WW1 battleships

From the birth of the Dreadnought to the period immediately after the end of World War I.
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3461
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: WW1 battleships

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Thu Jul 18, 2019 3:22 pm

Hello OpanaPointer,

Mikasa-1905_feb_sasebo-2.jpg
Mikasa-1905_feb_sasebo-2.jpg (59.49 KiB) Viewed 517 times

yes, the ones indicated by the large orange arrows are the torpedo net booms on Mikasa.
They are stowed against the hull in the image and not extended around the ship to carry the torpedo net.

Would you mind posting the original image with the legend for the numbered arrows ? I would be very interested in having a check for the right emplacement of all the light guns carrried by the ship at the time of the Tsushima battle...Possibly the drawing is showing them all....


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 1:00 pm

Re: WW1 battleships

Post by OpanaPointer » Thu Jul 18, 2019 5:15 pm

Certainly, would have been polite to do so from the start.

https://warship-mikasa.blogspot.com/201 ... r-ijn.html

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3461
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: WW1 battleships

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Thu Jul 18, 2019 6:29 pm

Many thanks !

Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1877
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: WW1 battleships

Post by wadinga » Thu Jul 18, 2019 6:52 pm

Fellow Contributors,

R A Burt, writing of the loss of HMS Triumph to U-21's torpedo in "British battleships 1889-1904" says
As with Majestic the torpedo sliced through the nets as if they were paper and struck the ship with maximum force.
Although some RN vessels had dispensed with torpedo nets and booms as being ineffectual even before the War, he has an aerial picture of pre-dreadnought Albion in 1917-8 moored with nets deployed, and she still had them when she went to scrapyard in 1920.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 1:00 pm

Re: WW1 battleships

Post by OpanaPointer » Fri Jul 19, 2019 12:24 am

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 6:29 pm
Many thanks !

Alberto
Do we accept that information? I'm asking the pros here.

I've been onboard Mikasa, but not as a student. Wasted chances...

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3461
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: WW1 battleships

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:23 am

Hello OpanaPointer,
you wrote: "Do we accept that information?"
Difficult to say for me. I have never studied in detail the Japanese battleship of the 1904-1905 war, while I have spent some time on the Russian battleships.

The info is very detailed and looks credible: the emplacement of the 76 mm (12 pdr) guns is in line with what can be read on Wikipedia from "Jane's fighting ships" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_ ... ropped.png where no emplacement is however given for the 47 mm guns in the scheme of the ship as built).
The same number of (slightly different caliber) guns is reported also in Piotr Olender (Russo-Japanese Naval War 1904-1905 vol.1) where in the image appendix, the emplacement of some (not speciifed which) light gun is still on the fighting tops of the masts (they may be the Maxim machine guns, however, even if their shape is more pointing to a 47mm)...

I hope we can find someone more expert about Japanese pre-dreadnoughts in order to get a final confirmation of the emplacement of all guns at the time of the Yellow Sea and Tsushima battle.


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 1:00 pm

Re: WW1 battleships

Post by OpanaPointer » Fri Jul 19, 2019 11:34 am


Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1037
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: WW1 battleships

Post by Byron Angel » Sun Jul 21, 2019 5:48 pm

The armament diagram on the Mikasa blog site is consistent with the data given by Watts and Gordon in their book "The Imperial Japanese Navy", with added information about re-location of the 47mm guns. One point of interest mentioned by Watts and Gordon is that the 5 x 6-inch broadside guns mounted on the main deck were contained collectively in large (albeit fairly well armored) box batteries (as opposed to individual casemates for each gun).

The main deck 6-inch were liable to be washed out in rough seas due to their low position. On the other hand, the 12-pounder broadside batteries on the upper deck would have been reliably dry in most weather states.

B

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3461
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: WW1 battleships

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon Jul 22, 2019 7:18 am

Hello everybody,

the arrangement of the 6" guns in the Russian "Borodino" battleships (as well in the Tsesarevitch) was actually a great improvement both on box batteries and casamates: they were placed in twin rotating turrets on the weather (the centre turret) or the forecastle (fore and aft turret) deck, as in the "modern" batleships: they were therefore much better protected from sea water. This is one of the (very few but often undervalued) good feature of the French (Russian) vs British (Japanese) battleship design at that time.
Here (on Imperator Alexander III battleship) the aft 305 mm main turret and the port aft 150 mm secondary turret.

AlexanderIII_305mm vs 150mm_turrets.jpg
AlexanderIII_305mm vs 150mm_turrets.jpg (25.25 KiB) Viewed 426 times

The "price" to pay for the 150 mm good emplacement was that the 76mm guns of the Russian battleships were placed low on the battery deck and were extremely subject to bad sea state and (due to the displacement increase) a severe weak point in case of battle damages that could put them under the waterline....


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1877
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: WW1 battleships

Post by wadinga » Wed Jul 24, 2019 10:21 am

Fellow Contributors,

To return to the thread subject: anti-torpedo nets, looking at the splendid large format photos in R A Burt's series of books about British pre-Dreadnought and WWI battleships, it is clear that they were relatively insubstantial, as the rolled nets lining the decks of various vessels are less than a metre in diameter. When deployed they must have extended for some depth below boom end and water surface to allow for torpedo running depth yet roll into a long thin tube secured to the deck edge. This points to the mesh being light and comparatively weak. Still not something you want caught round your props or rudder in the event of battle damage, especially if their protective value is so low. No wonder they were dispensed with about the time WWI got going.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

culverin
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 1:31 pm
Location: Near the Itchen Navi

Re: WW1 battleships

Post by culverin » Sat Jul 27, 2019 9:56 pm

The British Admiralty Manual of Seamanship Volume 1 of 1908 covers torpedo net defence in detail, chapter IX from page 350 under the general category of rigging.

All battleships, and some of the armoured cruisers, are fitted with torpedo net defence for protection against attack by torpedoes. In earlier ships this defence was fitted completely round the ship, but in the latest vessels the extent is about three-quarters the length, in fact just long enough to protect the magazines and shell rooms at the ends. The defence consists of a number of nets formed of small interwoven steel wire rings, formerly of steel wire rings fastened together by smaller wire rings, kept in position by a number of booms standing out at right angles to the ship's side, and by their rigging.
The booms are formed of mild steel tubes about 7 1/2 inches ( 19 centimeters ) diameter and about 30 feet long, spaced about the same distance apart. The heels are supported about 6 - 8 feet above the water and the booms slope slightly, so that their heads are about 3 or 4 feet above water.

Net size was originally 20 feet by 15 feet, the 20 feet being the depth, but in the latest ships the length and depth has been considerably increased.

There is 7 pages in volume 1 covering this subject with a further 11 pages in volume 2 covering deployment and stowage of the nets.
Earlier ships implies those pre Dreadnought as the volume is dated 1908.

Mention of the Vickers built Japanese Mikasa here almost certainly means she had the same arrangements as comparable RN battleships. HMS Vengeance was also from Vickers constructed at the same time at Barrow.
A full broadside. The traditional English salute.
Thanks. Sean.

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1877
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: WW1 battleships

Post by wadinga » Wed Aug 21, 2019 4:48 pm

Fellow Contributors,

Culverin pointed out
All battleships, and some of the armoured cruisers, are fitted with torpedo net defence for protection against attack by torpedoes. In earlier ships this defence was fitted completely round the ship, but in the latest vessels the extent is about three-quarters the length, in fact just long enough to protect the magazines and shell rooms at the ends.
Reading The Boats of Men-at-War by W E May, he shows steam pinnaces being designed as late as 1885 with spar torpedoes for attacks against anchored warships, so an all-round defence against such slow speed stealthy (and likely suicidal) night stalkers would be a good idea. As the locomotive (ie engine) torpedo increased in size and power, the chances of a hit at the extremities was reduced so defence was concentrated on the vitals. However, from the experiences related above (Triumph and Majestic) by WW I the self-powered torpedo could punch through these relatively flimsy nets.

For Culverin:

Does the description in AMS 1908 say whether the nets were hauled in by hand before being stowed on a mid freeboard ledge or even the upper deck? I expect the booms were pivoted in using a winch, but then you have gather in and roll up 20ft of net.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 1:00 pm

Re: WW1 battleships

Post by OpanaPointer » Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:15 pm

You might investigate the Bluejacket's Manuals for this period, something useful may be found there.

culverin
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 1:31 pm
Location: Near the Itchen Navi

Re: WW1 battleships

Post by culverin » Sat Aug 24, 2019 8:49 pm

Thank you Wadinga and others with an interest in this subject.

I have thoroughly read both Manual of Seamanship volumes and the procedures for deployment and recovery of the Torpedo net defences is complex to the modern naval enthusiast unless one has a thorough grasp of early 20th Century seamanship which is more akin to the sailing navy than the steam navy coming under the category rigging.

The entire system, in modern parlance, was stowed on the net defence shelf which differed from class to class, type to type especially amongst cruisers.
The principles adopted varied from class to class but were much the same although confusingly different orders in the various fleets existed.
As much use of steam winches or capstans was advisable in net recovery or in newer classes electric power was advised.The manpower used was extensive from all departments, seamen, stokers, marines and special hands (?) all supervised by lieutenants.

The whole procedure seems extremely time consuming with all manner of seamanship terms used especially parbuckling which occurs frequently and the use of the ships coaling arrangements which is an entirely different evolution.

There again, in the time it would take these ships to raise sufficient steam to depart harbour or anchorage raising and stowing the nets was a minor inconvenience which by the outbreak of the Great War was consigned to the history books.
A full broadside. The traditional English salute.
Thanks. Sean.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3461
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: WW1 battleships

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sat Aug 24, 2019 9:23 pm

Hello everybody,
culverin wrote: "The entire system, in modern parlance, was stowed on the net defence shelf which differed from class to class"

Here the net shelf on board battleship Borodino (Borodino Class) of the Russian Navy (see red arrows, two booms are also well visible for the net deployment). The shelf was running all around the ship side except the extreme bow and stern.

Borodino_2.jpg
Borodino_2.jpg (117.53 KiB) Viewed 94 times


Here a close view of a shelf with the net stowed over it.

Borordino_Torpedo_Shelf.jpg
Borordino_Torpedo_Shelf.jpg (34.48 KiB) Viewed 94 times

I guess they were quite similar in all navies...



Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

Post Reply