Something is right with our bloody ships today

saddletank

Forum Conscript
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
3
Location
UK
Country
ll
The problem to consider with exploding ships is that nobody knew for certain exactly what the problem was; they still don't. Enquiries and investigations were undertaken and measures were taken over an extended period. Handling procedures were tightened up, some types of ammunition were withdrawn (e.g. those containing pyrrhic acid and some HE types) and old ammunition was disposed of (the instability of cordite increases with age). Campbell suggests that work started on attempting to improve the propellant to German standards in "about 1920" and Brown suggests that it had similar properties by WW2.
Propellant is by its nature dangerous and German ships blew up in WW1 (and can do so in the game).
I believe that the ships cancelled at Washington would make a good subject for a game; America, Britain and Japan had some interesting contrasts in their design philosophies.
My understanding is that the unstable nature of how British cordite burned compared to how German cordite burned is the issue. There were several British ships that exploded at anchor: Bulwark, Natal, Vanguard... German ships as far as I know only exploded in combat and that would be attributed to actual magazine penetrations and the shells themselves exploding, not the propellant as was the case in RN ships.
 
Last edited:

saddletank

Forum Conscript
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
3
Location
UK
Country
ll
"Ships that never were" are indeed a very interesting subject for what-if-scenarios. Unfortunately, I have yet to find a convincing what-if from this time, and my own efforts in this area are still somewhat lacking as well. Still, pitching the various designs from the construction bureaus of the great powers against each other would be most entertaining.
Long, long ago at my old naval wargames club there was a basis of a naval campaign set in about 1924 in the Philippines and SE Asia that presumed that there had not been a WWI. Several European powers had colonial interests in the region and political ones too and there were German, British, Japanese and American sides to the campaign all of whom started in a state of wary and even unstable neutrality. The umpire team looked after weaker Dutch and French interests (these had no super ships, just WWI dreadnoughts and cruisers). There was little aviation, the lack of a world war having provided no spur to push forward aviation technology as quickly as happened in 1914-18 so the A/C and carriers around would be only those available in 1918, quite weak and small and carrying fairly feeble biplane A/C of about the performance of an F1 Camel. We agreed they would be useful for recon but not for offence.

IIRC the German base at Tsingtao had the WWI BC squadron present (less Blucher detached to another base for repairs to her machinery) and there were a number of WWI and early 1920s period cruisers around... plus all the nice ships that were cancelled by the Washington Treaty.

We had a great time with the campaign. I was on the Japanese team and we didn't fight a single battle but by clever diplomatic manoeuvring we got the British into a war with the Germans and the USA tied up in a big diplomatic stink with the French and their Dutch allies while the Japanese calmly went about annexing islands here and there while no-one was looking.

When we had battles each national team played a few ships on one side or the other, these being 1:1200 plastic models on a conference room floor. One of our members was someone quite high up in a hotel chain and we met at one of his hotels in west London. He even had a gigantic roll of blue linoleum he could roll out over the floor to make an instant sea and his people provided as much free tea and coffee and sandwiches as we could devour. They were great days.
 
Last edited:

martin worsey

Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
115
Reaction score
1
Location
ripley
Country
ll
When we had battles each national team played a few ships on one side or the other, these being 1:1200 plastic models on a conference room floor. One of our members was someone quite high up in a hotel chain and we met at one of his hotels in west London. He even had a gigantic roll of blue linoleum he could roll out over the floor to make an instant sea and his people provided as much free tea and coffee and sandwiches as we could devour. They were great days.[/QUOTE]

I seem to have some vague recollection of reading an article about this or something very similar in a wargames mag in the 70s or 80s
 

martin worsey

Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
115
Reaction score
1
Location
ripley
Country
ll
My understanding is that the unstable nature of how British cordite burned compared to how German cordite burned is the issue. There were several British ships that exploded at anchor: Bulwark, Natal, Vanguard... German ships as far as I know only exploded in combat and that would be attributed to actual magazine penetrations and the shells themselves exploding, not the propellant as was the case in RN ships.
There was a German light cruiser that blew up in the tropics whilst not in action; this was attributed to deterioration in the propellant and high temperatures. Anything that burns vigorously in a confined space is dangerous. Exactly why some ships blew up and others did not causes the controversy (e.g. compare Lion Q to Invincible were the circumstances are very similar). Its pretty much a given though that the German propellant burned in a much less dangerous way.
 

martin worsey

Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
115
Reaction score
1
Location
ripley
Country
ll
"Ships that never were" are indeed a very interesting subject for what-if-scenarios. Unfortunately, I have yet to find a convincing what-if from this time, and my own efforts in this area are still somewhat lacking as well. Still, pitching the various designs from the construction bureaus of the great powers against each other would be most entertaining.
I played a game called War Plan Orange that was a good strategic game; it however suffered from a total lack of political credibility (the whole world had ganged up on Japan for some reason) It showed that the period had a lot of potential though.
 

Von der Tann

Schlachtkreuzer
Joined
Oct 2, 2008
Messages
719
Reaction score
1
Location
Münster
Country
llGermany
There was a German light cruiser that blew up in the tropics whilst not in action; this was attributed to deterioration in the propellant and high temperatures. Anything that burns vigorously in a confined space is dangerous. Exactly why some ships blew up and others did not causes the controversy (e.g. compare Lion Q to Invincible were the circumstances are very similar). Its pretty much a given though that the German propellant burned in a much less dangerous way.
That would be Karlsruhe. The cause for the internal explosion was never found, but apart from ammunition theory, some makeshift oil mix made to heat the boilers is thought to be the culprit, which was made from petroleum mixed with petrol-based lubricant taken from one of the prizes. This is supported by the fact that other German ships operating in tropical areas never had any comparable problems, like SMS Wolf and SMS Möve.
 

Coypus

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
393
Reaction score
1
Location
Belfast
Country
ll
The cordite issue was never fully resolved if we take Hood as an example, independently of the measures taken to neutralize and limit the effects of propellant fires in turrets and chambers, a catastrophic magazine detonation remained a possibility and, therefore, a source of constant concern.
The RN lost percentage wise fewer ships sunk with explosions than both the USN and KM in WWII, The Yamato, Scharnhorst, Blucher and Tirpitz all blew up when they rolled over also just like the Barham and they did not have AA amunition stacked up outside magazines;). The Hood was lost because she could not keep 15 inch shells out, nothing to do with unstable cordite but purely obselete design. Pre war a County class turret brewed up funnily enough the ship survived. The British thought flash protection on German ships post war wernt up to standard so go figure.

The evidence the game uses to state a flash would destroy a ship no matter what post Jutland is based on the Lion. What they dont tell you and you can read for yourself in Campbell is when the turret was hit one of gunners died he fell on a lever that sent the cage loaded back down the lift which went down to four feet of the working chamber whose doors were open because the cycle had been broken and had the next load of cordite ready so there was more than regulations. The flash started in the handling room (ie in the heart of the ship)whose doors were also open because of the cycle ( ie a small space) and ignited the charges in the working chamber above. If the turret roof was not on it might have increased. A hit with all the handling procedures post Jutland would not have produced the same effect unless of course the new stricter cycle was broken (unlikey). There would be a turret knocked out but no flash reaching the magazine.

So when people tell you regulations were met check it out;) Campbell pages 65-67

Heres a little diagram you can see why the handling room was such a powerful explosion and why it was unlikely to happen again no matter what cordite was in use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Animated_gun_turret.gif
 
Last edited:

JAG88

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
65
Reaction score
1
Location
Santiago
Country
llChile
The RN lost percentage wise fewer ships sunk with explosions than both the USN and KM in WWII, The Yamato, Scharnhorst, Blucher and Tirpitz all blew up when they rolled over also just like the Barham and they did not have AA amunition stacked up outside magazines;). The Hood was lost because she could not keep 15 inch shells out, nothing to do with unstable cordite but purely obselete design. Pre war a County class turret brewed up funnily enough the ship survived. The British thought flash protection on German ships post war wernt up to standard so go figure.
The RN wouldn't go around saying the KM ships were better after the war, wouldn't they? Thats bad for business... Campbell made it simple, the German safety measures were better, taking into consideration their propellant, than the RN ones since they had to deal with the much more dangerous cordite.

And remember that the opinion you mentioned was formulated AFTER the RN modified its cordite handling regulations as a consequence of Jutland, so, game wise, they are irrelevant.

The ships you mentioned didn't blew up because of ther propellant, didn't they? So how are they rellevant to the issue? Hood blew up because of propellant fire caused by a hit, the others didnt.

You are aware that Tirpitz and Scharnhorst did not blow up, right? We are talking of catastrophic explosions that split a ship in two...

The evidence the game uses to state a flash would destroy a ship no matter what post Jutland is based on the Lion. What they dont tell you and you can read for yourself in Campbell is when the turret was hit one of gunners died he fell on a lever that sent the cage loaded back down the lift which went down to four feet of the working chamber whose doors were open because the cycle had been broken and had the next load of cordite ready so there was more than regulations. The flash started in the handling room whose doors were also open becasue of the cycle. ie a small space and ignited the charges in the working chamber above. If the turret roof was not on it might have increased. A hit with all the handling procedures post Jutland would not have produced the same effect unless of course the cycle was broken (unlikey). There would be a turret knocked out but no flash reaching the magazine.

So when people tell you regulations were met check it out;) page 65-66
You are missing the point, the cordite was bound to explode violently instead of burning as in the German ships, that is a danger inherent to the propellant itself and requires greater and better safety measures that were missing at the time:

"The real cause of the disasters was that the precautions for preventing flash of ignited propellant reaching a magazine were not matched to the behaviour of British charges, though if the British ships had had German charges it is very unlikely that they would have blown up. This was not, however, clear at the time."

"If the Seydlitz had had British charges at the Dogger Bank she would unquestionably have blown up."

The Germans has several turrets and magazines completely burned out with no catastrophic explosions.

"German charges were by no means flash proof when out of their magazine cases, but their ignition was delayed and they burnt relatively slowly, and no dangerous pressure rise occurred from a number of charges violently igniting at nearly the same instant, as occurred with British charges. Thus even in the Seydlitz at the Dogger Bank battle, when 62 complete 11Iin charges were involved in the fire in her after turrets, there was no explosion. There is no doubt that far too great a number of exposed charges were present in many British ships at Jutland, but this was at most only a contributory cause of the disasters that occurred. In the Lion's 'Q turret the ignition of 8-13.5in charges between magazines and guns, all of which were in hoist cages or authorised waiting positions, would have blown up the ship if `Q' magazines had not been closed, and very probably would have done so anyway if they had not been flooded, though the total weight of propellant that ignited was only about a sixth of that in the Seydlitz's fire."

Thx for the diagram.
 

Coypus

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
393
Reaction score
1
Location
Belfast
Country
ll
You are aware that the Tirpitz and Scharhorst did blow up :D (check the dive to scharnhorst,thats why she vanished from the radar plots in a flash pardon the expression and the Tirpitz blew when she rolled.) The Hood was hit by a shell that penetrated her magazines and blew up that was down to crap armour not cordite. British ships burned for days and did not blow up during WWII. Your not reading what I am saying or Campbell ,off course the Seydelitz would have blew up with British cordite because her flash protection was not great, but after Jutlland they changed the arrangement and added better screens. Read Campbell again on the Lion pages 65-67 the Cordite was not in its proper positions and it was an internal flash rather than an external one. Nobody is argueing there was not a serious problem with British cordite but after Jutland the problem was contained it would be incredible if the chain of events on the Lion would happen again. After Jutland you would be dealing with a flash coming from an external hit that then would have to turn 90 degrees after going 30 ft down through multiple flashproof doors without having more cordite to ignite on the way, all this when its easiest route for the flash would be out the impact hole not an internal flash which occured on the Lion. Before Jutland it was a different story.
 
Last edited:

martin worsey

Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
115
Reaction score
1
Location
ripley
Country
ll
The Hood was hit by a shell that penetrated her magazines and blew up that was down to crap armour not cordite. .
Nice graphic.
My understanding of the Hood is that she was probably better protected than any of the pre war designs due to sloping armour. Also that the suggestion that she was lost due to a shell detonating in her magazine via belt or deck is now considered unlikely. The most likely current theories as to her loss relate more to issues with the ammunition for the 4” guns which were added post completion. Thus her loss could be considered more of a fluke and no more likely to occur than in any contemporary ship.
Dangers relating to secondary guns (even those designed in the ship) were well known even before WW1 and are discussed to some extent in Campbell. This would apply to German ships in WW1 which used solventless propellant which was similar to that used in British ships in WW2. There were examples of burning propellant coming close to detonating WW1 German ships magazines. I have personally never read any account which suggests a flash from turret to magazine in the Hood.
 

JAG88

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
65
Reaction score
1
Location
Santiago
Country
llChile
You are aware that the Tirpitz and Scharhorst did blow up :D (check the dive to scharnhorst,thats why she vanished from the radar plots in a flash pardon the expression and the Tirpitz blew when she rolled.) The Hood was hit by a shell that penetrated her magazines and blew up that was down to crap armour not cordite. British ships burned for days and did not blow up during WWII. Your not reading what I am saying or Campbell ,off course the Seydelitz would have blew up with British cordite because her flash protection was not great, but after Jutlland they changed the arrangement and added better screens. Read Campbell again on the Lion pages 65-67 the Cordite was not in its proper positions and it was an internal flash rather than an external one. Nobody is argueing there was not a serious problem with British cordite but after Jutland the problem was contained it would be incredible if the chain of events on the Lion would happen again. After Jutland you would be dealing with a flash coming from an external hit that then would have to turn 90 degrees after going 30 ft down through multiple flashproof doors without having more cordite to ignite on the way, all this when its easiest route for the flash would be out the impact hole not an internal flash which occured on the Lion. Before Jutland it was a different story.
Tirpitz received 2 very large bombs and turned turtle, she did not blow up as you can see from any of her pictures.

Scharnhorst survivors saw her sink (no RN ship saw her sinking), they do not mention any catastrophic explotions like the RN ships had. Her bow lays broken off, so is Bismark's stern, neither blew up. Sometimes ships break up when they sink, even Titanic did.

You might want to check your data again.

Regarding Hood, she might not have blown up if she had a more stable propellant. All we know is that the German ships had full magazines burnt with no catastrophic explosions, while the British ships blew up almost every time cordite burnt.

Oh, and regarding the game, any post-Jutland improvements are irrelevant, its is after all, a game set in 1916.
 

Coypus

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
393
Reaction score
1
Location
Belfast
Country
ll
The Tirpitz blew a magazine when she rolled the fact she rolled over on top of the damage does not alter that fact, Scharnhorst also blew when she went down just like the Barham and Blutcher. Hard to have a catastrophic explosion in a dry dock sure they even rebuilt the Shaw. I'll state again of all the RN ships sunk during WWII destroyer and above fewer percentage wise of losses suffered an explosion than the USN or KM and the RN was the most heavily engaged navy. The Hood, if she had not of had a magazine hit she would still be here, if she had armour that could have kept a 15 inch shell out she would have been here, cordite had nothing to do with it, if you stuck German cordite in her she still would have went down the design was completely obselete.
So in the campaign game after the first British ship blows up that become irrevelant the rest of 1916
 

JAG88

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
65
Reaction score
1
Location
Santiago
Country
llChile
The Tirpitz blew a magazine when she rolled the fact she rolled over on top of the damage does not alter that fact, Scharnhorst also blew when she went down just like the Barham and Blutcher. Hard to have a catastrophic explosion in a dry dock sure they even rebuilt the Shaw. I'll state again of all the RN ships sunk during WWII destroyer and above fewer percentage wise of losses suffered an explosion than the USN or KM and the RN was the most heavily engaged navy. The Hood, if she had not of had a magazine hit she would still be here, if she had armour that could have kept a 15 inch shell out she would have been here, cordite had nothing to do with it, if you stuck German cordite in her she still would have went down the design was completely obselete.
So in the campaign game after the first British ship blows up that become irrevelant the rest of 1916
Simple, look at the pictures, Tirpitz suffered no catasthropic explosion, she received massive damage due to two hits with tallboys, several tons of explosives that opened her side and caused her to roll over, there was no massive explosion destroying the ship as in the RN. Scharnhorst? There are no RN witnesses of her sinking, no eyewitness accounts of an explosion wrecking the ship, she received many torpedo hits and went down. All supposition.

The evidence is there, if you do not want to see it, fine.

Oh, and the improvements made in the RN were made in 1917-18, in 1916 little was done so, again, that is of no relevance to a game set in 1916.







Simple, no explosion blowing the ship and causing her to break as in the RN.
 

saddletank

Forum Conscript
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
3
Location
UK
Country
ll
Gentlemen. I have my Moderators hat on now.

Coypus. We had all of this conversation with you, and a number of other threads very much like them a year or more ago on this very forum. You are going over the same ground again and again. And again. You have personal views on the stability of British propellant and ship construction that you have got from somewhere. However numerous other contributors to this forum hold opposing views and they are able to back those views up with references from recent academic works and historic photographs and accounts. Unless you are able to specifically cite reliable written testimony to support the claims you are making or bring fresh data to the discussion then I see little point in continuing this circular debate.

If you disagree with how SES have modelled the vulnerability of British ammunition in WWI then all you have to do is set the ACH toggle to the 'OFF' position. This represents a Royal Navy with fully stable propellant. There really is no need to dredge all this up again.

I would respectfully ask all contributors to this discussion to take this note on board when preparing further posts. Comments and claims without supporting evidence may result in the thread being closed as such practice is close to trolling and will not be tolerated.

(The above one-liner post is a troll).

Thank you all for reading.
 

Coypus

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
393
Reaction score
1
Location
Belfast
Country
ll
With all due respect did the Barham break her back, is that film a respected source, my line was not a troll it was stating the obvious.
 

Coypus

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
393
Reaction score
1
Location
Belfast
Country
ll
Nice graphic.
My understanding of the Hood is that she was probably better protected than any of the pre war designs due to sloping armour. Also that the suggestion that she was lost due to a shell detonating in her magazine via belt or deck is now considered unlikely. The most likely current theories as to her loss relate more to issues with the ammunition for the 4” guns which were added post completion. Thus her loss could be considered more of a fluke and no more likely to occur than in any contemporary ship.
Dangers relating to secondary guns (even those designed in the ship) were well known even before WW1 and are discussed to some extent in Campbell. This would apply to German ships in WW1 which used solventless propellant which was similar to that used in British ships in WW2. There were examples of burning propellant coming close to detonating WW1 German ships magazines. I have personally never read any account which suggests a flash from turret to magazine in the Hood.
I'm not so sure of the 4inch theory take a look at this it is only 14inch v Hood but you get the picture
 

Coypus

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
393
Reaction score
1
Location
Belfast
Country
ll
To compare with something else slightly more modern




You can see the Hood was no match for a modern armour scheme
 
Last edited:
Top