From: "Vince Leamons" <vleamons@qualcomm.com>
Newsgroups: sci.military.naval
Subject: Re: Ammunition Load for WWII Surface Ships-Need Info
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 17:43:05 -0800

Joel -
    One of the problems with your question is that it assumes there really
are such shells as AP and HE. There is an excellent book called "Naval
Weapons of World War II" by Conway Maritime Press that details the
capabilities and limitations of naval artillery in excruciating detail.
There are many examples of loadouts carried by various vessels, though these
depended mainly on mission. For example, a BB might loadout with more
fragmentation or HC shells for bombardment work, or more APCBC for normal
surface duties. Note that many, many guns had no choices in what kind of
shells they could carry - if you were IJN Yamato, you were going to carry
pure APCBC because there were no high capacity (HC) or even Common rounds
for this gun. Contrary to popular belief, most large caliber naval weapons
didn't have an "HE" shell at all. By "HE", I assume you mean
non-armor-piercing; that type is often called "HC" (High Capacity), which
means it has an 15% or so burst charge compared to an APCBC 2.5-3.5%. Most
guns did have a "Common" round, which usually had a burster of around 8% -
this type is also often called "SAP" (Semi Armor Piercing).

    Contrawise, smaller guns almost never had an AP, APC, or APCBC round
aboard. They carried an "HC" shell, a fragmentation shell for AA work, and
if they were late war, possibly "VT" (proximity). If the guns were really
small, they might have starshell aboard.

    Note that a shipboard 4" gun is less capable of penetrating armor than a
tank's 4" gun; that's because the tank is going to be shooting at armored
targets and the naval gun isn't. Naval medium-caliber guns didn't need to
use AP rounds against shore targets - no tank in WWII could survive a direct
hit from a 203mm gun, even with a HC warhead.

    Finally, you can't really compare the power of these guns to modern
ones. Explosives have improved radically since World War II - the usual rule
of thumb is that a modern 5" gun has the same power as a WWII 6" gun. Since
the 6" shell weighs about 135lbs and the 5" only about 50lbs, you can see
the big improvement. What this means for the WWII researcher is that you
have to take into account the period; there is absolutely no comparison
between the 406mm shells of a late-war Iowa and the 410mm shells of the
Japanese Mutsu class - each one of the American shells had 50% more
explosive and almost double the penetrating power of the Japanese gun.

    8') Vince

Joel wrote in message <01be7417$4de6e540$040044c0@speedy>...
>I am looking for information on what ammunition WWII surface ships in the
>USN, IJN, KM and RN carried for their main and secondary guns. I have
>information on the KM but have not found info on the other three navies.
>Does anyone know where I might get this information. I am not only looking
>for the amount of shells but also what kind of shells they carried, AP, HE,
>etc. Any help would be appreciated.
>
>Joel

From: "Vince Leamons" <vleamons@qualcomm.com>
Newsgroups: sci.military.naval
Subject: Re: WW2 ammunition ladout question.
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 17:54:22 -0800

Roy -

    Ah, but here you have to really think about what you mean by "HE". I
assume by "HE Piercing" Campbell means "Common", and by "HE" he means "High
Capacity". Note the 1944 date; by this time, there were no large German and
precious few large Japanese ships to fight, so the APCBC loadout was less
necessary. These ships were doing shore bombardment work - if they were
operating in waters with known large armored ships, the loadout probably
approached 95% APCBC for all combatants. In fact, for large heavy cruisers
and battlecruisers, they were more likely to carry training or even
dye-marker shells than real, honest-to-pete HE (if their guns even had the
shell available). Note that at River Plate (1939), KM Graf Spee was actually
struck by an 8" practice shell from HMS Exeter due to a delay in the
ammunition hoist - they just filled out the salvo with what was already in
the turret.

    It's probably not reasonable to talk about national ammo loadouts,
because they ALWAYS varied by mission. Think about it, if you're a BB,
you're absolutely not worried about beating up destroyers - but if you run
into another battleship, you'd damn well better be loaded to the gills with
APCBC...

    8') Vince

Roy McCammon wrote in message <36F70FEF.885409D0@ieee.org>...
>Fionn Kelly wrote:
>>
>> I've been looking around at a couple of books recently but apart from
>> the Kriegsmarine I haven't been able to find any reliable information
>> as to the ratio of HE to AP shells carried by the larger ships of the
>> American, British and Japanese fleets.
>>
> from Campbell, "Naval Weapons of WW2"
>
>regarding British
>
>"In 1944 ... The battleship outfit would become
>24% APC, 36% HE piercing, and 40% HE, instead of
>95% or so APC ...
>
>regarding American
>
>"In 1941 major calibre guns had an outfit of
>APC only, but HC shells were introduced in
>October 1942. "
>
>regarding Italian
>"In 381mm ships about 74% of the outfit was
>APC and in 320mm about 68%, the balance in
>both being HE."

From: "Vince Leamons" <vleamons@qualcomm.com>
Newsgroups: sci.military.naval
Subject: Re: Ammunition Load for WWII Surface Ships-Need Info
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 13:57:20 -0800

Larry -
    The shell in question was the infamous "Sanshiki" 46cm AA shell. My
understanding is that this shell is equal parts experimental test shell and
old-time legend. I've never seen a serious source that suggested Yamato
actually had these shells aboard, though the Japanese did test several
special shells. In fact, there was an experimental common shell for the gun
produced in some quantity, but these were "unavailable" for Yamato's last
trip. I believe she sailed with a pure APCBC load, though what good these
would have been against the Okinawa beachhead I have no idea.

    8') Vince

Larry Elmore wrote in message <7d9qss$bji$1@news.campuscwix.net>...
>Vince Leamons wrote in message <7d9fve$2f1$1@thefuture.qualcomm.com>...
>>Joel -
>>    One of the problems with your question is that it assumes there really
>>are such shells as AP and HE. There is an excellent book called "Naval
>>Weapons of World War II" by Conway Maritime Press that details the
>>capabilities and limitations of naval artillery in excruciating detail.
>>There are many examples of loadouts carried by various vessels, though
>>these depended mainly on mission. For example, a BB might loadout with
>>more fragmentation or HC shells for bombardment work, or more APCBC for
>>normal surface duties. Note that many, many guns had no choices in what
>>kind of shells they could carry - if you were IJN Yamato, you were going
>>to carry pure APCBC because there were no high capacity (HC) or even
>>Common rounds for this gun.
>
>IIRC, the Yamato did carry a special AA round for its 18" guns, at least on
>its final mission. I can't remember where I read about that, though. It
>surprised me quite a bit, but the source seemed credible to me at the time.
>
>Larry
>
>

From: "Vince Leamons" <vleamons@qualcomm.com>
Newsgroups: sci.military.naval
Subject: Re: Ammunition Load for WWII Surface Ships-Need Info
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 14:00:27 -0800

Mike -
    I think the name you're looking for is "Sanshiki", which I believe was
an experimental shell which was never actually carried. Reports of the
sinking of Yamato do refer to her firing her main guns at aircraft, which I
presume meant actually firing at the water to get 100'+ geysers for aircraft
to fly through. US cruisers are known to have done this at Midway with their
8" guns, though I don't believe there are any recorded instances of a plane
being downed this way.

    In any case, while Sanshiki existed, I don't think there's any evidence
that Yamato actually had any aboard during her final journey. I think the
story has just been systematically retold for years.

    8') Vince

kmsimmons wrote in message <36F87B2E.4991@iamerica.net>...
>I read the same thing in a book about Yamato's kamikaze mission--don't
>remember the name.  IIRC it was more or less a shotgun round which they
>didn't like to use because it tore up the inside of the barrel.  I've
>also read of heavy caliber guns being used against low flying aircraft
>by shooting at the water to cause splashes.  Don't know how effective
>this might have been.
>
>Mike