I dunno about you guys, but something I always wondered as a kid was...

[Knoxville]

Just how powerful those huge cannons mounted on the front of battleships were. I mean they look very menacing and all that but I'd never actually seen them fired.

Well I was a little bored this morning so I thought I'd have a google and this is what I came up with...






And just to put the sheer size of those craters the shockwave makes in the ocean here's a better shot of the ship.....



Absoloutly immense!

[stytagm]

Very cool
That bottom photo is going into portsmouth if I'm not mistaken. That's Southsea castle on the left (I think) and the church at the top with the bombed out roof is still there (still hasn't got a roof either).

[kidzer]

Jesus, thats a huge shockwave!

If it makes that big a dent in the sea (and i'm assuming the water level in the shockwave is lower than regular sea level), howcome the ship doesn't fall into it?

...or am I just being a bit silly now?

[99Flake]

To give you some idea of how powerful those things are HMS Hood (a battle cruiser) was capable of firing in excess of 11 Miles, now that is WW2. Something like USS Missouri was capable of 23 Miles! Problem is that battleships have never really been used in anger, their firing rate was too slow and manouverability was awful. More modern battleships used laser guidence for targeting more accuratley but they required massive support fleets to protect them, making them very costly. This is why they were superceeded by aircraft carriers.

HMS Hood was the closest they got to a manouverable battleship (hence why she was a battle cruiser by type) however this was at the expense of armour and why she was sunk so easily after a direct hit. Her sister ship Rodney was soon refitted with better armour.

[Butuz]

Thats an awsome pic!

Butuz

[Zak33]

that IS an amazing picture.

utterly awesome!

[TamDigital]

Poor fishies!

Imagine the inaccuracy of firing 23 miles on moving water, one ripple could send the shell off course considerably, surely?

[dave87]

Jesus, thats a huge shockwave!

If it makes that big a dent in the sea (and i'm assuming the water level in the shockwave is lower than regular sea level), howcome the ship doesn't fall into it?

...or am I just being a bit silly now?

Yup, it would be lower due to increased pressure, however the ship doesn't fall into it due to the kickback on the guns

Dave

[ekundo]

according to my housemate who is in the navy, the most recent load of guns they recieved for the battleships had to have inaccuracies built into their fireing otherwise they hit the same couple of meters of ground where they were aimed

not really a bombardment if all you're doing is digging a big hole in the same place

[Bluecube]

To give you some idea of how powerful those things are HMS Hood (a battle cruiser) was capable of firing in excess of 11 Miles, now that is WW2. Something like USS Missouri was capable of 23 Miles!

HMS Hood was the closest they got to a manouverable battleship (hence why she was a battle cruiser by type) however this was at the expense of armour and why she was sunk so easily after a direct hit. Her sister ship Rodney was soon refitted with better armour.

You're comparing WWI with WWII as the Hood was laid down on 1918 while the Missouri was laid down on 1941. Amazing how old these battleships are!

I beg to differ about your statement on manouverable battleships. The Hood was (as you said before) a battle cruiser not a battleship hence the lighter armour. I'm fairly certain the Rodney was a battleship proper. I think the difference in category is down to the displacement of the ships.

Anyway, back on topic, you wouldn't want to be on the wrong end of an accurate broadside from those cannon! I've never seen a shockwave like it before but it doesn't surprise me considering that the shells fired by the cannon are around four or five feet tall.

[99Flake]

You're comparing WWI with WWII as the Hood was laid down on 1918 while the Missouri was laid down on 1941. Amazing how old these battleships are!.

Whilst it is tue she was laid down in 1918, she had a major refit between 1929 and 1931 which meant that she was pretty much a new ship by the time she engaged the Bismark. Always thought that the Rodney was a sister ship? Oh well!

I'm with you though on not wanting to be on the receiving end! Absoloutely amazing power!

[listy]

didnt hood get sunk by a shot going in the main deck (which didnt much armour on it) and hitting the magazine?

also sure im read that ships like the Missouri fired 1 ton shells (but i could be wrong) edit just read they were "2,700 pound (1200 kg)"

Quote from http://www.voodoo.cz/hood/hunt.html

"About eight minutes into the fight, a shell from Bismarck plunged through Hood's thinly armoured deck and exploded among the ship's main ammunition stores"

[Bluecube]

I always thought the Hood was sunk by the Graf Spee at the Battle of the River Plate but I keep reading it was sunk by the Bismarck. How the heck am I getting this wrong?

EDIT: I'm so far off the track I'm on another planet! No idea where I got the idea that the Hood was sunk by the Graf Spee.

[nichomach]

Something like USS Missouri was capable of 23 Miles!

It gets worse - that was with standard 16" shells; the refitted battlewagons were also capable of firing sub-calibre saboted rounds (8" as I recall) with a range of 50 miles, and laser guidance. Nasty.

It's probably a mistake to think of Hood as a battlecruiser proper, since typically battlecruisers carried slightly smaller gun armament and compensated for lack of armour with increased speed and agility. Hood carried 15" guns and her displacement was about equal with a battleship of the same period, something over 30,000 tons.

Bluecube - Hood was sunk by Bismarck; River Plate was an engagement between 3 RN cruisers (1 heavy, 2 light) and the pocket battleship Graf Spee, which ended in the Graf Spee taking refuge in Montevideo, before her captain (believing himself hemmed in by greatly superior forces, as opposed to the three cruisers, which, to be fair, he'd administered a right pasting to) decided to scuttle her. Bismarck was the sister ship of Tirpitz, and there was nothing "pocket" about either .

[mart_haj86]

It would be nice to see a video of this. Ive just had a quick search on google video but no luck next up youtube.

[Jonny]

To give you some idea of how powerful those things are HMS Hood (a battle cruiser) was capable of firing in excess of 11 Miles, now that is WW2. Something like USS Missouri was capable of 23 Miles!

In the Army we use vehicles smaller than any ship (about 20 tonnes), capable of firing 40 miles.