alecsandros wrote:...I know that at DS he fired 93 shells, out of which 6-8 were hits. ...
alecsandros wrote:I don't know where you've seen "3 hits at DS".
1 - on Hood
4 - on PoW (as described in the British investigation of the damage suffered by PoW)
1 - on Hood, that passed through the foretop killing several men
2 - on Hood:
1st - causing the fire that killed 200 men (most arguments favor a hit by PE though)
2nd - in the same salvo that destroyed the ship
dunmunro wrote:The other factor is that it is a bit of a stretch to assign the 38cm UW hit equal status to the others, as it is obvious that it must have actually fallen well short of PoW.
paulcadogan wrote:dunmunro wrote:The other factor is that it is a bit of a stretch to assign the 38cm UW hit equal status to the others, as it is obvious that it must have actually fallen well short of PoW.
That makes no sense to me. To follow that logic...PE's two hits aft below the waterline on PoW and PoW's hit on Bismarck amidships below the waterline don't really measure up as proper hits, and if Bismarck's fatal shell struck Hood below the waterline it wasn't a genuine hit either!
A hit is a hit whether the shell strikes above or below the waterline. After all, the latter can directly affect watertight integrity!
tommy303 wrote:I agree with Duncan. It was thought for years that the shell which struck the secondary director tower was a 38cm, but a number of authors have doubts, and have assigned the hit to a 20,3cm shell from Prinz Eugen as it did not appear to have caused as much damage as one would expect of a 38cm.
dunmunro wrote: No, these other hits were close enough to the ship that the shell could fuze properly upon striking the water and still detonate after entering the ship, which is what the 14" hit from PoW did, as did the UW 20cm hits which also had enough remaining SV to indicate that their fuzes were functioning normally, and that they would have detonated in the water had they fallen shorter than they did.
It is true that a 38cm shell struck PoW UW, but the point is that it gives a false impression of Bismarck's FC accuracy, since it was really equivalent to a very large piece of shrapnel from a miss.
I don't think it's a good idea to leave that hit "out". Even non-exploding shells can cause a great deal of damage (like the hit on the compass platform), and PoW got betweeen 400-600 tons of water inside her because of the bwl hits. So leaving this one out is just wrong.
alecsandros wrote:If you want to take it this way, then you should also leave out 2 out of the 3 hits PoW obtained in the same battle.
The reason: neither the fw hit on the bow, nor the hit that went through the aircraft crane did not explode, and it is probable they did not fuze. Thus you can not know for sure if they worked properly, and anyway they did not cause damage in the way they were "supposed to".
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/Gun_Data_p3.htmDanger Space - That distance in front of the target, measured parallel to the line of fire, that the target could be moved toward the firing point, so that a shot striking the base (waterline) of the target in its original position would strike the top of the target in its new position. The flatter the trajectory, the greater the danger space. See "Hitting Space," below.
Hitting Space - The distance behind the target, measured parallel to the line of fire, that a projectile striking the top of the target will strike the horizontal plane through the base (waterline) of the target. It may also include a distance in front of the target within which impacts are likely to produce underwater or ricochet hits upon the target. In other words, the hitting space is the distance between the point where a shell falling short of a target will start to inflict damage and the point at which a shell falling long of a target will stop inflicting damage. The greater the angle of fall, the smaller the hitting space. At long ranges, danger space and hitting space are about the same size, but at short distances the danger space is larger than the hitting space. See "Danger Space" above.
It's smarter to be lucky than it's lucky to be smart
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest