delcyros wrote:LÜTZOW, DERFFLINGER, SEYDLITZ and VON DER TANN also were subject to minor or major turret fires after been hit at JUTLAND. In only one case (DERFFLINGER) did the projectile penetrate armour completely going up high order behind armour. The result was also the most severe turret fire involving both after turrets. Campbell don´t hesitates to stress that had german ships used cordite instead of RPC/12 then DERFFLINGER and possibly other ships would have blown up.
Making a hole or even displacing armour with blast or hot fragments entering the turret can start a fire. The rapid pressure buildt up by cordite charges catching fire was very dangerous to structures and bulkheads, particularely flash proof doors which failed under pressure.
delcyros wrote:I count a few more than 3 blown up at Jutland:
Compare this behavior with german BC´s getting hit on their exposed vitals. There are numerous cases of turrets knocked out and secondary gun positions hit, some without and other with explosive effect partly inside them (through holing) but in only one case the ship was really endangered (SEYDLITZ off Doggerank).
neil hilton wrote:Djoser wrote:If Beatty ordered 'the safety systems removed' "on all his squadron", someone forgot to tell the turret crews in his own flagship. I forget if it was the exec or the gunnery officer of that ship who pissed off the turret crews by making them handle the charges more carefully.
Lion also almost blew up at Jutland too...
RF wrote:Politically its an odd alignment, I assume this was done as purely a wargaming excercise without reference as to how such a line up could occur in the first place.
neil hilton wrote:RF is right about the political alignment, it is wierd. Did you just roll a dice or something?
neil hilton wrote:That 'turret hit rule' for the RN ships is a huge generalisation, assuming you're refering to the BC disasters at Jutland (Queen Mary, Indefatigable and Invincible).
Historically the designs were sound for BCs, but the crew purposely removed the safety systems in order to increase rate of fire. Beatty ordered this on all his squadron. The rest of the British Fleet had all their safety systems intact.
I should point out that Warspite (and the others of the QE class, 5th Battle squadron) all went through exactly the same gauntlet as Beattys BCs and out the other side with only minor..ish damage and having given more than they got.
So, really that 'turret rule' you had should have been specific only to ships commanded by Beatty not the whole RN.
How would your 1928 Great Banana War have turned out then?
Byron Angel wrote:..... According to Busch - An early heavy caliber hit did jam A turret of Scharnhorst and a much later hit, penetrating into or delivering effect into A turret's magazine, produced a great fire and large successive explosions sufficient to send hot fragments into the adjacent B turret magazine. This induced B turret's commander to order B magazine flooded. But B turret magazine (once again according to Busch) was supposedly drained about 15 minutes later and B turret resumed firing, leaving only three rounds remaining at the end. If Busch's account is correct, it can be inferred on that basis that the A turret fire and explosions, while quite severe, were not immediately responsible for a catastrophic sinking of the ship.
DoY's main battery gunnery narrative does mention a considerable explosion in immediate connection with the ultimate sinking of Scharnhorst, but describes it as having occurred aft. My guess is either scuttling charges (which had been ordered), or possibly a very late torpedo hit, as C turret had been firing continuously throughout the action and was likely to have exhausted her ammunition by the end.
SINKING OF THE SCHARNHORST.
76. Three cruisers and eight destroyers were
now in the target area and DUKE OF YORK
steered to the northward to avoid the melee.
All that could be seen of the SCHARNHORST
was a dull glow through a dense cloud of
smoke, which the starshell and searchlights of
the surrounding ships could not penetrate. No
ship therefore saw the enemy sink but it seems
fairly certain that she sank after a heavy underwater
explosion which was heard and felt in
several ships at about 1945. JAMAICA,
MATCHLESS and VIRAGO were the last ships
to sight her at about 1938; at 1948 when BELFAST
closed to deliver a second torpedo
attack she had definitely sunk in approximate
position 72° 16' N. 28° 41' E.
The hull shows extensive damage from both armour-piercing shells and torpedoes. HMS Duke of York fired 80 broadsides; and the Allied ships fired a total of 2,195 shells during the engagement. Some 55 torpedoes were launched at Scharnhorst, and 11 are believed to have found their target. There is now an explanation of why she sank so suddenly. A massive internal explosion - probably in an ammunition magazine below a forward gun turret, had blown off her bow. The entire bow section remains together as a mass of wreckage and armour, but separated from the main wreck.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/ ... shtml#four
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests