Lord Grey Boots
New member
OKAY OKAY, WE GET IT.
Betti has big brass ones, we believe you....
Betti has big brass ones, we believe you....
Mine is bigger than YOURS!
- Thread starter Betty
- Start date
Mike Irwin
Staff
Steve,
Here's a pretty good picture of a large gun being installed on the USS Connecticut, BB 18.
You can see how much the gun protrudes into the turret.
Here's a pretty good picture of a large gun being installed on the USS Connecticut, BB 18.
You can see how much the gun protrudes into the turret.
ww.warships1.com is a fantastic site. Full of more info than anyone can possibly digest. Have had it bookmarked for two years and go there regularly.
The info on navies of the world is just incredible, where else can you find the info on every Battleship ever made! It is a work in progress, gets better all the time!
A little Quiz:
Name the only US Battleship not named for a state, and what was it named for?
Name the only WW2 era US Heavy Cruiser not named after a city? How did it get its name?
Which US WW2 Carrier was named after a bombing raid?
The only US Destroyer not named after an individual?
The info on navies of the world is just incredible, where else can you find the info on every Battleship ever made! It is a work in progress, gets better all the time!
A little Quiz:
Name the only US Battleship not named for a state, and what was it named for?
Name the only WW2 era US Heavy Cruiser not named after a city? How did it get its name?
Which US WW2 Carrier was named after a bombing raid?
The only US Destroyer not named after an individual?
Kearsarge. Named after...uhm...Kearsarge.
Dunno...have to thinkabout that one.
USS Shangri-La
USS The Sullivans, named after the Sullivan brothers killed aboard...uhm...USS Juneau when she blew up after a torpedo attack.
OK, thats from memory. Gimmee a minute to think about the one I missed.
Mike
Baron Holbach
New member
Does anyone have a picture looking down the barrel of a 16-inch gun -- the kind on U.S. Navy ships?
UltimaThule
New member
Mike Irwin
Staff
1. Kearsarge, named after the steam frigate that sank the CSS Alabama during the Civil War.
2. USS Canberra, named after the HMAS Canberra, sunk at the battle of Savo Island off Guadalcanal in 1942.
(Alaska, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii don't count. They were battle cruisers.)
3. There wasn't one. Trick question. The carrier wasn't named after the Doolittle Raid. It was named after the mythical place in the James Hilton's novel "Lost Horizon."
When asked where the raid originated, Franklin Roosevelt said "Shangri La."
4. If the answer you're looking for is "The Sullivans," this is another trick question.
There have been TWO USS The Sullivans -- the Burke Class guided missile destroyer DDG 68 and the Fletcher Class DD 537.
2. USS Canberra, named after the HMAS Canberra, sunk at the battle of Savo Island off Guadalcanal in 1942.
(Alaska, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii don't count. They were battle cruisers.)
3. There wasn't one. Trick question. The carrier wasn't named after the Doolittle Raid. It was named after the mythical place in the James Hilton's novel "Lost Horizon."
When asked where the raid originated, Franklin Roosevelt said "Shangri La."
4. If the answer you're looking for is "The Sullivans," this is another trick question.
There have been TWO USS The Sullivans -- the Burke Class guided missile destroyer DDG 68 and the Fletcher Class DD 537.
AH! I should have remembered the dual between the Alabama and the Kearsarge! Damn damn damn. I still get partial credit...I got the ship right.
And Mike, I don't think that was a trick question. The Doolittle raid and Roosevelt's reply were direct inspirations for the ship's name. Kind of a funny joke, actually. I wonder if the Japanese are laughing?
Mike
And Mike, I don't think that was a trick question. The Doolittle raid and Roosevelt's reply were direct inspirations for the ship's name. Kind of a funny joke, actually. I wonder if the Japanese are laughing?
Mike
Steve Smith
New member
Ok, Mike, I'm back with more questions. I see that the gun takes up a good 80% of the turret space (front to rear). That case is at least 4' high. Where did it go when being ejected? Was the chamber in multiple peices so that more space behind the block wasn't necessary? Do you get what I'm asking?
Mike Irwin
Staff
I know I'm splitting a hare (and it's pissed about it ), but I'm pretty certain that the Doolittle raid's operation name wasn't Shangri-La. Officially it may well have been called the Doolittle Raid or Doolittle Operation.
That was Roosevelt's response on April 21 to reporters who asked where the raid originated.
Another tidbit...
Kearsarge was also the name of Essex class carrier 33.
), but I'm pretty certain that the Doolittle raid's operation name wasn't Shangri-La. Officially it may well have been called the Doolittle Raid or Doolittle Operation. That was Roosevelt's response on April 21 to reporters who asked where the raid originated.
Another tidbit...
Kearsarge was also the name of Essex class carrier 33.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Steve,
Yes, I get what you're asking, and I think you are vastly underestimating how much larger the turrets are as the shell gets bigger.
Now, here's how I THINK the empties were handled on these ships. When the breech opened and the spent case was ejected, my guess is that it fell into a trough under the breech and was pushed forward and out of the turret by some sort of hydraulically operated mechanism.
The 5" guns were loaded manually, with automatic ramming. Since the shells and cartridges could be handled by one person, you could make things a little tighter than they normally would be otherwise.
In this picture you get a pretty good idea as to how deep the turrets were on the Rodney and Nelson. The turret had to be this deep to allow for both the gun and the heavy shell handling equipment that was needed.
This picture also gives a very good idea as to the overall size of the turrets vs. guns (this is the USS Delaware, which used the same guns as Connecticut).
Obviously, the largest guns needed the deepest turrets.
In the case of the Connecticut, whose picture I posted, gun protrusion into the turret was probably about 10 feet.
In this line drawing, you can get an idea for the overall size of the turret, and extrapolate just how much of the breech and gun is in the turret.
Overall bore length of these guns was 45 feet. I'm not 100% clear on whether that length included the breech mechanism or not, but I think it did.
Given that, with the larger guns, I'd say that the gun takes up no more than 50 to 60% of the overall depth of the turret. The other 50% is filled to the brim with men and equipment.
I'll see if I can dig up some other photos showing the interior of a turret.
All photos linked from www.warships1.com, the best ship site on the web.
Yes, I get what you're asking, and I think you are vastly underestimating how much larger the turrets are as the shell gets bigger.
Now, here's how I THINK the empties were handled on these ships. When the breech opened and the spent case was ejected, my guess is that it fell into a trough under the breech and was pushed forward and out of the turret by some sort of hydraulically operated mechanism.
The 5" guns were loaded manually, with automatic ramming. Since the shells and cartridges could be handled by one person, you could make things a little tighter than they normally would be otherwise.
In this picture you get a pretty good idea as to how deep the turrets were on the Rodney and Nelson. The turret had to be this deep to allow for both the gun and the heavy shell handling equipment that was needed.
This picture also gives a very good idea as to the overall size of the turrets vs. guns (this is the USS Delaware, which used the same guns as Connecticut).
Obviously, the largest guns needed the deepest turrets.
In the case of the Connecticut, whose picture I posted, gun protrusion into the turret was probably about 10 feet.
In this line drawing, you can get an idea for the overall size of the turret, and extrapolate just how much of the breech and gun is in the turret.
Overall bore length of these guns was 45 feet. I'm not 100% clear on whether that length included the breech mechanism or not, but I think it did.
Given that, with the larger guns, I'd say that the gun takes up no more than 50 to 60% of the overall depth of the turret. The other 50% is filled to the brim with men and equipment.
I'll see if I can dig up some other photos showing the interior of a turret.
All photos linked from www.warships1.com, the best ship site on the web.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Steve, we've hit the mother lode...
This is a British 15" dual guns.
It gives a pretty good look at how the guns were situated in the turret.
I'm not 100 % certain, but I THINK a lot of the stuff behind the guns wouldn't normally have been there, that it's part of the construction process, otherwise there simply wouldn't have been enough room to accomplish all of the tasks necessary for the crew.
I also just realized that I'm not crediting www.warships1.com with being the source for these photos.
This is a British 15" dual guns.
It gives a pretty good look at how the guns were situated in the turret.
I'm not 100 % certain, but I THINK a lot of the stuff behind the guns wouldn't normally have been there, that it's part of the construction process, otherwise there simply wouldn't have been enough room to accomplish all of the tasks necessary for the crew.
I also just realized that I'm not crediting www.warships1.com with being the source for these photos.
