Stemar
Well-Known Member
IIRC, no one was allowed to be outside, at least no anywhere near the guns when a battleship was using its main armament,
Building a 12" Naval Gun
- Thread starter Old Harry
- Start date
scotty123
Well-Known Member
I realise that, but there must have been a shockwave inside the turret.
halcyon
Well-Known Member
We used to start apprentices based on engineering ability, everyone did a basic eng course at tech those that had some talent would go to higher education / Uni. Later this changed to taking A level students straight from school to uni. To-day we have reintroduced the 11 plus system, you need A level for an apprenticeships, we are loosing natural talent.
Very complicated life being and technical engineering apprentice pre 70's.
Brian
capnsensible
Well-Known Member
Found this:
capnsensible
Well-Known Member
In a similar way that has provoked my question. I remember what its like to be inside a 4.5 inch twin turret in full flow on a destroyer. It was very noisy, hot and you feel more of a body shock than the noise itself. I wondered if there was an outside chance any old salty dogs on the forum had experienced big calibre guns?
During the shoots I was always inside the turret so I dont know what it was like outside.
scotty123
Well-Known Member
Looks bloody scary & prone to accidents.
Amazed how relatively slow the procedure is.
capnsensible
Well-Known Member
The number of people involved in one turret surprised me. There was an accident in USS Missouri in the late 1980's that killed almost 50 sailors.
duncan99210
Well-Known Member
No, the shock wave is all generated from the muzzle blast. The turret is sealed(ish) so the overpressure from the muzzle doesn’t enter the turret. As the good capn says, there’s vibration but no over pressure.
AntarcticPilot
Well-Known Member
The shock comes from the muzzle of the gun, not the breach, so the turret and gun themselves protect the crew. It's actually a shock wave from the projectile, as it travels faster than sound. But it's interesting to look at old photos of battleships firing their guns, and realize that the shock from the guns flattens the water for quite some way from the ship. Also, I recently read that HMS Dreadnought (the first ship designed like a modern battleship) was designed so that the guns didn't superfire (that is, no gun fired over the top of another gun) because of concerns that the muzzle blast of the upper guns would damage the lower guns' turret.
scotty123
Well-Known Member
Interesting in the statement that it was a 3 gun turret, not a triple gun turret.
Considering the complexity of loading one gun, 3 guns must have been unbelievably difficult.
Did each have a different crew?
AntarcticPilot
Well-Known Member
A turret isn't just the bit with the guns in it at the top - the structure of the turret extends down into the ship through several decks and includes facilities for handling shells and charges. Part of the purpose of the structure is to stop a flash from a hit on the exposed turret from getting into the magazines; this didn't work at Jutland, where Beatty famously remarked "There seems to be something wrong with our ships today" after several British ships suffered magazine explosions. HMS Hood's demise probably arose from the same problem - the turret structure didn't prevent a flash travelling from a hit on a turret to the magazine.
scotty123
Well-Known Member
Thought that was because the RN ignored all safety & stacked the powder stuff nearby, to ensure faster reloading.
AntarcticPilot
Well-Known Member
The turret was highly mechanized; the shells of a 15-inch gun were certainly too heavy for manual handling. I guess each gun had its own crew in the gun-shield, but I would imagine that the supply chain from magazine to gun-shield was probably a single team. Unfortunately, I doubt that we have someone who has actually manned a battleship's guns here - they went out of fashion after WW2, and the ones remaining are all museum ships! I happen to have read up on it out of interest, but I'm NOT an expert in naval matters, except where it affects things like polar operations!
AntarcticPilot
Well-Known Member
Yes, that's part of it - but the design was also deficient in that it was possible to jam flash doors open, and there were no interlocks to ensure that there was never a clear path for a flash. If the kit had been used as designed, it would probably have worked, but the temptation to fire a bit faster meant that short-cuts that shouldn't have been possible were taken. Murphy rules - it wasn't designed to make it impossible to defeat the flash prevention mechanisms, so of course, they were defeated!
scotty123
Well-Known Member
Thought the US had a battlewagon & used it in Vietnam.
AntarcticPilot
Well-Known Member
Operative word is "had". WW2 demonstrated that a battleship unprotected by aircraft was a sitting duck; that carriers were more effective. The Falklands War demonstrated their vulnerability to nuclear submarines. And even Vietnam was a long time ago; I was in my teens!
I think there may be one or two that could be reactivated, but missiles have vastly more capability than guns these days. There is a story from the Falklands War, though, that demonstrates how even gunnery has changed since the days of big battleships. When the British went to liberate South Georgia, the Argentinian garrison was prepared to resist. The story I heard (from people who were present) was that before the final assault, a British Frigate popped 4 shells onto a hillside in plain view of the Argentinian garrison in a perfect square. This demonstration of the accuracy of their shooting led to the Argentinian garrison surrendering soon after; it was clear that if it came to it, the Frigate could destroy them without breaking a sweat. As I said, I had this from people who had been captured by the Argentinians and who witnessed it all.
capnsensible
Well-Known Member
It was the Iowa. Found this.
USS Iowa Gun Turret Explosion (1989)
Yeah the earlier vid I put on shows the whole thing from turret to magazine. Impressive hydraulics.
The turrets I worked on were very small by comparison. Underneath the turret itself was the shell room and cartridge magazine. Kinda spooky places to be and unimaginable if someone was shooting back!
halcyon
Well-Known Member
Watched a programme on the sinking, appears the doors were open due to the Admralty, they were obsessed with how fast they could reload. This resulted in short cuts, I think now the cordite, and leaving blast doors open to bye-pass the anti-blast system. Then sod's law, you get hit in just the wrong place and good-bye ship.
Brian
capnsensible
Well-Known Member
Apparently, the last USN Battleship was decomissioned in 1991 having last fired against shore targets in the Gulf War.
Amazing what these threads throw up!
Amazing what these threads throw up!
scotty123
Well-Known Member
IIRC, it had been uprated to be able to sustain nuke& chem attack & in spite of airpower threat, was apparently ok against air attack because of thick armour.