# British Capital Ships and Magazine explosions. **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 1, 2010, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317 "2010-01-01T19:02:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317/21 "2010-01-06T18:34:51Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > The _Barham_ was a bit different. It was actually sunk by the near simultaneous striking of three torpedoes. The magazine explosion occcurred during the sinking when extra anti-aircraft ammunition that had been stored in unsecured locations near the magazines, (because the Mediterranean was a place where you wanted to have as much AA ammo ready as quickly as possible), happened to get set off by the torpedo-lit fires. Was the mag explosion something that killed the ship or was she doomed anyway and the mag explosion merely the coup de grace? ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317/22 "2010-01-06T19:17:20Z")
When you look at the film of it, she’s capsizing and she’s not coming back. The explosion was irrelevant to the sinking. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/3HSY94QVIss/hqdefault.jpg "The Sinking of HMS Barham") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HSY94QVIss) ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2010, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317/23 "2010-01-07T01:22:27Z")
> [@MarcusF](#): > > His conclusion is that it was not primarily differences in design that made the difference but the extremely lax application of the designed in precautions on the British ships edit – I see now **MarcusF** ’s point has been echoed by others. Here’s a bit more on the topic. Most of the books I’ve read emphasize that the Royal Navy specifically ignored/overrode its own safety equipment. The explosions of all the British battlecruisers at Jutland, and also the _Hood_, took place after hits to the turret trunk – the huge cylinder running down from the turret into the “armored box” that contained the magazine. Turret trunks were compartmentalized with anti-flash shields that were supposed to work something like airlocks – you’d open one shield, move the propellant and shells into the compartment, close that shield, and only then open the next shield and move the propellant into the next compartment, and thus up to the turret. This process was time-consuming. In numerous engagements, British gunners repeatedly left the anti-flash shields entirely open to speed firing rate. Occasionally this caught up with them – a shell would penetrate the turret trunk, and the explosion would pass right down the cylinder (which was crowded with propellant and shells being brought up, propagating the explosion) into the magazine. The reduced deck armor and the use of battlecruisers in the line of battle increased the likelihood that someone, sooner or later, would take a penetrating hit to the turret trunk – but when that happened, the main cause of the ship losses was the neglected anti-flash barriers. As if to prove that point, HMS _Lion_ was penetrated in the turret trunk at Jutland, but a new gunnery officer had ordered stricter adherence to ammunition-handling safety rules, and the resulting flash fire propagated “more slowly” (we’re talking quite fast in actuality) allowing a quick-thinking Royal Marine to flood the magazines before the flash arrived, saving the ship. [Cite](http://www.shipsnostalgia.com/guides/Lion_Class_Battle-Cruiser_-_HMS_Lion?cruise_forum_g __session=42be8af4667bd8c842f5690efea2d82c#Service__ History) – skip to “Battle of Jutland.” Why didn’t they learn? Well, they _did_ learn. But turret-trunk penetrations were rare, and a high volume of fire is enticing. Offensive power is more seductive than opening and closing flash doors and other boring safety procedures. . ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2010, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317/24 "2010-01-07T01:27:46Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Why did the British ships have glass jaws so to speak. I get the less armour bit, but it goes against 300 years of tradition, British ships had in the age of sail a reputation for being able to withstand immense punishment and surviving, HMS Victory at Trafalger for instance. Why was the policy changed? Naval battles were less survivable period in the modern era due to the much deadlier artillery available. Basically _nothing_, not even a battleship, could survive many hits from another battleship’s main guns. In this context armor simply meant being resistant to catastrophic single-point failure from a lucky hit, rather than being in any sense invulnerable to fourteen-inch guns. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2010, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317/25 "2010-01-07T01:30:04Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > allowing a quick-thinking Royal Marine to flood the magazines before the flash arrived, saving the ship. I should add, thus winning a posthumous Victoria Cross. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2010, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317/26 "2010-01-07T01:45:17Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Naval battles were less survivable period in the modern era due to the much deadlier artillery available. Churchill’s famous summation of this change was to say that Jellicoe (the commander at Jutland) “could have lost the war in an afternoon.” Dreadnoughts individually were mighty, but _as a system_ they could crumble faster than, and take longer to replace than, Nelson’s wooden fleet of a hundred-odd years earlier. Another great quote on this topic comes from the admiral in charge of the British battlecruiser fleet, Beatty. Two battlecruisers, _Queen Mary_ and _Indefatigable_, had already been blown up by magazine explosions. Informed (erroneously, it turned out) that _Princess Royal_ had just been destroyed (she’d actually been obscured by spray while under heavy fire), Beatty remarked with the sort of sang-froid the Royal Navy prides itself on, “Chatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today.” ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2010, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317/27 "2010-01-07T03:40:53Z")
I think its pertinent to note that the battlecruiser _Tiger_ took more than a dozen hits at Jutland and survived. So Battlecruisers could take hits it seems. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2010, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317/28 "2010-01-07T04:09:00Z")
This makes me wonder: what determined the optimum number of guns per ship? Would it have made any military sense to build more numerous ships with just one or two big guns each than one ship bearing a large battery? ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2010, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317/29 "2010-01-07T06:13:50Z")
After the Seydlitz disaster the Germans discovered the danger of magazine fires. The British did not. Further, German ships were tougher than the British due to design trade-off. The Germans held the first duty of a naval ship was to stay afloat. This led to greater compartmentalization and greater damage-control capability. The British ships were designed to operate all over the world. This led to more open spaces for better livability during long cruises. While ship can suffer a deadly blow (SMS Seydlitz, HMS Hood) British ships were more prone to such a thing due to their design. (THat was a poor post. Sorry, when I get back I will try to be clearer.) ---
**Author:** ![yendis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ed8c4c/32.png) [@yendis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yendis)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2010, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317/30 "2010-01-07T07:19:56Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > This makes me wonder: what determined the optimum number of guns per ship? Would it have made any military sense to build more numerous ships with just one or two big guns each than one ship bearing a large battery? The advantage of multiple guns is that you get a spread of shells around the aiming point increasing the chances of a hit. Also with multiple guns a turret can be put out of action but the ship can still hit back with its remaining weapons. The [HMS Furious](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Furious_(47)) was a light cruiser built with two 18 inch guns in single turrets, the concept was found to be lacking and Furious was converted into a carrier. ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2010, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317/31 "2010-01-07T12:43:09Z")
Also, from the Twenties you have the treaty restrictions on the number of ships you can build and the tonnage. The 35,000 ton limit imposed on the _King George V_ class, on the assumption that the Washington limits would be renewed in the London Treaty (which did not happen because the Japanese withdrew) resulted in mediocre ships which were just not in the class as the _Iowa_s, designed without regard to treaty limits. ---
**Author:** ![Quercus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/7ab992/32.png) [@Quercus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quercus)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2010, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317/32 "2010-01-07T13:08:36Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > This makes me wonder: what determined the optimum number of guns per ship? Would it have made any military sense to build more numerous ships with just one or two big guns each than one ship bearing a large battery? Well, they came pretty close to that, in comparison to earlier times. Typical was nine big guns or so for battleships. Compare that to the wooden ship era, where the biggest ships had over a hundred guns (though I think something like 70 was more common). ---
**Author:** ![lazybratsche](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ba8739/32.png) [@lazybratsche](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lazybratsche)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2010, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317/33 "2010-01-07T13:41:51Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > This makes me wonder: what determined the optimum number of guns per ship? Would it have made any military sense to build more numerous ships with just one or two big guns each than one ship bearing a large battery? You need a pretty big ship to act as a stable platform for the big guns. If you mounted them on something smaller than a battleship, they might very well capsize with every shot. The Russian navy tried a few experiments here, prior to the development of dreadnoughts, and the result was a round ship with two of the biggest currently available guns. It couldn’t manuever well at all, and was awkward to the point of being useless, so the design was abandoned. See the [Wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_battleship_Novgorod) article on the Novgorod, and a [picture](http://web.ukonline.co.uk/aj.cashmore/russia/battleships/novgorod/novgorod1.html)for reference. ---
**Author:** ![Hypno-Toad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b2d939/32.png) [@Hypno-Toad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypno-Toad)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2010, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317/34 "2010-01-07T14:07:28Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > This makes me wonder: what determined the optimum number of guns per ship? Would it have made any military sense to build more numerous ships with just one or two big guns each than one ship bearing a large battery? [Here](http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-076.htm) is an article that touches on that. The various scenarios provide excellent illustrations of the effects of different design philosophies such as heavier guns vs better protection and the like. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2010, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317/35 "2010-01-07T15:42:15Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > This makes me wonder: what determined the optimum number of guns per ship? Would it have made any military sense to build more numerous ships with just one or two big guns each than one ship bearing a large battery? I don’t think more numerous ships is a good idea. In Jutland, the British brought 24 Battleships in it’s main force (the Grand Fleet, not the Battlecruiser force). This formed a “line ahead” line rather long. The ships in the tail end of the line barely saw the enemy line before he disengaged, and didn’t get any shots off. If you had 50 ships with 2 guns a-piece, they need more sea room than 10 ships with 10 guns a-piece. (I bet you’ll need more manpower to crew all that, as well.) ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2010, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317/36 "2010-01-07T16:12:15Z")
But the limit is the crew. A large ship requires less crew-per-gun than a smaller. This is because a single large ship pays the same overhead costs (in crew positions) as smaller one. Several smaller one pay the overhead several times. ---
**Author:** ![audit1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ed8c4c/32.png) [@audit1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/audit1)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2010, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317/37 "2010-01-08T06:30:35Z")
Magazines can be dangerous even at anchor. Case in point The battleship IJN Mutsu blew up in harbour in 1943. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317/38 "2010-03-19T17:13:36Z")
> [@Cicero](#): > > I’d have to disagree with the assessment that the QE’s came off worse than the German battlecruisers. Of the five German battle cruisers Lutzow was sunk, Sedlitz would have sunk except for such a short voyage home and all required dry docking for repairs. The Derrflinger was unavailable until 15 October. In contrast,the Valiant was not hit by heavy shells and the one with the most serious damage (due to jammed steering) was out of dry dock by 20 July. Barham and Malaya were out of dry dock earlier in July. > > Even though three of the German battle cruisers received more hits than the QE’s I can not see how they came off worse in battle against the battle cruisers. > > And to be precise, the damage to the QE’s was not caused by the German battle cruisers. In the run to the south only the Barham suffered any hits (two). The damage was caused later- principally by the guns of the High Seas Fleet. Sorry to revivive an old thread, but the last is wrong. _Barham_ suffered 4 hits from _Derfflinger_ and _Warspite_ 4 from Seydlitz during the run to the north, when the Battlecrusers and QE’s were attempting to escape. ---
**Author:** ![Cicero](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cicero/32/3594_2.png) [@Cicero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cicero)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317/39 "2010-03-20T01:12:35Z")
I fail to see your point. I was talking of the run to the South then you have mentioned the run to the North. If you are trying to make something of the statement that the QE’s suffered principally from the guns of the High Seas Fleet, again I don’t think you have much of a point. In the run to the north Seydlitz only scored three hits, yet you say she scored four hits on Warspite alone. The records show that Warspite received only two hits from heavy gunfire during the period 5.54 to 7.15 (the run to the North). Again, these figures do not support your assertion. Warspite later received 11 hits from the German High Seas Fleet. Those 11 hits from the heavier guns did the principal damage. Barham did receive 4 hits in the run to the North, but which ship fired them is unclear. It may have been the battle cruisers but equally it could have been by the Konig. My stats are from Jutland: An Analysis of the Fighting (1986) and Der Kreig zur See (1925). ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317/40 "2010-03-20T06:55:55Z")
Sorry its two hits from _Seydlitz_ on _Warspite_. My mistake. Still, thats not something the QE’s should be proud off, especially considering that their own hits which should have destroyed the _Derfflinger’s_ did not. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317.md?page=3)