phil gollin wrote:Your basic idea would not be agreed with by the RN.
The guns were to disable a ship, the torpedoes were to let the water in.
Not quite in line with Hollands' intentions for the DS battle.
Moderator: Bill Jurens
phil gollin wrote:Your basic idea would not be agreed with by the RN.
The guns were to disable a ship, the torpedoes were to let the water in.
Actually I believe she was told to avoid that.madmike wrote:it is not surprising that 60+years on,the armchair admirals would be out in force,,here is a INDISPUTABLE fact about the bismarck.SHE WAS THE ONLY BATTLESHIP OF THE WAR THAT DID EXACTLY AS SHE WAS DESIGNED TO DO...TO GO OUT AND ENGAGE CAPITAL SHIPS(BB,BC)OF A ENEMY FLEET AND SINK BY HEAVY GUNFIRE)
As pointed out Washington did. Several other battleships disabled opposing battleships. Duke of York for instance would probably have sunk Scharnhorst but why bother when the DDs and put her down more efficiently? Like wise Yamashiro was hamered by heavy gunfire. Then there were the French battleships put out of action by the British and Jean Bart who had she been operational and at sea almost assuredly would not have survived the damage she took.NO OTHER BATTLESHIP IN WW2 can claim that.yes there were so called better ships,BUT NONE OF THEM SUNK ANOTHER BATTLESHIP BY GUNFIRE.
Engaging an enemy battleship one on one is a pretty strong indicator that one or both parities have screwed up. No body liked to send them out alone indeed the Germans were the only ones that did so that I know of and that was because they had little other option....but never engaged enemy BB,BC in one on one battle.....
WHile I think mostly the same way, in the end the most important role a battleship could play was to engage and destroy/badly damage a similarly powerfull opponent.lwd wrote: Engaging an enemy battleship one on one is a pretty strong indicator that one or both parities have screwed up. No body liked to send them out alone indeed the Germans were the only ones that did so that I know of and that was because they had little other option.
No. The most important role they could play was to help defeat an enemy fleet. They were part of a combined arms team. US doctrine was to send out pairs of battleships and escort them properly as was British and for that matter Japanese.alecsandros wrote:WHile I think mostly the same way, in the end the most important role a battleship could play was to engage and destroy/badly damage a similarly powerfull opponent.lwd wrote: Engaging an enemy battleship one on one is a pretty strong indicator that one or both parities have screwed up. No body liked to send them out alone indeed the Germans were the only ones that did so that I know of and that was because they had little other option.
I disagree. Extend that defintion and none of the current US nuclear subs are demonstrably "good". A "good" ship is one that adds significantly to the capabilities of the navy of which it is part.... The only sufficient test for a "good" battleship, in the terms described above, was engaging a similar enemy.
If you want to quibble like that Hood was a battle cruiser and POW wasn't worked up yet and by the way Kirishima was rated as a battleship. So in your battleship vs battleship actions you've got Rodney and KGV doing what they were desinged to do to Bismarck and the latter failing though understandably in that regard. Similarly you've got Duke of York disabling Scharnhorst and the latter failing.Thus being said, neither Barham nor Hood (at Mers-el-Kebir), Washington, Massachussets or Duke of York did engage similar opponents. They engaged either sitting ducks (ships on anchor in harbors) or battlecruisers...
The only ones were Bismarck, Pow, and Hood during Denmark Strait. And we all know what happened.
That may have been the overall goal, but specificaly, batleships were built to be able to destroy battleships.lwd wrote: No. The most important role they could play was to help defeat an enemy fleet...
I was talking specificaly about battleships. That's why I brought Mahan into question. A battleship not capable of engaging a contemporary enemy was not a "good" battleship in the overall sense of the term...Extend that defintion and none of the current US nuclear subs are demonstrably "good".
Hood was a 48000t ship with 8x15" guns and 12" belt and a fully worked up crew. PoW was a 44000tons battleship with 10x14" guns and 15" belt.If you want to quibble like that Hood was a battle cruiser and POW wasn't worked up yet and by the way Kirishima was rated as a battleship. So in your battleship vs battleship actions you've got Rodney and KGV doing what they were desinged to do to Bismarck and the latter failing though understandably in that regard. Similarly you've got Duke of York disabling Scharnhorst and the latter failing.
Has there ever been a fight between "comparable" battleships? I don't think so.alecsandros wrote: ... So, again, I don't understand how you can view these combatants as "comparable"... ?
Some other match ups:Bgile wrote:Has there ever been a fight between "comparable" battleships? I don't think so.alecsandros wrote: ... So, again, I don't understand how you can view these combatants as "comparable"... ?
I also don't think that PoW's armor would have done much better than Kirishima's at 8,500 yds.
OK, well according to NAaB at 8500 yds and 1952fps the nominal penetration of a USN 16/45/2700lb projectile, of UK CA armour is 20.3 inches. At 45 deg inclination, this drops to 12.4in for complete penetration and 13.9in for partial penetration so it is quite possible that a KGV belt could stop hits, even at that range. Additionally, the above calculation assumes an MV of 2300fps, but of course it would have been less than this and the average range somewhat further.JtD wrote:Considering that Kirishimas unprotected superstructure fused shells, I'd say that PoW would have fused them as well.
The nominal armour penetration at that range was ~600mm, so not even somewhat increased obliquity is going to save PoW from getting the hull ripped open.
and the average target angle was less than 45 degrees.dunmunro wrote:OK, well according to NAaB at 8500 yds and 1952fps the nominal penetration of a USN 16/45/2700lb projectile, of UK CA armour is 20.3 inches. At 45 deg inclination, this drops to 12.4in for complete penetration and 13.9in for partial penetration so it is quite possible that a KGV belt could stop hits, even at that range. Additionally, the above calculation assumes an MV of 2300fps, but of course it would have been less than this and the average range somewhat further.JtD wrote:Considering that Kirishimas unprotected superstructure fused shells, I'd say that PoW would have fused them as well.
The nominal armour penetration at that range was ~600mm, so not even somewhat increased obliquity is going to save PoW from getting the hull ripped open.
As I said, it depends on the target inclination, but depending on the range and angle of fall of the shot and the area hit, the total inclination could equal 45 degs, even though the target inclination was somewhat less than this. The point is, that you can't simply assume penetration, even at close ranges, without considering target and total effective inclination.Bgile wrote:
and the average target angle was less than 45 degrees.
KGV had thicker belt and deck armour than most WW2 battleships.madmike wrote: ...the british KGV class ships didnt have the armour to protect them or speed or gun range,(hoods 15" guns range was 7000 yards less,and the POW,s 14" guns were 5000 yards less than bismarcks)...
Ok, well, according to other calculations it is more.dunmunro wrote:OK, well according to NAaB at 8500 yds and 1952fps the nominal penetration of a USN 16/45/2700lb projectile, of UK CA armour is 20.3 inches.
And at 90° inclination it is about 0. But that of course is as irrelevant as 45°, considering that it was a broadside engagement where Washington inflicted most of the damage.At 45 deg inclination, this drops to 12.4in for complete penetration and 13.9in for partial penetration so it is quite possible that a KGV belt could stop hits, even at that range. Additionally, the above calculation assumes an MV of 2300fps, but of course it would have been less than this and the average range somewhat further.
It was most definitely not a broadside engagement and Kirishima had a considerable inclination from Washington:JtD wrote:Ok, well, according to other calculations it is more.dunmunro wrote:OK, well according to NAaB at 8500 yds and 1952fps the nominal penetration of a USN 16/45/2700lb projectile, of UK CA armour is 20.3 inches.
And at 90° inclination it is about 0. But that of course is as irrelevant as 45°, considering that it was a broadside engagement where Washington inflicted most of the damage.At 45 deg inclination, this drops to 12.4in for complete penetration and 13.9in for partial penetration so it is quite possible that a KGV belt could stop hits, even at that range. Additionally, the above calculation assumes an MV of 2300fps, but of course it would have been less than this and the average range somewhat further.