Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Fusing of AP shells in battleship guns & Time of flight input
50 views
Skip to first unread message
MarchH...@hotmail.com
May 17, 2013, 3:41:40 PM5/17/13
to
Fusing of AP shells in battleship guns
Did any one every try fuses which depended on a time-of-flight input ?
It seems to me that if a shell contacts the target toward the end of
its flight, in a plunging trajectory, then it is more likely to
contact the deck armor and plunge through the depth of the ship.
Ideally it would go clean through bottom of the hull and hole the
boat, giving torpedo-like effectiveness. A long delay fuse would be
better for this.
If the shell strikes the ship early in its trajectory, then it is more
likely to strike the side armor. A short delay fuse which sets off the
charge within the guts of the ship would be more useful than a long
delay which allowed the shell to penetrate the width of the ship.
To do this, the shell would have to have two fuses, with the handover
between the two fuses set to occur by elapsed seconds after leaving
the gun.
Derek Lyons
May 18, 2013, 3:46:37 AM5/18/13
to
"MarchH...@hotmail.com" <MarchH...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Fusing of AP shells in battleship guns
>
>Did any one every try fuses which depended on a time-of-flight input ?
>
>It seems to me that if a shell contacts the target toward the end of
>its flight, in a plunging trajectory, then it is more likely to
>contact the deck armor and plunge through the depth of the ship.
>Ideally it would go clean through bottom of the hull and hole the
>boat, giving torpedo-like effectiveness. A long delay fuse would be
>better for this.
The bursting charge of an AP shell is far too small to be useful as a
>Fusing of AP shells in battleship guns
>
>Did any one every try fuses which depended on a time-of-flight input ?
>
>It seems to me that if a shell contacts the target toward the end of
>its flight, in a plunging trajectory, then it is more likely to
>contact the deck armor and plunge through the depth of the ship.
>Ideally it would go clean through bottom of the hull and hole the
>boat, giving torpedo-like effectiveness. A long delay fuse would be
>better for this.
'torpedo like effect'. (Whatever that is.)
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Keith W
May 18, 2013, 6:50:35 AM5/18/13
to
exploded after a timed period from hitting the armour, This
is much easier to manage that having to set fuze delays continually
as the range changes. The magic bullet for destroying a ship is
not punching a 16" hole in the bottom then setting of a 50lb HE
charge in the water. Its much more effective to penetrate the
magazines and explode there which will completely destroy the
vessel. See Hood, Arizona , Roma etc
High explosive shells were designed to explode on contact
and used a noze fuze with a short delay and were useful against
unarmoured ships and to wreck the upperworks, directors
and radars of an armoured ship.
Keith
Weatherlawyer
May 18, 2013, 10:42:14 AM5/18/13
to
On May 18, 11:50 am, "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk>
wrote:
mechanisms were all hit and miss. I doubtthey had an in depth enquiry
about the effectiveness of British fuses in the Campletown as it
turned out to be very effective.
And I doubt the Brits were going to tell the the Germans what was
supposed to happen.
> > It seems to me that if a shell contacts the target toward the end of
> > its flight, in a plunging trajectory, then it is more likely to
> > contact the deck armor and plunge through the depth of the ship.
> > Ideally it would go clean through bottom of the hull and hole the
> > boat, giving torpedo-like effectiveness. A long delay fuse would be
> > better for this.
>
> > If the shell strikes the ship early in its trajectory, then it is more
> > likely to strike the side armor. A short delay fuse which sets off the
> > charge within the guts of the ship would be more useful than a long
> > delay which allowed the shell to penetrate the width of the ship.
>
> > To do this, the shell would have to have two fuses, with the handover
> > between the two fuses set to occur by elapsed seconds after leaving
> > the gun.
>
> In fact this was accomplished by using a base fuzed shell which
> exploded after a timed period from hitting the armour, This
> is much easier to manage that having to set fuze delays continually
> as the range changes. The magic bullet for destroying a ship is
> not punching a 16" hole in the bottom then setting of a 50lb HE
> charge in the water. Its much more effective to penetrate the
> magazines and explode there which will completely destroy the
> vessel. See Hood, Arizona , Roma etc
Good aiming in the day of Radar's infancy, that.
> High explosive shells were designed to explode on contact
> and used a nose fuze with a short delay and were useful against
have haad some more suitable device to the RN's. There again we always
seemed to send out rowing boats out against their battleships.
It is surprising we won, isn't it.
wrote:
> MarchHare...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Fusing of AP shells in battleship guns
>
> > Did any one every try fuses which depended on a time-of-flight input ?
I don't think they had effective fuses in those days. The timing
> > Fusing of AP shells in battleship guns
>
> > Did any one every try fuses which depended on a time-of-flight input ?
mechanisms were all hit and miss. I doubtthey had an in depth enquiry
about the effectiveness of British fuses in the Campletown as it
turned out to be very effective.
And I doubt the Brits were going to tell the the Germans what was
supposed to happen.
> > It seems to me that if a shell contacts the target toward the end of
> > its flight, in a plunging trajectory, then it is more likely to
> > contact the deck armor and plunge through the depth of the ship.
> > Ideally it would go clean through bottom of the hull and hole the
> > boat, giving torpedo-like effectiveness. A long delay fuse would be
> > better for this.
>
> > If the shell strikes the ship early in its trajectory, then it is more
> > likely to strike the side armor. A short delay fuse which sets off the
> > charge within the guts of the ship would be more useful than a long
> > delay which allowed the shell to penetrate the width of the ship.
>
> > To do this, the shell would have to have two fuses, with the handover
> > between the two fuses set to occur by elapsed seconds after leaving
> > the gun.
>
> In fact this was accomplished by using a base fuzed shell which
> exploded after a timed period from hitting the armour, This
> is much easier to manage that having to set fuze delays continually
> as the range changes. The magic bullet for destroying a ship is
> not punching a 16" hole in the bottom then setting of a 50lb HE
> charge in the water. Its much more effective to penetrate the
> magazines and explode there which will completely destroy the
> vessel. See Hood, Arizona , Roma etc
> High explosive shells were designed to explode on contact
> unarmoured ships and to wreck the upperworks, directors
> and radars of an armoured ship.
Apparently the German shells were better at penetration so they must
> and radars of an armoured ship.
have haad some more suitable device to the RN's. There again we always
seemed to send out rowing boats out against their battleships.
It is surprising we won, isn't it.
Keith W
May 18, 2013, 11:40:15 AM5/18/13
to
Weatherlawyer wrote:
> On May 18, 11:50 am, "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> MarchHare...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> Fusing of AP shells in battleship guns
>>
>>> Did any one every try fuses which depended on a time-of-flight
>>> input ?
>
> I don't think they had effective fuses in those days. The timing
> mechanisms were all hit and miss. I doubtthey had an in depth enquiry
> about the effectiveness of British fuses in the Campletown as it
> turned out to be very effective.
>
> And I doubt the Brits were going to tell the the Germans what was
> supposed to happen.
>
Different fuze type entirely.
> On May 18, 11:50 am, "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> MarchHare...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> Fusing of AP shells in battleship guns
>>
>>> Did any one every try fuses which depended on a time-of-flight
>>> input ?
>
> I don't think they had effective fuses in those days. The timing
> mechanisms were all hit and miss. I doubtthey had an in depth enquiry
> about the effectiveness of British fuses in the Campletown as it
> turned out to be very effective.
>
> And I doubt the Brits were going to tell the the Germans what was
> supposed to happen.
>
Shell fuzes were used a striker and pyrotechnic train and were very
reliable,
slightly higher penetration but this was offset to a great
degree by the better performance of British armour
Hood had thin deck armour that was not adequate to protect against plunging
fire which is why she was trying to close the range when hit.
Keith
a425couple
May 18, 2013, 3:58:03 PM5/18/13
to
<MarchH...@hotmail.com> wrote in message...
http://www.aosurplus.com/Ammunition_fuze_Projectiles_Ordnance_WWII_Ammo_military.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/Gun_Data_p2.htm
http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=5596
"I seem to recall the pyrotechnic delay times in the 38 cm naval Bdz 38 was
.035 second. The BdZ 38 eV base fuzes for 20,3cm and 28cm AP and base fuzed
HE could be set to 0 delay, .015 second, or .035 second. There were a number
of base fuzes used in coastal battery ammunition which were marked KV and
these usually had a set .015 delay.
check out:
http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Ge ... _Fuzes.pdf
One thing I should add, even when set to 0 delay, there is still a finite
time between impact and fuze action in inertial type base fuzes; the time
delay figures are for the pyrotechnic element only, as far as I know."
> Did any one every try fuses which depended on a time-of-flight input ?
I really doubt that anyone tried that.
Impossible to accurately enough predict, because
until the shell has been fired, the time-of-flight
is varying.
Where, iirc, the AP fuze delay is measured in thousands of a second.
> Fusing of AP shells in battleship guns
Somebody might find these informative:
http://www.aosurplus.com/Ammunition_fuze_Projectiles_Ordnance_WWII_Ammo_military.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/Gun_Data_p2.htm
http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=5596
"I seem to recall the pyrotechnic delay times in the 38 cm naval Bdz 38 was
.035 second. The BdZ 38 eV base fuzes for 20,3cm and 28cm AP and base fuzed
HE could be set to 0 delay, .015 second, or .035 second. There were a number
of base fuzes used in coastal battery ammunition which were marked KV and
these usually had a set .015 delay.
check out:
http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Ge ... _Fuzes.pdf
One thing I should add, even when set to 0 delay, there is still a finite
time between impact and fuze action in inertial type base fuzes; the time
delay figures are for the pyrotechnic element only, as far as I know."
> Did any one every try fuses which depended on a time-of-flight input ?
Impossible to accurately enough predict, because
until the shell has been fired, the time-of-flight
is varying.
Where, iirc, the AP fuze delay is measured in thousands of a second.
peter skelton
May 18, 2013, 5:52:22 PM5/18/13
to
"a425couple" wrote in message
news:kn8mh...@news6.newsguy.com...
> Did any one every try fuses which depended on a
> time-of-flight input ?
I really doubt that anyone tried that.
While that is certainly true in the context of this
discussion, a time fuse was available for USN and RN
nose-fused battleship projectiles. Navweaps says the USN
ones were intended for AA, actual usage was for AP (from
memory, not Navweaps). Proximity fusing would have made them
obsolescent.
news:kn8mh...@news6.newsguy.com...
> Did any one every try fuses which depended on a
> time-of-flight input ?
I really doubt that anyone tried that.
discussion, a time fuse was available for USN and RN
nose-fused battleship projectiles. Navweaps says the USN
ones were intended for AA, actual usage was for AP (from
memory, not Navweaps). Proximity fusing would have made them
obsolescent.
Shawn Wilson
May 20, 2013, 2:57:38 PM5/20/13
to
On May 17, 12:41 pm, "MarchHare...@hotmail.com"
of proximity fuzes, the only reason for it would be range safety. 'Do
not arm until x seconds after launch' to prevent damage to the ship.
As a premature that would damage the ship seems impossible, I really
doubt they would bother. Everything would be impact fuzed, with a
slight delay for armor piercing rounds.
<MarchHare...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Fusing of AP shells in battleship guns
>
> Did any one every try fuses which depended on a time-of-flight input ?
Aside from AA, which would absolutely require it until the development
> Fusing of AP shells in battleship guns
>
> Did any one every try fuses which depended on a time-of-flight input ?
of proximity fuzes, the only reason for it would be range safety. 'Do
not arm until x seconds after launch' to prevent damage to the ship.
As a premature that would damage the ship seems impossible, I really
doubt they would bother. Everything would be impact fuzed, with a
slight delay for armor piercing rounds.
0 new messages