Friday, August 23, 2024

5.25-inch Mk III - sketch design of mounting with telescopic hoists

5.25-inch Mark III mountings, Elswick Works, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 26th October, 1948

Drawing No. 42294 (horizontal stowage)
Drawing No. 46006 (vertical stowage)
Drawing No. 42292 (articulated telescopic pusher hoist)

Top/Plan view (42294)

Elevation: 90°
Depression: 10°
Diameter Roller Path: 19’-0”
Rate of Fire: 48 rounds/minute H.A.
Rate of Fire: 24 rounds/minute L.A.
Weight of Oscillating Parts (2 guns): 25 tons
Weight of Turntable Structure etc.: 40 tons
Weight of Hoists: 18 tons
Weight of Gunshield (½”): 13 tons
Total Revolving Weight: 120 tons

Weight of Magazine Machinery: (H: 40 tons / V: 30 tons)
Weight of H.A. rounds in magazine: (H: 51.5 tons - 750 / V: 43 tons - 628)
Weight of L.A. rounds in magazine: (H: 8.25 tons - 120 / V: 6.33 tons - 92)

Each gun has 2 HA hoists and 1 LA hoist attached from the upper point to the cradle and the lower portion swings about a common trunnion at the base of the mounting structure.

Side view (42294)

Data taken from table of mounting sizes and table of powers

Protection of Battleships against underwater attacks

On the 5th of June 1914 sir Percy Scott wrote in The Times that battleships had become completely powerless against the submarine. On the 7th to 10th July three naval societies met at Newcastle. The Institution of Naval Architects, the Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders of Scotland and North-East Coast Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders.

Here, professor John Biles shared his studies on the underwater protection of battleships. He provided three designs with 100 mm armoured plates below the water line.

 

Design 1 (Revista de Marina)


The first two have the same armament: 6 guns of 356 mm in twin turrets and 16 guns of 152 mm. However, the former has a displacement of 13.000 tons and speed of 10 knots at a length of 102 metres between perpendiculars with a draft of 6 metres. The other design displaced 16.000 tons and had a speed of 18 knots at a length of 132 metres, beam of 24 metres and draft of 7 metres.

The first is in general better protected than the second. 250 mm belt against 125. Upper belt of 75 against 125, turrets of 300 against 125. 56 for both casemates.

The third project is closer to current battleships. Displacement of 28.500 tons, 21 knots speed, armament of 10 guns 356 mm and 16 of 152. Length between perpendiculars of 174 metres, 28 metre beam, 8 metre 70 draft. Armour 250 mm at the belt, 180 and 125 above, 300 turrets, casemates of 50 and deck 75 mm.

In closing he asked the questions:
1: If an armour of 100 mm below the waterline is sufficient against torpedoes in order to adopt on dreadnoughts of the latest type.
2: If the threat of submarines is great enough to warrant the adoption of this armour.
3: If the submarine is a great enough threat to implement this armour and the introduction of slow, small battleships of around 16.000 tons displacement and 6 main guns instead of 8 or 10.
4: If the system of armouring the bottom of ships has enough merit to justify the adoption of a ship form with greater resistance than the ordinary form.

 

Design 1 (Le Génie civil)

Design 1:

Length O.A.: 358 feet
Length P.P.: 336 feet
Maximum Beam: 80 feet
Draft: 20 feet
Displacement: 13.000 tons
Speed: 10 knots
Armaments: 6 of 14 inch, 16 of 5 inch

Belt: 10 inch
Upper belt: 3 inch
Under belt: 4 inch
Casemates: 2 inch
Barbettes: 12 inch
Deck: 2 inch

Design 2 (Le Génie civil)

Design 2:

Length O.A.: 460 feet
Length P.P.: 434 feet
Maximum Beam: 80 feet
Draft: 24 feet
Displacement: 16.000 tons
Speed: 18 knots
Armaments: 6 of 14 inch, 16 of 5 inch

Belt: 5 inch
Upper belt: 5 inch
Under belt: 4 inch
Casemates: 2 inch
Barbettes: 5 inch
Deck: 2 inch

 

Design 2 (Revista de Marina)

Design 3:

Length O.A.: 600 feet
Length P.P.: 570 feet
Maximum Beam: 91 feet
Draft: 28 feet 6 inch
Displacement: 28.500 tons
Speed: 21 knots
Armaments: 10 of 14 inch, 16 of 6 inch

Belt: 10 inch
Upper belt: 7 inch
Under belt: 4 inch
Casemates: 2 inch
Barbettes: 12 inch
Deck: 3 inch

Note:
The French article notes a 6-inch secondary battery, whereas the Spanish article notes a 5-inch secondary battery.

Many thanks to Coldown for his contribution. For more of his work, please visit the Spanish blog Reporte de Batalla at:
https://reportedebatalla.wordpress.com/

Sources:
Revista de Marina, 1915, Volume 60 Number 348, pages 31 and further.
Le Génie civil, 34rd Year, Tome 65 Numero 16, page 312 and further. (Number 1679 Saturday 15 August 1914)

Friday, August 16, 2024

5¼-inch pair H.A./L.A. mounting (hand loading at gun)

5¼-inch pair H.A./L.A. mounting (hand loading at gun)

Elswick Works, Newcastle-on-Tyne, 12th of July 1946

The amount of ammunition contained in the revolving rings, hoists and loading trays is such as to enable each gun to fire a total of 22 rounds at 16 rounds per minute (32 from the turret). Concurrate replenishment could be carried out at this approximate rate.

Each gun has one HA hoist, one LA hoist and one cartridge hoist. Ammunition is loaded from into the tray by hand and subsequent operations of setting the fuze (by Molins or similar type) and loading the gun will be carried out automatically. A compartment of spent cases is provided beneath the guns.

All the machines of the mounting will be hydraulically operated, the elevating and training operations being under the control of the E.M.V. R.P.40 system.

(Drawing No. N.44273, side view)
 
(front view)
Source:
DS.VA/6/25/15/14

Plan S

The following is a translated summary of a Dutch book from around 1937.

The author noted that the defence is a task of everyone. And that in the past naval officers debated in the open. This didn’t convince anyone, but gave detractors fuel for their arguments. Fortunately this practice has almost ended. But sadly those that don’t let themselves be heard get suppressed. That’s why we want a fleetplan from the navy. But the navy doesn’t come with one. Why?
    The navy has since 1813 needed to ask, not demand - answering to a minister of the navy that as chief of personnel never been further than a desk. They only ask for what 100% would be supplied. At all but one point in the many years has the position been taken by someone outside of the navy. At the moment, when we expect extensive propaganda, we see very little. Only in a “Onze Vloot” do we see that with due haste we need to expand our baseline, lest we no longer need to worry about the colonial budget. Yet, with the threat so great, where is the fleetplan?
    It is often thought that only expanding the army can suffice for defence plans. An understandable sentiment when looking at our eastern neighbours. One thinks of acquiring a few artillery pieces, but then forget that thousands and thousands of items that need to be supplied overseas.

A country needs to supply its resources. All the more in wartime. Even the US, with all its vast resources, noted 21 types of resources which they absolutely need for warfare. Without a naval force, Jhr Schorer notes, we get immediately choked. Two things are certain. We won’t start looking for fights. And it’s inconceivable the whole world turns on us. Possibly, nobody comes to our aid. But even in the worst case not everyone will be enemies. And we need to prepare for such eventually. To escort our convoys, we need 5 cruisers of around 15.000 tons with a cadre of smaller material.

The East Indies consist of densely populated areas but also sparsely populated areas, which without supply lines are incapable of stationing a modern army. Only territorial defence is possible in some of these regions. The best defence has always been the offence. It is unthinkable to let the enemy unleash its horrors upon our own territory. For this a mobile fulcrum is needed to support aggressive actions. Hence why 5 battleships are needed. 5 because there will always be one in maintenance and four makes a squadron.

Without any battleships, the enemy can rest easy in their attack knowing we have none. But with a battleship, we can with a single hit incur such damage that is fatal for an enemy far from home. Peculiarly, battleships are the cheapest. Airplanes have a life expectancy of hours, battleships of years.
    Furthermore, only the battleship can effectively fight other battleships. To destroy one battleship, the enemy has to send two. To destroy the squadron of Spee at the start of the war the allies had to send no less than 30 ships, a 6 fold force majeur. Fortunately, the Dutch shipbuilding industry is sufficiently equipped to lay down 3 battleships at the time


The empire of the Netherlands is a giant ABC-triangle. Amsterdam, Batavia, Curaçao. The communication between those needs to be maintained. To this end in peacetime there needs to be a force that can protect the waters of west indies and convoy the connection lines to the rest. Currently the west is unprotected as an apple ripe for the taking. Considering they participate in spending on our defence is it not fair for them to be protected as well? There needs to be a permanent squadron of 4 cruisers of 10.000 tons. Of course with 1 reserve ship and cadring of ten destroyers and primarily submarines and airplanes.
The primary task is protection of the west indies against foreign attacks and secondarily it must protect the merchant traffic between the Netherlands and Netherlands-Indies through the Cape of Good Hope, Cape Horn and Panama Channel. One has to remember a large portion of resources has to come from the Americas, such as Manganese ore.

Summarising:
5 battleships (4 + 1 reserve)
5 cruisers 15.000 tons (4 + 1 reserve)
15 cruisers 10.000 tons or less (12 + 3 reserve)
40 destroyers (32 + 8 reserve)
40 submarines (32 + 8 reserve)
And the needed small material, minelayers, minesweepers, repair ships, motor torpedo boats and no aircraft carriers.

Accounted for every battleship are 2 covering cruisers and 4 destroyers. Everyone knows this is too little, so we’re not trying to be a big naval power. For each heavy cruiser there are 2 destroyers per ship. Furthermore, 40 submarines, the weapon of the weak, are sufficient. To those that wonder why not go for an entirely submarine based fleet, if the submarines are the weapon of the weak? To those I have to explain that no one weapon is a panacea to everything. Secondly, only the battleship has a preventive function.

For the main base in the Netherlands, Den Helder is the prime candidate due to its position and history. The only detriment is communication with the hinterlands, which can be remedied with a good road network. For the East Indies, neither Tandjong Priok nor Soerabaja pose a great location. An ideal base would be difficult, but possible. For the West Indies, no matter how well fortified the islands are made, they can be surrounded and thanks to their size then form a detriment. The best option is a base in Suriname.

S., Nederland=Zeemogenheid, ca. 1937

5.25-inch Mk III - sketch design of mounting with telescopic hoists

5.25-inch Mark III mountings, Elswick Works, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 26th October, 1948 Drawing No. 42294 (horizontal stowage) Drawing No. 4600...