Great presentation, and wonderful to see how nice the space looks. It would be sort of weird to make it a specific design goal to have turrets remain in place (or not) during a capsize - a bit outside the design envelope, one would assume. But it of course makes perfect sense to have a structure to hold down the turrets for the purpose of making a more stable gunnery platform. (Remarkable also that the name makes sense. Not many naval terms do.)
I'm going to take a chance here and say, I don't think battleships are designed to capsize. But, while we're on the subject, why not use a modern design of a 16" gun? All that ballistic research must be good for something!
Most weapons today are designed as standoff weapons. Distance to the enemy is, in today's standards, very very close with guns. Also, I have been told that we could not replicate the Mk7 today. We lack the mfg capability, and I have been told, the actual knowlege of how to actually do it. 26-ish miles ain't far in the days of real time satellite imaging, jets, phased array radar, and cruise missiles.
Concerns about the range of the Mk 7 gun were as we understand it, being discussed at NAVSEA during the final years of the battleship program. There were sun-caliber, extended range efforts underway, but they were not completed. Range estimates of near 70,000 yards or just under 40 miles were discussed. Beyond the Mk 7, we know of serious design efforts to install 96 tubes of a Vertical Launch System (VLS) as a replacement for the Armored Box Launchers (ABL) which would have allowed for a very solid long range missile capability.
My compliments to your staff of painters as the interior space you were filming in looked showroom new. Also of note was Battleship Oklahoma BB - 37 that capsized at Pearl Harbor retained her turrets and were in place when she was rolled upright in 1943.
Definitely on the OKLAHOMA. Extraordinary! Thanks for the compliment on the space. We'll pass it on to the volunteer team that is doing the work in there. To say they've done a phenomenal job is a giant understatement.
I assume that this question comes from the Battleship Bismarck. When her wreck was discovered in 1989, it was found that all four of her turrets (which were held in by gravity alone) had fallen out when she capsized. Not sure if the Germans actually designed them that way in the event that they may fall out. I personally don't understand what the point of that would be.
that question is based, I believe, on the sinking of the Bismark and Hood...their turrets fell out after flipping...interesting to learn if the Iowa-class ships would do same.
I'm surprised your engineer didn't explain that bolts don't hold on their sheer strength. Threaded fasteners clamp the 2 surfaces together and it's the friction generated between the 2 surfaces via the fasteners clamping force that creates the strength. Thereby, the sheer strength of the bolts holding the hold down clips in place is but a fraction of the actual strength.
We agree that friction between the plates is a huge help. But the shear capability of the bolts alone is impressive. The calculation of our Licensed PE is provided in the associated video.
Are you talking about hydraulic flow? I'm not sure we have that information available to us but I can look. The pump is a 300HP electro-hydraulic arrangement with a gear reduction drive to a classic swash-plate pump. But this pump is BIG with 4" high pressure lines, bifurcated to the two hydraulic motors. No flow divider to be seen.
I'm thinking it may take a little time for all the connections to fail. Most battleships tend to capsize as they sink. It probably stays capsized until the turrets fall out. That reduces the weight and the hull rights itself. Shallower water probably doesn't give it enough time for that to happen.
Jim, three of the four deep-water ship losses which come to my mind (YAMATO, MUSASHI and HOOD) all met cataclysmic ends, breaking apart in very violent fashion at or near the surface. Under those conditions, I would be very shocked to find that turrets were retained. BISMARCK is perhaps a little unique in that it rests on the bottom in essentially one piece. But I also note that the ship was pummeled by the British...reportedly with several thousand rounds. Damage to the barbettes is clearly visible in the imagery we have, so the combination of deep water and extensive damage due to shellfire are possible reasons for turret loss.
@@55elledge Tirpitz is actually visible on Google Earth as are many of the bomb craters from the Brits. It is far less than a ships length from shore. EDIT: I guess it's all been salvqaged now, no longer visible. But the craters are...
@@mikegetscher2165 I got asked the question a lot (as well as the "move sideways?" question. My answer always was "If your turrets are falling out, you've got bigger problems than your turrets falling out." I remember you showing me that pic of Derfflinger in the floating dry dock with the turret in place. After that and hearing the question from guests I thought about it a lot and though I couldn't do research like you, I arrived at the conclusion that they were not meant for capsize retention (what's the point?) it was about preventing jams as much as possible.
