I'm interested in knowing how the guns' holes in battleships' turrets protected, if and when they were, and how was that protection designed and arranged, specially in relation to the guns' elevation axis.
In tanks, the turrets' holes that fit the main guns are protected by "gun mantlets", whi...
As your examples show, the exact solution would vary depending on the chosen turret so there's going to be as many different answers as there are different turret designs.
Given the difficulty of finding a reference on the protection of gun ports on battleship main armament mounts, and the evolution of barrette mounted guns I suspect it is light (and as you go back in time you reach non-existent). The rational could be that the angle of fall of shot from the target you are engaging should be steeper than the gun elevation so the probability of a shell entering the aperture is very small, in which case protection against cruiser calibre gun fire is probably all that is required and possibly only sufficient to keep out the worst of the weather and fragments.
@SteveBird That is why I specify two ships. As they represent the two most intriguing designs in my opinion. It wouldn't hurt to have British, German and Russian equivalent representatives tho.
@ConradTurner I highly doubt that the AOF of the shots would be reason for weak mantlets, as the turrets' face-plates, at least in most IJN and USN BBs were angled backwards and would be somewhat straight to the incoming shots AOF, decreasing effective tickness rather than increasing it.
It seems to me I can only answer about Yamato ( though still tough due to the exsience of many technical terms ). If it is O.K then, I will answer. I can not cover for Iowa class.
@KentaroTomono Please do. Half an answer is better than no answer at all, and while I cannot guarantee that I'll mark your answer as the accepted, as that would depend on whether I think your answer is valid for other ships, I can guarantee that it will receive my, and probably others', up-votes, if it deserves it. :)
Okay, kindly let me have time, I am sorry your question is filled with many techncal terms. And I would like to answer according to your part of the sentence I'm interested in knowing how the guns' holes in battleships' turrets protected, if and when they were, and how was that protection designed and arranged, specially in relation to the guns' elevation axis., I taking it litelerally, meaning, how the gun = main 3 turrets per here
sorry not here but the 3 main batteries ( = guns ) of Yamato class or another kind.
And please let me know if I take your question mistakingly.
If you do a google search for "battleship gun slide shield plates" I think you'll find information to help. This book in particular, discusses them off and on, although always as part of other discussions.
Also this picture shows that there is armor for when the gun is elevated that revolves up into place.
Accutally, really, only coincidentally, I found an explanation how the main gun of Yamato class work(ed) by Youtube. Only I need to do is translation. Kindly chekc with your own image before I post my answer by taking a look at this Youtube priot to posting. youtube.com/watch?v=DHVj4OblllQ If it seems it does not explain per your request, then let me know. I am literallly battling with the technical terms.
@KentaroTomono While the video shows a nice representation of the way the components where arranged and how they worked, it doesn't show the "mantlet" (armor that covers the hole that the gun passes through) very well. What it shows is at the end of the video and is clearly inconsistent with the real-life images, as it greatly protrudes outside the turret's face-plate (armor of the front of the turret), when the real-life photo shows that, in real-life, such protrusion didn't exist, even when the gun was elevated high.
@CGCampbell What I commented to Kentaro is also valid for your image. While the principle may be correct, the radius of the cover that the cut-out image you referenced shows would clearly bulge outside the turret's face-plate when the guns were highly-elevated, and yet, the real-life photos of such high-elevation show the revolving cover as being clearly within the face-plate boundaries. So either the thickness of the mantlet is considerably thinner than shown, or the axis and mantlet were further back, which throws the proportions of the hole, and therefore the turret's too, completely off.
It is saying they are using the front plate with 660mm thick and roof plate with 250mm thick. And according to Wiki, though it might look to you so "high" elevated, but it is said the maximum elevation is only 45 degree...Well, then I am sorry let me put on hold.
Sorry that I was not able to help you. Even reading the explanation ( probably brief to you ) in my language is over my capacity. I apologie for that.
I may try. I know that Youtube is only a bit brief. And I went into further, it seems I lost even in my language. Let me try later, sorry and thank you anyway,
I'm asking for the mechanical aspects of technology no longer in use (or at least no longer in it's originally intended use), based on armor and projectile physics, and historical context...So I guess it's all three at the same time? "o_0
Discussion on question by TheLima: Ho…
Discussion on question by TheLima: Ho…