glorious class, Repulse class, Vanguard
- Roof: 5.88 in (14.9 cm) (240 lbs.) - Vanguard, Abercrombie
- Roof: 4.165 in (10.6 cm) (170 lbs.) - Royal Sovereign class, Malaya, Glorious class, Repulse class, Erebus
- The rear armor of the battlecruisers was the same thickness as that of the battleships, even though all other turret armor thicknesses were reduced. This was apparently so as to ensure that the turrets remained balanced.
- Mark II turrets were armored with K.N.C. armor plate as follows:
- Face: 14.7 in (37.3 cm) (600 lbs.)
- Fore Side: 11.76 in (29.9 cm) (480 lbs.)
- Rear Side: 10.78 in (27.4 cm) (440 lbs.)
- Rear: 10.78 in (27.4 cm) (440 lbs.)
- Roof: 4.90 in (12.4 cm) (200 lbs.) - Follow-on "Admiral" class: 5.88 in (14.9 cm) (240 lbs.)
- Floor: 2.94 in (7.5 cm) (120 lbs.) HTS, protected underneath where it overhangs the barbette wall by 1.96 in (5.0 cm) (80 lbs.) K.N.C. plate 92.24.159.246 (talk) 11:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- As all international comparison is in thickness and type of steel, the pounds per square foot does not seem all that useful a comparator. It is also the case that armour plate even of the same density can have very different qualities, depending on hardening and other factors. Urselius (talk) 08:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- No but every other wikipedia page on a British warship uses the nominal value conversion of 40lb = 1 inch only King George V uses the actual thickness. Should it not be consistent? 92.24.159.246 (talk) 11:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- I have looked at the Wikipedia pages on Vanguard, Nelson class and Revenge class and they only seem to give armour in thickness. I have looked in the text and in the infobox and no poundage for armour was evident. Urselius (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- And if you look up the legend specs of KGV you'll find the belt is 15"/14" with 6"/5" deck. 92.24.159.246 (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- Which is not in pounds, precisely my point all along. Are you playing some sort of nihilistic game, where questions and answers just revolve without any resolution? Urselius (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- Ok then why does this article use belt thickness of 14.7" belt armour, 12.75" barbette and turret face and 4.88" - 5.88" deck when the same thickness barbette and turret face on Vanguard is listed 13" the same deck maximum is 6" and the belt which is an inch thinner is 14"? I just think for consistency across British warships they should be rounded up. 92.24.159.246 (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- I agree - the approach across various British battleship pages is inconsistant. Nearly all pages used the nominal designed figures, i.e. 14", 15", 13" etc. Only the KGVs use the 'exact' values. It's a strange, and the KGVs should use the same approach as the others (or all the others changed to the 'exact' value). Mattzo12 (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Ok then why does this article use belt thickness of 14.7" belt armour, 12.75" barbette and turret face and 4.88" - 5.88" deck when the same thickness barbette and turret face on Vanguard is listed 13" the same deck maximum is 6" and the belt which is an inch thinner is 14"? I just think for consistency across British warships they should be rounded up. 92.24.159.246 (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- Which is not in pounds, precisely my point all along. Are you playing some sort of nihilistic game, where questions and answers just revolve without any resolution? Urselius (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- And if you look up the legend specs of KGV you'll find the belt is 15"/14" with 6"/5" deck. 92.24.159.246 (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- I have looked at the Wikipedia pages on Vanguard, Nelson class and Revenge class and they only seem to give armour in thickness. I have looked in the text and in the infobox and no poundage for armour was evident. Urselius (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- No but every other wikipedia page on a British warship uses the nominal value conversion of 40lb = 1 inch only King George V uses the actual thickness. Should it not be consistent? 92.24.159.246 (talk) 11:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- As all international comparison is in thickness and type of steel, the pounds per square foot does not seem all that useful a comparator. It is also the case that armour plate even of the same density can have very different qualities, depending on hardening and other factors. Urselius (talk) 08:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- Pound per sqft. 92.24.159.246 (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- Pounds per what? The comparison is with other nation's ships, not other British ships. All the references I have seen just give thickness of armour belts, not weight per surface area (I presume this is what is meant by your reference to weight). Urselius (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Displacement inconsistent representation?
[edit]I see the articles on this class representing the displacement at 43,000 tons, their deep loaded weight. However, I rarely see other vessels/classes represented this way. It seems to distort the comparison among the various combatants. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Have added light displacement for DoY, standard displacement seems unavailable from the source I have - R.A. Burt, which is considered reliable. Urselius (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks! That seems like a very reasonable solution. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Propulsion
[edit]The propulsion section goes on at length about available horsepower and shaft speeds but does not list the actual speed of the ship at any of given outputs 69.251.47.164 (talk) 06:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- The actual speed is not solely dependant on the the output of the engines, it is also highly dependant on the sea conditions, depth of lading, trim and state of the outer surface of the hull (weed, marine growth). Urselius (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- It is common practice to record the speed of the ship when trialing the machinery. 69.251.47.164 (talk) 05:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Data for infobox
[edit]These ships had a wide variety of electronic and weapons suites over their lives, too many to cover in the infobox. I propose that we use the data for a single ship at a specific date. I think that Duke of York outfitted as she was completed at the end of 1941 would be a good compromise as she shows some of the changes from the early equipment suites, but not all of what they were equipped with at the end of the war and its easy to pin down what she was equipped with at that time.
I've done some serious trimming of the infobox to cut its length down. Remember that the infobox is supposed to be a summary of the most important data on the ship(s), not a complete listing. That level of detail is best handled in the main body where it can be covered at length. If you disagree, please make your case here before reverting my changes. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with the changes. My only thoughts are: 1) we should use the ship note infobox field to note what date and ship we're drawing these details from and 2) we're going to need citations if the infobox figures aren't mentioned in the text. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- That's easy enough as I use the infobox header caption field a lot for that exact purpose. That way it's nice and prominent at the top of the ship characteristics portion of the infobox. As far as I'm concerned, the only cite that should be in the infobox is the one for the pennant/hull number as that's trivial enough that I don't feel any urge to document it in the main body, everything else should be referenced in the main body.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Former good article nominees
- B-Class Operation Majestic Titan articles
- Operation Majestic Titan articles
- B-Class Operation Majestic Titan (Phase I) articles
- Operation Majestic Titan (Phase I) articles
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class maritime warfare articles
- Maritime warfare task force articles
- B-Class British military history articles
- British military history task force articles
- B-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- B-Class World War II articles
- World War II task force articles
- C-Class Ships articles
- All WikiProject Ships pages