Serious design flaws in King George V class Battleships?

Warship design and construction, terminology, navigation, hydrodynamics, stability, armor schemes, damage control, etc.
Kev D
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:27 am

Re: Serious design flaws in King George V class Battleships?

Postby Kev D » Sun Jul 31, 2016 1:36 pm

dunmunro wrote:One of the things that I keep overlooking was the damage to the ship's side from the 1100lb bomb hit. Apparently this hit burst on the MAD and splinters blew numerous holes in the ship's port side. It may have been this flooding that caused PoW to capsize to port (Which was also thought likely by the 2009 paper).


Ducnan, re above,

If I am not mistaken, the bomb penetrated the upper deck and burst on the main deck, no(?), which if I am again not mistaken is well above the waterline, so any purported 'hull holes' from that explosion would have had negligible effect (if they exist taht is), until very, very, very, repeat very late in the game.

Now re what I underlined. I and my group or surveyors are completely unaware of, or should I say that there is no physical evidence whatsoever to support the assumption that that bomb caused any holes in the hull below the waterline (where it counts!); i.e. the part of the port hull that can still be seen on the wreck, as above the waterline is now (or was during our survey) covered by built up sand So maybe the bomb did, or maybe it didn't, cause some splinter damage to upper hull, 'cause we didn't find any holes whatsoever along that port hull belwo the waterline that could be directly related to the bomb that actually hit the ship / penetrated the deck and exploded internally. (As for exterior damage from near misses, well that might be another story.)

Now, as to postulating that three stbd torps may have been or all were 'shallow runners', I think the attached schematic from our survey should dispel that erroneous belief and show that the only hit that can be classed as 'high / shallow' is stbd aft, and that because she was already so very low in the water, while the other two are fairly consistent with hitting a ship already settling lower in the water forward than it 'should normally be' i.e. along its fore / aft axis.

NOTE. Black dots the actually hits, white dot the reported / previously historically accepted hit that is simply not there.
Attachments
stbd hits.JPG
stbd hits.JPG (48.45 KiB) Viewed 359 times
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant. HMS Repulse. Dec. 8 1941

Kev D
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:27 am

Re: Serious design flaws in King George V class Battleships?

Postby Kev D » Sun Jul 31, 2016 1:36 pm

Kev D wrote:
dunmunro wrote:One of the things that I keep overlooking was the damage to the ship's side from the 1100lb bomb hit. Apparently this hit burst on the MAD and splinters blew numerous holes in the ship's port side. It may have been this flooding that caused PoW to capsize to port (Which was also thought likely by the 2009 paper).


Ducnan, re above,

If I am not mistaken, the bomb penetrated the upper deck and burst on the main deck, no(?), which if I am again not mistaken is well above the waterline, so any purported 'hull holes' from that explosion would have had negligible effect (if they exist that is), until very, very, very, repeat very late in the game.

Now re what I underlined. I and my group or surveyors are completely unaware of, or should I say that there is no physical evidence whatsoever to support the assumption that that bomb caused any holes in the hull below the waterline (where it counts!); i.e. the part of the port hull that can still be seen on the wreck, as above the waterline is now (or was during our survey) covered by built up sand So maybe the bomb did, or maybe it didn't, cause some splinter damage to upper hull, 'cause we didn't find any holes whatsoever along that port hull belwo the waterline that could be directly related to the bomb that actually hit the ship / penetrated the deck and exploded internally. (As for exterior damage from near misses, well that might be another story.)

Now, as to postulating that three stbd torps may have been or all were 'shallow runners', I think the attached schematic from our survey should dispel that erroneous belief and show that the only hit that can be classed as 'high / shallow' is stbd aft, and that because she was already so very low in the water, while the other two are fairly consistent with hitting a ship already settling lower in the water forward than it 'should normally be' i.e. along its fore / aft axis.

NOTE. Black dots the actually hits, white dot the reported / previously historically accepted hit that is simply not there.
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant. HMS Repulse. Dec. 8 1941

Kev D
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:27 am

Re: Serious design flaws in King George V class Battleships?

Postby Kev D » Sun Jul 31, 2016 1:41 pm

Hey Jose, re your email to me and the reason for double posts. You say once a post has been 'up' awhile you can no longer edit. Well the above 'edit' was attempted within one minute of posting the previous post, and the 'edit' (a one word spelling correction) still ended up as a second post!

What gives?

There is something wrong here in the editing feature!
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant. HMS Repulse. Dec. 8 1941

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2866
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Serious design flaws in King George V class Battleships?

Postby Dave Saxton » Sun Jul 31, 2016 2:35 pm

Steve Crandell wrote:
Dave Saxton about why USN cruiser gunnery was so bad. Kind of like saying "why is your girlfriend so ugly?". I'm waiting for the sequels; "Why was USN battleship gunnery so bad?" and "Why was USN destroyer gunnery so bad?"..........

Dave Saxton loves the design of Bismarck. Whenever he posts about the best aspect of some battleship area of design, he doesn't always say so, but the "best" is seemingly always just like Bismarck.
...


I have no interest in the emotional aspects of the debate here. However, I find the objective information Kevin is sharing here very interesting.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

Maciej
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 8:17 pm
Location: Poland

Re: Serious design flaws in King George V class Battleships?

Postby Maciej » Sun Jul 31, 2016 2:52 pm

We are a bit off topic here, so taking some posts into new topis will be welcome, I think, but I add repeat here.

... If muzzle velocity is that stated on Navweapons, then the 16"/L45 MkII had the slowest m.v. of the ships enumerated - so it is impossible to have more penetrating power , at least in vertical armor attacks. IN horizontal armor - yes.

Muzzle velocity and kinetic energy on impact is not most important value. It is important, but shell construction is as important as energy ( possibly even more – as HE shells could have higher energy, and clearly inferior penetrating power ).
Two different shells with the same kinetic energy and angle of impact can have very different penetrating power. To avoid any confusion – compare penetrating power of US super heavy shells from 1941 and 1945 design. Identical mass, ballistic and wast difference in penetrating power.

So if we add shell composition into picture we will see ( results from face Hard with standard ballistic for eah navy – I will be back to that ballistic )

Lion – penetration ( British armour plate ):
10 000 yards belt: 24.0”, deck 1,6”
20 000 yards belt: 17.6”, deck 3.3”
30 000 yards belt: 13.4”, deck 5,6”

H39
10 000 yards belt: 22.6”, deck 1,3”
20 000 yards belt: 16.5”, deck 2.6”
30 000 yards belt: 12.1”, deck 4,0”

Iowa
10 000 yards belt: 22.4”, deck 1,7”
20 000 yards belt: 16.7”, deck 3.5”
30 000 yards belt: 13.0”, deck 5,3”

So we can see. Belt penetration best Lion in all ranges. Deck on pair with Iowa. Slight less in short ranges, slight more in long.
H39 – in belt similar to Iowa, in shorter range slight better than Iowa, in longer slight worse. In deck worse in any range.

With ballistic for each navy.
Different propellant temperatures and different air resistance taken to ballistic tables.
In short – Americans used most worm propellant and less resistive air, so performance of they guns are overestimated to rest.
Germans used coolest propellant and the same ( more or less ) atmosfere as British.
Correction of MV with temperature is different in different navies ( due to different propellants ), but You can see tendency.
With the same initial parameters British and German guns will have flatter trajectory, with obvious consequences in penetration.

Middle of power secondary guns against surface targets

No, Lion had 16 x 133mm guns, versus Iowa 20x127mm guns and H-39 12x150mm guns and 16x105mm guns.

What no?
Iowa had poorest against surface secondary guns. Weakest shells and shortest range.
H39 had best with 12x15 cm guns. 10.5 cm You can easy dismiss against surface target in any practical engagement.
So I put H39 as best, Iowa as worst ( in case of secondary guns against surface targets )

Strognest light AA guns ( Iowa was designed with 12x28 only, we compare design or final configuration? )

... When Lion was (still) in design-phse, in 1943, Iowa was already in operations... Lion was stretched for many years on design...

Wrong
Lion design was completed in late 1938 with 48x40 mm guns.
Design of Iowa that time was not even started. Actually Lion ( and H39 ) are closer to South Dakota in time of design.
The same speed as rest ( or slower than Iowa – depends which version we take

... Most sources give 28kts for Lion, 32kts for Iowa and 30kts for H-39.

What sources, what design of Lion and what condition. And when Iowa reach 32 knots? In "Nowaki incident"?
Design 1938/39. 30 knots with no forcing of boilers, continous sea speed with “normal” condition.
H39 – 30 knots max ( what about keeping max speed on Diesels? )
Iowa was designed with 32,5 knots max trial speed. What about designed continous sea speed?
Lion had the same armor citadel as KGV had...

Wrong.
Had stronger belt over machinery, barbettes and turrets.
It is at least dubious to say it was "best", in comparison with H-39 (80+120mm armored decks, 300+150mm+45mm vertical protection) and Iowa (total >200mm of armored decks, but in more layers, and vertical armor 37+310mm declined at 19*).

We counting all decks?
OK.
Lion from contract plans. Unfortunally my copy is poor quality so I don’t really know if weather deck was 60, 63 or 68 lbs. Say 60 ( thickenss from primary sources )
So we have:
Magazines:
38 mm + 150 mm + 12 mm + 13 mm + 38 mm = ~250 mm ( stronger in every aspect than Iowa )
Machinery
38 + 125 + 12 + 13 = 188 mm ( worse than Iowa in backing of armour deck )

Iowa ( from primary sources )
38 + 120 + 32 + 13 = 203

H39 ( from G&D, as I don’t have primary soruce, in Breyer thickness is similar )
Magazines
80 + ?? + 120 = 200 + something, say 220
50 + ?? + 100 = 150 + something, say 170

So in short sum of decks
Magazines:
Lion: 250
H 39: 220
Iowa: 203

Machinery
Iowa: 203
Lion: 188
H39: 170

Practically Iowa had no such a thing as “machinery” as 5” magazines were above machienry spaces OVER last 13 mm deck so magazines of 5” shells/propellant were protected by only
38 + 120 + 32 = 190

Belts:
If we add backing, so Iowa 310 + 22 backing. 19 degree.

Lion Magazines 380+20 backing inclined between 5 and 15 degrees. Depends on hull shape.
Machinery 350+20 backing vertical

H39: 300 external ( what backing? ) + slope 150 magazines, 120 machinery.

Armored percentage of citadel ?

Why not. Don’t forget armour height ( and thickness in that height ), and extension of armour forward and aft.
Also, the armored elements above the deck (turrets, con towers) were the least well protected in Lion.

Actually turrets last well were on H39. Lion had better protection of turrets than KGV. Clearly Iowa had best protected turrets.
In case of conning tower – yes. Lion had weakest protection of that position.

Exactly. Reserve power capacities is key when main power is ... lost.

When main power is lost, only diesel generator matters, as main power is lost, so no steam for generators.
H39 – clearly superior as is whole diesel powered
Iowa – 2 x 250 KW = 500 KW.
Lion – depends which version. First – 2x350 KW. Than 0 ( all turbogenerators only ) than 4x350 KW, so between 0 and 1400 KW

If I am not mistaken, the bomb penetrated the upper deck and burst on the main deck, no(?), which if I am again not mistaken is well above the waterline, so any purported 'hull holes' from that explosion would have had negligible effect (if they exist that is), until very, very, very, repeat very late in the game.

You right Bomb did not penetrate deck armour, so with no flooding condition will not generate any water ingress. But in very late part of action, when whole armour belt was submerged it added something to sinking.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3986
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Serious design flaws in King George V class Battleships?

Postby alecsandros » Sun Jul 31, 2016 3:12 pm

Maciej wrote:
Muzzle velocity and kinetic energy on impact is not most important value.

M.v. IS the single most important component in perforation... Sorry Maciej.

What no?
Iowa had poorest against surface secondary guns. Weakest shells and shortest range.

Maciej, 16x133 is worse then 20x127mm in most cases.


Wrong
Lion design was completed in late 1938 with 48x40 mm guns.

Lion design is still on the way as of 1943... The guns intended to be mounted on the Lion class were tested in 1945 and 1947...
... Most sources give 28kts for Lion, 32kts for Iowa and 30kts for H-39.
What sources, what design of Lion and what condition.

All sources for post 1941 design, as weight increased and installed machinery remained the same (130.000shp).


Also, the armored elements above the deck (turrets, con towers) were the least well protected in Lion.

Actually turrets last well were on H39. Lion had better protection of turrets than KGV
In case of conning tower – yes.[/quote]
In all cases - turrets , barbettes, con towers.

When main power is lost, only diesel generator matters, as main power is lost, so no steam for generators.

No Maciej.
A ship needs "X" KW of electrical power at a given moment in time. Say 1000 KW. Say during a battle, requirement for power go up to 2500KW, because of the need to rotate the turrets, transmit orders, transfer ammunition, etc.
Say the ship has the capacity to produce 3000 KW of electrical power, if all generator rooms function at maximum.
Say one generator room is damaged in battle - guess what happens ?

This is why designes such as Iowa (10500 KW) or Bismarck (7800KW) had much more electrical installed capacity. KGV had about 3000KW of installed capacity.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3986
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Serious design flaws in King George V class Battleships?

Postby alecsandros » Sun Jul 31, 2016 3:26 pm

... Maciej, above you counted deck thickness for non-armor grade materials as well. Such as British contruction Ducol steel.
If so, you should count German St52 as thickness as well, and there are 2 x 20mm thick decks wihch traverse the entire ship, lengthwise - so both above machinery and magazines.

Overall, the picture is:
Range: Lion - 3rd place out of 3.
Speed - Lion - 3rd place out of 3.
Main Armament - Lion possibly 1st or 2nd place, depending on how well the Mark IV tubes and new 1080kg APC projectiles would have actualy been produced - we will never know.

Secondary Armament - Lion 3rd place out of 3.
Armor:
- Vertical - Lion 2nd or 3rd place, depending on type of attack
- Horizontal - Lion 2nd place
- armor above the main citadel (turrets, barbettes, con towers, etc) - Lion 3rd place out of 3.
- armor in front and behind main citadel (extensions) - Lion 2nd place.

Sensors, integrated fire control: Lion - 3rd place out of 3
Radars - 2nd place, after Iowa.

Maciej
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 8:17 pm
Location: Poland

Re: Serious design flaws in King George V class Battleships?

Postby Maciej » Sun Jul 31, 2016 3:39 pm

My last post in this topic. It become boring.

M.v. IS the single most important component in perforation... Sorry Maciej.

Oh yes. So why there were any development of new shells? So British WWI shells were superior to German at Jutland. For sure. Kinetic energy will not lie.

Maciej, 16x133 is worse then 20x127mm in most cases.

Specially at 16 km or against destroyers.
And BDW some time 16x5.25 were replaced by 24x4.5. Still 4.5 had longer range than 5"
And we of course take displacement of 1943 or 45 version but secondary guns of 1939 version.
Oh I forget. British is always worse, and China larger than Russia! We prooved that!

Lion design is still on the way as of 1943...

and
All sources for post 1941 design, as weight increased and installed machinery remained the same (130.000shp).

Lion was on the way even in 1945.
And as usual we take what we want. So 1943 from British to compare with 1939 from Germans. It seems to be another china staff. Sorry.
H39 was still on the way in 1943. That time become larger ( 60+ th tons ) with the same machinery, so slower too. And than reworked into H42, H43, H44
It seems to me again comparizons of 1943 from one navy with 1939 to another, and reverse still to “proove” china staff.

In all cases - turrets , barbettes, con towers.

Specially barbettes. 380 is smaller than 365. For sure.

No Maciej.
A ship needs "X" KW of electrical power at a given moment in time. Say 1000 KW. Say during a battle, requirement for power go up to 2500KW, because of the need to rotate the turrets, transmit orders, transfer ammunition, etc.
Say the ship has the capacity to produce 3000 KW of electrical power, if all generator rooms function at maximum.
Say one generator room is damaged in battle - guess what happens ?

This is why designes such as Iowa (10500 KW) or Bismarck (7800KW) had much more electrical installed capacity. KGV had about 3000KW of installed capacity.

Again – what is electric requirements in battle?

Ship 1: 7000 KW, energy generators 8, total power 10000 KW
Ship 2: 2000 KW, energy generators 8, total power 3000 KW
One generator is out.
Quess what happen?

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Serious design flaws in King George V class Battleships?

Postby dunmunro » Sun Jul 31, 2016 7:10 pm

Kev D wrote:Hey Jose, re your email to me and the reason for double posts. You say once a post has been 'up' awhile you can no longer edit. Well the above 'edit' was attempted within one minute of posting the previous post, and the 'edit' (a one word spelling correction) still ended up as a second post!

What gives?

There is something wrong here in the editing feature!


Make sure you are editing via the edit "button" and not the "quote" button.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Serious design flaws in King George V class Battleships?

Postby dunmunro » Sun Jul 31, 2016 7:36 pm

Kev D wrote:
dunmunro wrote:One of the things that I keep overlooking was the damage to the ship's side from the 1100lb bomb hit. Apparently this hit burst on the MAD and splinters blew numerous holes in the ship's port side. It may have been this flooding that caused PoW to capsize to port (Which was also thought likely by the 2009 paper).


Ducnan, re above,

If I am not mistaken, the bomb penetrated the upper deck and burst on the main deck, no(?), which if I am again not mistaken is well above the waterline, so any purported 'hull holes' from that explosion would have had negligible effect (if they exist taht is), until very, very, very, repeat very late in the game.

Now re what I underlined. I and my group or surveyors are completely unaware of, or should I say that there is no physical evidence whatsoever to support the assumption that that bomb caused any holes in the hull below the waterline (where it counts!); i.e. the part of the port hull that can still be seen on the wreck, as above the waterline is now (or was during our survey) covered by built up sand So maybe the bomb did, or maybe it didn't, cause some splinter damage to upper hull, 'cause we didn't find any holes whatsoever along that port hull belwo the waterline that could be directly related to the bomb that actually hit the ship / penetrated the deck and exploded internally. (As for exterior damage from near misses, well that might be another story.)

Now, as to postulating that three stbd torps may have been or all were 'shallow runners', I think the attached schematic from our survey should dispel that erroneous belief and show that the only hit that can be classed as 'high / shallow' is stbd aft, and that because she was already so very low in the water, while the other two are fairly consistent with hitting a ship already settling lower in the water forward than it 'should normally be' i.e. along its fore / aft axis.

NOTE. Black dots the actually hits, white dot the reported / previously historically accepted hit that is simply not there.


Kevin, I wasn't there during the dives and I can only go with what I read. This is a quote from Death of a Battleship a reanalysis
Bomb Attack. A final aerial attack was made on Prince of Wales by eight 'Nell' bombers
at 1244. The tight formation made its approach from the port bow, and the planes dropped seven
500-kilogram bombs - one bomber was unable to release its projectile - from a height of 2,560
meters. Five of these planes were damaged by shells from three of the four forward 5.25-inch
gun turrets still able to operate (SI, S2 and P2). One of these seven bombs hit the deck on the
port side of Prince of Wales and penetrated near or through the catapult mechanism amidships,
exploding below on the armor of the Lower Deck in a space called the Cinema Flat. Fragments
riddled the ship's sides and air intakes causing additional flooding in the amidships portion of the
ship. Side scuttles were distorted and water flowed into the Middle Deck creating a large free
surface effect which further reduced the stability of the ship(15). The deck above where the bomb
penetrated and then exploded was blown upwards and the port aircraft crane's support base was
wrecked. The explosion also caused some piping, cabling and ventilation trunks to fall down, a
fire broke out in an office on the Lower Deck and there were heavy casualties among some 200
to 300 men being treated in an emergency first aid station that had been set up in the Cinema...

(document page 24, PDF page 26)

The key point, however, is that the 3 starboard side torpedoes, according to IJN records, had a depth setting of 10ft, versus 16ft for the port side hit.

Regardless of where the starboard side torpedo hit(s) damage is located , the torpedoes that caused that damage were running 6 feet shallower than on the port side.

PoW was settling aft, after the first torpedo hit. The only counterflooding done was to try and reduce the port list, and not to correct the trim by the stern. It is a physical impossibility for the ship to settle by the stern and bow simultaneously, when the bow is not being flooded to the same degree as the stern. If the stern settles, the bow must rise. This is just basic physics and is correctly simulated by Maciej's computer program.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Serious design flaws in King George V class Battleships?

Postby dunmunro » Sun Jul 31, 2016 8:06 pm

alecsandros wrote:
Maciej wrote:
Electric power was used extensively on British ships build for export. But electricity was problematic in heavy seas. Electric equipment “don’t like to be showered by salt water” ( I’m thinking about 100+ years ago times, not modern equipment! ), so on won ships hydraulic power totally insensitive to such water was used.

Who had the least amount of installed electrical power on their battleships, of all contemporary (post-1935 builds) existing battleships ?

And mostly British ships are described as a peace of conservatic junk full of flaws. Virtually everyone else made better ships.
How it is possible? And what is difference between "paper" and "real" fighting capabilities? :think:

Yes.
Why is China bigger then Russia ? Why is the water wet ? How is that possible ?


Let's not forget the electrical short problems that S&G and Massachusetts had with their electrically driven turrets.

All WW2 era battleships were designed with an adequate reserve of electrical power. The more a design relied on electrical power, then the more reserves it had to have.

PoW lost power aft because the circuits aft were cut, not because there wasn't power available, even with 5 of her 8 dynamos out of action.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3986
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Serious design flaws in King George V class Battleships?

Postby alecsandros » Sun Jul 31, 2016 9:11 pm

dunmunro wrote:

All WW2 era battleships were designed with an adequate reserve of electrical power. The more a design relied on electrical power, then the more reserves it had to have.

The capacity of main power was adequate (obviously), what was different was the reserve and back-up power capacity.
This was a problem for all British capital ships designs (BBs and CVs), and was noticed as such during the investigations of losses of HMS Ark Royal and HMS Prince of Wales.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3986
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Serious design flaws in King George V class Battleships?

Postby alecsandros » Sun Jul 31, 2016 9:13 pm

Maciej wrote:
Specially at 16 km or against destroyers.

... Please provide one instance of effective 133mm gunfire at 16km against destroyers...

The rest of the post is likewise... ridiculous :angel:

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3986
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Serious design flaws in King George V class Battleships?

Postby alecsandros » Sun Jul 31, 2016 9:15 pm

dunmunro wrote:
Let's not forget the electrical short problems that S&G and Massachusetts had with their electrically driven turrets.


Add Washington and South Dakota as well - both experienced short circuits that shouldn't have happened normally...
Still, the onboard power capacity was substantialy larger then the requirements of the ships... And that helped rapid recuperation.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Serious design flaws in King George V class Battleships?

Postby dunmunro » Mon Aug 01, 2016 6:34 am

alecsandros wrote:
Maciej wrote:
Specially at 16 km or against destroyers.

... Please provide one instance of effective 133mm gunfire at 16km against destroyers...

The rest of the post is likewise... ridiculous :angel:

Dido class cruisers sank several RM destroyers in the MTO.


Return to “Naval Technology”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron