Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
WW2_Iron_Duke

BRITISH BL15 inch guns

14 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

27
[-DOG-]
[-DOG-]
Members
37 posts
3,011 battles

This 15 inch main gun was the British go to ,for Battleshipsand shouldnt feel so different on each ship they are on .The BL 15-inch Mark I succeeded the BL 13.5 inch /45 naval gun. It was the first British 15-inch (381 mm) gun design and the most widely used and longest lasting of any British designs, and arguably the most efficient heavy gun ever developed by the Royal Navy. It was deployed on capital ships from 1915 until 1959, and was a key Royal Navy gun in both World Wars.In World War II the gun was responsible for the longest range shell-hit ever scored by one battleship on another in combat. At the Battle of Calabria on 9 July 1940, HMS Warspitegained a hit on the Italian battleship Giulio Cesare with her first salvo at 26,400 yards (24,100 m).[8]

These guns were used on several classes of battleships from 1915 until HMS Vanguard, the last battleship to be built for the Royal Navy, completed in 1946.

Warships armed with the BL 15 inch Mark I gun:

  • Queen Elizabeth-class battleships (Five ships with eight guns each – 3 ships converted to Mk I (N))
  • Revenge-class battleships (Five ships with eight guns each)
  • Renown-class battlecruisers (Two ships with six guns each – 1 ship converted to Mk I (N))
  • HMS Hood - battlecruiser (Eight guns, Mk II mounting)
  • Courageous-class battlecruisers (Two ships with four guns each)
  • Erebus-class monitors (Two ships with two guns each)
  • Marshal Ney-class monitors (Two ships with two guns each)
  • Roberts-class monitors (Two ships with two guns each)
  • HMS Vanguard - battleship (Eight guns in mountings taken from Courageous and Glorious converted to Mk I (N), with additional armour, designated: Mk I (N) RP12). The turret supports were designed to withstand supercharge firings.[9]

Taken from Wikipedia 

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LHG]
Members
1,653 posts
4,926 battles
11 minutes ago, WW2_Iron_Duke said:

This 15 inch main gun was the British go to ,for Battleshipsand shouldnt feel so different on each ship they are on .The BL 15-inch Mark I succeeded the BL 13.5 inch /45 naval gun. It was the first British 15-inch (381 mm) gun design and the most widely used and longest lasting of any British designs, and arguably the most efficient heavy gun ever developed by the Royal Navy. It was deployed on capital ships from 1915 until 1959, and was a key Royal Navy gun in both World Wars.In World War II the gun was responsible for the longest range shell-hit ever scored by one battleship on another in combat. At the Battle of Calabria on 9 July 1940, HMS Warspitegained a hit on the Italian battleship Giulio Cesare with her first salvo at 26,400 yards (24,100 m).[8]

These guns were used on several classes of battleships from 1915 until HMS Vanguard, the last battleship to be built for the Royal Navy, completed in 1946.

Warships armed with the BL 15 inch Mark I gun:

  • Queen Elizabeth-class battleships (Five ships with eight guns each – 3 ships converted to Mk I (N))
  • Revenge-class battleships (Five ships with eight guns each)
  • Renown-class battlecruisers (Two ships with six guns each – 1 ship converted to Mk I (N))
  • HMS Hood - battlecruiser (Eight guns, Mk II mounting)
  • Courageous-class battlecruisers (Two ships with four guns each)
  • Erebus-class monitors (Two ships with two guns each)
  • Marshal Ney-class monitors (Two ships with two guns each)
  • Roberts-class monitors (Two ships with two guns each)
  • HMS Vanguard - battleship (Eight guns in mountings taken from Courageous and Glorious converted to Mk I (N), with additional armour, designated: Mk I (N) RP12). The turret supports were designed to withstand supercharge firings.[9]

Taken from Wikipedia 

Well, yes the BL (Breach Loading) 15 inch was a very good gun and one of the best guns to come out of WW I.  It survived as the primary heavy gun for the Royal Navy for many years by the simple expedient of the Washington Naval Treaty not really allowing the UK or any other major power to build new battleships with new guns until the mid part of the 1930's.  

When the UK gained the opportunity to build new battleships again, they argued and negotiated hard to have guns on new battleships limited to 14 inch guns by the follow on London naval treaty and on the expectation that that treaty would be accepted and effective they designed their next series of battleships to use a new and more powerful 14 inch weapon. 

While an impressive gun in 1914, the BL 15 inch Mk I was beginning to show it's age a bit by 1931 and, while still effective, was outclassed by the German 38 cm SK C/34 and the Italian Cannone da 381/50 Ansaldo M1934 which were more modern and effective weapons not to mention the US 16 inch and the Japanese 18 inch weapons deployed on their modern battleship construction. 

The only ships which use this weapon currently in WOWS are the Warspite, Hood and the Queen Elizabeth.  Warspite's guns are probably a more accurate depiction of the weapon's actual performance and are similar to Hoods, but with their exception, most of the remainder of the British battleship like is built around gimmicks more than reality so the performance of Queen Elizabeth's main battery reflects that. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,804
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
16,121 posts
14,519 battles

So what's the point of this post?  To show the RN used these WWI era weapons longer than they would have liked?

 

My understanding, is if the RN had it's way, would have liked to get these 406mm guns on the never constructed Lion-class.  But lots of things curbed that venture.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
835
[ICE9]
Members
834 posts
11 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

My understanding, is if the RN had it's way, would have liked to get these 406mm guns on the never constructed Lion-class.  But lots of things curbed that venture.

Pretty much. The only reason Vanguard was completed at all was because they had the guns from the Glorious and Courageous CV conversions sitting around.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
975
Members
4,555 posts
6,479 battles
14 minutes ago, Doombeagle said:

So, this thread is for the posting of random stuff from Wikipedia?

Looks like it in part.  SO WHAT?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
336
[BNKR]
Members
710 posts
713 battles
45 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

So what's the point of this post?  To show the RN used these WWI era weapons longer than they would have liked?

 

My understanding, is if the RN had it's way, would have liked to get these 406mm guns on the never constructed Lion-class.  But lots of things curbed that venture.

Quit linking Navweaps. I end up losing at least an hour of my life every time I go there.

  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,409
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,258 posts
2,029 battles
48 minutes ago, WW2_Iron_Duke said:

In World War II the gun was responsible for the longest range shell-hit ever scored by one battleship on another in combat. At the Battle of Calabria on 9 July 1940, HMS Warspitegained a hit on the Italian battleship Giulio Cesare with her first salvo at 26,400 yards (24,100 m).[8]

This is incorrect.

Range was 26000 yards just about, not over. Scharnhorst's hit on Glorious was 26,400 yards. Also, it was far from the first salvo that the hit was landed on - in fact it was Warspite's last before she began her turn.

Her first salvoes were at 15.25, aimed at the scout cruisers of 4ª Div, and she fired ten salvoes in the span of four and a half minutes.The she turned away, completing a 360º turn to allow the slower RN battleships to catch up, firing another 6 salvoes at the same cruisers from 15.34 to 15.36. The British cruisers drew away and 8ª Div broke off engaging them (now far ahead of any other Italian ships) and retreated back to the the Italian line, and action recommenced when 5ª Div (the Italian battleships) came into range, Cesare opening fire on Warspite at 15.52 at a range just under 29000 yards, while Cavour engaged Malaya.

Warpsite returned fire at 15.53, at a range of about 26000 yards, plating her fire between the two Italian battleships (the other British battleships, too slow and without the range, could not engage). The Italian heavy crullers of 1ª and 3ª Div move to engage, but could not due to the losing British cruisers - Trento fired three salvoes at Warspite from 28000 yards at 15.55, but at 15.58 the cruisers began their engagement. Cesare fired deliberately, but her initial salvoes were over, damaging British destroyers beyond the British battleship. However, accuracy rapidly improved, straddling Warspite at 15.56, with Trento's shots landing close as well. Another 320mm salvo dropped a few hundred meters off Warspite's port bow at 15.59, and at 1600 she had been bracketed by Cesare's salvoes. At about the same time, Warpsite straddled, having been firing short previously. Fretting about Italian salvoes falling to close, Warspite fired her last salvo at 16.04 from her No.3 turret, her 17th salvo, and then altered course to port and dropped speed to 17 knots in order to shake Italian fire. Just after 16.00, a 381mm APC shell struck the aft funnel of the Giulio Cesare, the fuse detonating early, blasting a hole in the funnel, and the nose of the 879 kg shell continued on to land in a 37mm magazine, causing an explosion in the ammunition stored there (plus fires elsewhere from other shrapnel). Although actual damage was light, ventilators had sucked fumes into several boiler rooms, causing them to be evacuated. With half her boilers being taken offline, electrical power went offline for about 30 seconds, and speed fell first to 20 knots by 16.02, and then down to 18 knots at 16.03. Unsure of the level of damage, the Italian admiral ordered the Battleships to disengage, with the Italian heavy cruisers covering the retreat, sparring with the British cruisers while others, such as Zara, engaged the Warspite

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,198
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,810 posts
10,333 battles
Just now, Phoenix_jz said:

This is incorrect.

Range was 26000 yards just about, not over. Scharnhorst's hit on Glorious was 26,400 yards.

Ah, the claim is 'by one battleship on another' though and Glorious is a carrier. Technically it's correct.

1 hour ago, WW2_Iron_Duke said:

This 15 inch main gun was the British go to, for Battleships and shouldn't feel so different on each ship they are on.

Unless I'm mistaken the BL 15in Mk. 1 is in use on 3 ships in game, with a 4th pending. Queen Elizabeth, Warspite, Hood and Vanguard pending. The Monarch has the 15in/45 Mk. III gun.

These weapon systems are a little different it's true:

  • QE and Vanguard will get 2.5'/s traverse, Warspite 3.3'/s and Hood 5'/s.
  • Warspite gets 372mm of penetration at 15km, the Hood and QE both get 351mm. Vanguard isn't released yet but with supercharges will do better. That's reasonable.
  • Hood gets improved autobounce angles - 67.5' vs. 60' on all the others.
  • Hood and QE have short 0.015s fuses. Warspite and Vanguard get 0.033s which is standard.

Are these a bit too different? I think so to be honest. If it were up to me I'd standardize the penetration at Warspite's level on QE, Hood and obviously Warspite. Vanguard having better penetration thanks to supercharges is entirely sensible. The short fuses are part of the RN BB line, so it's hard to just get rid of (my preferred solution).  Overall that would be a moderate buff on Hood and QE, but both of them are bad - so that's ok. Hood did have older shells than Warspite, which makes some sense but none for QE. Can it all.

I would standardize the traverse at two levels, I would up it on QE to 3.3'/s in line with Warspite, and I'd give Vanguard 5'/s in line with Hood. There's still separation, but only 2 instead of 3 settings.

Overall, a bit of difference with 'the same gun' is pretty reasonable. The same USN 5in/38 goes from 15 RPM on Nicholas/Farragut/Mahan to 18 RPM on Sims/Benson/Farragut to 20 RPM on Gearing. Through that traverse changes too. All pretty sensible given they were in different mountings. Similarly the IJN's 8in/50 3rd Year bounces in ROF from 4 to 5.5 to 4 and also in traverse, though the stats otherwise stay the same.

 

I do think it was a mistake to mess around with autobounce angles and fuses, though less so with traverse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,409
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,258 posts
2,029 battles
1 hour ago, mofton said:

Ah, the claim is 'by one battleship on another' though and Glorious is a carrier. Technically it's correct.

I wasn't questioning the mention of the hit - just the desired range, not to mention the claim that it was on the first salvo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,804
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
16,121 posts
14,519 battles
2 hours ago, RagingxMarmoset said:

Quit linking Navweaps. I end up losing at least an hour of my life every time I go there.

Fascinating reading in there at times :Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
147
Members
710 posts
2 hours ago, Phoenix_jz said:

Her first salvoes were at 15.25, aimed at the scout cruisers of 4ª Div, and she fired ten salvoes in the span of four and a half minutes.The she turned away, completing a 360º turn to allow the slower RN battleships to catch up, firing another 6 salvoes at the same cruisers from 15.34 to 15.36. The British cruisers drew away and 8ª Div broke off engaging them (now far ahead of any other Italian ships) and retreated back to the the Italian line, and action recommenced when 5ª Div (the Italian battleships) came into range, Cesare opening fire on Warspite at  at a range just under 29000 yards, while Cavour engaged Malaya.

Warpsite returned fire at 15.53, at a range of about 26000 yards, plating her fire between the two Italian battleships (the other British battleships, too slow and without the range, could not engage). The Italian heavy crullers of 1ª and 3ª Div move to engage, but could not due to the losing British cruisers - Trento fired three salvoes at Warspite from 28000 yards at 15.55, but at 15.58 the cruisers began their engagement. Cesare fired deliberately, but her initial salvoes were over, damaging British destroyers beyond the British battleship. However, accuracy rapidly improved, straddling Warspite at 15.56, with Trento's shots landing close as well. Another 320mm salvo dropped a few hundred meters off Warspite's port bow at 15.59, and at 1600 she had been bracketed by Cesare's salvoes. At about the same time, Warpsite straddled, having been firing short previously. Fretting about Italian salvoes falling to close, Warspite fired her last salvo at 16.04 from her No.3 turret, her 17th salvo, and then altered course to port and dropped speed to 17 knots in order to shake Italian fire. Just after 16.00, a 381mm APC shell struck the aft funnel of the Giulio Cesare, the fuse detonating early, blasting a hole in the funnel, and the nose of the 879 kg shell continued on to land in a 37mm magazine, causing an explosion in the ammunition stored there (plus fires elsewhere from other shrapnel). Although actual damage was light, ventilators had sucked fumes into several boiler rooms, causing them to be evacuated. With half her boilers being taken offline, electrical power went offline for about 30 seconds, and speed fell first to 20 knots by 16.02, and then down to 18 knots at 16.03. Unsure of the level of damage, the Italian admiral ordered the Battleships to disengage, with the Italian heavy cruisers covering the retreat, sparring with the British cruisers while others, such as Zara, engaged the Warspite

 

the problem I have with some of these supposed accounts, is range and speed just don't add up.

 

i.e. if you are at ~29000 yards at 15:52 but ~26000 yards at 15:53, and assuming you leave the maximum number of seconds between 15:52 and 15:53 being 1min59sec or 120sec, then the closing speed must be ~44.3 knots or ~22 knots for each ship at minimum if they were running at each other nose to nose via the most direct route, and for every second under 120sec the closing speed gets bigger to cover that ~3000 yard distance in a smaller timeframe, if you add manoeuvring into the mix along with along with the top speed of each ship on a good day, you don't have much leeway before it starts to become clearly a bit fictional.

 

the only thing you can err towards is the time that Warspite was using and the time that Giulio Cesare were using was probably different as to where the min and seconds were aligned.

 

as for your hypothesis "This is incorrect."

if you fire "ten salvoes" at scout cruisers of 4ª Div.

then "firing another 6 salvoes at the same cruisers from 15.34 to 15.36"

then "Warspite fired her last salvo at 16.04 from her No.3 turret, her 17th salvo"

 

and one assumes the No1, No2 and No4 turret's 17th salvoes, are what straddled and ultimately hit Giulio Cesare in the aft funnel hit at "Just after 16.00".

 

then going by your statement, that was a 1st salvo hit on Giulio Cesare, as the other 16 salvo were at other targets being scout cruisers, which are totally separate targets to Giulio Cesare.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,409
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,258 posts
2,029 battles
8 hours ago, b101uk said:

 

the problem I have with some of these supposed accounts, is range and speed just don't add up.

 

i.e. if you are at ~29000 yards at 15:52 but ~26000 yards at 15:53, and assuming you leave the maximum number of seconds between 15:52 and 15:53 being 1min59sec or 120sec, then the closing speed must be ~44.3 knots or ~22 knots for each ship at minimum if they were running at each other nose to nose via the most direct route, and for every second under 120sec the closing speed gets bigger to cover that ~3000 yard distance in a smaller timeframe, if you add manoeuvring into the mix along with along with the top speed of each ship on a good day, you don't have much leeway before it starts to become clearly a bit fictional.

 

the only thing you can err towards is the time that Warspite was using and the time that Giulio Cesare were using was probably different as to where the min and seconds were aligned.

 

as for your hypothesis "This is incorrect."

if you fire "ten salvoes" at scout cruisers of 4ª Div.

then "firing another 6 salvoes at the same cruisers from 15.34 to 15.36"

then "Warspite fired her last salvo at 16.04 from her No.3 turret, her 17th salvo"

 

and one assumes the No1, No2 and No4 turret's 17th salvoes, are what straddled and ultimately hit Giulio Cesare in the aft funnel hit at "Just after 16.00".

 

then going by your statement, that was a 1st salvo hit on Giulio Cesare, as the other 16 salvo were at other targets being scout cruisers, which are totally separate targets to Giulio Cesare.

 

 

For your former statements - I'd have to check again, as it is worth noting the British and Italians were using separate times. Likewise, the reply range of Warspite is cited from Cunningham's report, which is not the most accurate.

As far as I know the speed at the time of the two ships was 25 knots for Cesare, and Warspite was increasing speed from 15 knots (15.50) to top speed. Their courses were converging, but the range to close was not that aggressive, at least according to plots.

As far as range of engagement, however, Cesare I know specifically opened up at 26.4 km, or about 28870 yards. One could try and cut that down by citing incorrect rangefinder readings, since her first salvoes were overs, but more likely that was because she was using laddering against Warspite.

However, it is possible that Warspite was incorrect in her readings, and thus Cunningham. He describes firing on Cesare as;

"At 1553 WARSPITE opened fire on the right hand of the two enemy battleships of the CAVOUR class, bearing 287 degrees, range 26000 yards. Warspite was under fire from both enemy battleships* and was shortly after-wards straddled."

*This is incorrect, only Cesare fired on Warspite.

Given the near-chronic issue of British ships to fire short and struggle to get the range when under optical control during the war (perhaps related to the short base length of their optics? Cesare had 7.2m installations in her directors (I'm forgetting if it was Duplex or two separate, one SC and one CI), while Warspite would've been using either a 15 or 22ft (4.57 - 6.7m) Coincidence rangefinder), it's quite possible that she was reading then intial ranges incorrectly. In fact, given Warspite cites both the range opening fire and also scoring her hit as both 26000 yards, in spite of a converging course, I'd almost guarantee this is the case. 

 

 

As for the latter statement in regards to salvo count - sure, but only by totally missreading/trying to misinterpret what I was saying.

 

The salvo counts for the cruiser engagements are separate.

10 against 4ª CL Div, then another 6 salvoes against them after the 360° turn (or possibly 8ª CL Div)

Then 17 salvoes against 5ª BB Div

Then 6 more salvoes against what could only be 1ª CA Div, which had moved in to cover the rest of the fleet from the British ships as the BBs retreated.

This was the last time she fired her main guns in the action, at least according to Cunningham. The rest of her shots were from some 6" salvoes against Italian destroyers.

 

So the total salvoes count is 39 salvoes fired by Warspite. This would be easier to tell if we had a count of the ammunition fired (@mofton or @Trainspite may be able to help in the regard), but assuming all salvoes were turret salvoes (which text would seem to support), that's 78 rounds fired total - which is overall fairly consistent with Cesare's output.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
191
[UFFA]
[UFFA]
Members
735 posts
63 battles

I’m tempted to pick up Cernuschi’s book now and cause some serious antics. Just have to go down the street to the bookstore. :cap_haloween:

 

because im home, baby! :crab:

 

 

 

 

 

644133E6-AC2F-40E1-AE43-3B98E9BCFE50.jpeg

F2F39DA4-145F-4A2D-A012-A1F90AC001DA.jpeg

B773AB21-F5E0-41ED-8DFD-54C3F8C4C83A.jpeg

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.

×