HMS Barham blows up

[namvet]

sunk by captain von Tiesenhausen's U-331 boat in a torpedo attack. one of the most famous as well as horrifying films of a battleship capsizing and blowing up.

video (video)

[Rising Sun*]

Assuming it was from within, what would cause the explosion as she rolled level with the water?

Or was she destroyed from without?

Were there crew left on her when she was destroyed (I hope not)?

[Panzerknacker]

In the video said 2/3 of the crew were lost, I suppose the fast rolling over and explosion did not gave time to abandon ship.

Telling video actually.

The battleships made in Britain in that period 1910-1920 seems to had the bad tendency to explode catastrophically when hit like the Hood and ships destroyed in Jutland

[Rising Sun*]

In the video said 2/3 of the crew were lost, I suppose the fast rolling over and explosion did not gave time to abandon ship.

Thanks.

I missed that.

I wasn't getting audio on the video.

[namvet]

Assuming it was from within, what would cause the explosion as she rolled level with the water?

Or was she destroyed from without?

Were there crew left on her when she was destroyed (I hope not)?

from within. her magazine exploded. that's where all the shell's and gun powder are stored. the Hood suffered a similar explosion. note the smoke coming out the funnel. the engine room was still running. no time to shut it down. that may have been what touched off the Magazine. over 800 men died in this explosion. .
it was an Ariel bomb that hit the USS Arizona's magazine at pearl harbor. 1175 died in that one.

[Rising Sun*]

from within. her magazine exploded.

Would that be a consequence of the roll, such as moving explosives or fuzes so that they went off when she went through 90 degrees, or of something that was started earlier and happened to go off then?

[namvet]

Would that be a consequence of the roll, such as moving explosives or fuzes so that they went off when she went through 90 degrees, or of something that was started earlier and happened to go off then?

probably. when they roll a lot of hardware breaks lose and rolls as well. the engines/boilers and the large guns are held in place by gravity. so when she rolls they go to. the large guns fall out of the turrets. it only takes a spark to set off gun powder.

[namvet]

868 died. 474 survived.

source (source)

[Rising Sun*]

probably. when they roll a lot of hardware breaks lose and rolls as well. the engines/boilers and the large guns are held in place by gravity. so when she rolls they go to. the large guns fall out of the turrets. it only takes a spark to set off gun powder.

There obviously has to be a big allowance for rolls and gravity holding things in place on a ship.

Is it the case that once a roll passes, say, 60 (or whatever) degrees, that it's exceeded the design limits and past that point bad things might start to happen?

[namvet]

There obviously has to be a big allowance for rolls and gravity holding things in place on a ship.

Is it the case that once a roll passes, say, 60 (or whatever) degrees, that it's exceeded the design limits and past that point bad things might start to happen?

exactly !!!! and you best not be around when they do. all ships, military or civilian are designed to take heavy rolls from the sea. but not this. the designers think in a heavy roll over she won't survive anyway.

[Mk VII]

despite the explosion, more than you might think survived.

[Carl Schwamberger]

Cold sea water contacting a ships boiler under normal operating pressure is susposed to cause the boilers skin to fail catastophiclly. Perhaps that initiated the explosion? Looking over the vidio several times there actually seem to to be several explosions in a ragged sequence. Does anyone else have that impression?

[namvet]

Cold sea water contacting a ships boiler under normal operating pressure is susposed to cause the boilers skin to fail catastophiclly. Perhaps that initiated the explosion? Looking over the vidio several times there actually seem to to be several explosions in a ragged sequence. Does anyone else have that impression?

we'll never know. but something ignited the magazine. shells fall out of their racks can create a spark. the gun power probably went first then took out shells. its just to catasrophic to really tell. Ive seen that video a 1000 times in war movies and documentries. FINALLY i know which one it was.........

[mike M.]

Cold sea water contacting a ships boiler under normal operating pressure is susposed to cause the boilers skin to fail catastophiclly. Perhaps that initiated the explosion?

I tend to agree with this..I think it has something to do with the water and boilers, but there was fire..not sure if a steam explosion would combine with a fire ball???? The fire ball I guess is the powder burning. Amazing footage, Thanks for the post.

[namvet]

here's some still photos:

link (link)

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/7858/82nz8.jpg

I don't know. still looks like a mag to me.......

[pdf27]

Hotlinking not allowed...

[mike M.]

I don't know. still looks like a mag to me.......


Yea..your probably right, thats a heck of an explosion.

[namvet]

Yea..your probably right, thats a heck of an explosion.

I can't see any steam can you??????

[1000ydstare_redux]

In the video said 2/3 of the crew were lost, I suppose the fast rolling over and explosion did not gave time to abandon ship.

Telling video actually.

The battleships made in Britain in that period 1910-1920 seems to had the bad tendency to explode catastrophically when hit like the Hood and ships destroyed in Jutland

Due to haveing no blast doors between the turret and the magazine. An explosion on the turret would cause a flash back to the magazine causing an instant ship wide explosion.

Bit of a design flaw for the designso f the time.

[namvet]

found it. it was the after magazine that blew. i found her web site including a video that confirms its with narration

http://www.hmsbarham.com/

click photos and videos. next page click video footage. then click video 1. its a download to windows media player. the narrator says it was the mag. why it blew is unknown. but was she a battleship or a battle cruiser???? big difference. the hood was a cruiser. designed for speed. to get speed you have to lighten the Armour protection. thats why she blew. thin skin. but very fast speed.

[namvet]

really good photo of her

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/6383/ship17yw9.jpg

[pdf27]

She was one of the Queen Elizabeth class of fast battleships (considered almost super-battleships at the time they were build, shortly before WW1). Barham was one of those not to be extensively rebuilt between the wars.

[namvet]

She was one of the Queen Elizabeth class of fast battleships (considered almost super-battleships at the time they were build, shortly before WW1). Barham was one of those not to be extensively rebuilt between the wars.

so "fast battleship" meaning she was a battle cruiser right???? that's the impression I got from her size in the photo................

[Lone Ranger]

The battleships made in Britain in that period 1910-1920 seems to had the bad tendency to explode catastrophically when hit like the Hood and ships destroyed in Jutland

Hood was a Battlecruiser not a Battleship, she had the guns but not the armour. Similarly the ships destroyed at Jutland were all Battlecruisers.

It was a flawed concept, the speed to catch a cruiser with the armament of a battleship but only sufficient armour to withstand smaller calibre guns such as the 6" and 8" guns of cruisers. They were never designed to take punishment from the big guns and suffered accordingly.

[Lone Ranger]

so "fast battleship" meaning she was a battle cruiser right???? that's the impression I got from her size in the photo................

No the Queen Elizabeth class had the armour of a battleship but the unmodified members of the class were vulnerable to torpedoes as they didn't have the torpedo bulges fitted (a form of spaced armour).

[pdf27]

so "fast battleship" meaning she was a battle cruiser right???? that's the impression I got from her size in the photo................
Nope, more like the WW1 equivalent of the Iowa class - armament and armour as good as or better than equivalent battleships, with speed equivalent to a battlecruiser. This is largely down to the switch from coal to oil burning in the Queen Elizabeth class - this enabled them to go faster and to do so for longer simply because the oil could be mechanically pumped rather than relying on stokers to shovel the coal into the boilers. Better still, it could be sprayed into the boiler and burn as a spray, rather than being a big pile of burning coal at the bottom - this allows both a higher steam temperature and much smaller boilers, reducing the weight of the machinery for the same power and hence allowing more weight to be devoted to guns and armour on the same displacement. Thus the Queen Elizabeth class had what for the time was the guns and armour of the best of the battleships, combined with the speed of a battlecruiser. They all fought with the battlecrusier squadron at Jutland, and while badly battered none were lost.

[bt3au]

I remember reading about this from an article in warship quarterly the wartime finding was that the ammunition moved when she went on to her side, the 4" magazines initially went which blew down into the main magazines the 4" magazines were added interwar and were outside the main armour belt
If you look closely at the video you can see a huge flap of ships side blow out towards the bow then the big explosion

[Carl Schwamberger]

Yes, the magazines going off in that fashion would make the boilers rupturing very secondary. I'd think the compression from the magazines detonating would rupture and ignite the oil tanks as well. Fuel oil spread by a compression wave of extreme high temperature... Similar to a explosive charge going off next to a partially filled oil drum. Toss in the boilers rupturing for icing on the cake...

[Adrian Wainer]

To have a good understanding of what happened one would really need to know how many torpedos hit her, where the torpedo(s) hit and what was the nature of her anti-torpedo protection and water-tight bulkhead compartmentalization. Since it is my understanding that the engine room and furnace areas are weak spots in the sense they are difficult to compartmenalize in to a small spaces, without researching the issue my first guess is that the torpedo breached the furnace room / engine room spaces and the ship was then subjected to a triple whammy of the explosion of the torpedo added to by exploding boilers and a loss of all power serviced by the engine room and auxilary steam take off. The explosion of the boilers + torpedo might have led to fires in an area where cordite charges were kept, which in turn breached the protection of one of the main magazines, whilst an inrush of water in to the large machinery space causing the ship to roll, would have made it difficult to impossible to contain fires as the crew would not have been able to engage in fire fighting activities on a ship which was tilting over. As for the crew, given the ferocity of the explosion even those who might have abandoned ship at an early stage would have likely been killed by the explosion which would have been lethal to those in the open at some distance from the ship.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

[Adrian Wainer]

Due to haveing no blast doors between the turret and the magazine. An explosion on the turret would cause a flash back to the magazine causing an instant ship wide explosion.

Bit of a design flaw for the designso f the time.

I think you are wrong on that. It would be plain silly to build a ship on that basis, given that the heavy armament rounds would have been brought up from the magazine by mechanical elevator and it would have been relatively simple to build in flash doors as a protection, my understanding is that there was a design flaw that was in the British ships, which meant that a certain stage in the delivery of the round from the magazine to the turret, the elevator tunnel could be open i.e. unprotected i.e. without having a closed door, whereas in the German design there was an additional door or doors in the tunnel to the magazine, so that at no stage could there be a clear path for a flash from the turret to the magazine. Also the British ships which suffered worst at Jutland were battlecruisers, which were simply not designed to take on battleships, since the concept of the battlecruiser was to be able to defeat cruisers whilst runing away with superior speed advantage from any battleships encountered. Furthermore, it is now believed that the British Royal Navy at Jutland had carried cordite charges outside of the magazines, so as to enable their ships to carry more ammunition in to battle.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

[ww11freak34]

I didnt now that the hms berhen got blown up

[bt3au]

After Jutland the British were able to look at battle damage to their ships and realized that not having blast doors etc in the ammunition supply system was the reason so many of their ships blew up, this problem was rectified progressivley during the rest of the war and after, the problem during WW2 was that most of their Battleships were of WW1 design and construction and having to add extra AA guns and ammunition for those guns meant that magazines were not in ideal positions The British were in the position of having to make do with what they had most of the time they got away with it Hood and Barham were times when they didnt

[namvet]

this, of course, was a torpedo attack. and I am assuming the Barham like so many other ships of this time, had a single hull. the Americans used the double hull construction on the Iowa class. making them more resistant to mines and torpedos. but who invented it and put it to practical use????
would ships like the Barham survived with a double hull????

[ptimms]

All the QE2's had had anti-torpedo bulges fitted between the wars, Barham included however I think the simultaneous impact of three torpedoes was just too catastrophic. Referring to bt3au's comment British Battlecruisers had anti blast doors. Part of the problem was to speed things up in action they were not closed, also charges were stacked ready in the turrets. This combined with their weak deck armour was their undoing. I would point out it was three ships at Jutland and the Hood. A large, regrettable loss of life but not crippling to the fleet (particularly at Jutland). The problem was the battle cruiser was a flawed idea. Although inherently tougher, the German battle cruisers were also seriously damaged at Jutland.

[Adrian Wainer]

13Part of the problem was to speed things up in action they were not closed,
My understanding is that the German ships had additional doors in the cordite and shell supply tunnel to that used by the British, so at no stage, could there be a clear path through to cordite store and shell magazine. Whereas in the British system with less doors there would be times when there was a clear path whilst the turret was being resupplied with shells/cordite for a flashover from the turret to the cordite store and magazine.[/quote]


The problem was the battle cruiser was a flawed idea. Although inherently tougher, the German battle cruisers were also seriously damaged at Jutland.

I am not sure, if the battlecruiser was a flawed idea in the sense I wonder had they originally ever been built with the intention of using them in an attrition match with Battleships. In that unless the battlecruiser has some other element of superiority they will always suffer badly at the hands of a battleship since they do not have the armor to take on battleships in an evenly matched fight. As a commerce raider, they do have a legitimate operational role in that they can outgun cruisers and run from battleships. They did not make much sense for Britain, but e.g. for Russia they would have been more practical, in that Russia as a continental Empire could do much of its trade overland but its rival Japan as an Island nation, was 100 per cent dependent on seaborne routes for international trade.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer