Despite its Mark number, this was actually the first 14" (35.6 cm) gun that was exclusively designed and accepted into service by the Royal Navy. Previous 14" (35.6 cm) naval guns had been acquired either by taking over ships and guns building for other nations or by importing USA weapons.
The high-velocity heavy gun had fallen out of favor in the British Navy because of the problems experienced with the 16"/45 (40.6 cm) Mark I used on the Nelson class battleships. For this reason, the design of the new 14"/45 (35.6 cm) Mark VII reverted to the lower velocities used in guns produced before and during World War I. As a result, the muzzle velocity of the new Mark VII did not differ appreciatively from that achieved by the 14"/45 (35.6 cm) Mark I carried by the battleship Canada (ex-Chilean Almirante Latorre) during World War I.
The decision to use 14" (35.6 cm) guns on the King George V class Battleships was made in order to comply with Treaty restrictions, despite the fact that other European powers were building ships with larger weapons. As a result, the King George V class were arguably the weakest-armed battleships built in the 1930 to 1946 time period.
The design of this gun was based upon the 12"/50 (30.5 cm) Mark XIV, which was an experimental weapon completed in August 1933 to test "all steel" construction techniques. These new 14" (35.6 cm) guns were to a no-wire, radial-expansion construction, which resulted in a stronger, lighter gun that was less likely to suffer from barrel droop. This improved design gave the British a weapon that was more accurate and had a longer barrel life than the larger 16"/45 (40.6 cm) Mark I. Unfortunately, the mountings for these weapons were prone to mechanical failures during the early part of the war, with both HMS Prince of Wales and HMS King George V having numerous problems during their engagements against Bismarck.
Many, if not most, of these problems had been corrected by 1943. During the early part of her action against Scharnhorst at the Battle of the North Cape on 26 December 1943, HMS Duke of York scored 31 straddles out of 52 broadsides fired and during the latter part she scored 21 straddles out of 25 broadsides, a very creditable gunnery performance. In total, Duke of York fired 450 shells in 77 broadsides. However, HMS Duke of York still fired less than 70% of her possible output during this battle because of mechanical and "errors in drill" problems.
In addition to those used on the battleships, a further two guns were used as coastal artillery at Dover, but their extemporized mountings were not suitable for targeting fast moving ships. These coastal guns were supplied with a supercharge, giving them a very long range.
Consisted of tapered inner A tube, A tube, jacket breech ring of rectangular external shape, breech bush located in the A tube and a shrunk collar over the A tube. Used a Welin breech block and hydraulic Asbury mechanism. Including the two trial guns, a total of 78 guns were made, 24 by the Royal Gun Factory, 39 by Vickers-Armstrong, Elswick and 15 by Beardmore. The last 46 guns produced had a different shape to the breech ring which lowered the overall weight of the gun. These latter guns used a 12.5 ton (12.7 mt) counterweight while the earlier guns used a 11 ton (11.2 mt) counterweight in order to maintain the same center of balance. The Mark VII* was a loose barrel version, but none were ever manufactured.
These were the first heavy British guns in service to recoil in a cast steel cradle rather than on slides. This was a feature first prototyped on the 12"/50 (30.5 cm) Mark XIV.
At least one gun still exists and is currently on display at the Royal Armoury located at Fort Nelson, Hampshire, UK.
|Designation||14-inch Mark VII|
|Ship Class Used On||King George V class|
|Date Of Design||1937|
|Date In Service||1940|
|Early guns: 79.588 tons (80.865
Later guns: 78.988 tons (80.256 mt)
|Gun Length oa||651 in (16.532 m)|
|Bore Length||630 in (16.002 m)
|Rifling Length||515.7 in (13.098 m)|
|Grooves||(72) 0.117 in deep x 0.3665 (2.97 x 9.309 mm)|
|Lands||0.2444 in (6.208 mm)|
|Twist||Uniform RH 1 in 30|
|Chamber Volume||22,000 in3 (360.5 dm3)|
|Rate Of Fire||2 rounds per minute|
The weight in the table above for "Early guns" is for guns No. 51 to 90 which had the original breech ring design. The weight given for "Later guns" is for guns No. 91 to 136 which had the altered breech ring design. In addition to these weights, a balance weight was attached near the breech in order to move the center of gravity closer to the turret face plate. This allowed a higher elevation without having to deepen the gun wells, thus reducing the size of the gunhouse. Including the balance weight, guns No. 61 to 90 weighed 90.588 tons (92.042 mt) and guns No. 91 to 136 weighed 91.488 tons (92.956 mt).
|Projectile Types and Weights||APC Mark VIIB - 1,590 lbs. (721 kg)
HE - 1,590 lbs. (721 kg)
|Bursting Charge||48.5 lbs. (22.0 kg)|
|Projectile Length||61.6 in (156.5 cm)|
|Propellant Charge||Standard: 338.3 lbs. (153.4 kg)
Coastal artillery super charge: 486 lbs. (220.4 kg) SC 500
|Muzzle Velocity||Ships (new gun): 2,483 fps (757
Coastal artillery super charge: 2,850 fps (869 mps)
|Working Pressure||20.5 tons/in2 (3,230 kg/cm2)|
|Approximate Barrel Life||340 rounds|
|Ammunition stowage per gun||100 rounds|
- The propellant charge was in four bags.
- For Treaty compliance purposes, these ships were listed as carrying 80 rounds per gun but they actually had space for 100.
- The original outfit was 100 rounds of APC per gun, but by mid-1943 five of these had been replaced by time-fuzed HE.
- APC was 6/12crh.
- From late 1942 to early 1943, "K" shell
was introduced which contained dyes for coloring shell splashes.
These shells also had a small fuze and burster to disperse the dye.
I do not have the weight of these projectiles, but I would estimate that
they would have added about 5 - 6 lbs. (2.3 - 2.7 kg) to the APC weight
listed above unless there was a corresponding weight reduction in some
other area. The following colors are listed in a 20 June 1946 Fleet
King George V: Yellow
Duke of York: Green
Anson: White (this almost certainly means "no dye")
|Elevation||Range||Striking Velocity||Angle of Fall|
|2.5 degrees||5,000 yards (4,570 m)||2,160 fps (658 mps)||2.8|
|5.5 degrees||10,000 yards (9,140 m)||1,927 fps (587 mps)||6.5|
|9.25 degrees||15,000 yards (13,720 m)||1,726 fps (526 mps)||11.5|
|13.75 degrees||20,000 yards (18,290 m)||1,563 fps (476 mps)||18.2|
|19.25 degrees||25,000 yards (22,860 m)||1,459 fps (445 mps)||26.4|
|26.2 degrees||30,000 yards (27,430 m)||1,432 fps (436 mps)||35.6|
|36.0 degrees||35,000 yards (32,000 m)||1,482 fps (452 mps)||46.1|
|40.7 degrees||36,500 yards (33,380 m)||1,523 fps (464 mps)||50.3|
@ 2,483 fps (757 mps)
|38,560 yards (35,260 m)||---||---|
Coastal artillery with
|about 51,000 yards (46,630 m)||---||---|
Time of flight
for APC Shell with MV = 2,400 fps (731.5 mps)
10,000 yards (9,140 m): 14.1 seconds
20,000 yards (18,290 m): 32.4 seconds
30,000 yards (27,430 m): 57.4 seconds
36,500 yards (33,380 m): 83.2 seconds
|Range||Side Armor||Deck Armor|
|0 yards (0 m)||26.9" (668 mm)||---|
|10,000 yards (9,144 m)||15.6" (396 mm)||1.15" (29 mm)|
|15,000 yards (13,716 m)||13.2" (335 mm)||1.95" (50 mm)|
|20,000 yards (18,288 m)||11.2" (285 mm)||2.85" (73 mm)|
|25,000 yards (22,860 m)||9.5" (241 mm)||4.00" (102 mm)|
|28,000 yards (25,603 m)||---||4.75" (121 mm)|
This data is from "Battleships: Allied Battleships in World War II" for a muzzle velocity of 2,400 fps (732 mps) and is partly based upon the USN Empirical Formula for Armor Penetration and partly based upon official data.
|Range||Side Armor||Deck Armor|
|13,700 yards (12,530 m)||14.0" (356 mm)||---|
|15,800 yards (14,450 m)||13.0" (330 mm)||---|
|18,000 yards (16,460 m)||12.0" (305 mm)||---|
|20,000 yards (18,290 m)||---||2.0" (52 mm)|
|20,500 yards (18,750 m)||11.0" (279 mm)||---|
|23,700 yards (21,670 m)||10.0" (254 mm)||---|
|24,000 yards (21,950 m)||---||3.0" (76 mm)|
|28,000 yards (25,600 m)||---||4.0" (102 mm)|
|32,000 yards (29,260 m)||---||5.0" (127 mm)|
This data is from "British Battleships of World War Two." This table assumes 90 degree inclination and is based upon theoretical calculations performed in 1935, not actual firing trials.
King George V (1): Mark II
|Weight||Mark II: 915 tons (900.5 mt)
Mark III: 1,582 tons (1,557 mt)
|Elevation||-3 / +40 degrees|
|Rate of Elevation||8 degrees per second|
|Train||"A" Turret: - 143 / +143 degrees
"B" and "X" Turrets: - 135 / +135 degrees
|Rate of Train||2 degrees per second|
|Gun Recoil||45 in (114 cm)|
|Loading Angle||+5 degrees|
- The following description is adapted
from "Naval Weapons of World War Two."
Propellant bags were transported from their storage locations in the magazines on roller chutes into hydraulically operated cages that raised them to the handling room. A and B mountings had four cages, but Y turret had two. Y turret had two double-door scuttles in place of the other two hoists, primarily because of the reduced vertical spacing for this mounting. In the handling rooms, bags were manually rolled or slid over to open waiting trays from which they were then manually carried to cordite hoppers. There was one hopper per gun on a circular platform connected to the hoist trunk. Power-rotated scuttles and chain rammers transferred the bags to the lower hoist cage. This cage had two compartments which each held two propellant bags (half charge).
Projectiles were moved from the shell rooms by overhead trolleys and then rammed over hinged shell trays through openings normally closed by watertight doors to the revolving shell ring in the shell handling room. The shell rings for the quad mountings held 16 trays in four groups spaced 90 degrees apart while the twin mounting had 8 trays in four groups spaced 90 degrees apart. The shell room ring could either be coupled to the ship or to the revolving stalk. When coupled to the ship, the shell ring was driven by a 24 bhp hydraulic engine that was connected via a flexible coupling, friction clutch, worm gear and pinions with allowance for eccentricity and a rise and fall of up to 1 inch (25 mm) of the ring in relationship to the mounting. When coupled to the stalk, a similar hydraulic engine was used but the connection to the shell ring did not have any provision for eccentricity or relative motion. [Editor's note: This ring proved not to be flexible enough to withstand the twisting of the ship as it moved through the waves or made sharp maneuvers and was a source of jamming] Projectiles were rammed into the upper hoist cage when the ring was coupled to the stalk.
The lower hoists were operated by winches having two reel drums of different diameters on the same shaft which meant that the propellant and shell cages arrived together at the working chamber below the gunhouse. Projectiles and propellant bags were rammed from the cages into traverses which ran on rails across the chamber to the gun loading hoist cage. This was a three level container with the shell on top and half charges in each of the two lower compartments. The hoist then ran up to the gunhouse at a slant such that the loading cages were at the +5 degree loading angle when they reached the gun breeches. After the shell was rammed, the cage incremented upwards twice as the half charges were rammed.
Magazines were located below the shell rooms.
- Training was by one of two swashplate engines, 160 bhp in the quads and 70 bhp in the twin, which drove the turrets via a worm gear. Elevation was by hydraulic cylinder and piston connected to the rear of the cradle and run out was via compressed air. RPC equipment was never fitted to any of these ships, they used "follow the pointer" style control throughout their careers.
- These mountings had very elaborate flash precautions, perhaps overly so given the problems encountered during World War II.
- "The Big Gun" states that the quadruple mounting had over 3,000 working parts.
- These turrets had a vertical roller race similar to the ones added to the Nelson and Rodney in the 1930s. These were located just below the main horizontal roller races.
- The gun axes were 96 in (244 cm) apart in both the twin and the quad mountings.
- Rangefinders in A and X turrets had a baselength of 41 feet (12.5m) while the rangefinder in B turret had a baselength of 30 feet (9.10 m).
- Some details of the problems found in action with these mountings during the 1941 battles: Prince of Wales fired only 55 out of a possible 74 shells during her action with Bismarck. Her problems included jammed shell rings and associated fittings. King George V fired 339 shells during her engagement with Bismarck compared to 380 fired by Rodney.
- The following description of the problems
encountered by King George V is taken from "The Final Action: The
Sinking of Bismarck, 27 May 1941" by John Roberts:
"Initially she did well achieving 1.7 salvoes per minute while employing radar control but she began to suffer severe problems from 0920 onward [Note: King George V had opened fire at 0850 - TD]. 'A' turret was completely out of action for 30 minutes, after firing about 23 rounds per gun, due to a jam between the fixed and revolving structure in the shell room and Y turret was out of action for 7 minutes due to drill errors. . . Both guns in B turret, guns 2 and 4 in A turret and gun 2 in Y turret were put out of action by jams and remained so until after the action - 5 guns out of 10! There were a multitude of other problems with mechanical failures and drill errors that caused delays and missed salvoes. There were also some misfires - one gun (3 of A turret) misfired twice and was out of action for 30 minutes before it was considered safe to open the breech."
[Editor's Note: The ellipsis in this paragraph is to omit what I believe is actually a reference to the performance of Rodney's 16" (40.6 cm) guns which was mistakenly included in this description]
Admiral Sir John C. Tovey, C-in-C Home Fleet, commented upon some of these problems in his after-action report PRO Adm 234/509:
"Comparatively little experience had previously been gained of the reliability of the turrets. The prolonged practice firing for the King George V had been carried out only in one turret. It was fortunate that the action [against Bismarck] was not prolonged, because the 25 rounds per gun practice previously planned would not have shown up so many of the defects."
- Following the Bismarck battles, King George V and Prince of Wales had numerous modifications made to their ammunition supply safety interlock system; the watertightness of the mantlet plates was improved; and the existing drains in the shell rooms were enlarged and additional drains fitted. These changes were incorporated into the rest of the class as they were being built.
- During her battle with Scharnhorst at North Cape, Duke of York was shooting for a total of two hours. Mechanical problems suffered included failures of the bridge flash tubes in the working chambers to close completely, the collapse of shell arresters in the lower hoists and a shell-cage defect in A turret, all of which caused some guns to drop out of firing opportunities. All guns suffered at least some failures to fire, with B1 gun being the most reliable, having missed only three out of the 77 broadsides. Notable among these missed salvos: Poor loading drill put A3 gun out of action for 71 of the 77 broadsides. Three guns in Y turret were unable to fire for a 15 minute period, causing them to miss 17 broadsides.
- Some comments from William Jurens regarding
the vertical face plates of these turrets.
"The reason for sloped turret faces is primarily geometric. For normal trunnion locations, if the turret face is not sloped back, then for large angles of [gun] elevation, as in post-1930 ships, the gunports get very large and start to eat away at the turret roof. If the angle of elevation is small as on older ships, [then the] angles of fall [of shells fired by enemy ships] would be equally small, so a slanted faceplate which would deflect rounds upward makes sense. If the angle of elevation is large and a vertical front plate is seen to be desirable, as in KGV etc., then one answer to avoiding cutting long slots in the roofplates is to move the trunnions far forward. This makes the overall rotating structure and the guns themselves harder to balance and complicates gun elevation mechanisms. On KGV a compromise was made; the trunnions were moved as far forward as possible, and the front plate was moved BACK as far as was feasible. Even so, the maximum angle of elevation was limited to 40 degrees. There is little saving in weight in moving to a vertical faceplate, in some cases less than none.As can be seen in the photographs on this datapage, the quad turrets on the King George V class have a semi-circular plate of armor attached to the lower front plate of the turret. This plate protects the top of the barbette.
. . . moving from a sloped to a vertical faceplate is usually nearly weight-neutral, although some savings can be achieved by thinning the vertical face somewhat as it is now much more oblique to incoming (long-range only) fire than a sloped face is. Several problems remain. On KGV, moving the face back left an inconvenient "D" shaped portion of the top of the barbette uncovered forward of the faceplate, a situation aggravated by the probability that long range fire, even if deflected, would be channeled downwards into the "D". On KGV, this "D" underneath the gun chases was about 115 ft2 (10.7 m2) in area, which needed to be protected at least as well as the turret roof. This added protection would weigh about 13 additional tons. A final problem lies in the construction of the face plate itself. Such a plate is much stronger if it can be made in one piece with two, three, or four (as required) vertical slots cut into it for gunports. This in turn requires at least a thin band of material above and below the port openings to hold the whole thing together. Because the slots are quite problematical in a vertical plate to begin with, there is a tendency to revert to installing a number of smaller plates joined together, which is not as strong, though arguably cheaper to manufacture.
Overall, I suspect that vertical faceplates create more problems than they solve, and their advantages (if any) are marginal, which is likely why so few ships ever adopted them."
- Two guns were mounted at Dover in 1940, one in No. 26 Proof Structure and the other in a 18"/40 (45.7 cm) mounting removed from a monitor.
- Armor thickness for both twin and quad
mountings as given in "Naval Weapons of World War Two" by John Campbell:
Face: 12.74 in (32.4 cm)
Fore Sides: 8.82 in (22.4 cm)
Rear Sides: 6.86 in (17.4 cm)
Rear: 6.86 in (17.4 cm)
Roof: 5.88 in (14.9 cm)
"Naval Weapons of World War Two" and "British Naval Guns 1880-1945 No 1" article in "Warship Volume V" both by John Campbell
"The King George V class - Parts 1 to 4" articles in "Warship Volume III" by Robert Dumas
"Battleships: Allied Battleships in World War II" by W.H. Garzke, Jr. and R.O. Dulin, Jr.
"The Big Gun: Battleship Main Armament 1860-1945" by Peter Hodges
"British Battleships of World War Two" by Alan Raven and John Roberts
"The Final Action: The Sinking of Bismarck, 27 May 1941" article in "Warship Volume VII" by John Roberts
"King George V Class Battleships" by V.E. Tarrant
Special help from Phil Golin, William Jurens, Robert Lundgren and Nathan Okun
14 September 2008 - Benchmark
22 October 2009 - Added details on gun manufacturers, coast guns at Dover, gun weight and new gun muzzle velocity in Ammunition Table
13 December 2009 - Corrected typographical error
09 September 2011 - Added to note about gun weights, added links to other datapages
11 February 2012 - Updated to latest template
03 June 2012 - Added turret armor note
03 November 2012 - Added information on ammunition supply and photograph of Duke of York
15 December 2013 - Added Additional Pictures
04 July 2016 - Converted to HTML 5 format