Battleship Main Gun Optimum Size
Charles Talleyrand
gun they could mount in these numbers. Significant engineering effort
was put into designing, building, and mounting these ever larger
guns. The results seem to show that main gun hits were more rare than
the designers might have expected, and that one hit would not mission-
kill nor sink an enemy vessel.
Instead of designers working ever harder to build and mount larger
guns, they might instead have tried to mount *more* guns. So for
instance, instead of mounting on the Queen Elizabeth four twin-turret
15" guns, they might have mounted four triple-turret 12" guns. The
result is less weight of gun for the Queen Elizabeth to carry, less
weight per broadside fired at the enemy, but more total hits on the
enemy.
The end result of such a move is something like an larger, better
built Agincourt, with triple turrets. Such a ship would have 21 guns
and 18 in any broadside.
Comments?
-Charles Talleyrand
Dave
news:1183355612....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
A 12 inch gun was not powerful enough to seriously damage a modern
battleship in WWII. Even the 13.6 inch Italian main armament on their
modernized WWI vintage ships was inadequate.
There was merit to the argument that more guns scoring more hits would be
more effective even if they were lighter caliber, however 14 inch guns were
the smallest caliber that would be effective. The original plan for the KGV
class with 12x14 inch guns would in my opinion have been able to contend
with any Treaty BB, however when the British discovered that their design
could not make the weight and took out two guns, the ships were considered
undergunned. The quad turrets also had many "teething" problems which were
by no means restricted to the Bismarck actions.
There were always problems in ammunition supply to turrets with more than
two guns. The USN eventually worked out reasonably effective solutions, but
there were many difficulties in British triple and quad designs.
Dave Welsh
dwel...@cox.net
Eugene Griessel
>There was merit to the argument that more guns scoring more hits would be
>more effective even if they were lighter caliber, however 14 inch guns were
>the smallest caliber that would be effective. The original plan for the KGV
>class with 12x14 inch guns would in my opinion have been able to contend
>with any Treaty BB, however when the British discovered that their design
>could not make the weight and took out two guns, the ships were considered
>undergunned. The quad turrets also had many "teething" problems which were
>by no means restricted to the Bismarck actions.
It must be remembered that the original thoughts that led to the KGV
class actually called for nine 15 or 16 inch guns - however the treaty
limit on hull size and the British hopes of getting a treaty limit on
gun size dominated the design from the beginning.
Eugene L Griessel
I always wanted to be a procrastinator, never got around to it.
dott.Piergiorgio
> A 12 inch gun was not powerful enough to seriously damage a modern
> battleship in WWII. Even the 13.6 inch Italian main armament on their
> modernized WWI vintage ships was inadequate.
12.6", for the nitpick.....
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
cliff wright
Ah well! it depends on more than the actual bore size of the gun of
course. Thanks to KE=1/2 MV2 the muzzle velocity is even more important
as is the design of the shells used.
In WW2 14" shells from the "Prince of Wales" did quite a lot of damage
to the "Bismark".
Always one must remember that as with a tank a battleships armour was
concentrated. Mainly in a waterline "belt" and around the gun turrets or
"barbettes" if you are a purist, with some coverage of control areas,
bridge rangefinders etc and some deck armour against plunging fire.
In actual fact even a heavy cruisers 8" guns could still do appreciable
damage to a battleship, if they could get within range. Also quite small
aerial armour piercing bombs (250 Kg or so)were quite deadly on deck
armour and even more so when dropped in weak spots like funnels.
The bomb would hit at only 700 Km/h or so.
This compares with a shell much heavier than a bomb and with probably 3
or 4 times the impact velocity of the bomb.
I for one am NOT going to volunteer to be a target for 12" naval guns
even on one of the old US 16" gun ships made during WW2.
As for the Roma and similar Italian WW2 battleships, well lack of
training especially in night fighting was far more important than the
14" and 15" guns of British ships in the Meditteranean.
Before any gun can be effective it has to hit the target and be placed
in a positon to do so.
regards Cliff Wright.
Brad Meyer
<kitpl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Comments?
IMO there is a serious ranging issue here. If your BB does not have a
serious speed advantage it is likely never to haul within range of of
its target and get peppered from outside its own effective range.
Andre Lieven
Yes; Smaller guns tend to have, all other things being equal, less
range, so that a " light battleship " ( Think light V/ heavy cruisers )
would be outranged by an opponent that had fewer but heavier guns.
Because BBs had to be able to fight at greater ranges than cruisers,
this is why no one ever wanted a light cruiser model with BBs.
Because such a ship would be a waste of time, and it would lose.
HMS Agincourt was an abortion.
Andre
Andre Lieven
> "Charles Talleyrand" <kitpl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1183355612....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> Most all battleships used between 9 and 12 guns, and used the biggest
>> gun they could mount in these numbers. Significant engineering effort
>> was put into designing, building, and mounting these ever larger
>> guns. The results seem to show that main gun hits were more rare than
>> the designers might have expected, and that one hit would not mission-
>> kill nor sink an enemy vessel.
>>
>> Instead of designers working ever harder to build and mount larger
>> guns, they might instead have tried to mount *more* guns. So for
>> instance, instead of mounting on the Queen Elizabeth four twin-turret
>> 15" guns, they might have mounted four triple-turret 12" guns. The
>> result is less weight of gun for the Queen Elizabeth to carry, less
>> weight per broadside fired at the enemy, but more total hits on the
>> enemy.
>>
>> The end result of such a move is something like an larger, better
>> built Agincourt, with triple turrets. Such a ship would have 21 guns
>> and 18 in any broadside.
>>
>> Comments?
>
> A 12 inch gun was not powerful enough to seriously damage a modern
> battleship in WWII. Even the 13.6 inch
The rebuilt Cavors had their 12 inch guns bored out to 12.6 inches.
> Italian main armament on their
> modernized WWI vintage ships was inadequate.
>
> There was merit to the argument that more guns scoring more hits would be
> more effective even if they were lighter caliber, however 14 inch guns were
> the smallest caliber that would be effective. The original plan for the KGV
> class with 12x14 inch guns would in my opinion have been able to contend
> with any Treaty BB, however when the British discovered that their design
> could not make the weight and took out two guns, the ships were considered
> undergunned. The quad turrets also had many "teething" problems which were
> by no means restricted to the Bismarck actions.
>
> There were always problems in ammunition supply to turrets with more than
> two guns. The USN eventually worked out reasonably effective solutions, but
> there were many difficulties in British triple and quad designs.
Quite.
Andre
Glenn Dowdy
"Charles Talleyrand" <kitpl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183355612....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> The end result of such a move is something like an larger, better
> built Agincourt, with triple turrets. Such a ship would have 21 guns
> and 18 in any broadside.
>
> Comments?
>
We sould build our battleships with main guns that are 0.1" bigger than
those of our enemies, so we can use their shells when we capture their ships
but they can't use ours.
Glenn D.
Pete Granzeau
<kitpl...@gmail.com> wrote:
The Agincourt was excessive given any standard already (the longest
battleship in the Grand Fleet, for instance).
I don't think a "larger" Agincourt was possible. She was already the
longest battleship in the Grand Fleet. At the time she was built,
British gun makers were evidently concentrating on dual turrets.
Dual turrets seemed to have been the norm in the larger navies during
the development of the Dreadnought fleets of WW II. Russia, Italy, and
Austria all developed triple turrets, whereas the UK, Germany, and USA
all continued with dual 12" turrets they already were building (for
predreadnoughts). Only the USN switched to triple turrets when they
began building several classes of nearly-identical ships with 14" guns
in the 19-teens, and then, when they upgraded to 16" guns, they reverted
to dual turrets, so as not to increase weight of armament (as opposed to
weight of broadside) and allow for heavier armor.
John Carrier
"Charles Talleyrand" <kitpl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183355612....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
I have a feeling that larger (and significant heavier) will trump more guns,
within technical reason (a Missouri with 3 20" guns sounds implausible).
The US increased the weight of the 16" projectiles (at a slight range
penalty) just to improve their lethality. Bigger is generally better,
unless its already big enough.
R / John
Kerryn Offord
<SNIP>
> The Agincourt was excessive given any standard already (the longest
> battleship in the Grand Fleet, for instance).
>
> I don't think a "larger" Agincourt was possible. She was already the
> longest battleship in the Grand Fleet. At the time she was built,
> British gun makers were evidently concentrating on dual turrets.
>
<SNIP>
Wasn't Agincourt originally built for the South American Market?
Where lots of guns means "something"...
Charles Talleyrand
> "Charles Talleyrand" <kitplan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > Instead of designers working ever harder to build and mount larger
> > guns, they might instead have tried to mount *more* guns. So for
> > instance, instead of mounting on the Queen Elizabeth four twin-turret
> > 15" guns, they might have mounted four triple-turret 12" guns. The
> > result is less weight of gun for the Queen Elizabeth to carry, less
> > weight per broadside fired at the enemy, but more total hits on the
> > enemy.
> A 12 inch gun was not powerful enough to seriously damage a modern
> battleship in WWII. Even the 13.6 inch Italian main armament on their
> modernized WWI vintage ships was inadequate.
>
It's not obvious to me that this is true.
I agree that a 12" shell is not going to penetrate turret armor.
However a ship hit by a 12" shell will take real damage, both from
damage to the unprotected parts of the ship (and that's most of the
ship) and from the shock damaging internal components. Most
battleships did not explode from an armor-penetrating hit to the
magazine like the Hood. Instead, most battleships were battered to
death by many hits like the Bismark.
WWI and even WWII battleships were not immune to a 12" shell.
Perhaps the real question is this .... does two hits by a 12" shell do
more damage than one hit by a 16" shell.
Compare a British 12"/45 Mark 8 of year 1914 with a 16"/45 Mark 1 of
1927. Note the 16" gun has over a decade of additional technlogy
behind it.
Two 12" guns weigh 104,000 kg (without breech).
One 16" gun weighs 109,000 kg (with breech).
Two 12" guns throw 1,700 lbs or shell.
One 16" gun throws 2,000 lbs of shell.
Two 12" guns fire 3 rounds/minute total
One 16" gun fires 1.5 rounds/minute.
A 12" gun will range 20,000 yards at 16 degrees elevation, and more if
your turrets allow it. With enough elevation, you can get as far as
you likely can target. Heck, a US 12"/50 Mark 8 can go past 38,000
yards.
A 16" gun will range past your fire control system's reach.
> There were always problems in ammunition supply to turrets with more than
> two guns. The USN eventually worked out reasonably effective solutions, but
> there were many difficulties in British triple and quad designs.
I understand that. However, there were also problems developing
larger guns, and the technical effort that went into one could have
gone into the other.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_12-45_mk13.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_16-45_mk1.htm
Charles Talleyrand
> On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 22:53:32 -0700, Charles Talleyrand
>
> >Comments?
>
> IMO there is a serious ranging issue here. If your BB does not have a
> serious speed advantage it is likely never to haul within range of of
> its target and get peppered from outside its own effective range.
That's fair. But the range of a large shell is determined at least as
much by the elevation of the mount than the weight of the shell. For
example, a British Mark 8 12" shell was limited to about 20 yards by
it's elevation limit of about 16 degres. The US Mark I could range
past 35,000 yards in large part because it could elevate to 45
degrees.
I don't think anyone is getting hits past 30,000 yards in battle
conditions, especially in WWI.
Keith Willshaw
"Charles Talleyrand" <kitpl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183355612....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Erm thats what RN designers DID - see the KGV class with 10 - 14" guns
however the problem with the concept is that if the shell is unable to
penetrate the enemies armour you may as well stay at home. The optimum
probably was the 16" gun.
Of course the fleet carrier with its torpedo carrying aircraft would always
trump this hand.
Keith
Charles Talleyrand
The Agincourt was a weird ship. I agree that deck surface limits the
amount of guns that can be placed onto a reasonable ship. No one is
proposing 30 guns/hull. However, a norm of 15-16 instead of a norm of
9 or 12 would be reasonable.
Keith Willshaw
"Pete Granzeau" <pgra...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:0toi835k1f6ho5koa...@4ax.com...
If you really mean WW2 this seems to be wrong.
Rodney and Nelson used triple 16" while, the KGV's used quad 14"
If you mean WW1 this still fails as the Orion, Iron Duke and King George V
Classes had moved up to 13.5".
> Only the USN switched to triple turrets when they
> began building several classes of nearly-identical ships with 14" guns
> in the 19-teens, and then, when they upgraded to 16" guns, they reverted
> to dual turrets, so as not to increase weight of armament (as opposed to
> weight of broadside) and allow for heavier armor.
Only on the Colorado Class, the Iowa's , South Dakotas and North Carolina's
all had
triple turrets.
Keith
Matt Giwer
> Most all battleships used between 9 and 12 guns, and used the biggest
> gun they could mount in these numbers. Significant engineering effort
> was put into designing, building, and mounting these ever larger
> guns. The results seem to show that main gun hits were more rare than
> the designers might have expected, and that one hit would not mission-
> kill nor sink an enemy vessel.
> Instead of designers working ever harder to build and mount larger
> guns, they might instead have tried to mount *more* guns. So for
> instance, instead of mounting on the Queen Elizabeth four twin-turret
> 15" guns, they might have mounted four triple-turret 12" guns. The
> result is less weight of gun for the Queen Elizabeth to carry, less
> weight per broadside fired at the enemy, but more total hits on the
> enemy.
How do you get more hits when smaller guns also have less range? The only hope
of that is a much higher speed to get within range of the targets before being
taken out. And then the hits are only effective on the lightly armored decks and
have a minimal impact on the heavily armored hull.
> The end result of such a move is something like an larger, better
> built Agincourt, with triple turrets. Such a ship would have 21 guns
> and 18 in any broadside.
The effectiveness of a shell is roughly proportional to the cube of the radius.
For 16 to 12 inches that is 8^3/6^3, 512/215 or about 240% more effective. So
even neglecting the armor you have to get 24 hits just to equal the other guy's 10.
--
The Iraq war cannot be won because Bush refuses to define victory.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3814
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
antisemitism http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ a1
Nik Simpson
You're neglecting the problem of ammo stowage, at around 200/gun & 9
guns you're carrying 1800 shells, at 15 guns you're talking 3000 shells,
and that's assuming you don't carry more shells/gun to make up for the
higher rate of fire.
--
Nik Simpson
Brad Meyer
<kitpl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 2, 9:36 am, Brad Meyer <bradm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 22:53:32 -0700, Charles Talleyrand
>>
>> <kitplan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Comments?
>>
>> IMO there is a serious ranging issue here. If your BB does not have a
>> serious speed advantage it is likely never to haul within range of of
>> its target and get peppered from outside its own effective range.
>
>That's fair. But the range of a large shell is determined at least as
>much by the elevation of the mount than the weight of the shell.
Even more so by the weight of the propellant used and, as you point
out, the max elevation.
>I don't think anyone is getting hits past 30,000 yards in battle
>conditions, especially in WWI.
I'm not certain they could range out that far pre-radar. OTOH, Dogger
Bank found the Brits opening at 20K yards and getting hits pretty
early in the action.
A 10K yard difference in ranges means the "shorter" ship is (assuming
30kts) going to take 10 minutes to close that distance assuming she is
steaming directly for the target. Assuming a 1.5 min firing cycle, the
means that the "longer" ship is going to get 6 or 7 slavos off. Even
if he doesn't score any hits, his ranging solution is that much more
advanced then it was before he opened fire.
Brad Meyer
wrote:
>I have a feeling that larger (and significant heavier) will trump more guns,
>within technical reason (a Missouri with 3 20" guns sounds implausible).
>The US increased the weight of the 16" projectiles (at a slight range
>penalty) just to improve their lethality. Bigger is generally better,
>unless its already big enough.
The US also abandoned their prototype 18" gun as being bigger then
needed.
Andre Lieven
No, it would not. The reason that Treaty type cruisers offered both
10,000 ton ships with 8-9 8 inch guns, and the same size with 12-15
6 inch guns, is that the more rapid firing rate of the 6 inch gun
could be useful in the sort of fast cruiser fights then being
contemplated, with WW1 cruiser scraps as the rough guide.
But, if WW1 taught anything, it was that battleships needed to hit hard,
and that there was no difference in rate of fire favouring the smaller
sized Big Guns, so a light cruiser model of battleship, as I have said,
is idiotic.
Note that only one navy went to even 14 guns, and that ship's first
owner bailed on it.
Andre
William Hamblen
Brazil already had two 12" gun dreadnoughts and wanted to standardize
on 12" guns for reasons of logistics. The US already had two
dreadnoughts with twelve 12" guns. We went to ten 14" guns on the
next class for a reason. The larger guns were more accurate, the
larger projectile had greater striking velocity, and the heavier
projectile meant more effective hits. The maximum rate of fire was
not a factor when the range was great enough to require correction of
aim by spotting the fall of shot, as the next salvo would not be fired
until the prior salvo was spotted. Fewer turrets meant less
structural problems when building the ship. Midships turrets also
presented problems keeping magazines cool because steam lines had to
be routed past the guns. Differences in temperature between the
magazines meant greater dispersion of salvos. The guns with warmer
powder would have slightly greater muzzle velocities. All navies
eventually abandoned midships turrets.
For financial reasons the British wanted to limit battleships to 12"
or 13.5" guns in treaty negotiations in the 1920s and '30s. This was
not because the smaller guns were better. It was because they were
cheaper. The limit never got in the 1930 treaty, and the US agreed to
the 14" gun limit in the 1936 treaty only with an escape clause for
16" guns. Japan had to agree to 14" guns for the lower limit to
become effective. Japan did not agree and so the gun limit reverted
to 16".
Bud
--
The night is just the shadow of the Earth.
Charles Talleyrand
I don't think that's true. Two 12" guns fire the same weight and
volume of ammo as one 16" gun. Storing more shells that are smaller,
it works out to a near equality.
Charles Talleyrand
>
> How do you get more hits when smaller guns also have less range? The only hope
> of that is a much higher speed to get within range of the targets before being
> taken out. And then the hits are only effective on the lightly armored decks and
> have a minimal impact on the heavily armored hull.
A 12" gun can range past 30,000 yards. I don't think there were many
hit past that in real battle. Was there even a single hit ever in
battle past 30,000 yards?
> The effectiveness of a shell is roughly proportional to the cube of the radius.
> For 16 to 12 inches that is 8^3/6^3, 512/215 or about 240% more effective. So
> even neglecting the armor you have to get 24 hits just to equal the other guy's 10.
A 12" shell weighs 850 pounds. A 16" shells weighs 2050 lbs. That is
also a 24 to 10 ratio.
If the goal is to sink the ship, then I imagine weight of shell is the
most important factor. However, if the goal is to reduce the rate of
return fire, then perhaps the number of hits (with a large enough
shell) is more important. Alternatively, the argument is that
quantity is more important than weight.
Actually, I'm thinking that the original designers got this decision
right. I'm just interested in testing the alternatives. The original
designers didn't get everything right (building battleships in
1942??).
Andre Lieven
Nice try but no cigar. Two 12 inch shells take up 24 inches of storage
space, in one direction, and 12 in the other. While one 16 inch gun
only needs 16 X 16 inches. Its 288 V 256 cubic inches. Plus, that
doesnt take into account the fact that the shells are round, so there
is wasted space between shells, thus increasing how much space more
shells need.
Plus, the 16 inch shells are taller, so in that third dimension, you
literally get more bang for the space.
Your idea is flat our wrong, deal with it. Thats why NO navy went your
way.
Andre
Andre Lieven
> On Jul 2, 7:44 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> How do you get more hits when smaller guns also have less range?
>> The only hope of that is a much higher speed to get within range of the
>> targets before being taken out. And then the hits are only effective on
>> the lightly armored decks and have a minimal impact on the heavily
>> armored hull.
>
> A 12" gun can range past 30,000 yards.
No proof offered ? Fact free claim fails.
> I don't think there were many hit past that in real battle.
So ?
> Was there even a single hit ever in battle past 30,000 yards?
The longest range hit was a 15 inch hit on Cesare by Warspite at, IIRC,
26,000 yards. Note that Cesares 12.6 inchers didn't score...
>> The effectiveness of a shell is roughly proportional to the cube
>> of the radius. For 16 to 12 inches that is 8^3/6^3, 512/215 or about 240%
>> more effective. So even neglecting the armor you have to get 24 hits just
>> to equal the other guy's 10.
>
> A 12" shell weighs 850 pounds. A 16" shells weighs 2050 lbs. That is
> also a 24 to 10 ratio.
>
> If the goal is to sink the ship, then I imagine weight of shell is the
> most important factor.
This is how silly your " ideas " are on this: You have *ignored* the
fact that the recieving ship's ARMOUR will far more easily stop smaller
shells, V. larger ones. Thats why battleships HAVE such thick armour,
and one result is that the relative effectiveness of smaller shells
hitting battleship armour is such that smaller shells are *far more
diminished* in effect than are larger ones.
> However, if the goal is to reduce the rate of
> return fire, then perhaps the number of hits (with a large enough
> shell) is more important.
Wrong. As has been explained to you, there is NO rate of fire advantage
to smaller battleship sized guns, V/ larger ones.
> Alternatively, the argument is that quantity is more important than weight.
Thats what is true, yes. Thus, your claims are bunk.
> Actually, I'm thinking that the original designers got this decision
> right. I'm just interested in testing the alternatives. The original
> designers didn't get everything right (building battleships in
> 1942??).
It wasn't until December 1941 that it was shown that powerful aircraft
attacks could sink battleships.
It would have been foollishly risky for a navy to invest all their
capital ship procurement *before* it was clear that such an investment
was operationally sound.
Given that the RN's carriers and aircraft were hampered by the ships
mostly being old conversions, and the planes the result of 19 years of
RAF neglect, its not surprising that the RN wisely decided that it
needed to counter enemy battleships with their own.
Note that the big carrier navy of WW2 also built the largest fleet
of modern battleships, ten, to the RN's total of six ( Counting the
five KGVs, including the sunk POW, and Vanguard. ).
Andre
David Johnson
Weight, maybe. Volumne, only if the shells are cubes.
David
--
_______________________________________________________________________
David Johnson home.earthlink.net/~trolleyfan
"So many of you come time and time again to watch this final end of
everything which I think is really wonderful and then to return home to
your own eras and raise families and strive for new and better societies
and fight terrible wars for what you know is right, it gives one real
hope for the whole future of lifekind...
...Except of course we know it hasn't got one."
Pete Granzeau
wrote:
>>> I don't think a "larger" Agincourt was possible. She was already the
>>> longest battleship in the Grand Fleet. At the time she was built,
>>> British gun makers were evidently concentrating on dual turrets.
>>
>> The Agincourt was a weird ship. I agree that deck surface limits the
>> amount of guns that can be placed onto a reasonable ship. No one is
>> proposing 30 guns/hull. However, a norm of 15-16 instead of a norm of
>> 9 or 12 would be reasonable.
>
>No, it would not. The reason that Treaty type cruisers offered both
>10,000 ton ships with 8-9 8 inch guns, and the same size with 12-15
>6 inch guns, is that the more rapid firing rate of the 6 inch gun
>could be useful in the sort of fast cruiser fights then being
>contemplated, with WW1 cruiser scraps as the rough guide.
>
>But, if WW1 taught anything, it was that battleships needed to hit hard,
>and that there was no difference in rate of fire favouring the smaller
>sized Big Guns, so a light cruiser model of battleship, as I have said,
>is idiotic.
>
>Note that only one navy went to even 14 guns, and that ship's first
>owner bailed on it.
Two major navies standardized on 14" guns. The IJN had 14" guns in both
battle cruisers and battleships, and the USN had several classes of 14"
gunned battleships, with 10, then 12 guns per ship.
The original owner of what became HMS Canada didn't bail on her; the UK
bought her at the start of WW II (the reason she wasn't seized in the
same way that Turkish battleships were, was that good relations with
Chile were considered necessary). And she was resold to Chile in 1921.
Pete Granzeau
wrote:
>A 12 inch gun was not powerful enough to seriously damage a modern
>battleship in WWII. Even the 13.6 inch Italian main armament on their
>modernized WWI vintage ships was inadequate.
12.6 inches.
However, hit a battleship enough times and in the right places, and you
don't need major calibers to defeat them.
IJN Hiei, for instance, was extensively modernized in the late 1930s,
lengthened, increased power, and several thousand tons of additional
armor was built in--and yet, 30 8" hits from heavy cruisers San
Francisco and Portland, plus many 5" hits from AA cruisers and
destroyers, disabled her to the point she could not steer, and that left
her in the area for aircraft from Henderson Field, USS Enterprise, and
USAAF bombers from Espiritu Santo to attack the next day. She was
abandoned, and sank from either the aircraft attacks or scuttling by her
crew (and possibly both, with the scuttling only speeding up the
inevitable).
Peter Skelton
The reason for having great big honking guns on your battleship
is to be able to penetrate the incredibly thick slabs of armour
the other guy's ship carries around. If you can do that, and he
can't, you get to win all other things being equal.
If he builds a fleet armoured against 12" guns, you may decide to
trump by building a fleet with 13.5" guns. You'll armour it
enough to protect against what you think will be his next
generation of guns.
You need enough to fire salvos of four shells at about 40 second
intervals (that means 30 for a coulple of minutes and 45 in the
long haul). In the battleship era that meant eight tubes minimum.
Not all the vital bits could be armoured but getting through the
other fellow's armour was regarded as a significant advantage
through the battleship era. The ranges at which your armour was
good enough were your immunity zone. In theory, you wanted to
fight at a range in your immunity zone but not his. For most
pairs of contemporary battlships which had the better combination
of gun and armour depended on range. That lead to a need for
competitive speed.
Peter Skelton
Andre Lieven
> Charles Talleyrand <kitpl...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:1183478855.8...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Jul 2, 8:01 pm, Nik Simpson <n_simp...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> Charles Talleyrand wrote:
>>> > On Jul 2, 3:58 pm, Pete Granzeau <pgranz...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> > The Agincourt was a weird ship. I agree that deck surface limits the
>>> > amount of guns that can be placed onto a reasonable ship. No one is
>>> > proposing 30 guns/hull. However, a norm of 15-16 instead of a norm of
>>> > 9 or 12 would be reasonable.
>>>
>>> You're neglecting the problem of ammo stowage, at around 200/gun & 9
>>> guns you're carrying 1800 shells, at 15 guns you're talking 3000 shells,
>>> and that's assuming you don't carry more shells/gun to make up for the
>>> higher rate of fire.
>>
>> I don't think that's true. Two 12" guns fire the same weight and
>> volume of ammo as one 16" gun. Storing more shells that are smaller,
>> it works out to a near equality.
>
> Weight, maybe. Volumne, only if the shells are cubes.
Very succinctly put, and quite accurate. Bravo Zulu.
Andre
Nik Simpson
> On 3 Jul 2007 02:42:40 GMT, dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
> wrote:
>
>
>>>> I don't think a "larger" Agincourt was possible. She was already the
>>>> longest battleship in the Grand Fleet. At the time she was built,
>>>> British gun makers were evidently concentrating on dual turrets.
>>> The Agincourt was a weird ship. I agree that deck surface limits the
>>> amount of guns that can be placed onto a reasonable ship. No one is
>>> proposing 30 guns/hull. However, a norm of 15-16 instead of a norm of
>>> 9 or 12 would be reasonable.
>> No, it would not. The reason that Treaty type cruisers offered both
>> 10,000 ton ships with 8-9 8 inch guns, and the same size with 12-15
>> 6 inch guns, is that the more rapid firing rate of the 6 inch gun
>> could be useful in the sort of fast cruiser fights then being
>> contemplated, with WW1 cruiser scraps as the rough guide.
>>
>> But, if WW1 taught anything, it was that battleships needed to hit hard,
>> and that there was no difference in rate of fire favouring the smaller
>> sized Big Guns, so a light cruiser model of battleship, as I have said,
>> is idiotic.
>>
>> Note that only one navy went to even 14 guns, and that ship's first
>> owner bailed on it.
>
> Two major navies standardized on 14" guns. The IJN had 14" guns in both
> battle cruisers and battleships, and the USN had several classes of 14"
> gunned battleships, with 10, then 12 guns per ship.
>
He was referring to the number of guns on Agincourt (14) not the size of
those guns.
--
Nik Simpson
Andre Lieven
> On 3 Jul 2007 02:42:40 GMT, dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
> wrote:
>
>>>> I don't think a "larger" Agincourt was possible. She was already the
>>>> longest battleship in the Grand Fleet. At the time she was built,
>>>> British gun makers were evidently concentrating on dual turrets.
>>>
>>> The Agincourt was a weird ship. I agree that deck surface limits the
>>> amount of guns that can be placed onto a reasonable ship. No one is
>>> proposing 30 guns/hull. However, a norm of 15-16 instead of a norm of
>>> 9 or 12 would be reasonable.
>>
>>No, it would not. The reason that Treaty type cruisers offered both
>>10,000 ton ships with 8-9 8 inch guns, and the same size with 12-15
>>6 inch guns, is that the more rapid firing rate of the 6 inch gun
>>could be useful in the sort of fast cruiser fights then being
>>contemplated, with WW1 cruiser scraps as the rough guide.
>>
>>But, if WW1 taught anything, it was that battleships needed to hit hard,
>>and that there was no difference in rate of fire favouring the smaller
>>sized Big Guns, so a light cruiser model of battleship, as I have said,
>>is idiotic.
>>
>>Note that only one navy went to even 14 guns, and that ship's first
>>owner bailed on it.
>
> Two major navies standardized on 14" guns. The IJN had 14" guns in both
> battle cruisers and battleships, and the USN had several classes of 14"
> gunned battleships, with 10, then 12 guns per ship.
I was not speaking of ships with 14 *inch* guns, I was speaking of
ships with fourteen *big guns* aboard.
> The original owner of what became HMS Canada didn't bail on her; the UK
> bought her at the start of WW II (the reason she wasn't seized in the
> same way that Turkish battleships were, was that good relations with
> Chile were considered necessary). And she was resold to Chile in 1921.
Andre
Andre Lieven
Sure, and a BB can also be killed by penetrating her magazine ( Hood )
or mission killing her rudder ( Bismarck ).
But, all this is tangential to the point that, if you want to increase
your chances of killing enemy battleships *with battleship gunfire*,
your best odds lie with big guns that can penetrate the enemy armour,
not more but smaller battleship guns with lighter shells.
Thats why, as I keep poining out, battleships did not shake out into
contemporaneous heavy and light types, as 1930s-40s cruisers ( 8-10
8 inch, v/ 12-15 6 inch ) did.
Because the smaller heavy gun does NOT give you a significantly higher
firing rate, in the way that 6 inch guns did vis a vis 8 inch cruise
guns.
Not that the USN paid a heavy price in ships and men killed to so
damage Hiei. Such a price was not the preferred route.
Andre
Andre Lieven
Quite.
Andre
Mark Sieving
wrote:
>Charles Talleyrand (kitpl...@gmail.com) writes:
>>
>> A 12" gun can range past 30,000 yards.
>
>No proof offered ? Fact free claim fails.
According to NavWeaps.com, the German 28 cm SK C/34 (11") had a
maximum range of over 44,000 yards at 40 degrees elevation. The US
12"/50 Mk8 had a maximum range of over 38,000 yards at 45 degrees. The
Italian 320 mm/44 (12.6") had a maximum range of 32,000 at 30 degrees.
>> I don't think there were many hit past that in real battle.
>
>So ?
It doesn't matter much how far you can throw a shell if you can't hit
anything at that range.
>> Was there even a single hit ever in battle past 30,000 yards?
>
>The longest range hit was a 15 inch hit on Cesare by Warspite at, IIRC,
>26,000 yards. Note that Cesares 12.6 inchers didn't score...
Scharnhorst hit HMS Glorious at about the same range with a 28 cm
salvo.
>This is how silly your " ideas " are on this: You have *ignored* the
>fact that the recieving ship's ARMOUR will far more easily stop smaller
>shells, V. larger ones. Thats why battleships HAVE such thick armour,
>and one result is that the relative effectiveness of smaller shells
>hitting battleship armour is such that smaller shells are *far more
>diminished* in effect than are larger ones.
There are a lot of valuable targets on a battleship that are not
covered by heavy armor. Destroy the fire control directors and
radars, set the superstructure on fire, and hole the hull fore and aft
of the armor belt, and you can put any battleship out of action, even
if you don't sink it.
>> However, if the goal is to reduce the rate of
>> return fire, then perhaps the number of hits (with a large enough
>> shell) is more important.
>
>Wrong. As has been explained to you, there is NO rate of fire advantage
>to smaller battleship sized guns, V/ larger ones.
I think his point was that you can do enough damage (as I outlined
above) to reduce the target's ability to shoot back. Even if you
don't have a rate of fire advantage per gun, having more guns gives
you an effective rate of fire advantage.
John Dallman
brad...@gmail.com (Brad Meyer) wrote:
Ditto the RN. If the Washington Treaty had not been signed, 18" ships
might have been laid down - the "N3" class for the RN was planned to
carry them, in a Nelson-style arrangement - but the UK, at least, could
not have afforded to complete them.
--
John Dallman, j...@cix.co.uk, HTML mail is treated as probable spam.
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
dave...@earthlink.net (Dave) wrote:
> Even the 13.6 inch Italian main armament on their
> modernized WWI vintage ships was inadequate.
Reposted this as I had not realised the thread was crossposted
12.6 inch.
The question of gun armament is interesting. At least one factor
driving the RN program was the fact the 12 inch had reached development
limits with the 12 inch 50. The decision was made to increase gun size
and shell weight and lower muzzle velocity. This resulted in the 13.5
and later the 15 inch. From a point of view of fire control four twin
turrets was considered the optimum. The 15 inch was probably the best
mounting the RN ever had.
The 16inch used in Nelson and Rodney had reverted to a light high
velocity shell. This turned out to be unsatisfactory. The Lion class was
going to have a completely new gun.
For WW2 ships the minimum number of main guns was probably 6 to give
fire control a chance, the maximum number was determined by treaty
limits on tonnage.
Ken Young
Ken Young
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
kitpl...@gmail.com (Charles Talleyrand) wrote:
> I don't think anyone is getting hits past 30,000 yards in battle
> conditions, especially in WWI.
The record is around 26,000 yards (Warspite, Matapan IIRC). However the
US were planning on using air spotting. The increased elevation over WW1
ships was also intended to let ships stay in action with a list.
WW1 fire control especially the RN was greatly inferior to that used in
WW2. The RN expected to operate mainly in the North Sea where average
visibility was 10,000 yards. As a result short base range finders (10 ft
or possibly yards, I am working from memory) were fitted this was
changed for WW2 in the retained ships and new fire control tables and
directors fitted. It was not until after Jutland that the RN adopted the
German Ladder system of ranging to replace the older Bracket system.
By 1917 according to reports from the US BB operating with the Grand
Fleet RN gunnery was superior to theirs. The RN was the first navy to
adopt directors for secondary armament. The first US secondary directors
were actually Vickers designs built under licence.
Ken Young
Charles Talleyrand
> Charles Talleyrand (kitplan...@gmail.com) writes:
> > On Jul 2, 8:01 pm, Nik Simpson <n_simp...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> Charles Talleyrand wrote:
> >> > On Jul 2, 3:58 pm, Pete Granzeau <pgranz...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> > The Agincourt was a weird ship. I agree that deck surface limits the
> >> > amount of guns that can be placed onto a reasonable ship. No one is
> >> > proposing 30 guns/hull. However, a norm of 15-16 instead of a norm of
> >> > 9 or 12 would be reasonable.
>
> >> You're neglecting the problem of ammo stowage, at around 200/gun & 9
> >> guns you're carrying 1800 shells, at 15 guns you're talking 3000 shells,
> >> and that's assuming you don't carry more shells/gun to make up for the
> >> higher rate of fire.
>
> > I don't think that's true. Two 12" guns fire the same weight and
> > volume of ammo as one 16" gun. Storing more shells that are smaller,
> > it works out to a near equality.
>
> Nice try but no cigar. Two 12 inch shells take up 24 inches of storage
> space, in one direction, and 12 in the other. While one 16 inch gun
> only needs 16 X 16 inches. Its 288 V 256 cubic inches. Plus, that
> doesnt take into account the fact that the shells are round, so there
> is wasted space between shells, thus increasing how much space more
> shells need.
First, you cannot mutliply length x width and get cubic inches. You
would get square inches.
Second, a 16" shell is 16" in diameter and 66" long. A box containing
such a shell would use 16x16x66=16,896 cubic inces. A 12" shell is
12" in diameter and 40" long. A box containing such a shell would be
12*12*40=5,760 cubic inches. One can store about three 12" in the
same volume as a 16" shell.
> Your idea is flat our wrong, deal with it. Thats why NO navy went your
> way.
I think the idea is wrong too. But it's interesting to find out *why*
the idea is wrong, and storage space is not the problem.
> Nice try but no cigar ... Your idea is flat our wrong, deal with it.
Charles Talleyrand
> Charles Talleyrand (kitplan...@gmail.com) writes:
> > On Jul 2, 7:44 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
> > A 12" gun can range past 30,000 yards.
>
> No proof offered ? Fact free claim fails.
>
You need to get a life. This stuff is easy to look up. I did look it
up before I made the claim and you should have looked it up before you
called me wrong. The American 12/50 could go past 38,000 yards at 45
degrees elevation. A British12/45 had a higher muzzle velocity but
lighter shell weight. At the same elevation it should *around*
*about* the same distance. In any case, 12" shells have been fired
way past 30,000 yards, and no one actually had effective fire at such
a range.
Just to be clear, a 12" shell fired at 45 degrees will go past the
battle ranges used in WWI and even in WWII. If you claim otherwise,
provide data.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_12-50_mk8.htm.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_12-45_mk13.htm
> This is how silly your " ideas " are on this: You have *ignored* the
> fact that the recieving ship's ARMOUR will far more easily stop smaller
> shells, V. larger ones. Thats why battleships HAVE such thick armour,
> and one result is that the relative effectiveness of smaller shells
> hitting battleship armour is such that smaller shells are *far more
> diminished* in effect than are larger ones.
How silly your "reading skills" are on this: You have *ignored* the
fact that I said exactly this. I understand and wrote as much.
However, most of the ship is unarmored and even the armored parts are
affected by repeated hits of a 12" shell. You can destory a ship with
even 8" shells, as has been done in real life battle.
Anthony Buckland
history of the battleship gun, I can't help but think that, with
the noticeable exception of Hood, the most damage done to
battleships was with torpedoes of mass comparable to gun
shells but arriving no faster than an SUV on a suburban
arterial road, and with bombs individually much lighter than
a battleship main gun shell, arriving with only the velocity
gravity could give them in a few thousand feet of fall.
In both cases, and that was what made all the difference,
in the right places and from the right directions.
Which makes me wonder, on the other side of the coin,
considering that Bismarck's mission wasn't, except in the
end from necessity, to kill other battleships but to play
havoc with Atlantic shipping, what would have been the
consequence if a carrier power (hypothetical, the only one
actually in the Atlantic was the US) had used those weapons
exclusively, the torpedo (surface ship- and plane- as well as
submarine-delivered) and the bomb to try to interdict convoy
supply in the North Atlantic.
WaltBJ
battleships were designed was line of battle versus line of battle, in
which each ship was supposed to be engaging her opposite number.
(Didn't work out that way; carriers changed things.) Look at when the
WW2 ships were designed - pre-Taranto, where the first battleships
were sunk by aircraft.
So - to avoid a mission kill the vitals were protected by armor.
US BBs, by the way were always designed with staying power, in that
armor took precedence over speed.
As for hitting the target, very long range gunfire must be
spotted by aircraft; the curvature of the earth gets in the way. Plus
shell dispersion out at 40,000 yards is such that a hit needs a good
deal of luck. Somewhere on the Web is a plot of USN 16-50 gun fire at
extreme range. A diagram of the Pentagon is superimposed on the plot.
(Wish fulfillment?) But there were very few 'hits' on Fort Fumble,
even as big as it is.
Note that Washington sank Kirishima with 9 16" hits (more or
less) but then the Kirishima was a WW1 ship somewhat modernized, but
not to the point where she could withstand 16" AP shells.
Note that radar can spot the shell splashes thus can be used at
night as well as daytime to get the guns on the target.
BTW the 16"-50 Mk8 2700 pound AP shell was approximately equal
in capability to the Japanese 18.2 inch AP round, according to the
sources I have read. I gathered that was because of the higher weight
per square inch of impact area. Sorry I can't find the exact source,
but you can use 'Google', using the keyword 'Okun', the man who wrote
a study on armor penetration, to find more data.
Last word; smaller main guns on BBS never appeared except for
political reasons (Hitler, Scharnhorst & Gneisenau) and the the fight
between Duke of York and Scharnhorst, the German ship wasn't able to
deal a death blow to DoY because her 280mm shells coudn't penetrate to
the DoY's vitals.
Walt BJ
David McMillan
> A 12 inch gun was not powerful enough to seriously damage a modern
> battleship in WWII. Even the 13.6 inch Italian main armament on their
> modernized WWI vintage ships was inadequate.
>
> There was merit to the argument that more guns scoring more hits would be
> more effective even if they were lighter caliber, however 14 inch guns were
> the smallest caliber that would be effective. The original plan for the KGV
> class with 12x14 inch guns would in my opinion have been able to contend
> with any Treaty BB, however when the British discovered that their design
> could not make the weight and took out two guns, the ships were considered
> undergunned. The quad turrets also had many "teething" problems which were
> by no means restricted to the Bismarck actions.
Speaking of the Bismarck... mightn't there be an argument that lots of
smaller guns, scoring lots of hits, could mission-kill a ship without
actually doing lethal damage?
I ask because, while reading the autobiographical account of the
Bismarck's senior surviving officer (years ago, so time has hazed some
details, I'm sure), I got the impression that during her final
engagement, the Bismarck was effectively mission-killed before she could
get any good licks in by the mass volume of relatively lightweight fire
-- the hull and guns were still mostly intact, but the gun directors and
other support equipment were just "sanded" off. I recall the officer
sounding rather frustrated that he still had guns (the Charles and Dora
turrets, IIRC), but no means to use them effectively. He was especially
upset that, after they way they handled the Hood, the Bismarck wasn't
able to take at least a few fellow heavies down with her.
Alfred Montestruc
> Most all battleships used between 9 and 12 guns, and used the biggest
> gun they could mount in these numbers. Significant engineering effort
> was put into designing, building, and mounting these ever larger
> guns. The results seem to show that main gun hits were more rare than
> the designers might have expected, and that one hit would not mission-
> kill nor sink an enemy vessel.
>
> Instead of designers working ever harder to build and mount larger
> guns, they might instead have tried to mount *more* guns. So for
> instance, instead of mounting on the Queen Elizabeth four twin-turret
> 15" guns, they might have mounted four triple-turret 12" guns. The
> result is less weight of gun for the Queen Elizabeth to carry, less
> weight per broadside fired at the enemy, but more total hits on the
> enemy.
>
> The end result of such a move is something like an larger, better
> built Agincourt, with triple turrets. Such a ship would have 21 guns
> and 18 in any broadside.
>
> Comments?
>
Consider a bit of math.
The weight of a gun shell of a given type is going to go up as the
cube of the bore diameter. So a 15" gun shell of a given type (AP for
example) will weigh much more than 15/12s that of a 12 inch AP round.
In fact it will weigh almost twice (1.953) what the 12" AP round does
and so at a given muzzle velocity carry about twice the kinetic energy
of a 12" AP round. Kinetic energy is what punches through armor.
Furthermore a heavier shell shot at the same initial velocity at the
same initial angle will lose velocity more slowly than a lighter
shell. The air drag is going to be proportional to the diameter
squared, while the mass (and so inertia) of the shell is going to be
proportional to the diameter cubed, so the range will improve with
larger bore guns given the same muzzle velocity, that improvement is
going to be by about the ratio of the diameters (cubed over squared
given linear).
Let us consider larger differences, say an 18" gun set next to a 12"
gun. The 18 inch gun shell with have about 3.37 times the mass and so
about 3,37 times the ability to punch through a given thickness of
armor, and it will travel a whole lot further given the same muzzle
velocity.
So let us consider two hypothetical battleships of exactly the same
tonnage. If we assume (which I think is roughly correct) that the gun
weights will be roughly proportional to the shell weights per caliber,
and say that Mr. Talleyrand chooses a battleship with 12" guns only
and let us assume he can load 16 of them on his battleship in let us
say four quadruple turrets two forward two aft.
In that case my battleship can only have about 16/3.375 or 4.74 guns
call it 4 two in a forward turret, two in an aft turret.
Clearly Mr. Talleyrands battle ship will have more guns (16) and be
able to fire more weight of shot per broadside ( about 118% of what
mine can throw per broadside) and I will agree he can fire his guns
probably about twice as often as I can giving him the ability to fire
about 236% weight of shells to what my poor four gun battery can fire.
Now let us consider my advantages.
1. My AP rounds can punch through about 3.375 times the thickness of
armor that his can, so I can spend far less money on armor for far
greater effect.
2. I will have a much longer gun range than he will
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BL_18_inch_/_40_naval_gun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BL_14_inch_/_45_mk_VII_naval_gun
18" L40 range about 40,500 yards
14" L45 range about 38,500 yards
No reference exists that I found for a 12 inch gun, but clearly this
shows the trend.
The 18" gun BB will have at least a mile of range band where the 12"
gun BB cannot even hit her. Further, if we can put armor into the
equation the armor on the 18" bore 4 gun BB will be much better
protection than the same amount of armor on the 12" bore 16 gun BB
against those few 18" shells the other BB can fire.
Add to this the much reduced weight put into armament of the 4 guns on
two turrets of the 18" ship, even considering guns alone her battery
is lighter by about 15% in weight of guns. Then consider we can ditch
two turrets, and two big monster turntable bearings, and we do not
need as much armor to keep out 12" gun shells as we need to keep out
18" gun shells.
My battleship can be faster, or have thicker armor, or carry more
total weight of shot, or some combination.
Perhaps now you can see why the long term trend was to bigger and
bigger guns.
Matt Giwer
> On Jul 2, 7:44 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>> How do you get more hits when smaller guns also have less range? The only hope
>> of that is a much higher speed to get within range of the targets before being
>> taken out. And then the hits are only effective on the lightly armored decks and
>> have a minimal impact on the heavily armored hull.
> A 12" gun can range past 30,000 yards. I don't think there were many
> hit past that in real battle. Was there even a single hit ever in
> battle past 30,000 yards?
Maximum range range and accurate range are different. A heavier round also has
a greater accurate range in the sense of assuming accurate correction for roll
and pitch.
>> The effectiveness of a shell is roughly proportional to the cube of the radius.
>> For 16 to 12 inches that is 8^3/6^3, 512/215 or about 240% more effective. So
>> even neglecting the armor you have to get 24 hits just to equal the other guy's 10.
> A 12" shell weighs 850 pounds. A 16" shells weighs 2050 lbs. That is
> also a 24 to 10 ratio.
Yes, that is the same answer I got. Aerodynamic keeps the ratio of dimensions
about the same so the volume increase is proportional to the cube of the radius.
> If the goal is to sink the ship, then I imagine weight of shell is the
> most important factor. However, if the goal is to reduce the rate of
> return fire, then perhaps the number of hits (with a large enough
> shell) is more important. Alternatively, the argument is that
> quantity is more important than weight.
If quantity were more important that weight then one would expect small
calibers rounds in all types of guns to be more common that large calibers. We
do not.
> Actually, I'm thinking that the original designers got this decision
> right. I'm just interested in testing the alternatives. The original
> designers didn't get everything right (building battleships in
> 1942??).
One would then expect the success of the smaller rounds to have appeared in
previous naval wars. It did not.
--
If there can be atheist Jews then there can be atheist Christian.
If there cannot be atheist Christians there cannot be atheist Jews.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3807
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Mission Accomplished http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/mission.phtml a12
Alfred Montestruc
> On Jul 2, 7:44 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > How do you get more hits when smaller guns also have less range? The only hope
> > of that is a much higher speed to get within range of the targets before being
> > taken out. And then the hits are only effective on the lightly armored decks and
> > have a minimal impact on the heavily armored hull.
>
> A 12" gun can range past 30,000 yards. I don't think there were many
> hit past that in real battle. Was there even a single hit ever in
> battle past 30,000 yards?
>
> > The effectiveness of a shell is roughly proportional to the cube of the radius.
> > For 16 to 12 inches that is 8^3/6^3, 512/215 or about 240% more effective. So
> > even neglecting the armor you have to get 24 hits just to equal the other guy's 10.
>
> A 12" shell weighs 850 pounds. A 16" shells weighs 2050 lbs. That is
> also a 24 to 10 ratio.
Right but you need a minimum energy per round to punch through a given
thickness of steel plate. The kinetic energy of a round is going to
be 0.5xShellMassxVelocityxVelocity given the same velocity (which will
actually be less at range for a 12" vs a 16" shell) the 16" shell can
punch through 2.4 times the thickness of steel plate.
If his armor belt can keep your shells out, but yours cannot keep his
out, you are screwed blued and tattooed.
Andre Lieven
> On 3 Jul 2007 16:58:23 GMT, dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
> wrote:
>
>>Charles Talleyrand (kitpl...@gmail.com) writes:
>>>
>>> A 12" gun can range past 30,000 yards.
>>
>>No proof offered ? Fact free claim fails.
>
> According to NavWeaps.com, the German 28 cm SK C/34 (11") had a
> maximum range of over 44,000 yards at 40 degrees elevation. The US
> 12"/50 Mk8 had a maximum range of over 38,000 yards at 45 degrees. The
> Italian 320 mm/44 (12.6") had a maximum range of 32,000 at 30 degrees.
Now, whats the dispertion at such ranges ? Explain why Warspite's
15 inchers hit the Cesare at Calabria, while Cesare's smaller guns
failed to...
>>> I don't think there were many hit past that in real battle.
>>
>>So ?
>
> It doesn't matter much how far you can throw a shell if you can't hit
> anything at that range.
That was rather my point, yes. But, the bigger point is that smaller
big gun shells are not nearly as likely to be able to penetrate main
belt armour on the recieving end.
>>> Was there even a single hit ever in battle past 30,000 yards?
>>
>>The longest range hit was a 15 inch hit on Cesare by Warspite at, IIRC,
>>26,000 yards. Note that Cesares 12.6 inchers didn't score...
>
> Scharnhorst hit HMS Glorious at about the same range with a 28 cm
> salvo.
No source confirms that, and I have just gone through the first ten
that Google brought up. Some state that Scharnhorst opened fire at
about that range, but *not* that she obtained hits at such a range.
One page, http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/gladiator_glorious.htm,
claimed an open fire range of 20,000 yards.
>>This is how silly your " ideas " are on this: You have *ignored* the
>>fact that the recieving ship's ARMOUR will far more easily stop smaller
>>shells, V. larger ones. Thats why battleships HAVE such thick armour,
>>and one result is that the relative effectiveness of smaller shells
>>hitting battleship armour is such that smaller shells are *far more
>>diminished* in effect than are larger ones.
>
> There are a lot of valuable targets on a battleship that are not
> covered by heavy armor. Destroy the fire control directors and
> radars, set the superstructure on fire, and hole the hull fore and aft
> of the armor belt, and you can put any battleship out of action, even
> if you don't sink it.
All that applies to the small gunned BB, as well, but the bigger gunned
BB will have an easier time of wrecking her upper works with her heavier
shells.
Ergo, your claim, as it applies both ways, fails to support the small
gunned BB.
>>> However, if the goal is to reduce the rate of
>>> return fire, then perhaps the number of hits (with a large enough
>>> shell) is more important.
>>
>>Wrong. As has been explained to you, there is NO rate of fire advantage
>>to smaller battleship sized guns, V/ larger ones.
>
> I think his point was that you can do enough damage (as I outlined
> above) to reduce the target's ability to shoot back.
Yet *every actual navy that built battleships* disagreed.
I'll take their professional and experiential expertise over fanboi
handwavings.
> Even if you
> don't have a rate of fire advantage per gun, having more guns gives
> you an effective rate of fire advantage.
As well as a greater smaller shell hit *disadvantage*.
Ergo, the small gunned ship... loses.
Andre
Andre Lieven
The same applies for the planned IJN I13 class battleships. Which would
have had a Nagato arrangement of the 18 inch guns.
Andre
Andre Lieven
> In article <1183416275.7...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> kitpl...@gmail.com (Charles Talleyrand) wrote:
>
>> I don't think anyone is getting hits past 30,000 yards in battle
>> conditions, especially in WWI.
>
> The record is around 26,000 yards (Warspite, Matapan IIRC).
No, that would be Calabria, against Cesare, as the Matapan action
had Warspite, Valiant and Barham firing at Zara and Fiume at near
point blank ranges, certainly under 5,000 yds.
> However the
> US were planning on using air spotting. The increased elevation over WW1
> ships was also intended to let ships stay in action with a list.
>
> WW1 fire control especially the RN was greatly inferior to that used in
> WW2. The RN expected to operate mainly in the North Sea where average
> visibility was 10,000 yards. As a result short base range finders (10 ft
> or possibly yards, I am working from memory) were fitted this was
> changed for WW2 in the retained ships and new fire control tables and
> directors fitted. It was not until after Jutland that the RN adopted the
> German Ladder system of ranging to replace the older Bracket system.
>
> By 1917 according to reports from the US BB operating with the Grand
> Fleet RN gunnery was superior to theirs. The RN was the first navy to
> adopt directors for secondary armament. The first US secondary directors
> were actually Vickers designs built under licence.
Quite correct. :-)
Andre
Andre Lieven
So ?
> Second, a 16" shell is 16" in diameter and 66" long. A box containing
> such a shell would use 16x16x66=16,896 cubic inces. A 12" shell is
> 12" in diameter and 40" long. A box containing such a shell would be
> 12*12*40=5,760 cubic inches. One can store about three 12" in the
> same volume as a 16" shell.
This is flat out laughable, as naval shells are NOT malliable.
The more shells you store, the more wasted space in the areas around
their curves you will have.
>> Your idea is flat our wrong, deal with it. Thats why NO navy went your
>> way.
>
> I think the idea is wrong too. But it's interesting to find out *why*
> the idea is wrong, and storage space is not the problem.
No proof offered ? Fact free fanboi claim fails.
>> Nice try but no cigar ... Your idea is flat our wrong, deal with it.
Indeed.
Andre
Andre Lieven
> On Jul 3, 11:58 am, d...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:
>> Charles Talleyrand (kitplan...@gmail.com) writes:
>> > On Jul 2, 7:44 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> > A 12" gun can range past 30,000 yards.
>>
>> No proof offered ? Fact free claim fails.
>
> You need to get a life.
<Fanboi Projection>
> This stuff is easy to look up.
So, do that. Duh.
> I did look it
> up before I made the claim and you should have looked it up before you
> called me wrong.
<Laughs> So, who ever HIT anything at such ranges ? Go look it up...
> The American 12/50 could go past 38,000 yards at 45
> degrees elevation. A British12/45 had a higher muzzle velocity but
> lighter shell weight. At the same elevation it should *around*
> *about* the same distance.
Aside from the RN having figured out that lighter shells fired at
higher velocities had greater dispertions at longer ranges, which is
why the RN moved to the 13.5 inch, heavier shell, lower velocity gun.
Its a shame that the FACTS directly contradict your claim, but there
you go...
> In any case, 12" shells have been fired way past 30,000 yards,
Cite ?
> and no one actually had effective fire at such a range.
Indeed. That makes my point, thank you.
> Just to be clear, a 12" shell fired at 45 degrees will go past the
> battle ranges used in WWI and even in WWII. If you claim otherwise,
> provide data.
>
> http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_12-50_mk8.htm.
> http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_12-45_mk13.htm
DID anyone do that ? No. QED.
>> This is how silly your " ideas " are on this: You have *ignored* the
>> fact that the recieving ship's ARMOUR will far more easily stop smaller
>> shells, V. larger ones. Thats why battleships HAVE such thick armour,
>> and one result is that the relative effectiveness of smaller shells
>> hitting battleship armour is such that smaller shells are *far more
>> diminished* in effect than are larger ones.
>
> How silly your "reading skills" are on this:
<Projection>
> You have *ignored* the
> fact that I said exactly this. I understand and wrote as much.
> However,
Here is where you contradict yourself...
> most of the ship is unarmored and even the armored parts are
> affected by repeated hits of a 12" shell. You can destory a ship with
> even 8" shells, as has been done in real life battle.
ONE battle, where the USN paid a great deal in ships destroyed, and
lives lost, *because they had go with smaller ships with lighter guns
against bigger ships with heavier guns*...
Once again: Duh.
Andre
Andre Lieven
Only if such a power had had the striking power of TF 58/38,
*including it's great logistical support*...
Further, and this point cannot be made too often, as of when the
Treaty limitations were lapsing, no one could bet on carrier
airpower being able to overpower the existing power of the
battleship lines.
Indeed, I would suggest that, prior to the development of air
search radar, and high speed ( And, high rate of climb ) fighters,
what we know as carrier striking power would have been impossible.
Because, with pre radar and pre fast and fast climbing naval
fighters, the first strike will tend to at least mission kill the
other carrier force. Because that force would have no warning,
and no fighter interception prior to attack ability.
Had carrier wars been fought prior to, say, 1937, the results
could well have been such as to make the battleship proponents
very happy. Because their ships would not be as easily knocked
out.
Andre
Andre Lieven
> Dave wrote:
>
>> A 12 inch gun was not powerful enough to seriously damage a modern
>> battleship in WWII. Even the 13.6 inch Italian main armament on their
>> modernized WWI vintage ships was inadequate.
>>
>> There was merit to the argument that more guns scoring more hits would be
>> more effective even if they were lighter caliber, however 14 inch guns were
>> the smallest caliber that would be effective. The original plan for the KGV
>> class with 12x14 inch guns would in my opinion have been able to contend
>> with any Treaty BB, however when the British discovered that their design
>> could not make the weight and took out two guns, the ships were considered
>> undergunned. The quad turrets also had many "teething" problems which were
>> by no means restricted to the Bismarck actions.
>
> Speaking of the Bismarck... mightn't there be an argument that lots of
> smaller guns, scoring lots of hits, could mission-kill a ship without
> actually doing lethal damage?
Thats not really the planned goal of a navy; the goal is to sink the
enemy, so that the mission killed ship cannot get away, be repaired,
and come out again.
> I ask because, while reading the autobiographical account of the
> Bismarck's senior surviving officer (years ago, so time has hazed some
> details, I'm sure), I got the impression that during her final
> engagement, the Bismarck was effectively mission-killed before she could
> get any good licks in by the mass volume of relatively lightweight fire
Not really, no. The fire that worked Bismarck over good, was fire from
16 and 14 inch fire. Thats hardly " lightweight fire ".
> -- the hull and guns were still mostly intact, but the gun directors and
> other support equipment were just "sanded" off.
Indeed. That speaks to the Bismarck's main armour stopping heavy 16
and 14 inch shells, had the RN battleships been fitted with, say,
12-15 guns of around 12 inch size, the damage would have been less,
as those lighter shells would have been even less effective against
heavy armour.
> I recall the officer
> sounding rather frustrated that he still had guns (the Charles and Dora
> turrets, IIRC), but no means to use them effectively. He was especially
> upset that, after they way they handled the Hood, the Bismarck wasn't
> able to take at least a few fellow heavies down with her.
Well, thats what happens when you read too much of your own side's PR.
The Bismarck, while possessing heavy armour, as German heavy ships tended
to do, was barely more modern about the arrangement of same than the
1914 designed Bayern class. While everyone else had well moved on to
more modern and tested designs.
Overall, Bismarck was no more powerful than any European post Treaty
battleship, and was worse, in areas such as secondary armament. Her
luck with Hood was just that... luck.
Andre
Andre Lieven
> On Jul 3, 11:19 am, Charles Talleyrand <kitplan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 2, 7:44 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> > How do you get more hits when smaller guns also have less range?
>> > The only hope of that is a much higher speed to get within range of the
>> > targets before being taken out. And then the hits are only effective on
>> > the lightly armored decks and have a minimal impact on the heavily
>> > armored hull.
>>
>> A 12" gun can range past 30,000 yards. I don't think there were many
>> hit past that in real battle. Was there even a single hit ever in
>> battle past 30,000 yards?
>>
>> > The effectiveness of a shell is roughly proportional to the
>> > cube of the radius. For 16 to 12 inches that is 8^3/6^3, 512/215 or
>> > about 240% more effective. So even neglecting the armor you have to
>> > get 24 hits just to equal the other guy's 10.
>>
>> A 12" shell weighs 850 pounds. A 16" shells weighs 2050 lbs. That is
>> also a 24 to 10 ratio.
>
> Right but you need a minimum energy per round to punch through a given
> thickness of steel plate. The kinetic energy of a round is going to
> be 0.5xShellMassxVelocityxVelocity given the same velocity (which will
> actually be less at range for a 12" vs a 16" shell) the 16" shell can
> punch through 2.4 times the thickness of steel plate.
>
> If his armor belt can keep your shells out, but yours cannot keep his
> out, you are screwed blued and tattooed.
think Tiger tank with lots of armour and a heavy 88 high velocity gun,
V/ Sherman tanks, with much lighter armour, and a 75 medium velocity
gun.
>> If the goal is to sink the ship, then I imagine weight of shell is the
>> most important factor. However, if the goal is to reduce the rate of
>> return fire, then perhaps the number of hits (with a large enough
>> shell) is more important. Alternatively, the argument is that
>> quantity is more important than weight.
>>
>> Actually, I'm thinking that the original designers got this decision
>> right. I'm just interested in testing the alternatives. The original
>> designers didn't get everything right (building battleships in
>> 1942??).
But, they got a lot more right than you did...
Andre
Dan
>>> Charles Talleyrand wrote:
>>>> On Jul 2, 3:58 pm, Pete Granzeau <pgranz...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> The Agincourt was a weird ship. I agree that deck surface limits the
>>>> amount of guns that can be placed onto a reasonable ship. No one is
>>>> proposing 30 guns/hull. However, a norm of 15-16 instead of a norm of
>>>> 9 or 12 would be reasonable.
>>> You're neglecting the problem of ammo stowage, at around 200/gun & 9
>>> guns you're carrying 1800 shells, at 15 guns you're talking 3000 shells,
>>> and that's assuming you don't carry more shells/gun to make up for the
>>> higher rate of fire.
>> I don't think that's true. Two 12" guns fire the same weight and
>> volume of ammo as one 16" gun. Storing more shells that are smaller,
>> it works out to a near equality.
>
> Nice try but no cigar. Two 12 inch shells take up 24 inches of storage
> space, in one direction, and 12 in the other. While one 16 inch gun
> only needs 16 X 16 inches. Its 288 V 256 cubic inches. Plus, that
> doesnt take into account the fact that the shells are round, so there
> is wasted space between shells, thus increasing how much space more
> shells need.
Um, no.
* The wasted space is greater with larger round objects in a finite
space. Packing densities for round objects is well-understood (though
recently there was a surprise with spherical objects when a computer got
hold of the problem).
* You speak of only two dimensions in your calculations, yet compare
three. Larger shells are proportionally longer, as well, taking up more
of the third dimension, ruining the opinion you generated from your
erroneous calculation.
So, the original assertion stands against your attempted rebuttal.
> Plus, the 16 inch shells are taller, so in that third dimension, you
> literally get more bang for the space.
????
You are saying we can just IGNORE the third dimension, somehow, because
a space warp does something to the material that would take up the extra
space, or what...
> Your idea is flat our wrong, deal with it. Thats why NO navy went your
> way.
For reasons completely other than those you type...
> Andre
Oh, that explains it.
You wouldn't post under the name "Stuart Grey" in other newsgroups,
would you?
Dan
Dan
>>
>>> How do you get more hits when smaller guns also have less range?
>>> The only hope of that is a much higher speed to get within range of the
>>> targets before being taken out. And then the hits are only effective on
>>> the lightly armored decks and have a minimal impact on the heavily
>>> armored hull.
>> A 12" gun can range past 30,000 yards.
>
In fact, references I've seen claim 37,000 yard range for the 12" guns
of Alaska class large cruisers...
http://battleships.freewebsitehosting.com/12in50calCB.html
>> I don't think there were many hit past that in real battle.
>
> So ?
One of the two main arguments for larger guns was hitting first because
of range (the other is damage from larger shell).
No one is really arguing the second, but arguments are made for the
first, this being one such.
Or weren't you paying attention?
>> Was there even a single hit ever in battle past 30,000 yards?
>
> The longest range hit was a 15 inch hit on Cesare by Warspite at, IIRC,
> 26,000 yards. Note that Cesares 12.6 inchers didn't score...
Thus, the 12" gun is not functionally outranged by its 14", 15", 16",
and 18.1" bretheren.
>>> The effectiveness of a shell is roughly proportional to the cube
>>> of the radius. For 16 to 12 inches that is 8^3/6^3, 512/215 or about 240%
>>> more effective. So even neglecting the armor you have to get 24 hits just
>>> to equal the other guy's 10.
>> A 12" shell weighs 850 pounds. A 16" shells weighs 2050 lbs. That is
>> also a 24 to 10 ratio.
>>
>> If the goal is to sink the ship, then I imagine weight of shell is the
>> most important factor.
>
> This is how silly your " ideas " are on this: You have *ignored* the
> fact that the recieving ship's ARMOUR will far more easily stop smaller
> shells, V. larger ones.
In fact, had you read his material, you would know that he had not
"*ignored*" this fact.
D'oh.
> Thats why battleships HAVE such thick armour,
Yes, it is.
> and one result is that the relative effectiveness of smaller shells
> hitting battleship armour is such that smaller shells are *far more
> diminished* in effect than are larger ones.
Yes.
>> However, if the goal is to reduce the rate of
>> return fire, then perhaps the number of hits (with a large enough
>> shell) is more important.
>
> Wrong. As has been explained to you, there is NO rate of fire advantage
> to smaller battleship sized guns, V/ larger ones.
Um, yes there is.
>> Alternatively, the argument is that quantity is more important than weight.
>
> Thats what is true, yes. Thus, your claims are bunk.
I think you are arguing backward here...
>> Actually, I'm thinking that the original designers got this decision
>> right. I'm just interested in testing the alternatives. The original
>> designers didn't get everything right (building battleships in
>> 1942??).
>
> It wasn't until December 1941 that it was shown that powerful aircraft
> attacks could sink battleships.
Well, no, it had been demonstrated many times before that. Do keep up.
> It would have been foollishly risky for a navy to invest all their
> capital ship procurement *before* it was clear that such an investment
> was operationally sound.
Happens all the time. Dreadnought comes to mind...
> Given that the RN's carriers and aircraft were hampered by the ships
> mostly being old conversions, and the planes the result of 19 years of
> RAF neglect, its not surprising that the RN wisely decided that it
> needed to counter enemy battleships with their own.
Well, there is that tiny thing called interservice rivalry...
Minor, really.
> Note that the big carrier navy of WW2 also built the largest fleet
> of modern battleships, ten, to the RN's total of six ( Counting the
> five KGVs, including the sunk POW, and Vanguard. ).
And...
> Andre
Dan
Dan
> David Johnson (trolleyf...@earthlink.net) writes:
>> Charles Talleyrand <kitpl...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:1183478855.8...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Jul 2, 8:01 pm, Nik Simpson <n_simp...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>> Charles Talleyrand wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 2, 3:58 pm, Pete Granzeau <pgranz...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>> The Agincourt was a weird ship. I agree that deck surface limits the
>>>>> amount of guns that can be placed onto a reasonable ship. No one is
>>>>> proposing 30 guns/hull. However, a norm of 15-16 instead of a norm of
>>>>> 9 or 12 would be reasonable.
>>>> You're neglecting the problem of ammo stowage, at around 200/gun & 9
>>>> guns you're carrying 1800 shells, at 15 guns you're talking 3000 shells,
>>>> and that's assuming you don't carry more shells/gun to make up for the
>>>> higher rate of fire.
>>> I don't think that's true. Two 12" guns fire the same weight and
>>> volume of ammo as one 16" gun. Storing more shells that are smaller,
>>> it works out to a near equality.
>
> Very succinctly put, and quite accurate. Bravo Zulu.
>
> Andre
>
And wrong. Cubes, spheres, and rough cylinders all work. The whole
point of the bigger gun is to have BIGGER AMMO to do more damage. D'uh.
Twice the volume is, well, TWICE THE VOLUME. It takes up TWICE THE
SPACE, barring specialized packing shapes that are not useful for
ballistic purposes...
Would one of you super-geniuses like to try that again?
Dan
Dan
> Charles Talleyrand (kitpl...@gmail.com) writes:
>> On Jul 3, 11:58 am, d...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:
>>> Charles Talleyrand (kitplan...@gmail.com) writes:
>>>> On Jul 2, 7:44 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> A 12" gun can range past 30,000 yards.
>>> No proof offered ? Fact free claim fails.
>> You need to get a life.
>
> <Fanboi Projection>
Grow up.
>> This stuff is easy to look up.
>
> So, do that. Duh.
He did, YOU didn't...
>> I did look it
>> up before I made the claim and you should have looked it up before you
>> called me wrong.
>
> <Laughs> So, who ever HIT anything at such ranges ? Go look it up...
THEN, after he rips you a new one, you change the subject!
>> The American 12/50 could go past 38,000 yards at 45
>> degrees elevation. A British12/45 had a higher muzzle velocity but
>> lighter shell weight. At the same elevation it should *around*
>> *about* the same distance.
>
> Aside from the RN having figured out that lighter shells fired at
> higher velocities had greater dispertions at longer ranges, which is
> why the RN moved to the 13.5 inch, heavier shell, lower velocity gun.
>
> Its a shame that the FACTS directly contradict your claim, but there
> you go...
HOW do those "facts" change his claim that 12" guns can be fired out to
30,000 yards?
I'll wait.
>> In any case, 12" shells have been fired way past 30,000 yards,
>
> Cite ?
Andre, you ignorant slut, DO try to keep up with your own conversation.
>> and no one actually had effective fire at such a range.
>
> Indeed. That makes my point, thank you.
No, it doesn't make ANY of your points. Actually, it refutes your point
that the BB with the larger gun would just have a great time where it
could fire at the smaller-gun ship without return fire. Since BOTH gun
sizes range far beyond their effective range, this point is refuted...
>> Just to be clear, a 12" shell fired at 45 degrees will go past the
>> battle ranges used in WWI and even in WWII. If you claim otherwise,
>> provide data.
>>
>> http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_12-50_mk8.htm.
>> http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_12-45_mk13.htm
>
> DID anyone do that ? No. QED.
Huh? Did anyone (who) do WHAT? What were you trying to demonstrate?
>>> This is how silly your " ideas " are on this: You have *ignored* the
>>> fact that the recieving ship's ARMOUR will far more easily stop smaller
>>> shells, V. larger ones. Thats why battleships HAVE such thick armour,
>>> and one result is that the relative effectiveness of smaller shells
>>> hitting battleship armour is such that smaller shells are *far more
>>> diminished* in effect than are larger ones.
>> How silly your "reading skills" are on this:
>
> <Projection>
>
>> You have *ignored* the
>> fact that I said exactly this. I understand and wrote as much.
>> However,
>
> Here is where you contradict yourself...
Um, again (and again), NO, HE DOESN'T. What is your native language?
>> most of the ship is unarmored and even the armored parts are
>> affected by repeated hits of a 12" shell. You can destory a ship with
>> even 8" shells, as has been done in real life battle.
>
> ONE battle, where the USN paid a great deal in ships destroyed, and
> lives lost, *because they had go with smaller ships with lighter guns
> against bigger ships with heavier guns*...
>
> Once again: Duh.
Look up the Battle of the River Plate.
However, he is talking of a ship well-armored against heavier shells,
not CAs or CLs, with a chosen outfit of several more lighter guns.
Thus, although the shell dispersal pattern will be larger, there will be
MORE shells in the pattern, thus giving at least comparable hit
probabilities. With the DEMONSTRATED inability of BBs to sustain
surface damage and maintain integrity vis a vis a fighting unit, his
idea is not untenable, just unorthodox.
Since it was never done, arguing in the absolute is puerile behavior on
your part, especially since, as you repeatedly demonstrate, you fail to
grasp any of the parameters involved.
Now, if you would get out of your mime-box world, you might contribute
to the DISCUSSION, rather than petulantly blowing smoke out your ass in
a vain attempt at garnering attention. Say, you aren't still in Middle
School, are you?
> Andre
Dan
Nik Simpson
> Dave wrote:
> I ask because, while reading the autobiographical account of the
> Bismarck's senior surviving officer (years ago, so time has hazed some
> details, I'm sure), I got the impression that during her final
> engagement, the Bismarck was effectively mission-killed before she could
> get any good licks in by the mass volume of
> -- the hull and guns were still mostly intact, but the gun directors and
> other support equipment were just "sanded" off.
That "relatively lightweight fire" was 14" and 16" shells, probably
would have been a rather different story if KGV and Rodney had only 12"
guns, regardless of the numbers.
--
Nik Simpson
Bill
dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:
Luck or a lack of good command judgement on the part of the Royal Navy?
1. Holland having the Hood as the lead ship with her more vulnerable
armor?
2. Having Holland misjudge how close the distance should be to avoid
plunging fire? And after the first KM hits, he should have kept on a
closing course instead of turning to port to bring all his guns to bear?
And Bismarck's fire accuracy cannot be considered anything but better
optics.
Yes, it's all hindsight but in this case I believe it was the wrong
British decision making, not luck.
Bill
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
anthonybuc...@telus.net (Anthony Buckland) wrote:
> what would have been the
> consequence if a carrier power (hypothetical, the only one
> actually in the Atlantic was the US) had used those weapons
> exclusively, the torpedo (surface ship- and plane- as well as
> submarine-delivered) and the bomb to try to interdict convoy
> supply in the North Atlantic.
Well first there was a second carrier power in the Atlantic, the RN.
Second carrier groups were more vulnerable to land based air then than
they are now. Fewer aircraft and a greater difference in performance
between land and naval aircraft. The result of this is that your
hypothetical force would probably try to operate in the Mid-Atlantic
gap. For actual results check out the summer Arctic convoys. While the
air force in that case was land based the convoys were in range of air
attack for a large part of the journey and were a lot easier to find
than Atlantic ones.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
kitpl...@gmail.com (Charles Talleyrand) wrote:
> I don't think that's true. Two 12" guns fire the same weight and
> volume of ammo as one 16" gun. Storing more shells that are smaller,
> it works out to a near equality.
Even if that was true you still have magazine space and layout to
consider. Magazines and shell storage have to be adjacent to the gun
hoists, nobody was going to go back to ammunition passages, the more
turrets you have the greater the impact on internal space. While the 12
inch charges are smaller the increased number of separate charges pushes
the volume required to store and handle them up.
Three or four turrets were found to be the optimum layout from the
point of view of internal layout. That was one reason the RN went to the
15inch. It let Q turret be dropped and still increased broadside weight
while allowing space for increased machinery. When the Italians upgraded
their existing ships they had to drop the midships turret to provide the
space for new machinery.
Given that for a WW2 treaty ship plus the fact that nobody ever managed
to do better than a quad turret the best you could do would be 16 12inch
and probably not that as a lot of ordnance weight was independent of gun
size. There would be no real advantage in rate of fire either as power
loading resulted in a markedly similar firing cycle regardless of gun
calibre. There is also the point that ass a first approximation the
heavier the shell the less it sufferers from air resistance so a 12
inch ship is likely to be outranged.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
kitpl...@gmail.com (Charles Talleyrand) wrote:
> Just to be clear, a 12" shell fired at 45 degrees will go past the
> battle ranges used in WWI and even in WWII. If you claim otherwise,
> provide data.
The problem is getting 45 degrees elevation in the first place. Once
you get past 30 degrees or so you enter the area of diminishing returns.
The British 16 inch and 15 inch mountings had a maximum of 30 degrees
with the WW2 14inch at 40 degrees. There is also the problem of loading,
getting consistent ramming at 20 degrees elevation was not easy, as a
result most navies used fixed elevation loading at around 5 degrees
reducing rate of fire. Also as I pointed out in another post lighter
shells are more affected by air resistance so impact velocity reduces
more with range.
However probably the most important argument was that no navy believed
in reducing gun size except as dictated by outside forces. The 14 inch
on the KGV was the result of the treaties and treasury pressure, though
RN designers did consider that a 14 inch ship was probably the best
balanced ship they could build on 35,000 tons. The follow up Lion class
would have had 16 inch guns. Bismark got 8 15inch instead of the
possible 12 11inch and off course there was Japan.
Ken Young
Chris
> * The wasted space is greater with larger round objects in a finite
> space. Packing densities for round objects is well-understood (though
> recently there was a surprise with spherical objects when a computer got
> hold of the problem).
>
This sounds interesting...could you comment a bit further about it?
Thanks
-C
Peter Skelton
wrote:
>In article <1183507199.9...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>kitpl...@gmail.com (Charles Talleyrand) wrote:
>
>> Just to be clear, a 12" shell fired at 45 degrees will go past the
>> battle ranges used in WWI and even in WWII. If you claim otherwise,
>> provide data.
>
> The problem is getting 45 degrees elevation in the first place. Once
>you get past 30 degrees or so you enter the area of diminishing returns.
>The British 16 inch and 15 inch mountings had a maximum of 30 degrees
>with the WW2 14inch at 40 degrees.
Are you certain of the 16"? Navweaps and Janes give 40. I don't
have a really good reference handy
(incidentally nw gives +- 3 degrees as the loading angle for the
RN 16".)
Peter Skelton
Andre Lieven
Nonetheless, as pointed out above, a claimed higher rate of fire will
require more shells per gun, thud magnifying the storage problem, and
likely pushing the rounded wasted space beyond your claimed point,
thus making your claim wrong.
> * You speak of only two dimensions in your calculations, yet compare
> three. Larger shells are proportionally longer, as well, taking up more
> of the third dimension, ruining the opinion you generated from your
> erroneous calculation.
Wrong. The size of the larger shells better uses up the available
vertical space, so the smaller shells in a large ship are the more
wasteful of the available spaces. Its not like anyone is going to
build battleships with lower than a standard deck height spaces
for the ammo.
> So, the original assertion stands against your attempted rebuttal.
Nope.
>> Plus, the 16 inch shells are taller, so in that third dimension, you
>> literally get more bang for the space.
>
> ????
>
> You are saying we can just IGNORE the third dimension, somehow, because
> a space warp does something to the material that would take up the extra
> space, or what...
No, you are saying such nonsense. My point is that a taller shell
*better* uses the available vertical space. Ergo, less wasted space.
>> Your idea is flat our wrong, deal with it. Thats why NO navy went your
>> way.
>
> For reasons completely other than those you type...
No proof offered ? Whiny fact free claim fails.
>> Andre
>
> Oh, that explains it.
>
> You wouldn't post under the name "Stuart Grey" in other newsgroups,
> would you?
Never heard of him. I've never posted under anything but my opwn name.
But, thanks for pointing out that you are full of ASSumptions and
Ad Hominems. Thus, your claims can be safely ignored as trolling.
HTH.
Andre
Andre Lieven
Luck.
> 1. Holland having the Hood as the lead ship with her more vulnerable
> armor?
The hit that killed Hood was a " golden BB "kind of shot, one that could
statistically not be repeated in 100 tries. Ergo, luck, period.
> 2. Having Holland misjudge how close the distance should be to avoid
> plunging fire? And after the first KM hits, he should have kept on a
> closing course instead of turning to port to bring all his guns to bear?
Thats not only chicken, but ignores that the RN sent two heavy ships
so that their superiority in number of heavy guns could defeat the
Bismarck. Your suggestion throws that away, thus making sending two
heavy ships pointless.
> And Bismarck's fire accuracy cannot be considered anything but better
> optics.
Hitting that specific point is luck.
> Yes, it's all hindsight but in this case I believe it was the wrong
> British decision making, not luck.
No proof offered ? Claim fails.
Andre
Andre Lieven
> In article <1183478855.8...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> kitpl...@gmail.com (Charles Talleyrand) wrote:
>
>> I don't think that's true. Two 12" guns fire the same weight and
>> volume of ammo as one 16" gun. Storing more shells that are smaller,
>> it works out to a near equality.
>
> Even if that was true you still have magazine space and layout to
> consider. Magazines and shell storage have to be adjacent to the gun
> hoists, nobody was going to go back to ammunition passages, the more
> turrets you have the greater the impact on internal space. While the 12
> inch charges are smaller the increased number of separate charges pushes
> the volume required to store and handle them up.
Indeed. Fanboi Danny should read this and... shut up.
> Three or four turrets were found to be the optimum layout from the
> point of view of internal layout. That was one reason the RN went to the
> 15inch. It let Q turret be dropped and still increased broadside weight
> while allowing space for increased machinery. When the Italians upgraded
> their existing ships they had to drop the midships turret to provide the
> space for new machinery.
Exactly. Its worth noting that no post 1920 battleship was built with
more than four turrets. When the type moved to fast battleship, that
midships space became even more needed for tasks other than guns and
ammunition stowage.
> Given that for a WW2 treaty ship plus the fact that nobody ever managed
> to do better than a quad turret the best you could do would be 16 12inch
> and probably not that as a lot of ordnance weight was independent of gun
> size. There would be no real advantage in rate of fire either as power
> loading resulted in a markedly similar firing cycle regardless of gun
> calibre.
Exactly, and this is why, as I have said repeatedly, that there was
no light-heavy cruiser type of split in the battleship type, because
the lighter battleship sized guns offered no rate of fire advantage
over their heavier cousins.
> There is also the point that ass a first approximation the
> heavier the shell the less it sufferers from air resistance so a 12
> inch ship is likely to be outranged.
Once again, fanboi Dan should read this fact and... shut up.
Andre
TMOliver
"Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:f6duk4$c46$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
> Charles Talleyrand (kitpl...@gmail.com) writes:
>> On Jul 2, 8:01 pm, Nik Simpson <n_simp...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> Charles Talleyrand wrote:
>>> > On Jul 2, 3:58 pm, Pete Granzeau <pgranz...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> > The Agincourt was a weird ship. I agree that deck surface limits the
>>> > amount of guns that can be placed onto a reasonable ship. No one is
>>> > proposing 30 guns/hull. However, a norm of 15-16 instead of a norm of
>>> > 9 or 12 would be reasonable.
>>>
>>> You're neglecting the problem of ammo stowage, at around 200/gun & 9
>>> guns you're carrying 1800 shells, at 15 guns you're talking 3000 shells,
>>> and that's assuming you don't carry more shells/gun to make up for the
>>> higher rate of fire.
>>
>> volume of ammo as one 16" gun. Storing more shells that are smaller,
>> it works out to a near equality.
>
> space, in one direction, and 12 in the other. While one 16 inch gun
> only needs 16 X 16 inches. Its 288 V 256 cubic inches. Plus, that
> doesnt take into account the fact that the shells are round, so there
> is wasted space between shells, thus increasing how much space more
> shells need.
>
> literally get more bang for the space.
.....and certainly the powder and projectile hoists for 2 12" guns will
occupy more spece than those for a single 16" gun.
In retrospect, even as a jingoistic 'Merkin, I'm satisfied that the later
marks of the RN's 15" were likely about as adequate asa battelship's guns
could be. On an actual experience basis, the higher velocity of the late
model USN 16" gun as fitted to the IOWAs may not have been worth the more
rapid bore wear. Of course, we really don't have a comparable "benchmark"
of long range performance again heavy armor with which to compare the guns.
Paper solutions are all too often based on statistical analysis which has
been pre-colored by the acceptance of unrealistic conditions. One could
make a reasonable case on paper that a BB with 2X3 15" and 4X3 8" would have
performed well in clearly defined situations, but designers and navies are
forced into building the optimal compromise for the entire range of
conditions and situations which they believe a ship will face. The ultimate
"specialty vessel" aside from CVs, a BB still must be able operate optimally
in dozens of different scenarios (and every class of BB will have a variety
of Achilles' heels - of which hopefully the opponents are either unaware or
unable to take advantage of).
>
> Your idea is flat our wrong, deal with it. Thats why NO navy went your
> way.
>
But there's another side to the question, Andre.
If I can build, equip and crew one 12" BB every 3 years (based on available
funds, dock/ways and crewing, etc.), but cannot build a 15" gunned ship at
all, being forced to "Buy abroad", and then only one per decade, would the 3
smaller ships with lighter main batteries be a better naval investment?
Even that question is unanswerable unless I know with whom the fight to
be....(or likely to be)
But he is wrong, at least in the scenario semipredicated.
TMO
Leadfoot
>
> Sure, and a BB can also be killed by penetrating her magazine ( Hood )
> or mission killing her rudder ( Bismarck ).
>
I thought the "mission kill" was PoW 14" hit to the oil tank.
The torpedo hit to the rudder was a death blow
Leadfoot
"Bill" <69ch...@Dodge.com> wrote in message
news:69charger-ADFD4...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
Prince of Wales had barely been put in commision, They had hundreds of
dockyard workers still on-board. Green ship, green crew and commanders lead
from the front
The worst mistake Holland made was attacking from the side instead of
getting ahead of Bismark and letting Lutjens run into him. If he had done
that it's likely Norfolk and Suffolk and Holland's destroyer escort would
have caught up and even if Hood had been sunk it would have been a much
different end for Bismark and Prinz Eugen. For that matter from the British
perspective it would have been a good trade if they could have lost all of
their ships if Bismark and Peinz Eugen had been mission killed.
Tankfixer
kitpl...@gmail.com mumbled
>
> However, most of the ship is unarmored and even the armored parts are
> affected by repeated hits of a 12" shell. You can destory a ship with
> even 8" shells, as has been done in real life battle.
You should note that each instance of this was fought at ranges under
10,000 yards. In some cases under 5,000 or 6,000.
At those ranges secondary batteries come into play to increase the
weight of fire.
Also note that those 8" gunned ships got beat up pretty badly.
--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."
Tankfixer
mumbled
>
> Thus, the 12" gun is not functionally outranged by its 14", 15", 16",
> and 18.1" bretheren.
No, but the 14", 15" or 16" ship is built to resist shells of that size
approximately.
No doubt the 12" gun ship was built to similar standards.
In the scenario where both hit, who suffers the worst damage ?
Pete Granzeau
<kitpl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Nice try but no cigar. Two 12 inch shells take up 24 inches of storage
>> space, in one direction, and 12 in the other. While one 16 inch gun
>> only needs 16 X 16 inches. Its 288 V 256 cubic inches. Plus, that
>> doesnt take into account the fact that the shells are round, so there
>> is wasted space between shells, thus increasing how much space more
>> shells need.
>
>
>First, you cannot mutliply length x width and get cubic inches. You
>would get square inches.
>
>Second, a 16" shell is 16" in diameter and 66" long. A box containing
>such a shell would use 16x16x66=16,896 cubic inces. A 12" shell is
>12" in diameter and 40" long. A box containing such a shell would be
>12*12*40=5,760 cubic inches. One can store about three 12" in the
>same volume as a 16" shell.
Shells being round, the second dimension would be different, as you
would store round shells in a kind of honeycomb arrangement (and I don't
have the math to tell just how many of them would go in a given square
area). I don't know about length of shell, as I doubt you would store
them standing on each other. Aren't shells pretty long? Would there be
more than one level of shells in a single magazine flat? A US 14" shell
was not quite 50" in length, so stored upright in a magazine, there
would be insufficient space between decks to put in two rows, one would
think. US 16" shells were 64" to 72" in length, so measurement of the
area in each flat probably would be sufficient to establish capacity.
Pete Granzeau
I think that 12" guns could have done much of the same damage to gun
directors, radars, and other topside equipment. I understand that all
four of Bismarck's turrets were out of commission by the end, however,
which probably did take 14" and 16" AP shells to do.
Nik Simpson
> On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 07:20:55 -0400, Nik Simpson
> <n_si...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> David McMillan wrote:
>>> Dave wrote:
>>> I ask because, while reading the autobiographical account of the
>>> Bismarck's senior surviving officer (years ago, so time has hazed some
>>> details, I'm sure), I got the impression that during her final
>>> engagement, the Bismarck was effectively mission-killed before she could
>>> get any good licks in by the mass volume of
>>> -- the hull and guns were still mostly intact, but the gun directors and
>>> other support equipment were just "sanded" off.
>> That "relatively lightweight fire" was 14" and 16" shells, probably
>> would have been a rather different story if KGV and Rodney had only 12"
>> guns, regardless of the numbers.
>
> I think that 12" guns could have done much of the same damage to gun
> directors, radars, and other topside equipment.
The killer hit was a on B turret (IIRC) which also destroyed much of the
bridge, in addition to knocking out B turret, don't know if a 12" would
have done that.
--
Nik Simpson
Nik Simpson
> In article <VIFii.6371$L5....@newsfe06.lga>, dnad...@hotmail.com
> mumbled
>> Thus, the 12" gun is not functionally outranged by its 14", 15", 16",
>> and 18.1" bretheren.
>
> No, but the 14", 15" or 16" ship is built to resist shells of that size
> approximately.
> No doubt the 12" gun ship was built to similar standards.
>
Also, the accuracy of a 15" shell at 22,000 yards is better than a 12"
because it's more stable in flight.
--
Nik Simpson
Andre Lieven
As well as the shell rooms, powder rooms, and the hoists for both will
need more space for a battleship with more guns in her turrets, and/or
more turrets aboard.
> In retrospect, even as a jingoistic 'Merkin, I'm satisfied that the later
> marks of the RN's 15" were likely about as adequate as a battelship's guns
> could be. On an actual experience basis, the higher velocity of the late
> model USN 16" gun as fitted to the IOWAs may not have been worth the more
> rapid bore wear. Of course, we really don't have a comparable "benchmark"
> of long range performance again heavy armor with which to compare the guns.
Sure. We do have a pretty good record of the RN 15 inch gun not only
performing very well, in two world wars, but also in two decades of
peacetime service, maintenance, etc., in between those wars. That
record is simply excellent.
> Paper solutions are all too often based on statistical analysis which has
> been pre-colored by the acceptance of unrealistic conditions. One could
> make a reasonable case on paper that a BB with 2X3 15" and 4X3 8" would have
> performed well in clearly defined situations, but designers and navies are
> forced into building the optimal compromise for the entire range of
> conditions and situations which they believe a ship will face. The ultimate
> "specialty vessel" aside from CVs, a BB still must be able operate optimally
> in dozens of different scenarios (and every class of BB will have a variety
> of Achilles' heels - of which hopefully the opponents are either unaware or
> unable to take advantage of).
Again, I am in total agreement.
>> Your idea is flat our wrong, deal with it. Thats why NO navy went your
>> way.
>>
> But there's another side to the question, Andre.
>
> If I can build, equip and crew one 12" BB every 3 years (based on available
> funds, dock/ways and crewing, etc.), but cannot build a 15" gunned ship at
> all, being forced to "Buy abroad", and then only one per decade, would the
> 3 smaller ships with lighter main batteries be a better naval investment?
Well, thats a question that leaves the total record of the Real World
and it's possibilities, pressures, and plans over the period 1905-1950.
Because the 1st and 2nd generation BBs all were built in such rapid succession
that the lessons learned from one class were too late to help design the
next design.
Then, a war to end all wars occured, and, in it's aftermath, battleship
building was seen as being fiscally crippling, so, by means of political
processes, it stopped. After that, existing stocks were maintained, and,
as much as each power believed that it could, modernised. With a last
building boom, of sorts ( Really, not enough time for the first post
Treaty design to pass it's lessons onto a later class that could be
built in time. ), where size in ship and guns mattered, once again.
Note that the only smaller ships built in that time period had more to
do with politics ( S&G, 11 inch guns, and a nominal 26,000 ton limit,
due to Germany working itself, slowly, out of the Versailles 10,000
ton limit; the French S&D pair, which was meant to both display a
less than top limit size due to politics, again, and a design need
to kill Panzerschiffe ) than anything else.
The Alaskas are a case of nothing of battleshipness, but of building
the ultimate cruiser raider killer. Whats interesting in that case is
that the slightly later automatic 8 inch gun that was fitted to the
Des Moines class cruisers made the larger and more expensive Alaskas
redundant.
Going back to your question, the historical record shows that every
smaller BB design that came up was rejected, for reasons of being too
weak to fight what BBs already existed, and because the cost savings
were not commensurate with the loss of capability. This is the same
explanation for why the USN has rejected every smaller supercarrier
design thats come down the pike. Drop size by, say, 20%, you lose
more like 30% of capability, for only around a 10% cost savings.
That equation simply never works. Ask anyone who had to serve on a
Treasury limited Type 42 in the Falklands...
> Even that question is unanswerable unless I know with whom the fight to
> be....(or likely to be)
>
> But he is wrong, at least in the scenario semipredicated.
Agreed.
Andre
Andre Lieven
>>
>> Sure, and a BB can also be killed by penetrating her magazine ( Hood )
>> or mission killing her rudder ( Bismarck ).
>
> I thought the "mission kill" was PoW 14" hit to the oil tank.
The sense that I was describing was the Bismarck's ability to fight.
The rudder hit made that almost impossible, in a way that the oil tank
hit didn't.
But, I understand your point, in that the oil tank hit made Bismarck's
raiding mission impossible.
> The torpedo hit to the rudder was a death blow
Agreed.
Andre
Andre Lieven
I am unable to confirm the claim of " hundreds "of workers; do you have a
source ?
As for " commanders lead from the front "... Huh ?
> The worst mistake Holland made was attacking from the side instead of
> getting ahead of Bismark and letting Lutjens run into him.
Yes, of course, Lutjens could NOT make any turns... <sarcasm mode off>
> If he had done
> that it's likely Norfolk and Suffolk and Holland's destroyer escort would
> have caught up and even if Hood had been sunk it would have been a much
> different end for Bismark and Prinz Eugen.
The destroyers had been detached hours before, there was no way for them
to swiftly rejoin. The cruisers had a shadowing job that came first.
> For that matter from the British
> perspective it would have been a good trade if they could have lost all of
> their ships if Bismark and Peinz Eugen had been mission killed.
No proof offered ? Incorrect claim of who does Kamikazes fails.
>> 2. Having Holland misjudge how close the distance should be to avoid
>> plunging fire? And after the first KM hits, he should have kept on a
>> closing course instead of turning to port to bring all his guns to bear?
>>
>> And Bismarck's fire accuracy cannot be considered anything but better
>> optics.
>>
>> Yes, it's all hindsight but in this case I believe it was the wrong
>> British decision making, not luck.
No proof offered ? Anti historical fact free claim fails.
Andre
Andre Lieven
Its worth noting that the USS South Dakota took a bomb hit on her B
turret top at Santa Cruz, which did no damage to the turret, though
there was some damage on the bridge, but it was swiftly repaired.
The smaller shell would be more likely to act like such a bomb, in
terms of explosive and velocity of impact. The bomb would have a far
greater content of explosive, but a smaller velocity of impact.
Andre
Dave
news:6d3l83tm5k02nvq5u...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 23:36:53 -0700, "Dave" <dave...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >A 12 inch gun was not powerful enough to seriously damage a modern
> >battleship in WWII. Even the 13.6 inch Italian main armament on their
> >modernized WWI vintage ships was inadequate.
>
>
> However, hit a battleship enough times and in the right places, and you
> don't need major calibers to defeat them.
>
> IJN Hiei, for instance, was extensively modernized in the late 1930s,
> lengthened, increased power, and several thousand tons of additional
> armor was built in--and yet, 30 8" hits from heavy cruisers San
> Francisco and Portland, plus many 5" hits from AA cruisers and
> destroyers, disabled her to the point she could not steer, and that left
> her in the area for aircraft from Henderson Field, USS Enterprise, and
> USAAF bombers from Espiritu Santo to attack the next day. She was
> abandoned, and sank from either the aircraft attacks or scuttling by her
> crew (and possibly both, with the scuttling only speeding up the
> inevitable).
IJN Hiei was not a modern battleship. She was built as a battle cruiser with
battle cruiser armor, which meant that her vertical protection was a maximum
of 8 inches. Also, that was Japanese steel of lower quality than British or
American cemented armor. Hiei was disabled because her side armor was
penetrated, resulting in crippling damage to her propulsion systems and
steering gear.
Dave Welsh
dwel...@cox.net
PaPaPeng
<kitpl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Most all battleships used between 9 and 12 guns, and used the biggest
>gun they could mount in these numbers. Significant engineering effort
>was put into designing, building, and mounting these ever larger
>guns. The results seem to show that main gun hits were more rare than
>the designers might have expected, and that one hit would not mission-
>kill nor sink an enemy vessel.
>
>Instead of designers working ever harder to build and mount larger
>guns, they might instead have tried to mount *more* guns. So for
>instance, instead of mounting on the Queen Elizabeth four twin-turret
>15" guns, they might have mounted four triple-turret 12" guns. The
>result is less weight of gun for the Queen Elizabeth to carry, less
>weight per broadside fired at the enemy, but more total hits on the
>enemy.
>
>The end result of such a move is something like an larger, better
>built Agincourt, with triple turrets. Such a ship would have 21 guns
>and 18 in any broadside.
>
>Comments?
>
>-Charles Talleyrand
83 posts is too many to go through in detail to see if the Yamato's 18
inch guns were discussed. 18 inch guns were the largest battleship
guns ever made and would have made mincemeat of any battleship
exchnage. But they presented problems which made them more trouble
than they were worth.
WIKI: The exponentially higher blast effect of the main armament
prevented the stowage of boats on deck or the stationing of unshielded
personnel in combat. As a result, all anti-aircraft positions (even
the smallest) were enclosed in blast shields as designed. Later in
their career the anti-aircraft armament of both ships were
considerably augmented by open positions of both light and heavy
weapons. Presumably AA gun crews would evacuate the weather deck prior
to the firing of the main armament. Incidentally this might be the
reason for the Yamato's ineffectiveness at the Battle off Samar; the
ship was under almost continual air attack and may have been prevented
from firing her main armament at the risk of killing or disabling
gunners in open positions. For similar reasons the superstructure of
the ship was extremely compact, which reduced armored citadel length
but also hampered anti-aircraft arcs of fire.
Charles Talleyrand
> Nonetheless, as pointed out above, a claimed higher rate of fire will
> require more shells per gun,
Please read the following four sentences:
NO ONE IS CLAIMING A HIGHRER RATE OF FIRE PER GUN.
Everyone assumes the 12" and 16" guns fire at the same rate.
We figure, however many shells a 16" gun needs, the 12" gun will need
the same number.
For every shot of one gun there will be one shot of the other gun.
This has been pointed out before in this thread.
Tankfixer
PaPa...@yahoo.com mumbled
> 18 inch guns were the largest battleship
> guns ever made and would have made mincemeat of any battleship
> exchnage
Yet she turned tail and ran from some DE's.....
Charles Talleyrand
> Charles Talleyrand (kitplan...@gmail.com) writes:
> > In any case, 12" shells have been fired way past 30,000 yards,
>
> Cite ?
>
Aw come on. This is losing the fun. Did you look 6 lines down in the
same post. That's where you would have found the citation. It was in
the same post.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_12-50_mk8.htm.
I really think you are on no-read-auto-reply. I think you have good
points ... but are too annoying to correspond with. There are other
people making the same points without using the word "fanboi" every
paragraph.
-Bye
Charles Talleyrand
> In article <1183507199.940614.192...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
All good points.
I didn't know that everyone went to fixed elevation loading. Did this
reduce just the maximum fire rate or also the effective fire rate? As
I understand things at long range one did not fire a maximum rate but
was forced to wait for one salvo to splash to compute the correction
for the next.
I understand that since no navy went with the many-small-gun concept
there must be problems. I'm interested in what those problems might
have been. Hign angle loading is one I never thought of. Thanks.
Charles Talleyrand
> 2. I will have a much longer gun range than he will
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BL_18_inch_/_40_naval_gun
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BL_14_inch_/_45_mk_VII_naval_gun
>
> 18" L40 range about 40,500 yards
>
> 14" L45 range about 38,500 yards
>
> No reference exists that I found for a 12 inch gun, but clearly this
> shows the trend.
>
> The 18" gun BB will have at least a mile of range band where the 12"
> gun BB cannot even hit her. Further, if we can put armor into the
> equation the armor on the 18" bore 4 gun BB will be much better
> protection than the same amount of armor on the 12" bore 16 gun BB
> against those few 18" shells the other BB can fire.
As has been discussed, both a 12" and any larger shell can range past
35,000 yards. No one can provide accurare fire at such ranges. There
is a reasonable claim that a larger shell is more accurate at larger
ranges, but the greater number of shells fired might compensate for
this.
Andre Lieven
> On Jul 4, 10:44 am, d...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:
>
>> Nonetheless, as pointed out above, a claimed higher rate of fire will
>> require more shells per gun,
>
> Please read the following four sentences:
>
> NO ONE IS CLAIMING A HIGHRER RATE OF FIRE PER GUN.
Then, the fire advantage of the smaller gun is... FICTIONAL. HTH.
> Everyone assumes the 12" and 16" guns fire at the same rate.
> We figure, however many shells a 16" gun needs, the 12" gun will need
> the same number.
But, with more guns, there will be more TOTAL shells. Duh.
> For every shot of one gun there will be one shot of the other gun.
>
> This has been pointed out before in this thread.
And, it still left this " idea " of yours in the historical trash bin.
Face that fact.
Andre
Andre Lieven
> In article <9a2o835bbvdgo6u65...@4ax.com>,
> PaPa...@yahoo.com mumbled
>> 18 inch guns were the largest battleship
>> guns ever made and would have made mincemeat of any battleship
>> exchnage
>
> Yet she turned tail and ran from some DE's.....
Well, Idiot Peng believes that anything Oriental is God.
Plonk the fool, and have done with its ignorant idiocy.
Andre
Charles Talleyrand
RANGE:
Any shell 12" or larger can range past the range of effective fire
solutions, given a high elevation. The larger shell might be more
accurate at extreme ranges, but the smaller shell will be fired in
greater number. There has been no evidence either way which will
generate more hits at extreme range.
DAMAGE:
Any 12" shell will likely be defeated by the armor of a post-1915
battleship. However, a more typical-for-the-era shell will with
reasonable probability penetrate the armor. Neither shell will sink
an enemy ship with one hit (Hood excepted). Many smaller shells can
mission-kill an enemy battleship by clearing off fire directors and
destorying bridges and such, but for that same effort fewer larger
shells might do more damage. (Or not. There seems to be no hard
evidence, just informed opinion.)
PRACTICALITY:
Mounting anything past 16 guns on a ship was not done in real life,
and so we assume with reasonableness it's difficult. One a large
battleship 16 guns at 12" is under-armed. No one wants to see the
tonnage of an Iowa with 16 guns at 12".
ENEMY REACTION:
If the enemy is only concerned with you, and knows your plans, then he
will structure his ships accordingly. For example if the British had
gone to the many-smaller-guns, the Germans would have changed their
armor.
OVERALL:
No one did this, not even the Italians :-)
Andre Lieven
> On Jul 3, 10:05 pm, d...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:
>> Charles Talleyrand (kitplan...@gmail.com) writes:
>
>> > In any case, 12" shells have been fired way past 30,000 yards,
>>
>> Cite ?
>
> Aw come on. This is losing the fun. Did you look 6 lines down in the
> same post. That's where you would have found the citation. It was in
> the same post.
>
> http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_12-50_mk8.htm.
>
> I really think
No proof ever offered ? Fact free fanboi loon claim fails.
> you are on no-read-auto-reply. I think you have good
> points ... but are too annoying to correspond with. There are other
> people making the same points without using the word "fanboi" every
> paragraph.
>
> -Bye
<Laughs> Yeah, thats because you CANNOT debate/refute my comments about
your silly and anti historical " idea ", so all that you can do it to
call me names due to YOUR frustration at being... WRONG.
I can live with that.
Andre
Vince
> In article <9a2o835bbvdgo6u65...@4ax.com>,
> PaPa...@yahoo.com mumbled
>> 18 inch guns were the largest battleship
>> guns ever made and would have made mincemeat of any battleship
>> exchnage
>
> Yet she turned tail and ran from some DE's.....
Just like the grand fleet
And just imagine what any carrier would do
stop using middle school rhetoric
Vince
John Dallman
n_si...@bellsouth.net (Nik Simpson) wrote:
> That "relatively lightweight fire" was 14" and 16" shells, probably
> would have been a rather different story if KGV and Rodney had only
> 12" guns, regardless of the numbers.
It seems that Bismarck lost her forward director to an 8" hit from
Norfolk. It's less clear what hit the after director.
Mission-killing a ship is a good first step, but if it gets away it can
be fixed, maybe quite quickly. So you can send 6" and 8" cruisers
against a battleship to mission-kill it and then torpedo craft to sink
it. But their gun accuracy simply isn't sufficient to try to pick off
directors and similar vital spots; they scatter shells over the area of
the ship and hope to get lucky. However, if the battleship gets hits
anywhere on any of those craft, they're in deep trouble. The battleship
also has weight and space to carry better fire-control, has higher-
mounted directors and is a steadier gun platform.
It isn't a good percentage game. Sending a battleship against a
battleship of about the same technology level gives your own men a
decent chance of survival.
--
John Dallman, j...@cix.co.uk, HTML mail is treated as probable spam.
Leadfoot
What number would you accept? 100?
>
> As for " commanders lead from the front "... Huh ?
If you don't get that... oh well.
>
>> The worst mistake Holland made was attacking from the side instead of
>> getting ahead of Bismark and letting Lutjens run into him.
>
> Yes, of course, Lutjens could NOT make any turns... <sarcasm mode off>
Actually it was Holland's intent. Someone fucked up the intercept.
>
>> If he had done
>> that it's likely Norfolk and Suffolk and Holland's destroyer escort would
>> have caught up and even if Hood had been sunk it would have been a much
>> different end for Bismark and Prinz Eugen.
>
> The destroyers had been detached hours before, there was no way for them
> to swiftly rejoin. The cruisers had a shadowing job that came first.
They weren't actually detached, Holland signaled them "If you are unable to
maintain this speed I will have to go on without you. You should follow at
your best speed.". As for the cruisers they were suppose to join the fight
once it started... or were they suppose to be spectators? Yeah right...
<sarcasm mode off>
>
>> For that matter from the British
>> perspective it would have been a good trade if they could have lost all
>> of
>> their ships if Bismark and Peinz Eugen had been mission killed.
>
> No proof offered ? Incorrect claim of who does Kamikazes fails.
The Bitish needed the supplies that were in danger if B and PE broke out and
started sinking convoys. They could afford to lose Hood, PoW, Suffolk and
Norfolk so long as it was not in vain. And if B and PE are mission killed in
the Staits of Denmark they probably won't make it home.
The RN had plenty of ships, the Germans didn't.
Tankfixer
fir...@firelaw.us mumbled
> Tankfixer wrote:
> > In article <9a2o835bbvdgo6u65...@4ax.com>,
> > PaPa...@yahoo.com mumbled
> >> 18 inch guns were the largest battleship
> >> guns ever made and would have made mincemeat of any battleship
> >> exchnage
> >
> > Yet she turned tail and ran from some DE's.....
>
> Just like the grand fleet
>
> And just imagine what any carrier would do
There were CVE on hand too.
>
> stop using middle school rhetoric
I tailored my response to the OP maturity
Tankfixer
mumbled
He is more fun to poke with a stick ...
John Dallman
spamme...@nospam.org (Leadfoot) wrote:
> Prince of Wales had barely been put in commision, They had hundreds
> of dockyard workers still on-board.
Err, no. One Vickers-Armstrong (the turret makers) technician for each
main battery turret, according to Garzke & Dulin, _Allied Battleships in
World War II_. They'd come up to Scarpa Flow to help with the turrets
during gunnery practice; when PoW was called out for Bismarck, the
captain personally asked them to sail with the ship and they agreed.
There wasn't space to carny "hundreds" of extra workers, nor for them to
do anything useful with the ship at action stations.