# 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:** 3
**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, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317/41 "2010-03-20T07:34:13Z")
Those German battle cruisers were remarkably tough and arguably the best battle cruiser design (for the job they were to do) of all time. However, in saying that, if you can disregard the problems with the flash doors (admittedly a big ask) the British battle cruisers could absorb punishment. Tiger received 17 hits from heavy guns at Jutland and still stayed in action. She was back fully refitted by 1st July. The Derrflinger which also suffered 17 hits from heavy guns wasn’t out of drydock until 15th October (that may also be a reflection on greater capacity in British yards.) ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2013, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317/42 "2013-12-09T18:14:18Z")
Ok, yes I know its a zombie, but I was the OP and do not want to start another topic. Why did British Aircraft carriers not suffer such explosions. The Battleships, Battlecruisers and even Heavy Cruisers did, but why did the British Aircraft carriers shrug of some tremendous amounts of punishment. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2013, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317/43 "2013-12-09T18:49:35Z")
One of the major things not mentioned regarding Jutland is the problem with British shells. Basically, how you want it to work is that the shell pierces the armor and then a fuze causes the shell to explode a split second later, hopefully in the interior of the ship. What happened to the British was that the shock of hitting the armor caused the explosives to explode prematurely. So they were scoring hits, but the shells were exploding outside of the German ships, doing little damage. Here’s wikipedia’s explanation: > [@](#): > > German armour-piercing shells were far more effective than the British ones, which often failed to penetrate heavy armour.[120] The issue particularly concerned shells striking at oblique angles, which became increasingly the case at long range.[121] Germany had adopted trinitrotoluene (TNT) as the explosive filler for artillery shells in 1902, while the United Kingdom was still using a picric acid mixture (Lyddite). The shock of impact of a shell against armour often prematurely detonated Lyddite in advance of fuze function while TNT detonation could be delayed until after the shell had penetrated and the fuze had functioned in the vulnerable area behind the armour plate.[122] > **[Battle of Jutland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jutland)** > > The Battle of Jutland (German: Skagerrakschlacht, lit. 'Battle of the Skagerrak') was a naval battle between Britain's Royal Navy Grand Fleet, under Admiral Sir John Jellicoe, and the Imperial German Navy's High Seas Fleet, under Vice-Admiral Reinhard Scheer, during World War I. The battle unfolded in extensive manoeuvring and three main engagements from 31 May to 1 June 1916, off the North Sea coast of Denmark's Jutland Peninsula. It was the largest naval battle and only full-scale clash of b... ---
**Author:** ![bob\_2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_2/32/3341_2.png) [@bob\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bob_2)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2013, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317/44 "2013-12-09T19:22:50Z")
Hms Victory carried 104 guns which fired a broadside of about 1¼ tons. The enthusiasm for a high rate of fire may well have been a legacy of those days, in which the English gunners could fire four balls to the French three. This was a significant advantage. Anyone interested should visit HMS Victory at the Portsmouth Historic Dockyard, where she is kept and fully restored. > **[Home - Portsmouth Historic Dockyard](https://historicdockyard.co.uk/)** > > From the hidden depths of the ocean floor to the vast waves above, Portsmouth Historic Dockyard tells the story of Britain’s seafaring innovation. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2013, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317/45 "2013-12-09T19:54:36Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Ok, yes I know its a zombie, but I was the OP and do not want to start another topic. Why did British Aircraft carriers not suffer such explosions. The Battleships, Battlecruisers and even Heavy Cruisers did, but why did the British Aircraft carriers shrug of some tremendous amounts of punishment. The carriers had smaller and more distributed ammo stores. More voids in the outer hull of the ship to effectively absorb damage, and a decent amount of armor. The Ark Royal and the Illustrious class saw a fair amount of action. Quoting wiki here: > [@](#): > > This armour scheme was designed to withstand **1,000 pound bombs** (and heavier bombs which struck at an angle); in the [Home](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Home_Fleet) and Mediterranean theatres it was likely that the carriers would operate within the range of shore-based aircraft, which could carry heavier bombs than their carrier-based equivalents. The flight deck had an armoured thickness of 3 inches, closed by 4.5-inch sides and bulkheads. There were 3-inch strakes on either side extending from the box sides to the top edge of the main side belt, which was of 4.5 inches. The main belt protected the machinery, petrol stowage, magazines and aerial weapon stores. The lifts were placed outside the hangar, at either end, with access through sliding armoured doors in the end bulkheads. ---
**Author:** ![UncleRojelio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/unclerojelio/32/3160_2.png) [@UncleRojelio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleRojelio)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2013, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317/46 "2013-12-09T19:54:47Z")
> [@bob\_2](#): > > Anyone interested should visit HMS Victory at the Portsmouth Historic Dockyard, where she is kept and fully restored. > [http://www.historicdockyard.co.uk/](http://www.historicdockyard.co.uk/) Highly recommended. ---
**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:** [December 9, 2013, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317/47 "2013-12-09T21:12:44Z")
British carriers had more comprehensive fire protection arrangements for petrol than US ones (which also substantially reduced their petrol stowage capacity). _Dasher_ blew up after an internal explosion, blamed on a rating smoking in the service tunnel beneath the petrol stowage. The surviving ships in the class were modified, reducing petrol stowage from, in most cases, 75,000 gallons to 36,000. The USN thought that the better petrol protection that the British had been used to made them complaisant about handling petrol, though they later also made (lesser) reductions in petrol stowage in their ships of the class. _Avenger_ blew up after a torpedo hit, blamed on a splinter reaching the ship’s bomb room right against the hull side (a longitudinal bulkhead was later installed in the surviving ships of the class to keep bombs and torpedoes 10-15ft from the side; the USN made similar changes to its surviving hulls) ---
**Author:** ![the\_diego](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7bcc69/32.png) [@the\_diego](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_diego)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2013, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317/48 "2013-12-09T23:37:03Z")
Don’t count on any pre-Washington Treaty battleship to withstand heavy pounding in WWII. Remember what happened to the Arizona and the Yamashiro (or was it Fuso)? ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317/49 "2013-12-10T16:22:25Z")
The French Navy built several battleships with two forward turrets , each mounting 4 guns (ISO 3). Was this design a better way of reducing topside weight (while maintaining a high firing capacity)? ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317/50 "2013-12-10T16:37:44Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > The French Navy built several battleships with two forward turrets , each mounting 4 guns (ISO 3). Was this design a better way of reducing topside weight (while maintaining a high firing capacity)? Yes (weight). It was done to reduce the area that needed to be covered by heavy armor. The HMSs _Rodney_ and _Nelson_ also followed this weight saving approach. * * * In battleships, the heaviest armor protected the turrets, and the barbettes (the vertical tube surrounding the ammo hoists), and the belt armor protects the waterline (and therefore bouyancy). Magazines were typically below the waterline, so usually didn’t need much vertical armor. High angle plunging fire (and heavy bombs) might penetrate the deck armor, which was typically only a couple inches in the WW1 dreadnoughts, and reach volatile stuff that way. ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317/51 "2013-12-10T19:07:29Z")
Turrets with 4 heavy guns had a number of problems that were never really overcome. The complex ammunition handling arrangements meant that 4 gun turrets tended to fire fairly slowly. There were also many problems of reliability. The individual turrets suffered from torque reaction which again slowed down aiming and hence firing. The ultimate proof of this would be to look at the last battleships to be built, which all had triple mounts ---
**Author:** ![Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/earl_snake-hips_tucker/32/3269_2.png) [@Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317/52 "2013-12-10T19:11:54Z")
And, if anyone’s interested, an earlier thread on [four-gun turrets as opposed to three](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=589401). ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2013, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317/53 "2013-12-11T04:26:42Z")
Being below the waterline did however expose the magazines to torpedo threats. ---
**Author:** ![the\_diego](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7bcc69/32.png) [@the\_diego](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_diego)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2013, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317/54 "2013-12-11T05:43:38Z")
^ But they can be flooded sooner if there’s threat of fire. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2013, 9:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317/55 "2013-12-11T09:15:49Z")
> [@What\_Exit](#): > > The carriers had smaller and more distributed ammo stores. More voids in the outer hull of the ship to effectively absorb damage, and a decent amount of armor. > The Ark Royal and the Illustrious class saw a fair amount of action. Also from Wikipedia on the British Pacific Fleet: "The carriers were subject to heavy and repeated kamikaze attacks, but because of their armoured flight decks, the British aircraft carriers proved highly resistant, and returned to action relatively quickly. The USN liaison officer on the Indefatigable commented: "When a kamikaze hits a US carrier it means 6 months of repair at Pearl [Harbor]. When a kamikaze hits a Limey carrier it’s just a case of ‘Sweepers, man your brooms.’” " ---
**Author:** ![Malden\_Capell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malden_capell/32/5274_2.png) [@Malden\_Capell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malden_Capell)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2013, 10:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317/56 "2013-12-11T10:19:37Z")
Conversely, as I understand it, British aircraft carriers were well-known in WW2 for their excellent armour, but with the trade-off of greatly reduced aircraft capacity. I can’t remember where I read it but I heard that US Navyers looked at British carriers with envy as kamikaze planes tended to just bounce off British carriers where they would have torn a deadly hole in a US one. Edit: oops, I missed the post above mine. Malacandra found the quote 🙂 ---
**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:** [December 11, 2013, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317/57 "2013-12-11T13:06:28Z")
[Here is an article](http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-030.htm) about kamikaze attacks on US and British carriers. The conclusion is that the larger CAP provided by the USN carriers was better at preventing kamikaze damage than the armored flight decks of the RN. From the article: \*In fact, the British designs failed. Off Okinawa, the resistance of the British carriers seemed impressive but in reality the damage they took was severe. Having the hangar inside the hull girder made the hull structure weak and the ships were deformed by comparatively minor damage. Note how quickly nearly all the armored carriers were scrapped postwar - surveys showed they had irreparable hull damage. In contrast, the Essex’s, which suffered much more severe damage, lasted for decades. \* ---
**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:** [December 11, 2013, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317/58 "2013-12-11T20:33:28Z")
_Illustrious_ had never been properly repaired after wartime damage, and was among the first to be discarded - worn out. The armoured hanger deck restricted the overhead height when jets came in, for which these ships were not well adapted, and full modernisation of _Victorious_, with the angled flight deck and steam catapults, proved extremely costly (not least due to poor project management) - the only wartime carrier so modernised. The build quality of the wartime hulls was lower, and this was accepted as a tradeoff for rapid construction during the war. ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2013, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317/59 "2013-12-11T22:08:05Z")
Is there a list of American and Japanese ships that suffered magazine/ammo explosions? _Arizona_ was lost due to the destruction of two of her forward magazines as the result of a hit from a heavy armor piercing bomb, though it’s not clear which magazine lit off first (there wasn’t enough left of either to determine with any accuracy, and the question is largely academic to begin with). This was fairly early in the attack, IIRC, and the _Arizona_ had not soaked up much damage yet. The only other battleship to be irretrievably damaged at Pearl Harbor was _Oklahoma_, which capsized at her mooring and was later lost in a storm while being towed back to the US for repairs. All other battleships were repaired and put back into service (_Utah_ was also abandoned at her resting place, but she had been decommissioned as a battleship in the 30’s already) Probably the most famous US battleship to be lost to a magazine explosion is the _Maine_ (remember her?). They’re still not sure what set that one off to this day (mine or torpedo are seen as less likely nowadays, though sabotage is still vaguely possible and negligence/accident seems likely now). _Maine_ and her sister-ship _Texas_ were both flawed designs for various reasons, though I’ve never heard the magazines in particular get cited here (usually it’s the _en echelon_ battery arrangement that caused them problems). Several Japanese carriers were lost at Midway due to poor ammo handling as well. In this case, the magazines were still intact, but there was far too much ammo being stored in the unarmored hangar spaces due to various circumstances and poor practices combined with the worst killer of all: Remarkably bad timing. The American dive bombers from three different carriers all stumbled across the Japanese carrier force while they were in the middle of rearming their planes for an anti-shipping strike (they were almost ready to launch another wave against the ground installations at Midway, when the American fleet was spotted, so they had to switch out fragmentary bombs for armor piercing bombs and torpedoes, right tool for the job and all). As it turns out, a large quantity of aviation gasoline, many tons of unsecured high explosives, and many tons more of high explosives falling from above can all combine to have a heavily detrimental effect on a carriers’ combat effectiveness. EDIT: Another problem with putting more guns in fewer turrets was that if you happen to lose a single turret (lucky hit from an enemy, accident while handling the powder or shells, or even a mechanical or power failure caused by other circumstances), you lose more of your battery in a single fell swoop. It took several decades for the shipbuilders of the time to settle on three turrets of three guns as a pretty good setup, with ships having varying numbers of turrets with varying numbers of guns (homework assignment: Look up the WWI dreadnought HMS _Agincourt_) ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2013, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317/60 "2013-12-11T23:10:39Z")
> [@Raguleader](#): > > Is there a list of American and Japanese ships that suffered magazine/ammo explosions? I was going to mention the battleship _Mutsu_ which exploded at anchor in 1943 from an magazine accident. While it’s not specifically what you’re looking for, I did come across [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_artificial_non-nuclear_explosions#World_War_II_era) at wiki. > [@Hypno-Toad](#): > > From the article: > \*Note how quickly nearly all the armored carriers were scrapped postwar - surveys showed they had irreparable hull damage. In contrast, the Essex’s, which suffered much more severe damage, lasted for decades. \* It should be noted that economics played a large role in this; the damage was economically unfeasible for Britain to repair, not impossible to repair. Britain’s economy wasn’t in very good shape after the war, while the US economy was booming. From [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_flight_deck#Post_war_analysis): > [@](#): > > What was not discovered until late in the war was that the kamikaze impacts proved to have a long term effect on the structural integrity of British carriers and their post war life was shortened, as the RN lacked the financial resources to repair the damage, in contrast to the vast resources of the USN which was even able to rebuild carriers such as Franklin that had been completely gutted and the crew decimated by IJN attacks. HMS Formidable (R67) was an excellent example of this; while she weathered a severe kamikaze hit in 1945 which cratered her deck armour, the hit caused severe internal structural damage and permanently warped the hull (damage worsened in a postwar aircraft-handling accident wherein a Vought Corsair rolled off a lift and raked the hangar deck with 20mm cannon fire, causing a severe fire); but plans to rebuild her as per Victorious were abandoned due to budget cuts, not structural damage,[31] and she lingered in reserve until 1956 before being towed off to the breakers. The Royal Navy planned to rebuild most of the armoured carriers in the early post war period. Probably the strongest evidence of the value of armored flight decks is that every US carrier from the USS _Midway_ on to the present day has had an armored flight deck. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-capital-ships-and-magazine-explosions/523317.md?page=4)