CS: Misc-Naval Gun Fun
From: "Richard Loweth", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dover did have Naval Guns! They were used to try, unsuccessfully, to sink the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau during the two ships "Channel Dash" (Operation Thunderbolt Cerberus) from Brest to the North Atlantic. They scored no hits as it was foggy. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Naval Gun Fun
From: "E.J. Totty", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi! Some interesting things about big naval guns have come to my attention recently. For example: They didn't all elevate up to 45 degrees, thus denying them maximum range. They weren't all capable of firing flat, thus denying them the ability to sink ships at point-blank range. --snip-- Regards Norman Bassett drakenfels.org Steve, Norm, Oh, Norm . . . That is what ballast is for. Chief Engineer: "So, do you really want 45 degrees, Captain? Is your coffee mug safely placed?" Chuckle En route to my last duty station, USS Enterprise, I was surprised to hear that it had run across Bishop Shoals, somewhere off the southern California coast. Seems that there was an A-7E in final approach, and the captain decided to maintain course -- despite the Navigators admonition that dead ahead of the ship was the shoals. Rather than have the A-7 waved-off and do another approach after course change, the old man opted to instead take a chance that the tide was sufficient to allow over-passage. The consideration was that the alternative would have been to launch the tanker A-6, give the A-7 sufficient latitude for more than one pass, upon course set. The bottom edges of the outboard portions of the keel just below the stabilizers (those blade-like structures that run fore to aft at midships to dampen the rocking of a ship) were torn through sufficiently as to cause the ship to momentarily lose stability and immediately slip to one side, in a rather severe list, on the side that had the worst damage. There was an immediate call to all available hands to report to the flight deck, on the opposite side. A friend who was aboard at the time told me that he was in a shower stall at the moment when he was flung towards one side of the enclosure and almost got knocked off of his feet. He said he was thinking that the ship had either hit a lump of hard water, or a sub. (heh, heh. fat chance) He said that it wasn't a moment later that the ship took on a rather steep list, such that he had a terrible time just getting out of the shower. In the consideration that there were two gashes, one on each side of the ship, and that the voids that were breached were meant to be flooded anyway, the voids in adjacent areas were stabilized with flooding to compensate, and the ship returned to Alameda. It subsequently spent the next month and a half in Hunter's Point NSY, at SF, across the bay. Shipyard life is so damned nice . . . not. The Captain lost his command, but was an Admiral a year later. Go figure. Ruin a ship, get advanced. At a future date a few years later, the ship was out doing sea trials for evaluations, and the Captain was advising the crew that everything loose was to be tied down for sure. The ship was push to max (flank) speed. The under water log (device used to measure speed) was only made to measure 40 knots. The indicator (according to the Captain) was bouncing on the peg after less than a minute. It was then that the ship was immediately (as fast as the helmsman can turn that darned brass monster of a wheel) put into a full left turn, and that was followed later by a full right turn. I had my doubts about surviving that day. Ever been side-hill with an off-road vehicle? Severely side-hill? I have a photo that shows the ship at that 40 plus knots, and there is a solid wave of water rushing up the bow three quarters (45 feet). Quite literally plowing water. -- =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= Liberty: Live it . . . or lose it. =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= ET Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Naval Gun Fun
From: Jeremy Peter Howells, [EMAIL PROTECTED] They didn't all elevate up to 45 degrees, thus denying them maximum range. Very dependent on when they were built. Early battleships had very limited elevation, but then the guns were aimed from within the turret so effective range was very limited (this was before WW1), sometimes as little as a couple of miles. A Tushima the battleship lines were as close as a few hundred yards apart at some stages of the battle. They weren't all capable of firing flat, thus denying them the ability to sink ships at point-blank range. Certainly not true of many designs, at the Battle of Cape Matapan the British battleships engaged the Italian ships at about 5,000 yards - point blank with a 15-inch naval gun. However many warhip designs have problems engaging targets at close range over the bows, the rise and flair of the bows interfering with line of fire. When mounted in pairs they sometimes bracketed targets but didn't hit them (stern chases) because they couldn't be made to fire on a single spot, the projectile paths were parallel, not convergent. All the elevating mechanisms were usually independent (even in a triple or quadruple turret) so that all guns were independent of each other in case of damage. Also the elevation would be varied for each gun so as to drop a line of shells, or when registering on target they would be adjusted to as to drop in a cluster. The bores were so big you had to specify the internal and external radii of the corners of the rifling and the degree of surface finish. Most big naval guns were built rather than having the rifling cut into them as we think of with smallarms. Certainly many British battleships used gun barrels where the inner layers were actually wound copper wire, only the outer sleeve being steel. Such barrels took a terrific amount of skill and time to build. The last British battleship (Vanguard) was actually equipped with 15-inch guns originally built as spares for the WW1 vintage Queen Elizabeth Class ships, it being too expensive to tool up to produce new barrels from scratch. The big problem with naval guns was they could fire further than they could spot the fall of the shot. Not quite true as the 'height of eye' from the director tower of a battleship when ranging on a ship with a similar height of superstructure is well within the range of the guns, even at 40 miles. However, achieving such good conditions would be unusual, thats why most carried spotter planes to plot the fall of shot and relay it back to the ship. Radar made life a lot easier and its reported at the Battle of North Cape Scharnhorst barely saw the Duke of York before she was sunk. Naval gun sights - which compensated for pitch and roll - were state-of-the-art and top secret technology when battleships were the nation's largest and most expensive weapons. The gun sights did not compensate for pitch and roll but the fire prediction computers did. These were huge electro-mechanical or pneumatic-mechanical computing systems that could compensate for the movement of ship and target, flight time, etc. They were so large that they had to be installed when the ship was built, being installed well below the waterline partly because of their great weight and partly to provide them with the best protection. The director tower on a large warship from where the guns were actually 'aimed' needed several highly skilled men to operate it and the a mass of optical equipment. They collected the data that formed the basis for the calculations by the predictors. The battleship ruled the seas during its era and a modern battleship was a massive investment in time, trained manpower and money for any nation. From my uncle - one third of the cost of each of Britain's battleships - a 50% markup - was paid by shipbuilders in bribes to specifiers. There were certainly reports of bribes but I doubt they came to that sort of percentage as even a small proportion of that would have been a kings ransom. And a "maybe-apocryphal" (you don't often hear me say that!) - Dover was not equipped with coastal guns capable of interdicting the Channel during WW2 because the Admiral in charge had an aunt living in the town and didn't want it bombarded flat! Well if you look at Dover town its not well sited to cover the Channel over a wide arc. The coastal guns were mounted above and to either side of Dover on the high ground. If you go up to Langdon Battery above Dover, which is now the monitoring station for the Channel Traffic Management Scheme, you can see pictures of the WW2 structures on which the current building stands. These include some very impressive naval guns with a fine arc of fire over the Channel. Incidentally if said Admiral didn't want Dover bombarded flat why are there so many protective bays/hangars in the Harbour for the MTB's and MGB's that operated from there (they were still there as recently as 20 years ago). A very tempting
CS: Misc-Naval Gun Fun
From: Jonathan Spencer, [EMAIL PROTECTED] They didn't all elevate up to 45 degrees, thus denying them maximum range. Maximum range comes at about 29 degrees, not 45. In a vacuum it would be 45, but we have the air to contend with. --Jonathan Spencer, firearms examiner "Justice is open to everybody in the same way as the Ritz Hotel." Judge Sturgess, 22 July 1928 Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
