Guns vs naval armour in ww1

[delcyros]

Preliminary note:


I have been submerged for a while now and am now going to finish my study on major calibre impacts of naval guns versus naval armour (capital ship armour) in ww1.
Some of the results encountered have surprised me, so I will give only brief and preliminary notes at this time.


Sources:

Note that no attempts are made to deal with primary sources first hand. Altough I would be more than happy to get my hands on original docs!

Literature:
My primary source for this study is the comprehensive work of J. Campbell, Jutland. An analysis of the fighting. This work thoroughly goes through hit after hit in the major battle of Jutland. I also used other works (Sumida, Jones, Lambert, Massie, Marder) to complement informations gained by Campbell, esspeccially for non Jutland Combats.

Actions covered:
Falklands, Doggerbank, Jutland, Dardanelles, Black Sea engagements. For comparative reasons, I also included the post war firing trials on SMS BADEN with the improved APC shells.


Statistical background:
All in all over 400 major calibre impacts have been analysed for drawing conclusions. Statistical investigations are based on the statistical package of the social sciences (SPSS).


Intention of the study:
My primary intention of this study will be composed of the following aims:
A) Probability of hitting different parts of an ship. For saying so, I have run around comments like:

"...armour belts were virtually never hit in ww1 and ww2..." -Nathan Okun
or
"...deck armour is more important because the number of hits on armour belts are negliable" -I. Charles.

while reading these comments, I naturally asked myselfe (and the commentators) on what sources and statistics these comments are based on. I have never got any other answer than authoritative comments (...he said so), nor could I get statisfying informations in the books aviable on the matter. I believe, this justifies an investigation of this very question in detail with the help provided by the aforementioned authors and the sound statistical services provided by SPSS.

B) Relative performance of penetration from APC, CPC and base fuzed HE-rounds on their respective target plates. These are "REAL WORLD" -results, not the prooving ground results known from other studies. If a projectile pierces in a condition fit to burst a plate installed as it was on the ships structure, this is a very serious issue.

C) Stability of the filler to rapid deceleration.



I also would like to encourage as many as possible to comment and contribute to the problems outlined above. I run this thread in order to cover multiple problems associated with the big ´ol guns. From time to time I will submit results, starting with A) next week.

best reagrds,
delc

[timshatz]

Definitely looking forward to your study delc. Think it will be most interesting. Especially the comments about deck armor being far more important than side armor. If your study confirms that perspective, it would give a whole new outlook to how warships SHOULD have been made.

Just briefly, it seems that side armor thickness is more of a throwback to the ways battles were fought in the previous century than a conscience design perspective. Designers built warships for fighting at 5,000 yards (or less) and the engagements ended up being fought at 10,000+ yards. Flat fire became irrelivent and plunging fire the threat.

Looking forward to it.

[renrich]

Del. I too am looking forward to your analysis. Tim raised an important factor about the fast moving trend toward gunfire at long ranges with plunging fire. A little like the revolution that needed to take place in infantry tactics with the advent of the rifled musket and Minie ball and the attendent increase in effective range.

[Glider]

Count me in. I admit that I was surprised by the comments on deck armour if only because most of the guns had limited elevation and the rangfinders were such that ranges were limited.

I look forward to it.

[parsifal]

Campbell has written an exhaustive book on Naval weaopons of WWII. There are also some good general refernces for WWII in the 1944-5 Janes, and the Conways series. There is some discussion in the books about immune zones, which seems to indicate to me that deck hits became the predominant hit as the range increased, due to plunging fire. The protective zone appears to be the zone where the main belt is the major point of impact. and is expressed as a maximum and a mi9nimum. Below the minimum, the shell doing the hitting is assumed to be penetrating the belt.

I dont know much about WWI, except that engagement ranges appear to be generally less than those of WWII, where radar and better optics were probably a major factor.

I would be very interested to see the results of your study I do not consider myself any sort of expert in this area, but have some books that may be a help....

I have been thinking about doing a "best BB of WWII" poll. Or has that already been done

[timshatz]

Parsifal, I think it was done. Bismark and North Carolinas came out on top. Not sure though, but I think it was 1941 as the year picked to measure.

[parsifal]

: I thought it might have been. I have a back up suggestion..."Best prewar Battleship. " Would poll refurbished BBs like the Warspite, as well as the interwar construction completed before the outbreak of the war. that way the usual nominees get excluded from the poll, and we might get some intersting results.

All I gotta do is work out how to post new poll and everything will go just fiine

[timshatz]

[QUOTE=parsifal;352949]: I thought it might have been. I have a back up suggestion..."Best prewar Battleship. " Would poll refurbished BBs like the Warspite, as well as the interwar construction completed before the outbreak of the war. that way the usual nominees get excluded from the poll, and we might get some intersting results.
QUOTE]


That would be interesting. Have to keep some BBs out of it. Might be better to do it right after the WW1 or in the mid 30s. Keep the newer stuff of rearmament out of it.

[delcyros]

I have had problems with formatting the amount of datas in a form useful for this thread. I decided to submit describtive and analytical parts of statistics. For those who are interested in the datasource pm me and I will be happy to send You the spss-files for further research.

[delcyros]

Here it goes. Part I deals with actions before Jutland. Only capital ship damage is actually considered for which the best datas exist.

I had to seperate these from Jutland because Campbells comprehensive view is much more detailed than most of the descriptions for prior actions.

We start with descriptive statistics and how the samples relate to actions generally:

[delcyros]

...seems to have been a bit to large in size...

We can see that our samplesize is rather limited for actions prior to Jutland. They relate to their mean action distances as can be seen here:

[delcyros]

-the mean distance for all hit´s is not to be misunderstood as true range. Reports for all actions are incomplete and the error in range for each hit, judging from conflicting sources appears to be pretty large for Falkland, the Dardanelles and Black Sea action. The following graph gives the range for each hit in direct comparison to the possible error in range for a more comprehensive overview:

[timshatz]

Very interesting stuff. Some of it reinforces a logical approach (closer the range, the more likely the chance of a hit). However, there is one action that stands out. Doggerbank.

Why?

Is it the number of hits the Blucher took after she slowed and became the main target of the British BCs? Action was opened at extreme range and then worked it's way down due to speed differences. That may explain why the range is as high as it is but not really representative of when the majority of the hits took place.

It would be interesting to go into that further.

[delcyros]

Is it the number of hits the Blucher took after she slowed and became the main target of the British BCs? Action was opened at extreme range and then worked it's way down due to speed differences. That may explain why the range is as high as it is but not really representative of when the majority of the hits took place.

In addition to the selected hits, there have been major calibre hits on Scharnhorst and Gneisenau during Falklands and hits on Blücher on Doggerbank, which I had to reject for the principal reason that no detailed accounts on area of impact and effect of penetration exist. Surviving ships do offer comprehensive post action reports, which I had selected for compiling the informations. That´s why You will later not find information on destroyed britsh ACR´s in the Jutland part of this investigation.

Therefore, the mean distance chart for action is not representative for the action -exactly as You already recognized- but only representative for the selected 44 cases of major calibre impacts, which can be found in the attached SPSS file. Note that I cannot upload it here, I get the error:

ww1-hits-part1.sav invalid file

.

[delcyros]

Some overview over the action before engaging the anaylitcal part of the statistics:

compare:
Campbell 1978: Battlecruisers Warship special 1, Conway Maritime Press (197.


Falklands:
The range was differing between 16,000 to less than 8,000 yards with most of the action taking place at over 12,000 yds. INVINCIBLE fired 128 APC, 259 CPC and 161 HE for a total of 513 rounds while IINFLEXIBLE retruned ammo expendeture figures totalling 661 rounds ( 157 APC, 343 CPC and 161 HE ).
The INVINCIBLE was hit 22 times of which 12 were 8.3in, 6 5.9in and 4 unidentified. There were 11 hits on the deck, 4 on the side armour, 4 on the unarmoured side, 1 on A turret and 1 on the foremast. INFLEXIBLE was hit 3 times with slight damage to the 4in guns on A and X turret.
In return, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were hit for up to 40 times each, the correct number of hits is not recorded and the majority of the hits coming at the final stages of the encounter from closer ranges. There is evidence to suggest that much of the damage to the German ships was caused by hits below the waterline and penetrating the 1in battery roof.

Dardanelles:
INFLEXIBLE took part in the bombardment of the outer forts on 19th and the 25th February, firing 47 CP on the first and 10 CP ( 1 premature ) on the second. She returned to take part in the attack on the inner forts on March 18th. She engaged the forts at between 13,700 - 16,200 yds, the effective Turkish guns which would bear on the ships being 4 x 14in/35, 13 x 9.4in/35, 5 x 5.9in/40 and 32 x 5.9in howitzers. With 4crh shells the 14in could range out to 19,000 yds and the 9.4in to 15,800 yds. The INFLEXIBLE put the 2 x 14in in Rumeli Hamidieh out of action before they had fired a shot, by damage to the loading derrick in one and the traversing mechanism in the other. Only one 9.4in was knocked out by the rest of the fleet.

1) 14in burst close to hull port side aft driving in the plating for 33ft about 6ft below the waterline along the line of the armour deck, some compartments flooded giving a slight list to port. In return she ws hit six times:

1) 14in burst close to hull port side aft driving in the plating for 33ft about 6ft below the waterline along the line of the armour deck, some compartments flooded giving a slight list to port.

2) 9.4in burst on side above armour hole some 2ft diameter

3) 9.4in hit foremast at level of flying bridge causing fire which destroyed foretop fire control.

4) 5.9in howitzer hit left gun P turret, gun was considered out of action by cracks 17ft from muzzle.

5) 4in howitzer shell hit signalling yard, burst on foretop roof, nealy all complement casualties.

6) I small shell with minor damage, also minor splinter damage from 3 shrapnel bursts

In addition to these Inflexible also hit a mine, part of a field of 26 176lb Carbonite mines laid by the steamer Nusret. It exploded on the starboard bow by the after end of the fore torpedo flat just forward of A turret and at platform deck level 17ft above the keel. It made a hole 15ft x 15ft with damage extending along to a length of 36ft. The starboard side of the torpedo flat and the compartments below it were completely wrecked, and a locker of calcium phosphide Holme's lights caught fire. All 27 crew in the torpedo flat were killed, electirc light failed, ventilating fans stopped. The armour deck and magazine screen bulkhead in A turret prevented damage to the shell and magazine spaces, but water did enter the forward shell room and magazine, and later the lower conning tower. She shipped about 1600 tons of flood water.

Crimea

On the 18th Nov. 1914 GOEBEN encountered the Russian Black Sea fleet of 5 pre-dreadnoughts. In an action of scarcely 10 min at a range of 7-8,000 yds in fog she expended 19 x 11in APC and made 4 hits on the EVSTAFIJ (from which no detailed reports survived), and was hit once, by a 12in nose fused black powder filled shell, which holed the 6in armour of no. 3 port 5.9in and ignited 16 cartridges, gas smoke and flame entered the magazine but no charges caught fire.

Black Sea

This time in good visibility, GOEBEN engaged EVSATFIJ again for 22 mins. at ranges of 17,500 to 16,000 but made no hits. She was hit 3 times in return:

1) 12in far forward on forecastle deck

2) 12in on belt armour which sent up a water splash putting no. 2 port 5.9in out of action

3) One on net casing so nets hung down

The russian Pre Dreadnought was firing APC. It should be noted that russian APC projectiles by then were of a hard capped, delay fuzed type.