Naval Weapons of World War On

Naval Weapons prelims_Layout 1 07/09/2011 09:19 Page v

CONTENTS GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS

6

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

7

INTRODUCTION Units of Measurement

8 9

PART I: GUNS Introduction I/1: British Guns I/2: German Guns I/3: US Guns I/4: French Guns I/5: Italian Guns I/6: Russian Guns I/7: Japanese Guns I/8: Austrian Guns I/9: Spanish Guns I/10: Swedish Guns I/11: Other Navies’ Guns

11 12 17 121 148 198 230 244 266 280 296 301 309

PART II: TORPEDOES Introduction II/1: British Torpedoes II/2: German Torpedoes II/3: US Torpedoes II/4: French Torpedoes II/5: Italian Torpedoes II/6: Russian Torpedoes II/7: Japanese Torpedoes II/8: Austrian Torpedoes II/9: Swedish Torpedoes II/10: Other Navies’ Torpedoes

317 318 320 334 340 345 346 348 349 350 352 354

PART III: MINES Introduction III/1: British Mines III/2: German Mines III/3: US Mines III/4: French Mines III/5: Italian Mines III/6: Russian Mines III/7: Japanese Mines III/8: Austrian Mines III/9: Swedish Mines III/10: Other Navies’ Mines

361 362 363 371 375 377 378 380 384 385 385 385

PART IV: ASW WEAPONS Introduction IV/1: British ASW Weapons IV/2: German ASW Weapons IV/3: US ASW Weapons IV/4: French ASW Weapons IV/5: Italian ASW Weapons IV/6: Russian ASW Weapons IV/7: Austrian ASW Weapons

387 388 388 396 397 398 400 401 402

SOURCES

403

INDEX OF SHIPS

406

Naval guns Part 1_Layout 1 07/09/2011 09:33 Page 38

PART 1: GUNS

HMS Furious shows her single 18in turret. In 1915–16 several proposed battlecruiser designs were armed with six or eight ‘15in Model B’ (18in) guns in twin mountings, but they were rejected in favour of the conventionallyarmed HMS Hood. The post-war EOC drawing of a twin 18in/40 turret, produced as part of the post-war battlecruiser design process, showed a total of 1385 tons for a twin mounting, including the two 146-ton guns. Inside barbette diameter would have been 37ft 3in (handling room diameter would have been 30ft 3in, and roller path diameter 33ft). Working circle (from centre of turret to end of gun) would have been 53ft, and the turret would have extended 28ft aft from its centre. Gun centres would have been 5ft 3in apart. A capital ship might have had four such twin mountings. The AP shell planned at that time would have been 67.25in long (3320lbs); the HE shell would have been 77in long (also 3320lbs). These data are from a notebook of Elswick gun and turret data (some Vickers data were clearly added later on), begun about 1920, which contained gun design data up to about 1935 (the latest turret was the triple for the Argentine La Argentina; the book does not contain data on the British 14in/50 of the King George V class). The same book included a single 16in mounting (drawing M48117 of 20 January 1921), probably for the proposed completion of the Greek battlecruiser Salamis (total mounting weight 729.5 tons, including a rotating weight of 587 tons and 100 rounds of ammunition).

G; Vickers used Marks, as in 12in Mk F. Most of the data are taken from gun body drawings at the Brass Foundry outstation of the National Maritime Museum and from a scrap book (in effect a catalogue) of Armstrong gun drawing at the National Maritime Museum. Unfortunately it has not been possible to gain access to the Armstrong order book. Data on orders had been taken from notes on the body plans, and there is evidence that these notes are grossly incomplete.

For example, the 4.7in Pattern CC gun was used on two classes of Brazilian warships, but the only notation is that twenty-two guns were cancelled – presumably because the third Brazilian dreadnought was cancelled. Furthermore, only rarely do the body plans indicate the buyer.

Single guns were probably prototypes or test models for customers who might have bought more guns later. In some cases it has been possible to correlate known gun data with actual

38

ships, but these are often guesses rather than firm data. Note, too, that essentially the same gun might be made under different designations for different buyers.

Armstrong (Elswick) drawings almost always gave ballistic data, including chamber volume.

Vickers drawings were generally limited to dimensions, although sometimes ballistics were added. Hence the marked difference in the extent of data provided in the export weapon lists below.

18in Guns 18in/40 BL Mk I CALIBRE WEIGHT

18in 146 tons 4 cwt without breech

LENGTH CALIBRES BORE LENGTH CALIBRES LENGTH OF RIFLING CALIBRES CHAMBER LENGTH CHAMBER VOLUME CHAMBER PRESSURE RIFLING: GROOVES TWIST DEPTH WIDTH LAND SHELL BURSTER

CHARGE

MUZZLE VELOCITY

744.15in 41.34 720.2in 40 586.428in 32.6 177.25in 5131in3 18 tons/in2 88 1/30 0.459in 0.4294in 0.2142in 3320lbs 119lbs Lyddite (APC); 243lbs black powder (CPC) 630lbs MD 45 (6 sections) Supercharge 690lbs MD 45 (one section 165lbs) 2270ft/sec (supercharge 2420ft/sec)

This gun was conceived specifically for HMS Furious, the third of Admiral Fisher’s three ‘large light cruisers’ ordered on a crash programme basis in 1914. The actual date of order was sometime in the spring of 1915, and the order went to Armstrong because only it could produce so massive a gun. The cover designation was 15in Model B, the mounting being known as the ‘Coast Defence’ type. An EOC body construction drawing is dated 13 April 1915, by which time the gun design must have been complete. Furious

Naval guns Part 1_Layout 1 07/09/2011 09:33 Page 39

1/1: BRITISH GUNS

was intended to mount two single guns, each mount fitting the same roller path as a twin 15in (as in Courageous and Glorious). Three guns were therefore ordered, the first being proof-tested in September 1916. In structure the 18in/40 was an enlarged 15in/42. The Furious mounting provided 30° elevation and 5° depression; maximum range was 28,886yds using 4crh shells and a full charge.

With a supercharge (2420ft/sec), 8crh shells and 45° elevation, maximum range was 40,280yds.

Secrecy was such that this gun did not appear in wartime editions of the Royal Navy armament handbook, which at least nominally listed all guns in HM service.

Two guns were shipped early in 1917 to be mounted aboard Furious, but on 2 March it was decided that she should have a flight deck forward. She commissioned with the single mount aft on 26 June, but on 17 October it was decided that an additional deck should be installed aft. By this time VADM Bacon of the Dover Patrol (responsible for bombarding the Belgian coast) had been told of the existence of the guns. In the autumn of 1917 there was some hope that the ongoing offensive would bring the British army onto the Belgian coast, to the point that an amphibious assault was planned in co-ordination with that advance.

Bacon proposed mounting the two guns inside

the shell of the Palace Hotel at Westende, once that town fell. From there they could hit the docks at Bruges and the Zeebrugge canal, about 36,000yds away. When that did not happen, Bacon suggested mounting them on board 12in monitors, which were outranged by German guns. The first mounting went aboard HMS General Wolfe and the second on board HMS Lord Clive; a third mounting, on board HMS Prince Eugene, was cancelled. The original Mk I mounting had a revolving weight of 825.15 tons, with 9in KNC face and sides and 5in roof. By way of contrast, the Mk I CD mounting weighed 384 tons without Cordite tanks, including 43 tons of foundations and 24 tons of fixed ½in shield.

The monitor mountings were improved versions of those planned for Westende. They were referred to as 15in B/CD (coast defence) mountings. These mountings were all set to fire to starboard, with 20° training arcs around a forward pivot. Elevation was 22° to 45°. The ships fired 8crh shells, so range with a full charge was 36,000yds and with a supercharge, 40,100yds. The shells were to have been special nose-fused HE, but they were not available in time, so the earlier shells were fitted with ballistic caps. Expected maximum firing rate was one round every 4 minutes, but on 28 September

1918 General Wolfe fired forty-four supercharge rounds at Snaeskerke averaging one every 2 minutes 38 seconds.

The General Wolfe mounting was shipped on 9 July 1918. It was removed in 1920, as were the others. The Lord Clive gun was sent to Woolwich in January 1921 to be relined for experiments in connection with the planned 18in/45 battleship gun described below. Two guns were scrapped in 1933 and another was lined down to 16in/45 for trials (1924); it was scrapped in 1947, having been idle since 1942.

DNO considered this gun an advance only in calibre, its performance limited by the manufacturing problem posed by larger size Cordites than MD 45. Had larger sizes been practicable, he thought that it would have shown an advance in ballistics over the 15in. The gun’s best feature was its long life, which was expected to be little worse than that of the 15in/42, though the amount of firing in 1919 (its

The 18in mounting adopted for the monitors was essentially an adapted land-service model with a shield, capable of firing at elevations between 22° and 45° (note that it loaded at the lower elevation of 10°).

(IAN BUXTON)

39

Naval guns Part 2_Layout 1 07/09/2011 10:25 Page 150

PART 1: GUNS

have repeated most of the 1917–18 material, so presumably the 1916 manoeuvres and tactics remained in force until the US Navy laid out new tactics, including its characteristic circular formations, in the 1920s.

Fire Control At the outbreak of war US fire control was ratebased, using a hand plot to determine the range rate (US officers who saw the Dreyer Table in 1917 generally regarded it as no more than equivalent to their hand plot). Beginning in 1917, the navy introduced an entirely different mechanism, the Ford Rangekeeper, which seems largely to have been a pirated derivative of the Pollen Argo clock. It embodied, in effect, a mechanical model of the motions of target and shooter in order to calculate future range. After consultation with Anthony H Pollen himself in 1917, the rangekeeper was modified to give present and future bearing as well. The assumed enemy course and speed could be corrected by comparing the observed range and bearing with what the rangekeeper projected on the basis of its assumed enemy course and speed. This technique was radically different from any rate-based system, and it became standard after the war when navies replaced their earlier systems. In addition to the big-ship Rangekeeper Mk I, Ford (the Instrument Company, not the car company) produced a small-ship version which equipped US destroyers and was also used for secondary batteries. This Mk II (‘baby Ford’) made an enormous impression and was responsible for the post-war British decision to develop the Admiralty Fire Control Clock for destroyers and secondary batteries.

Despite the sophisticated systems the US Navy adopted, in 1917 it found to its profound surprise and shock that its gunnery was far inferior to that of the Grand Fleet. The conclusion was that the basic system designed by the US Navy was good, but that the execution was poor, and enormous effort went into fixing US wartime fire control. That included dealing with excessive patterns of the 12in and 14in guns of ships assigned to the Grand Fleet.

US battleships and large armoured cruisers had unique ‘cage masts’, the point of which was to keep the spotters aloft despite hits on the mast. That capability was demonstrated before the war in firing tests against the old battleship Texas. However, early cage masts tended to spring if they were heavily loaded, and the foremast of uss Michigan collapsed in a 1918 gale. It seemed that too many of the elements of the mast had been allowed to corrode, and that the mast as a whole was not strong enough. The

150

masts of the last generation of US dreadnoughts were substantially denser and clearly could carry much heavier weights (the tops of these ships were much more massive); two of the battleships involved retained their cage foremasts throughout World War II.

Guns All guns were built-up, the main developments after the 1880s being provision in 1901 to chasehoop all guns of 6in and larger calibre, and the use of nickel steel for heavier guns. Thus early guns consisted of a full-length steel A tube, a breech piece shrunk over the breech and extending about two-fifths the length of the gun, jacket hoops, locking hoops and chase hoops. The chase hoops extended the full length of the gun, except that in guns over 35 calibres long it extended about 35 calibres and then terminated.

Later versions of guns had longer jackets and chase hoops than earlier ones, to reduce the number of separate parts. With the introduction of smokeless powder, chases had to be strengthened, because the slower-burning powder maintained considerable pressure further up the barrel. Thus the 6in Mk VIII, 7in Mk II and 12in Mk V all had B tubes extending from breech piece to muzzle, and a muzzle swell to add strength there. Later higher-velocity guns had still more reinforcement along the chase.

Before 1914 the US Navy favoured rifling which increased in twist from breech to muzzle.

When the Royal Navy used American guns during World War I, DNO commented that the British had tried and abandoned this method; the simpler constant-twist rifling was good enough.

After World War I BuOrd conducted experiments to test this idea. In November 1920 BuOrd decided that new guns should have uniform-twist rifling, and that this be applied to existing guns when they were relined. Depth of rifling would be about 0.01in for each inch of calibre. The driving bands of US shells were to be modified accordingly.

The US Navy relined its guns. By about 1908 there was nervousness that, with too few guns in reserve, the fleet might find itself with too little remaining gun life when battle was imminent. In 1905 the gun reserve requirement was set at 25 per cent for all guns from 3in calibre up.

However, there were no reserves at all for the Idaho and earlier ships.

About 1905 estimated rifling lives of different guns were: 12in 10in 8in

83 rounds 100 125

6in 5in

166 200

However, after these figures were published the navy reduced erosion by cutting muzzle velocity and also by improving the driving bands of its shells, so lifetime increased. Two 12in Mk III were withdrawn from uss Missouri after firing 110 and 112 rounds, respectively. Other 12in guns fired 120 to 130 times and were still considered serviceable. In January 1909 the Chief of BuOrd stated that a 12in gun began to deteriorate at about eighty rounds, and that a life of 100 rounds would have to be accepted until muzzle velocity was somewhat reduced and a broad gas check band was used on shells. That combination would raise gun life to 150 rounds.

At this time 8in/45 life was given as 200 rounds.

When the ships of the US 6th Battle Squadron reached Scapa Flow, they showed about twice the dispersion of their British counterparts.

Considerable effort was devoted to bringing the US ships into line with the British, and BuOrd looked at a variety of reasons for the excess.

Possibilities included mutual interference between guns, as the US Navy (but not the Royal Navy) fired whole broadsides instead of salvoes (one gun per turret). Once various improvements had been made, dispersion at 10,000–15,000yds seemed acceptable. However, it seemed that future battles would be fought at greater ranges (Dahlgren Proving Ground was bought to allow shooting at the new battle ranges). The situation at such ranges was bad. Data available in the spring of 1920:

Nevada Oklahoma Pennsylvania Mississippi Mississippi Mississippi New Mexico

Mean Range Dispersion

Evaluation

301yds 370yds 128yds 650yds 80yds 250yds 280yds

Excessive Excessive Very Good Excessive Excellent Excessive Excessive

17,600yds 20,000yds 19,000yds 21,000yds 24,000yds 28,000yds 18,000yds

At this time it was reported that British dispersion at 20,000yds was about 115yds.

A May 1922 memo for the Chief of BuOrd about ways of reducing gun dispersion noted that in the past US guns had always been designed for maximum velocity. Yet it seemed that accepting lower muzzle velocity and much lower muzzle pressure (by having powder completely consumed well short of the muzzle, as in the Royal Navy) would give a shell a much smoother flight. The US Navy had favoured high velocity to penetrate armour at ranges below 12,000yds.

Naval guns Part 2_Layout 1 07/09/2011 10:26 Page 151

1/3: US GUNS

Now, however, battle ranges might be as high as 20,000yds. At such ranges only the largest guns could penetrate side armour, and even they would be unable to do so if the target angle were beyond 20° – i.e., if the shell struck at an angle of more than 20° to the normal, either vertically or horizontally. At these ranges, moreover, a ship’s deck was 70 to 80 per cent of the overall target area (which is why guns could be expected

Entering Miraflores Lake in the Panama Canal on 26 July 1919, USS New Mexico shows off her No. 3 triple 14in/50 turret.

to hit even though danger spaces were so short).

A heavier, slower shell would have a steeper angle of fall, which would give it a better chance of penetrating that target.

Gun Mounts In 1914 the US Navy still had a few ships equipped with turrets (on spindles) not too different in concept from those of the American Civil War. These circular structures rotated within an armoured breastwork, which protected the turret-training machinery and the upper end

of the hoists. Because the turret was circular, guns were mounted close to their ports (to provide enough space for loading and ramming). Turrets therefore were not well balanced. For example, the battleship Indiana listed noticeably when both her main turrets were trained to one side.

These turrets were superseded by barbette mounts, the guns mounted on a turntable rotating on a ring of protected bearings. The US Navy missed the stage in which guns were mounted in the open, because once it started building modern capital ships, ships were already armed with small-calibre guns capable of picking off unprotected gun crews. Thus US battleships,

151

Naval guns Part 4_Layout 1 07/09/2011 11:46 Page 270

PART 1: GUNS

14in Guns 45 cal Type 41 (Vickers) 36cm CALIBRE WEIGHT LENGTH OVERALL CALIBRES BORE LENGTH CALIBRES PROJECTILE TRAVEL CALIBRES LENGTH OF RIFLING CALIBRES CHAMBER LENGTH CHAMBER VOLUME MAXIMUM BORE PRESSURE RIFLING: GROOVES TWIST DEPTH WIDTH SHELL CHARGE MUZZLE VELOCITY APPROXIMATE LIFE DESIGN YEAR

35.56cm (14in)/45 86,000kg with breech 1646.9cm 45.83 1600.2cm 44.45 1399.4cm 38.87 1373.73cm 38.16 200.67cm 294.9dm3 30.0–30.2kg/cm3 84 1/28 3.048mm 8.8646mm 673.5kg AP, 625kg Common 4 bags/144kg 770m/sec AP, 805m/sec Common 250–280 Equivalent Service Rounds 1911

The Vickers guns of the battlecruisers Kongo and Hiei were the last British heavy guns imported

by Japan. Vickers submitted the design in November 1910. The design envisaged

270

alternative projectile weights (1400lbs and 1470lbs) with muzzle velocities of, respectively, 2700ft/sec and 2550ft/sec with charges of 345lbs and 310lbs of MD Cordite. The guns were bought in 1913–14. British naval intelligence data (design data from Vickers): total weight 83 tons (84,356kg), total length 54ft (length of bore 45 calibres); shells were AP (1470lbs with 310lb charge, 2550ft/sec) and Common (1400lbs with 345lb charge, 2700ft/sec). Data given for Type II and Type III barrels and for Type 91 boat-tailed projectiles. Type III-2 and Type III-4 barrels had 0.10cm longer chamber and 3.1cm shorter rifling. Type 88 (1928) projectiles were 635kg.

Guns were wire-wound and radially-expanded, with four layers of wire muzzle and breech.

Although Japanese interest in the British 13.5in gun was reported, as of 1911 no designs for such a gun had been requested (and none apparently ever was).

LENGTH OVERALL CALIBRES BORE LENGTH CALIBRES LENGTH OF RIFLING CALIBRES CHAMBER LENGTH CHAMBER VOLUME CHAMBER PRESSURE RIFLING: GROOVES TWIST DEPTH WIDTH SHELL BURSTER CHARGE MUZZLE VELOCITY

12in Guns

APPROXIMATE LIFE

40 cal Type 41 30cm (Armstrong Pattern G) CALIBRE WEIGHT

12in/40 48 tons 11 cwt (108,752lbs) (49,343kg) with breech

500.5in 41.7 484.5in 40.3 34.29ft 34.29 63.6in 10,893in3 17 tons/in2 48 Increasing 1/600 to 1/30 0.79in at breech to 0.59in muzzle 0.078in breech to 0.300in muzzle 850lbs AP, 850lbs Common 26.6lbs (AP), 86.4lbs (Common) 132.2lbs (Cordite) 2400ft/sec (731.7m/sec) AP, 1525ft/sec Common 100 Equivalent Service Rounds (in 1907)

This gun armed the Japanese battleships which fought at Tsushima. Six were built in Britain.

Yashima and Fuji had essentially the same BII mountings as the Majestic class, with their pear-

The Kongos had the last British-designed mountings in the Imperial Japanese Navy. The Vickers-built Kongo is shown on trials (note the water tank aft). Note the 8cm torpedo-boat defence guns atop her turrets, not a feature of contemporary British capital ships. (NMM: 65.XX)

Naval guns Part 4_Layout 1 07/09/2011 11:46 Page 271

1/7: JAPANESE GUNS

shaped barbettes and fixed-bearing loading (plus shells stowed in the turret for a short period of fire at any bearing). Shikishima and the later ships (Hatsuse, Asahi and Mikasa) had, in effect, the later BIV mounting which could load on any bearing.

The Armstrong (Elswick) Pattern G was a wire-wound gun comprising an A tube, breech piece, B tube, C tube and a jacket, the A tube extending from the obturator seating to the muzzle. The breech piece and B tube were screwed together. Wire extended from the shrunk collar to the rear end of the C tube, a distance of about 13ft. By 1911 the muzzle velocity of this gun had been reduced to

LEFT The Fuji class (Elswick) twin 12in mounting, from an 1899 article in the Transactions of the Institution of Naval Architects.

BELOW HIJMS Asahi shows her forward pair of 12in/40 guns. (NMM: P.39960)

271

Naval guns Part 4_Layout 1 07/09/2011 12:04 Page 316

PART 1: GUNS

(ordered May 1914), and four Italian Impavido class destroyers. All would have used weapons which were never delivered. The British 1909 book on foreign ordnance lists a variety of guns which are difficult or impossible to associate with known Turkish ships: the Vickers 9.2in/47, the Vickers 6in/45, a Krupp 12cm/40 and a Vickers 12pdr (3in/45). Some may have been sold to Turkey for coast defence.

The cruiser Medijidieh, built by Cramp in 1903, was armed with Bethlehem Steel (US) 6in/45s but with Armstrong 4.7in/45s (not a standard US calibre). After being mined and sunk off Odessa in March 1915, she was salvaged by the Russians and rearmed with their standard 130mm guns. In 1918 she was recaptured by the Germans and returned to the Turks. The similar cruiser Abdul Hamid, built by Armstrong, was armed with standard Armstrong 6in/45s and 4.7in/45s. The Armstrong 6in/45 weighed 7 tons and was 23ft 3in long, firing a 100lb shell with a 21.87lb charge at 2440ft/sec. These data do not quite match those of the known Armstrong guns, but this was probably Pattern BB. The 4.7in/45 (EOC Pattern Y) weighed 2.45 tons and was 17ft long (bore length 43.9 calibres), firing a 45lb

SAP shell with a 8.75lb charge at 2180ft/sec. A third (repeat) ship was laid down in Italy in 1907 as Drama, but it was taken over on the slip when the Italo-Turkish War began in 1911, becoming the Italian cruiser Libia. Unlike her two sisters, she apparently had 6in/50s, possibly EOC Pattern JJ. In 1904 plans called for rearming the old Osmanieh class ironclads with one 210mm Krupp gun forward and one 150mm Krupp gun aft, but that was never done. The 15cm/40 Krupp M06 gun armed the modernised ironclad Muin-iZaffer (1904–7), but she seems to have been disarmed before the outbreak of war.

The Germania-built Berk-i-Satvet class torpedo gunboats (ordered 1905) were armed with Krupp guns: 10.5cm/40 and probably 5.2cm/55 (but reported as Krupp 57mm L/40 semi-automatic). The British ordnance intelligence book for 1909 lists the Krupp gun with a bore length of 37 calibres, which suggests that it was a standard naval gun rather than a commercial one.

Standard German 8.8cm destroyer guns armed the Schichau-built (S165 class) destroyers bought in 1910. See the German Guns chapter for details.

The Turkish Hamidieh (Abdul Hamid) was built by Armstrong and armed with their Elswick 6in and 4.7in guns.

She was built in parallel with the Medjidieh (originally Abdul Mecid) built by Cramp in the United States, the latter having Bethlehem Steel 6in guns but Elswick 4.7in. A repeat Hamidieh (Drama) was ordered from Ansaldo, Armstrong’s Italian yard, but taken over by Italy (as Libia) upon the outbreak of the Italo-Turkish War. Hamidieh is shown at the 1911 Coronation Naval Review. (NMM: N.5027)

316

Standard French 75mm guns armed the three gunboats of the Isa Reis class, built in France and launched in 1911–12. This gun may also have been used to rearm the old gunboat Pelengi Deria.

See the French Guns chapter for details.

French 65mm/40 guns survived on board four French-built destroyers delivered in 1907–8. The British classified these guns as 12pdrs.

URUGUAY 6in: EOC Pattern M on board Montevideo, exDogali. She ran aground in 1912 and was officially laid up in 1914, but remained on the Uruguayan navy list.

4.7in/45: On Uruguay, a Vulkan-built torpedo gunboat (1910). This was most likely a Krupp gun. In 1914 Krupp advertised a 12cm/45 with weight 2620kg, overall length 5710mm (47.6 calibres), bore length 5400mm (45 calibres), firing a 24kg projectile at 890m/sec (2920ft/sec).

Bethlehem Steel, which supplied guns to many German shipyards, did not produce a 4.7in gun at this time.

VENEZUELA 4in on board the Mariscal Sucre, ex Spanish Isla de Cuba, sold to Venezuela in 1912. This was a US gun.

Naval torpedoes_Layout 1 07/09/2011 12:11 Page 317

PART II:TORPEDOES

Above all, the torpedo was an equaliser, making it possible for a small ship to sink a much larger one. Here the crew of a drifter, a very small patrol vessel, prepares a 14in torpedo carried in the simplest possible launcher, a dropping frame (which was also used by ships’ boats). The four blades in the nose of the torpedo are the ‘whiskers’ intended to trigger the torpedo if it hit a target. Pistols of this type gave considerable trouble during the war. Remarkably, the annual reports of the torpedo school, HMS Vernon, which are otherwise an excellent record of wartime torpedo development and use, completely ignored the extemporised use of existing 14in torpedoes both on board destroyers (as close-in weapons) and on board small patrol craft.

317

Naval Sources_Layout 1 07/09/2011 13:33 Page 404

NAVAL WEAPONS OF WWI

IX, Mount Mk IX (June 1916).

OP 132, 3-inch Guns Mks III, V, and VI and Mods (August 1913) and November 1919 edition.

OP 150-A, Guns: 4-inch 50 Caliber Guns Mk VIII and Mk IX Including Mods (August 1921).

OP-165, 4-inch Mount Mk XII (November 1918).

OP 167, Assemblies: 4in Mount Mk XIV (Twin) (September 1921).

OP 178-A, 5-inch Guns Mks VI, VI-1, VI-2, VII, and VIII (July 1913 and revision of April 1916).

OP 195, 6-inch Guns Mk I, II, III, IV, VI (October 1902).

OP 197, 6in Mk VII Gun (40-Caliber) Manufactured by the Bethlehem Steel Company (November 1903).

OP 199, 6in Gun Mk VIII (December 1904).

OP 244, 7-inch Mk II 45-caliber Gun (September 1903).

OP 251, 8-inch Guns Mk I, II, III, IV (October 1902).

OP 252, 8-inch Guns Mks V and VI and Mods (July 1913 and October 1918).

OP 264, 8in Mk VII Spring-Return Mount and Installation in Turrets (Indiana, Massachusetts, and Oregon) (June 1903).

OP 274, 10-inch Guns Mks I and II (November 1902) (274-A of July 1913 was Mk III).

OP 289, 12-inch Guns Mks I, II, and III (December 1902)(289-A of July 1913 included Mks IV through VII, and a further revised edition was issued in August 1918).

OP 299, Tabulation of Data relating to Turret Guns, Mounts, and Ordnance Appliances for Vessels of the U.S. Navy (April 1909).

OP 300, Iowa’s 12-inch Turrets (July 1903).

OP 304, 13-inch Guns Mks I and II (December 1902).

OP 309, 14-inch Turrets USS Pennsylvania and USS Arizona (August 1917).

OP 319, Torpedoes: Bliss-Leavitt 21ft by 21in Mk VIII Mod 3 (November 1921).

OP 320, Description: Bliss-Leavitt 5 M x 21in Mk I Torpedo (May 1905 and August 1907) (note that this OP number later applied to the general torpedo handbook issued in October 1915).

OP 321, Manual of the Torpedo (September 1918).

OP 323, The Mk V Whitehead Torpedo (June 1912).

OP 324, Annual Torpedo Record 1921 (July 1921) (1922 etc were OP 324-A, etc).

OP 336, U.S. Depth Charge Mk I (July 1917) (336A is Mk II).

OP 338, Description of Mk IV Bliss-Leavitt Torpedo (June 1911).

OP 339, Ordnance Manual Pt III: Torpedo Instructions (August 1919).

OP 340, 13-inch Spring Return Mount Mk IV (Illinois, Alabama, and Wisconsin) (January 1905) (this number was apparently also used for the 1905 pamphlet on the Naval Defense Mine).

OP 342, Naval Defense Mine Mk II (November 1909).

404

OP 380, Ammunition: Flat-Nosed Projectiles For Offensive Against Submerged Submarines.

OP 388, Specifications for Armor-Piercing Projectiles for the U.S. Navy (1916).

OP 491, 14-inch Guns Mks I, II, and III (July 1913) (April 1916 revision added Mk IV).

OP 570, Mines: Mk VI Mine (September 1921).

OP 572, Mines: Mk V (June 1923).

OP 1112, Gun Mount and Turret Catalog (1945 edition).

Reports of the U.S. Naval Technical Mission to Japan (NavTechJap): O-04, Japanese Mines.

O-47(N)-1, Japanese Naval Guns and Mounts Under 18in.

O-54(N), Japanese Naval Guns.

French Artillerie - Projectiles et Tirs (Course given 1907 at the École Supérieure de Marine).

Installation de l’Artillerie a Bord (1907: reference 1CC 242 at the defence archive, Vincennes; course at the École Superieure de Guerre Navale et Centre Des Hautes Etudes Navales).

Artillerie Théorique (Course given in 1913 at École Supérieure de Marine).

Artillerie Practique (Course given in 1914: 1CC243).

Conférences sur les Torpilles, 1943 (École d’Application des Industries Navales, at Chatellerault).

Documentation Torpilles (École de Guerre Navale, 1931).

Instruction sur la Grenade Sous-Marine (System ‘Guiraud’) (April 1917) (NARA RG 45).

Leçon sur le Chargement et L’Amorcage des Torpilles Remorquees Ginocchio (Chatellerault; stamped 2 November 1927).

Renseignements sur les Bouches á Feu de l’Artillerie Navale Tous Calibres & Modèles (Dispositions Interieures, Conditions de Chargement, et Effets Ballistiques), a compilation of French naval guns from 1864 to 1912 (second edition, U.S. ONI file [NARA] E-12-e No. 12008).

Torpilles automobiles: Méthodes de tir (1920: lecture at the École Supérieure de la Marine).

Torpilles (Utilisation) (1924 lecture at the École de Guerre Navale: 1CC 232).

German (British translations of captured German documents, in Admiralty Library) German Naval Warfare: Scouting and Guard Duties January 1915 (I.D. 976/CB.096).

German Navy Tactical Orders April 1920 (CB 1548).

German Tactical Orders January 1915 (I.D. 979/CB.098).

Destroyer Tactics January 1915 (I.D. 977/CB.097).

Torpedo Firing from Submarines January 1918 (OU 5049/CB.0693).

Torpedo Firing Regulations For Ships March 1919 (CB.094).

Secondary Sources Books Aguilera, A, and Elias, V, Buques de Guerra Españoles 1885-1971 (Madrid: Editorial San Martin, 1980 [third edition]).

Almanach für die k. und k. Kriegsmarine, 1914 and 1918 editions (gun tables; published in Pola, with the assistance of the naval section of the AustroHungarian war ministry, equivalent to their navy ministry).

Anon, Kaigun H jutsu Shi (Naval Artillery History) (Tokyo: Kaigun H¯ojutsuki Kank¯okai, 1975).

Bilzer, Franz F, Torpedoschiffe und Zerstorer der k.u.k.

Kriegsmarine 1867-1918 (Graz: H Weiskhaupt, 1990).

Brassey’s Naval Annual, 1887–1923 editions (ordnance articles and gun tables).

Brook, Peter, Warships for Export: Armstrong Warships 1867-1927 (Gravesend: World Ship Society, 1999).

Buxton, Ian, Big Gun Monitors: Design, Construction and Operations 1914-1945 (Barnsley: Seaforth, 2008).

Campbell, John, Naval Weapons of World War II (London: Conway, 1985). ____________, Jutland: An Analysis of the Fighting (London: Conway, 1986).

Chesneau, Roger and Kolesnik, Eugene M (eds), Conway’s All the World’s Fighting Ships 1860-1905 (London: Conway, 1979).

Curami, Andrea and Massignani, Alessandro (with Tiziano Berte, Filippo Cappellano and Achille Rastelli), L’Artigilieria Italiana Nella Grande Guerra (Vicenze: Gino Rossato Editore, 1998).

Dumas, Robert, and Guiglini, Jean, Les Cuirasses de 23,500 Tonnes (Outreau: Lela Presse, 2005).

Fraccaroli, Aldo, Italian Warships of World War I (London: Ian Allan, 1970).

François, Gen. Guy, Les Canons de la Victoire 19141918: L’Artillerie Lourde Á Grande Puissance (Paris: Histoire & Collections, 2008).

Friedman, Norman, U.S. Naval Weapons (London: Conway, 1984).

Gray, Randal (ed), Conway’s All The World’s Fighting Ships 1906-1921 (London: Conway, 1985).

Greger, Rene, The Russian Fleet 1914-1917 (London: Ian Allan, 1972). __________, Austro-Hungarian Warships of World War I (London: Ian Allan, 1976).

Griessmer, Axel, Linienschiffe der Kaiserlichen Marine 1906-1918: Konstruktionen zwischen Rüstungskonkurrenz und Flottengesetz (Bonn: Bernard & Graefe, 1999).

Groener, Erich, German Warships 1815-1945 (London: Conway, 2 vols., 1990–1991, as revised and expanded by Dieter Jung and Martin Maass).

Henry, Chris, Depth Charge: Royal Naval Mines, Depth Charges, & Underwater Weapons 1914-45

Naval Sources_Layout 1 07/09/2011 13:34 Page 405

SOURCES

(Barnsley: Pen & Sword Military, 2005).

Hodges, Peter, The Big Gun: Battleship Armament 1860-1945 (Greenwich: Conway, 1981).

Hogg, I V, and Thurston, L F, British Artillery Weapons and Ammunition 1914-1918 (London: Ian Allan, 1972).

Hovgaard, William, Modern History of Warships (London: Conway, 1971 [reprint of 1920 edition]).

Insulander, Per and Ohlsson, Curt S, Pansarskepp: Fran John Ericsson till Gustav V (Falkenburg: C B Marinlitteratur, 2001).

Koop, Gerhard, and Schmolke, Klaus-Peter, Die Linienschiffe der Bayern-Klasse (Bonn: Bernard & Graefe, 1996). ___________________________________, Die Grossen Kreuzer Von der Tann bis Hindenburg (Bonn: Bernard & Graefe, 1998). ___________________________________, Von der Nassau- zur König-Klasse (Bonn: Bernard & Graefe, 1999). ___________________________________, Die Linienschiffe der Brandenburg- bis Deutschland-Klasse (Bonn: Bernard & Graefe, 2001).

Labayle-Couhat, Jean, French Warships of World War I (London: Ian Allan, 1974).

Lebedur, Gerhard Freiherr von, Die Seemine (Muenchen, J F Lehmanns Verlag, 1977).

McLaughlin, Stephen, Russian and Soviet Battleships (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 2003).

Messimer, Dwight R, Find and Destroy: Antisubmarine Warfare in World War I (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 2001).

Prasky, Friedrich, Die Tegethoff-Klasse: Modellbau, Technik, Geschichte (Wien: Verlag Österreich, 2000).

Rogulin, S V, and Varfolomeev, M N, Development of Mine Materiel in the Russian Navy: A collection of Documents (translated by Science Translation Service, University of Alabama; published in Russian in 1951 and in English as STS-238 in September 1956).

Rössler, Eberhard, Die Torpedos der deutschen U-Boote (Herford: Koehlers Verlag, 1984).

Sifferlinger, Nikolaus A, Sankt Georg: OsterreichUngarns letzer Panzerkreuzer Im Dienste der k.u.k.

Aussenpolitik in Krieg und Frieden (Wien: NWV, 2003).

Schmalenbach, Paul, Geschichte der deutschen Schiffsartillerie (Herford: Koehler, 1975).

Schupita, Peter, Die Waffen der k.(u.)k. Kriegsmarine in Bild, 1860-1918 (Wien: Verlagsbuchhandlung Stoehr, 2006).

Sieche, Erwin, Baumgartner, Lothar, and Pawlik, Georg, Die “Radetzky”-Klasse: Osterreich-Ungarns letzte Vor-Dreadnoughts (Graz: H Weishaupt, 1984).

Sieche, Erwin, Kreuzer und Kreuzerprojekte der k.u.k.

Kriegsmarine 1989-1918 (Hamburg, Berlin, Bonn: Mittler, 2002).

Touzin, Pierre, and Vauvillier, François, Les Canons de la Victoire 1914-1918: L’Artillerie de Campagne

(Paris: Histoire & Collections, 2009).

Shirokorad, A B, Entsiklopediiya Otechestvennoiye Artillerii (Minsk: Kharvest, 2000).

US Navy Bureau of Ordnance, Description of Modern Gun Mounts in the United States Navy (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1894). _________________________ , Navy Ordnance Activities: World War 1917-18 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1920).

US Navy Office of Naval Intelligence, Information from Abroad (volumes dated 1884 to 1902; these are equivalent to the later material in the ONI file in RG 38).

US Navy Office of Naval Records and Library, The Northern Barrage and Other Mining Activities (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1920).

Wright, Richard N J, The Chinese Steam Navy 1862-1945 (London: Chatham, 2000).

Articles Amirkhanov, L I, ‘Bashennye Ustanovki Linkorov Tipa Andrei Pervozvannyi’ (Turret Mountings of the Andrei Pervozvannyi Class Battleships), Morskoi Istoricheskii Sbornik No. 4 (1993) (trans. Stephen McLaughlin). _____________, ‘Bashiya Dlya Izmaila’ (Turrets for Izmail), Tsitadel No. 1 (1995) (trans. Stephen McLaughlin). _____________, and Titushkin, S I, ‘Glavni Kalibr Linkorov’ (Main Calibre [Guns] of Battleships) , Gangut Libary: Naval Weapons 2 (St Petersburg, 1993) (transl. Stephen McLaughlin).

Bilzer, F F, ‘Einbau einer 38-cm=Haubitze auf S.M. Kustenverteidiger Budapest’ in Marine-Gestern und Heute, Vol 6, No. 3.

Campbell, John, ‘German Capital Ships’ (with gun data) in Conway’s All the World’s Fighting Ships 1906-1921 (London: Conway, 1985).

Clerici, Dr C A, Flocchini, A, and Robbins, Cdr C B, ‘The 15in (381mm)/40 Guns of the Francesco Carraciolo Class Battleships’, Warship International XXXVI No. 2 (1999).

Dale, G F, ‘Stability of Nitrocellulose-Based Powder’, Warship International XVII No. 4 (1980).

Egan, Robert S, and Anderson, Richard M, ‘SMS Ostfriesland’, Warship International XII No. 2 (1975).

Fernández, Rafael, Mitiukov, Nicholas, and Crawford, Kent, ‘Spanish Dreadnoughts of the Espana Class’, Warship International XLIV No. 1 (2007).

Greger, R, ‘Austria-Hungary’s Naval Building Projects 1914-18 Pt. I’, Warship International XV No. 3 (1978). ________, ‘Austria-Hungary’s Naval Building Projects 1914-18 Pt II’, Warship International XIX No. 4 (1982). ________, ‘Elisabeta and her Armament’, Warship International XXI No. 2 (1984). ________, Answer to question 42/80, Warship International XXII No. 3 (1985).

________, ‘Yugoslav Naval Guns and the Birth of the Yugoslav Navy 1918-41’, Warship International XXIV No. 4 (1987).

Harris, Daniel G, ‘The Sverige Class Coastal Defence Ships’, Warship 1993 (London: Conway Maritime Press, 1993).

Le Masson, H, ‘The Normandie Class Battleships with Quadruple Turrets’, Warship International XXI No. 4 (1984). ___________, ‘The Lyon Class Battleships’, Warship International XXII No. 1 (1985).

Lengerer, H, and Rehm-Takahara, T, ‘Japan’s Proto-Battlecruisers: the Tsukuba and Kurama Classes’, Warship 1993 (London: Conway Maritime Press, 1993).

Lewis, E R, ‘American Battleship Main Battery Armament: The Final Generation’, Warship International No. 4 (1975).

Prasky, F, ‘Flugabwehrgeschütze der k.u.k. Marine’, Marine-Gestern und Heute, Vol 5, No. 4.

Robbins, Cdr C B, and Enqvist, LtCol Ove T, ‘The Guns of the General Alekseev’, Warship International XXXII No. 2 (1995).

Schmalenbach, Paul, ‘German Navy Large Bore Guns Operational Ashore During World War I’, Warship International XX No. 2 (1983).

Sieche, E F, ‘Szent Istvan, Hungary’s Only and IllFated Dreadnought’, Warship International XXVIII No. 2 (1991). __________, Austria-Hungary’s Monarch class coast defense ships’, Warship International XXXVI No. 3 (1999). __________, ‘Der Seeminen der k.u.k. Kriegsmarine’, in Marine-Gestern und Heute, Vol 10, No.3. __________, Answer to Question 52/90 in Warship International XXIX No. 4 (1992), essentially an account of Austrian capital ship projects of World War I with some comparisons with German projects.

Sokol, A, ‘Austria-Hungary’s Naval Building Projects 1914-18’, Warship International XV No. 3, (1978).

Titiusshkin, S I, ‘Russkaia Korabel’naia Artilleria v. 1904-1917 gg.’ (Russian Shipboard Artillery in 1904 - 1917), Sudostroenie 5 (1992) (trans. by Stephen McLaughlin).

Topliss, D, ‘The Brazilian Dreadnoughts 19041914’, Warship International XXV No. 3 (1988).

Vinogradov, S E, ‘Battleship Development In Russia 1905-1917: Guns’, Warship International XXXVII, No. 3 (2000).

Wright, C C, ‘The French Naval Building Program of 1915’, Warship International XVII No. 1 (1980). __________, ‘Notes on the Russian 12in/52 Gun’, Warship International XXXII No. 2 (1995).

405