The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Sun Feb 18, 2018 4:42 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jan 27, 2018 5:08 pm 
Has anyone seen photos of 5in38cal twin mounts with their barrels in vertical position? Why was it done and what kind of ships did it?


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 27, 2018 6:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3048
Depending on the ship type and method of refueling/crewmen transfer/resupply being used, the 5-in/38cal mount guns (both single and twin) could be stowed in the vertical or near vertical position to not be in the way.

Image


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 27, 2018 7:02 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:08 pm
Posts: 78
Location: Yorktown, Indiana, USA
If memory serves the maximum elevation of the 5"/38s on the Iowas was 85 degrees.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 27, 2018 8:25 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 1594
yes on the 85 degrees. http://archive.hnsa.org/doc/guncat/cat-0248.htm


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:41 pm
Posts: 1301
Location: Wallburg, NC
They could also perform maintenance on the interior of the mount that would normally be unavailable with the guns at 0° elevation or at their normal elevation as well as attending to items on the upper parts of the gun breech mechanisms.

_________________
HMS III
Wallburg, NC
BB-62 vet 68-69

Builder's yard:
USS NEW JERSEY (BB-62) 67-69 1:200
USS PENNSYLVANIA (BB-38) Late 1940 1:200
USS STODDARD (DD-566) 66-68 1:144
Finished:
USN Sloop/Ship PEACOCK (1813) 1:48
ROYAL CAROLINE (1748) 1:47
AVS (1768) 1:48


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jan 28, 2018 10:50 am 
Thanks. Has anyone seen it on destroyers?


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jan 28, 2018 10:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2013 11:41 am
Posts: 880
Location: CT, US of A
Great replies. The "bloomers" sure look odd with the barrels at 85 degrees; as well as not easy to represent convincingly on smaller-scale models, I'd think.

_________________
Harold


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2018 6:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 6:21 pm
Posts: 214
I suspect that in the photograph the guns are super-elevated to provide clearance during the underway replenishment. I have seen pics of destroyers with their guns super-elevated as well, probably for maintenance reasons.

_________________
Charles Landrum
USNA 1983
Norfolk, Virginia


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 8:45 pm
Posts: 349
Location: West Chester, PA
You know what's funny? I always thought, with no particular logic for it, that the gun barrels were pointed up like that in case of a sudden air attack. I never tried to research it, it's just what I thought.

_________________
Bob Cicconi


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 10:00 pm
Posts: 436
Location: Richmond, VA, USA
I'm not so sure that your assumption isn't partly true. This especially the case after seeing at least a couple of photos - of destroyers - with 5/38's in almost random positions from nearly full upright to nearly flat.

_________________
... Brian
On the ways: USS Saratoga (1941)


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3048
I'm pretty sure on the image of USS NEW JERSEY I posted, the guns were elevated for the underway replenishment going on. You can see that the small crane being used was just about under one of the mounts. Plus with several lines being passed between ships, and if the seas were rough, the possibility of getting them hung-up on the barrels is less with them elevated. As I reviewed a bunch of images I have for examples below, I noted that cruisers and battleships refueling destroyers, elevated their guns in this same manner.

On destroyers, having looked at a lot of destroyer photos during WWII, the position and direction of the single mounts varied all over the place. If the ship was in alert to possible action, particularly in the South Pacific in 1942-43, the mounts were positioned in different directions and elevated at about the mid-point. I always assumed this was done to be able to quickly respond to a possible air attack.

During resupply and more often during personnel transfer "zip lines", the barrels can be elevated or even depressed. I have seen the 52 mount 5-in gun barrel elevated and used as anchor point for a transfer zip line on at least one destroyer!!! But that wasn't all that common. I have been looking for that image, but found another one. The one I remember has the line tied off mid midway up the barrel. Also, I did spot one where for some reason they are tying a line to the barrel on the 51 mount. See below. Many times while a crewman is being transferred, refueling may be going on as well, so multiple lines need to be tied off.

Image

Image

Image

Image

During post Battle of Santa Cruz transfer of USS HORNET survivors from USS RUSSELL to USS NORTHAMPTON, they had up to FOUR zip lines running at the same time. None of the zip lines was tied to the gun barrel, but one was tied off to 52 mount shield. Using the 52 mount shield, on the front, side, or rear, as a tie-off point was pretty common.

Image

Image

Image

Elevating the wing 5-in guns during refueling even in the 1950s was common practice.

Image


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2018 3:11 pm 
hello over there....

looking at the 5 inch guns elevated 85 degrees I first notice quite a lott of canvas cover
on the barrells.
Question:
where the canvas covers only used in ( very) bad weather conditions, because normally you don't
see this covers often on the battleships 5 inchers.
And what are the square metal frames inside the covers ??
Are the put inside when in ''travelmode'' from The naval yards to the ''combat'' zone, so the
5 inch barrels could be laid upon them to release strength on the elevation system or for
maintainence on the elevation system.
When somebodey could set light to the darkness that is circuling around me
that would be very enlightning :whistle:

greetings Chris


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2018 5:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 6:42 pm
Posts: 169
Re: the position of the gun mounts (train and elevation), remember that these mounts were not normally directed by the gun crews. Upon engaging a threat, the gun crews energize the power drives, shift to "remote" operation, load (and clear ammunition, as necessary), and go for a ride. The gunmount is directed and fired by the fire control system (e.g. director, radar, fire control computer,TDTs, etc), not the gunners mates in the mount. To avoid unnecessary wear and tear, the power drives weren't "lit off" unless engagement was imminent, otherwise the mount would remain in a stowed position. Once energized and shifted to remote, they slew to the fire control system-ordered bearing and elevation pretty fast, so I don't see there being a benefit to steaming around with the mounts slewed to a threat axis and de-energized.

Caveat...I never worked on a 5" 38 mount, just more modern systems, so I could be wrong. Any older FCs or GMs out there?

Cheers,

Keith


Last edited by el Cid on Wed Jan 31, 2018 9:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2018 6:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3048
Chris,

The canvas covers have been called "Blast Bags" to protect the crew from the gun flash, but that wasn't their purpose. The 5-in gun had a small blast shield mounted to the barrel and moved with the gun in elevation behind the opening in the shield. The canvas covers, called "bloomers" were installed to try and keep water out of the mounts. Water from sea waves and rain would get inside the mounts and cause corrosion and maybe even shorts with the electrical components. It was hoped to save maintenance time with bloomers. But, in operation the bloomers got torn and blown away by the gun blasts and constant movement during frequent operation. The bloomers were suppose to be painted to match camo for that part of the ship. But, you can find photos of crew installed replacement bloomers made from natural unpainted canvas kept on board. The USN tried several different designs for bloomers during WWII hoping to prolong their life, without a lot of success. Charleston Navy Yard experimented with sliding metal covers installed on the mount shield and the gun barrel starting in early 1943. In early 1945 these were directed to be the "standard" covers for all destroyers forward 5-in gun mounts. But, few destroyers actually had them installed before the war ended. Apparently these didn't work out in long-term operation, because they disappeared off destroyers prior to the Korean War.

Below is the 53 mount gun onboard USS NICHOLAS (DD-449) that suffered a hang-fire explosion in May 1943. The small blast shield can be seen much damaged from the explosion, but showing its general location. Plus you can see the extensive amount of electrical and mechanical equipment that could be regraded by exposure to water.

Image

Another method had been tried during WWII, utilizing rubber bladders installed between the gap between the mount shield and the gun's blast shield. The idea of these was that during operation of the gun during firing, the bladder would be deflated. Once the gun was in standby condition, the bladder would be inflated and would seal the opening from most water entry. Developing this method wasn't completely done until after WWII. That is why you don't generally see bloomers on 5-in mounts in 1950s onwards.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2018 6:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3048
Keith,

What you say is accurate for destroyers in 1943 and afterwards as long as they were under auto control. But, early in WWII, there were a large number of destroyers that lacked the Mk 4 Fire Control radar on their Mk 37 director. Plus in a dirty little secret, the Mk 4 radar and many fire control directors had a lot of "teething" issues. The Mk 4 radar was subject to a lot of breakdowns and spare parts were in short supply. It took awhile to train and have enough experienced operators to operate this new equipment. I have read that the first credited shoot down of an enemy aircraft with the Mk 37/Mk 4 system occurred in late 1942.

Almost every photo I see of destroyers cruising in formation or singularly during 1942 into early 1943 while they were in a combat zone had their 5-in guns arrayed in several different directions. Also, later in the war, destroyers with only one Mk 37 director couldn't counter the tactic of multiple aspect attacks around the ship seen by the Germans in the Med in 1944 and Japanese Kamikaze in late 1944. The fire control crew had to decide on which target to attack with the 5-in guns and was unable to divide fire on multiple targets at the same time. The locally controlled 40-mm and 20-mm guns could divide their fire. This resulted in the USN integrating the fire control of the 5-in and 40-mm guns so that any of the 5-in guns and 40-mm gun mounts could be controlled by the Mk 37 director or any of the Mk 51 directors.

Image

Image


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:16 pm 
Hello Rick,

first : I love yr searches at NARA :thumbs_up_1:

I know that the blast bags are used primarely for keeping out water and they deteriate very fast in combat
and that the sliding shield moving with the gun was a much more reliable system ( up to the 14/15/16 inch
guns , but still , especially in bad weather could take (considerable)water. Even 14-16 inch turrets were trained
to avoid this when stormy weathers were at pace. For example the King george battleships and many others you almost never see blast
bags ( ?) Was it with the big guns better to construct the gun blast seals( thick steel ) and therefore be able to use
massive seals to protect against water ?
Anyhow still curious to know what are the metal frames that are at the bottom in the 5 inch gunshields ?
They must be removable otherwise you can't take the barrel to negative aiming.
greetings Chris


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2018 12:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3048
Chris,

Ok, now I understand your question. I think what you think is a "solid fixed" plate holding up the bloomers, is actually a rod frame hinged on both sides and attached to the canvas so it follows the bloomer as the guns are raised. Hence when the guns are lowered, the canvas would NOT get pinched on the way back down. As I said, many schemes were tried to "improve" the bloomers. I don't know how many different types of bloomer construction/installation I have seen on USN ships.

The Larger Caliber Guns likely had plenty of space between the armor shield "slots" and any equipment underneath that needed to be shielded from water.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DavidP, rapha21 and 9 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group