Naval History Forums

OpanaPointer wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 10:26 pmArmy Green Books?

Thanks OP, but.....................I was looking for something more along the lines of James Holland's 'Sicily 43' or Lloyd Clark's 'Anzio. The Friction of War' than an Army study so to speak.

Can anyone recommend a book on the overall land campaign through Italy in WWII? I know there are books on the Sicily invasion and the Anzio battle/s, but was looking for something that covered the overall campaign, from the initial invasion by the Allies until at least the fall of Rome, if not furth...

A question for any gunnery experts reading this if I may. Would anyone know what would happen with regards gun elevation when all power was lost to the twin 4" HA/LA guns as used as Exeter's secondary armament? That is, would they the be locked in whatever elevation they were at, or would they...

Sorry, I did not know they had been upgraded. Anyway, http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_4-45_mk16.php are listed also as manual training/elevation, EXCEPT those fitted with RPC. Had Exeter guns been so fitted? In this case, I believe that if power goes off the gun remains elevated, because they are ...

Thanks Maecelo. But that data 'seems' to be just for the single mount Exeter originally had. Given they were replaced with the twin barelled mounts during her refit in 1940 I wonder if that manual elevation still holds true?

A slight thread hijack here, but.............................another 'oddity' from the same day as it were. The below historical photos purport to show Ashigara and Myoko (foreground) firing at Exeter and cohort on 1-March-42, However, as can be seen they (well, Ashigara) are firing to port, but the...

A question for any gunnery experts reading this if I may. Would anyone know what would happen with regards gun elevation when all power was lost to the twin 4" HA/LA guns as used as Exeter's secondary armament? That is, would they the be locked in whatever elevation they were at, or would they ...

Hi Kev D, The Japanese might have spotted the splashes of the torpedoes entering the water at 9 miles range,, but may equally have changed course for other reasons. The approx, 5 minute run time for 13,400 yds is a long period during which nothing must change. Great work on the new material you hav...

I think Exeter's effort was a Forlorn Hope "Getting rid of poorly protected warheads on the upper deck as quickly as possible in a gunfight seems like a good idea to me. :cool: All the best wadinga Re '...........was a Forlorn Hope", even Captain Gordon thought so; to quote from his AAR -...

Well, unless someone elese joins in and proves / suggests otherwise I am willing to accept that it is a torp warhead. Look is basically identical and measuremnts well with the catchers range, let alone the ball park. One point that was brought up elswhere, although the poster was in agreement that i...

Below is a short Jap version of events circa that time and the Jap action chart for the full battle. Note. In the text the word Ikazuchi should be replaced by Inazuma . This is an age old mistake passed on down the years (the actual Japanese lettering from Ikazuchi and Inazuma are very similar and e...

http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/download/file.php?id=3870 Kevin, I understand that this is the chart of the battle. I see no use of torpedoes at that distance. Longest range for the Mk IX** is 15.000 yards. Moreover, nobody would expect to hit at distance a manouvering ship. Well yes that is Capt.Go...

Thanks for the kinds words Paul. I have also passed on everyone's compliments to both the webmaster at WW2wrecks.com and Stefan D, the 3D man. Without Pierre's hosting and Stefan 3D expertise I couldn't have done it.

Another pic of a torp body without warhead, showing those slots for the bolts to attach the warhead. They certainly didnt skimp on them, the one in the b/w photo even has quite a few more!

marcelo_malara wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 10:53 pm Scaling your photos the object seems to be around 1.27 m long, what is remarkably close to the warhead´s 1.36 m, bearing in mind the crudeness of the measuring.

Would that 1.36m include the 'nipple' on the front (as shown in the historical b/w photo of 'mine' you reposted)?