Battlecruisers

[Amedeo Matteucci]

Just out of curiosity: does anyone knows whether the RN had the occasion to test fire the German 38cm SK L/45 guns on SMS Baden?

And, in case they did, how they compared them to their own 15" guns in terms of overall performance?

 

Regards,

 

Amedeo

 

P.S. Tiornu, your book sounds interesting. Is there available a webpage to know more about it (size, topics, table of contents etc.)?

[Jason]

Originally posted by Tiornu:

I have one naval reference in print at the moment: FLEETS OF WORLD WAR II.

 

If anyone wants a copy--or maybe ten or twelve copies--I'm selling signed copies for $10US from now till Christmas. I can arrange paypal/credit card payments so you don't have to wait for a money order to make it through the mail.

I would very much appreciate a copy. Interestingly enough, I actually had a copy in my hand at a local bookseller, but decided against buying there and then, opting to purchase the following week. When I went back, it was gone.

 

Could you email me the particulars and I'll PayPal you the money?

[Tiornu]

The British made a detailed study of Baden. Unfortunately I don't have that material at hand, but you may often encounter references to it because some see it as controversial. It does not give Baden the exaulted status that some folks want to see, and Baden often comes down on the short side of comparisons with the "R" class. This leads some to conclude the assessment was a white-wash by victors eager to belittle foreign achievements. I find this assertion difficult to swallow. There may indeed be some flaws with the assessment, but they would more likely result from a lack of familiarity with what the German designers were trying to achieve.

But in any case, I don't recall if the guns were test fired or not. The Germans used light shells fired at high velocity; as a general rule, this results in good penetration against vertical armor especially at short range. Combined with the hard cap, you'd also get pretty good (for the time) performance in angled impacts. British shells were heavier and slower. At longer ranges, they would be good for deck penetration (not a big consideration at that time), and they would probably retain a greater portion of their initial velocity. The transitional shell form would probably rival German oblique-angle performance, and the Greenboys would probably exceed that standard.

Anyone interested in buying copies of FLEETS (or boxes of copies), you can write to my screen name @att.net and make all the arrangements. International shipping is available, though it sometimes gets expensive unless you don't mind waiting six weeks.

The best place to get a sneak peak would be US Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=glance&s=books

The book does NOT give you lots of pictures or endless pages of statistics. Think of it as a critique, like a movie reviewer critiquing a film.

I've gotten good reviews from the folks at the Naval War College and Warship International, so I think you'll be happy with FLEETS. And at these prices...!

[Guest Sargent]

Having a copy, I can recommend Tiornu's book.

 

I won't say I learned a lot, since I already knew most of the tech stuff, but I agree with his assessments. It is very interesting and a good read.

 

And no, I do not get a commission from him .

[Guest Sargent]

One thing that puzzled the British about Baden was the thin hull scantling. I am not really sure why the German designers went for it, unless they wanted to reduce resistance in order to delay fuze initiation. I suppose that if the fuze initiation didn't start until heavy internal armor was reached there would be a chance of the shell passing out of the critical compartment before exploding, and that the thin ends wouldn't initiate the fuzes at all.

[DB]

Originally posted by Tiornu:

The British made a detailed study of Baden.

 

At least some of the Baden report results are included in the link that Paul F Jungnitsch posted earlier in this thread:

 

HMS Hood Website

 

I'm a long way from being an expert, of course, but they seem to weigh the pros and cons of, for example, the loading system on Baden in a reasonably balanced way.

 

For example, they crib the "Shell Grabs" and were considering using the grip pattern for the flooring.

 

It appears that loading trials were performed, but the theoretical nature of the discussion of the relative merits of smoke extraction suggests that live firing trials were not performed.

 

David

[Tiornu]

"At least some of the Baden report results are included in the link that Paul F Jungnitsch posted earlier in this thread"

I'm guessing there's a typo in there somewhere in that section on "power worked bun mountings."

[Jeff]

Originally posted by Sargent:

Having a copy, I can recommend Tiornu's book.

 

I won't say I learned a lot, since I already knew most of the tech stuff, but I agree with his assessments. It is very interesting and a good read.

 

And no, I do not get a commission from him  .

 

Same here, it gives a good overview of the various navies during the war.

[DB]

Originally posted by Tiornu:

"At least some of the Baden report results are included in the link that Paul F Jungnitsch posted earlier in this thread"

I'm guessing there's a typo in there somewhere in that section on "power worked bun mountings."

 

There are numerous OCR-type typos in the text, but that one's a classic.

 

David

[Michael Eastes]

Originally posted by Sargent:

Having a copy, I can recommend Tiornu's book.

 

Same here, except I am learning a good bit. I don't have your phonographic memory for such minutiae these days.

 

Buy the book! He'll even sign it, and it's a good deal.

[Amedeo Matteucci]

Yes, I gave a look at the link Paul provided, but, if I'm not mistaken, it refers only to loading tests and not to live firings and armour piercing capability assessments.

In fact my question stemmed from the following consideration: while for earlier designs the Germans consciously accepted to equip their capital ships with "smaller" guns confiding that the comparable armour piercing capabilities with respect to Brisith "larger" designs (i.e. 28cm vs. 12" or 30,5cm vs. 13.5") and higher ROF would permit them to afford this weight-saving measure without faring worse than the comparable RN ships, the Bayern class ships seems to have renounced this approach. I know that at the time of their design different armament proposal were examined (from 35cm to 40cm IIRC) and that the main armament of the Queen Elizabeths was not exactly known. But if I'm not mistaken the Germans thought that the QEs would have been armed with 13.5" or 14" weapons. So they decided to arm their new battleships with a larger calibre gun. In light of previous choices my question is: why?

 

Regards,

 

Amedeo

 

P.S. Tiornu's book seems interesting and for $10 it's surely worth buying. I'll contact him privately about this issue. Tiornu, could you please drop me an email (address in profile) detailing payment and shipping options?

[Tiornu]

The choice of 15in guns for Baden occurred within a complex framework of German politics. I may have mentioned this in a precious post. In short, the Germans chose to jump to 15in because this was seen as a plateau. Escalation to 16in was thought to gain little, and only when guns got much larger would a 15in battery fall behind their standards. The German procurement system might allow for considerable increase in size, but only from 1918 on. Until then, Baden would be at the top of the heap. The realization that Queen Elizabeth would also be there was a huge disappointment.

[Amedeo Matteucci]

Thanks for the clarification. Do you have any information on the relative performance of the 38cm SK L/45 vs. the 15"/42 Mk. I? I'm asking because, according to a couple calculation I did long ago, this German weapon didn't seem to guarantee the superior penetration abilities at battle ranges that previous models did show over British designs (comparing similar calibre guns, of course).

 

Regards,

 

Amedeo

 

P.S. What does the abbreviation FC, to be found in the guns' tables of your book, mean?

[Tiornu]

FC stands for firing cycle, the theoretical number of seconds it takes to fire the gun and ready it again for firing. Like most statistics, it is subject to considerable variations, and each navy might calculate the time differently. For example, one navy may time their gunnery while firing at the loading angle, while another may be firing to a certain range. The USN does not appear to have had any official figures for the cycles of their old battleship guns. Thus you will see them listed at 40-50 seconds when in fact that could fire at 24 seconds or less.

The Navweaps site has statistics on many naval weapons. http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/index_weapons.htm

The penetrations that appear there for some of the guns are not terribly useful for the reason that, once again, different navies calculate penetration differently. If you are ambitious, you may use the Navweaps information to do your own calculations using the FACEHARD and M79APCLC programs. http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/index_nathan.htm

Personally, I try to avoid ever getting near those things. THey scare me.

We already have a fairly complete set of figures for major WWII guns. http://www.geocities.com/kop_mic/

[Przezdzieblo]

Originally posted by Tiornu:

...The Germans used light shells fired at high velocity; as a general rule, this results in good penetration against vertical armor especially at short range. Combined with the hard cap, you'd also get pretty good (for the time) performance in angled impacts. British shells were heavier and slower. At longer ranges, they would be good for deck penetration (not a big consideration at that time), and they would probably retain a greater portion of their initial velocity. The transitional shell form would probably rival German oblique-angle performance, and the Greenboys would probably exceed that standard...

German shells were lighter than British becouse of smaller caliber guns. But when calibers were equal... f.e. German 30.5 cm APC round was heavier than British 12" APC Heavy Mark VIIA.

Great performance of German projectiles was result of combination of hard cap, higher velocity and better fuze. British APC would rather hole armour than penetrate it (that happened in Jutland with Seydlitz`s wing turret). If British round would be so effective as German... who knows how would battle of Skagerrak look.

Interesting topic, still reading

[Tiornu]

One clarification: my comment on the heavier British shells was in direct response to a question about 15in shells. The British 15in shell was heavier than Baden's, and for that matter, was heavier than Bismarck's. When the RN escalated to 13.5in guns, they initially kept to shell proportions similar to those of previous guns. However, a new model weighing 1400 lbs soon entered service. This provided a good boost in firepower while also prolonging gun life. The higher trajectory could be seen as a drawback regarding accuracy, but this was at least partly offset by the lesser wear to the barrel, meaning a decrease in salvo-to-salvo variation.

The heavier shell was so successful that it continued in the 15in gun and later in the battleship Lion's 16in guns. Nelson's 16in shells represented a departure, being exceptionally light, and the results were extremely disappointing.

[Amedeo Matteucci]

Thanks for the links but I already knew them all.

In fact I did calculate trajectories with an old ballistics program written by me and then used FACEHARD to estimate penetration. What I found surprised me because, as I said, ad "normal" battle ranges vertical penetration was practically comparable for the German 38cm and the British 15" gun (with a little advantage for the 15"/42).

I was not asking you about homemade calculations but about anecdotal/documental evidence from British or German sources that expressly suggested that with that calibre the German "lost" their traditional superiority over British designs. It could be an indirect proof that my calculations were not too off the mark

 

Regards,

 

Amedeo

[Amedeo Matteucci]

Originally posted by Amedeo Matteucci:

P.S. Tiornu's book seems interesting and for $10 it's surely worth buying. I'll contact him privately about this issue. Tiornu, could you please drop me an email (address in profile) detailing payment and shipping options?[/i]

Just in case you hadn't noticed this

 

Bye,

 

A.

[Tiornu]

Amedeo, did you get the e-mail I sent you? I sent one to you and one to Jason at the e-mails listed in the profiles.

If it didn't get through, write to my screen name @att.net.

[Amedeo Matteucci]

Originally posted by Tiornu:

Amedeo, did you get the e-mail I sent you? I sent one to you and one to Jason at the e-mails listed in the profiles.

If it didn't get through, write to my screen name @att.net.

No I didn't. And I presume you also did not get mine (the one that I recently sent to your above listed address), or that the reply didn't go through.

Sorry to bother you again but would you mind to retry sending me an email at this alternative address: amadeus_sr@hotmail.com

 

Thanks!

 

A.