4 replies to this topic

[William Hoyer]

The Austrian gunfire damage table gives special attributes to Italian shells. Can someone give me a reference as to why this is as I have never come across any special reference to Italian shells being special.

[Lonnie Gill]

G’ Day Kaarle 308,You ask an excellent question, and one that since I did not properly documented the rationale in my notes (my bad), has led me to rebuild it. With the advent of face hardened armor and plunging fire by WW I, the question of better designed AP shells and delay fuses to allow deep penetration into a heavily armored target assumed greater importance. This required a complex mix of proper shell design, AP caps and robust delay fuses to enable the shell to penetrate deep into the target before detonating. These issues are extensively analyzed for the British and German navies in Part Three of The Riddle of the Shells by Iain McCallum appearing in Warship 2005. Although crude by WW II standards, Krupp led the way in developing a proper delay fuse, which it did not share with its British subsidiaries. The effectiveness of the fuse (dud rate) and shell design can be debated - and experts still do – but this gave the German and A-H navies a capacity the British and French did not have.Further, the hyper-sensitive picric acid based explosive fillers used by the British (Lyddite and later slightly less sensitive Shellite), French and Japanese (Shimose) would be set off by the shock of hitting armor plate, regardless of the fuse. Indeed, as an authority on the subject reminded me recently, post war tests with Lyddite filled shells showed they went off about the same even without fuses. By contrast, the German and A-H navies used less sensitive Trotyl (TNT) based explosive fillers, which did would not detonate until set off by a fuse. Thus, while both types would penetrate armor (provided they have the punch) in a fraction of a second, picric based explosives will explode shortly after, before the shell has traveled more than a few feet, while the more stable explosive shells can penetrate deep into the target before being set off by a delay fuse. This is reflected in the WW I GUNFIRE DAMAGE tables where all can cause immediate damage to BA - BD by penetration of turrets and barbettes, but only navies with non-picric acid based shells and delay fuses can penetrate into engineering spaces.OK, but what about the Italians? Their major caliber guns were designed and built primarily by British companies, but the Italian navy switched to Trotyl (TNT) about 1909, about the same time as the Austrians. The source for this is L’Artiglieria Italiana Nella Grande Guerra. The answer on fuses is less well known, but it is likely that Krupp derivative fuses were used as British fuses would not work with Trotyl filled shells or vice versa. Pre war, the Italians were much romanced by the future Central Powers [most everyone expected them to side with German and A-H well into1914] and some of their smaller fuses were even listed as “tipo Krupp.” Thus, my assessment is the use of Trotyl filled shells and corresponding fuses provided a deep penetration possibility for Italian shells that British and French shells lacked.If other Forum members have more, I invite them to provide the rest of the Italian story.Ciao,LONNIE

[William Hoyer]

Lonnie: Thanks for the exxplanation. I have 1 additional question about the Italian shells: What was the Caliber radius head (Crh) of Italian shells? Were they like the early British shells or like the latter British shells? How did the Italian shells compare to penetration of German/ Austro-Hungarian shells?ThanksKaarle308

[Lonnie Gill]

G’ Day Kaarle 308,Another good question, but this is one for which I do not have enough data to give you a complete answer. Perhaps another Forum member has access to the specifics. Major caliber Italian guns in WW I were basically Armstrong, Elswick and Vickers designs; and thus, the shells probably reflected contemporary British design as well. Differences in explosive filer and fuses were covered in the previous post. I have not been able to find evidence as to whether Krupp shells designs were used or just the original design shells refilled. All this got further complicated after Italy sided with Britain and France. As the war drug on, the British supplied shells for some of the Italian guns. It is not clear if this included major caliber shells or was limited to the 6” and smaller guns. In any event, it is doubtful that the later “Greenboy” design shells with improved ballistic caps would have been provided as the RN was struggling to meet the needs of the Grand Fleet in 1918.In the absence of definitive data, the Italian major caliber guns in FAI were modeled on the equivalent British guns. I invite Forum members who have clarifying data on these Italian WW I gunnery questions to comment.LONNIE

[DAVID THORNLEY]

Where do US and Russian shells come into this? More similar to the British or German?