Design "feature" of R-class

[paul.mercer]

Another double post, must keep fingers off mouse!

[marcelo_malara]

Yes Paul, I consider QE the best BB from WWI era. Back to the R, I would like to calculate the weight of the 6" battery protection and the 1" forecastle deck, but far from home I only have this plan, do anyone know how far forward ends both?

[Thorsten Wahl]

...that Warspite in her original form took one hell of a lot of punishment at Jutland after her rudder jammed but still survived...

as far as I know 13 major hits but only one 12" hit the 520 lb main belt (penetration) and detonated behind armour in unknown location(for me).... that means: main vertical protection of Warspite was not safe even against 12" WW1 shells.

do you have further details regarding battle damage;
-scetches
-descriptions (hit position, shell type, angle of incidence, distance, shell dud or explosion(contact/after delay)

etc. pp.

[marcelo_malara]

as far as I know 13 major hits but only one 12" hit the 520 lb main belt (penetration) and detonated behind armour in unknown location(for me).... that means: main vertical protection of Warspite was not safe even against 12" WW1 shells.

do you have further details regarding battle damage;
-scetches
-descriptions (hit position, shell type, angle of incidence, distance, shell dud or explosion(contact/after delay)

etc. pp.

Would be this:

The belt armour (of 520 lbs.) was penetrated at 157 Station Port by a large shell, leaving a hole 2 ft. 6 in. × 2 ft., the longitudinal bulkhead inside being badly holed and distorted. On the ship's side Port the Ash and Soil Shoots [Chutes] further aft were carried away.

(http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/i ... of_Jutland)


Have no plans to know where 157 Station is, but the mention of ash chutes point to be near the boilers.

Regards

[dunmunro]

as far as I know 13 major hits but only one 12" hit the 520 lb main belt (penetration) and detonated behind armour in unknown location(for me).... that means: main vertical protection of Warspite was not safe even against 12" WW1 shells.

do you have further details regarding battle damage;
-scetches
-descriptions (hit position, shell type, angle of incidence, distance, shell dud or explosion(contact/after delay)

etc. pp.

Would be this:

The belt armour (of 520 lbs.) was penetrated at 157 Station Port by a large shell, leaving a hole 2 ft. 6 in. × 2 ft., the longitudinal bulkhead inside being badly holed and distorted. On the ship's side Port the Ash and Soil Shoots [Chutes] further aft were carried away.

(http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/i ... of_Jutland)


Have no plans to know where 157 Station is, but the mention of ash chutes point to be near the boilers.

Regards

Station 157 is abreast the after boiler rooms.

[paul.mercer]

...that Warspite in her original form took one hell of a lot of punishment at Jutland after her rudder jammed but still survived...

as far as I know 13 major hits but only one 12" hit the 520 lb main belt (penetration) and detonated behind armour in unknown location(for me).... that means: main vertical protection of Warspite was not safe even against 12" WW1 shells.

do you have further details regarding battle damage;
-scetches
-descriptions (hit position, shell type, angle of incidence, distance, shell dud or explosion(contact/after delay)

etc. pp.

Hi Thorsten,
When you say that the 'vertical' protection of Warspite was not safe from 12" shells, surely in this particular case most of the shells would be coming in on a fairly flat trajectory as Warspite was quite close to the German ships when she turned after her rudder jammed and many of the incoming shells would be on her sides rather from above?
Also, while not suggesting that the QE's were comparable with more modern WW2 ships in armour, surviving '13 major hits' as you described them surely shows that they were not altogether weak when it came to engaging similar ships.

[Thorsten Wahl]

I would like a description like this from Derfflinger (major hits only) sample for illustration
lineup of hits (incomplete)

Screenshot_20230208_064908.png (63.34 KiB) Viewed 17525 times

plates hit (incomplete)
5,7,8,11 citadell hits
3, 29,30 ships ends
17 casemate
10,25, 26 barbettes
turrets 23
command towers 2
decks 9, 10, 11
multiple answers possible

wich plate was hit /result detonated/not detonated

Screenshot_20230208_065155.png (29.38 KiB) Viewed 17525 times

sample detailed description

Screenshot_20230208_065654.png (100.58 KiB) Viewed 17525 times

the german analysis show distribution on the ship and as far as i know the distribution was also statistically examined.

the detailed description show how plates and shells performed.
against citadell armour the british AP shells mostly shattered on impact and when they detonated this seem at lower obliquities and directly on plate obviously we can see performance issues of shell

in comparision the hit arrangement on warspite appears as less dangerous based on the type of plate hit
but the one hit on a major plate was a perforation with detonation inside ship from a much smaller projectile.

[paul.mercer]

Thanks Thorsten, that's very helpful. I still like the old QE's though!

[marcelo_malara]

I would like a description like this from Derfflinger (major hits only) sample for illustration
lineup of hits (incomplete)
Screenshot_20230208_064908.png

plates hit (incomplete)
5,7,8,11 citadell hits
3, 29,30 ships ends
17 casemate
10,25, 26 barbettes
turrets 23
command towers 2
decks 9, 10, 11
multiple answers possible

wich plate was hit /result detonated/not detonated
Screenshot_20230208_065155.png

sample detailed description
Screenshot_20230208_065654.png



the german analysis show distribution on the ship and as far as i know the distribution was also statistically examined.

the detailed description show how plates and shells performed.
against citadell armour the british AP shells mostly shattered on impact and when they detonated this seem at lower obliquities and directly on plate obviously we can see performance issues of shell

in comparision the hit arrangement on warspite appears as less dangerous based on the type of plate hit
but the one hit on a major plate was a perforation with detonation inside ship from a much smaller projectile.

If it has been published for sure is in Campbell´s Jutland: An analysis of the fighting. I have it at home, but this month I am on holidays.

[wmh829386]

...that Warspite in her original form took one hell of a lot of punishment at Jutland after her rudder jammed but still survived...

as far as I know 13 major hits but only one 12" hit the 520 lb main belt (penetration) and detonated behind armour in unknown location(for me).... that means: main vertical protection of Warspite was not safe even against 12" WW1 shells.

do you have further details regarding battle damage;
-scetches
-descriptions (hit position, shell type, angle of incidence, distance, shell dud or explosion(contact/after delay)

etc. pp.

Context Context Context!

The hit you are referring to is described as follows by Campbell

From port side. Angle of descent 5-10°. This shell pierced the upper tapered part of the belt just below the main deck and about 23ft, forward of the mainmast. The hit was at the top after corner of a plate, the angle being 5-10° to the plate normal, and a piece 2ft x 1.5ft was broken off, and a large chip taken out of the next plate. The actual thickness was 6in at the top of the hole and 9in at the bottom. The shell burst 12ft from impact in the upper part of the port feed-water tank, and a large hole was blown in the 3/8in main deck above, while the light floor of the feed tank was shattered, and the 1in middle deck badly distorted at and near the top of the slope above the port side of the wing engine-room and adjacent oil fuel tank.

Italic and underlined by me. The hit is on the tapered part of the belt, but because QEs are generally overweight, the full thickness is often submerged. In this case, the 1 inch middle deck held, partly because of the shell exploding in a feed tank, slowing down fragments (but caused more distortion)

And this happens when Warspite had her rudder jammed, and range drop below 10,000 yds at some point. At this range only the thickest armour is useful.

Some say this illustrates the weakness of QEs armour scheme by tapering the main belt. However, another argument can be leveraged against the R-class.

What if this goes just above the main belt on R-class?
The good thing is that it won't cause flooding, the bad thing is that the shell will explode on / penetrate the 2 inch slope, and showering boiler/engine room with fragments.

[wmh829386]

I would like a description like this from Derfflinger (major hits only) sample for illustration
lineup of hits (incomplete)
Screenshot_20230208_064908.png

plates hit (incomplete)
5,7,8,11 citadell hits
3, 29,30 ships ends
17 casemate
10,25, 26 barbettes
turrets 23
command towers 2
decks 9, 10, 11
multiple answers possible

wich plate was hit /result detonated/not detonated
Screenshot_20230208_065155.png

sample detailed description
Screenshot_20230208_065654.png



the german analysis show distribution on the ship and as far as i know the distribution was also statistically examined.

the detailed description show how plates and shells performed.
against citadell armour the british AP shells mostly shattered on impact and when they detonated this seem at lower obliquities and directly on plate obviously we can see performance issues of shell

in comparision the hit arrangement on warspite appears as less dangerous based on the type of plate hit
but the one hit on a major plate was a perforation with detonation inside ship from a much smaller projectile.

The thickest piece of armour penetrated on Derfflinger is the following.

The next hit from the Revenge was at 1916 or 1917. This shell coming from 41° abaft the port beam, struck the after superfiring barbette 18in below the upper edge of the fixed armour, and on a line between the two guns, but nearer to the right gun, the position of impact, measured radially from the barbette centre, being 33° aft of the transverse diameter. It pierced the 10.25 in armour and burst in the upper part of the turn-table between the two guns and below the Captain of turret's platform.

This is of course happens at under 10,000 yards at right angle. The worst things about British shell is the APC buster is far too sensitive and shattered at oblique angle. The APC are particularly bad when considering the following.

There are many cases where 15 APC inch shell shatters on 6 inch plat. But 13.5 inch CPC did the following.

Went through the side plating just forward of the 5.9in battery and about 2ft above the upper deck, and struck the 6 3/4in forward diagonal battery bulkhead 8-14in from its lower edge, and at an angle of c45° to the plate normal. The shell pierced the armour, making a hole measuring 14in x 28in on the outside and 55in x 35in on the inside, and burst on the upper deck. The 0.8in-1.2in upper deck was holed for c60sq ft inside No I port casemate and also driven downwards.

It was shot by HMS Iron duke at 11000yds. The irony is that, Jellicoe knew very very well the problems of the shell because he was the Controller when the shells were developed.

[wmh829386]

Yes Paul, I consider QE the best BB from WWI era. Back to the R, I would like to calculate the weight of the 6" battery protection and the 1" forecastle deck, but far from home I only have this plan, do anyone know how far forward ends both?

As far as I know, the 1 inch forecastle deck covers the whole 6 inch battery, so it should extend to the diagonal bulkhead from B barbette to side armour.

[marcelo_malara]

As far as I know, the 1 inch forecastle deck covers the whole 6 inch battery, so it should extend to the diagonal bulkhead from B barbette to side armour.

Thanks! Yes, you are right, forecastle deck weights 343 t, the two battery belts would be about 320 t, 643 t in all, that would buy another inch to the armoured deck.

[hans zurbriggen]

Hello all,
I must admit I'm not expert of QE's . Thanks to Mr.Malara for drawings of "R" class that give a good view of vertical protection and for his calculations.

However I'm still very confused about horizontal armor layout of QE's:
Which is thickness of upper, main and lower deck ? Is there slope (at which level and of which thickness /inclination) ?
Does anybody has a transversal section at machines/magazines for QE's to evaluate how many layers of which thickness are present on QE's as built (and possibly also after reconstruction) in order to compare vs "R" class ?

hans

[paul.mercer]

Gentlemen,
If you had to choose between a rebuilt QE or the later 'R' class. which on would you pick as it seems that the 'R' was slower but a bit better protected but the later QE's had better main gun elevation?