Fusing of AP shells in battleship guns & Time of flight input

[M***@hotmail.com]

Fusing of AP shells in battleship guns

Did any one every try fuses which depended on a time-of-flight input ?

It seems to me that if a shell contacts the target toward the end of
its flight, in a plunging trajectory, then it is more likely to
contact the deck armor and plunge through the depth of the ship.
Ideally it would go clean through bottom of the hull and hole the
boat, giving torpedo-like effectiveness. A long delay fuse would be
better for this.

If the shell strikes the ship early in its trajectory, then it is more
likely to strike the side armor. A short delay fuse which sets off the
charge within the guts of the ship would be more useful than a long
delay which allowed the shell to penetrate the width of the ship.

To do this, the shell would have to have two fuses, with the handover
between the two fuses set to occur by elapsed seconds after leaving
the gun.

[Derek Lyons]

Post by M***@hotmail.com
Fusing of AP shells in battleship guns
Did any one every try fuses which depended on a time-of-flight input ?
It seems to me that if a shell contacts the target toward the end of
its flight, in a plunging trajectory, then it is more likely to
contact the deck armor and plunge through the depth of the ship.
Ideally it would go clean through bottom of the hull and hole the
boat, giving torpedo-like effectiveness. A long delay fuse would be
better for this.

The bursting charge of an AP shell is far too small to be useful as a
'torpedo like effect'. (Whatever that is.)

D.

[Keith W]

Post by M***@hotmail.com
Fusing of AP shells in battleship guns
Did any one every try fuses which depended on a time-of-flight input ?
It seems to me that if a shell contacts the target toward the end of
its flight, in a plunging trajectory, then it is more likely to
contact the deck armor and plunge through the depth of the ship.
Ideally it would go clean through bottom of the hull and hole the
boat, giving torpedo-like effectiveness. A long delay fuse would be
better for this.
If the shell strikes the ship early in its trajectory, then it is more
likely to strike the side armor. A short delay fuse which sets off the
charge within the guts of the ship would be more useful than a long
delay which allowed the shell to penetrate the width of the ship.
To do this, the shell would have to have two fuses, with the handover
between the two fuses set to occur by elapsed seconds after leaving
the gun.

In fact this was accomplished by using a base fuzed shell which
exploded after a timed period from hitting the armour, This
is much easier to manage that having to set fuze delays continually
as the range changes. The magic bullet for destroying a ship is
not punching a 16" hole in the bottom then setting of a 50lb HE
charge in the water. Its much more effective to penetrate the
magazines and explode there which will completely destroy the
vessel. See Hood, Arizona , Roma etc

High explosive shells were designed to explode on contact
and used a noze fuze with a short delay and were useful against
unarmoured ships and to wreck the upperworks, directors
and radars of an armoured ship.

Keith

[Weatherlawyer]

Post by Keith W

Post by M***@hotmail.com
Fusing of AP shells in battleship guns
Did any one every try fuses which depended on a time-of-flight input ?

I don't think they had effective fuses in those days. The timing
mechanisms were all hit and miss. I doubtthey had an in depth enquiry
about the effectiveness of British fuses in the Campletown as it
turned out to be very effective.

And I doubt the Brits were going to tell the the Germans what was
supposed to happen.

Post by Keith W

Post by M***@hotmail.com
It seems to me that if a shell contacts the target toward the end of
its flight, in a plunging trajectory, then it is more likely to
contact the deck armor and plunge through the depth of the ship.
Ideally it would go clean through bottom of the hull and hole the
boat, giving torpedo-like effectiveness. A long delay fuse would be
better for this.
If the shell strikes the ship early in its trajectory, then it is more
likely to strike the side armor. A short delay fuse which sets off the
charge within the guts of the ship would be more useful than a long
delay which allowed the shell to penetrate the width of the ship.
To do this, the shell would have to have two fuses, with the handover
between the two fuses set to occur by elapsed seconds after leaving
the gun.

In fact this was accomplished by using a base fuzed shell which
exploded after a timed period from hitting the armour, This
is much easier to manage that having to set fuze delays continually
as the range changes. The magic bullet for destroying a ship is
not punching a 16" hole in the bottom then setting of a 50lb HE
charge in the water. Its much more effective to penetrate the
magazines and explode there which will completely destroy the
vessel. See Hood, Arizona , Roma etc

Good aiming in the day of Radar's infancy, that.

Post by Keith W
High explosive shells were designed to explode on contact
and used a nose fuze with a short delay and were useful against
unarmoured ships and to wreck the upperworks, directors
and radars of an armoured ship.

Apparently the German shells were better at penetration so they must
have haad some more suitable device to the RN's. There again we always
seemed to send out rowing boats out against their battleships.
It is surprising we won, isn't it.

[Keith W]

Post by Weatherlawyer

Post by Keith W

Post by M***@hotmail.com
Fusing of AP shells in battleship guns
Did any one every try fuses which depended on a time-of-flight input ?

I don't think they had effective fuses in those days. The timing
mechanisms were all hit and miss. I doubtthey had an in depth enquiry
about the effectiveness of British fuses in the Campletown as it
turned out to be very effective.
And I doubt the Brits were going to tell the the Germans what was
supposed to happen.

Different fuze type entirely.

Shell fuzes were used a striker and pyrotechnic train and were very
reliable,

Post by Weatherlawyer

Post by Keith W

Post by M***@hotmail.com
It seems to me that if a shell contacts the target toward the end of
its flight, in a plunging trajectory, then it is more likely to
contact the deck armor and plunge through the depth of the ship.
Ideally it would go clean through bottom of the hull and hole the
boat, giving torpedo-like effectiveness. A long delay fuse would be
better for this.
If the shell strikes the ship early in its trajectory, then it is
more likely to strike the side armor. A short delay fuse which sets
off the charge within the guts of the ship would be more useful
than a long delay which allowed the shell to penetrate the width of
the ship.
To do this, the shell would have to have two fuses, with the
handover between the two fuses set to occur by elapsed seconds
after leaving the gun.

In fact this was accomplished by using a base fuzed shell which
exploded after a timed period from hitting the armour, This
is much easier to manage that having to set fuze delays continually
as the range changes. The magic bullet for destroying a ship is
not punching a 16" hole in the bottom then setting of a 50lb HE
charge in the water. Its much more effective to penetrate the
magazines and explode there which will completely destroy the
vessel. See Hood, Arizona , Roma etc

Good aiming in the day of Radar's infancy, that.

Post by Keith W
High explosive shells were designed to explode on contact
and used a nose fuze with a short delay and were useful against
unarmoured ships and to wreck the upperworks, directors
and radars of an armoured ship.

Apparently the German shells were better at penetration so they must
have haad some more suitable device to the RN's. There again we always
seemed to send out rowing boats out against their battleships.
It is surprising we won, isn't it.

German guns used a higher muzzle velocity which gave them a
slightly higher penetration but this was offset to a great
degree by the better performance of British armour

Hood had thin deck armour that was not adequate to protect against plunging
fire which is why she was trying to close the range when hit.

Keith

[a425couple]

Post by M***@hotmail.com
Fusing of AP shells in battleship guns

Somebody might find these informative:
http://www.aosurplus.com/Ammunition_fuze_Projectiles_Ordnance_WWII_Ammo_military.htm

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/Gun_Data_p2.htm

http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=5596

"I seem to recall the pyrotechnic delay times in the 38 cm naval Bdz 38 was
.035 second. The BdZ 38 eV base fuzes for 20,3cm and 28cm AP and base fuzed
HE could be set to 0 delay, .015 second, or .035 second. There were a number
of base fuzes used in coastal battery ammunition which were marked KV and
these usually had a set .015 delay.
check out:

http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Ge ... _Fuzes.pdf

One thing I should add, even when set to 0 delay, there is still a finite
time between impact and fuze action in inertial type base fuzes; the time
delay figures are for the pyrotechnic element only, as far as I know."

Post by M***@hotmail.com
Did any one every try fuses which depended on a time-of-flight input ?

I really doubt that anyone tried that.
Impossible to accurately enough predict, because
until the shell has been fired, the time-of-flight
is varying.
Where, iirc, the AP fuze delay is measured in thousands of a second.

[peter skelton]

Post by M***@hotmail.com
Did any one every try fuses which depended on a
time-of-flight input ?

I really doubt that anyone tried that.

While that is certainly true in the context of this
discussion, a time fuse was available for USN and RN
nose-fused battleship projectiles. Navweaps says the USN
ones were intended for AA, actual usage was for AP (from
memory, not Navweaps). Proximity fusing would have made them
obsolescent.

[Shawn Wilson]

Post by M***@hotmail.com
Fusing of AP shells in battleship guns
Did any one every try fuses which depended on a time-of-flight input ?

Aside from AA, which would absolutely require it until the development
of proximity fuzes, the only reason for it would be range safety. 'Do
not arm until x seconds after launch' to prevent damage to the ship.
As a premature that would damage the ship seems impossible, I really
doubt they would bother. Everything would be impact fuzed, with a
slight delay for armor piercing rounds.