|
Post by marcussmythe on Jul 8, 2016 12:45:19 GMT -6
Wait...No secondary flash fires?... I SWEAR I have seen it occur...Maybe I'm misremembering... My understanding, based on reports from others, is that flash fires are possible in secondary mounts of 7" or more, and will not occur (or occur so rarely as to be a non-issue) with smaller mounts.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Jul 8, 2016 13:11:35 GMT -6
Secondary flash fires are extremely rare for 6inch and lower secondaries but increasingly probable the larger the secondary gun calibre. But I have seen 6inch seondary flash fires. Wait...No secondary flash fires?... I SWEAR I have seen it occur...Maybe I'm misremembering...
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Jul 8, 2016 14:45:18 GMT -6
Wait...No secondary flash fires?... I SWEAR I have seen it occur...Maybe I'm misremembering... They happen often, mostly to AI ships. Because of the AI's preference for large secondaries, coupled with weak armor on them, you usually get a few colossal BBs blowing up from a 8-9" secondary battery detonation.
|
|
chz
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by chz on Jul 9, 2016 2:51:01 GMT -6
It does seem nearly impossible to blow a ship sky-high through hits on turrets (or casemates) under 7 inches. On B/BB/BCs at least; I'm sure I've seen cruisers vanish in the blink of an eye. That's all notwithstanding the probable cause of Hood's demise.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jul 9, 2016 6:26:19 GMT -6
I had a flash fire on a 3kt CL with 4" guns several times already. (and always on mine, I might add) I'm just happy it wasn't on a CA or BC ...
|
|
|
Post by admiral on Jul 9, 2016 12:42:25 GMT -6
Wait...No secondary flash fires?... I SWEAR I have seen it occur...Maybe I'm misremembering... Actually there are secondary flash fires. Sorry. It was I who misremembered. Just yesterday, The Most Gloriously Overgunned CA Ever Made blew up not so gloriously because one of its poorly armored secondaries blew up.
|
|
|
Post by thatzenoguy on Jul 9, 2016 19:52:56 GMT -6
Hmm, wonder what would happen if they made shell racks ALL equally explosive, but with different levels of damage...
I mean, no duh that 200 rounds of 18 inch will be more explosive than 1000 rounds of 3 inch DD pelters...
Also, HE explodes more than AP...
Edit: Well, just learned the forum has a word filter, haha! ;P
|
|
|
Post by admiral on Jul 9, 2016 21:28:09 GMT -6
Hmm, wonder what would happen if they made shell racks ALL equally explosive, but with different levels of damage... I mean, no duh that 200 rounds of 18 inch will be more explosive than 1000 rounds of 3 inch DD pelters... Also, HE explodes more than AP... Edit: Well, just learned the forum has a word filter, haha! ;P I know for sure I've never had a tertiary battery explosion, if that's relevant. Also, keep in mind that the ship in question had 9-inch secondary (see Most Gloriously Overgunned etc etc) guns. Maybe flash fires can only happen to guns above a certain caliber, otherwise they just simply get knocked out.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jul 9, 2016 22:27:26 GMT -6
Hmm, wonder what would happen if they made shell racks ALL equally explosive, but with different levels of damage... I mean, no duh that 200 rounds of 18 inch will be more explosive than 1000 rounds of 3 inch DD pelters... Also, HE explodes more than AP... Edit: Well, just learned the forum has a word filter, haha! ;P The powder magazine is usually the real culprit right? Shell type shouldn't matter that much. I would think it would be difficult to get the shells themselves to explode seeing as they are designed to survive the heat and shock of being fired. Not impossible of course but difficult. But you are right that the powder magazine for an 18" gun would be much more catastrophic than a 5" secondary magazine.
|
|
|
Post by thatzenoguy on Jul 9, 2016 23:58:48 GMT -6
The powder magazine is usually the real culprit right? Shell type shouldn't matter that much. I would think it would be difficult to get the shells themselves to explode seeing as they are designed to survive the heat and shock of being fired. Not impossible of course but difficult. But you are right that the powder magazine for an 18" gun would be much more catastrophic than a 5" secondary magazine. Well, its only logical that HE shells explode more violently. But yeah, AP also explodes inside of ships... Powder is indeed the real culprit, but even then, bigger shells=more powder... ;D The shells would explode from a penetrating hit though, I'd think. Really depends on the tech of the shells, 1925 shells would be more stable than early HE fillers.
|
|
|
Post by director on Jul 10, 2016 0:15:19 GMT -6
As I understand it, the battlecruiser explosions at Jutland were caused by propellant cooking off, which created an 'explosive' release of gas. This may or may not have set off some of the shells as a detonator would; my understanding is that unexploded shells have been seen in and around the wrecks which would indicate that most of them did not go off.
British cordite was made with petroleum jelly (to lubricate the gun barrels) and was prone to explode (instead of just burning like German cordite) when set afire.
Several ships - Italian Leonardo Da Vinci, Japanese Mutsu - were lost to internal explosions that were probably caused by cordite explosions.
At least one (thought to be the Japanese BC Kirishima) blew up after sinking. Upending or rolling over may have dislodged shells in the magazine, and the fall set off their detonators. Yamato and Mutsu may have suffered the same fate, but the death of a battleship in battle is complicated and the fewer surviving senior officers there are, the harder it is to put the causes and final minutes into context.
Despite exhaustive attempts we still do not really know what sank Hood, how Bismarck went down, why Kirishima exploded, or even what happened to Hiei, whose wreck has never been found.
|
|
|
Post by marcorossolini on Jul 10, 2016 0:45:24 GMT -6
Memory tells me at least one of the battlecruisers lost at Jutland were lost through a secondary flashfire... But it being my memory...
|
|
|
Post by thatzenoguy on Jul 10, 2016 3:51:52 GMT -6
we still do not really know what sank Hood, how Bismarck went down I beg to differ... Hood blew up from a magazine explosion, what caused it is likely a 15 inch shell hitting in a very lucky area. Bismark suffered damage which made it lose fuel, and afterwards, a jammed rudder from torps. It was then shot at by multiple ships, which rendered it a motionless hulk. Regardless, the ship was going to sink, already it's deck was nearing the water, and it finally sunk, possibly aided by scuttling.
|
|
|
Post by stlukifer on Jul 10, 2016 8:53:48 GMT -6
The leading theory, I believe, is that unlike the BCs at Jutland which suffered magazine explosions due to turret flash fires reaching the magazines, the magazines supplying Hood's 4in AA guns suffered a violent deflagration due to a hit from Bismarck's main armament; said explosion breached the bulkhead between the 4-inch and 15-inch magazines, and... well, you know how that song ends.
|
|
|
Post by director on Jul 10, 2016 12:09:03 GMT -6
We do know that a magazine exploded on Hood - and likely more than one - but we do not know why. There is a disconnect between the reported shell hits and observed misses, at least one 15" shell that was never seen to hit or miss (likely went over, but there is no proof) and no proof as to whether it was a main or secondary magazine that went up first. So we do not know exactly why Hood sank - as opposed to, say, Tirpitz or Conte di Cavour.
There have been a lot of theories about Hood, ranging from her UP-AA rockets to the 4" shell hoists to a stray plunging 8" shell from Prinz Eugen to a 'magic bullet' 15" that is supposed to have come in over the top of the armored belt at a steep angle and hit the 4" magazines. No-one who survived can tell us and the wreck only shows that a main magazine went up - not why. There has been a lot of study and some likely postulates, but we are just never going to know the exact sequence.
We do not know whether British torpedoes did any damage to Bismarck's watertight integrity, and from an examination of the wreck it does not appear that more than one major caliber shell penetrated her armor belt or beneath it. We do have reports that her seacocks were opened in order to scuttle the ship, but no idea if that was sufficient to take her down so quickly. So we do not know the exact causes and procedures of her sinking, and given that the hull is buried in mud at least up to her water-line it seems unlikely that we ever will. Damage above her armored decks would have admitted some water and brought her lower, but was 'probably' not sufficient to sink her. You'd need to let water in beneath the armored deck - and they did try to scuttle her - but did the torpedoes hurry her demise? We do not - and probably never will - know.
There is some certainty about how ships like Royal Oak, Arizona, Oklahoma and Tirpitz went down - they were in waters where they could be examined. Ships lost in battle on the high seas - especially those whose casualty-count is high - are more mysterious.
|
|