Death Star Moment for WWII Ships
- Thread starter Lostfleet
- Start date
the key point is
detonate a shell need much larger impact force than a fall could possibly provide
just imaging the different impact force beteen dropping a bullet on the group and firing it on a wall.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #43
Tasman and Ever4244 , so much for cartoons and for accidentally dropping bombs on the deck
I was just try to imagine what would be the impact of all those shells rolling inside the ammunition store while the ship was rolling all the way around.KGB, Japanese example is extreme however if you look at other warship sinkings of other navies, the crew is generally working in an eerly calm orderly fashion,
Except when being transferred manually from the ready use stowage area to the gun I would expect that even ready use shells would have been stowed in some sort of rack to prevent them from rolling about. However, I haven't been able to find anything written about this.Tasman and Ever4244 , so much for cartoons and for accidentally dropping bombs on the deck
KGB, Japanese example is extreme however if you look at other warship sinkings of other navies, the crew is generally working in an eerly calm orderly fashion,
I agree about the eerie calmness displayed by some of some of the crews on sinking ships. This is in stark contrast to the panic and mayhem generally shown in Hollywood films!
Tas
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #45
I have been to a few warships ( HMS Belfast, USS Massachusetts, USS Iowa ) but the tours mainly included the big guns and didn't have a chance to see the storage and operations area for the secondary weapons. If I have a chance again I will try to take a closer look next time. The shells of the main guns of course with their enormous size, were properly stored and transfered all the way to the gun deck.
So I am assuming people in Titanic were rather calm as well
I guess the trouble was that in WW2 there was a temptation to take risks with ammunition that might have been needed quickly such as AA. I have read that the ready use stowage arrangement of the extra 4" ammunition carried on Hood at the time of her loss was less than first rate but I can't find a more detailed account of this.I have been to a few warships ( HMS Belfast, USS Massachusetts, USS Iowa ) but the tours mainly included the big guns and didn't have a chance to see the storage and operations area for the secondary weapons. If I have a chance again I will try to take a closer look next time. The shells of the main guns of course with their enormous size, were properly stored and transfered all the way to the gun deck.
So I am assuming people in Titanic were rather calm as well
I guess any initial calm on Titanic would have disappeared once passengers found out that there were insufficient lifeboats and even more so when she lifted he stern, broke her back and then started to slip fairly rapidly below! :shudder
Tas
The following appeared in the UK press today about HMS Birkenhead (ignore the title). It describes where the term 'women and children first' comes from -talk about a calm response to prospect of death!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/05/06/bomenextract.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/05/06/bomenextract.xml
Hood was hit first by an 8in shell from prinz eugen this hit on the boat deck near the base of the mast. This caused a fire in the ready use lockers which were storing the 4in shells and up ammo on the boat deck. This soon took a terrible toll on the boat deck personnel as the ammunition started to explode and the crew on the boat deck took cover in the lobby beneath the bridge structure. Wind fanned the fire which swept back onto the roof of X turret. worse was to come when another shell landed were the men were taking cover killing most of them. As the Hood began to turn X Turret opened fire but then a shell from Bismarck landed causing the ship to shake terribly she then began to list slightly before righting her self then seconds latter she began to roll to port and then broke in 2.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #50
Thank you for the article, a great read!
I honestly don't understand the complexity of battleship warfare of both WWI and WWII. If you have big guns ( 16", 15", 14" even 12"), it does not mean you will have guaranteed victory and if you have small guns ( 8", 6" even 5") it does not mean you will be defeated against greater enemy. As far as I understand big shells can go deeper inside the ship and when it explodes it creates havoc inside. On the other hand, smaller shells, although they dont penetrate the armour, create enough damage on the superstructure to reduce the fighting ability of the ship.
Is there any website other than wikipedia that has a very good infoon different size shell hits on ships and effects?
I honestly don't understand the complexity of battleship warfare of both WWI and WWII. If you have big guns ( 16", 15", 14" even 12"), it does not mean you will have guaranteed victory and if you have small guns ( 8", 6" even 5") it does not mean you will be defeated against greater enemy. As far as I understand big shells can go deeper inside the ship and when it explodes it creates havoc inside. On the other hand, smaller shells, although they dont penetrate the armour, create enough damage on the superstructure to reduce the fighting ability of the ship.
Is there any website other than wikipedia that has a very good infoon different size shell hits on ships and effects?
The best read i have found is the Grand Fleet ship design book you should buy it if you can find a copy as it proves just how complex the art of battleship design was. Although the smaller shell would do damage to the superstructure it would not necessarily put your ship out of action. Even thin armour did well at reducing the effects of a heavy shell hit. A battleship could take a lot of punishment from small shells and you have to remember that the heavier gun ship would be firing back, A perfect example of this is the Falklands where the Germans landed plenty of medium shells on the British battlecruisers but were just outgunned by the British. On average it would take around 20 heavy shells 11inch+ to put a battleship out of action although it would often take a lot more to sink it ie Bismarck. It is interesting to note that British shell were not very good in the early part of the war, there own tests proved that the British had no shell that could effectively penetrate armour, Most would break up on the belt, burst on the belt or bust going through the armour.
But greatly inferior to the British 13.5" and 15" shells!
The Brits tried to improve the effectiveness of the 12" gun by increasing the calibre (increase in barrel length) but the resultant gun actually proved to be less accurate. The German 11" guns fitted to the WW2 pocket battleships and the battlecruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, were excellent guns but were no match for the 14" - 16" guns of other navies. If the two battlecruisers had been rearmed as planned with 6x 15" guns (3 x 2) in place of their three tripple 11" turrets they would have been a much better match for the RN's capital ships.
After modification, including increased elevation, the RN's 15" gun was still one of the most dependable and effective big guns around in WW2. Although the last British battleship, Vanguard, mounted 15" guns originally fitted to the so called 'light' cruisers Courageous and Glorious (both later converted to carriers) built in WW1, she was considered to be very well armed, even by post WW2 standards.
Tas
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #56
Tasman check this site outBut greatly inferior to the British 13.5" and 15" shells!
The Brits tried to improve the effectiveness of the 12" gun by increasing the calibre (increase in barrel length) but the resultant gun actually proved to be less accurate. The German 11" guns fitted to the WW2 pocket battleships and the battlecruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, were excellent guns but were no match for the 14" - 16" guns of other navies. If the two battlecruisers had been rearmed as planned with 6x 15" guns (3 x 2) in place of their three tripple 11" turrets they would have been a much better match for the RN's capital ships.
After modification, including increased elevation, the RN's 15" gun was still one of the most dependable and effective big guns around in WW2. Although the last British battleship, Vanguard, mounted 15" guns originally fitted to the so called 'light' cruisers Courageous and Glorious (both later converted to carriers) built in WW1, she was considered to be very well armed, even by post WW2 standards.
Tas
http://battleshiphmsvanguard.homestead.com/15inch.html
In most of the books I read, it tells HMS Vanguard got it guns from Courageous and Glorious but I guess it had other sources too,
If I remember correctly, 13.5" gun was not satisfactory for the British in both accuarcy and its punch, they had to enlarge the gun to 15" to get perfection ( during WWI)
thanks again davros, I will get the book asap
Last edited:
Thanks Lostfleet.
So it seems from this info that whilst the turrets came from Courageous and Glorious the guns themselves came from other 15" gun ships, all of which had decommissioned by the time Vanguard joined the fleet. I didn't know that - Good research!
Tas
The Nelson factor had a big impact on British Naval thinking up to WW1. Historically the RN believed in weight (big guns) and speed of broadsides, the same as they did during the Napoleonic wars (RN ships on average fired two broadsides for a French Man-o-Wars one, they also carried carronades, the French didn't). This is a contributing factor why the RN vessels at Jutland stacked shells and cordite in their turrets and left the lift fire-doors open to increase the speed of reloading and subsequently broadside rates. Germany, thanks to good old Carl Zueiss focused on accuracy and traded larger guns for heavier armour plate.
Beatty lost his 'fast cat' Battle Cruisers at Jutland because he failed to use their design advantage - speed and big guns which could out range most German Dreadnoughts. The philosophy of the design being to stand-off and hammer your adversary before they can get in range, hence the reason for sacrificing armour plate for bigger guns and speed. His huge ego and thirst for glory resulted in him taking his ships within range of the much more heavily armoured German ships!
Two must read books, which discuss these factors in depth are:
Robert K. Massies 'Dreadnought' and 'Castles of Steel'
Beatty lost his 'fast cat' Battle Cruisers at Jutland because he failed to use their design advantage - speed and big guns which could out range most German Dreadnoughts. The philosophy of the design being to stand-off and hammer your adversary before they can get in range, hence the reason for sacrificing armour plate for bigger guns and speed. His huge ego and thirst for glory resulted in him taking his ships within range of the much more heavily armoured German ships!
Two must read books, which discuss these factors in depth are:
Robert K. Massies 'Dreadnought' and 'Castles of Steel'
It is also interesting to note that test were done with old warships where they would blow a shell up in the magazine this did not cause the entire magazine to blow up thus British ship increased there armour over the machinery space rather than over magazines. It is also worth remembering that the British didn’t have any effective shell to pierce armour which imo increased the myth that German ships could take more damage than a British Battlecruiser. Towards the end of the war the Royal Navy introduced a new range of shells that were much more effective, the outcome of a second Jutland style battle would have been much different with these shells.