Comments by "Steve Valley" (@stevevalley7835) on "King George V class - Design, Service and Myths" video.

  1. Problem is, some adversaries have the bad form to not get within 16,000 yards. During 1914-1916, the head of BuOrd, Admiral Strauss, kept pushing 14" guns because they could penetrate any existing BB at 12,000 yards. But Dogger Bank was at about 20,000 and Jutland was at more than 15,000. In WWII, West Virginia opened up on Yamashiro at something over 22,000. What do you do when the opponent doesn't want to fight the fight the way that is optimal for you?
    5
  2.  @Alex-cw3rz  from what I read, seems Yamashiro wasn't sunk by gunfire, but by the five or six torpedoes it caught. The point is, the upgraded 16"/45 could punch through any part of Yamashio at that range. For that matter, the upgraded 14"/50s on Tennessee and California could punch through at that range too. The battleships would probably have shot Yamashio to bits if the torpedoes had not killed her first. According to the tables on Navweaps, a Bismark class could punch through KGV's belt up to 24,000 yards, and could use it's speed advantage to control the range with KGV. This debate raged in the USN during WWI, with Strauss arguing that more 14" guns could be mounted than 16", and, as long as you bought his assertion that engagements would never occur beyond 12,000, the 14" provided more firepower. By the summer of 16, the General Board and SecNav had seen enough long range gunfights between the Brits and Germans to realize that Strauss' argument was not valid. I haven't had time to watch Drac's video yet, but I will be watching with interest to see if the Admiralty reenacted the argument that raged in the USN twenty years earlier.
    5
  3.  @MrTScolaro  yes, that was the case, and the rebuilt 16"/45 could do some damage. They could punch through Yamashiro's 12" belt at that range. I finished watching that video yesterday, and found a discrepancy. The slide in the video shows the 14" penetrating 17" of armor at 16,000 yards, which is what Wiki says. Navweaps quotes two different sources saying that gun could only penetrate 13", which would mean that the 14"/45 was barely adequate at the Admiralty doctrine dictated 16,000 yards, and not up to the job of landing a kill shot beyond that. The penetration of the US North Carolina 16"/45 is understated in the slide, according to Navweaps too. The number cited, iirc 16.7" is close to the 16"/45 mounted on the Colorados. Per Navweaps, the Mk 6 guns the North Carolinas carried could penetrate over 20" at 15,000. I have asked around for another source for penetration data on the 14"/45 and come up empty, so far. The only other reasonably modern 14" at that time to compare were the US rebuilt 14"/50s, which has a muzzle velocity 200fps higher than the 14"/45 and could only penetrate, 16.76" at 15,000. How the British gun, with a lower muzzle velocity, penetrate more, at longer range? I would love to see a credible source.
    2
  4.  @emperordave3006  the USN had a 14"/50 in 1915. In 1916, the USN looked at what had been happening in Europe, and switched to the 16"/45. I don't understand the physics, but, apparently, a lighter shell looses momentum faster compared to a heavier shell. I have access to partial copies of USN gunnery range tables from the mid 1930s. I looked up both a 14" and 16". both fired with an initial muzzle velocity of 2600fps. By the time the shells reach 14,500 yards, the 16" shell is traveling 200fps faster than the 14". So, it comes down to a 16" holding momentum longer, and hitting at longer ranges with higher velocity. Looking at the late 1930s rebuilt USN 14" and 16", the 14"/50, with a muzzle velocity of 2900fps could penetrate 13.75" at 20,000 yards, but the 16"/45, with a muzzle velocity of 2520fps could penetrate 16.24" at 20,000.
    2
  5.  @vikinggamer9545  Thank you! I have been wondering where that 17.3" number came from. The slide in the presentation appears to be using the "EFF" numbers. I was looking at the numbers on the Navweaps page about the specific guns. The 14"/45 page has two tables, from different sources, which are roughly in agreement. Why is there such a discrepancy between those two sources and the numbers generated by the "Facehard" program for the British 14? Other questions that come to mind: If the 14"/45 could penetrate any likely BB belt (13-14") out to 22,000+ yards, as shown in the "Facehard" tables, why did the Admiralty pursue a 16" for the Lions? Seems, if their thinking was consistent, the Lions would have been designed with 3 or 4 quad 14" turrets. Why did doctrine dictate closing to 16,000yds, if the 14" could penetrate any likely belt at 22,000+, because that doctrine puts the RN ships at a disadvantage, starting every engagement with their "T" crossed? What makes "decisive range" decisive, and distinct from engagement range? I'm thinking "decisive range" is the range where the belt armor can be penetrated for a magazine kill shot, while "engagement range" is the range where chunks can be shot off the edges of the target, slowly degrading it. As I think I noted elsewhere, this is all very reminiscent of a debate that went on in the USN in 1915, where the 14" advocates also hinged their argument on assuming engagements would be at medium range, in their case, 12,000. The 14" advocates ultimately lost that argument as Dogger Bank and Jutland demonstrated that engagements could be fought at longer ranges, so the USN advanced to the 16", that could better penetrate at those longer ranges.
    1
  6.  @emperordave3006  if the 14" limit had held, it would only impact the US and UK. France and Italy already had 15" gunned ships under construction and Japan had dropped out of the treaty system. The UK settled on the 14"/45, with only average muzzle velocity and average size shell, for a 14", so they were not going for exceptional performance. The USN 14"/50s that were rebuilt in the 30s had a higher muzzle velocity, but it came at a price: barrel life about a third less than the British 14"/45. They had an even more powerful 14" under development, which they dropped like a bad habit when the escalator clause tripped. With the French, Italians and Germans all going for high velocity 15", the US going to extra heavy shells, and the Japanese going to even bigger guns, the British 14", and not a high performance 14" at that, mystifies me.
    1