Dreadnought era questions.

[holden88]

I have a few questions about WWI era ships. I could go digging for the answers online somewhere but I'm lazy and there seems to be quite a few knowledgable people lurking around these forums.

1) Many dreadnoughts featured case mounted secondary armaments, usually below the deck. As far as I can tell, this was done in an attempt to get as much weight as low as possible, thus increasing the stability of the ship (although some guns were case-mounted into the super structure). Why did ship designers abandon the practice of case-mounting secondary armaments? Was it because the fire-arcs were too restrictive (can't fire at aircraft perhaps)? Or maybe that these guns became near useless in rough seas (being mounted so low to the water-line)?

2) On many pictures and drawings of the older dreadnoughts I see a series of armatures that can be swung out to either side of the ship to suspend what looks like torpedo nets or chains. WWII era ships didn't bother with these. Did these torpedo nets just never really work or did more advanced torpedoes bypass these defences (magentic contacters)?

 

[Wulf Corbett]

1) Many dreadnoughts featured case mounted secondary armaments, usually below the deck.

Why did ship designers abandon the practice of case-mounting secondary armaments?

A combination of the factors you quote, plus the fact that later designs just mounted fewer individual weapons.

2) On many pictures and drawings of the older dreadnoughts I see a series of armatures that can be swung out to either side of the ship to suspend what looks like torpedo nets or chains. WWII era ships didn't bother with these. Did these torpedo nets just never really work or did more advanced torpedoes bypass these defences (magentic contacters)?

The real problem was that anything faster than a dead crawl would fowl the nets up. Any reasonable combat speed would tear them loose.

Wulf

 

[Hugbiel]

1) WWII era weapon are more powerfull too. So it cost less weight to have fewer heavier but more versatile weapon than a lot of less effective ones.

2) torpedo net was still used during WWII but only on anchored ship and in harbours. The divers of poket submarine had to handle them ...

 

[DM]

1)Why did ship designers abandon the practice of case-mounting secondary armaments? Was it because the fire-arcs were too restrictive (can't fire at aircraft perhaps)? Or maybe that these guns became near useless in rough seas (being mounted so low to the water-line)?

A combination of these factors. Casemate guns were generaly hand worked, whilst later secondaries in turrets or deck houses were power operated. Turret mounted dual purpose secondary guns came into fashion in the Allied navies in particular during the 1930s that were capable both against surface targets and aircraft. These obviously needed high angle mounts. Casemate arrangements were, as you say, affected by high sea states (for example the British armoured cruiser guns in casemates at Coronel were practically useless). Finally the magazine and ammunition stowage arrangements in casemates were generally pretty poor and allowed for explosive communication between gun mounts ands possibly magazines (IIRC Warspite suffered from a nasty case of communicating secondaries!).

2) On many pictures and drawings of the older dreadnoughts I see a series of armatures that can be swung out to either side of the ship to suspend what looks like torpedo nets or chains. WWII era ships didn't bother with these. Did these torpedo nets just never really work or did more advanced torpedoes bypass these defences (magentic contacters)?

Torpedo nets were designe dto be deployed at speed. However, there were several cases where the nets (either stowed or deployed) wer damaged by incoming fire and dropped over the side, increasing drag (reducing speed and affecting manoeuvrability) or fouling the ships propellers. The "net" was usually made up of interleaved steel wire rings (a bit like a naval version of chain mail on an enormous scale).