Armour Penetration

Warship design and construction, terminology, navigation, hydrodynamics, stability, armor schemes, damage control, etc.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Armour Penetration

Post by lwd » Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:45 pm

Of course if you read what he actually writes he doesn't come anywhere close to claiming it's the last word (or gospel).

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Armour Penetration

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:33 pm

I never said he claims that. I´m saying others claim that. Big difference.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Armour Penetration

Post by lwd » Tue Apr 21, 2009 4:46 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:I never said he claims that. I´m saying others claim that. Big difference.
Didn't think you were but wanted to make sure others understood that.

Tiornu
Supporter
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:13 am
Location: Ex Utero

Re: Armour Penetration

Post by Tiornu » Tue Apr 21, 2009 4:47 pm

I don't believe it's ever constructive to reduce the conversation to such a dismissive tone.

als_pug
Member
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:43 am

Re: Armour Penetration

Post by als_pug » Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:17 pm

personnaly i only care about the facts as i see them . in other words i have read enough of his articles and the comments made by pple i respect about him . theirfore i have decided until otherwise convinced that nathan okun is the god of armour and guns . i am still looking for an article on the bismark .
it was very interesting it apparently showed that a torpedoe hit took place on a deck . allegedly before scuttling took place. indicating he was already going down .

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Armour Penetration

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:03 pm

personnaly i only care about the facts as i see them . in other words i have read enough of his articles and the comments made by pple i respect about him . theirfore i have decided until otherwise convinced that nathan okun is the god of armour and guns
lwd: see what I was talking about?
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

Tiornu
Supporter
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:13 am
Location: Ex Utero

Re: Armour Penetration

Post by Tiornu » Thu Apr 23, 2009 11:12 pm

Can we set up another board for people who want to discuss religion?

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7605
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Armour Penetration

Post by RF » Fri Apr 24, 2009 8:18 am

als_pug wrote: it was very interesting it apparently showed that a torpedoe hit took place on a deck . allegedly before scuttling took place. indicating he was already going down .
Where exactly was this hit - which deck?
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

als_pug
Member
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:43 am

Re: Armour Penetration

Post by als_pug » Fri Apr 24, 2009 11:48 am

i am going through my history looking for the exact site i saw the story on . anyway an intyeresting part of the story from the british side . is on the site below


http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-016.htm

and a large piecs by Mr okun .
http://www.combinedfleet.com/okun_biz.htm

i usually come across these sites as i randomly attempt to find obscure ww2 vessels that i can enter into my Navyfield Fleet's guess your ww2 ship . i recently did well with the sister to the tromp . twin 4 inch RN AA guns really confuse people lol

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7605
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Armour Penetration

Post by RF » Fri Apr 24, 2009 1:23 pm

There is a huge amount of detail in both of these references. However I can only find one passing reference to a torpedo hit on the catapult deck of Bismarck obtained by Dorsetshire.

I haven't seen any forther detail or reference to such a hit anywhere else. I had been under the impression that both of the torpedo hits by Dorsetshire occurred prior to Bismarck capsising, hence my earlier question.

The conclusion that Bismarck was sinking before scuttling orders were given is I think beyond dispute.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Armour Penetration

Post by Bgile » Fri Apr 24, 2009 1:53 pm

For some time it was believed that the only way to explain the damage to Bismarck's port side in the area of the catapult was that Dorsetshire's torpedo hit her there while she was capsizing.

als_pug
Member
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:43 am

Re: Armour Penetration

Post by als_pug » Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:14 pm

the one thing i have always had a hard time understanding was the myth on invincibillity for the bismark . he was a well built and beautiful ship . compared to contemporary designs he was well balanced . unfortunately he suffered from the neglect of the design dept for 12 odd years . some parts of the design were good others not so good . from what i have learnt from my reading . the South Dakotas were the best of the treaty style battleships . however the truth of the finale battle of the Bismark will never be truly understood due to the lack of survivors and the amount of just plain false information out their . if the bismark had been in full fighting trim the RN could well have lost another Battleship . The outcome for the Bismark was unfotunately already decided as soon as the RN caught her . If the Kreigsmarine had completed the Graf Zepplin and sortied some escorts etc then The raiding cruise would have parralysed the atlantic until he was sunk . by escorts i mean the Scharnhorst and ( plse excuse my spelling ) Gnesinou . The Z plan as originally intended gave germany a decent navy but one still incapable of ruling any ocean except the North Sea .

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Armour Penetration

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Fri Apr 24, 2009 4:46 pm

als_pug:
the one thing i have always had a hard time understanding was the myth on invincibillity for the bismark
In this forum no one has ever stated that. To the contrary this seems to be an anti-Bismarck forum. If something is praised here are the US Battleships. Just take a look at the older threads.
from what i have learnt from my reading . the South Dakotas were the best of the treaty style battleships .
From your previous posts it seems that your reading reduces to combinedfleet webpage. I´m a great admirer of Parshal and Tully and even have their book, Shattered Sword, as a mandatory reference in my library. But their assertions on their "comparison game" are not 100% shared by a many lot of people, even from this forum and, even, as US BBs defenders.
if the bismark had been in full fighting trim the RN could well have lost another Battleship . The outcome for the Bismark was unfotunately already decided as soon as the RN caught her . If the Kreigsmarine had completed the Graf Zepplin and sortied some escorts etc then The raiding cruise would have parralysed the atlantic until he was sunk . by escorts i mean the Scharnhorst and ( plse excuse my spelling ) Gnesinou . The Z plan as originally intended gave germany a decent navy but one still incapable of ruling any ocean except the North Sea .
All these topics have been plainly covered in previous treads. Please go back and read them: there are very good arguments from both sides of the coin on this.

Best regards,
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Armour Penetration

Post by lwd » Fri Apr 24, 2009 5:02 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote: But their assertions on their "comparison game" are not 100% shared by a many lot of people, even from this forum and, even, as US BBs defenders....,
Indeed I suspect if they were to revise it today that a fair number of the ratings would change and perhaps some of the rankings. It is a nice model inparticular since they tell you what they are rating and in at least some cases what the weights are. Using a model such as theirs it's easier to get down to technical elements rather than those based on impression. It also leads to a better understanding of what is being lableled as "best" even or perhaps especially if there is disagreement with that definitoin.

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Armour Penetration

Post by Bgile » Fri Apr 24, 2009 5:39 pm

I agree with lwd. I don't always agree with their results, but it's nice to read their analysis.

The site is really good for other things too. It has deployment histories of almost all IJN ships. It is also the home for Nathan Okun's papers on armor, and while he is not a "God" he is obviously the most respected person on the web regarding armor and shell penetration of armor. He has done some very good work, and it is based on a lot of research including postwar tests of armor plate.

Post Reply