Weapons Engineering - Gunnery and Missile Systems

[Pelican]

FROM: Navy General Board


I was going to change gears and tackle another topic since people are complaining that I am focusing on the Bismarck and Yamato classes only (strange since i do not remember the last time I tackled the Yamato class). However, after yesterday's post on the Bismarck class, I got a question in the inbox and thought it would make for a good Q & A question.
Navy General Board Q & A!
"Why was the Bismarck class so heavy? Was it the armor?"
This one is actually kind of interesting.
Take the picture attached to this image. It shows three battleship turrets from the Second World War stacked on top of one another.
From top to bottom:
- A twin 15" turret used on the Revenge, Queen Elizabeth, Renown, Courageous, and Vanguard classes. (There were minor differences between the classes, but the size is similar).
- A twin 15" turret used on the Bismarck class.
- The triple 18.1" turret used on the Yamato class
The twin 15" (38cm) turret used on the German ships are huge, much bigger than their British equivalents. Why is this? Germany opted for greater redundancy. The German turrets had auxiliary rammers and auxiliary shell/propellant hoists to supplement the main mechanisms if they were out of action. This equipment required a much larger turret to carry it all.
This extended well beyond the turrets.
The Bismarck class as a whole had a ton of redundancy built into the design, perhaps too much.
Need only 4,000 kilowatts of power to run the ship? Designers doubled it and the Bismarck class produced over 7,900 kilowatts of power.
Need enough emergency pumps to purge 8,000 tons of seawater in the event of flooding? Designers gave the Bismarck class the capability to purge 16,000 tons per hour.
All the fire control capabilities (directors, stations, cables, etc)? As much as doubled depending on the device.
This is the primary reason for the large size of the Bismarck class ( I dare say the logic applies to the Admiral Hipper class as well, but I will need to research that a bit more). Germany invested considerable tonnage into incorporating extensive system redundancy wherever possible.
Depending on the source, I have seen some authors state that this redundancy cost as much as 5,000 to 12,000 tons.
Overall, the weight of the Bismarck's firepower, armor, and powerplant was more or less in line with other dreadnoughts, it was the superfluous system redundancy that drove the tonnage up.
Was this redundancy needed? Hard to say. There are pros and cons. In certain areas, such as power generation, having backup capability might be nice, but on other areas such as auxiliary hoists /rammers in the main battery turrets, the redundancy is probably overkill.
German Engineering. Its a beautiful, complicated thing.

[Pelican]

Navy Lookout Can confirm the RN has adopted the Flexforce Agile, Small-deflection, Precision (ASP) mounting for the 50 cal gun and will probably be the first navy in the world to deploy it operationally.
This stabilised mount provides up to 30 x increase in accuracy.

Photos at - https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/ ... 1420551170

[Pelican]

This is what missiles robbed us from.

On the left a 4crh (calibre radius head) armour piercing round for an 18-inch gun. In the middle a 8crh high explosive shell.
To the right the 6 charges of propellant used to fire them.

[Pelican]

" It's been a while since I have received a question that I had to really dig around to find an answer to. I was pleasantly surprised to find the following question in the Facebook Mailbox:
"What made the Royal Navy move away from the 30mm Goalkeeper CIWS and to the 20mm Phalanx CIWS?"
This question was actually a bit tricky. I found a lot of "claims" about issues with the Goalkeeper in service and a few small benefits to the Phalanx, but nothing truly definitive. Most were instances of "I heard it from a guy in the navy."
Having failed to find an answer in the development and use of the Goalkeeper, I tried looking for answers in the Phalanx camp. Here, I found some information about programs to develop successors to the original Phalanx design.
It turns out that in the late 1980s, early 1990s the US Navy began working on what I can only describe as the big brother to the Phalanx. While the Phalanx uses a six-barreled 20mm gatling gun, the new variant was to utilize an eight-barreled 35mm gatling gun. This new Phalanx was also designed by General Electric and would have utilized cased telescoped ammunition. The rate of fire was to be roughly 8,000 rpm with a muzzle velocity of 1,130 m/s (3707fps). In comparison, a 20mm Phalanx fires at 3,000 rpm while the improved Block 1 design which was entering service at the time was reaching 4,500 rpm. Both achieve a muzzle velocity of 1,100 m/s (3600fps). A drawing of the 35mm Phalanx is included below.
So where does the Royal Navy and the Goalkeeper fit into this?
When the US Navy began showing off the concept for the new Phalanx in 1990/1991, they also had to secure funding to continue development. This was the post-Cold War years when defense spending tumbled. The United States Congress was concerned about the costs associated with developing such a radical weapon system. They instead asked about compromise designs that would be more powerful than the current Phalanx but cheaper. One of the compromises was whether the US Navy could potentially utilize the 30mm Goalkeeper system.
Now the United States Navy did agree to conduct a series of tests that compared the performance of the 20mm Phalanx and the 30mm Goalkeeper. It just so happens that the Royal Navy was also interested to see what the results of the tests would be and joined the testing process.
Surprisingly, it was found that the Goalkeeper offered no real advantage over the Phalanx. The Goalkeeper was found to be equivalent to the Phalanx when engaging sub-sonic targets and inferior when engaging super-sonic targets. Apparently, it all stemmed from the Phalanx being a more "accurate" weapon system.
This testing must have been the driving force that saw the Royal Navy move away from the Goalkeeper system. Future Royal Navy ships began to carry the Phalanx system. Older ships equipped with the Goalkeeper system were either scrapped or had them replaced with Phalanx weapons during refit (Albion Class).
So if the Goalkeeper system was no better than the Phalanx system, why would the Royal Navy use a heavier, more expensive system? Knowing the Phalanx system was equal to, if not better than the Goalkeeper system means the Royal Navy could make use of a better system with a far smaller deck footprint. "

Source: FB Group Navy General Board

[ivorthediver]

Very interesting Facts shown there David .........