WesWorld

Ammunition handling rates would appear to be a big factor in historical quads' slow rate of fire. Can anybody recommend an online source (other than warships1) or copy a written reference on handling rates and mechanisms for the KGV, Dunkerque, or Strasbourg quad mounts?

Meanwhile, I assume that any twin or triple mount would feature a gun/powder hoist for each barrel?

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
Meanwhile, I assume that any twin or triple mount would feature a gun/powder hoist for each barrel?

I´d be quite careful to assume something like that - especially when talking about triples of early design. Maybe someone with a good sourcebook at hand can tell us if VIRIBUS UNITIS had three hoists per turret for example. Not sure about the russian DNs with triples too.

I´ll go and see if I can dig something out. I´ll drop you a note.

Regards,

HoOmAn

I have a book called "Naval weapons of WW2", give me a few hours and I'll see what I can dig up!

Hi there,

I´ve opened a thread on this one on the BB board. Let´s see if somebody can provide useful information.

Regards,

HoOmAn

I've checked out that book, but it doesn't give much info on the actual ammo handling systems for turrets.
It does however have a nice line drawing that shows the ammo handling system on the french quad turrets, they had 2 x twinned ammo lifts, 1 pair to each side, serving each pair of guns. I couldn't find anything on the british quads.

Is that for the 13" or the 15"?

I wonder how effective that was - Warships1 notes that both the Dunkerques and the Richelieus had reduced rates of fire on account of shell handling. It's not clear to me whether the hoists themselves are the issue, or some other aspect of handling. I'd think that there would be a slow-down in loading and unloading the hoist since you'd probably only be able to load/unload one shell at a time...

The close spacing of the guns may also have been a factor, I'm guessing. Too crowded for the gun crews to be efficient.

Somewhere in this house I have a book with a diagram of a quad 14" turret from KGV, but lord only knows where it is right now (I need bookshelves!). Reading from the entry on that weapon in Warships1 suggests that the slower rate of fire may have been a matter of the guns being overly complex and with too many (!) safety features, as opposed to ammo rates.

It does make me wonder: the Brits left a good deal of space (8') between their barrels. If they'd had a hoist for each barrel, and hadn't over-engineered the mount, might they had achieved the same ROF as a pair of twins?

Thanks for posting to BB vs BB, Stephan. Some good feedback there.

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor

Somewhere in this house I have a book with a diagram of a quad 14" turret from KGV, but lord only knows where it is right now (I need bookshelves!).

I feel your pain rocky, my book collection is steadily increasing and to top it all off I also have WW2 models to show off so I need a LOT of shelf space!

The problem comes when you run out of space to stack the books vertically and need to cram them in horizontally as well. My model aircraft, about 30 of them, don't take up much room as they're hung from the ceiling. I don't think you can do the same with ships though.

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
Thanks for posting to BB vs BB, Stephan. Some good feedback there.

Yeah, Tony and Gene put up some interesting info. That thread could also be interesting for those among our players that have designed and are willing to use quads for medium or small caliber guns (on DDs and cruisers).

Cheers,

HoOmAn

Oddly enough the Japanese portion of my ship collection is the largest, but thats due to the bulk of kits being produced being from Japanese kit company's.
The tough part is getting German and British ships in a consistant scale for starters let alone in 1/700 scale.
Planes and tanks on the other hand seem to be easier.
I prefere the smaller scales so as to maximise my collection.

you think you have space problems??
All my planes (10 and increasing) have at least a 60" wingspan, and the ships are all between 33 and 48"!!!
And that is not counting the stash of models that are awaiting building (50 plus, R/C and static)!!!

ANd let's not forget Navarra :-) But it's a big house and there's loadsa space in the bathroom ;-)

Maybe we should start a models thread?

Getting back to Rocky's original question, the french appear to have used the same design on both size of quad turrets.
And it mentions that they were operated as if a pair of twins!

Quoted

Maybe we should start a models thread?

Maybe we should. I have a few...somewhere...in a box...that hasn't been opened for seven years. Displaying them requires some kind of closed-in glass showcase, otherwise a member of The Herd is bound to damage them eventually. Coming into the living room to find a puppy chewing off the bow of Bismarck would not be a good thing.

Though it might make for interesting fiction.

Quoted

Getting back to Rocky's original question, the french appear to have used the same design on both size of quad turrets.

Thanks, Commodore. I've seen that the French put armored bulkheads down the middle of the turret to split it. I wonder how effective that would be at protecting one half of the turret from a major caliber hit to the other half?