Calling all HMS York and HMS Exeter (WWII) fans

[DrPR]

First let me say I know nearly nothing about the York class or the Exeter, but I have been following this discussion with interest.

In KevinD's "turret aperture comparisons" photo notice that the opening for the guns in the front of the turrets are rounded but they have a thin plate across the curved part squaring off the opening. In KevinD's "Exeter-A-turret-Pt-Stanley" photo the gun on the port side of the battle damaged turret (right side in the photo) appears to show this thinner plate inside the round opening, but it is mangled. It is pretty iffy trying to make a good judgement about the way things were before the battle damage.

The 1939 Exeter aerial photo is poorly exposed and you can't tell anything about the forward turrets. But in the contrast enhanced view of the Y turret it looks like you can see the round openings with the plate across the round part squaring off the opening.

In the first picture (29 January) of the Graff Spee battle damage the upper turret appears to have gun bags/bloomers inside the gun openings, but they apparently were blown off of the lower turret. Were the thin metal plates part of the gun bags/bloomers assembly?

The underwater photos are pretty useless for trying to decide what the openings looked like before the battle. Besides nearly everything being obscured by dense marine growth we don't know if the turrets were undamaged when the ship sank.

Some of the photos seem to show round openings with the thinner plates squaring them off, and the others are too grainy to make a decision.

****

Why were the thin plates there in the first place since the openings were rounded? When were they added? Were they always painted the gray of the turret, or were they sometimes darker?

To me they look like add-ons to prevent water from falling directly onto the gun housings, perhaps part of the gun bags/bloomers. They would be useless for water protection without the gun bags/bloomers.

Did both versions of the turrets have this thin plate? Or did the 70 degree turrets lack it to allow the higher elevation? Were the round openings the same on both versions of the turrets?

Somewhere in the British archives there must be answers to these questions.

****

Main battery guns were sometimes fired against aircraft even though they weren't very effective. Maybe the big explosions were supposed to intimidate pilots.

If I recall correctly the Japanese used the main battery of the Yamato and Musashi as anti-aircraft weapons in the Battle of the Sibuyan Sea, and I have seen videos of Japanese cruisers using their main battery against aircraft. I doubt that they had little chance of destroying an airplane, but if you don't fire at all the chance is zero. However, at the long ranges and high elevations which the main battery guns could fire the bearing and elevation changes would not be great and aircraft could be followed. Close in the heavy guns would change bearing and elevation much too slowly to be effective.

For that matter NONE of the anti-aircraft guns used in WWII were very effective. The US Navy estimated that it took about 1000 rounds of everything fired from a ship to bring down one airplane. Even with proximity fuzes anti-aircraft fire still wasn't very effective. Gun damage assessments showing the extremely poor performance of anti-aircraft guns were the prime driving force behind the development of guided missiles.

Phil

[dick]

This is what the (then Secret) CB 01815B says on this matter:

[Maarten Sch�nfeld]

Gun damage assessments showing the extremely poor performance of anti-aircraft guns were the prime driving force behind the development of guided missiles.

Yes. But this also triggered the development of the fully radar-controlled AA guns, starting with the Hazemeyer controlled 40mm Bofors of late thirties vintage. These culminated into the STAAG in the fifties. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors_40_mm_gun

When in the late sixties/seventies also the ammunition feed is fully automated powerful AA guns were possible (SPAAG: the German Leopard 'Gepard' or the Russian ZSU-23). However, the modern shoulder fired self guided missiles (Stinger) are much more efficient so these are the clear winner. And of course the Patriot for the high flying targets.

[Maarten Sch�nfeld]

This is what the (then Secret) CB 01815B says on this matter:

MMM, interesting indeed! Do you also have these data for the County class ships? In particular Dorsetshire and Norfolk, as these were equipped with the Mk II turrets as well?

[KevinD]

Gents, just quickly, we seem to be going around in circles somewhat here. That is, there is no doubt whatsoever that up to 1939 / Graf Spee engagement Exeter had the 50 degree turrets, as it clearly states in what Dick posted; and 'seemingly' can be differentiated from the 70 degree turrets by the 'squared off' turret barrel aperture (on the 50 degree turrets).

But what happened during refit, that is the question.

No one seems to be able to say with certainty, or produce documentation, but the evidence on the wreck points to the higher elevation. But we do not seem to be able to find that verified in the historical record so to speak.

[maxim]

Dick's posted two sources: one 1939 and one 1941. Both indicate 50�.

The difference is apparently between the Mk II and Mk II* - the question is how to distinguish those, not Mk I and Mk II, which both had 70�.

[KevinD]

Thanks for your input Phil

In KevinD's "turret aperture comparisons" photo notice that the opening for the guns in the front of the turrets are rounded but they have a thin plate across the curved part squaring off the opening.

Agree. And I wonder if this 'squared off' piece could have just been removed in some? But surely more than that is needed to gain higher elevation, as I would assume the training mechanism itself, and who knows what else, would have to be replaced also. no?

In KevinD's "Exeter-A-turret-Pt-Stanley" photo the gun on the port side of the battle damaged turret (right side in the photo) appears to show this thinner plate inside the round opening, but it is mangled. It is pretty iffy trying to make a good judgement about the way things were before the battle damage.

I agree, and the photo in the center of the triplicate I posted above also clearly shows this squared off 'end' as does the overhead of Y turret from Panama photo.

The 1939 Exeter aerial photo is poorly exposed and you can't tell anything about the forward turrets. But in the contrast enhanced view of the Y turret it looks like you can see the round openings with the plate across the round part squaring off the opening.

Agreed. Hence my first question above.

The underwater photos are pretty useless...........................Besides nearly everything being obscured by dense marine growth............

Well, not if you are experienced in surveying wrecks and interpreting underwater images. If you cant tell from the below that A) one is at max or just about max elevation, that is the gun being almost hard up against the rounded aperture 'top end', and that I say guns of Y turret were at max elevation from being there having surveyed the wreck, and B) the other of B turret shows a rounded aperture, not square, then..................well I am not sure what to say. IMO even the notorious 'Blind Freddy' could see what is being conveyed with said images. (The reason these images are not 'sharp, is that they were 'pulled' from video - and then grey scaled for more contrast.)

.................we don't know if the turrets were undamaged when the ship sank.

Yes we do know, the turrets were not damaged whatsoever. Historical info along with wreck survey data / visual observations on wreck prove this.

Some of the photos seem to show round openings with the thinner plates squaring them off, and the others are too grainy to make a decision.

If you are talking about the historical images posted in this thread I agree, hard to tell with some.

Did both versions of the turrets have this thin plate? Or did the 70 degree turrets lack it to allow the higher elevation? Were the round openings the same on both versions of the turrets?

The 70 degree turrets do not have it, or do not appear to have it in the historical photos I have. Will post some photos in a separate post.

Main battery guns were sometimes fired against aircraft even though they weren't very effective. Maybe the big explosions were supposed to intimidate pilots.

That's exactly what they did / were supposed to do. Sometimes it worked, often it did not.

If I recall correctly the Japanese used the main battery of the Yamato and Musashi as anti-aircraft weapons in the Battle of the Sibuyan Sea,

Yes, but they used special air burst shells (Shinseki / Sinsheki I think they were called, or something along those lines) for that, kinda like 'bee-hive' rounds. One of the few times the Japs used the air burst main gun rounds I believe.

For that matter NONE of the anti-aircraft guns used in WWII were very effective. The US Navy estimated that it took about 1000 rounds of everything fired from a ship to bring down one airplane. Even with proximity fuzes anti-aircraft fire still wasn't very effective. Gun damage assessments showing the extremely poor performance of anti-aircraft guns were the prime driving force behind the development of guided missiles.

The 40mm Bofors seem to have been the most effective of all in WWII.

[KevinD]

Dick's posted two sources: one 1939 and one 1941. Both indicate 50�..

My bad, I did not look closely at the heading but just at the lower tables.

Still, I have to wonder, is that 1941 'data' just a carry over from the earlier 1939 booklet as it were, or has it been updated and reflects Exeter's refit data?

[KevinD]

A couple of photos of an 8' turret under construction, and one ship-board. Given that the turrets were supposed only to have a max elevation of 70 degrees, then drop 10 degrees off angle shown to take into account 'distortion' in what is 'level' in photo (although they do look more vertical at max elevation than the ship-board one does, but that could just be from the / our viewing angle also). And although the credit for the ship-board image is often for being on IIRC HMAS Hobart, the consensuses is that it is most likely HMS Shropshire in foreground (with Hobart in the distance, as Hobart only had 6" guns) with guns at max / 70 degree elevation - and they do measure as at 70.

And the very bottom image just 'compares' Exeter's Y turret gun max elevation to Shropshire's max gun elevation and points to barrels' nearness to the rounded turret aperture, just to prove that Exeter's Y gun is also at max elevation. You have to realise that in the u/w image we are looking almost directly down at the aperture, hence somewhat of a 'distorted' or hard to align view of the angle of the image for some folks no doubt. (Note; this comparison of course does not prove Exeter's is a 70 degree turret and I am not using the comparison to say it is, I am just using the comparison to prove Exeter's Y gun was at max elevation.)

[TomRigg17]

Could the square section piece slide into the turret roof as the gun elevates? Sortof hiding the gap when the gun is at lower elevation.
Tom

[KevinD]

This is a crop from a photo taken between 26th June and 5th July 1939 when Exeter visited Philadelphia USA. So these are no doubt the turrets she fought the Spee with. Unfortunately turret barrel apertures are canvased over here. But as can be seen there are slight differences between the two turrets.

[DrPR]

Kevin,

Thanks.

Apparently you have visited the wreck and know first hand that some of the guns were at maximum elevation. So the underwater photo does hint that the barrel was elevated all the way into the curved part of the opening - at maximum elevation.

The shipyard photos of the two types of turrets do show something interesting. The 50 degree elevated guns do not swing up into the curved opening - but the square plate is not visible in the gap (perhaps because of the photo angle). But the plates were clearly visible in the "turret aperture comparison" photo in your January 20 post. Maybe they were a late modification.

The 70 degree elevation photos show that these guns did rotate all the way into the curved opening. That suggests that the Exeter did have the 70 degree elevation guns when she went down.

The ship was in the yards in England for 13 months after the Graff Spee fight, and that was enough time to replace the turrets. But why? Were there spares lying around the yards? If the high elevation turrets were being installed on new construction there probably would have been no spares. But possibly there were no spares to replace the damaged 50 degree guns. If turrets were replaced with 70 degree versions were all of the turrets replaced or only the damaged one? If not that would have produced a nasty fire control problem!

But why were the guns at maximum elevation? I suppose we will never know. But the description of the Second Battle of the Java Sea (Wikipedia) says the ship was being attacked by four heavy cruisers and four destroyers (bad odds!). At maximum elevation the range of the guns was relatively short, but it produced plunging fire that was more effective at penetrating the relatively thin deck armor into vital spaces. So whatever she was firing at was a medium range. Exeter was disabled nearly two hours after the engagement started, so the range between the ships could have closed.

****

I can't believe the Royal Navy has no records of shipyard modifications, or that the blueprints for the two types of turrets are not available. These are the only things that will settle this mystery.

In any case thanks for an interesting nautical history lesson!

Phil

[dick]

Still, I have to wonder, is that 1941 'data' just a carry over from the earlier 1939 booklet as it were, or has it been updated and reflects Exeter's refit data?

That is a good question Kevin. Looking more closely at the rest of the entries in all the columns some data has indeed been updated. However in the armament column, although the change to the 8 barreled pom poms was recorded, the twinning of the 4" is not. Very frustrating.

Another possibility would be the As Fitteds. These normally show the arc of elevation of the main armament and note the angle. When a change was made to a ship at refit/rebuild this was normally drawn and noted onto the As Fitteds, a different coloured ink being used. Do you have Exeter's As Fitteds? Do they show the changes made during the Devonport repairs?

[KevinD]

Another possibility would be the As Fitteds. These normally show the arc of elevation of the main armament and note the angle. When a change was made to a ship at refit/rebuild this was normally drawn and noted onto the As Fitteds, a different coloured ink being used. Do you have Exeter's As Fitteds? Do they show the changes made during the Devonport repairs?

Yes and no Dick. That is I have the 'as fitted', but no they don't show the 'refit'. Those refit plans, if and where they may exit, are the holy grail everyone with a keen interest in her over the years has been seeking, but still to this day to no avail. And some of these seekers were very serious researchers (and I don't mean by that that some folks here are not serious researcher either by any means.)

Anyway, see below a crop from the 'as fitted' plans. Although it doesn't give the elevation, as fitted arc can be measured at 50 degrees.

Also further below shows the difference in the two arcs.

[KevinD]

Apparently you have visited the wreck and know first hand that some of the guns were at maximum elevation. So the underwater photo does hint that the barrel was elevated all the way into the curved part of the opening - at maximum elevation.

That it does.

The 70 degree elevation photos show that these guns did rotate all the way into the curved opening. That suggests that the Exeter did have the 70 degree elevation guns when she went down.

It does suggest, at least.

The ship was in the yards in England for 13 months after the Graff Spee fight, and that was enough time to replace the turrets. But why? Were there spares lying around the yards? If the high elevation turrets were being installed on new construction there probably would have been no spares. But possibly there were no spares to replace the damaged 50 degree guns.

Good point. As a poster on another forum stated "According to the mothership and R&R �British Cruisers�, the turrets in Exeter were unique, being the only 8� turrets restricted to 50 degree elevation. These were Mark II* turrets. So it seems to me unlikely that any spares of that exact model would have been ordered when the ship was built. The difference between the Mark I &1* turrets in the Kent and London classes and the Mark II turrets in the Norfolk class and York was in the hoists due layout of the magazines. So if there were spares of the latter they would potentially have been candidates for fitting in Exeter, subject to adjustments to the length of the hoists etc.

My underlined. And there just my be something in what he says.

But why were the guns at maximum elevation? I suppose we will never know. But the description of the Second Battle of the Java Sea (Wikipedia) says the ship was being attacked by four heavy cruisers and four destroyers (bad odds!). At maximum elevation the range of the guns was relatively short, but it produced plunging fire that was more effective at penetrating the relatively thin deck armor into vital spaces. So whatever she was firing at was a medium range. Exeter was disabled nearly two hours after the engagement started, so the range between the ships could have closed.

Well at 45 degrees the guns had a range of 30 thousand yards (see chart below from a NavWeps page on the 8" we are discussing), and according to Exeter's Capt. Gordon the Jap cruisers were approximately 18 thousand yards on either side, and the Jap destroyers even closer, so make of that what you will.

I can't believe the Royal Navy has no records of shipyard modifications, or that the blueprints for the two types of turrets are not available. These are the only things that will settle this mystery.

No doubt you would think that they are somewhere, but where is the million dollar question.

[KevinD]

slight differences in what way?

As I said 'slight'. Look closely at the turret roofs. (Although something I thought was different about the rangefinder - and a possible slightly elevated 'notch' in A turret's roof that carried on from the rangefinder - turns out to be nothing but a shadow.)

[KevinD]

And another overhead shot of Exeter post refit. Those fwd turret apertures look capable of a high elevation to me.

[Maarten Sch�nfeld]

Gentlemen,

I'm getting more and more the impression that all the 8"turrets (Mk I and Mk II) were designed from the onset to be capable of 70 degrees of elevation.

The exception seems to have been only the original set for the Exeter, although having retained the large slots for the guns, but the elevation mechanisms changed to limit the elevation to 50 degrees. The squared-off plates within the gun slots seem to have been added to these turrets, as seen in the 1939 overhead photo in the Panama Canal.

Apparently, as the evidence from the wreckage suggest, the elevation limitation was removed along with the square-off plates, when the ship went into repair after the Graf Spee engagement. This explains all the findings, and only the evidence in the mutation records is lacking.

Do I summarize it correctly now?

[Guest]

KevinD,

I think that this will interest you!

Tonks RAR MA (1971): "Profile WARSHIP 13: HMS Exeter/Heavy Cruiser 1929/1941." Page 17 under "Repair, Refit and Modernisation at Devonport 1940-41" Item 4: "The 8in guns were given more elevation in order to extend their maximum range and allow them to participate in HA barrage." Thus it would seem that CB 01815B (1941) mentioned by "Dick" may have been incorrect in more than one respect! "Tonks" also has two photographs on Page 21, both taken after the repairs. The upper is a starboard quarter view and includes "Y" turret minus blast bags. To my mind the upper ends of the gun ports are "square:" this image is credited to "MOD." The second image is credited to the "IWM" and is a starboard bow view: "A" and "B" turrets lack blast bags. To my mind, the upper ends of the gun ports are "round." As a diversion, Page 1 shows a pre-war moored, starboard bow aerial view. I would argue that the upper ends of the gun ports to "A" and "B" are "square."

One can draw an interesting conclusion from the above: mine would be that when the ship was repaired after the River Plate action "Y" turret remained a Mk II* mounting with 50� elevation (it had remained serviceable), the destroyed as built "A" and "B" turrets were replaced by in store Mk I or II mountings with 70� elevation.

Unfortunately, Mr Tonks, who was Assistant Director of Studies and Head of the History Department, Britannia Royal Naval College, Dartmouth at the time of publication, did not quote any official material as references but did acknowledge the help of a lady in the Admiralty's Naval Historical Branch and an officer of the City of Plymouth Library. If anything official still exists, it is likely to be found in the Ship's Cover held in the Brass Foundry of the National Maritime Museum.

Digressing: someone somewhere else has suggested that the higher elevation may have been useful to provide "plunging fire" in a surface action. Most unlikely: such "howitzer-ing" might have been useful in a bombardment role to hit an enemy located behind the crest of a hill when the height of the hill is likely to have prevented a projectile hitting the target in normal control but against a ship just for the purpose of penetrating deck armour? No! To my mind, "howitzer-ing" would be possible but not with any great degree of control. It would have been a case of putting the gun on a set elevation and somehow conning the ship so as to lob shells onto the target from a set position: possible with a good degree of Whale Island "cunning."

Whatever, does this "close the case?"

[Marco]

This is a crop from a photo taken between 26th June and 5th July 1939 when Exeter visited Philadelphia USA. So these are no doubt the turrets she fought the Spee with. Unfortunately turret barrel apertures are canvased over here. But as can be seen there are slight differences between the two turrets.

Quite interesting picture here, I hadn�t seen it before, and only 5 months before the Battle of River Plate. When were the "EX" letters painted on the turrets?

The barbette�s reinforcements are clearly seen, planking of the B turret as well, some painting details, and what seems to be a gray area below the rear Turret A area, like antiskid on the deck, interesting. Thanks for sharing.

Marco