Model Boat Mayhem
The Shipyard ( Dry Dock ): Builds & Questions => Navy - Military - Battleships: => Topic started by: bikerdude999 on September 11, 2012, 12:26:29 am
-
Hi can anyone tell me the length and diameter of the main guns (15inch turrets) on HMS Hood? And what they'd be at 1/128th scale?
I've had a quick look but the measurements I've found are conflicting, 1 says they were 640.4 inches, but it also states that 'The barrel was 42 calibres long (i.e., 15 in x 42 = 630 in)', but at 1/128th (with either of those measurements) I'm getting a barrel of approx' 5 inches long! Which sounds too long to me? And also what would the overall diameter be, I know the calibre was 15 inch but what about including the barrel thickness? Thanks.
-
This page should help:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_15-42_mk1.htm
It states that the overall length was 650.4 inches but the bore length was 630 inches.
There are also some links to other sources of information.
Regards.
-
Guys.....
Just as we now know that some of the reported dimensions of the pyramid's are a little >>:-( ....the same must be said for the accuracy we are led to believe here
The actual barrel length suggested as [bore x caliber] = total barrel length is a %% thought?
So where does the measurement begin?
1. At the closment point of the expandend breach block?
2. At the front position of the actual projectile?
3. At the rear of the projectile face we have the cordite bags??????
I do not know the answers here but believe a
"15 in x 42 = 630 in)', but at 1/128th (with either of those measurements) ....of approx' 5 inches"
Would be close to the mark........Derek :-))
-
Ok thanks, so the length seems it will probably be about right, but any idea's on the diameter? I know the barrels would be thick, but I've no idea how thick...
-
From the book Anatomy of the Ship Hood
These are the details provided:
Calibre 15"
Length of Bore 42 cal (630")
Length of gun 650.4"
Dimensions of chamber 20"dia x107.68"long; 30.650 cu in
Length of rifling 516.33"
It does not give tube thickness! But taking measurements from the barrel drawing in the book which is at a scale of 1/75 I calculate a tube thickness at the muzzle of 7", bearing in mind that the muzzle flares out very slightly, tube outside diameter at the muzzle I calculate at 28" Coarseness of measuring and rounding down to whole inches in my calculations has given the 1 " discrepancy, eg 7"=7"+15" bore should equal 29" not 28" as I measured. Near enough for model work at 1/128 scale though.
Mounting max elev 30 deg, max depression 5 deg.
I hope it helps, i can recommend this book for anyone building Hood.
-
If you can get down to the Imperial War Museum, London (with a stepladder) you could measure the two 15 inch guns mounted outside!
Colin
-
http://www.britishpathe.com/video/crossing-the-line-1
Have a look at this newsreel and guestimate. :-)
-
There's one measurement you migt find useful from the same book. in it there's a profile drawing at 1/600 and this shows the barrel length protruding from the turret front at 'normal' stowed elevation (whatever that is) of 431", this changes depending on the elevation compared to the sloping turret front.
-
Thanks for the answers, I will certainly get that book when I can afford it. Hope to be starting this project within the next couple of months using the hull from fleetscale.
Any other hints or tips for books or sources of information I should look out for (though I must admit I've not yet decided what year I will be modelling)
-
One of the best sources of information is the HMS Hood Association:
http://www.hmshood.com
-
Just found this in my files - gives a good idea of the thickness of the barrel when you know that the bore is 15 inches'
Colin
-
The certainly give that building a "Don't mess with me" attitude
-
I believe the guns outside the IWM are from HMS Vanguard, which in turn are from a mixture of other 15inch battleships/battlecruisers. I don't think they will match the Hoods 15inch barrels because I remember reading that Hood had a different variation of 15inch gun compared to say the QE class battleships.
I might be wrong, someone with access to their books might be able to confirm this as I am miles away (8000mile) away from my resources!
-
The guns outside the IWM are one from from HMS Ramilles and one from HMS Resolution and later the Monitor HMS Roberts. They are both 42 cal and according to R.A. Burt in his 'British Battleships' the QEs, R Class, Renown & Repulse and Hood all carried the same model gun. Hood's mountings allowed a greater degree of elevation.
Colin
-
There is a 14" gun of one of the KGV Class outside Fort Nelson, the big gun wing of the Royal Armouries museum, between Fareham and Portsmouth. The museum also has a number of smaller calibre naval guns, but is mainly artillery ordnance.
-
Found this drawing of Hoods Y turret in a book of mine, please do not ask me what scale the drawing is but if you know the bore size you should be able to get your info of it.
(http://s14.postimage.org/nqhnb2gfx/Scan0017.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/nqhnb2gfx/)
There is one more drawing showing the verical of the turret from aft if you want that I will scan it.
-
There is a 14" gun of one of the KGV Class outside Fort Nelson, the big gun wing of the Royal Armouries museum, between Fareham and Portsmouth. The museum also has a number of smaller calibre naval guns, but is mainly artillery ordnance.
For anyone interested in Fort Nelson I did a report for Model Boats magazine a while back: http://www.modelboats.co.uk/news/article/naval-guns-at-fort-nelson/5275
Colin
-
Found this drawing of Hoods Y turret in a book of mine, please do not ask me what scale the drawing is but if you know the bore size you should be able to get your info of it.
(http://s14.postimage.org/nqhnb2gfx/Scan0017.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/nqhnb2gfx/)
There is one more drawing showing the verical of the turret from aft if you want that I will scan it.
That's a really great diagram, thanks, which book is that in? Looking for any details of 'Hood' to be honest, not just of her guns so all pictures and diagrams are welcome!
Thanks for all your great replies!
-
The guns outside the IWM are one from from HMS Ramilles and one from HMS Resolution and later the Monitor HMS Roberts. They are both 42 cal and according to R.A. Burt in his 'British Battleships' the QEs, R Class, Renown & Repulse and Hood all carried the same model gun. Hood's mountings allowed a greater degree of elevation.
Colin
Thanks Colin for for correcting me, I knew there was something different between them but couldn't look it up without my copy which is stuck in the UK.
-
Hi Biker,
The drawings came from "Naval Gun" by Ian Hoggs and John Batchelor ISBN 0 7137 0905 7 published 1978.
Particulars of main armament 15"- weight 97.15 tons, weight of B M 2.85tons, total length 650.4", Length of bore (cal/ins) 42/630, Chamber dia x length 20 x 107.5, Chamber capacity (cu-ins) 30,590 , length of rifling 516.33", No.of rifling grooves 76,
Charge type MD45, Charge weight (lbs) 428, Projectile weight (lbs) 1920, Muzzle velocity (fps) 2450, Muzzle energy (foot-tons) 79914, Max range (yards/degrees) 23734/20deg 29000/30deg.
The info on the gun is from Ship Shape "Battlecruisers" by John Roberts, it has a few photos of Hood and some diagrams illustrating her armour protection etc, but no real modling info. Although there is a really good free plan which could be used to model the Queen Mary. But from the info above you have the length, you should be able to exract the necessary info for the width.
Can see why she came off worst with the Bismark engagment, even the Prinze Eugen out ranged her by about 3000yds, she was trying to take on two ships at once!!!
-
Well, for the first time in my life I actually now have a list of books that I want! (I'm not a great reader, read 1 book in the last 4 years, War of the Worlds, I don't even read all of model boats magazine!)
I'll have to slowly acquire the books, maybe get a few for christmas. There's something about Hood that I think just looks right. The German battleships, and I know this will sound silly, but they look too 'designed' to me, too clean.
-
Many years ago I read a book entitled the mighty Hood which is a riveting read especially the world tour it undertook between the wars. The Hood was the most famous warship in the world between the wars and considered the most powerful, its frailities were not made public. That's why its loss was such a world wide news item when it was sunk, added to the huge loss of life it hit the British public hard. The real debate is whether Battlecruisers were a waste of time and money compared to a battleship?
-
Thats a good debate which could go on forever, though I read a good book on the subject which stated the only action they where involved for which they where designed was the first Falklands battle. But it is noticeable that when Fisher went so the builds stopped, but they where built for another time and era by the time of WW2.
-
Don't forget HMS Renown pursuing Scharnhorsr & Gneisenau during the WW2 Norway campaign and having the better of the encounter.
Colin
-
very true but but the Repulse and Renown's ww1 encounter with Scharnhorst and Gneisenau really worried the admiralty with ammount of damage they took and were whisked into dock to have armour fitted ( as designed they had little to no armour )
-
very true but but the Repulse and Renown's WW1 encounter with Scharnhorst and Gneisenau really worried the admiralty with ammount of damage they took and were whisked into dock to have armour fitted ( as designed they had little to no armour )
Sorry but I don't think that is right. Both Renown and Repulse were taken in hand shortly after joining the Grand Fleet in WW1 to have additional armour fitted and hull strengthening forward. Further improvements were undertaken between the wars, including replacement of the 6 inch armour belt with a 9 inch one and Renown was totally rebuilt prior to WW2 with additional deck armour worked in and vastly enhanced AA defences. As such, with her 15 inch guns, she was a pretty good match for either Scharnhorst or Gneisenau although not to be risked against a modern full battleship. Renown finished the war as the RN's fastet capital ship. Repulse of course succumbed to Japanese air launched torpedoes hich she was not designed to withstand. To my knowledge, neither were modified as a result of Renown's encounter with thre the two German ships although she did suffer some hits which caused minor damage. Scarnhorst lost her fore turret in the encounter and Gneisenau her after one. Not bad for a WW1 veteran!
Were you thinking of the 1914 Falklands battle with Invincible and Inflexible? In which case the two British ships suffered only superficial damage from the German Armoured cruisers, both of which were sunk.
Colin
-
Sorry but I don't think that is right. Both Renown and Repulse were taken in hand shortly after joining the Grand Fleet in WW1 to have additional armour fitted and hull strengthening forward. Further improvements were undertaken between the wars, including replacement of the 6 inch armour belt with a 9 inch one and Renown was totally rebuilt prior to WW2 with additional deck armour worked in and vastly enhanced AA defences. As such, with her 15 inch guns, she was a pretty good match for either Scharnhorst or Gneisenau although not to be risked against a modern full battleship. Renown finished the war as the RN's fastet capital ship. Repulse of course succumbed to Japanese air launched torpedoes hich she was not designed to withstand. To my knowledge, neither were modified as a result of Renown's encounter with thre the two German ships although she did suffer some hits which caused minor damage. Scarnhorst lost her fore turret in the encounter and Gneisenau her after one. Not bad for a WW1 veteran!
Were you thinking of the 1914 Falklands battle with Invincible and Inflexible? In which case the two British ships suffered only superficial damage from the German Armoured cruisers, both of which were sunk.
Colin
yes i was lol sorry for that got mixed up
did Repulse and Renown see any action in WW1 ?
-
Repulse saw no action in WW1 but R
enown had a minor part in the 2nd Battle of Heligoland Bight hitting one of the german
cruisers
Geoff
-
Apparently Repulse participated in the 1917 Heligoland Bight action but Renown saw no combat in WW2. The two ships were certainly 'white elephants' when they first joined the fleet and continuing improvements resulted in their being nicknamed Refit and Repair. In most respects they were not bad bargains in the end but the triple 4 inch secondary armament with which they were initially fitted was not a successful mounting.Repulse was never fully modernised before her loss but Renown was a very useful unit during WW2. 6x15 inch guns and 29 knots was a force to be reckoned with although she was told to stand off from the last battle of the Bismarck and let King George V and Rodney get on with it. Bismarck was largely destroyed by Rodney which although older, was a fundamentally better design, albeit with some weaknesses such as a very narrow armour belt. At the time Rodney was only carrying armour piercing shells as her high explosive ones had been landed due to her imminent refit in the USA. So she kept shooting holes through Bismark rather than setting her on fire which destroyed her fighting capability but didn't blow her up. It was the torpedoes from Rodney and the cruisers that finished her off.
Colin
-
Hi Colin, I think it was a good job that Rodney had AP shells, as the 14" proved dissapointing in penertration in this engagement and at North Cape, by the way APCM shells do have a bursting though not as much as HE. But these old battlecruisers were not very well protected even after major refits as you are tacking on new stuff to existing old material, after all they were never designed to actually tack on a battleship of the line.
-
Quite right, Renown was never a match for a 'proper' battleship and never intended to be but would have been fine against cruisers or pocket battleships of the Graf Spee type. All warships are inevitably compromises, some better than others.
Yes, I knew that armour piercing shells had a bursting charge, I seem to remember 5% by weight being mentioned somewhere. The 14 inch gun and shell was supposed to be effective but, as you say, did appear to be somewhat disappointing in practice, although Prince of Wales did get some useful hits on Bismarck.
There is a fascinating book entitled 'Jutland - an Analysis of the Fighting' by John Campbell which describes in graphic detail the effects of heavy shells hitting different parts of warships, protected and unprotected:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jutland-Analysis-Fighting-Conway-Classics/dp/0851777503 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jutland-Analysis-Fighting-Conway-Classics/dp/0851777503)
When at Portsmouth recently, I noticed that on the Gunwharf development seafront they now have a 12 inch shell on display. You just have to imagine something like this, full of explosive, hurtling through the air and inpacting on the structure of the ship you are in. Quite sobering really.
Colin
-
Hi Colin, yes I agree with what you say, it is all very frightening if one of those things are coming your way, the sinking of the Bismark may fill a large book but in reality it took only 45 minutes to put her down. I used to transport 1000 lb aerial bombs quite regulary years ago, they could leave a crater 30ft across and 30ft deep and thier bursting charge was 150kilos. I remember once I was forced to follow a P&O ferry out of Portsmouth harbour once, she was going so slow and with a minium speed of 11 knots with the Arrochar I was having to put the engine in and out of gear continually. If the ferry master knew I had in excess of 200 x 1000lb bombs onboard I think he would have insisted on waiting for me to go first rather than me wait for him and follow very closs behind him.
-
If the ferry master knew I had in excess of 200 x 1000lb bombs onboard I think he would have insisted on waiting for me to go first rather than me wait for him and follow very closs behind him.
Or he might have pushed the throttles through the stops and arrived in France a couple of hours early!
Colin
-
Yeah that is a possibility Colin, I remember my first voyage on Arrochar, it was from Glen Mallon on the Clyde to Portsmouth. It was a time expired 500lb bomb, deemed to dangerous to be transported by road but okay by sea as then only the crew of the transporting vessel was at risk not the general public. Another regular job was transporting time expired Sea Wolves from Devonport to Bedenham Gosport for the same afore mention reason, usually about 195 in number, leave Devonport about 1800 be at Bedenham for next morning start of work. The work was transferred to lorries about 22 in a rotational shuttle overnight. Max number then under the dangerous goods act was about 6 with a dummy lorry following 20m behind to stop any traffic getting in between, the reason was should there be an accident if a missile comes adrift and breaks there should be no RF signals from mobiles etc which could set of the I E D in the missile. But there you are the Ministry wanted to reduce the number of people at Bedenham etc to safe money and the Munitions department in the MoD write the regulations for the MCA and the DTI.