The Dreadnought Project Forum Index The Dreadnought Project
Naval History in the years 1890-1920
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Reg1sterReg1ster 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

American Battleships Great War Era
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Dreadnought Project Forum Index -> Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
emurphyscript



Joined: 30 Jul 2012
Posts: 18
Location: Central Coast California

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:54 pm    Post subject: AP Projectives of the Pre Treaty Great War Period Reply with quote

Mark D and perhaps other folks...there seems to be disparate information on the true armor piercing capabilities of various nations' shells, as well as fuse type and reliability, etc.

I have read that US 14 inch AP shells did not have timed fuses..impact only..had no separate AP caps and tended to shatter and not penetrate..of this time period.

But the British shells had timed fuses...so did the Germans...their shells did penetrate but had no AP caps? But lots of duds due to fuse malfunction?? This happened at Jutland?

Any study of this using actual ammo on armor from these times...or any article that puts together finding from various sources?

Thanks to all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MarkD



Joined: 25 Sep 2006
Posts: 63

PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 7:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've looked through some of my sources and haven't found a clear answer yet. It seems that the general belief in the US was that contact fuses were more reliable and were better for AP, but I haven't seen any supporting test data.

I'm sure that info is out there, but finding it may be another thing!

MD
_________________
Ship's Historian. USS King (DLG-10/DDG-41) Association
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
emurphyscript



Joined: 30 Jul 2012
Posts: 18
Location: Central Coast California

PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2012 4:01 pm    Post subject: Perhaps we should both author a new Topic Reply with quote

MarkD we could give it a name such as:

BATTLESHIP AMMO

The real story of the AP.

Ballistics simplified. What worked well and not so well.

The lessons and results of Tushima, Jutland, Surigao.

From the dawn of the modern battleship weapon to its sunset.

In this series of researched comments, it will become apparent that just because you can hit something, it does not necessarily you can damage it.

The study of the guns and related mechanisms is all around us and here on the Dreadnought site we have superb commentary and research. They mysteries of fire control is quite an immense subject that Tone has handled so well.

NavWeapons also has some great stuff.

We can get hard data like range and weight of ammo..but how well did the Ammo work on the intended target?

The APs of 1904 were not the APs of 1914 or 24 or 34 or 44.

Why and what happened? I am not even going to look at HEs.

The number one job of the main battery: Destroy the enemy battleship.

Let's find out the real story of the ammo...for various nations, navies and their guns.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
paul cockshott



Joined: 02 Nov 2012
Posts: 5
Location: Clydeside

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 9:30 am    Post subject: Re: Consideration of the Most Advanced Battleship Design 192 Reply with quote

Quote:

Here is a challenge to all of us in the community...at a quoted 80,000 shaft horsepower, was the Negato the most powerful coal fired steam powered ship ever built...warship or merchantman?? of all time?

I think so.

I believe HMS Tiger had 100,000 shp
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
emurphyscript



Joined: 30 Jul 2012
Posts: 18
Location: Central Coast California

PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 3:22 pm    Post subject: Regarding the HMS Tiger as the most powerful coal fired ship Reply with quote

You may be very correct.

Some sources say she had a design shp of 85,000 and about 105,000 on the overrun. The Negato I found had mixed fuel...cruising on the coal boilers..then she added in her oil fired boilers to go full speed.

Tiger was total coal...so on that basis we may have the real winner of the big bad coal ships.

That exceeds any data I have found about Negato...and it seems it exceeds any shp of any ship of any kind including Ocean Liners that were coal fired..I think the HAPAG Vaterland..aka Leviathan and two sisters had some 60,000 shp coal fired and know of no other coal only liner that exceeded the 60s. ( Leviathan was converted to oil in the USA after WW1)

So Tiger may be it. How many stokers were on a full speed run to keep all those hungry boilers fed ?

Sorry for the message delay...work demands.

Thanks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Dreadnought Project Forum Index -> Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group