Jump to content


Photo

Hms Hood And Other Ships


  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#21 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,212 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 20 April 2018 - 1905 PM

 


Did not work well for PoW  guns bearing forward bearing forward.
 
I wonder about the stress of firing 6-8 major caliber guns on 0 degrees relative bearing.  Many years ago I was told the Iowas could not do it, but I never followed it up when I had the chance. I have the French BB book of Jordan and Dumas, and will check on this. There were no more all-forward BB in the Richelieu class after the first three, rest had fore and after main gun turrets. That tells us something. At Mers el Kebir the two Dunkerques were Med-moored with sterns to the open sea. Not nice.

When we did a tour of the Wisconsin a couple years ago the docent did say that the 16" guns were never supposed to be fired directly over the bow.  I don't recall anyone asking why.   
 
I've heard the same, reason given that the ship's roll would absorb the recoil impulse. 

Edited by shep854, 20 April 2018 - 2227 PM.

  • 0

#22 glappkaeft

glappkaeft

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Linköping, Sweden

Posted 21 April 2018 - 1129 AM

I've heard the same, reason given that the ship's roll would absorb the recoil impulse.


Other reasons I heard was that it would cause damage to the ship like tearing up the deck, damaging any AA guns placed forward and even cracking the optics of the forward turrets.
  • 0

#23 alejandro_

alejandro_

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,086 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oxfordshire, UK
  • Interests:History, cinema, football, aviation, armour, military history.

Posted 21 April 2018 - 1140 AM

I've heard the same, reason given that the ship's roll would absorb the recoil impulse.

 

And what is the procedure if you are chasing a target? I am wondering if firing the guns one by one is still possible.


  • 0

#24 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,212 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 21 April 2018 - 1224 PM

I've heard the same, reason given that the ship's roll would absorb the recoil impulse.

 
And what is the procedure if you are chasing a target? I am wondering if firing the guns one by one is still possible.
Even a small angle would vector the recoil to the side. The charge used would play a part as well.
The firing sequence is a good question, since guns in each mount are normally fired one at a time to avoid interference between shells.
Awaiting more information and correction...
  • 0

#25 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,686 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 21 April 2018 - 1251 PM

One could fire salvos of three from each turret, you may be thinking of the slight delay given the guns to avoid interference; this was common in the USN triple turrets. I always presumed longitudinal stress was the problem of firing  six guns forward, but I have not looked it up.

 

Turret three-shots:

R74Uc3.jpg

 

 

 

Full broadside:

 

GpksjH.jpg

 

Taken on board USS Wisconsin gunnery trials, 1989


Edited by Ken Estes, 21 April 2018 - 1252 PM.

  • 0

#26 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,212 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 21 April 2018 - 1436 PM

Thanks, Ken. That was what I was trying to express. :)
  • 0

#27 Adam_S

Adam_S

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,300 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 April 2018 - 1616 PM

The Iowas' bow also rises up a fair bit (sorry, not sure what the correct nautical term is). If she fired her forward turrets at 0 degree elevation, she'd shoot the top of it off.

 

ucSZAHv.jpg

 

port_bow_view_uss_iowa_bb_61_nov_30__198

 

Compare to the bow for a KGV which IIRC had some sort of requirement to be able to fire her guns at low elevation over the bow.

 

KGV%252520Bow.jpg

 

The compromise made them wet ships forward though and the RN adopted a different design with Vanguard.

 

large_000000.jpg


  • 0

#28 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,686 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 21 April 2018 - 1635 PM

Googling the Q of forward firing BB guns, I found discussions but few conclusions. 

 

Then there is this: go to 8:00 --

 

https://www.youtube....youtu.be&t=8m2s

 

 

Indicated that the blast of both turrets of the Iowa class firing forward was considered likely to strip the forecastle of practically all material, including the anchor chains, capstans and so forth. 

 

Further discussions but without much authority:   https://www.reddit.c...nt_fire_bow_on/

 

One needs to have someone such as Bill Jurens' opinion or statement on this, but I don't find it, viz.  http://www.navweaps...._BB-Gunnery.php


Edited by Ken Estes, 21 April 2018 - 1644 PM.

  • 0

#29 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,126 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hertfordshire, England

Posted 23 April 2018 - 0359 AM

Sorry, no citations beyond "it's probably in DK Brown's BB development series somewhere", but there were restrictions on arcs to be used for peacetine firings of RN guns, although my recollection of this is that the main concern was damage to the psint, deck and fixtures, rather than overall ship integrity.
I'd be intrigued about the relative shape and magnitude of transmitted recoil forces versus slamming into a wave at 30knots...

Edited by DB, 23 April 2018 - 0359 AM.

  • 0

#30 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,686 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 23 April 2018 - 1003 AM

Nothing in Friedman's US Battleships either. The French Battleships 1922-1956 shows that their quad turrets were considered effectively as two half turrets and the right and left pairs were fired alternating although dispersion was unsatisfactory because of the shells being too close together when fired that way.


Edited by Ken Estes, 23 April 2018 - 1004 AM.

  • 0

#31 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,462 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Madrid, Spain
  • Interests:Military history in general

Posted 23 April 2018 - 1240 PM

Sorry, no citations beyond "it's probably in DK Brown's BB development series somewhere", but there were restrictions on arcs to be used for peacetine firings of RN guns, although my recollection of this is that the main concern was damage to the psint, deck and fixtures, rather than overall ship integrity.
I'd be intrigued about the relative shape and magnitude of transmitted recoil forces versus slamming into a wave at 30knots...

 

DK mentioned in his books that superfiring turrets were not like in the pre-WW1 RN due to blast from the superior turret damaging the rangefinders and incapacitating personnel in the lower one and IIRC Rodney damaged itself firing at Bismarck over the bow,


  • 0

#32 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,126 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hertfordshire, England

Posted 23 April 2018 - 1321 PM

I think that was a specific consequence of the open hoods on turrets, so yes, there was that - I had forgotten that.


  • 0

#33 Harold Jones

Harold Jones

    Shaken but not deterred...

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,980 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Armor, History, Fishing and Beer

Posted 23 April 2018 - 1608 PM

Well it was possible for the USS North Carolina.

 

http://www.navy.mil/...na/ncar1941.jpg


  • 0

#34 MiloMorai

MiloMorai

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,680 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawa

Posted 23 April 2018 - 1614 PM

Well it was possible for the USS North Carolina.

 

http://www.navy.mil/...na/ncar1941.jpg

 During trials and no results of damage, if any.


  • 0

#35 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,686 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 23 April 2018 - 2040 PM

If Iowa class museum docents are putting it out, there must be something written up. The longitudinal problem for the Iowas might stem from the sheer as well as narrow beam of the hull forward of the first turret barbette, placing loads on the ship not experienced by the shorter hull BBs.


  • 0

#36 Jeff

Jeff

    Drum beating laughing boy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,796 posts

Posted 27 April 2018 - 1804 PM

Well it was possible for the USS North Carolina.

 

http://www.navy.mil/...na/ncar1941.jpg

But at full elevation. ISTR the shock would damage the ship spaces directly below in the bow.


  • 0

#37 Andreas

Andreas

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 709 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London
  • Interests:North Africa in WW2, Intelligence, Naval

Posted 27 April 2018 - 2037 PM

Captain O'Connor was KIA when his first command, HMS Neptune, ran into a minefield in December 1941 and went down with exactly one survivor.

 

Interestingly another case where an enemy was chased at not insubstantial although calculated risk. A number of survivors apparently went into the boats, but only one was left when he was picked up by the Italians six days later.

 

Story here: http://www.hmsneptune.com/history1.htm

 

Board of Inquiry and picture of O'Conor (sic!) here:

 

http://www.hmsneptune.com/inquiry.htm

 

Sobering read.

 

All the best

 

Andreas


  • 0

#38 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,686 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 02 May 2018 - 0817 AM

Indeed, most sobering and moving.


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users