Shaped Charge in Naval Artillery
sap...@hotmail.com
Given that a shaped charge, especially of 12" diameter, will penetrate
a great distance of material, including steel armor, were there
pre-carrier age experiments to manufacture a shaped charge naval
shell, shaped charge torpedo warhead or shaped charge anti-ship bomb ?
Paul J. Adam
"sap...@hotmail.com" <sap...@hotmail.com> writes
The shaped charge didn't gain traction until the late 1930s, so well
after the advent of carriers.
The other problem is behind-armour effects, which depend on target size
and density. Get through a tank's armour and you have a small space
crowded with crew, ammunition, fuel, hydraulic fluid and other items
that react very poorly to spall. Warships are much larger, better
compartmentalised, and have their vulnerable points more spread out (and
often with additional splinter protection) so shaped-charge weapons are
less able to inflict serious damage without very precise targeting.
>
--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides
paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com
Peter Skelton
<ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <dang74l5p4is7tcqo...@4ax.com>,
>"sap...@hotmail.com" <sap...@hotmail.com> writes
>>Shaped Charge in Naval Artillery
>>
>>
>>Given that a shaped charge, especially of 12" diameter, will penetrate
>>a great distance of material, including steel armor, were there
>>pre-carrier age experiments to manufacture a shaped charge naval
>>shell, shaped charge torpedo warhead or shaped charge anti-ship bomb ?
>
>The shaped charge didn't gain traction until the late 1930s, so well
>after the advent of carriers.
>
>The other problem is behind-armour effects, which depend on target size
>and density. Get through a tank's armour and you have a small space
>crowded with crew, ammunition, fuel, hydraulic fluid and other items
>that react very poorly to spall. Warships are much larger, better
>compartmentalised, and have their vulnerable points more spread out (and
>often with additional splinter protection) so shaped-charge weapons are
>less able to inflict serious damage without very precise targeting.
>
You left out the splinter shield behind the armor :)
Peter Skelton
Taki Kogoma
allegedly proclaimed to sci.military.naval:
> Given that a shaped charge, especially of 12" diameter, will penetrate
> a great distance of material, including steel armor, were there
> pre-carrier age experiments to manufacture a shaped charge naval
> shell, shaped charge torpedo warhead or shaped charge anti-ship bomb ?
Some light ASW torpedos have had shaped charge ("Directed Energy")
warheads for 20+ years.
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk (Known to some as Taki Kogoma) quirk @ swcp.com
Just an article detector on the Information Supercollider.
Raymond O'Hara
"Peter Skelton" <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:qbnh74pm45hghuk42...@4ax.com...
the spaced armour placement of the South Dakotas and Iowas would have been
excellent against a shaped charge .
Per Nordenberg
"Taki Kogoma" <qu...@swcp.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:slrng7htk0...@chishio.swcp.com...
> On 2008-07-12, sap...@hotmail.com <sap...@hotmail.com>
> allegedly proclaimed to sci.military.naval:
>> Given that a shaped charge, especially of 12" diameter, will penetrate
>> a great distance of material, including steel armor, were there
>> pre-carrier age experiments to manufacture a shaped charge naval
>> shell, shaped charge torpedo warhead or shaped charge anti-ship bomb ?
>
> Some light ASW torpedos have had shaped charge ("Directed Energy")
> warheads for 20+ years.
Like Stingray for example?
Regards,
Per Nordenberg
Paul J. Adam
<per.nor...@swipnet.se> writes
It's "Sting Ray" or Gerry Anderson gets royalties.
Fred J. McCall
:On 2008-07-12, sap...@hotmail.com <sap...@hotmail.com>
:allegedly proclaimed to sci.military.naval:
:> Given that a shaped charge, especially of 12" diameter, will penetrate
:> a great distance of material, including steel armor, were there
:> pre-carrier age experiments to manufacture a shaped charge naval
:> shell, shaped charge torpedo warhead or shaped charge anti-ship bomb ?
:
:Some light ASW torpedos have had shaped charge ("Directed Energy")
:warheads for 20+ years.
:
But we've had carriers for a bit longer than 20+ years.
The Munroe Effect was discovered back in the late 1890s. It wasn't
recognized as militarily useful until the 1940s. So no, there were no
pre-carrier age experiments to manufacture shaped-charge ANYTHING.
--
"Death is my gift." -- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer
dott.Piergiorgio
> Taki Kogoma <qu...@swcp.com> wrote:
>
> :On 2008-07-12, sap...@hotmail.com <sap...@hotmail.com>
> :allegedly proclaimed to sci.military.naval:
> :> Given that a shaped charge, especially of 12" diameter, will penetrate
> :> a great distance of material, including steel armor, were there
> :> pre-carrier age experiments to manufacture a shaped charge naval
> :> shell, shaped charge torpedo warhead or shaped charge anti-ship bomb ?
> But we've had carriers for a bit longer than 20+ years.
>
> The Munroe Effect was discovered back in the late 1890s. It wasn't
> recognized as militarily useful until the 1940s. So no, there were no
> pre-carrier age experiments to manufacture shaped-charge ANYTHING.
I'm wrong or, in general, shaped charges are effective only around the
normal angle (that is, 90° between trajectory and armour) ? this reduce
much the effectiveness in Naval context, more than the above mentioned
lesser density inside warships (but if a shaped charge struck around the
turret area and the hot jet reach the magazine...)
IIRC there was the Mistel, whose was a late WWII German anti-BB drone,
whose has a very large shaped charge warhead.
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
Kerryn Offord
I believe 90 degrees is "optimal" and that they still work quite well on
shallower angles, but at some point the slope can deflect the
penetrator/ jet. also, the shallower he angle the more armour that has
to be penetrated...
And finally.. depending on how the charge is set off. the probe may not
make sufficient contact to initiate the charge if the armour is
sufficiently sloped.
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
:> Taki Kogoma <qu...@swcp.com> wrote:
:>
:> :On 2008-07-12, sap...@hotmail.com <sap...@hotmail.com>
:> :allegedly proclaimed to sci.military.naval:
:> :> Given that a shaped charge, especially of 12" diameter, will penetrate
:> :> a great distance of material, including steel armor, were there
:> :> pre-carrier age experiments to manufacture a shaped charge naval
:> :> shell, shaped charge torpedo warhead or shaped charge anti-ship bomb ?
:
:> But we've had carriers for a bit longer than 20+ years.
:>
:> The Munroe Effect was discovered back in the late 1890s. It wasn't
:> recognized as militarily useful until the 1940s. So no, there were no
:> pre-carrier age experiments to manufacture shaped-charge ANYTHING.
:
:I'm wrong or, in general, shaped charges are effective only around the
:normal angle (that is, 90° between trajectory and armour) ?
:
While there is some truth to this, it can strike fairly far off normal
and still be effective. Otherwise angled armor on tanks would render
HEAT totally ineffective (and it doesn't).
tankfixer
skel...@cogeco.ca says...
How would you keep thi huge shaped charge projectile from detonating
when it hits the ships side well away from the actual armor ?
--
"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"
tankfixer
dott.Pierg...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it says...
> Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
> > Taki Kogoma <qu...@swcp.com> wrote:
> >
> > :On 2008-07-12, sap...@hotmail.com <sap...@hotmail.com>
> > :allegedly proclaimed to sci.military.naval:
> > :> Given that a shaped charge, especially of 12" diameter, will penetrate
> > :> a great distance of material, including steel armor, were there
> > :> pre-carrier age experiments to manufacture a shaped charge naval
> > :> shell, shaped charge torpedo warhead or shaped charge anti-ship bomb ?
>
> > But we've had carriers for a bit longer than 20+ years.
> >
> > The Munroe Effect was discovered back in the late 1890s. It wasn't
> > recognized as militarily useful until the 1940s. So no, there were no
> > pre-carrier age experiments to manufacture shaped-charge ANYTHING.
>
>
> I'm wrong or, in general, shaped charges are effective only around the
> normal angle (that is, 90° between trajectory and armour) ? this reduce
> much the effectiveness in Naval context, more than the above mentioned
> lesser density inside warships (but if a shaped charge struck around the
> turret area and the hot jet reach the magazine...)
And they don't work as well as a spinning projectile either..
Hence fin stablized HEAT rounds from tanks.
> IIRC there was the Mistel, whose was a late WWII German anti-BB drone,
> whose has a very large shaped charge warhead.
Peter Skelton
Talking about side armour here.
The main armour belt was very often the outer shell of the ship.
When it was not, the outer layer was almost always thin. Getting
a projectile through that layer undamaged was no big deal. A
compression or deceleration fuse would probably be easier to
devise than real naval AP fuses.
Peter Skelton
Fred J. McCall
:In article <dVbek.5615$p07...@tornado.fastwebnet.it>,
:dott.Pierg...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it says...
:> Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
:> > Taki Kogoma <qu...@swcp.com> wrote:
:> >
:> > :On 2008-07-12, sap...@hotmail.com <sap...@hotmail.com>
:> > :allegedly proclaimed to sci.military.naval:
:> > :> Given that a shaped charge, especially of 12" diameter, will penetrate
:> > :> a great distance of material, including steel armor, were there
:> > :> pre-carrier age experiments to manufacture a shaped charge naval
:> > :> shell, shaped charge torpedo warhead or shaped charge anti-ship bomb ?
:>
:> > But we've had carriers for a bit longer than 20+ years.
:> >
:> > The Munroe Effect was discovered back in the late 1890s. It wasn't
:> > recognized as militarily useful until the 1940s. So no, there were no
:> > pre-carrier age experiments to manufacture shaped-charge ANYTHING.
:>
:>
:> I'm wrong or, in general, shaped charges are effective only around the
:> normal angle (that is, 90° between trajectory and armour) ? this reduce
:> much the effectiveness in Naval context, more than the above mentioned
:> lesser density inside warships (but if a shaped charge struck around the
:> turret area and the hot jet reach the magazine...)
:
:
:And they don't work as well as a spinning projectile either..
:
HEAT in a spinning round doesn't work hardly at all. The spin breaks
up the jet as it forms. Witness the trouble the French go to with the
fancy bearing races on HEAT rounds so that they can fire them from
rifled guns.
[The British also use a rifled tank gun, but they tend to use HEP/HESH
vice HEAT.]
:
:Hence fin stablized HEAT rounds from tanks.
:
Everything from the 120mm Rheinmetal gun better be fin stabilized,
since it's a smoothbore.
Derek Lyons
>In message <dang74l5p4is7tcqo...@4ax.com>,
>"sap...@hotmail.com" <sap...@hotmail.com> writes
>>Shaped Charge in Naval Artillery
>>
>>
>>Given that a shaped charge, especially of 12" diameter, will penetrate
>>a great distance of material, including steel armor, were there
>>pre-carrier age experiments to manufacture a shaped charge naval
>>shell, shaped charge torpedo warhead or shaped charge anti-ship bomb ?
>
>The shaped charge didn't gain traction until the late 1930s, so well
>after the advent of carriers.
>
>The other problem is behind-armour effects, which depend on target size
>and density. Get through a tank's armour and you have a small space
>crowded with crew, ammunition, fuel, hydraulic fluid and other items
>that react very poorly to spall. Warships are much larger, better
>compartmentalised, and have their vulnerable points more spread out (and
>often with additional splinter protection) so shaped-charge weapons are
>less able to inflict serious damage without very precise targeting.
Not to mention that, in order for even a fraction of their potential
effect to be felt, shaped charge warheads have to impact the target at
a fairly precise angle. Rather easy to arrange (in relative terms) in
an anti-tank round, a severe bitch to arrange with a torpedo or bomb.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Richard Casady
wrote:
>(and
>>often with additional splinter protection)
>You left out the splinter shield behind the armor :)
Left out what?
Casady
a425couple
> tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote:
>>skel...@cogeco.ca says...
>>> "Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> >"sap...@hotmail.com" <sap...@hotmail.com> writes
>>> >>Shaped Charge in Naval Artillery
>>> >after the advent of carriers.
>>when it hits the ships side well away from the actual armor ?
> When it was not, the outer layer was almost always thin. Getting
> a projectile through that layer undamaged was no big deal. A
> compression or deceleration fuse would probably be easier to
> devise than real naval AP fuses.
Yes.
I have a question - never got answered.
(excuse me if now the 'exacts' are a bit off)
After the fight with Bismark, in examining the Prince of Wales,
they found that a 15" shell from Bismark had hit the water
surface, travelled about 80' through the water, then pierced
through the 'torpedo bulge' and lodged against next
barrier - unexploded!! Breath deeply!
It was safely removed in dry dock.
Do you figure
1. The gradual decelleration of this shell made it so
the fuze never reached it's designed parameters to explode,
or 2. The fuze in some way was one of many that failed?
Raymond O'Hara
"a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_b-dnR6uRPjjvOfV...@comcast.com...
what did the brits determine when they examined it
U.S. 16 inch shells were fused to dentonate when it penetrated at least 1
inch of armor
when the Massachusetts hit the french DD Albatros the shell tore through the
ship eventually coming to rest in an engine room but it never went off
because it never hit anything 1 inch thick.
CJ Adams
Effect is that its penetrative power is much reduced by
rotation of the shell. An efficient shaped sharge shouldn't
rotate and thus needs to be either fired from a smoothbore
or be a non-rotating round of some other type, like a
rocket. In either case accuracy was a problem prior to
sophisticated guidance systems. At 12" gun ranges, rifling
was necessary to achieve consistent fall of shot.
There are smoothbore tank guns firing HEAT, a shaped-charge
round, or APFSDS which defeats armour through its kinetic
energy alone. However, these are employed at ranges which
would be considered short by big-ship sailors.
Laying tanks aside (even though a farsighted Admiralty was
in at their birth and thus they almost qualify as a naval
topic), there is a further problem with a shaped charge
shell at sea. An armour-piercing shell has a strong, solid
pointy-end to achieve penetration of the target. A
shaped-charge projectile has a softer tip, one that its
charge can eat through to get at the steel it hits. It thus
goes off at the first solid object it strikes and cannot
penetrate before exploding. That first solid object may be
quite unimportant and while twhatever is behind it will be
seriously damaged, that damage might not matter much.
Ship'a armour was often in layers -- a tough armoured deck
to decap or set off bombs and shells and a splinter deck
below to stop the bits. A shaped charge would expend its
force on the first armour, leaving the second layer
relatively untouched. Standoff distance between the shaped
charge and its target is critical and only the first plate
of steel will be at that right distance. Anything behind it
would be too far away to be holed.
Naval ammunition can pierce steel and then with a delay fuze
go off inside the target, generally to much greater effect
even though its net explosive content is often quite low
(i.e., there's a lot of steel shell surrounding a smallish
charge). The same applies to a bomb.
It seems to me that ordinary AP, SAP and HE shell did just
fine and no advantage was seen in shaped-charge naval rounds
nor in the effort required to come up with a suitable gun or
launcher. Nobody wanted a modern Carronade.
Underwater weapons I know nothing about. Can anyone tell me
about 'directed energy' torpedos?
Cheers
CJ Adams
Andrew Robert Breen
a425couple <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>(excuse me if now the 'exacts' are a bit off)
>After the fight with Bismark, in examining the Prince of Wales,
>they found that a 15" shell from Bismark had hit the water
>surface, travelled about 80' through the water, then pierced
>through the 'torpedo bulge' and lodged against next
>barrier - unexploded!! Breath deeply!
>It was safely removed in dry dock.
>
>Do you figure
>1. The gradual decelleration of this shell made it so
>the fuze never reached it's designed parameters to explode,
>or 2. The fuze in some way was one of many that failed?
Fuses often malfunctioned. IIRC, at the end of the same action,
a 14" shell from PoW was found lodged next to?/under? one
of _Bismarck_'s 15" magazines. The fuse hadn't functioned
(if it had, _Bismarck_ would likely have been a hole in
the water).
It probably damped any enthusism for chasing PoW quite
effectively.
--
Andy Breen ~ Speaking for myself, not the University of Wales
"your suggestion rates at four monkeys for six weeks"
(Peter D. Rieden)
a425couple
> sap...@hotmail.com <sap...@hotmail.com>
>> Given that a shaped charge,
> ("Directed Energy") warheads for 20+ years.
To your point, yes, indeed.
Because any hole in the pressure hull of a submarine
is extremely likely to kill it (or at least "mission-kill" it.)
By same idea/point.
Why are we using this huge number of big depth charges
making huge expolsions and huge holes in the ocean
hoping to damage/destroy the subs.
Hmm, how about little 'hedgehogs', small, but only go off
it they actually hit something? Just a little bang, only
need one if it has contact (normally).
Hmm, are they still finding large numbers of these
unexploded "hedgehogs" on the ocean bottom?
Hmm, if you find one, there are probably about
23 more nearby.
Paul J. Adam
<a425c...@hotmail.com> writes
>By same idea/point.
>Why are we using this huge number of big depth charges making huge
>expolsions and huge holes in the ocean hoping to damage/destroy the
>subs.
Because, among other things, it's really bad for the morale of the
submariners.
>Hmm, how about little 'hedgehogs', small, but only go off it they
>actually hit something? Just a little bang, only need one if it has
>contact (normally).
Better for lethality, but depth charges had their place too - a
ten-charge pattern over the track of a lost contact might be lethal, and
would certainly do its crew's state of mind no good.
>Hmm, are they still finding large numbers of these unexploded
>"hedgehogs" on the ocean bottom?
I don't think anyone's looking overmuch.
Paul J. Adam
writes
>Underwater weapons I know nothing about. Can anyone tell me
>about 'directed energy' torpedos?
Some lightweight ASW torpedoes (US Mark 50, Eurotorp Impact, UK Sting
Ray) use a shaped-charge warhead to increase lethality. A large
submarine with lots of standoff between casing and pressure hull (like a
lot of ex-Soviet boats) might be relatively robust against a 100lb blast
warhead from a Mark 46-type weapon, but a shaped charge is better able
to guarantee a decent-size hole in the pressure hull to give rapid and
fatal flooding (when you've got a 12" diameter charge, you can laugh off
a fair bit of intervening space and clutter: when we SINKEXed HMS
Porpoise with Sting Ray, she came apart in dramatic style).
One issue with such warheads is the need for quite accurate target
tracking and terminal attack geometry, but with
microprocessor-controlled weapons that's achievable.
a425couple
> crowded with crew, ammunition, fuel, hydraulic fluid and other items
> that react very poorly to spall.
Just my little complement to Paul,
especially to his profoundly understated truth,
"react very poorly" !!
Recall one time showing a 'newbie' a killed tank.
'What hit it to cause this garbage?'
I point out a little hole, no bigger than a pencil.
'Nonsense, it must have been one of these huge
areas of damage!'
Ohhh, when you consider a littler than a pencil
mass of tiny superhot particals travelling very fast,
and what they do to everyone and everthing inside.
All the rest, is from inside out.
CJ Adams
>
>
> In message <c1mpk5-...@news.start.ca>, CJ Adams <blue...@start.ca>
> writes
>> Underwater weapons I know nothing about. Can anyone tell me
>> about 'directed energy' torpedos?
>
> Some lightweight ASW torpedoes (US Mark 50, Eurotorp Impact, UK Sting
> Ray) use a shaped-charge warhead to increase lethality. A large
> submarine with lots of standoff between casing and pressure hull (like a
> lot of ex-Soviet boats) might be relatively robust against a 100lb blast
> warhead from a Mark 46-type weapon, but a shaped charge is better able
> to guarantee a decent-size hole in the pressure hull to give rapid and
> fatal flooding (when you've got a 12" diameter charge, you can laugh off
> a fair bit of intervening space and clutter: when we SINKEXed HMS
> Porpoise with Sting Ray, she came apart in dramatic style).
Is it the same sort of shaped-charge warhead as used on
land? Is noncompressability of water a factor?
Cheers
CJ Adams
Raymond O'Hara
"Andrew Robert Breen" <a...@aber.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:l9npk5x...@news.aber.ac.uk...
> In article <_b-dnR6uRPjjvOfV...@comcast.com>,
> a425couple <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>(excuse me if now the 'exacts' are a bit off)
>>After the fight with Bismark, in examining the Prince of Wales,
>>they found that a 15" shell from Bismark had hit the water
>>surface, travelled about 80' through the water, then pierced
>>through the 'torpedo bulge' and lodged against next
>>barrier - unexploded!! Breath deeply!
>>It was safely removed in dry dock.
>>
>>Do you figure
>>1. The gradual decelleration of this shell made it so
>>the fuze never reached it's designed parameters to explode,
>>or 2. The fuze in some way was one of many that failed?
>
> Fuses often malfunctioned. IIRC, at the end of the same action,
> a 14" shell from PoW was found lodged next to?/under? one
> of _Bismarck_'s 15" magazines. The fuse hadn't functioned
> (if it had, _Bismarck_ would likely have been a hole in
> the water).
>
> It probably damped any enthusism for chasing PoW quite
> effectively.
if it didn't penetrate the magazine before detonating it wouldn't have set
off the magazine
Raymond O'Hara
"CJ Adams" <blue...@start.ca> wrote in message
news:c1mpk5-...@news.start.ca...
>
> There are smoothbore tank guns firing HEAT, a shaped-charge
> round, or APFSDS which defeats armour through its kinetic
> energy alone. However, these are employed at ranges which
> would be considered short by big-ship sailors.
>
> Laying tanks aside (even though a farsighted Admiralty was
> in at their birth and thus they almost qualify as a naval
> topic), there is a further problem with a shaped charge
> shell at sea. An armour-piercing shell has a strong, solid
> pointy-end to achieve penetration of the target. A
> shaped-charge projectile has a softer tip, one that its
> charge can eat through to get at the steel it hits. It thus
> goes off at the first solid object it strikes and cannot
> penetrate before exploding. That first solid object may be
> quite unimportant and while twhatever is behind it will be
> seriously damaged, that damage might not matter much.
> Ship'a armour was often in layers -- a tough armoured deck
> to decap or set off bombs and shells and a splinter deck
> below to stop the bits. A shaped charge would expend its
> force on the first armour, leaving the second layer
> relatively untouched. Standoff distance between the shaped
> charge and its target is critical and only the first plate
> of steel will be at that right distance. Anything behind it
> would be too far away to be holed.
a screen mesh was found to defeat shaped charges. look at the armor on
vietnam river monitors and on stryker armored vehicles in iraq.
tankfixer
fmc...@earthlink.net says...
That's my point
> [The British also use a rifled tank gun, but they tend to use HEP/HESH
> vice HEAT.]
>
> :
> :Hence fin stablized HEAT rounds from tanks.
> :
>
> Everything from the 120mm Rheinmetal gun better be fin stabilized,
> since it's a smoothbore.
Yup
Andrew Robert Breen
Raymond O'Hara <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Andrew Robert Breen" <a...@aber.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:l9npk5x...@news.aber.ac.uk...
>> In article <_b-dnR6uRPjjvOfV...@comcast.com>,
>> a425couple <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>(excuse me if now the 'exacts' are a bit off)
>>>After the fight with Bismark, in examining the Prince of Wales,
>>>they found that a 15" shell from Bismark had hit the water
>>>surface, travelled about 80' through the water, then pierced
>>>through the 'torpedo bulge' and lodged against next
>>>barrier - unexploded!! Breath deeply!
>>>It was safely removed in dry dock.
>> Fuses often malfunctioned. IIRC, at the end of the same action,
>> a 14" shell from PoW was found lodged next to?/under? one
>> of _Bismarck_'s 15" magazines. The fuse hadn't functioned
>> (if it had, _Bismarck_ would likely have been a hole in
>> the water).
>>
>> It probably damped any enthusism for chasing PoW quite
>> effectively.
>
>if it didn't penetrate the magazine before detonating it wouldn't have set
>off the magazine
AP shells produced big splinters. These could go a long way and carve
through a lot of structure - as shown by post-WW1 firing trials against
ex-German ships with protection very closely comparible to _Bismarck_.
A shell bursting under the magazine could certainly send splinters
into it, with detrimental results.
--
Andy Breen, not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales
"The internet, that wonderful tool for bringing us into contact
with things that make us wish we could scrub our brains out with
dental floss.." (Charlie Stross)
Paul J. Adam
writes
>Paul J. Adam wrote:
>> Some lightweight ASW torpedoes (US Mark 50, Eurotorp Impact, UK
>>Sting Ray) use a shaped-charge warhead to increase lethality.
>Is it the same sort of shaped-charge warhead as used on land?
Yes, at least in overall appearance. 12" shaped charge, lacquered copper
conical liner, track plate on the back to get the detonation wave moving
the right way through the fill.
>Is noncompressability of water a factor?
Don't think so.
Andrew Robert Breen
Paul J. Adam <paul.j.adam...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>In message <jntpk5-...@news.start.ca>, CJ Adams <blue...@start.ca>
>writes
>>Paul J. Adam wrote:
>>> Some lightweight ASW torpedoes (US Mark 50, Eurotorp Impact, UK
>>>Sting Ray) use a shaped-charge warhead to increase lethality.
>
>
>Don't think so.
We used to have one of the world's leading experimental combustion and
shock physics group here (well, at least leading in public domain
and not behind defence orders). A friend of mine who worked in that
group once took me to task to describing water as "incompressible". Put
enough energy in and it's very conmpressible. The energy levels they
were dealing with were, I suspect, roughly compatible to a warhead
detonation, so it's probably safe to assume that in that regime water
acts as a compressible medium.
--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)
Raymond O'Hara
not through a foot+ of armor they won't
Peter Skelton
Was I unclear? "Additional splinter protection" means light armor
to protect personnel in exposed positions.
Peter Skelton
Peter Skelton
Andy, was the shell room under the powder room or the other way
around in B (save me looking it up)
Peter Skelton
Peter Skelton
<raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Actually Ray, the Germans disdn't put more than a foot of armour
on the bottom of the magazines, possibly because there are not
that many guns that shoot straight up. This could have been a
golden BB of the sort that sank Hood.
Peter Skelton
Andrew Robert Breen
Um. Without looking up myself I know not. I /think/ it was above, but
I'd not swear to it.
Andrew Robert Breen
Paul J. Adam
<a...@aber.ac.uk> writes
>We used to have one of the world's leading experimental combustion and
>shock physics group here (well, at least leading in public domain
>and not behind defence orders). A friend of mine who worked in that
>group once took me to task to describing water as "incompressible". Put
>enough energy in and it's very conmpressible. The energy levels they
>were dealing with were, I suspect, roughly compatible to a warhead
>detonation, so it's probably safe to assume that in that regime water
>acts as a compressible medium.
Given that, in the arena of discussion, copper and steel are both being
treated as fluids...
(Shaped charges get you into _interesting_ realms of materials science)
Raymond O'Hara
"Peter Skelton" <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:t9uk749ffneg5bsqu...@4ax.com...
it sounds like a far fetched claim.
and the bottoms of magazines are protrcted because mines and torpedos can
get under a ship
and the shell would have been detonated by armor before it could get under a
magazine if it wasn't a dud,
http://www.kbismarck.com/proteccioni.html
Raymond O'Hara
>
> Um. Without looking up myself I know not. I /think/ it was above, but
> I'd not swear to it.
http://www.kbismarck.com/proteccioni.html
the PoW hit the bismarck 3 times.in the bow , near the catapult in the bow
and one other that must be the shell in question.
Raymond O'Hara
splinter conjures up small slivers but they might be rather large chunks of
steel.
here is a url that shows what is left of a 16 inch projectile that
detonates.
they were recoverd from the jean bart after it was raised. they are on the
massachusetts today
http://polyticks.com/bbma/shells.htm
Dean A. Markley
just went through 1 inch of armor? I was thinking an accelerometer
(decelerometer?) would do it but wouldn't that also tend to be set off
with several thinner layers of armor?
Fred J. McCall
:In article <vVzx$ZDjwleIFw$b...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk>,
:Paul J. Adam <paul.j.adam...@googlemail.com> wrote:
:>In message <jntpk5-...@news.start.ca>, CJ Adams <blue...@start.ca>
:>writes
:>>Paul J. Adam wrote:
:>>> Some lightweight ASW torpedoes (US Mark 50, Eurotorp Impact, UK
:>>>Sting Ray) use a shaped-charge warhead to increase lethality.
:>
:>>Is noncompressability of water a factor?
:>
:>Don't think so.
:
:We used to have one of the world's leading experimental combustion and
:shock physics group here (well, at least leading in public domain
:and not behind defence orders). A friend of mine who worked in that
:group once took me to task to describing water as "incompressible". Put
:enough energy in and it's very conmpressible. The energy levels they
:were dealing with were, I suspect, roughly compatible to a warhead
:detonation, so it's probably safe to assume that in that regime water
:acts as a compressible medium.
:
Actually, there's very little that will pass a sound wave or a shock
wave that qualifies as 'incompressible'. Think about how an implosion
fusion weapon works...
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
Raymond O'Hara
"Dean A. Markley" <deanm...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:rKydnbHvFevWBufV...@comcast.com...
the fuse was in the base and i think it just needed enough force to
trigger it. rather like a sheer pin holds an outboard motor prop in place
under normal loads but snaps when the prop hits something solid like an
underwater rock you didn't see.
look here to see the fuse placement
http://www.geocities.com/fort_tilden/16ingun.html
Peter Skelton
<raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
It's not in a reference I've seen
>and the bottoms of magazines are protrcted because mines and torpedos can
>get under a ship
>
They are protected. The protection is integral to the bottom of
the ship and depends on void spaces to dessipate explosion gas.
There's not much against a shell exploding in the proposed
location.
>
>and the shell would have been detonated by armor before it could get under a
>magazine if it wasn't a dud,
>
>http://www.kbismarck.com/proteccioni.html
>
OFCS go to NO's page and get a reasonable appraisal.
Peter Skelton
Raymond O'Hara
"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:u97l74d5bnicpdqei...@4ax.com...
>
> Actually, there's very little that will pass a sound wave or a shock
> wave that qualifies as 'incompressible'. Think about how an implosion
> fusion weapon works...
>
if one wants to get anal anything will compress as neutron stars show us.
Peter Skelton
<deanm...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Now I have a question? How does such a fuse work? How does it know it
>just went through 1 inch of armor? I was thinking an accelerometer
>(decelerometer?) would do it but wouldn't that also tend to be set off
>with several thinner layers of armor?
try
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-020.htm
it's by Nathan Okun, who is both readable and reliable.
To lose a lot of time enjoyably try
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/index_tech.htm
Peter Skelton
Raymond O'Hara
the shell would have gone off before it got under any magazine.
tankfixer
oh...@hotmail.com says...
I don't recall any ships magazines that had 12 inches of armor on the
underside.
tankfixer
oh...@hotmail.com says...
That works against rocket propelled HEAT rounds.
Not sure how effective it would be against a 12 inch shaped charge round
fired from a naval rifle
tankfixer
oh...@hotmail.com says...
Actually it was found that just armor was counter productive when placed
under a magazine.
In tests it tended to buckle and split the seams when a charge was set
off under it.
Thus letting in water, always a bad thing for a surface ship.
Designers found that two or three bottoms were a more effective defense
against under keel mines and torpedoes.
>
>
> and the shell would have been detonated by armor before it could get under a
> magazine if it wasn't a dud,
>
> http://www.kbismarck.com/proteccioni.html
>
>
>
--
Raymond O'Hara
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
news:MPG.22e46f2a4...@nntp.earthlink.net...
any shaped charge will dissipate in an open space. it might burn through two
feet of steel but that small space will defeat it.
Dan
Depends on many factors, not the least of which was the delay in the fuse.
Dan
tankfixer
oh...@hotmail.com says...
A 12 inch naval projectile will arrive at a bit faster velocity than a
RPG, won't it Ray ?
Blow right through that wire mesh you are proposing.
Raymond O'Hara
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
shape charge are contact fused, they don't penetrate anything. they hit and
go off and burn through what they hit.
a small iron bar mesh or even a thin outer shell will defeat them.
and who has a 12 inch gun that fires heat rounds.
and you want an AP heat rond. its one or the other.
and who has a fin stabilied 12 inch gun.
as has been said in this thread heat rounds are fin stbilized not spin
stabilized.
you are off base crank-licker.
Andrew Robert Breen
>>detonation, so it's probably safe to assume that in that regime water
>>acts as a compressible medium.
>
>Given that, in the arena of discussion, copper and steel are both being
>treated as fluids...
As Sian put it - enough energy and almost anything will behave as a
compressible fluid..
>(Shaped charges get you into _interesting_ realms of materials science)
--
guy
> "Peter Skelton" <skelt...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:3rtk74hvj1tf5naab...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 14:36:32 GMT, richardcas...@earthlink.net
> > (Richard Casady) wrote:
>
> >>On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:36:49 -0400, Peter Skelton <skelt...@cogeco.ca>
> >>wrote:
>
> >>>(and
> >>>>often with additional splinter protection)
>
> >>>You left out the splinter shield behind the armor :)
>
> >>Left out what?
>
> > Was I unclear? "Additional splinter protection" means light armor
> > to protect personnel in exposed positions.
>
> > Peter Skelton
>
> splinter conjures up small slivers but they might be rather large chunks of
> steel.
>
> here is a url that shows what is left of a 16 inch projectile that
> detonates.
> they were recoverd from the jean bart after it was raised. they are on the
>
> - Show quoted text -
Depends on the type of shell, A British AP round produced large
splinters easily capable of penetrating bulkeads and other structure.
an HE round produced small splinters that would be deflected by
structure and thus go round corners, destoying cablin etc. See Browns'
Nelson to Vanguard, or it may have been the book before.
Guy
guy
> "Peter Skelton" <skelt...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:vl8l745vf7jfruinr...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 19:29:59 -0400, "Raymond O'Hara"
>
> >>"Peter Skelton" <skelt...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
> >>news:t9uk749ffneg5bsqu...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 17:41:00 -0400, "Raymond O'Hara"
> >>> <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>"Andrew Robert Breen" <a...@aber.ac.uk> wrote in message
> >>>>news:dn2qk5x...@news.aber.ac.uk...
> >>>>> Raymond O'Hara <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>"Andrew Robert Breen" <a...@aber.ac.uk> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:l9npk5x...@news.aber.ac.uk...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why? AP rounds were fitted with delay fuses such that they exploded
after they penetrated armour, IIRC generally 12-30 feet the other
side.
Guy
Fred J. McCall
:In article <9IydnTndrY7v0efV...@rcn.net>, raymond-
:
It doesn't even work against RP HEAT these days. Modern rounds are
2-stage, with a small charge to take out initial screening or set off
BLAZER and a larger secondary charge to take the armor.
--
"Death is my gift." -- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer
Kerryn Offord
> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> news:MPG.22e4836ca...@nntp.earthlink.net...
>> In article <gpWdnWELEbzZR-fV...@rcn.net>, raymond-
>> oh...@hotmail.com says...
>>> any shaped charge will dissipate in an open space. it might burn through
>>> two
>>> feet of steel but that small space will defeat it.
>> A 12 inch naval projectile will arrive at a bit faster velocity than a
>> RPG, won't it Ray ?
>>
>> Blow right through that wire mesh you are proposing.
>
> shape charge are contact fused, they don't penetrate anything. they hit and
> go off and burn through what they hit.
***
They aren't "contact" fused, they are "impact" fused..
I believe they use a piezoelectric crystal at the tip of the probe (well
they used to). Impact of sufficient "force" generates electricity
(piezoelectric effect) which initiates the charge.
Try dropping a 120mm HEAT round (or dropping something onto the probe,
or having the loader knock it when hastily reloading his gun). They
don't go off on contact...
> a small iron bar mesh or even a thin outer shell will defeat them.
***
Which explains the heavy steel skirts on tanks to protect the side from
HEAT projectiles rather than than using much lighter wire mesh...
A small mesh screen won't necessarily prevent the HEAT round making
contact from a fast moving projectile (With a lot of momentum behind
it.. like a 120mm or even 12" round.).. They might stop thrown AT
grenades and relatively low momentum RPG/ bazooka/ panzerfaust/
panzerschreck and rifle grenade HEAT rounds
>
> and who has a 12 inch gun that fires heat rounds.
***
Nobody now.. But 12" was the standard BB main gun way back when..
I doubt anything over 122mm has ever had/ needed HEAT... It has only
really been used as an anti-tank round. for the reasons given, it's not
ideal against something as large as a ship (How did they go in New
Georgia with that Corvette hit by rounds from a Carl Gustav? (Falklands
1982)
>
> and you want an AP heat rond. its one or the other.
>
> and who has a fin stabilied 12 inch gun.
***
Who has 12' guns
>
> as has been said in this thread heat rounds are fin stbilized not spin
> stabilized.
***
Not quite true... Low velocity light and medium artillery were equipped
with HEAT (Soviet 122mm M1938; soviet 122mm DF-30; Yugoslav 105mm M-56;,
USA 105mm M101A1;USA 105mm M102;
Italian 105mm Model 56 pack howitzer; USA 75mm M116 pack howitzer) to
list a few..
They were rifled weapons.. So the penetration power of the projectile
wasn't as good as it could be because the round was spun.. Didn't stop
them producing and I assume, issuing the rounds.
6" and above artillery generally felt that hitting a tank with a HE
round would do more damage than hitting them with a HEAT round... so
didn't bother with HEAT (Also, they should never be in a situation where
they need direct fire ammo against tanks...)
Peter Skelton
<raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
OFCS would you kindly get a little education?
Peter Skelton
tankfixer
Yes I understand the concept. Do you understand what the OP was
proposing ?
A large caliber shaped charge projectile for naval guns.
>
> and who has a 12 inch gun that fires heat rounds.
That was the question the OP raised, would one have been effective?
>
> and you want an AP heat rond. its one or the other.
>
> and who has a fin stabilied 12 inch gun.
>
> as has been said in this thread heat rounds are fin stbilized not spin
> stabilized.
The French being the notable exception, having designed a ball bearing
mounted HEAT warhead to allow them to fire shaped charge from rifled
guns.
>
> you are off base crank-licker.
It would appear you can't keep up with what the original poster asked.
Richard Casady
wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 14:36:32 GMT, richar...@earthlink.net
>(Richard Casady) wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:36:49 -0400, Peter Skelton <skel...@cogeco.ca>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>(and
>>>>often with additional splinter protection)
>>
>>>You left out the splinter shield behind the armor :)
>>
>>Left out what?
>>
>Was I unclear? "Additional splinter protection" means light armor
>to protect personnel in exposed positions.
It was a rhetorical question. You said it was there, clearly enough. I
even believed it. I usually do, your stuff. Someone else said it was
left out. I pointed that out.
Casady
Keith Willshaw
"Raymond O'Hara" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2tydnZCYy-3qLefV...@rcn.net...
>
>>
>>
>> Peter Skelton
>
>
> the shell would have gone off before it got under any magazine.
>
Care to explain what happened to HMS Hood then ?
Hint the fuzes on AP rounds had a delay to ensure they
were well inside the ship before they exploded.
Keith
a425couple
> "a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
>> "Peter Skelton" <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote ...
>>> tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote:
>>>>skel...@cogeco.ca says...
>>>>> "Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> >"sap...@hotmail.com" <sap...@hotmail.com> writes
>>
>> After the fight with Bismark, in examining the Prince of Wales, they
>> found that a 15" shell from Bismark had hit the water surface, travelled
>> about 80' through the water, then pierced through the 'torpedo bulge' and
>> lodged against next barrier - unexploded!! Breath deeply!
>> It was safely removed in dry dock.
>>
>> 1. The gradual decelleration of this shell made it so the fuze never
>> reached it's designed parameters to explode, or 2. The fuze in some way
>> was one of many that failed?
>
> what did the brits determine when they examined it
Yes.
What Ray asked above, is the core of my question.
Very highly classified at the time, but surely now known (?!.)
I think it very likely they removed and examined the fuze.
What did they determine? (see footnote)
Although, I suppose it's possible the entire projectile intact
could have just been hauled out to sea and dumped, or
taken away from everything and exploded
(possible - but seems to me unlikely!)
footnote - this reminds me of later - the MIG
that returned to base, with an unexploded Sidewinder
stuck in it. Hmm, suppose we ought to examine this?
Examination and reverse engineering saved many years
of AAM work.
Dennis
>>Hmm, how about little 'hedgehogs', small, but only go off it they
>>actually hit something? Just a little bang, only need one if it has
>>contact (normally).
>
> Better for lethality, but depth charges had their place too - a
> ten-charge pattern over the track of a lost contact might be lethal, and
> would certainly do its crew's state of mind no good.
Isn't the reason hedgehogs weren't used more the amount of deck space
they needed? You'd be able to drop depth charges off almost any ship, I'd
think.
Dennis
guy
Hedgehog took up very little room, (a 7 shot version was fitted to the
back of a Matilda Tank) and was very widely used. The key to its value
was that it could be fired while you had ASDIC (SONAR) contact, depth
charges could not.
see a pic here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedgehog_(weapon)
Guy
Peter Skelton
Hedghog might have taken very little room, for large values of
little, but warships are crowded things that already had too much
topweight.
The normal version was 24 shots, a pair of twelves sometimes
being fitted if a forward gun had to be retained. It was not a
small outfit partly because of the training and roll
compensation.
Peter Skelton
Richard Casady
<raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>An armour-piercing shell has a strong, solid
>>> > pointy-end to achieve penetration of the target.
What you see is a thin windshield that is pointed. The part that does
the penetrating is also pointed, but not as much as the windshield,
and will be capped with a blunter, softer bit which reenforces it,so
that a sharp point doesn't break off as easily and so that it won't
glance off as easily. Strong and solid don't go with pointy, of
course.
Casady
Paul J. Adam
<tsalag...@asus.net> writes
>Paul J. Adam wrote:
>> Better for lethality, but depth charges had their place too - a
>> ten-charge pattern over the track of a lost contact might be lethal, and
>> would certainly do its crew's state of mind no good.
>
> Isn't the reason hedgehogs weren't used more the amount of deck space
>they needed? You'd be able to drop depth charges off almost any ship, I'd
>think.
Topweight, not deck space. Hedgehog tended to be heavy, although
compact: hence the US adoption of Mousetrap for smaller units.
All things are relative, of course: depth charges at 300-600lb apiece
were weighty items, especially if you wanted a decent pattern (which
meant projectors as well as racks). Even MTBs could carry two or four
charges to roll off the stern, but being able to conduct a sustained
attack of effective patterns required quite a lot of topweight and real
estate.
--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides
paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com
William Hamblen
Casady) wrote:
>What you see is a thin windshield that is pointed. The part that does
>the penetrating is also pointed, but not as much as the windshield,
>and will be capped with a blunter, softer bit which reenforces it,so
>that a sharp point doesn't break off as easily and so that it won't
>glance off as easily. Strong and solid don't go with pointy, of
>course.
The USN WWII 16" armor piercing projectile was rather blunt. The
business end appeared to have a spherical shape, and the cap was a
fairly complex looking shape. The windshield had an ogival shape.
There is a photo of a man standing next to the pieces at
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7_shell-parts_pic.jpg
The same illustration appeared in the book US Navy Bureau of Ordnance
in World War II, that the Navy published in the '50s.
Bud
"
William Hamblen
<guyswe...@googlemail.com> wrote:
There was a lower limit to the size of the ship owing to the recoil
and so-on. There also wasn't much point to putting a hedgehog on
anything that wasn't a specialist submarine hunter.
Bud
guy
> In message <Xns9ADF5CB8CA98tsalagiNOSPAMasus...@130.133.1.4>, Dennis
> <tsalagiNOS...@asus.net> writes
>
> >Paul J. Adam wrote:
> >> Better for lethality, but depth charges had their place too - a
> >> ten-charge pattern over the track of a lost contact might be lethal, and
> >> would certainly do its crew's state of mind no good.
>
> > Isn't the reason hedgehogs weren't used more the amount of deck space
> >they needed? You'd be able to drop depth charges off almost any ship, I'd
> >think.
>
> Topweight, not deck space. Hedgehog tended to be heavy, although
> compact: hence the US adoption of Mousetrap for smaller units.
>
> All things are relative, of course: depth charges at 300-600lb apiece
> were weighty items, especially if you wanted a decent pattern (which
> meant projectors as well as racks). Even MTBs could carry two or four
> charges to roll off the stern, but being able to conduct a sustained
> attack of effective patterns required quite a lot of topweight and real
> estate.
Damn sight lighter than a ten pattern depth charge salvo (+aupporting
equipment, throwers etc) though
Guy
Peter Skelton
<guyswe...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On 18 Jul, 22:35, "Paul J. Adam" <n...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <Xns9ADF5CB8CA98tsalagiNOSPAMasus...@130.133.1.4>, Dennis
>> <tsalagiNOS...@asus.net> writes
>>
>> >Paul J. Adam wrote:
>> >> Better for lethality, but depth charges had their place too - a
>> >> ten-charge pattern over the track of a lost contact might be lethal, and
>> >> would certainly do its crew's state of mind no good.
>>
>> > Isn't the reason hedgehogs weren't used more the amount of deck space
>> >they needed? You'd be able to drop depth charges off almost any ship, I'd
>> >think.
>>
>> Topweight, not deck space. Hedgehog tended to be heavy, although
>> compact: hence the US adoption of Mousetrap for smaller units.
>>
>> All things are relative, of course: depth charges at 300-600lb apiece
>> were weighty items, especially if you wanted a decent pattern (which
>> meant projectors as well as racks). Even MTBs could carry two or four
>> charges to roll off the stern, but being able to conduct a sustained
>> attack of effective patterns required quite a lot of topweight and real
>> estate.
>
>Damn sight lighter than a ten pattern depth charge salvo (+aupporting
>equipment, throwers etc) though
>
That turns out to be incorrect. A standard depth charge pattern
was 8 (2400#), required 2 guns and rails, a standard hedgehog was
24 (1800#), required the spigots on their leveled bed. The weight
was nearly the same, as might be expected as the designers worked
backwards from what the ships could carry.
In the USN the standard loadout for hedgehog was 10 patterns.
That represented a 25% saving on the same number of depth-charge
patterns, offset by the equipment being carried higher.
Peter Skelton
Raymond O'Hara
"Richard Casady" <richar...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:488af530....@news.east.earthlink.net...
you snipped anything i posted but left my name, and you snipped the name of
whomever you quoted.
Raymond O'Hara
"William Hamblen" <wrha...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ad328411q74dktede...@4ax.com...
yes the pointed end was a ballistic cap for aerodynamic purposes
Raymond O'Hara
the advantage of the hedgehog was you knew if you got a hit.
the sub couldn't spoof you with an oil slick.
Dennis
>>> In message , Dennis writes
So why weren't hedgehogs used more? Deck space again?
Dennis
guy
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hedgehog was very widely used, I cannot imagine any UK a/s escort
being built without it once it was available (unless they had squid).
Guy
Peter Skelton
Strange, I thought they designed the thing so that you could keep
ASDIC contact up to and through the attack. An offsetting factor
was that you needed to actually hit the submarine, another was
that, at depth, a submarine might survive the explosion. (By the
time hedgehog came out, nobody was much impressed by an oil
slick.)
Peter Skelton
Peter Skelton
wrote:
They were used very extensively, the USN seems to have found them
a great bit of kit, the RN less so.
There's a table of RN success here:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMBR_ASW.htm
which seems to imply that hedgehog was better than the RN
thought, at least initially at the coalface.
(from D-Day on, there was a lot of ASW in the channel where
hedgehog was not much use.)
Unfortunately there's no corresponding table at
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMUS_ASW.htm
(There's an interesting comment on the USN's evaluation of
squid.)
Peter Skelton
guy
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 00:33:17 -0400, "Raymond O'Hara"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Peter Skelton" <skelt...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yed that was my impression too, basically with hedgehog you could
'see' what you were shooting at, with depth charges you had to close
your eyes for a few seconds before 'shooting'
Huy
Richard Casady
<wrha...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>Hedgehog took up very little room, (a 7 shot version was fitted to the
>>back of a Matilda Tank)
I am willing to believe it can be done, but I can't imagine why you
would want to. How do you get within range of a sub with a tank?
As far as I know they never dropped them from planes which might even
have worked.
Casady
Richard Casady
<raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Richard Casady" <richar...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:488af530....@news.east.earthlink.net...
>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:46:58 -0400, "Raymond O'Hara"
>> <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>An armour-piercing shell has a strong, solid
>>>>> > pointy-end to achieve penetration of the target.
>>
>> What you see is a thin windshield that is pointed. The part that does
>> the penetrating is also pointed, but not as much as the windshield,
>> and will be capped with a blunter, softer bit which reenforces it,so
>> that a sharp point doesn't break off as easily and so that it won't
>> glance off as easily. Strong and solid don't go with pointy, of
>> course.
>>
>> Casady
>
>
>you snipped anything i posted but left my name, and you snipped the name of
>whomever you quoted.
>
Sorry. I snip a lot, nearly everything, sometimes too much.
Casady
Paul J. Adam
<richar...@earthlink.net> writes
>On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:52:19 -0500, William Hamblen
><wrha...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>Hedgehog took up very little room, (a 7 shot version was fitted to the
>>>back of a Matilda Tank)
>
>I am willing to believe it can be done, but I can't imagine why you
>would want to. How do you get within range of a sub with a tank?
A salvo of seven nose-fuzed HE projectiles were useful for rather more
than just submarines...
Keith Willshaw
The Australians found the ability to drop bombs containing 30lbs of
HE onto Japanese bunkers to be a good thing in the PTO
Keith
Andrew Robert Breen
The 'tilda fit was for bunker-busting. Made a remarkable mess of earth or
concrete strongpoints, by all accounts.
--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)
William Hamblen
wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 00:33:17 -0400, "Raymond O'Hara"
Most ASW ships in WWII had a big blind spot directly under the ship.
If you steamed over the target you would lose contact, Hedgehog or
not. If you had ASW ships working in pairs, or a sonar that "looked"
straight down, you could avoid the problem.
Bud
Peter Skelton
A blind cone starting 20-30 degrees from horizontal under the
ship. Spot is too weak a word.
A depth charge explosion disturbed the water enough to break
contact as well as being hard on nearby ASDICs, to say nothing of
the operators. The bang from hedgehog was much smaller and only
happened if it hit.
Peter Skelton
a425couple
> There's a table of RN success here:
> http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMBR_ASW.htm
> http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMUS_ASW.htm
Thank you Peter for adding good sources.
> (from D-Day on, there was a lot of ASW in the channel where
> hedgehog was not much use.)
Anyone care to explain that above better for me?
>> So why weren't hedgehogs used more? Deck space again?
Ahhh, just seems to me, that they were put on just
about everything designated primarily for ASW work.
Sidenote - but to help show the 'excess',
- of the 148 Buckley class DEs, it was decided to
switch 50 over to APDs.
- of the 72 Rudderow, 50 were switched to APDs!
Also, (along earlier mentions of weight/size),
consider that a Hedgehog mount alone does
not make a ship a decent ASW.
You also really want;
-size (seakeeping & endurance),
-speed (probably minimum 22 knts),
-guns = minimum 3" gun, better x2, best 5" (or else sub
could just stay on surface)
-sonar, so know where to fire the hedgehog.
-really nice to have HF/DF and radar.
So a DE size ship (289' ft. & +) is probably near smallest
ideal package (but I give all greatest respects for the smaller
ships that had to do their best in the early 'lean' years).