Sinking of the cruiser Baleares-A mystery

[Spearfish]

In March 1938, during the Battle of Cape Palos, the Nationalist cruiser Baleares was sunk.
She was torpedoed and hit around her forward magazine and, to me, this is the mystery.
There is no doubt the magazine detonated for the blast blew away the bridge and caused uncontrollable fires. But most ships when suffering a similar hit, suffer a catastrophic explosion and are blown to bits rather like the Jaime I (an accidental explosion) but notably HMS Hood and several British capital ships during the First World War.
I have seen one image taken from the air which shows the hull appears to be externally intact although with smoke pouring from her.
Why, then did the cruiser not suffer a catastrophic explosion? Was her magazine almost empty?
I would be interested to hear the thoughts of members

[Ironmachine]

Yes, it's clear that some magazines detonated, but I can't give any explanation as for why the ship did not suffer a catastrophic explosion. I have not seen any mention that the magazines could have been almost empty, in fact it seems just the opposite, as can be seen in the report by the highest-rank surviving officer, available here: https://sociologiacritica.es/2020/09/14 ... -baleares/
Particularly interesting is this bit:

El efecto de la primera explosión no cabe más remedio sea el torpedo a juzgar por la gran conmoción que el buque sufrió. Pero semejante impacto es imposible que el buque en perfecto zafarrancho de combate se inunde y tome tan rápidamente inclinación hacia proa como así lo efectuó, pues, en el breve instante de los cinco minutos que tardé en subir a la cubierta, ya había tomado unos 10 grados. No cabe más que acompañados de este impacto haya habido alguna explosión de algún pañol. Esto es posible, dado que en la toldilla se han visto un proyector de los del puente; un inducído motor o dínamo grande; planchas gruesas retorcidas solamente existentes en los carapachos de las torres; no haberse logrado ver el puente que por la supuesta explosión pudiera haber volado. Para justificar esta explosión existen las siguientes noticias: La pólvora existente en parte en algunos pañoles no estaba en buenas condiciones. Días antes, el segundo comandante llamó la atención sobre esto y recuerdo comparó lo bien que estaban dichos pañoles en el Canarias, contrariamente a cómo estaban a bordo. Oí justificarse diciendo que no existían jarras bastantes para todas las cargas, que se habían pedido varias veces. Que la pólvora (creo que italiana) se pensaba desembarcar por no estar estabilizada y no creer estaba en buenas condiciones. Que en algunos pañoles las cargas excedían al cargo de estiba en ellos. También oí ordenar el que las espoletas de 203 a./a., que estaban colocadas, fuesen quitadas. Tengo entendido que el pañol de la torre 1 queda en parte fuera de la protección del buque. En estas condiciones quizá se haga factible el que la explosión del torpedo haya provocado la de la pólvora y ésta la voladura del pañol. El que hubiese habido explosión por parte de penetración de algún proyectil en la torre hay que descartarlo, pues, en la cámara de calderas A se asegura hubo otro impacto de torpedo, simultáneamente. El personal de máquinas así lo asegura y dice acompañó a la explosión de la caldera. Indudablemente, así pudiera haber sucedido por la cantidad enorme de humo que de esa parte salía. También debió explotar algún tanque de combustible porque éste se extendió rápidamente por el agua e impregnó todo el buque y las cubiertas de él. El petróleo no ardió. El pañol de proyectiles de 120 del centro no creo factible haya explotado, pues se encuentra bien protegido para el tiro de torpedos.
El incendio grande del control a popa del puente fue debido, a mi juicio, a efectos artilleros que provocaron la explosión de las ocho cajas de urgencia de 120 y 99 mm que allí se encuentran, así como debido al posible incendio de los tanques de gasolina por la situación que ocupan.

Certainly the explosion suffered by the Baleares was quite big. Why was she not blown to bits? Probably the only reason that can be found is simply that sometimes things happen, and sometimes they do not.

[Spearfish]

Ironmachine
Very many thanks for your detailed response both to this question and an earlier one which I made about seaplanes, although I read the latter only today.
Lieutenant Cervera's testimony, I believe, clearly provides a solution.
I think what happened was that the torpedo detonated in the propellant storage compartment of the forward magazine. There the propellant was in bagged charges, rather than compressed in containers, which meant the propellant (often, but inaccurately called gunpowder) was looser. It also appears that many of the Italian-supplied bags were almost time-expired with the chemical elements deteriorating reducing their efficiency.
Consequently they simultaneously ignited rather than detonated creating a great sheet of flame and, while I believe this created many of the fires which helped sink the ship, it lacked the energy to penetrate the projectile compartment. If that had happened the cruiser, like several British battlecruisers at Jutland, would have disintegrated immediately.
Incidentally, am I right in thinking this officer was the son of the Nationalist Fleet commander?

[Ironmachine]

Incidentally, am I right in thinking this officer was the son of the Nationalist Fleet commander?

If the Nationalist Fleet commander you mean is Juan Cervera Valderrama, Chief of the General Staff of the National Navy, then you are wrong. They were not son and father, though they were distant relatives.
Manuel Cervera was the son of Ángel Cervera Jácome and grandson of admiral Pascual Cervera y Topete (the Spanish commander at the Battle of Santiago de Cuba in 1898). Juan Cervera Valderrama was the nephew of Pascual Cervera y Topete.

[Spearfish]

Many thanks for putting me right Ironmachine.
As always, you are a star

[Felix C]

Have seen in the Solomons campaign where USN cruisers were torpedoed forward of the bridge,under the main battery turrets, and had the area of the impact and forward broken off from the remainder of the ship. These were prewar Treaty Cruisers as was County class and presume Spanish vessels similar in layout and protection to the Counties. USS New Orleans at Tassfaronga is an example. HMAS Canberra was torpedoed by USN destroyers after the Salvo Island battle to be scuttled. Do not know where they hit and if the magazines were flooded.

Regarding the Spanish DD launched torpedo have to consider what torpedo depth setting which impacted forward and What warhead explosive weight and its composition.

I should add Hood was destroyed by shellfire not a torpedo and not by a direct hit into the 15" magazine. Well at least that is the RN assessment. Not comparable.

[Spearfish]

Felix C
I take your point which adds to my comment about catastrophic explosions. Warships can disappear in a fireball or they can lose a substantial part of their hull, I suspect, as Ironmachine observed, this is due to complex factors such as weapon, ship structure and magazine protection. The British battlecruisers lost at Jutland suffered catastrophic explosions because propellant charges were stored outside the magazine, and in at least one wreck this has been filmed.
With the Baleares the point is not about the torpedo but a what happened when it struck. I find it significant that a kilometre-high sheet of flame was thrown up, which is why I think poor quality propellant ignited but did not detonate and I suspect water pouring in flooded the magazine to ensure the projectiles did not detonate. For example it appears that as HMS Barham rolled over following a U-boat attack burning propellant caused the spectacular explosion which has been shown on a number of occasions. Although badly holed, the Baleares hull remained substantially intact for some three hours, albeit with water pouring around the magazine and forward boiler room.
With regard to the loss of HMS Hood, the ship appears to have been lost because the shell hit a secondary armament magazine, or ammunition locker, which detonated followed, almost immediately by the detonation of one of the main magazines. Either way, my point is that it was a catastrophic explosion which did for the Mighty Hood.
Incidentally, the first inquiry into her loss was conducted by Admiral Blake who flew his flag in Hood during several confrontations with the Nationalist Navy off northern Spain in 1937.

[Felix C]

As the Spanish ship was a County the RN would be interested in the sinking. No doubt there are files in the PRO about this. The Raven book on British heavies may touch on the issue as well. New Orleans suffered the most similar damage to Baleares and it was not the main magazine detonation which severed the forward turrets from the remainder of the ship. Small arms and aircraft munitions storage. Internal layout of B. probably different and hopefully similar to a County. As for the rest they are too dissimilar being shell fire induced magazine explosions. Well HMS Barham was rolling ala Svent Istvan and the shell and charge rooms were not in use. That is another item, what was the drill on Baleares when in action on that occasion regarding anti-flash procedures.