Model Boat Mayhem

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length.
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: USS Texas (BB-35) Main and Secondary Guns  (Read 2813 times)

BigGun Rob

  • Guest
USS Texas (BB-35) Main and Secondary Guns
« on: November 19, 2008, 05:02:52 am »

These are selected shots of the USS Texas main and secondary guns: 14"/45 mains, 5"/51 secondaries (air castle)

USS Texas (BB-35) Main Guns (14"/45)







USS Texas (BB-35) Secondaries (5"/51)








Logged

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,946
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Re: USS Texas (BB-35) Main and Secondary Guns
« Reply #1 on: November 19, 2008, 08:55:37 am »

Those pictures of the 5 inch inside the casemates are fascinating, real WW1 stuff! I'm surprised that there is wood decking - wouldn't that have constituted a considerable fire risk?

Colin
Logged

SteamboatPhil

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 2,024
  • Location: Dieppe, France
Re: USS Texas (BB-35) Main and Secondary Guns
« Reply #2 on: November 19, 2008, 03:32:16 pm »

It looks like it could go back to active service any time.
Logged
Steamed up all the time

amdaylight

  • Guest
Re: USS Texas (BB-35) Main and Secondary Guns
« Reply #3 on: November 19, 2008, 05:56:30 pm »

Collin,

The US continued to build Carriers, the Iowas and some heavy cruisers  in the Second World War with wooden decks and then painted them and yes they did contribute to some of the fires.

Andre
over yonder in Portland Oregon
Logged

BigGun Rob

  • Guest
Re: USS Texas (BB-35) Main and Secondary Guns
« Reply #4 on: November 20, 2008, 03:31:06 am »

The US continued to build Carriers, the Iowas and some heavy cruisers  in the Second World War with wooden decks and then painted them and yes they did contribute to some of the fires.

True. Heavy timber was cheap and plentiful in the US - especially when this ship was built. (100 years ago!) It was also easy to repair by a basic carpenter, using local sources of wood if need be. Steel, while fireproof, was more complicated to repair, and required materials that needed to be shipped a long way. On the subject of aircraft carriers, the US and GB had diametrically opposed ideas about what the flight decks should be made of. GB took the position that the decks should be armored and fireproof, while the US Navy wanted wood: lightweight, easy to acquire and repair. I believe the jury is still out on which choice was the better of the two.

Rob
Logged

Bryan Young

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,893
  • Location: Whitley Bay
Re: USS Texas (BB-35) Main and Secondary Guns
« Reply #5 on: November 20, 2008, 07:15:20 pm »

The US continued to build Carriers, the Iowas and some heavy cruisers  in the Second World War with wooden decks and then painted them and yes they did contribute to some of the fires.

True. Heavy timber was cheap and plentiful in the US - especially when this ship was built. (100 years ago!) It was also easy to repair by a basic carpenter, using local sources of wood if need be. Steel, while fireproof, was more complicated to repair, and required materials that needed to be shipped a long way. On the subject of aircraft carriers, the US and GB had diametrically opposed ideas about what the flight decks should be made of. GB took the position that the decks should be armored and fireproof, while the US Navy wanted wood: lightweight, easy to acquire and repair. I believe the jury is still out on which choice was the better of the two.

Rob
But on these ships surely the wood was laid on top of a steel deck? I reckon that the only reason you have wood sheathing on a warship is to make it look nice and pretty for the cocktail parties.
Logged
Notes from a simple seaman

a3nige

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 312
  • Location: South North Yorks, UK
Re: USS Texas (BB-35) Main and Secondary Guns
« Reply #6 on: November 20, 2008, 07:29:34 pm »

How were the 5" guns in the casemate aimed?

Nige
Logged
"You're a hard person to ignore, but well worth the effort !"

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,946
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Re: USS Texas (BB-35) Main and Secondary Guns
« Reply #7 on: November 20, 2008, 09:04:04 pm »

Quote
On the subject of aircraft carriers, the US and GB had diametrically opposed ideas about what the flight decks should be made of. GB took the position that the decks should be armored and fireproof, while the US Navy wanted wood: lightweight, easy to acquire and repair. I believe the jury is still out on which choice was the better of the two.

I think it is just different design considerations. UK carriers were expected to operate within range of land based aircraft, such as in the Mediterranean, and the carrier based planes were generally inferior to land based bombers and fighters so the ships themselves needed to be able to absorb punishment - hence the armoured flight decks.

The US Navy was looking at oceanic warfare which put a priority on maximum numbers of aircraft for offensive strikes and defending against enemy carrier aircraft which entailed lighter carrier construction.

In the Pacific the British carriers proved able to shrug off Kamikaze hits whereas the US ships could be crippled by them. But the US carriers carried twice as many aircraft as their British counterparts and there were a lot more of them. So it's horses for courses really.

Colin
Logged

BigGun Rob

  • Guest
Re: USS Texas (BB-35) Main and Secondary Guns
« Reply #8 on: November 21, 2008, 08:02:31 am »

Colin is correct, as far as my research goes: The difference in weight meant the US carriers had both more defensive and offensive capabilities, as well as facilitating repairs at sea. One unfortunate fact for GB, the US, and ultimately - Japan - is that neither armor nor guns win carrier wars. I've just finished reading a book about the Musashi, having recently read one about the Yamato - both by Japanese authors. Ironically, in the end, these two massive battleships, bristling with defensive armament and surrounded by escorts, steam out to engage the Allied fleet, and of course, never make it anywhere near the enemy.

Rob
Logged

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,946
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Re: USS Texas (BB-35) Main and Secondary Guns
« Reply #9 on: November 21, 2008, 04:50:34 pm »

There is no doubt that as the war progressed the US had much better aircraft than the British who ended up using variants of the US planes on their own carriers. This was due to the US Navy having their air component properly organised from the outset with aircraft designed to be operated from carriers. The successful Royal Naval Air Service in WW1 was merged with the land based Royal Air Force in 1918 and naval aviation was given relatively low priority and second rate aircraft until the Navy regained control in 1938 with the formation of the Fleet Air Arm.

Interestingly, the first US carriers to be commissioned after WW2, the Midway class, were fitted with an armoured flight deck but this meant a substantial increase in displacement to avoid compromising the size of the air group. Wiki sums it up very well:

The CVB-41 class vessels (then unnamed) were originally conceived in 1940 as a design study to determine the effect of including an armored flight deck on a carrier the size of the Essex class. The resulting calculations showed that the effect would be disastrous for air group size. The resulting ship would have a maximum air group of 45, compared to 90-100 for the standard Essex class fleet carriers. As a result, the concept went to finding a larger carrier which could support both deck armor and a sufficiently large air group. Unlike the Royal Navy's aircraft carriers, for which the armored deck was part of the ship structure, the Midway class retained their "strength deck" at the hangar deck level and the armored flight deck was part of the superstructure. The weight-savings needed to armor the flight deck was acquired by removing a planned cruiser-caliber battery of 8-inch (203 mm) guns and reducing the 5-inch antiaircraft battery from dual to single mounts. They would be the last USN carriers to be so designed; the titanic size of the Forrestal class supercarriers would require the strength deck to be located at flight deck level.
Logged

farrow

  • Guest
Re: USS Texas (BB-35) Main and Secondary Guns
« Reply #10 on: November 25, 2008, 10:35:30 pm »

I have been reading an interesting paper on the arguments of armoured or not fliight decks, the arguments are leading against armoured flight decks. Because of 1- very difficult stabilityt problems, which lead to less aircraft carried for said tonnage and weapons to self protect with. 2- when an explosion happens inside the ship with an armoured deck the blast force is contained within the hull, which causes the vessel hull to contort out of original shape. That is why only the Victorious was deemed fit enough for rebuild and the others very quickly scrapped after WW2(one of the class after a strike was unable ever to use the centre prop shaft again, the indomitable was full of cement for the fleet review she was last in)
But who knows, I do not know as I am not qualified to argue over it, but arm chair experts will though I expect argue for ever. But the yank carrier war records and specs are trully impressive, and the last of thier WW2 built carriers had armoured decks, but below the flight hangers.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up