This depends on the formula, data published for the gun, based on the US formula, gives 140mm at a range of 22000m. 124mm is what the 16"/50 would do at that distance.alecsandros wrote:US empirical formula gives 124mm STS, and that is probably exaggerated. It is more likely 110-115mm.
I would like to know how you calculate the compound strength. a+b-15mm is hardly the way to go, and I would like to know your source for 80mm + 120mm deck armour on the Bismarck. Then please check upon the protection of the secondary magazines, and pay particular attention to the thickness of the upper armour deck below the superstructure. Secondary magazines is what we are talking about here.Bismarck's minimum compounded strength was ~ 110 mm (50+80mm), of completely different quality and arrangement than the French ships had. Throsten Whal has several very interesting posts taken from German archives, in which he explains very thoroughly the qualities of double-decked Whotan, with different tensile strengths.
Bismarck's maximum compounded strength was ~ 180-190mm (80+120mm), practicaly impenetrable by any shell at ranges < 30km.
Splinter protection, watertightness. Richelieu, quite likely, would not have lost bunker capacity. It certainly would not have suffered flooding to the same extend.Given the shell's trajectory, what relevance does it have an armored deck.. ?
Ok, I don't care about dicksize.For this discussion's sake, I'm talking about what happens in a direct battle.
Richelieu as it was in 1945 vs Tirpitz as it was in 1944 (maybe with the late war radars added)...
I prefer to think about long range gunnery against PoW, where Bismarck did not perform well. Medium range was quite good, though....think about the Bismarck-Hood engagement and remember the shooting was carried out before the 1943 modernization...
3 shells per minute per gun is impressive, would be more so if it was true. Krupp designed the turrets with a 22 seconds cycle in optimum gun position, if my memory serves me right. Richelieu could manage 35 seconds, again afaik.This was ~ 3 shells/minute/gun for Bismarck firing at ranges <20km, and about 1 shell/minute/gun for Richelieu.
And, you know what, Richelieu could get through the Panama channel, something Bismarck couldn't. That's an interesting quality which is obviously irrelevant when just making idiotic slug it out comparisons. The thickest 7 belts built into modern WW2 battleships were never tested in combat. Just so you know. The single most deadly weapon battleships faced in WW2, were torpedoes. Thought you should know that, too.