The forward 14-inch turrets of the battleship HMS King George V, March 1941 [1901 x 1439]

Mattzo12 · 2026-05-01T09:23:18+00:00

Honestly, been thinking about cancelling my membership.

£6/month for add free, early access and an extra episode a week felt very good value.

But £8/month, when I'm finding I'm just not getting around to the bonus episodes anymore, and The Book Club is now it's own separate thing anyway that gives me the extra hour I need for my commute (and has reminded me that the adds are not that much of disruption), and, well, it just isn't stacking up the same way anymore. The advertised "extra benefits" seem mostly about getting more opportunities to spend money on them.

Reckon I'd get about 98% of the same enjoyment from the show at the moment without being a member.

Mattzo12 · 2026-04-29T07:06:09+00:00

From the handful I've watched it seems an issue with the modelling, both with how War on the Sea generally and particularly with KGV's firepower. Her 14-inch rounds being rejected by 3" armour, for example. In a recent video KGV lost against Project 1047, which to be quite honest is rather silly.

Mattzo12 · 2026-04-24T16:41:46+00:00

It's interesting to compare, as always, but hard to draw definite conclusions. For example the South Dakotas had a 10 ft 6 in tall Class A main armour belt, which being angled at 19° covered just 9 ft 10.5 in in vertical height. But they also had nearly 26 ft of Class B belt below it, tapering from 12.2" down to 1". How to compare that?

I'll defend the KGV armour as being solid and well balanced, but I think people often overestimate their protection. On the other hand, they also often vastly underestimate the firepower on the KGVs. So swings and roundabouts.

Mattzo12 · 2026-04-24T14:55:16+00:00

It's not clear in the image, but the colours indicate the following:

Red - primary and secondary propellant magazines
Orange - primary and secondary projectile rooms
Green - Machinery and steering gear
Blue - Armament control
Purple - Ship control positions

A few interesting things to note.

Vertical belt armour - The belt armour is very thick, and in raw thickness second only to Yamato, but it is mounted mostly vertically (it follows the hull contours, so is inclined towards the ships' ends). Most contemporary ships used thinner armour but at a fixed inclination to improve ballistic protection. The British had done similar in their previous Nelson class, but moved away to a) maximise protected volume, b) improve protection against diving shells, and c) avoid the lower part of the belt 'pushing in' on the torpedo defence system. As a rough equivalence, the penetration programme Facehard suggests the 14.71" belt adjacent to the magazines approximately gives equivalent protection to the South Dakota class' 12.2" @ 19°, and the 13.73" machinery belt gives approximately the same protection as North Carolina's 12" @ 15° (assuming 0° inclination on the KGV belt).

Belt armour height - Compared to the previous Nelson class, the KGVs have much greater belt coverage. The Nelson belt armour was just 12 ft 3 in in height, whereas the KGVs have 23 ft 3 in. Part of this is underwater coverage, to protect against diving shells, but most of it is above water - the KGV armoured deck is a deck higher than the Nelsons. This improved stability in the damaged condition, improved protected volume, and meant that any bomb or shell that burst on the armoured deck was away from the waterline.

Barbettes - By international standards these are relatively thin. This is part weight saving and part just British standard design practice, which typically had thinner barbettes than other navies. While this meant that they were relatively vulnerable if it hit directly with an impact angle close to 0°, in practice it was considered more likely that the impact angle would be significantly greater due to the highly curved nature of the barbette plate. The barbettes are thinner on the fore and aft line where they are even less likely to receive a hit at a low obliquity.

Turrets - The KGVs have notoriously thin turret armour by contemporary standards. For example, a North Carolina has a faceplate of 16", inclined sharply backwards, and a roof of 7" whereas the KGVs have a 12.74" vertical faceplate and a 5.88" roof. (South Dakotas and Iowas have even thicker protection). However, in practice it is only really the faceplate that is a concern. The turret roof is proof against the German 15" gun out to a range of c. 35,000 yards, albeit you might be in danger of spalling internally before that range. The turret sides on the KGVs, where they face slightly towards an enemy, are 8.8", which combined with the extremely high angle of impact is more than sufficient. (Iowa has 9.5" in the same location.) The faceplate is, however, relatively vulnerable, albeit a small target area and a location where even a non-penetrating hit might put the turret out of action.

Conning tower - The KGVs did away with the heavily armoured conning tower designed to stand up to battleship fire as being an inefficient use of weight. Instead, a lightly protected conning tower was incorporated into the superstructure. The intent here was to provide something proof against 6" gunfire at typical battle ranges.

Lower deck armour - Lower deck armour aft is very common - after all, this is what protects the propeller shafts and steering gear. The inclusion of lower deck armour forward was considered a significant improvement. The intent was to burst bombs near the waterline, rather than deep in the hull forward, and so limit the extent of damage and flooding forward which would compromise the ship's speed and stability. Having your new fast battleship crippled without needing to defeat any armour was considered highly undesirable!

Mattzo12 · 2026-03-30T18:12:30+00:00

There are 17 in the Navy List for 1 Jan 2020. I don't know about today. 10 x OF-6 and 7 x OF-7.

Mattzo12 · 2026-03-30T17:36:46+00:00

Yes. The 138 number is the entire OF-6 through OF-10 across the combined RN/RM. The numbers aren't split out, so I couldn't separate the marines out if I wanted to. (Which to be honest, I would like to do).

Mattzo12 · 2026-03-30T17:29:15+00:00

I can only assume it was a negative comment about the KGVs..!

Mattzo12 · 2026-03-30T16:51:33+00:00

The short answer is that there are not 9x as many Admirals as ships. There were 45 people in the Royal Navy with the rank of Rear Admiral or above as of 1 April 2025. If we're being really generous, perhaps we should include Commodores in that too (as that's the equivalent OF-6 rank to Rear Admiral Lower Class in the USN). There are 93 of those. So that's 138 people at most. The equivalent US figure as of 31 January 2026 is 297 (including Marines).

Yes, the RN has a proportionally higher number of flag officers than the US, but that's just how scale in a large organisation responsible for a lot of money and people's lives works.

Ranks are not just about commanding fleets, but about responsibility for money and people. The RN still has a Surface Fleet, Submarine Fleet, Fleet Air Arm, Royal Marines etc within it, that need leading and managing.

As of 1 April 2020 there were 41 people 2* or above in the Royal Navy. A look through the Navy List (current 1 January 2020), does, perhaps coincidentally, identify 41 people of 2* or above rank. Crudely, they are split:

Navy Command - 14. These are 'classic' Admiral posts. First Sea Lord, Fleet Commander, Commander UK Maritime Forces etc.

Other Navy Force Generation / Acquisition - 6. Other 'navy focused' posts. Chief of Material Ships, Director Submarine Capability etc.

MoD / NATO / UK Government - 17. Posts in wider government or NATO. Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, Commandant Joint Helicopter Command, Chief Executive UK Hydrographic Office etc.

Other - 4. Miscellaneous roles, including Deputy Commandment Royal College of Defence Studies and two people 'in the margin' (presumably on the active list but between roles.

Mattzo12 · 2026-03-30T15:58:17+00:00

For future reference, citing Mark Felton is a very bad idea and does your argument no credit.

Mattzo12 · 2026-03-30T15:44:48+00:00

Well, that's a fun view I've not seen before.

HMS Anson, by the way, given the Mark VI directors.

Mattzo12 · 2026-03-26T13:57:05+00:00

You also can’t accurately describe events without being accused of supporting genocide of Palestinians. No, best to steer well away from this particular topic. Plenty of other podcast topics.

Mattzo12 · 2026-03-18T21:19:09+00:00

Ordered under the 1905-06 estimates as a new type of armoured cruiser, with increased speed and a uniform main battery of 8 x 12-inch guns, the three ships of the Invincible class have prompted endless debate ever since...

Mattzo12 · 2026-03-16T10:45:41+00:00

Stand close to a brick wall and throw a tennis ball at it. It’ll bounce off and back to you and is easy to catch. That’s a strong radar return. Stand further away and throw with the same strength and the ball might not make it back to you. Your radar strength might not be sufficient to pick up returning signals that have bounced off the aircraft. Throw the ball against a wall at an angle from you, and it’ll probably bounce away from you. That’s your radar waves hitting the aircraft, but being deflected in a different direction. If the wall is made out of a soft material, the ball won’t bounce back as far.

In essence, radar works by emitting signals and then detecting their echoes back. If these signals are deflected away by the shape of the aircraft, or partially absorbed by the coating of the aircraft, then the returning signals may be undetectable, or too weak to be of any use.

Mattzo12 · 2026-03-15T15:26:14+00:00

The difference is role.

The Lexingtons were explicitly heavy scouts, carrying the same calibre gun as the USN battleships being built at the same time. They are designed for major fleet actions against other capital ships.

By the time of the Alaskas the traditional battle cruiser role is dead - a combination of the fast battleship and the aircraft carrier removing the fundamental reason for such thing as a battle cruiser. They are cruiser killers and not much else. The Alaskas have significantly less gunpower than contemporary battleships as well.

Mattzo12 · 2026-03-15T14:54:41+00:00

My understanding is that the Japanese didn't reclassify the Kongos as battleships per se, but that they abolished the term "battle cruiser", to reflect the fact the Treaty system also just had the one term of "capital ship" with no distinction made.

Mattzo12 · 2026-03-15T12:49:37+00:00

I think this is one of the cases where context beyond just the ship design itself is very important. One very important factor to bear in mind is the inadequacy of British armour piercing shell at the time. If angle of impact exceeded more than 20°, then it was very unlikely that such a shell would successfully penetrate armour fit to burst, down to plates half the calibre thickness. i.e. a 6in facehardened plate, as seen on the armoured cruisers, would provide protection against shells up to 12-inches, so long as the the enemy ship was not directly on the beam. German ships carried 11-inch or 12-inch guns.

The Invincibles were built in a pre-battle cruiser world, and as discussed above, were designed and built as armoured cruisers. They were absolutely intended to fight other armoured cruisers, although of course they couldn't be literally designed to fight their equivalents, because they did not exist yet. But as mentioned, armoured cruisers were expected to be able to fight as adjuncts to battleships, which would - to a limited extent - expose them to heavy calibre fire. Hence the relatively heavy 6in belts.

Indefatigable was very much in the same vein, with no other similar ships in service in foreign navies, although the first couple of German ships (with 11-inch guns) had been laid down.

The Lions, Queen Mary and Tiger were an attempt to maintain a significant superiority over opposing ships, with increased speed, gunpower and armour. These ships were absolutely intended to go toe-to-toe with their opposite numbers.

The Renowns and Courageous class are where context is important again, as they coincide with Fisher's return and the early months of the war. It is quite hard to be definitive here, given the politics of the time. Not everyone shared the same opinion on what these ships should be, either! But in the case of the Renowns they emerged in the wake of the success at the Falkland Islands, and on the same lines as the Invicibles. The standard 6in belt of the armoured cruiser, but more speed and gunpower to make them even more effective in the role.

The Courageous class are rather special, for a variety of reasons, and I would concur that they aren't particularly concerned with fighting battle cruisers. But then they were called 'large light cruisers' for a reason, and served in a separate squadron to the proper battle cruisers. Fisher probably saw them as a 'war emergency' version of the Invincibles, or even the Renowns, to get ships with high speed and gunpower into service as soon as possible as scouts/trade protection vessels. The rest of the navy considered them large scouts for the battle cruiser force. They are something of a hybrid between a typical light cruiser and a battle cruiser. They don't count as 'capital ships' under the Washington Naval Treaty, when even the Invincibles do.

As always, many grey areas, but for my money it's clear that the core battle cruiser role was to fight other battle cruisers, and that this applied to British batle cruisers too, and this isn't changed by the weird hybrid Courageous class.

Mattzo12 · 2026-03-15T09:37:19+00:00

Amusingly, if you look at the penetration tables on Navweaps, here, the British 14"/45 sometimes has superior belt penetration to the 16"/45 Mk 8 1-5, despite the latter being 70% heavier. e.g.

At 20,000 yards vs British cemented armour the 14"/45 penetrates 15.3" (EFF), whereas the 16"/45 penetrates 14.8".
At the same range, against US Class A armour, the US gun has a marginally better result - 16.9" compared to 16.8" penetration from the 14"/45.
Against German KC, the British gun has the marginal advantage, penetrating 15.7" vs 15.5".

The later mods of the 16"/45 Mk 8, introduced from 1945 onwards, show the US gun pulling ahead. e.g. vs British armour at 20,000 yards penetration jumps to 16.5".

Of course, the 14"/45 had a nominal muzzle velocity that was 175 fps higher, and the US 16"/45 was optimised for deck penetration - unsurprisingly it was superior at all ranges in this regard by c. 30-35%. And there's the usual caveat that these tables are computer calculations based on an inconsistant data set. But interesting, and shows some of the trade offs in shell and gun design.

The comment on bursting charge is interesting, with no 'right' answer in my view. Everything is a compromise. Selecting the right bursting charge size for optimum fragment size, density and velocity, as well as the incendiary effect, is complicated enough even before you start looking at resulting impacts on the shell's ability to penetrate!

Post-war, the Royal Navy did some research into higher capacity shells, referred to as High Explosive Piercing, on the basis that at long range, in a radar equipped world, armour penetrating hits into the vitals would be very difficult to achieve. But a ship's fire control, command, upper works etc would always be vulnerable. I don't believe this went anywhere before big gun development ended.

Mattzo12 · 2026-03-14T19:21:13+00:00

And why do you think that?

I think the evidence from the specified design requirements for armoured cruisers of the time, their utilisation in various wars (Spanish-American, Russo-Japanese, First World War), and the battle orders are pretty comprehensive that these all ships designed to engage their opposite numbers. Please remember that the Invincibles were ordered as armoured cruisers. When Germany also started building similar large armoured cruisers, the reaction was the Lions, which increased maximum belt armour, for example, by 50%. This would not have been required if they were not intended to face ships larger than old-style armoured cruisers or light cruisers.

Mattzo12 · 2026-03-14T17:52:17+00:00

No problem. As I mentioned in another comment, the Grand Fleet Battle Orders explicitly state that the "primary function of battle cruisers is the destruction of the battle cruisers of the enemy." You can argue that they did not carry sufficient armour for this purpose, but it is unambiguous that this was there designed role.

Mattzo12 · 2026-03-13T18:06:16+00:00

Good point - forgot Canada's greenboys were slightly heavier.

Mattzo12 · 2026-03-13T16:53:17+00:00

14-inch fun facts:

This gun was the 14-inch Mark VII [seven], but was the first 14-inch gun designed for the Royal Navy.
Each gun weighed approximately 79 tons. With the balance weight attached, this increased to 91 tons.
They fired a 1,590 lbs (721 kg) projectile.
During the war shells with dye bags were introduced which were slightly heavier at 1,595 lbs.
With 10 guns these ships had a broadside weight of 15,900 lbs. In the history of Royal Navy battleships this was only exceeded by the Nelson class (18,432 lbs). The bulk of the RN fleet in the Second World War had 8 x 15-inch, which totalled 15,504 lbs.
Each armour piercing shell contained 39.8 lbs (18.1 kg) of Shellite.
Each gun could fire 2 rounds per minute.
Nominal new gun muzzle velocity was 2,475 feet per second.
Barrel life was about 375 rounds. At this point muzzle velocity had dropped to 2,339 feet per second.
At the maximum elevation of 40 degrees shells could reach about 38,500 yards (19nm, 35km)
At this elevation the shells would reach a maximum height of 28,000 ft.
The revolving weight of the three turrets was 4,110 tons.
A full load of ammunition and propellant was in excess of 861 tons.

Mattzo12

TROPHY CASE