Naval Historywith Dr. Alex

Q&A · 1:10:50-1:16:32

Why the King George V class retained its 5.25-inch Mark I system

The supposed Mark II alternative was associated with shore service, while later naval mount improvements did not justify replacing the battleships' complete turret systems.

Anti Aircraft ArtilleryDual Purpose GunsKing George V Class Battleships (1939)Naval GunneryShore Batteries
Watch at this timeFull video guide
Question

Why were the King George V-class battleships not fitted with the proposed 5.25-inch Mark II system?

Short answer

Because the Mark II designation referred to shore installations, while naval improvements did not offer enough benefit to replace the ships' complete Mark I turret systems.

Notes

The panel first checks the premise because the Mark I armed the King George V class, Dido class, and Vanguard. The Mark II designation they can locate belongs to land and coastal installations, including sites around London, Australia, New Guinea, and Port Moresby. Later Dido-family turrets incorporated loading-mechanism improvements, but the guns themselves remained within the Mark I naval lineage. Even a useful mounting improvement would not repay the cost and disruption of removing a battleship's established turret system for a marginal change.