Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Lert

Question about the real life Myoukou and Takao class ships

10 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

22,432
[HINON]
Supertester
18,903 posts
12,435 battles

So, there's this shared feature on Japan's big WWII era cruisers:

wnAJBYg.jpg

#3 turret pointing straight at the superstructure.

Was there a physical disconnect disabling the guns when pointing at the ship's superstructure, or was just on the 'honor system' that the crew just wouldn't fire the guns when the ship itself was in the way?

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
596
[HYDRO]
Members
1,303 posts
3,654 battles

IJN seppuku turret

Jokes aside, I found this thread, though it doesn't answer your question it gives some insight on the logic behind this layout. Personally my bet goes to "honor system"

https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/75964-history-buffs-japanese-cruisers-design-question/

Edited by warheart1992

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,432
[HINON]
Supertester
18,903 posts
12,435 battles

Same with Nelson and the #3 turret and #2 barbette:

YIHLtEL.jpg

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,334 posts
2,683 battles

I can't speak for the Japanese mounts however for the 4.5 inch BD mounts on HMS Renown, there is a fail safe lockout system that will not allow the guns to fire directly ahead at a low enough angle to damage the turret in front or behind the firing gun, however this system was noted to fail at one point. I'd imagine Nelson and Rodney had a similar system. 

 

"On 8 May 1941 while Renown was engaging Italian torpedo bombers, a fail-safe lockout system malfunctioned and her P3 mounting fired into the back of P2 mounting, killing six and wounding twenty-six crewmembers. Angle iron frameworks were erected by the ship's crew around the mountings to prevent a repeat episode. The fail-safe gear was overhauled during a refit at Rosyth later that same year."

WNBR_45-45_mk1_Renown_pic.thumb.jpg.d9125f868c504d15d6c53e216a70f68e.jpg

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,432
[HINON]
Supertester
18,903 posts
12,435 battles
3 minutes ago, Dunk_Master_Flex said:

"On 8 May 1941 while Renown was engaging Italian torpedo bombers, a fail-safe lockout system malfunctioned and her P3 mounting fired into the back of P2 mounting, killing six and wounding twenty-six crewmembers. Angle iron frameworks were erected by the ship's crew around the mountings to prevent a repeat episode. The fail-safe gear was overhauled during a refit at Rosyth later that same year."

Well, that at least establishes that fail-safe equipment exists and was implemented. Makes sense that the primaries would have similar. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
355
[HELLS]
Members
1,684 posts
15,174 battles

The interlocks are on the guns themselves, not on the turrets. The firing pins are locked once the turret reaches 20 degrees abaft the beam to avoid blast damage to the superstructure, ships's boats, and secondary and AA armaments and 30 degrees ahead of the beam to avoid blast damage forward. There are very restricted firing arcs on C turret. The USN's Brooklyn and St-Louis class CLs had the same constraints, as did Rodney and Nelson. The aft locks are moveable in combat to the physical maximum angle capable of clearing the superstructure, secondaries and ship's boats without hitting them, accepting the blast damage incurred. They have been know to fail. Rodney and Nelson both damaged their towers firing on after arcs in combat, but the forward ones are fixed. Close-spaced secondaries and AA guns have the same problems, even with small caliber guns like the RN 4.7 or USN 5-inchers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
391
[WOLF5]
Members
1,489 posts
2,043 battles

I don't know for sure. I do know that the USN Fletcher class DDs had mechanical stops on the 5" to prevent the gun firing and hitting the superstructure when under director control. I would guess that the same thing could be applied to large caliber turrets. Whether the Japanese bothered to install them is another matter, technological innovation wasn't something the IJN was really into (eyesight is totally better than radar).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,551 posts
6,867 battles

Actually even outside of locked positions the blast to the aft on extreme angles on some ships like the Nelson (I think) would risk blowing out the bridge windows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×