Calling all HMS York and HMS Exeter (WWII) fans

[Tracy White]

For what it's worth, and since the above post refers to her final battle, I came across a report filed by Captain Gordon following his recovery from the Japanese in the US National Archives (Chief of Naval Operations files) and posted it here late last year.

[KevinD]

For what it's worth, and since the above post refers to her final battle, I came across a report filed by Captain Gordon following his recovery from the Japanese in the US National Archives (Chief of Naval Operations files) and posted it here late last year.

I didnt see that Tracy but at a glance it looks same as what I had put up here but just different format it seems.
https://pacificwrecks.com/ships/hms/exeter/crew.html

[KevinD]

Gents,

While on the subject of turrets, can anyone say with any certainty, or as much certainty as exists today, whether HMS Exeter�s turrets were replaced post Graf Spee refit with the 8� turret model that elevated considerably higher (than what she supposedly had), or were just the same model of turret reinstalled?

TIA

[Maarten Sch�nfeld]

Gents,

While on the subject of turrets, can anyone say with any certainty, or as much certainty as exists today, whether HMS Exeter�s turrets were replaced post Graf Spee refit with the 8� turret model that elevated considerably higher (than what she supposedly had), or were just the same model of turret reinstalled?

TIA

Hi Kevin,

To my knowledge the Exeter and York already received the latest version (Mk II) of the 8" turret when they were delivered, these turrets were also applied in the two last County class ships, the Dorsetshire and the Norfolk.

These differed from the earlier Mk I version that was applied in the Kent and Londen sub-classes of the County class, in having a higher angle of elevation (70 degrees) and differences in the loading mechanisms. At their back these turrets were slighly longer than the previous ones. A givaway for identification are the hatches above the breech blocks: in the Mk II these were oval, in the Mk I these were rectangular with rounded corners. Another giveway are the absence of the sighting periscopes to the sides of the turret, these were prominent in the Mk I.

To my knowledge there was no further developed 8" turret, so we must assume the damaged turrets were refurbished, or replaced with the same type where necessary.

[KevinD]

To my knowledge the Exeter and York already received the latest version (Mk II) of the 8" turret when they were delivered, these turrets were also applied in the two last County class ships, the Dorsetshire and the Norfolk............................................... A givaway for identification are the hatches above the breech blocks: in the Mk II these were oval, in the Mk I these were rectangular with rounded corners.

I think if you look at image of her turrets from Pt Stanley, now cropped below (note aperture behind port gun forward turret) it appear to be the squared off kind / doesn't seem to go very far back on turret 'roof' (but both these 'observations' may just be an optical illusion though). And IIRC I did 'hear' of complaints about not being able to elevate her main guns high enough pre refit.

On the other hand Martin, I tend to agree with you that at least post refit she had the 70 degree turrets, but this page begs to differ. http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_8-50_mk8.php

However, if you look at the below - pulled from video and grey-scaled - of one on Exeter's forward turrets (on the wreck), then the 'up aperture' that I have outlined is oval or 'half-mooned', not square, and looks able to achieve more that 50 degrees IMO. (BTW, both guns in both of Exeter's forward turrets are down near horizontal at the loading angle.) On the other hand, her aft or Y turret's guns are at or near maximum elevation - again below from video - and when I attempt to measure said angle from other images they appear to be elevated around 65 - 70 degrees.

So I would be inclined to believe she had the 70 degree turrets, at least post refit, but like I said the page linked above appears to disagree.

[maxim]

Gents,
These differed from the earlier Mk I version that was applied in the Kent and Londen sub-classes of the County class, in having a higher angle of elevation (70 degrees)

The Mk I also had 70�. I thought that the angle of elevation was reduced in the latest versions, because the gun was not suitable for AA fire, because its movement and rate of fire was too low. At least I had written earlier, that the turret with 50� was introduced with Exeter. Reference? Friedman? Raven/Roberts?

[KevinD]

The Mk I also had 70�. I thought that the angle of elevation was reduced in the latest versions, because the gun was not suitable for AA fire, because its movement and rate of fire was too low. At least I had written earlier, that the turret with 50� was introduced with Exeter. Reference? Friedman? Raven/Roberts?

I thought it was the other way round, that is Exeter started her career with the 50 degree turret, and IIRC there were 'complaints' that they could not train high enough, and they were then replaced with 70 degree ones when the opportunity arose during the post Graf Spee refit.

On the page I linked to above its says;
"The later Mark II mountings appear to have been much more reliable, with the first gun trials for HMS York in February 1930 being so successful that they took only four hours to complete. As a weight saving measure, the Mark II* version of this mounting, used only on HMS Exeter, had a significantly reduced maximum elevation."

Below is a 8" turret data chart from the same page. Note the 'designation' and 'elevation' sections.

[maxim]

Ok, that confirms that Exeter had only 50�. The gun was not suitable for AA fire. The only reason to add an Mk II instead of a Mk II* would be that there were Mk II available at the time of the repairs.

[KevinD]

Ok, that confirms that Exeter had only 50�. The gun was not suitable for AA fire. The only reason to add an Mk II instead of a Mk II* would be that there were Mk II available at the time of the repairs.

Had a 50 degree turret when though?

It is my understanding she was built with the 50 degree turret, but that she was then fitted with the 70 degree turret during her post Graf Spee refit, and photos / video from the wreck seem to bear that out (that is the turrets on the wreck appear capable of 70 degree elevation, not just fifty), and are the 'rounded aperture', not square aperture type, as Martin pointed out previously differentiates the two types of turrets.

[Maarten Sch�nfeld]

Ok, that confirms that Exeter had only 50�. The gun was not suitable for AA fire. The only reason to add an Mk II instead of a Mk II* would be that there were Mk II available at the time of the repairs.

Hi Maxim, David,

I share this conclusion. I also think that the Mk I and Mk II weren't interchangeable, as the whole ammunition train was different from the start, so the differences reached well beyond the deck level where the damage was incurred. So replacing the damaged Mk. II with a Mk. I to achieve the higer elevation would not have been feasible at all.

And the first remark from Maxim was equally valid: the guns would have been far too clumsy and cumbersome to be effective against air targets. The only reason for increased elevation would have been useful for increased range, for shore bombardment in particular.

[maxim]

One additional remark: during the repairs her 4" armament was doubled - a measure, which was done on many other heavy cruisers already in the 1930s because it was realized that the 8" were not suitable AA guns.

[KevinD]

Sorry gents gotta disagree. How do you then account for the u/w images showing the much greater and rounded, not square, gun aperture? And the measured angle of elevation of Y turret being greater than 50 degrees on the wreck?

After all, as they say in the marine forensic world, the steel doesn't lie.

As for the main guns being to clumsy against air targets, Exeter certainly used hers effectively for that task during the so-called 'Gasper Strait sortie' on 15th Feb 42, so even more evidence they were the 70 degree turrets IMO.

[maxim]

Sorry, I cannot see much on the wreck photos (I see mainly animals growing on the turret) and I do not know the position of the barrels, their angle or if the angle is because of some damage etc.

My argument was only that it is very unlikely that she got the turrets as AA weapons. The idea to use the 8" guns as AA weapons was from the 1920s and it was shown that they turn and fire too slow to be effective. Therefore, most heavy cruisers got in the 1930s more 4" guns and Exeter those turrets with only 50�.

It is possible that the got the older turrets with 70�, because they had been available at the time for the repairs.

[KevinD]

Sorry, I cannot see much on the wreck photos (I see mainly animals growing on the turret) and I do not know the position of the barrels, their angle or if the angle is because of some damage etc.

With all due respect Maxim you simply need to look closer at the pics in last post this page; viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10618&start=420

The b/w image show the deep turret barrel 'aperture' going 'back' into the turret roof further IMO than needed for just 50 degree elevation, and also the turret aperture does not have the squared off 'end' that Martin previously said differentiated the 50 degree turret (from the 70 degree turret), as the 'end' curves around. [However, I am not at all sure now - after looking at more photos - if this point that Martin made re squared off (50 degree turret) as opposed to rounded (for 70 degree turret) is actually accurate.] The colour image simply shows the barrels (well the nearest barrel, as we can't quite see where other barrel enters turret) of Y turret at max elevation, that is basically hard up against the top of the turret aperture / roof.

My argument was only that it is very unlikely that she got the turrets as AA weapons. The idea to use the 8" guns as AA weapons was from the 1920s and it was shown that they turn and fire too slow to be effective.

I never ever implied she got them for use as AA weapons, you or some other party brought that reasoning into the discussion it seems.

I did say however the she used her 8" turrets as AA weapons - for want of a better term - effectively at max elevation during the Gasper Strait sortie 15 Feb 42.

Therefore, most heavy cruisers got in the 1930s more 4" guns and Exeter those turrets with only 50�.

I do not disagree that she was built with the 50 degree turrets. But the forward two were wrecked by Graf Spee, and hence replaced.

[TomRigg17]

You can see the squared off openings quite clearly on 'Y' turret in this photo.
https://ww2db.com/images/5922f936671dc.jpg
Tom

[Maarten Sch�nfeld]

You can see the squared off openings quite clearly on 'Y' turret in this photo.
https://ww2db.com/images/5922f936671dc.jpg
Tom

Hi TomRigg, I don't know what's wrong (403 forbidden error) but I cannot open the link you sent. I really want to see what you mean!

A givaway for identification are the hatches above the breech blocks: in the Mk II these were oval, in the Mk I these were rectangular with rounded corners.

When I wrote this I didn't refer to the gun barrel slots being square or not, in my view these are rounded off in all cases, regardless of the 50 or 70 degrees elevation.

The hatches above the breech blocks however are really different:
This is the Suffolk (Mk I), these are squared off:

And this is Exeter (Mk II or II*), these are oval:

[KevinD]

Below is a comparison of squared off and rounded apertures, seemingly? The two on right are both Exeter, center is pre refit, far right post refit.

Other is an overhead shot of Exeter May 41.

[Timmy C]

You can see the squared off openings quite clearly on 'Y' turret in this photo.
https://ww2db.com/images/5922f936671dc.jpg
Tom

Hi TomRigg, I don't know what's wrong (403 forbidden error) but I cannot open the link you sent. I really want to see what you mean!

Add a space after the URL in your address bar and it should load. The 403 is to prevent hotlinking to the image.

[KevinD]

And the end of that rainbow it is this image here, but unfortunately contrast not great enough to make out apertures in fwd turrets, even in the larger size original. But with some P'shop adjustment, on the aft turret (below), they stand right out.

Anyone know what date original was taken (and where)?

[TomRigg17]

caption reads:
'Aerial view of HMS Exeter, Panama Canal Zone, circa 1939'
I found it on WW2db.com

Tom