BISMARCK armor scheme = BADEN?

[Dave Saxton]

How much more of a reliable witness than a RN gunnery officer can one be? We do know how he made this judgement: There were 5 rounds in the salvo and three waterspouts raised. Pretty straight forward. We don't know that both forward turrets were taken at the same time. That is just speculation. It's possible of course, but we also have accounts that Anton was taken out later on.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Lee,

I was tempted not to answer because this is typical rebutall over answer over rebutal piecemeal discussion which loses it's sense almost inmediately in a "rethorical spiral" that you like so much because it suits your smokescreen tactics. However there are certain points that need answer. So I will proceed:

the best in 1941 and that Tirpitz was clearly superior to all the USN Treaty battleships and, also likely, their Iowa Class battleships.

That's because those are highly debateable propositions.

Of course they are debatable, this is why this is a forum. However in the last months many points have been presented in which this debate is more relevant. What about just a year ago was presented as a "fact", which was the overall superiority of the Iowa Class above all other battleship classes (with the obvious exemption of the No. 1 super battleship killers Yamato and Musashi), is no longer as solid.

What happen at DS is a "black hole" for them and will try to demerit the Bismarck doing there.

Where do these fantasy "fans" reside? Certainly not on this board.

Of course these fans resides in this board and many other boards. This started in the navweaps site and extended to the combined fleet rating. However, as stated before, corrections due to new evidence and information tends to balance the discussion again.

.... that both, SD and Iowa shared and inadequate internal sloped armor and a compromised ATS system, bad compartment distribution, narrow beam that affected the citadel defense, and a very thin upper armored deck.

That's because in isolation these hypothesis are rather meaningless.

So you say but you are utterly wrong. You cannot strike out any of these arguments with just a statement: "That's because in isolation these hypothesis are rather meaningless." Evidence (not "just" hypothesis as you remark to minimize them in an typical rethorical trick of yours) from several authors and researchers have been brought forward to made this point. Direct quote (copy-paste) from books, articles and research from Friedman, Garzke and Dullin, Raven and Roberts, Skulsky, Mullenheim Rechberg and now with backed research from Dave Saxton and Thorsten these basical arguments are supported and quite clear (which is more than many of you have done, just reciting lethanies from navweapssite without any aditional quote or documental support):

1. The myth that Bismarck was designed following the Baden WWI battleship layout because Germany lacked of technological development after 1918 is just that: myth. Bismarck was designed in such a way that defied the common wisdom prevalescent after the 1921 Naval Treaties (and in violation of them, also). The AoN fitted perfectly the Treaties because it allowed a saving in displacement, which doesn't mean will provide the ideal array, something the British discovered since the Nelson design. The space arrayed armour scheme allowed the Germans develop a ship that, as Bismarck proved in her last battle, was almost invulnerable of her vitals to gunfire. A case is always done that Bismarck was a wreck when it was scuttled and sunk by her own crew, however any battleship in the same circumstances would have been in the same, or even worse, condition. The Swordfish rudder hit was vital in Bismarck's destruction and is likely that would have affected in similar ways other contemporary designs: Garzke and Dullin are very clear in this and I do not understand why, comming from a couple of very pro allied authors, are still ignored time and again. Maybe because do not suit the common wisdom prevalescent.

2. The myth of the supremacy of the North Carolina and South Dakota designs, specially the latter. All these authors and the posters of this forum that have made research have determined that it is not so. According to Friedman alone South Dakota stands in even inferior rating than her predecesor the North Carolina. I am not going to do a breakdown, again, of their flaws (because those are flaws, like it or not) which have been enumarated many times already.

3. The "armoured box" concept, that mades the 60+K ton Yamato the most powerfully armoured battleship is shared by several battleships such as South Dak, Iowa and Richelieu, that made them so highly regarded by the common wisdom supporters. But the fact that Yamato's was much bigger and heavily armoured overall to ships barely half it's displacement (or sensibly smaller as Iowa) is the main factor of mass that mades one better protected and the others seriously compromised. However no one has answered, still, how the 38 mm upper deck of the South Dak and Iowa could perform better than Bismarck's own 50mm, having also in consideration that the German Krupp armour was not, as usually regarded, as bad but of the same or superior quality of the US one. The final conclusion is that, at least but not last, South Dak was clearly inferior than Bismarck. Even her seagoing capability is in question after the report from her own senior officers who were alarmed (on a moderate seas as they textually and specifically stated) by the train of the turrets and water pouring into the ducts. Also we have to add the historical and undenniable bad performance South Dak did at II Guadalcanal (which has been covered at lenght and the final nail on the coffin was given by Friedman himself).

4. We know now that the Germans had, by 1941, a radar fire direction system at least equivalent to that of the 1942 USN with the difference that by using it Bismarck blew Hood skyhigh and put PoW on the run. We have II Guadalcanal where, even with clasical-traditional optical methods, the US RDFC in South Dak wasn't able to score a single hit on enemies at 8,000 yards but was nailed, heavily, by those "targets" minutes after.
Later in the war the USN, with all the help provided by the Central European scientists that run away from the nazis and took refuge in England and US, developed more sophisticated systems, that in some and big measure where also produced by the Germans, which cannot used them in the way the allies did because of their catastrophical numerical inferiority. However the only real life "proof" we have is the Truk action in which 18 x 16" were trained on a single destroyer that the two USN Iowa Class battleships were not able to hit, leaving the door open to debate. In any case the two longest range hits of battleship fire were not USN and not using, at least, any USN RDFC system. For all we know one could have been a German RDFC system on Scharnhorst.

5. The German metalugirc quality in colusion with their space arrayed armour scheme allowed their capital ships of the Bismarck Class to be better defended to the heavier, and larger, superheavy 16" USN shell. However the dimension of the shell and their balllistic qualities, as proven by Dave Saxton and Thorsten, had some problems to defeat this armour scheme in a way smaller 16" shell couldn't.

That's a very distorted and biased way of putting things. It's also rather inaccurate. Unfortunatly it's what I've learned to expect on these topics from you.

It has been a way in which things have escalated by the arrogance of your unsupported assumptions, the way you lecture people as if you are an all knowing god whilst anybody with a different posture is just a moron.

Now, it has been a wear to write this down in the piecemeal way that is so difficult to track. Instead of continuing that, why don't you talk to us how Dave Saxton, Thorsten, Friedman, Garzke, Raven, Mullenheim and all those guys are wrong and you are correct. Just for a change bring forth your case instead of playing Cicero spanking Catilina at the Roman forum.

Regards,

[Lutscha]

Although I'm loath to post here I will do so, since I met Thorsten some weeks ago and he shared some insight with me. Lets be clear, I speak for me, not for him. The admirality documents do not show, as far as I have seen them, that a spaced array is better that an aon scheme. They do show that it can be quite effective though normally a single plate is stronger (this is also written directly there). What I have a problem have with is, that the spaced arrays they used, at least in the forwarded document are much (!) more stronger than the on BS had, having a thicker upper deck and or main armour deck with thicknesses of more than 120mm and even 150mm (I'm writing from memory but they can be seen at the forum marinearchiv). Of course these arrangements were strong with thicknesses of up to 200mm in total. Can this be used as a benchmark for BS getting hit by a superheavy shell?

In my opinion not.

Another test was done with decapped british 38cm shells with a striking velocity of 1200-1400 fps. They failed to penetrate the main armour deck. Again that does not tell us much, since I do not expect a british 38cm to penetrate a deck of 125mm-150mm when it's decapped and hitting at such a low velocity. Striking angles were 65 and 60 degrees. Again this is hardly an unexpected result but a superheavy shell would strike an upper deck with about 1560fps and according to naab it will not be slowed under 1450fps by an BS style upper deck and still penetrate more than 80mm afterwards.

http://forum-marinearchiv.de/smf/index. ... #msg139770

Here you can see the data.

40lb = 24,9mm

[lwd]

How much more of a reliable witness than a RN gunnery officer can one be? We do know how he made this judgement: There were 5 rounds in the salvo and three waterspouts raised. Pretty straight forward.

Of course he could have missed one. It could have been occluded from his position for instance. IE he didn't see two hits he saw 3 splashes.

We don't know that both forward turrets were taken at the same time. That is just speculation. It's possible of course, but we also have accounts that Anton was taken out later on.

Both ceased fire after the impact of that salvo except for a much later further salvo from Anton which could easily have been shells cooking off in the guns. It may be speculation but it's on firmer ground than your 2 hit speculation.

[lwd]

...

the best in 1941 and that Tirpitz was clearly superior to all the USN Treaty battleships and, also likely, their Iowa Class battleships.

That's because those are highly debateable propositions.

Of course they are debatable, this is why this is a forum. However in the last months many points have been presented in which this debate is more relevant. What about just a year ago was presented as a "fact", which was the overall superiority of the Iowa Class above all other battleship classes (with the obvious exemption of the No. 1 super battleship killers Yamato and Musashi), is no longer as solid.

If it's debateable then why are you upset that people refuse to acknowledge it as fact?

What happen at DS is a "black hole" for them and will try to demerit the Bismarck doing there.

Where do these fantasy "fans" reside? Certainly not on this board.

Of course these fans resides in this board and many other boards. This started in the navweaps site and extended to the combined fleet rating. However, as stated before, corrections due to new evidence and information tends to balance the discussion again.

Do you understand what a starwman is? Here I'll define it for you again. From:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl ... d=0CBIQkAE

straw man: a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

No where in any of those sites have I seen anyone treat the DS as a "black hole" or "demerit the Bismarck doing there". You have created a position that you rail against that no one here supports and no one at combined fleet or navweapons either. If they do please present some evidence to that effect.

.... that both, SD and Iowa shared and inadequate internal sloped armor and a compromised ATS system, bad compartment distribution, narrow beam that affected the citadel defense, and a very thin upper armored deck.

That's because in isolation these hypothesis are rather meaningless.

So you say but you are utterly wrong. You cannot strike out any of these arguments with just a statement: "That's because in isolation these hypothesis are rather meaningless." Evidence (not "just" hypothesis as you remark to minimize them in an typical rethorical trick of yours) from several authors and researchers have been brought forward to made this point. Direct quote (copy-paste) from books, articles and research from Friedman, Garzke and Dullin, Raven and Roberts, Skulsky, Mullenheim Rechberg and now with backed research from Dave Saxton and Thorsten these basical arguments are supported and quite clear (which is more than many of you have done, just reciting lethanies from navweapssite without any aditional quote or documental support):

Quite simply but. You can say A has flaws or could have been better. That doesn't mean that B is supperior to A. So my statement is correct as it stands.

1. The myth that Bismarck was designed following the Baden WWI battleship layout because Germany lacked of technological development after 1918 is just that: myth.

Starwman. IE you are creating your own myths to refute.

Bismarck was designed in such a way that defied the common wisdom prevalescent after the 1921 Naval Treaties (and in violation of them, also). The AoN fitted perfectly the Treaties because it allowed a saving in displacement, which doesn't mean will provide the ideal array,

There is no "ideal" array. Battleships are all designed within certain constraints. If the AoN fitted some of them "perfectly" then it was the ideal design.

The space arrayed armour scheme allowed the Germans develop a ship that, as Bismarck proved in her last battle, was almost invulnerable of her vitals to gunfire.

It proved no such thing. It did prove that the ship could stay afloat long after it became a toothless immobile hulk but I wouldn't push that as the ideal battleship design. Futhermore the combats Bismarck was in suggested that she was indead quite vulnerable to battleship shells at mid and long range.

A case is always done that Bismarck was a wreck when it was scuttled and sunk by her own crew, however any battleship in the same circumstances would have been in the same, or even worse, condition.

Sounds like you want to use only the positive points for Bismarck from that action and are looking for an excuse to avoid the negative. Indeed most battleships would have been in a similar state. On the otherhand Yamashiro continued firing after takeing what may well have been a worse pounding. She didn't last as long but given her age and what she was up against I'm not sure one can hold up the resistence of Bismarck as singular.

The Swordfish rudder hit was vital in Bismarck's destruction and is likely that would have affected in similar ways other contemporary designs: Garzke and Dullin are very clear in this and I do not understand why, comming from a couple of very pro allied authors, are still ignored time and again. Maybe because do not suit the common wisdom prevalescent.

I have not seen a whole lot of argument against that recently but could you post their comment? It seems rather a strange one as I would expect the arrangement of rudders and engines to have a considerable impact on this. Indeed wasn't POWs hit similar in some respects? From what I've read of her hits if they hadn't restarted the damaged shaft she would have regained both some mobility and steerage.

2. The myth of the supremacy of the North Carolina and South Dakota designs, specially the latter. All these authors and the posters of this forum that have made research have determined that it is not so. According to Friedman alone South Dakota stands in even inferior rating than her predecesor the North Carolina. I am not going to do a breakdown, again, of their flaws (because those are flaws, like it or not) which have been enumarated many times already.

Sorry, I simply can't agree that "All these authors and the posters of this forum that have made research have determined that it is not so". For one thing it's not clear how you are defineing supremacy. Certainly they were better suited to fullfilling US doctrine than any other battleships with the possible exception of the Iowa's (that depending on ones view of US doctrine). As for their "flaws" there is little point in mentioning them if you are not going to compare and contrast those along with their good points vs the opposition.

3. The "armoured box" concept, that mades the 60+K ton Yamato the most powerfully armoured battleship is shared by several battleships such as South Dak, Iowa and Richelieu, that made them so highly regarded by the common wisdom supporters.

One should note that this "common wisdom" was held by most of the naval architecs of the era. The only builder of battleships in the post WWI time frame who did not go to some form of AoN was Germany. That suggests either a significant difference in the design constraints or something singular about German designers.

However no one has answered, still, how the 38 mm upper deck of the South Dak and Iowa could perform better than Bismarck's own 50mm, having also in consideration that the German Krupp armour was not, as usually regarded, as bad but of the same or superior quality of the US one.

The evidence I've seen indicates the US BBs upper armored decks were designed to initiate the fuses of AP bombs. They were sufficient for that purpose. So in that regard they performed equally to the Bismarck's which were also sufficient. Now lately it's been suggested that the purpose of those decks was decapping and/or inducing yaw. I have serious doubts that it was the case that the US decks were so designed but the German ones may have been and for that purpose the German decks are clearly supperior. However if you are comparing how they would perform in combat vs each other the heavier steeper falling US shell will likely win out over the thicker German upper deck much faster than the lighter shallower German shell will over the thinner US deck.

The final conclusion is that, at least but not last, South Dak was clearly inferior than Bismarck.

That may be your final conclusion but it is made by analysing only those areas that favor Bismarck and taking the most favorable interpretations of them at that. What happens if you consider range for instance or the ability to pass through the Panama Canal? In certain situations Bismarck probably would have been superior to SoDak, in others it would be reversed, in still others they would have been near equals. I happen to believe that given US doctrine the situations where SoDak would have held the edge would be the most likely.

Even her seagoing capability is in question after the report from her own senior officers who were alarmed (on a moderate seas as they textually and specifically stated) by the train of the turrets and water pouring into the ducts.

In one particular instance. Would Bismarck have had similar problems in the Pacfic? or even off Cape Hatteras like SoDak? We'll never know. It's worth noteing that we've only this one particular incident mentioned where things got this bad. What were the ship conditions at the time? Was she overloaded for instance.

Also we have to add the historical and undenniable bad performance South Dak did at II Guadalcanal (which has been covered at lenght and the final nail on the coffin was given by Friedman himself).

Most of which were due to crew errors from a green crew and many of the rest were corrected in short order. Hardly the "final nail"

4. We know now that the Germans had, by 1941, a radar fire direction system at least equivalent to that of the 1942 USN with the difference that by using it Bismarck blew Hood skyhigh and put PoW on the run. We have II Guadalcanal where, even with clasical-traditional optical methods, the US RDFC in South Dak wasn't able to score a single hit on enemies at 8,000 yards but was nailed, heavily, by those "targets" minutes after.

Those with any knowledge of statistics know that extrapolating is dangerouse and you can't do anything else from a sample size of one. Indeed you can draw an infinity of lines through a single point and that's without even considering more complex formula.

...In any case the two longest range hits of battleship fire were not USN and not using, at least, any USN RDFC system. For all we know one could have been a German RDFC system on Scharnhorst.

Which is all rather irrelevant. Again look at the sample size. The US didn't get any long range hits because they didn't get much in the way of opertunities. Indeed some time before the Nowaki engagements their was an order that would have dissallowed that engagement as the US of BB main guns vs DDs at range was forbidden or at least discouraged. So your continued trotting out of who scored the longest range hits is rather irrelevant. What is relevant is that that shoot showed what the US could and arguably would do. It is to a large extent irrelevant that the Nowaki was not hit (although there is evidence she took splinter damage which some might consider a hit), what is relevant is that they were able to get as close as they did repeatedly at the ranges they did.

5. The German metalugirc quality in colusion with their space arrayed armour scheme allowed their capital ships of the Bismarck Class to be better defended to the heavier, and larger, superheavy 16" USN shell. However the dimension of the shell and their balllistic qualities, as proven by Dave Saxton and Thorsten, had some problems to defeat this armour scheme in a way smaller 16" shell couldn't.

Nothing I've seen indicates that the 16" superheavy shell would have had a harder time pentrating the decks of the Bismarck class at any particular range than lighter 16" rounds. Some of the considerations that Dave has mentioned might affect them more but given the angles and weight of the US shell I'm not convinced that they still wouldn't have been for the most part as or more effective than lighter rounds.

That's a very distorted and biased way of putting things. It's also rather inaccurate. Unfortunatly it's what I've learned to expect on these topics from you.

It has been a way in which things have escalated by the arrogance of your unsupported assumptions, the way you lecture people as if you are an all knowing god whilst anybody with a different posture is just a moron.

There you go again. I often (usually I belive) support my postions by either logic or fact (both in many cases). On the other hand many of my arguements against your postions are not based at all on assumptions, they are based on you making unwarrented extrapolations or assumptions and falling into logical fallacies. I have never claimed to be all knowing indeed you can find quite a few posts on this board where I state I don't know or am not sure of things. If you view my postings as "lectures" and feel that I treat opponents as "morons" in many cases that is not what I intend, on the other hand when I point out a logical fallacy and it is repeatedly ignored I do tend to wax sarcastic.

... Instead of continuing that, why don't you talk to us how Dave Saxton, Thorsten, Friedman, Garzke, Raven, Mullenheim and all those guys are wrong and you are correct.

PLS find a post where I stated Garzke, Raven, etc are wrong. When you have posted information from their works or I've read it I find little to disagree with as far as their works go. What I often disagree with is your interpretation of their works.

Just for a change bring forth your case instead of playing Cicero spanking Catilina at the Roman forum...

I will when I find it warrented and worth doing. If you want less post of me of this nature on the otherhand you could try looking at things more logically and try not to exagerate things past reason as you've a want to do.

[Dave Saxton]

Of course these arrangements were strong with thicknesses of up to 200mm in total. Can this be used as a benchmark for BS getting hit by a superheavy shell?

In my opinion not.

Hi Lutscha,

A primary consideration in the case of a Bismarck type array interacting with a superheavy type shell is intact penetration. The extra length of the main body of a superheavy type shell creates a problem should the cap be removed, through the shifting of the center of gravity away from the head of the projectile. This shift is much greater with a longer body projectile. This in turn sets up a condition that will beakup the shell through axial forces during subsequent attempt at oblique penetration.

Other factors are the fact it requires significantly more energy to penetrate subsequent armour by a de-capped shell if the subsequent armour is homogenous armour with a tensile strength greater than 80kg/mm2. Another factor is that induced yaw created by a Bismarck type array not only requires significantly more energy to penetrate subsequent armour than it would otherwise, but it nullifies the additional anti-scoop properties during oblique impact of blunt head shapes.

[lwd]

... The extra length of the main body of a superheavy type shell creates a problem should the cap be removed, through the shifting of the center of gravity away from the head of the projectile. This shift is much greater with a longer body projectile. ....

Can you show us the source or the calculations for this? In a rough calculation I performed using a cuttaway of a British 15" shell I came up with just the opposite. Furthermore changine the parameters significantly still resulted in the CG being closer to the nose.

[Dave Saxton]

Sure. ADM213/951, Pg, 91-93

How can removal of ~14% of the total weight from over the head of a projectile result in a shifting of the center the of gravity closer to the head?

[Bgile]

This argument has been done so many times. The USN fans will never acknowledge that Bismarck was a good battleship, the best in 1941 and that Tirpitz was clearly superior to all the USN Treaty battleships and, also likely, their Iowa Class battleships. What happen at DS is a "black hole" for them and will try to demerit the Bismarck doing there. For the same reasons they will also forget the miserable intervention of SD at II Guadalcanal, the damages this ship suffered and the running away it performed, they will forget that SD has poor seagoing capabilities, that both, SD and Iowa shared and inadequate internal sloped armor and a compromised ATS system, bad compartment distribution, narrow beam that affected the citadel defense, and a very thin upper armored deck.

What makes you think the Iowa class armor was inadequate? I don't think that's been proven at all. Bad compartment distribution? Where does that come from? Iowa has more extensive engineering subdivision than SD (twice as much), but I have no idea what you are talking about in any case. Why to you persist in criticising this "narrow beam" thing? Their beam was wider than the British Battleships and a number of others, but you don't say that about them, do you? The Iowa class were the fastest battleships ever built, and one reason for that is their length to beam ratio.

Then there is this silly idea that somehow Bismarck didn't have any electrical cables above her main armor deck. All ships, including battleships have them. Critical combat related cabling is below the MAD in both SD and Bismarck. SD's problem wasn't the location of some cabling above the MAD. It was a mistake made by a crewmember in dealing with a short. When PoW's engineering mistake is referenced it's usually to claim that PoW wouldn't have been sunk if the mistake hadn't been made, but in the case of SD no one mentions the possibility that her mistake hadn't been made and how that might have changed the situation for the better. Her crew made more than one mistake, but you take those as indications there was something wrong with the ship itself.

Let's remember that the only surface combat feat the USN fans can quote is a dubious encounter at Truk where two 50K ton battleships bravely engaged a puny destroyer Nowaki without hiting it and without clearly dominated the shooting... using their own argument: it could have been just luck. At least Bismarck sunk the biggest warship by 1941 and put a brand new battleship on the run with it's bridge blown.

The USN was involved in a lot of surface actions in WWII, not just at Truk.

Please tell me how Bismarck or any other ship succeeded in straddling a high speed target at over 30,000 yds. What kind of ship it was and whether or not it was "brave" is completely irrelevant to the gunnery, and you know it. You just put that stuff out there to cloud the issue and take away from the achievement.

Oh, and PoW's bridge was not hit (or "blown") by Bismarck.

[Bgile]

Although I'm loath to post here I will do so, since I met Thorsten some weeks ago and he shared some insight with me. Lets be clear, I speak for me, not for him. The admirality documents do not show, as far as I have seen them, that a spaced array is better that an aon scheme. They do show that it can be quite effective though normally a single plate is stronger (this is also written directly there). What I have a problem have with is, that the spaced arrays they used, at least in the forwarded document are much (!) more stronger than the on BS had, having a thicker upper deck and or main armour deck with thicknesses of more than 120mm and even 150mm (I'm writing from memory but they can be seen at the forum marinearchiv). Of course these arrangements were strong with thicknesses of up to 200mm in total. Can this be used as a benchmark for BS getting hit by a superheavy shell?

In my opinion not.

Another test was done with decapped british 38cm shells with a striking velocity of 1200-1400 fps. They failed to penetrate the main armour deck. Again that does not tell us much, since I do not expect a british 38cm to penetrate a deck of 125mm-150mm when it's decapped and hitting at such a low velocity. Striking angles were 65 and 60 degrees. Again this is hardly an unexpected result but a superheavy shell would strike an upper deck with about 1560fps and according to naab it will not be slowed under 1450fps by an BS style upper deck and still penetrate more than 80mm afterwards.

http://forum-marinearchiv.de/smf/index. ... #msg139770

Here you can see the data.

40lb = 24,9mm

Thank you for that. Dave makes some very convincing arguments and it's helpful to know some of what he has left out from time to time.

[Dave Saxton]

I don't leave things out. I expect better of you than that Steve.

[lwd]

Sure. ADM213/951, Pg, 91-93

How can removal of ~14% of the total weight from over the head of a projectile result in a shifting of the center the of gravity closer to the head?

Because it's also moving the head of the projectile back. It's a function of the linear density of the shell. Now it may not have the same effect on the US round and I did make some gross estimations on the British round that I do have a cutaway for (see: http://wapedia.mobi/en/Armor-piercing_shot_and_shell). Think of it this way there are three denisty regions on the shell. From the base to the point:
1) The region with the hollow for the explosive filler
2) The solid cylindrical region.
3) The nose.
Removing the CAP does remove mass from the nose but it also shortens the nose as well as the cylindrical section to a lesser extent. The result is the distance from the new tip to the center of gravity is less (at least in some cases). Now if we had a cutaway or better yet a density curve for the US round we could see if it holds true for that round as well.

[lwd]

I don't leave things out. I expect better of you than that Steve.

Of course you do. You aren't producing a book length missive in every post are you? You post what you think relevant just like most of us. Sometimes something we don't consider relevant others do. That's one reason accurate references are so important.

[Dave Saxton]

The implication communicated is that I deliberately leave out things of relevance that I think may be injurous to my position. This smells of a tactic to cast doubt upon the validity of my contributions without speaking to the substance of the issue at hand. Let us speak to the substance of the issues shall we.

Now, the cap is fitted over the the head of the projectile of an APC. Removal of its weight will shift the center of gravity away from the head. Lift a steel beam with crane that has a weight afixed to one end and part of the metal cut out from the opposite end, and see where the lifting point is in order to lift it level. Remove the afixed weight from the lift and the lifting piont will be shifted.

[lwd]

... Now, the cap is fitted over the the head of the projectile of an APC. Removal of its weight will shift the center of gravity away from the head. Lift a steel beam with crane that has a weight afixed to one end and part of the metal cut out from the opposite end, and see where the lifting point is in order to lift it level. Remove the afixed weight from the lift and the lifting piont will be shifted.

But if you measure the distance from the end of the betal to which the weight was affixed does this distance get smaller or larger? If the affixed weight increases the length of the beam and at the same time is lower in denisty then the distance from the end of the affixed length to the lifting point will be less than the distance from the new end to the lifting point. Indeed even if it is the same density the distance will decrease. A simple example. Take a uniform steel bar 10m long. From one end to the lifting point is 5 meteres. Cut the bar in half. Now from one end to the lifting point is 2.5m. Now take a bar with three regions one of intermediate linear density, a center of greater density, followed by another section of intermediate density. Cut the section off on end with intermediate density and you'll move the lifting point even closer to that end.