Page 1 of 6

Armour Penetration

Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 10:54 pm
by dougieo
Hello boys and girls

I know I am what you people would call a lurker on here but I was hopeing someone could help.

When reading a post put up by Jose(sorry dont know how to get the little mark above the e) about the armour penetration of the Bismarcks 15in guns there was a link that gave tables for other navies guns. Looking at this it shows that the 14in gun on the KGV class ships should have been able to penetrate the Bismarcks main belt.

I know from reading on here and elsewhere that it seems that no 14in shells managed to do this from what is visable on the wreck, but the RN test fired against plates from the Tirpitz and stated that at the battle ranges that occured it would penetrate.

Are the tables incorrect and just theoretical or is it down to the movements of the ships envolved changing the striking angle?

Regards

Dougie

Re: Armour Penetration

Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 12:22 am
by lwd
From what I've read it's more a matter or them not hitting the belt. Bismark was already riding low once she started taking on more water the course to her main belt required an underwater trajectory. So most of the rounds hit above that.

Re: Armour Penetration

Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 12:42 am
by dougieo
So even if the did hit they would have passed through water first whitch would take a good bit of the striking velocity off along with the strike angle being affected

Re: Armour Penetration

Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 12:43 am
by Tiornu
There is no evidence that Bismarck's belt defeated any 14in shells.

Re: Armour Penetration

Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 1:47 am
by dougieo
Tiornu wrote:There is no evidence that Bismarck's belt defeated any 14in shells.

I have not seen much of the wreck pictures but how much of the belt is actually visible? I know there was supposed to be 2 16in hits penetrated and another partial. I would assume that a hit from a 14in that did not penetrate would be distinguishable from that of an 8in whitch was the next calibre down at the battle.

I have read Campbells Jutland in the past and am sure he mentions the comparativly low amount of hits on main belt armour of the ships envolved when compared to the number of hits taken.

Re: Armour Penetration

Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 2:05 am
by Tiornu
There were a few large-caliber hits identified. The exact caliber is not known. None of these are confirmed as non-penetrative, and most are confirmed as penetrations.

Re: Armour Penetration

Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 2:34 am
by dougieo
Tiornu wrote:There were a few large-caliber hits identified. The exact caliber is not known. None of these are confirmed as non-penetrative, and most are confirmed as penetrations.

where would I be able to find the best detailed acount of the wreck itself?

Is there a book/documentary you could recommend that I look at.

Re: Armour Penetration

Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 4:27 am
by Tiornu
Bill Jurens sometimes visits this forum, and he can give you the best information available. In the meantime, you can search the internet for the paper he helped write based on his examination of the Hood and Bismarck wrecks. The title is "A Marine Forensic Analysis of HMS Hood and DKM Bismarck." I know it used to be posted online somewhere, but I don't know if it's there any more.

Re: Armour Penetration

Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 6:57 am
by JtD
A quote from the analysis of the Bismarck wreck,
Relatively few shells appear to have struck the 320mm thick main belt, and almost none of these penetrated.
http://www.sname.org/committees/design/ ... arck_1.pdf

Re: Armour Penetration

Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 7:07 am
by Lutscha
This is what Bill wrote here about the belt hits:
Bill Jurens wrote:There has been some discussion here regarding the number of large caliber hits on Bismarck's armor belt(s).

As someone who has spent about sixty hours actually looking at the wreck, often with particular reference to the issues in question, I feel confident in commenting as follows:

1) Someone suggested that Mr. Cameron's presentation was more reliable than that of the previous 2001 ITN expeditions. This is not true. Mr. Cameron's credentials regarding analysis are, if not impeccable, very good indeed. He is bright, knowlegeable, and a very keen observer. His observations are MUCH more reliable and extensive than those presented via the 2001 ITN expedition. He had much better equipment, spent much more time on the wreck, and -- in contrase to some of those on the 2001 expedition -- is really quite technically competent and knowledgeable. Sadly, the results of the 2001 ITN expedition to Hood and Bismarck were severely compromised by post-expedition censorship accompanied by the imposition of imaginative "conclusions" regarding the evidence actually observed, especially regarding Hood. One must, however, remember that the Cameron television productions are not intended to present a highly rigorous scientific analysis. Rather than speculate, Mr. Cameron has sought out (and attended to) the opinions of experts in the marine forensics field.

2) Regarding belt hits on Bismarck: There were a large number of non-penetrating small-caliber hits on the upper belt, and a fair number of non-penetrating small caliber hits on the main belt of Bismarck. There were almost no large caliber hits on the main belt -- three as I recall -- of which two represent clear penetrations, with the third somewhat indeterminate. The main belt was hardly hit by major caliber projectiles, but at least 2/3 of the shells did indeed penetrate, although their post-penetration trajectories are highly speculative.

Bill Jurens.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1145&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=30

Re: Armour Penetration

Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:50 pm
by Tiornu
Relatively few shells appear to have struck the 320mm thick main belt, and almost none of these penetrated.
Note that this does not distinguish between large-caliber shells and others.

Re: Armour Penetration

Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:59 pm
by JtD
I know, but this is all there is in the article I linked. Thanks to Lutscha for finding a more relevant statement.

Re: Armour Penetration

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:22 am
by dougieo
Tiornu wrote:Bill Jurens sometimes visits this forum, and he can give you the best information available. In the meantime, you can search the internet for the paper he helped write based on his examination of the Hood and Bismarck wrecks. The title is "A Marine Forensic Analysis of HMS Hood and DKM Bismarck." I know it used to be posted online somewhere, but I don't know if it's there any more.

Thanks, I will look this up

Re: Armour Penetration

Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 3:03 am
by als_pug
ok before i offer my own opinions i have to say they pale in comparison to thos of MR Nathan Okun . i recomend googiling his name and reading the major papers he has produced . they are fascinating . a link to a guns vs armour article is below.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/gunarmor.htm

Re: Armour Penetration

Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:28 am
by Karl Heidenreich
Als_pug,

Nathan Okun has, in this very forum, a following as religious as the one the Pope has with Opus Dei members. No sweat that many here can repeat from memory the gospel...