Model Boat Mayhem
The Shipyard ( Dry Dock ): Builds & Questions => Navy - Military - Battleships: => Topic started by: Bob K on December 07, 2013, 03:03:37 pm
-
UK's Last Pre-Dreadnought
I need some inspiration to fire me up to finish my current build project. Post retirement I seem to be spending far more time on house duties as CinC Home Forces is still working. My 1881 semi-submersible Torpedo Ram has been thoroughly water tested but I require a self-kick in the stern to rebuild the electrics and finish the superstructure.
Hopefully anticipation of a new project will provide the necessary impetus.
I love early warships and have been avidly following the Majestic Class build. These look awesome completed, although several have been / are being done.
HMS Dreadnought in 1/96 is too long for my car back seat, as are the early battlecruisers.
HMS Lord Nelson was Britain’s last pre dreadnought, completed two years after the battleship that made her obsolete. Four 10 inch main guns plus ten 9.2 inch secondary armament in six beam turrets. At 1.36m she would just fit in my car, and could be unique on the water.
Fleetscale do an undetailed hull, plus are finalising a very extensive fittings kit. I would still need to scratch build the superstructure and deck etc as it is a “semi kit”. This is what I had to do for Polyphemus so should not overstretch my present skills level.
(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n626/bobkiralfy/lordnelson1_zpsc2f94e7c.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/bobkiralfy/media/lordnelson1_zpsc2f94e7c.jpg.html)
High freeboard. Non-variable waterline. Something completely different ?
-
Hi Bob
I say go for it, we can have a fantastic picture in a few years time of a fleet review from 1910 ranging from Majestics to Lord Nelson representing the pre dreadnoughts and I'm sure that there are some other members on the forum who could bring along the dreadnoughts and battle cruisers. :-))
There is a book about the HMS Agamemnon called Dardenelles A midshipman's diary by HM Denham all about the last pre dreadnoughts battle against the Turkish forts in 1917.
-
Many thanks for that Nick. Book on order from Amazon.
As usual this will need a lot of research, but hopefully that will fire me up to complete my current build.
Either Agamemnon or Lord Nelson (1908) would be fine, depending on which I can source the best detailed information for. Your build of Prince George of 1895 has many useful parallels.
-
Main guns were 12 inch like Dreadnought not 10 inch. In fact The completion of Lord Nelson and Agamemnon was delayed as the guns intended for them went to the Dreadnought instead so she could be built in 'a year and a day'.
Colin
-
Sorry, my typo. You are right Colin they were 12 inch.
It must have been near impossible to distinguish between shell falls of main and such large secondary armament. Dreadnought revolutionalised design with a unified main battery, faster steam turbine propulsion, etc. The Lord Nelson Class marked the end of an era.
-
Right, My younger brother has just started in model boats with his son who is 9. He just purhased SMS Schliessen a pre dreadnought Deutschland class ship which we are currently refurbing!! Bit difficult as we can find no model plans for her!! we are working off pics and plans from the yard. Will post some pics if your interested. Trying to get her ready for a post christmas sail and fully up and running for Wicksteed Mayhem weekend!!
-
Just as an aside klunk, I presume you've seen the drawings of Schleswig-Holstein and Hannover on the 'dreadnought project' site. www.dreadnoughtproject.org/plans (http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/plans) which may be useful. Just in case you haven't, they've also got a lot of other German yard plans of the period and the full set of the French ones.
Tony :-))
Sorry Bob, not trying to hijack your thread :embarrassed:
-
No problem Tony. I had considered Schleswig-Holstein as a project, looked superb in her original 3 funnel format. As the five Deutschland ships were also the last of their kind in Germany an apt parallel in this topic. Useful links to pre-dreadnought plans.
-
Interestingly the Lord Nelsons were much the same tonnage as Dreadnought but the lighter turbine machinery of the latter enabled it to carry a heavier armament, Dreadnought had slightly thinner armour too.
The 9.2 inch was a good gun and at the Dardanelles I believe it was often favoured over the 12 inch when bombarding the Turkish forts. But, as Bob says, the mixed armament gave rise to serious spotting difficulties against naval targets. With hindsight, a lot of ships of this era had serious design faults. Many of the pre dreadnoughts had transverse bulkheads between the engine rooms with the intention of minimising damage should shells penetrate the side but this turned out to be fatal if the ship sustained underwater damage as the flooding of one engine room tended to capsize the ship. Also, the Dreadnought, and indeed some later classes, including originally the battlecruiser Lion, had the foremast mounted behind the fore funnel which made the control top unusable under many conditions. Apparently this was done at the insistence of John Jellicoe, then serving as a Sea Lord, who wanted the mast positioned to enable it to support the boat handling boom.
Colin
-
Very true Colin.
Rapid successions of revolutionary designs become rapidly outmoded. After only four years Dreadnought herself was superseded by the Orion Class super-dreadnoughts with their large increase in displacement, 13.5 inch guns, and all centreline mountings.
Super-firing turrets were not possible with Dreadnought’s open sighting hoods, so that had to wait for the development of electrically computed direction / range finding equipment. What has always struck me as odd is the long emphasis on belt armour against close range hits when ranges had increased to the point where incoming shells were plunging from 30 degrees or more.
Battlecruiser advantages of superior speed and gun range were thrown away at Jutland in their eagerness to close the distance, with disastrous results.
The Lord Nelson’s were thus a snap shot in time, caught between cusps of history.
( PS: When I say “turret” I do mean barbette with revolving gun platform and armoured hood. )
-
Hi Bob
Another good book if you've got it is RA Burts British Battleships 1889-1906.
Some really good pictures and drawings inside, I use my copy on a regular basis for my HMS Prince George build!
My little friend at WPMBC who is really into his Victorian era warships is ecstatic that you are thinking about building a Lord Nelson, he is building an Italian cruiser which was built for the Japanese in the late 1890s, single funnels at either end of the superstructure with a single pole mast in the middle. He has also built the Russian Askold- a five funnelled armoured cruiser!
Certainly an era of many innovations and different ideas. :-))
-
John Haynes also used to do a Lord Nelson hull to 1/96 scale, again without plating as this gives the builder the chance to plate or not and get a very sharp line for the plates. I purchased one of these hulls some years ago and completed Lord Nelson http://wmunderway.8m.com/gallery29/gallery29.htm (http://wmunderway.8m.com/gallery29/gallery29.htm)
On my model I used two car blower motors which draw 3amps between them on 6v full power. I have a smoke generator for the funnels and all turrets turn and fire (blanks).
All up weight is in the region of 40 pounds but she does look good on the water and you will have no concerns about her being top heavy!
I used plastic card for the construction of the superstructure which worked well. There was a series in Model Boats a few years ago about someone building LN and believe there was briefly a kit based on the JH hull some years ago.
Enjoy the build
Cheers
Geoff
-
Beautiful model Geoff. Thanks for the photos. :-))
The hull was taken from the John R Haynes original model, and unlike other sources is sadly undetailed. This will be the first time I have had to add basic plating to a GRP hull. Most of the fittings are JRH sourced.
40 lbs could be a show stopper as my back is not as good as it was. I have similar sized ships or that era that are half that weight.
-
Lord Nelson has quite a full hull form hence the weight. I plated my hull in thin plastic card starting with the main armour belt as this gives a good reference line to follow the plating through. Also the moulded in bilge keels help considerably as does the deck flange but do watch the beam as the sides need to be pulled in a little to get the correct width. I think that no shell expansion plan survived for this ship hence the smooth hull.
Good luck!
Cheers
Geoff
-
This Lord Nelson hull is taken from my original mould . Fleetscale have all my original moulds so modellers are not getting a second-hand hull . Photos of L/N are on my site, Portfolio section. The model was built many years ago for an American client. My fittings for this hull are available thru Fleetscale and my plan thru Traplet
Am considering a 1/192 Hood for a client and Fleetscale would mould my plug then put it into their range, if I make this . Their 1/128 at 81" is too big for my client and 1/192 gives a hull 53.75"
-
40lbs just means bigger batteries and longer run times, just set up things so the batteries can get placed in the hull once it is in the water.. many of the folks I run with have WWII battle ships in 1/96th. A plus added feature on most of these is a functioning anchor. so if they need to take break the ship can just ride the hook for a while instead of being drydocked, never a worry about getting low on charge..
-
At my age no way can I kneel at the lake edge to assemble electrics and superstructure a foot below that level. Using lifting straps to get the boat beween my buggy and water anything that mimics a bag of cement is one flying bridge too far. I have a 1/40 pre-WW1 warship of similar length that is both wider and deeper draft and that tips the scales at 'only' 20 lb. My boats run at least 3 to 5 hours on a single battery.
Mr John R Haynes hull, plans and LN fittings, are all available from Fleetscale as a package. This includes resin cast funnels, 8 turrets, gun barrels, ships boats etc. No etched brass mentioned in the set, but IMO JRH does the best quality etched frets going so no problem there.
I intend marine ply for the deck and Plasticard for upperworks fabrication.
Wonderful book Nick, just arrived. Lavishly illustrated with loads of tech info. I am waiting on the 2nd book you recommended to arrive.
One aspect has me worried. There is so much detail that protrudes vulnerably well beyond the hull line, especially several davit hung ships boats, torpedo net trays, etc.
Was this the last RN warship to have a stern walk?
-
No, not at all. Several WW1 battleships sported one. Here's Warspite's in '44:
(http://www.naval-history.net/Photo01bbWarspite1944NormandyMQ.jpg)
Andy
-
Very true Colin.
Rapid successions of revolutionary designs become rapidly outmoded. After only four years Dreadnought herself was superseded by the Orion Class super-dreadnoughts with their large increase in displacement, 13.5 inch guns, and all centreline mountings.
Super-firing turrets were not possible with Dreadnought’s open sighting hoods, so that had to wait for the development of electrically computed direction / range finding equipment. What has always struck me as odd is the long emphasis on belt armour against close range hits when ranges had increased to the point where incoming shells were plunging from 30 degrees or more.
Battlecruiser advantages of superior speed and gun range were thrown away at Jutland in their eagerness to close the distance, with disastrous results.
When the ships were designed, they were a neat package with everything thought through.
They were planned when the practice was to enagage at 10,000 yds, where the shells would arrive horizontally so the sides had the armour and the decks where protected in case anything entered.
The 9' rangefinders were acceptably accurate to this range. It was a neat package.
But senior officers (Beatty was one of the first) took these ships outside this comfortable envelope out to ranges where the RF were so-so and shells plunged.
It was the 15" gun that brought with it the need for longer-base RF, the Queen Elizabeths brought with them the 12' RF and they fixed one on the 13.5" ships as battle range had shown they needed one.
Re: the probllems of super-firing turrets: I've just read that in the above generation of ships, the gun-layers and trainers heads where actually in the hood looking through the optics. Thus they feared the blast pressure from a super-firing gun hurting him, or disupt the turrets operation if the men are constantly ducking below. The introduction of periscopes in the hoods, with blast excluders at the bottom, and blast bags on the gun openings removed the problems.
The battlecruisers had fought at least 3 battles by the time Director Firing was fitted (Heligoland, Falklands and Dogger Bank)
-
It is assumed that HMS Warspite is in action here "off Normandy in 1944" ....even if the X turret was inoperable ....during action it would have normally be trained toward the target just as the A, B & Y turrets were aimed
Depicting like this is saying >>:-(...we are down to 3/4 firepower ....Derek
-
Stern walks: (I knew I'd read this somewhere). One of the major innovations of HMS Dreadnought was that as the steam turbines were quieter and more compact officers accomodation was moved so they were closer to their action stations, rather than traditionally aft. Thus no stern walk. Very unpopular as most were now berthed close to the noisey auxillary machinary areas. As far as I can tell officers moved back aft for the King George V Class of 1910 and stern walks reapperared on Iron Duke.
On gun rages, ranges had been steadily increasing over a long period, but the battle fleet concept imagined ships of the line hammering away at close range in Trafalgar tradition. In practce however battleships opened fire when they came into range, beyond effective ability of rangefinding using open fronted hoods to look out of. A major revolution in rangefinding technology gradually evolved, but eventually ranges went beyond the horizon and even optical systems mounted high up were no longer enough.
Just about every new class of warship was designed to answer existing problems, but became outclassed rapidly by newer innovations.
-
.even if the X turret was inoperable ....during action it would have normally be trained toward the target just as the A, B & Y turrets were aimed
I don't think it was trainable, the glider bomb had distorted the hull structure. At this stage of the war Warspite was only useful as a bombardment vessel with a maximum speed of 15 knots.
Incidentally, USS Iowa finished her career as a two turret ship after a fire in No 2 gunhouse in 1989, while I have been told that HMS Vanguard's B turret was also put out of action due to the stress of gunnery trials cracking the barbette structure.
Colin
-
(http://www.naval-history.net/Photo01bbWarspite1944NormandyMQ.jpg)
Andy
Naval gunfire support - when it absolutely must be destroyed on time.
-
The reason why the gunnery control on early dreadnoughts was on the mainmast aft of the funnel was because no one thought of a central battery control until just before WW1, in fact it was Churchill who insisted on having them fitted to new build and retro to Dreadnoughts. The Chief constructer would not fit them to the foremast as he thought it spoilt the lines of the vessels, Churchill being an ex Army officer understood the value of a cental battery control unlike the Admirals which only wanted big guns and pretty ships.
-
Sorry to disagree but the RN was really quite advanced in it's gunnery control systems up to WW1 and perfected this with the Dreyer fire control table. There was a competing system by Pollen. Either way both needed a high observation platform for spotting. The reason the funnels were before the mast in early Dreadnoughts was simply to facilitate boat handling with the large derrick attached to the central part of the tripod. The effects of funnel smoke were not clearly understood at the time albeit when steaming forwards the funnel gasses tended to pass just below the fore top.
With the advent of the aloft director things became much more weighty hence the heavy tripod masts. In other ships the director was not aloft so no such issues with the smoke. It was very much an evolutionary period. Have a look at the King George Fifth class (WW1) they had poll foremast as they used a different system but as the directors were perfected they were supported by flanges and eventuallt a full tripod.
Gunnery control was very complicated because each turret needed a corrector mechanism to ensure it would point at the same point at any range otherwise the salvo spread would be over 500 feet wide, the distance between the turrets. With superimposed turrets there needed to be further correctors to allow for the differentt hight of the guns.
The practical difficulties of constructing some 30/50 director units was a log jam in production and skilled personel. For a good description have a look at the Osprey Early Dreadnoughts.
Enjoy
G
-
Sorry mate but it was a lowly naval commander who put forward the idea of a purpose central control position after the Dreadnought and her sister ships where built, because up to then most ships fought their guns for ranging locally. Naval officers where more interested in making their ships pretty anf gunnery was very low on their priorities, because of the soot from the gunfire and the paint on the barrels also became damaged, one captain even went so far to make and fit canvass tubes to his gun barrels to try to reduce the soot. But even with the cental control the accuracy was very low, with an average of under 5% at Jutland and in WW2 it only slightly improved. The early Iron clads were very poor, at the bombardment of Alexandria only about 16 rounds actually hit the target of several hundred rounds fired. But as I said earlier when the Chief Controller was told to retro fit gunnery control platforms to the early dreadnoughts, he was upset as he thought them unnecessary and would spoil the look of his design , so they went onto the aft (mizzen) mast, not the mainmast as in latter ships which had them fitted as they were built.
-
Yes the RN had the dotter system up to 1905, but that worked on two complicated range finders one at each end of the ship feeding ifo on ranges to the gunnery officer and the guns and it had inherent accuracy problems, but crucilliary there was no central range and control system where was one rangefinder and all guns controlled from one position.. This was fitted retro to all the earl dreadnoughts and to the mainmast on newer ones as they where built. The idea was put forward by a commander who was then a captain of a cruiser and was greatly interested in gunnery which was unusual for the time as senior officers where more interested in overall look and seamanship ability of their ships and crews. But then the gunnery of the RN was always poor in both world wars and before.
-
I would disagree again. There is something of an urban myth about the Victorian ships being all spit and polish and dumping practice ammunition over the side to avoid dirty paintwork. I'm sure this did happen in some far off squadrons but not the main battlefleet where tactics and control were taken very seriously indeed. We need to reflect that ship ranges were very short and action was thought of in 2,000 yards range.
The bombardment of Alexandria was a case in point. It was known to be very difficult to hit specific shore targets at several miles range from a moving base. Sufficient damage was done. Many of the early iron clads were designed to get real close hence armour up to 24" thick and pound away in the same old way.
One question often overlooked when criticising the Victorian navy is, "Who was the potential enemy?" There was none, so ships were designed to attack enemy naval bases hence some of the odd designs with massive turrents forwards and very heavy armour.
The Dreadnought idea came about as ships had to fight at longer ranges and that meant more uniform guns to hit the target at increasing ranges. This was not widly known by the public as the RN did not want to advertise their stratedgy to the world. The difficulty was to co-ordinate all the guns and to design and produce the directors and range finders that were both costly and very complex mechanisms to design and build.
Scott was already developing the director control well before Dreadnought but technical difficulties had to be overcome first before a practical solution could be achieved. Fisher was massivley influential and the benefits of long range gunnery readily appreciated. The problem was no one knew how to do this and/or the best system to use hence the relativley long development period.
There is a very good book on Dreadnought Gunnery and the Battle of Jutland which makes for interesting reading and clearly demonstrates the navy had been working on the problem for a decade or so before ww1.
Tuishima was a case in point a significant battle fought by obselete ships as by then the Dreadnought train was in motion.
Again there are many urban myths about the RN but on the eve of WW1 it was the most technically advanced navy in the world by a big margin. By 1918 it's battle worthyness and gunnery was significanly better than any other nation by a decade. When the US ships joined the Grand fleet in 1918 they were shocked at the efficiency of the RN gunnery and tactics particularly the ability to concentrate fire with severay ships at the same time. This is all evidenced by the turret markings and range clocks visible on the Dreadnoughts which were widly copied by other navies.
With the introduction of new shells and proper cordite control (lax in the battlecrusiers) a later Jutland would probably have been another Trafalger albeit at huge cost in human life and the Germans new it!
-
Hi Dodes
Sorry mate to also to disagree, but I'll add my tuppence worth in too.
You can't really say that British gunnery in WW2 was poor either considering we were one of the first nations to use gunnery radar on ships, battles such as Matapan and Cambrai would not have been fought at all.
Even the O class destroyers that fought in the Battle of the Barants Sea proved to be excellent gunners defeating the 7 German destroyers (2 destroyed, 2 put out of action, remainder chased away), 1 Hipper class cruiser was torpedoed and the pocket battleship was forced to turn away. Not a bad outcome considering that the British destroyers were only armed with 4 single 4.7in gun mounts compared to the 5.9in fitted to the German destroyers.
I got talking to a naval radar gunnery operator and he said that the radar set were brilliant at getting the ranges and tracking your shells... But you could track the shells coming back at you! :o
And I have to say but the Victorians did practice with live fire shells, my model of my Majestic class battleship had blast plates fitted over the teak decks to protect them from the soot and blast damage of the 12in guns when they were carrying out gunnery exercises. Not to say that the Victorian Navy weren't clean freaks, the term cleanliness is next to godliness, is very apt for the era, and as Geoff said there were some captains and admirals who went too far with this ethos but they were the few but they seem to mentioned a lot more than the ones who didn't push this ethos.
-
I would disagree again. There is something of an urban myth about the Victorian ships being all spit and polish and dumping practice ammunition over the side to avoid dirty paintwork. I'm sure this did happen in some far off squadrons but not the main battlefleet where tactics and control were taken very seriously indeed. We need to reflect that ship ranges were very short and action was thought of in 2,000 yards range.
With the introduction of new shells and proper cordite control (lax in the battlecrusiers) a later Jutland would probably have been another Trafalger albeit at huge cost in human life and the Germans new it!
a, I recall reading the way for a Victorian commander to get promotion as for a clean & tidy ship and gunnery was the antithesis of this. Who debunked this? :}
b, Ah, another urban myth. ok2 It was SOP in the Grand Fleet to have one magazine door always open during battle. The doorway to the cordite was always open during battle and I believe events in Lion at 4:30 when she turned and one un-cased (or split) quarter charge ignited and set off all those in 'flash-tight' waiting positins all the way to the magazine door. This events shows you didn't need to pack the passage with charges to explode the magazine, a single quarter charge was enough to ignite all and get the flame into the magazine.
Lions door was closed and the ship saved but in other ships that exploded the SOP in them (and indeed the whole fleet) should & would have had that door open.
The Grand Fleet battleships have preserved their reputations regards cordite handling simply because they didn't see battle until the evening of Jutland where they gave it out and recieved little incoming.
Attached link includes several departments heads at the Admiralty kick the ball between themselves while seeking the cause/avoiding the blame:
http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/index.php/A_Direct_Train_of_Cordite (http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/index.php/A_Direct_Train_of_Cordite)
p.s I meantioned in an above post that the 13.5in ships recieved a 12ft rangefinder, I meant 15ft. Mea culpa
-
hi all, may I add my twopenneth in//
about the British Gunnery and its accuracy during WWII - 2 battles
sinking of the Bismark and the Graf Spee - how many ships did it take to sink the Bismark, and how many shells were fired at her?
and actually how many shells hit the ship?
and the big "?" was it sunk or was it skuttled????
and the next one
The Graf Spee - 3 cruisers against one ship - and the amount of shells fired
Exeter just about ran out of shells, so had Ajax and how much damage was actually done to the Graf Spee - not a lot
and look at what Graf Spee did to Exeter and Ajax it badly damaged the Exeter and if it had wanted too - it could have sunk her. So, personally I dont think the British Gunnery at sea was up to much, nor was its range finding.
It doesnt matter what we talk about and how we say it, the proof is there in history - personally I think we were rubbish.
The only time we succeeded with radar was the battle on the Russian convoy run and I cannot remember the name cos of too much Christmas Cheer - where the British actually sunk a ship using radar as a gunnery assistance.
aye
rant owa
John
Merry festivities one and all.... :-)
-
Hi John,
The Bismarck was sunk by torpedoes but wrecked by Rodney and KGV first. However KGV was still experiencing trouble with her gun mountings (as did Prince of Wales earlier) so Rodney did most of the damage. The didn't have any problems in hitting Bismarck, in fact she pretty much knocked her out inside half an hour but Rodney was on her way to the USA for a much needed refit and had previously landed all her high explosive ammunition and only had armour piercing left. These did a great job in punching holes in Bismarck and putting her main armament out of action but did not carry a large bursting charge and did not penetrate Bismarck's magazines. As the range was so close the shells were hitting Bismarck horizontally and going straight through her. Had the range ben greater then plunging shots might have penetrated her deck armour but by then Bismarck was just a wreck anyway and torpedoes were a more efficient way of sinking her.
As far as the River Plate was concerned, the shells fired by Ajax & Achilles weighed 100lb and could not penetrate Graf Spee's armour although they did a lot of damage to the superstructure. Graf Spee was also supposed to be proof against Exeter's 250lb 8 inch shells but at least one penetrated doing a lot of damage. Graf Spee concentrated on Exeter and did enormous damage with her 850lb 11 inch shells before Exeter could get the range. Exeter didn't run out of shells, she ran out of guns! The two light cruisers fired off most of their outfit of 6 inch ammunition but so did the Graf Spee use up most of hers - she didn't actually score many hits herself but she didn't really need to as just one hit was sufficient to put two turrets out of action on Ajax.
All the statistics are readily available and this book gives a graphic description of the Bismarck's final battle:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Killing-Bismarck-Destroying-Pride-Hitlers/dp/1844159833
Colin
-
Hi Colin
Of the 190- plus 8 in shells fired by Exeter, three hit the Graf Spee . the first passsd through the upper part of the bridge without causing any real damage;the second pierced the armour plate of AA gun and went through two decks before exploding.the third shell penetrated the 140mm armoured belt .3 out of 190 not to bad of a ratio of shells fired and hits
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2199&dat=19391215&id=mltfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=wloNAAAAIBAJ&pg=5616,3415866 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2199&dat=19391215&id=mltfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=wloNAAAAIBAJ&pg=5616,3415866)
aye
john
-
It was the second shell that did the damage as it put the Graf Spee's fuel treatment plant out of action.
German ships had superior optics and rangefinders and this tended to give them an initial advantage in finding the range and the opportunity to strike a decisive blow before their opponents could zero in on them. The second hit on Exeter less than 10 minutes into the action killed or wounded almost everyone on the bridge. I don't know if the director was put out of action at that point, quite likely it was, but later on Y turret was firing in local control so it is hardly surprising that no further hits were scored.
According to Geoffrey Bennett's account Graff Spee scored 10 hits altogether, 8 on Exteter and two on the light cruisers and suffered 17 hits herself of which three were from Exeter.
It is interesting to look at the effects of gunfire at Jutland. Ships on both sides absorbed an incredible amount of punishment and even the British battlecruisers did well as long as they didn't receive a hit which exploited the vulnerability of their ammunition handling arrangements.
Colin
-
Okay, lets be a little more focused here and look at some facts:
Naval gunfire was enormously difficult and with all nations the averegae number of hits was in the region of 5% so 95% wasted, well not quite as near misses hurled large splinters into the ships which caused flooding, damage and killed the crew.
At Jutland the total number of hits between the two navies was very similar but the light was a significant factor. When the light was good for us our hitting rate went up and the same for the germans. See Campbell for full details.
The german battlecrusiers were possibly better than ours but this is really due to the three magazine explosions otherwise the results would have been judged differently. It is very true the german battlecrusiers outfought the british with a greater number of hits but the light was in their favour. Also the appalling handling of the cordite charges in the battlecrusiers really caused the losses, magazine doors open and charges stockpilled in the turrets etc. I have not been aware of a similar practice in the battle fleet. The two were quite different and the culture within also very different.
Lets look at the gunnery, the QE class were hitting the germans at 19,000 yards with regularity, not too bad at all!
Invincible, who interestingly enough had been on a gunnery course with the Grand Fleet, inflicted the fatal damage on Lutzow which eventually sank her.
Iron Duke hit a number of battleships, Koenig in particular between 7-10 times in as many minutes and one shell casues a 6" magazine to burn but was only put out by flooding following the shell hole otherwise it is likely Koenig would have blown up.
Scapa Flow had the facilities for long range gunnery whereas Rosyth did not. Tactically the Germand split the fleet in two and deprived the battlecrusiers of practice due to their raids on the east coast towns.
After Dogger Bank where the British felt the German rate of fire was higher the battlecrusiers bypassed the safety features to increase their own rate with disasterous results.
In WW2 warspite hit an Italian battleship at about 26,000 yards, not bad gunnery at all. Duke of York in a stormy arctic night with radar smashed Sharnhorst, again not bad gunnery. Rodney with Bismark put Bismark out of action quite early, again not bad gunnery!
We are all rather too keen to criticise our own ships as information is readily available and not recognise the failings on the other side, of which there were many. German ships of WW1 tended to flood badly forwards, Italian ships from WW2 had poor dispersion with their gunnery, the americans had bad vibration problems at speed for North Carolian and suceeding classes.
Lets look at protection. In WW1 all capital ships were light on deck protection - protective plating (note not deck armour which was first introduced in Rodney). The German main belts were thicker but they had to keep out heavier shells. There were few hits on main belts so it was a difference that made no real difference. The heavier German turret armour was also penetrated but there was not a disasterous cordite fire that spread to the magazines.
It is really very difficult to be too precise as conditions vary on the day but to suggest the RN gunnery was not up to scratch in WW1 or 2 is really not a proper reflection of the facts. Enjoy!
G
-
The german battlecrusiers were possibly better than ours but this is really due to the three magazine explosions otherwise the results would have been judged differently. It is very true the german battlecrusiers outfought the british with a greater number of hits but the light was in their favour. Also the appalling handling of the cordite charges in the battlecrusiers really caused the losses, magazine doors open and charges stockpilled in the turrets etc. I have not been aware of a similar practice in the battle fleet. The two were quite different and the culture within also very different.
In the above linked to page there is the following transaction. The following in italics is the topic that gets discussed below:
"While not wishing to minimise in any way the seriousness of the events of 31st May, I am convinced that the blowing up of our ships in that action was caused not so much by the greater inflammability of our propellant as by the system of supply which we unfortunately practised i.e. magazine doors open, lids off powder cases, all cages and waiting positions loaded; thus should a shell burst in working chamber or trunk, as I have no doubt occurred at least in on case "Invincible", there was every possibility of the flash being carried direct to the magazine."
Beatty felt this put the blame at the door to his officers and crew and thus at him. He replied:
"Sir,
With reference to Admiralty Letter S.01146/16, dated 4th November, 1916, I would submit that as regards Their Lordships' conclusion, stated in Paragraph 3, there is no evidence that, in the ships lost, the "precautions essential to the safety of cordite charges" (so far as the Admiralty at that time had defined them) were neglected, neither is there any proof of irregularities in the then prescribed drill for cordite supply."
In forwarding Beatty's letter, his superior, Commander-in-Chief, Grand Fleet, Admiral Sir John R. Jellicoe (http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/index.php/John_Rushworth_Jellicoe,_First_Earl_Jellicoe) added his own observations on 24 November:
"Forwarded. I entirely concur with the Vice-Admiral Commanding, Battle-Cruiser Fleet, that there is no evidence that, in the ships lost, the precautions essential to the safety of cordite charges, as we knew them, were neglected.
The drill and custom then in force was to keep all cages and waiting positions loaded and the magazine doors open, and all the evidence seems to show that if a turret was pierced by a shell which exploded inside it, the magazine was almost certain to blow up. I therefore ask that their Lordships may reconsider the conclusion stated in paragraph 3 of their letter S.01146/16 of 4 November, 1916."
However, we in this age KNOW there WERE shortcuts in the ammuntion supply with Lids being taken off cordite cases and the case then stored outside the magazine in the BCs except Lion. Lion was different. Her gunner had taken the magazine crews aside and drilled them to be as fast as neccessary without breaking good safety practice. He also told them to close the magazine door when not in use.
Lion was also different in that other than the inital quarter charge (or full charge*) that ignited, all the remainder where in official 'flash-tight' waiting positions. Lion didn't have loose, un-cased or de-lidded charges.
Events in Lion show that once 'cordite' caught fire, the heat/gas/flame from it could defeat the flash-tight precautions in the waiting positions & hoists and could take flame as far as the magazine door. It can now easily be imagined what happened in the other BCs that exploded if they had charges outside the flash-tight positions. Lions cordite supply was strict and she was almost lost so is it a surprise the other BCs were?
The other half of the problem being the cordite in use by the RN, it was volatile. German ships lost turrets to cordite fire, we lost whole ships. If then germans had use RN cordite and we used theirs, the outcomes would similarily be switched with we losing turrets and their losing ships.
-
Hi Pondweed, you are correct, recent survey dives on the wrecks at Dogger Bank and recent investigations into naval papers, prove that the Admirals asked to increase the ammo capacity of vessels by 50/100%, easily done with shells but crucially not Cordite. It is known that cordite was stowed in barbets and flash shields in some Battle Cruisers were locked open to allow stow of cordite. The then theory was not accuracy but rapid rate of fire to affect the enemies' actions. According to research in Ospreys publishing, at Jutland the hit rate of the British Fleet was 4.92% and the Germans 5.2%.
In the WW2 KGV fired about 300 rounds for about 24 hits and Tovey was so annoyed he said to her gunnery officer "I can do more damage throwing my mug of Kye at her than you can", also I know of a British destroyer in the far east, towards the end of the war when the Pacific Islands were blockaded to starve out the Japs , expended 337 4.7" shells to hit a dug out canoe. I did a shoot with the last Exeter, we towed a target in the English Channel for 6 hours and she could not get a shell in site, that's why airplanes and missiles have taken over from guns because they can hit the target with more efficiency. Plus reference the Dreadnought Control platforms , I read a very good research paper on the subject.