WW II Historical Thread, Discussion, Pics, Videos

[Jura The idiot]

AFAIK, the only mention of any British attempt to incorporate special shell/ propellant mix to attack horizontal protection occurred in a off hand remark in Winston churchill's memoir about a meeting concerning desired properties in post WWII British battleships. Researchers who followed this up failed to find any corroborating evidence in admiralty archives.

It took me three minutes of typing; British spelling etc. The left bottom paragraph of p. 24 of Campbell's Naval Weapons of WW2:

16 in (406 mm) Mark IV
___________________
This, the last British heavy gun, was intended for a projected redesign of the Lion and Temeraire. It was to have been mounted in triple turrets with several novel features. The specification called for a bore length of 45 calibres, a new gun muzzle velocity of 2450 f/s (747 m/s) minimum at 70 F, and a design presuure of 25 tons/in^2 (3780 kg/cm^2) to allow for firing across the Straits of Dover with supercharges and special shells. The gun was to have a loose barrel and a screw breech block opening upwards. It was to be flashless with full charges of suitable propellant. The projectile was limited to 78 in (1981.2 mm) and the weight was to be determined by the best base-fuzed HE bombardment shell that could be designed within this length. This shell would cause maximum damage against 3 in (76 mm) or thinner armour. The APC was to be of the same weight with optimum performance against deck armour and effective against heavy side armour.

 

[chuck731]

It took me three minutes of typing; British spelling etc. The left bottom paragraph of p. 24 of Campbell's Naval Weapons of WW2:

16 in (406 mm) Mark IV
___________________
This, the last British heavy gun, was intended for a projected redesign of the Lion and Temeraire. It was to have been mounted in triple turrets with several novel features. The specification called for a bore length of 45 calibres, a new gun muzzle velocity of 2450 f/s (747 m/s) minimum at 70 F, and a design presuure of 25 tons/in^2 (3780 kg/cm^2) to allow for firing across the Straits of Dover with supercharges and special shells. The gun was to have a loose barrel and a screw breech block opening upwards. It was to be flashless with full charges of suitable propellant. The projectile was limited to 78 in (1981.2 mm) and the weight was to be determined by the best base-fuzed HE bombardment shell that could be designed within this length. This shell would cause maximum damage against 3 in (76 mm) or thinner armour. The APC was to be of the same weight with optimum performance against deck armour and effective against heavy side armour.

No, what Churchill described was the gun firing 2 different types of APC shells, using different propellant charges, one specifically to attack side armor and optimized for best penetration at low impact obliquity, and high face hardness armor, and another specifically to attack deck armor, and optimized for best penetration at high obliquity against homogenous armor. The design you find I think uses a single type if shell, always fired at full charge, but with better deck penetration than older type, but not specifically formulated to attack the deck.

In churchill's recollection the new battleship was supposed switch between different types of ammunition and propellant charges as ranges changed. This is different from using a standard shell with better all round performance.

 

[Jura The idiot]

No, what Churchill described was the gun firing 2 different types of APC shells, using different propellant charges, one specifically to attack side armor and optimized for best penetration at low impact obliquity, and high face hardness armor, and another specifically to attack deck armor, and optimized for best penetration at high obliquity against homogenous armor. The design you find I think uses a single type if shell, always fired at full charge, but with better deck penetration than older type, but not specifically formulated to attack the deck.

sorry then, but now I probably know what you and the former First Lord of Admiralty meant

In churchill's recollection the new battleship was supposed switch between different types of ammunition and propellant charges as ranges changed. This is different from using a standard shell with better all round performance.

and tell me if you found anything as this idea seems bizarre to me Assuming we're talking 15" (or more) caliber, I wonder how would you rapidly change the type of shell being fired?? if you couldn't do it real fast it'd easier to get nearer to, or move away from, the target LOL

 

[Lezt]

sorry then, but now I probably know what you and the former First Lord of Admiralty meant



and tell me if you found anything as this idea seems bizarre to me Assuming we're talking 15" (or more) caliber, I wonder how would you rapidly change the type of shell being fired?? if you couldn't do it real fast it'd easier to get nearer to, or move away from, the target LOL

The ammunition is made up of 2 parts,

1) shell
2) propellant

Shell is the projectile, it could be High Explosive, Phosphorus, Star shell, Amour Piercing etc.

Propellant on big guns tends to be bagged, for the USS Iowa, it is 6 bags for the full pressure giving the AP shell 768 m/s at 247.2 kg of propellant, and 6 reduced bags for reduced load for 590 m/s for the same AP shell with 133.8 kg of propellent.

 

[chuck731]

sorry then, but now I probably know what you and the former First Lord of Admiralty meant



and tell me if you found anything as this idea seems bizarre to me Assuming we're talking 15" (or more) caliber, I wonder how would you rapidly change the type of shell being fired?? if you couldn't do it real fast it'd easier to get nearer to, or move away from, the target LOL

You can use two hoists for each gun, supplying different types of ammunition, allowing ammunition choice to be made on the fly from the gun house.

Keep in mind many of the concepts of postwar British battleship circulating in 1944 were quite extravagant in tonnage to armament ratio. They would seem to be highly adaptable to main armament arrangements that are heavier and more complex for its caliber than would be common for earlier battleships.

 

[Jura The idiot]

The ammunition is made up of 2 parts,

1) shell
2) propellant

Shell is the projectile, it could be High Explosive, Phosphorus, Star shell, Amour Piercing etc.

Propellant on big guns tends to be bagged, for the USS Iowa, it is 6 bags for the full pressure giving the AP shell 768 m/s at 247.2 kg of propellant, and 6 reduced bags for reduced load for 590 m/s for the same AP shell with 133.8 kg of propellent.

Sure, one tonne (some sources say even more) of powder was needed to shoot the shells (HE: 4800 kg, AP: 7100 kg) of the 800 mm (31.50") German railway guns

Now to the British 15" Mark I guns I mentioned in previous posts: with the 4 crh (871 kg) shells, 196 kg of Cordite SC 280 was used, while "supercharges" (222 kg of SC 300) with the 6 crh (879 kg). Then at 20 degrees of elevation, the 4 crh went 22265 m; 6 crh: 27370 m.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Jura The idiot]

...

Keep in mind many of the concepts of postwar British battleship circulating in 1944 were quite extravagant in tonnage to armament ratio. ...

sounds interesting (to me not to my wife for example) ... where could I read about this, please?

 

[chuck731]

sounds interesting (to me not to my wife for example) ... where could I read about this, please?

Garzke, William H., Jr.; Dulin, Robert O., Jr. (1980). British, Soviet, French, and Dutch Battleships of World War II.

Some concepts involve 30 knot hulls with standard displacement of 56,000 - 60,000 tons, but has only 6 16" guns in 2 triple turrets. i.e. substantially larger and slower than the Iowa, but has only 2/3 the main armament.

 

[Rutim]

and tell me if you found anything as this idea seems bizarre to me Assuming we're talking 15" (or more) caliber, I wonder how would you rapidly change the type of shell being fired??

You just fire and load again. That's the quickest method to get rid of it from the gun barrel.

 

[chuck731]

You just fire and load again. That's the quickest method to get rid of it from the gun barrel.

Most heavy naval guns with fixed elevation loading or only limited all elevation loading allows shells to be withdrawn from the barrel fairly quickly if you really didn't want to fire it.

But after the shell has been rammed into the barrel once and then withdrawn, its rifle drive band would be damaged, and it can only be fired again with slightly reduced muzzle velocity and substantially increased dispersion. It's rifle driving band would need to be replaced at the factory.