Calling all HMS York and HMS Exeter (WWII) fans

[KevinD]

Thanks Brett, had seen those before but did not know if the were on all torps. Maybe the one in question had not yet been 'armed' or the impeller has 'fallen off' / corroded away u/w over the years?

[81542]

Kevin,

Did anyone observe torpedoes in the tubes of the mounting below which the head was photographed, or does the record show that HMS EXETER had already expended them from that side?

81542

[KevinD]

Kevin,
Did anyone observe torpedoes in the tubes of the mounting below which the head was photographed, or does the record show that HMS EXETER had already expended them from that side?
81542

Unfortunately, to the first part of your question, no. I have to be honest and say I didnt even see it back there when taking the photos, as it was pitch dark back there so I was just photographing the tubes so to speak. And after I discovered it in the photos and had someone take the measurements of the 'warhead' the person did not think / was not asked to look inside tube '3', as at the time I just wasn't thinking that it could be a warhead. It wasn't till he came back from his trip with measurements and they basically matched - allowing for u/w marine growth - an actual warhead that the idea grew that it may actually be a warhead! The wreck was never visited after that, or if so not by anyone interested in checking out the inner tube, and now, as we know, the wreck is gone. The first two outer tubes were empty though as can be seen in my photos.

As for you second question, yes she definitely fired them, but no mention of a misfire or anything else re a loose warhead. Below an excerpt from Capt. Gordon's AAR, written post war.

"A torpedo target at long range was presented by the two enemy cruisers on the port quarter at about 1100. As the enemy were making no attempt to close the range and so provide a better target, the port tubes were fired. No hits were obtained, the target ships taking avoiding action by alteration of course."

That alteration of course at the time he stipulates is not shown though on any IJN battle maps, so if taken it must have been only slight.

[KevinD]

A question for any gunnery experts reading this if I may.

Would anyone know what would happen with regards gun elevation when all power was lost to the twin 4 inch HA/LA guns as used as Exeter's secondary armament? That is, would they the be locked in whatever elevation they were at, or would they automatically depress to about (+/-) level?

TIA.

Below a couple of images pulled from video of HMAS Hobart doing shore bombardment with those type of guns.

[Guest]

They would stop at the elevation and angle of training they were at when power failed. Depending on the mounting, however, it should still be possible to train and elevate using the hand "cranks," if fitted, though probably fairly slowly.

[KevinD]

They would stop at the elevation and angle of training they were at when power failed. Depending on the mounting, however, it should still be possible to train and elevate using the hand "cranks," if fitted, though probably fairly slowly.

Thanks Guest. Here is what another very helpful fellow said on another forum. (My bolded.)

"Anyway, http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_4-45_mk16.php are listed also as manual training/elevation, EXCEPT those fitted with RPC. Had Exeter guns been so fitted? In this case, I believe that if power goes off the gun remains elevated, because they are approximately balanced at the trunnions. RPC stands for Remote Power Control, a then nascent technology for remotely controlling a gun mounting. The movement of the director was sensed and duplicated in the remote mounting. Before it "follow the pointer" was used, there was one dial with two pointers in the mounting, one dial showed the position of the director and the other of the mounting, an operator moving a training/elevating wheel would try to make them coincide, and in this way follow the movement of the director.

In the case of this mounting, follow the pointer would have been used, so the actual training/elevating was manual. In case RPC was installed, electric power was used, but I do not believe loss of current would make the guns muzzle fall, or go up in case the breach was heavier."

BTW, below a pic of Exeter's 4" mount (the historical image has been 'flipped' horizontally to align with diagrams). Looks like a 'normal shield, to me. (?)

[KevinD]

Gents, going back to a discussion started on page 30 re an historical painting of Exeter sinking, and the rear turret being depicted at the wrong angle / pointing in wrong direction, here is a rendition I made up using a 3D turret correctly depicting that rear turret angle. Probably only thing "wrong" with the historical painting is that by the time Exeter was at this stage of sinking, the survivors would have been well astern, as she still have 'way on' when abandoned. They certainly do make for the 'human drama / tragedy' there in the foreground though.

[Ragnar]

Anyone tell me just exactly when Exeter was fitted with tripod masts? The Trumpeter models I�ve seen are not so fitted, and I feel she looked so much better and business like with them�

[Marco]

there were 4 small calibre cannons in the rear castle of the HMS Exeter (1939), anybody has the dimensions of these tiny cannons, what caliber were they, and what was their purpose? I have not found aftermarkets and intend to scratch build them.

Marco

[KevinD]

there were 4 small calibre cannons in the rear castle of the HMS Exeter (1939), anybody has the dimensions of these tiny cannons, what caliber were they, and what was their purpose? I have not found aftermarkets and intend to scratch build them. Marco

Marco, is that a photo of one of the guns actually on Exeter's aft superstructure?

Hard to find a good close up of them, this crop below shows where they were placed though. (And that shell casing the rating is holding certainly looks a 40mm as DavidP says.)

[Brett Morrow]

They were 47mm QF 3 PDR Hotchkiss guns on Mk I pedestal mounting, they are available from MicroMaster in 1/350 and 1/700 scales.

[Marco]

there were 4 small calibre cannons in the rear castle of the HMS Exeter (1939), anybody has the dimensions of these tiny cannons, what caliber were they, and what was their purpose? I have not found aftermarkets and intend to scratch build them. Marco

Marco, is that a photo of one of the guns actually on Exeter's aft superstructure?

Hard to find a good close up of them, this crop below shows where they were placed though. (And that shell casing the rating is holding certainly looks a 40mm as DavidP says.)

Hi Kevin, it actually is, if the description in this newspaper is true.



Marco

[Marco]

They were 47mm QF 3 PDR Hotchkiss guns on Mk I pedestal mounting, they are available from MicroMaster in 1/350 and 1/700 scales.

Got it, thank you! I suppose it is easy to get rid of the arm running on the side of the cannon to the back.



marco

[G-Opt]

That's a saluting gun, not an actual weapon.

[Brett Morrow]

You should, with a little care, be able to remove the extensions Marco, the guns fitted on Exeter do appear to have had them removed. Many cruisers were so fitted but they had far outlived their original purpose and were good for nothing more than saluting guns, although useful on stationary targets and used with effect by Yarra on Iranian gunboat Babr. Your image actually shows the 2 mounting holes for the arm.

[Marco]

Thank you, guys for clarifying this topic to me (I see the two mounting holes, indeed!). I already ordered the set, we'll see how good it is!

Marco

[KevinD]

That's a saluting gun, not an actual weapon.

Then why did Exeter have four of those? Surely that's a little overkill for just a saluting gun.

[G-Opt]

You guys are right. I'm wrong about that. Four saluting guns! Go figure.

[81542]

Gentlemen,

The following will help you to "go figure" why HMS EXETER would have had 4 saluting guns (2 per side).

The procedure when firing a salute from a warship in the Royal Navy is to fire the first gun from the starboard side then the second from the port then alternate until the whole salute has been fired. However, things go wrong and some times a gun will misfire even after they have previously been tested. The gun cannot be unloaded until a certain time has elapsed for safety reasons in case of a "hang fire." In the case of a misfire, the remaining ammunition beside the misfired gun would be immediately moved to the other gun on the same side so that the salute could be continued.

Kevin, I know you mean well but though the saluting gun has no operational worth, getting a gun salute wrong can be taken to be an insult by the one/nation being saluted. Like all ceremonial, get it wrong and it can blight one's career. The guns would have been thoroughly checked before each salute and much time would have been spent otherwise keeping them highly polished, as one can see.

The picture in the clipping is interesting, however, it is "posed" in my opinion, Mr Squibb would probably have been positioned elsewhere so as to control the salute from both sides of the ship.

81542

[KevinD]

Gentlemen,

The following will help you to "go figure" why HMS EXETER would have had 4 saluting guns (2 per side).

The procedure when firing a salute from a warship in the Royal Navy is to fire the first gun from the starboard side then the second from the port then alternate until the whole salute has been fired. However, things go wrong and some times a gun will misfire even after they have previously been tested. The gun cannot be unloaded until a certain time has elapsed for safety reasons in case of a "hang fire." In the case of a misfire, the remaining ammunition beside the misfired gun would be immediately moved to the other gun on the same side so that the salute could be continued.

Kevin, I know you mean well but though the saluting gun has no operational worth, getting a gun salute wrong can be taken to be an insult by the one/nation being saluted. Like all ceremonial, get it wrong and it can blight one's career. The guns would have been thoroughly checked before each salute and much time would have been spent otherwise keeping them highly polished, as one can see.

The picture in the clipping is interesting, however, it is "posed" in my opinion, Mr Squibb would probably have been positioned elsewhere so as to control the salute from both sides of the ship.
81542

Well there you go! I am still learning something new every day (thankfully)!! Whoda thought.

Given what seemed like a rather archaic 'waste of space', put in the above terms seems not.

And on that note, speaking of things 'archaic' I wonder if someone could date the below photo? Coincidence or not, note HMS Victory(?) is giving a salute from a gun port side more or less abaft aft mast as she passes Exeter's bow. Great photo!

And I wonder what the name of the ship forward of Victory is? Looks(?) like a salvor.