Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΒ  permalink

Portholes?

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by OrganettoBoy (U3734614) on Monday, 15th May 2006

  The warships of the first and second world wars had armoured decks and armoured belts along the sides of the ships. However, in pictures of these old warships they appear to have portholes running along the sides of the ship. Now I know that the chances of putting a shell through one of these portholes is fairly remote but...
  
  So, if these are portholes are they weakpoints in the ship's armoured belt or is the armoured belt internal rather than on the outside as I'd thought?
  
  If the second option is correct why is it part of the internal structure of the ship? I could imagine that ship could be more stable that way but if the outer shell of the ship was ruptured then the ingress of any water could seriously affect the stability of the ship (free surface effect and all that).

  Link to this forum: Portholes?

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by NICK (U1182021) on Monday, 15th May 2006

  Hi Dazbo.
  I think that you will find that in action all
  
  the Port Holes on any WW2 war'ship were closed
  
  during action stations, and the thick'ness of
  
  the port hole plate was usually the same as the
  
  armour plating on the side of the ship, and like
  
  you say the chances of a shell going through a
  
  port hole even if it was left open would be a
  
  near miracle as a projectile is fired at an
  
  elevation so as to reach its target, or the
  
  two targets would have to be very close to
  
  achieve your miracle.
  
  Nick an old navy veteran.
  

  Link to this forum: Portholes?

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Monday, 15th May 2006

  Dazbo44, I did a bit of research into this, oddly enough to challenge a claim that no modern warship could compare with the service length of HMS Victory. I was able to point out that the Iowa and Wisconsin had similiar service lengths. It's only this year I think that they have been officially retired from the reserve.
  
  Anyway, most WW2 ships did have external armoured belts, i.e. what you saw on the outside of the ship was the belt. The South Dakota and Iowa class had internal belts (and no portholes as far as I know). As far as I know the reason for designing them with an internal belt was to save on the beam so they could get through the Panama Canal. If they'd had an external belt they'd have had to have been wider to be stable.
  
  In either case a strike through the belt below the waterline would affect the stability, hence all battleships of the period had a lot of attention paid to damage control, i.e. pumping out the incoming sea.
  
  With an internal belt the way the ships were designed a strike through the outer shell but not penetrating the belt would have had little effect on the stability. The area between the outer hull and the belt (under the waterline) was designed to fail as part of torpedo protection and so this had been calculated.
  
  Cheers AA.

  Link to this forum: Portholes?

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by Pugwash Trouserpress (U1865008) on Tuesday, 16th May 2006

  A minor point but a porthole should have a gun sticking out of it. If it doesn't it's a scuttle. The metal covers placed over them during action stations are called deadlights.
  Peebs

  Link to this forum: Portholes?

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by OrganettoBoy (U3734614) on Tuesday, 16th May 2006

  Thanks for the info. Although covered with an armoured cover I would have thought they were still weak(er) points in the armour.
  
  Peebs: wouldn't they be gun ports if they had guns sticking out of them? My understanding is that they were originally called porthole windows and functioned as windows.

  Link to this forum: Portholes?

  Report message5

Back to top