I read conflicting statements on wehter these mounts were capable of all round loading or end on loading only.
the case for all round loading:
Notellmann in his "From Ironclads to Dreadnoughts" (His series of articles from Warship international bundled in book form) makes a strong case (and a bit harshly worded at times) that these mounts did have all round loading capability.
According to Nottelmann the shells +charges in these mounts was loaded from the magazine into a working chamber under the turret hood where thye were put on a circular track. A hoist in the turret itself could then lift a shell from this circular track into the turret at any angle of train. This is a very similar system to later German Heavy coast defense mounts of WWII vintage.
As support Nottelmann has a picture of the 28 cm C/92 mount on the proving ground showing clearly this circular track (p. 109)
On the 24 cm mounts he wrires (p 126):
" the ammunition hoist ended in the after end of the egg-shaped barbette where it had to be transferred to a trolley running on a circular rails, delivering it to the aft end of the gun where it finally had to be hoisted up by a crane into the loading position. This transfer is one of the least understood details of these old German warships, .... [Jane's mentioning they had no all round loading capability] .... in fact they had [all round loading capability] because the projectiles did not need to be rammed home by a mechanical device......."
"Interestingly, later comparative exercises showed no substantial difference in loading cycles between the C/97 and C/98 mountings"
Note that Schmalenbach in his "Geschichte der Deutschen Schiffsartillerie" has a diagram of these C/97 turrets on p 68, which clearly shows the circular track for the ammo between the hoist and the turret above + derrick like crane for transfer between the two next to the loading tray in the gun house.
Dodson also writes the C/97 mount had all round loading, but without any refernces, I guess, from his coöperation with Notellmann he relied on the latters infomation.
any other input ?
the case for all round loading:
Notellmann in his "From Ironclads to Dreadnoughts" (His series of articles from Warship international bundled in book form) makes a strong case (and a bit harshly worded at times) that these mounts did have all round loading capability.
According to Nottelmann the shells +charges in these mounts was loaded from the magazine into a working chamber under the turret hood where thye were put on a circular track. A hoist in the turret itself could then lift a shell from this circular track into the turret at any angle of train. This is a very similar system to later German Heavy coast defense mounts of WWII vintage.
As support Nottelmann has a picture of the 28 cm C/92 mount on the proving ground showing clearly this circular track (p. 109)
On the 24 cm mounts he wrires (p 126):
" the ammunition hoist ended in the after end of the egg-shaped barbette where it had to be transferred to a trolley running on a circular rails, delivering it to the aft end of the gun where it finally had to be hoisted up by a crane into the loading position. This transfer is one of the least understood details of these old German warships, .... [Jane's mentioning they had no all round loading capability] .... in fact they had [all round loading capability] because the projectiles did not need to be rammed home by a mechanical device......."
"Interestingly, later comparative exercises showed no substantial difference in loading cycles between the C/97 and C/98 mountings"
Note that Schmalenbach in his "Geschichte der Deutschen Schiffsartillerie" has a diagram of these C/97 turrets on p 68, which clearly shows the circular track for the ammo between the hoist and the turret above + derrick like crane for transfer between the two next to the loading tray in the gun house.
Dodson also writes the C/97 mount had all round loading, but without any refernces, I guess, from his coöperation with Notellmann he relied on the latters infomation.
any other input ?
statistics: Posted by Inhapi — 5:25 PM - Today — Replies 0 — Views 12