Wich BB guns were the most reliable? KGV class ships were known for unreliable guns....and others as well! I remember Iowa's 2 turret exploded after a misfire in 1989, wich unfortunatly killed 47 crewmembers. I've also seen pics of the Richelieu wich had a blow back... http://www.navweaps.com http://www.combie.net/webharbor/museum/bb61-2.html What accidents did happen and wich guns were the most notorious? Wich were the most reliable?
I once read somewhere that the old 38 cm guns of british Queen Elizabeth class battleships were among the most reliable ever.
Richelieu did not have a blow back. She had a faulty shell design that allowed burning propellant to intrude into the shell casing and detonate the filler. The shell exploded in the gun and damaged it. Later thr gun was cut off, which is how you see her in the picture. As far as I know, the British 15in gun had only two serious accidents, and the both came on the same day, 6 June 1944. Two ships firing in support of the Normandy invasion had premature shell detonations. Apparently one lot of US-made shells was defective. The Japanese 14in gun had two major accidents that I know of, one in Haruna and one in Hyuga. The latter incident was bad enough to endanger the ship. The turret was removed in port and never replaced, meaning Hyuga carried only ten guns up until they modified her as a hybrid. The recent edition of the G&D American volume has a listing of turret accidents. Safety and reliability are two distinct issues.
Actually Richelieu had an Blow-Back as she used the charges for the 13in Dunkerque... This incident was attributed to the use of propellant designed for the 13in guns of Dunkerque in conjunction with the new design of 15in shell. http://www.warship.get.net.pl/Francja/B ... story.html
I don't know? Any other evidence then you telling about that as i can only find my story!? According Navweaps it also caused by the propellant... http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNFR_15-45_m1935.htm
Yes, the propellant intruded into the shell body through a cavity that was designed to hold a capsule of poison gas. The cover to this cavity failed, and the burning propellant rush in. From there it was only a small distance to the burster, which exploded and damaged the barrel.
Well, yes. Those shells were fitted with gas cavities but I presume they were empty when that shooting happened.
So they were a standard HE shell, but with the capacity to carry poison gas if required? Or was it a test-fire of a gas shell?
Apparently they were the standard AP shell. Sounds to me like a dumb idea, but that's just me. The 15in shells later made in the USA for Richelieu were a conventional model.
German AT rifles also had a gas section. The Allies didn't know for ages till they bothered to test some ammo. The idea is that the AP shell pentrates the tank and releases the gas forcing the crew to bail or disrupting them. Presumably the same principal applies in that the AP shell drops into the lower deck releasing the gas in the confined areas. FNG
And the practicality of the AT rifles was that when fired they shattered the glass capsule. In the rifle the small quantity of tear gas in the barrel was not a huge problem, a battleship sized shell full of poison gas would be more than a minor irritation for the turret crew.
you're suggesting that the problem is for the firer and not the target! It's odd that considering the use of gas was presumably against the geneva conventions set up between the wars the Germans incorporated their use into two seperate weapon systems. FNG
another sihp that suffered a flare back was the former uss mississippi, on june 12 1924 and another one in nov 20 1943 on the same turret and same gun!!!!!
Talk about having a bad day...twice! :roll: This is one of those things that happens in real life that no fiction writer would ever dare put in a story, because no one would believe it could actually happen; too fanciful, they would say.
