Iowa Class: Armor Protection

[Bgile]

Please note that the beam of the Iowa Class is greater than that of the KGV class. Also, if you want a ship to be fast, it's a good idea to have a large length to beam ratio.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Please note that the beam of the Iowa Class is greater than that of the KGV class. Also, if you want a ship to be fast, it's a good idea to have a large length to beam ratio.

And Bismarck´s was greater than Iowa or SD or NC.

[Bgile]

Please note that the beam of the Iowa Class is greater than that of the KGV class. Also, if you want a ship to be fast, it's a good idea to have a large length to beam ratio.

And Bismarck´s was greater than Iowa or SD or NC.

I just thought you might like to know that, since you don't seem inclined to refer to the KGVs with little digs like "narrow beamed". Bismarck was 10,000+ tons larger than either.

Why do you denigrate Navweaps for being an internet site? If I post information on the internet is it somehow less true than if I publish it in a book?

[Karl Heidenreich]

Bgile:

Internet is where we have evidence for Bigfoot or Nessie and UFOs too. If you publish a book and don´t want to be expeled from the University you work with because you are not a serious researcher then you must do an excellent job. Also, people who write a book do a lot of research because their interest of doing things right (there are exceptions, of course).

Best regards

[Bgile]

Bgile:

Internet is where we have evidence for Bigfoot or Nessie and UFOs too. If you publish a book and don´t want to be expeled from the University you work with because you are not a serious researcher then you must do an excellent job. Also, people who write a book do a lot of research because their interest of doing things right (there are exceptions, of course).

Best regards

Yes, and there are books about Bigfoot and Nessie and UFOs. The Navweaps reference site lists lots of citations, and it isn't a place where posting is a free for all. Just because it is on the internet doesn't mean it's false. It just means it's accessible to more people. IMO you just don't like it because it doesn't always agree with your ideas or impressions of what is right. If it did agree with your ideas, I suspect you wouldn't question it nearly as much. I don't consider it 100% accurate, but it does have some good info.

[lwd]

lwd:

In the future if you have such 0 value added posts please feel free to use the private message option or just not post them.

Thanks for the tip. As all of you who like to insult and ridiculize me or those that does not abide the Iowa Class Gospel that are object of public mockery then I will see what stays public and what isn´t.

There is an old saying about opening ones mouth and removing doubt. You are the one who most typically insults and tries to ridicule. There are none here that I've seen that make a religion of "the Iowa" any mockery is due to inane comets and faulty logic.

Anyway, we are diverting of the main issue here, which is the thin 38.1 mm upper deck of the narrow beamed Iowa (or South Dakota).

Hardly. And your characterization of it is at best opinion and to some extent misleading.

[lwd]

Internet is where we have evidence for Bigfoot or Nessie and UFOs too.

Such topics were in books before there ever was a internet.

If you publish a book and don´t want to be expeled from the University you work with because you are not a serious researcher then you must do an excellent job.

Many authors are not associated with universities. Some who are hardly to an excellent job.

Also, people who write a book do a lot of research because their interest of doing things right (there are exceptions, of course).

Much the same can be said of many who publish things on the internet. In some cases it's info that would be of marginal utility if published in book form. For instance FACEHARD.

[Karl Heidenreich]

lwd:

Hardly. And your characterization of it is at best opinion and to some extent misleading.

Why is it that the main issue here at stake is the one is avoided? It´s always been. Again: how can it be that Iowa´s thinny upper deck can initiate fuze action on AP bombs and shells and Bismarck´s 50 mm one, much thicker, don´t? Or, at least, why the resistance to admit it?

lwd:

There is an old saying about opening ones mouth and removing doubt. You are the one who most typically insults and tries to ridicule. There are none here that I've seen that make a religion of "the Iowa" any mockery is due to inane comets and faulty logic.

No, no, no: you with the way you address things is the one that started all the insult issues making mockery of everyone that stands in a different argument than yours. This forum is full of those examples. I must agree that from time to time I lost my temper and wrote things I regret later... but always have offered apologies when that happens... in drastic divergence from you guys that never apology because you own the Holy Grail of the Battleship Truth.

Bgile:

Yes, and there are books about Bigfoot and Nessie and UFOs.

True. Hardly their authors will be considered for a Nobel Prize. In internet EVERYBODY thinks they own the truth: it´s an characterisic that someone will have to study one of this days.

[boredatwork]

I work in the publishing business and the decision to publish a book has nothing to do with accuracy... anyone of us enthusiasts could write up our own BB book and have 10,000 copies run through press and bindary within a few weeks... if we had the money...

Books, especially before the advent of digital presses, are expensive to print and therefore the decision to publish or not is not necessarily based on how accurate the book is but rather how likely it is in the opinion of the financer to sell.

To a certain extent this results in books:
-are broad focussed to appeal to as wide a market as possible
-written by less learned but more articulate authors
-regurgitate from secondary sources but with new pretty pictures and graphics to keep costs down
-selectively present only evidence as to why the author's biased opinion is the correct one (i.e. Ships by this nation were the 'best' because...)
-deliberately present 'new' 'evidence' to support a controversial theories to attract attention

The quality of a published work is not a function of the format of it's publication but rather the amount of research supporting it and the openess of the author(s) to examine all points of view instead of merely picking and choosing facts which support his opinion.

While certainly the internet is deluged with self proclaimed experts spewing poorly researched opinions as fact, the internet does have some inherent properties that make it as valuable as the printed word - greater freedom of opinion; detail less limited by page count or cost; easier searching; publishing of articles whose length or subject would not commercially justify a book of their own; easier discussion for the exchange of ideas and resources; easier to correct or update as new information becomes available, etc. Indeed one could argue that the most accurate research is done in the form of research papers which are more likely to be published for public consumption, if at all, as digital files rather than commercial books.

Witness for example the article recently posted on PoW's sinking - how "available" would that have been had it not been published online - how many people outside of a select group of historians and naval architects would have been aware of it to source it out?

[Lutscha]

I would like to know where I ( or others) have ever disputed thath BS upper deck would initiate the fuzes of bombs and shells.

G&D clearly consider the "heavily compromised" SoDak as the best treaty ship but you always choose to ignore things you don't like, Karl. There is your non internet reference look at the summary in SoDaks Chapter in their book about American BBs. I already wrote that some time ago.

I wonder why you haven't read that or given an explanation why you disagree with G&D in that particular regard. You like to cite them but not when they don't support you point of view.

[Byron Angel]

..... At the risk of putting my head into this buzz-saw topic, I will say that Nathan Okun's analysis of BISMARCK's horizontal protection layout has led me to the opinion that, for the tonnage of horizontal armor committed, its layout was optimized for protection of the vitals from the effects of surface gunfire. The uppermost armored deck was only made thick enough to ensure fuze activation of a striking AP projectile. The principal armored deck was only made thick enough to stop large projectile fragments and set at such a great depth below the upper armored deck to (hopefully) ensure that the projectile would burst before reaching it. A thin additional back-up deck was provided immediately beneath the main armored deck to stop any fragments not halted by the main armored deck. All in all, it was a very efficient system for dealing with the principle anticipated threat- i.e., heavy AP projectiles fitted with fuzes featuring a delay action in the range of 0.0025 sec, striking at moderate angles of fall.

That having been said, the efficiency of this horizontal protection scheme against surface gunfire was achieved at the expense of protection against aerial attack by AP bombs fitted with long-delay fuzes, where BISMARCK's multiple decks provided a much lower degree of protection than a single deck of equivalent aggregate thickness or a single thick deck with a thin fragment catcher beneath. This does not by any means indict the scheme as a bad one. It is simply evidence that the design of BISMARCK, like that of all other warships, was a distillation of compromises based upon perceived risk factors.

The issue of width of beam is another example of compromise in the design process. The IOWAs were designed for passage through the Panama Canal. BISMARCK did not face that issue. A better indication of USN thinking on width of beam might be found in the design of the MONTANA class, which was NOT restricted by a Panama Canal passage requirement.


Byron

[Byron Angel]

While certainly the internet is deluged with self proclaimed experts spewing poorly researched opinions as fact, the internet does have some inherent properties that make it as valuable as the printed word - greater freedom of opinion; detail less limited by page count or cost; easier searching; publishing of articles whose length or subject would not commercially justify a book of their own; easier discussion for the exchange of ideas and resources; easier to correct or update as new information becomes available, etc. Indeed one could argue that the most accurate research is done in the form of research papers which are more likely to be published for public consumption, if at all, as digital files rather than commercial books.

Witness for example the article recently posted on PoW's sinking - how "available" would that have been had it not been published online - how many people outside of a select group of historians and naval architects would have been aware of it to source it out?

.....COULD NOT AGREE MORE.

[Bgile]

The recently posted studies of the Guadalcanal engagement involving SoDak, Washington and Kirishima are another example. There may not be enough material for a book or it may take a long time to put one together and get it published, but we enthusiasts can access it and critique it on the internet now. In addition, the author gets feedback from experts prior to publishing.

[lwd]

...Why is it that the main issue here at stake is the one is avoided? It´s always been. Again: how can it be that Iowa´s thinny upper deck can initiate fuze action on AP bombs and shells and Bismarck´s 50 mm one, much thicker, don´t? Or, at least, why the resistance to admit it?

1) That's not the main issue.
2) When has anyone suggested that Bismarck's would not initiate bomb fuzes.
3) So not only is the above not the issue but you are creating a strawman as to the postion of others on this board.

.... No, no, no: you with the way you address things is the one that started all the insult issues making mockery of everyone that stands in a different argument than yours. This forum is full of those examples.

PLS point to some then. But of course even that wouldn't prove your point as I have had arguments with a number of people on this board that as far as I'm concerned resulted in no insults at all. If someoen takes an extreme postion repeatedly especially after it's pointed out a few times I do admit I'm not at all above a bit of sarcasm. I do however try to attack the arguments rather than the person. Again I've stepped over the line on occasion but not very often by my reconing.

... in drastic divergence from you guys that never apology because you own the Holy Grail of the Battleship Truth.

I take issue with this caracterization of my arguments as well as those of others. Indeed my argument has often been that there is no absolute "truth" or if there is we can't be sure what it is.

[yellowtail3]

Iowa Class: Armor Protection...

Thanks for posting. Formidable &useful ships, those Iowas.

As all of you who like to insult and ridiculize me or those that does not abide the Iowa Class Gospel that are object of public mockery then I will see what stays public and what isn´t.

I promise never to rediculize anyone. But on this Iowa Class Gospel: what does it say, and where can I find it?