Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Royal Navy if no WWI

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Andy H View Post
    One would hope that like the British who suffered a rather poor rate of return for shells fired, that the USN in the early 20th Century would hopefully improve on their woeful rate of return as witnessed in their last 2 naval engagements at Manila & Santiago in the Spanish-American War of 1898.

    In the first encounter in Manila, the Spanish wrecks were examined and the following results were recorded:-

    157 8in rounds fired, 14 hits recorded =9%
    635 6in rounds fired, 7 hits recorded =1%
    622 5in rounds fired, 22 hits recorded =3.5%
    2124 6pdr rounds fired, 31 hits recorded =1.5%

    at Santiago it was slightly better in some categories but not all

    47 13in rounds fired, 0 hits recorded =0%
    39 12in rounds fired, 2 hits recorded =5%
    219 8in rounds fired, 10 hits recorded =5.5%
    754 6&5in rounds fired, 17 hits recorded =2%
    251 4in rounds fired, 13 hits recorded =5%
    6553 6pdr rounds fired, 76 hits recorded =1%

    Regards
    Those states are somewhat misleading. First the US navy at the time used mostly coco-powder guns not cordite type powders so smoke was a major issue. Also optics and fire control would make a major advance between 1898 and 1906 as gunnery ranges increased with guns using the more powerful smokeless powders.

    Well in WWII (the next big gun engagements of the US) US shooting was much improved including the current and likely perpetual record for longest first salvo hit (22,400 yards) and longest hit against an enemy warship (28,000 yards). The RN holds the honors in twain with Germany for the longest hit against a moving enemy warship 23,800 yards.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by zraver View Post
      Those states are somewhat misleading. First the US navy at the time used mostly coco-powder guns not cordite type powders so smoke was a major issue. Also optics and fire control would make a major advance between 1898 and 1906 as gunnery ranges increased with guns using the more powerful smokeless powders.
      Hi

      There not misleading in anyway, just a statement of fact, and as you state the factors that affect the facts.
      Just as the British suffered at Jutland with there optics being disadvantaged at times by there own gun smoke, these things sway engagements, far more than the dry stats of numbers/chracteristics of BB v BB

      Regards
      "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." Churchill

      "I'm no reactionary.Christ on the Mountain! I'm as idealistic as Hell" Eisenhower

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Andy H View Post
        Hi

        There not misleading in anyway, just a statement of fact, and as you state the factors that affect the facts.
        Just as the British suffered at Jutland with there optics being disadvantaged at times by there own gun smoke, these things sway engagements, far more than the dry stats of numbers/chracteristics of BB v BB

        Regards
        They are misleading since you linked American and British gunnery results. The fleet actions of the Spanish American war and Jutland are separated far more than the small gap of time would suggest. They are separated by a full generation in guns and more in fire control. The American fleet was using guns that were still very much line of sight weapons that produced heavy smoke which would also combine with the heavy smoke of the coal fed power plants and all would combine with engagements where the wind was most likely on offshore prevailing thus pulling the smoke towards the enemy.

        At Jutland coal smoke was a problem but the biggest hindrance was the mistake the Admiralty made in adopting the Dreyer tables over the Argo clock. Had the British fleet been equipped with the Argo Clock results would likely have bee much improved. For example, HMS Queen Mary did have the Argo clock and outside the rest of Beatty's battle cruisers.

        From another forum on naval history for a personal touch,

        Petty Officer Ernest Francis whose action station was in one of the turrets of HMS Queen Mary:

        'Everything in the ship [HMS Queen Mary at Jutland] went as quiet as a church, the floor of the turret was bulged up and the guns were absolutely useless. I must mention here that there was not a sign of excitement. One man turned to me and said, "What do you think has happened?" I said, "Steady everyone, I will speak to Mr Ewart." I went back to the cabinet and said, "What do you think has happened, Sir?" He said, "God only knows!" I put my head through the hole in the roof of the turret and I nearly fell through again. The after 4" Battery was smashed right out of all recognition and then I noticed that the ship had an awful list to port. I dropped back inside and told Lieutenant Ewart the state of affairs. He said, "Francis, we can do no more than give them a chance, clear the turret". "Clear the turret!" I called out and out they went. When I got to the ship's side there seemed to be a fair crowd and they did not appear to be very anxious to take to the water. I called out to them, "Come on, you chaps, who's coming for a swim?" Someone answered, "She will float for a long time yet!" But something, I don't pretend to understand what it was, seemed to be urging me to get away, so I clambered up over the slimy bilge keel and fell off into the water, followed I should think by about five more men. struck away from the ship as hard as I could and must have covered nearly 50 yards when there was a big smash. Stopping and looking round the sir seemed to be full of fragments and flying pieces, a large piece seemed to be right above my head and acting on an impulse I dipped under to avoid being struck and stayed under as long as I could and then came on top again. Coming behind me I heard a rush of water, which looked very much like a surf breaking on a beach and I realised it was the suction or backwash from the ship which had just gone. I hardly had time to fill my lungs with air when it was on me. I felt it was no use struggling against it, so I let myself go for a moment or two, then I struck out, but I felt it was a losing game and remarked to myself mentally, "What's the use of struggling, you're done!" and actually eased my efforts to reach the top, when a small voice seemed to say, "Dig out!" I started afresh and something bumped against me. I grasped it and afterwards found it was a large hammock; it undoubtedly pulled me to the top, more dead than alive.'

        Comment


        • #49
          Hi zraver

          Any linkage was only tacit, in that there are various factors affecting a battle more than just the number and size of your fleets guns. Which is the distant starting point of this thread.

          Looking around the use of brown powder in the Spanish/American war, it seems that the USN was up there on the development of smokeless powder (which in all honesty was anything but) in the late 19th century. It seems from rather fast sketchy research (on my part) that a few of the vessels certainly used early variants of smokeless powder in this conflict.
          Gunnery in both the RN and USN varied from time to time, with each leapfrogging the other in terms of gun & gunnery technology, usage and accuracy etc.

          Regards
          Last edited by Andy H; 06 Jun 12, 09:02.
          "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." Churchill

          "I'm no reactionary.Christ on the Mountain! I'm as idealistic as Hell" Eisenhower

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Andy H View Post
            Hi zraver

            Any linkage was only tacit, in that there are various factors affecting a battle more than just the number and size of your fleets guns. Which is the distant starting point of this thread.

            Looking around the use of brown powder in the Spanish/American war, it seems that the USN was up there on the development of smokeless powder (which in all honesty was anything but) in the late 19th century. It seems from rather fast sketchy research (on my part) that a few of the vessels certainly used early variants of smokeless powder in this conflict.
            Gunnery in both the RN and USN varied from time to time, with each leapfrogging the other in terms of gun & gunnery technology, usage and accuracy etc.

            Regards
            A real quick rule of thumb the longer the barrel or a naval gun the more likely it is to use smokeless powder. Black powder gives its best performance from short and medium length barrels, coco powder from medium long and smokeless from long barrels. This is becuase of the burn rates and how the powders deliver their energy.

            For an example the US 13"/35 used black, then brown powder while the M1903 6"/50 cal used smokeless powder. Both guns being found on the USS Kearsarge class battleship.

            Comment


            • #51
              Hi zraver

              Looking at pictures of USN BB's firing with smokeless powder, you wonder who came up with that name! The sheer volume of pitch black smoke makes you wonder just how worse the former was!

              Regards
              "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." Churchill

              "I'm no reactionary.Christ on the Mountain! I'm as idealistic as Hell" Eisenhower

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Andy H View Post
                Hi zraver

                Looking at pictures of USN BB's firing with smokeless powder, you wonder who came up with that name! The sheer volume of pitch black smoke makes you wonder just how worse the former was!

                Regards
                One of the good things to come about with youtube is you can answer certain questions. While not exact, comparing the video of the USS Wisconsin firing her 16" guns (using WWII era powder) to a picture of the SMS Konig shows the roughly the same profile with the opacity in the B&W pictures somewhat misleading with the reds and yellows of combustion being rendered as blacks and greys.

                Still as you say, hardly smokeless, but videos of reduce charge firings from HMS Victory and the Gothberg seem to show that black powder smoke is thicker for a given volume of powder and slower to dissipate

                Comment

                Latest Topics

                Collapse

                Working...
                X