Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
dove

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Postby dove » Wed Aug 24, 2016 5:34 am

the hood would win

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 1672
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:58 pm

:negative: She was not immune at any reasonable range, etc. (see above in the thread)......
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 568
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Postby paul.mercer » Tue Dec 06, 2016 10:35 am

Alberto Virtuani wrote:Hi Maciej,
I agree on KGV class guns to be quite green and troubles to be expected. In any case Rodney, despite having to turn several times in front of Bismarck (thus blinding her all-fore turrets) was able to fire more, heavier shells, having 1 gun less, and being much closer to the enemy. I expect she was the Bismarck's "killer" more than KGV.


you wrote: "After all first ~30 minutes of firing gives no trouble on KGV. ( on PoW problems were from begin but she was quite new, and had no real exercise before action)......"

The only reason why KGV had problems "only" after 30 minutes on May 27 was that she turned sharply for the first time (180° to north at 9:18) and at that time the quadruple turret jammed.... In the same way, PoW turned 160° to disengage, after 9 minutes of quite fair shooting, and her quadruple turret jammed..... :think:
I don't really see any difference between the 2 ships due to training level and still I'm not convinced that the problems were ever 100% solved on the class.

We are going perhaps out of topic, but in case you are interested, there is a thread where we have already discussed the aspects of KGV shooting on May 27: http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6834 and another one, where we have analysed the PoW vs Bismarck firing on May 24: http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6811&start=450 :wink:


Bye, Alberto

Gentlemen,
After the sharp turn which jammed PoW's quadruple turret one would have thought that KGv would have avoided doing the same!
Also in other threads I believe that there were claims that Bismarck's armoured belt was not penetrated, yet in the table of hits there are three references of this being the case, also of hits badly damaging the heavily armoured turrets. One would have thought that 16" shells fired from a range which went down to about a mile and a half would have little difficulty in penetrating Bismarck's armour.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3990
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Postby alecsandros » Tue Dec 06, 2016 12:21 pm

Hard to say. Every shell has a shatter velocity, above which it breaks apart in contact with (thick enough) armor plate. It is possible that shells fired from to small range would be destroyed by their own excessive energy...

Other then that, Rodney did pummel Bismarck hard, and caused immense damage and carnage.

Deep vitals destruction was difficult to obtain from such short ranges, and even if the armor belt may have been perforated ( either the 145mm or the 320mm thick portions) , the inner citadel could resist impacts - that was the idea behind overlaying pieces of armor.

Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Postby Thorsten Wahl » Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:33 am

Also in other threads I believe that there were claims that Bismarck's armoured belt was not penetrated,


Formulation seems not exact.

the investigations on the wreck are showing 3 perforations of the vertical main belt as far as I remember correct.
but it's unlikely, that these shells defeatet the complete side protection

the side protection consists of
vertical main belt
+ scarp
+ torpedobulkhed
to score a hit within the vital areas of the ship(citadel)


Due to impact geometry it appears possible that one or two hits detonatet within the citadel area.
during the last stand Bismarck had a list of at list of at least 5 degrees.
-this makes hits possible
-under the main belt on the dive out side (more likely)
-over the main belt through the main armor deck on the immersed side (less likely).

or a somewhat fluke hit occured wich happened by going through pre weakened areas.
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 1672
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Mon Dec 12, 2016 11:42 am

Paul Mercer wrote: "After the sharp turn which jammed PoW's quadruple turret one would have thought that KGV would have avoided doing the same!"

Hi Paul,
I agree. I'm just not sure that at that time the problem was well known and understood by the British.....
Also, probably, the turn to North of KGV (that jammed the quadruple turret) was not as hard as the PoW one (being not done in "emergency" conditions), but the very rough sea state on May 27 contributed to the mechanical stress to the loading ring and interlocks.....


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 568
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Postby paul.mercer » Wed Jan 04, 2017 11:02 am

alecsandros wrote:Hard to say. Every shell has a shatter velocity, above which it breaks apart in contact with (thick enough) armor plate. It is possible that shells fired from to small range would be destroyed by their own excessive energy...

Other then that, Rodney did pummel Bismarck hard, and caused immense damage and carnage.

Deep vitals destruction was difficult to obtain from such short ranges, and even if the armor belt may have been perforated ( either the 145mm or the 320mm thick portions) , the inner citadel could resist impacts - that was the idea behind overlaying pieces of armor.

Thanks for that. I wonder if there is an an optimum minimum range to avoid shell break up?
On another tack, at the battle of Matapan when three RN battleships massacred the Italian cruisers at an even shorter range, would the armour piercing shells have gone straight through the lightly armoured cruisers? I'm presuming that the RN ships who I believe were hoping to encounter the Italian battleships would have loaded with fully armour piercing shells
It would have been an interesting situation had the three cruisers had been battleships!

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3990
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Postby alecsandros » Wed Jan 04, 2017 11:40 am

Or when USS Washington drowned IJN Kirishima in a deluge of APC shots ?

At 10km range, the 406mm/L45 guns propel the shell at around 600m/s. With an average working fuze of 0.033 seconds, time of detonation of shell between fuzing point and explosive point is around ~ 20 meters - enough, in some cases, to go "through and through" Kirishima, and explode on the other side...

Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Postby Thorsten Wahl » Wed Jan 04, 2017 12:37 pm

would the armour piercing shells have gone straight through the lightly armoured cruisers?

probably no.

The Germans explicitly recommended the use of armor piercing shells as well as semi armor piercing shells(Psgr m Bdz and also Spgr mBdz) against light cruisers despite "paper like" armor and low width - especially for the Panzerschiffe.

It has to be assumed that their base fuzes were sufficiently sensitive and they also possess base fuzes with sufficent short delay (15ms) or non delay to ensure ignition within the target.
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7488
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Postby RF » Wed Jan 04, 2017 1:33 pm

Thorsten Wahl wrote:
would the armour piercing shells have gone straight through the lightly armoured cruisers?

probably no.

The Germans explicitly recommended the use of armor piercing shells as well as semi armor piercing shells(Psgr m Bdz and also Spgr mBdz) against light cruisers despite "paper like" armor and low width - especially for the Panzerschiffe.

It has to be assumed that their base fuzes were sufficiently sensitive and they also possess base fuzes with sufficent short delay (15ms) or non delay to ensure ignition within the target.


The one test of this is the River Plate battle. Neither Ajax or Achilles suffered any purely internal shell bursts from 11 inch shells.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 1672
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Wed Jan 04, 2017 7:35 pm

Paul Mercer wrote: " at the battle of Matapan when three RN battleships massacred the Italian cruisers at an even shorter range, would the armour piercing shells have gone straight through the lightly armoured cruisers? I'm presuming that the RN ships who I believe were hoping to encounter the Italian battleships would have loaded with fully armour piercing shells "

Hi Paul,
I have not read the gunnery reports of the British battleships present at Matapan, but I agree that the logical choice, hoping to encounter a crippled Vittorio Veneto, would have been of APC shells for the main artillery.
Adm. Cunningham referred of a first salvo of 6 shells of Warspite against Fiume with 5 of them hitting the cruiser and exploding under her deck with well visible flames.
One of these hit even projected one of the main aft 8" turrets outboard.....

The Zara class heavy cruisers had a quite thick belt of 100 to 150mm and the barbettes were 150mm thick as well. I would say that the 15" shells could be easily activated (but, unfortunately for the Italians, in no way defeated) by such armor.


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Postby Thorsten Wahl » Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:33 am

The one test of this is the River Plate battle. Neither Ajax or Achilles suffered any purely internal shell bursts from 11 inch shells.


Said who?
Did you have Damage reports?
Hit for hit evaluation?

Something that looks like this
https://goo.gl/photos/iqvcj7pG4ESLWQiU6
Image

Thank you very much
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7488
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Postby RF » Thu Jan 05, 2017 11:33 am

What an arrogant response, totally over the top and totally unnecessary.

You don't need detailed technical reports for this, the detail is contained in Millington-Drakes compendium and in later works.

Achilles suffered superficial damage and casualties inflicted by shrapnel from external 11 inch shell bursts.

Ajax had two turrets knocked out and extensive superficial internal damage from external or impact shell bursts, I believe from two 11 inch shells plus two direct hits from 4.1 inch anti-aircraft shells.

The AGS 5.9 inch guns were totally ineffective and achieved no damage to any of the three Allied cruisers, due to (according to Rasenack) defective range-finding and gunnery control on the secondary battery, which was operating separately from the main armament gunnery control.

If an 11 inch shell had burst inside the hull of one of these light cruisers the damage would be major, even if the energy of the explosion was directed outwards, and not the superficial damage actually suffered. Unlike Exeter, which did take direct 11 inch hits, neither light cruiser was taken out of action due to battle damage.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Postby Thorsten Wahl » Thu Jan 05, 2017 3:43 pm

What an arrogant response, totally over the top and totally unnecessary.

Sorry
it was not my Intention to sound arrogant or harsh. :oops:

I dont know the "Millington-Drakes compendium". So it would be useful for me to get more details.

Your additional information has some vague but possible useful inital Informations, your previous post contain absolutely nothing in this regard.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The one test of this is the River Plate battle.....

My problems start with these words. It seems to me, that you say this battle disproves the german recommendations. Without any further explanation on your side. Thats why I answered firstly in the same way -short and scarce.


Let me interprete your last words
a)
"Achilles suffered superficial damage and casualties inflicted by shrapnel from external 11 inch shell bursts."
description of damage sounds like a HE-Shell (Sprenggranate Kz) wich did not hit ships hull directly.
A direct hit should create a hole with a size at least 1.2 m between frames. Holes of that size one cannot called superficial I suspect.

b)
"Ajax had two turrets knocked out
This description of damage sound like a HE Shell detonating on contact with the turret(s) or a ricochet of AP/SAP (both Bodenzündergranaten).
If a APC or SAP shall had hit the turrets it normally produce a calibersize hole and causes visible damage within the turret, in case of a ricochet a marking would be visible.
But a ricochet does not speak against the recomendation in question.-the turrets were put out of action.

c)
"and extensive superficial internal damage from external or impact shell bursts..."
also seemingly a hit of a HE Shell.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AP or SAP shells would have punched all sheets of metal on their way through the ship leaving a clearly visible track up to the place of detonation or leaving the ships with a somwhat enlarged calibersized visible hole. Your description does not make this clear.
From your description it appears to me that there were no hits against the ships hull with a APC/SAP Shells (...Bodenzündergranate) at all.

Again even with your additional Information no certainty can be derived to prove the falsity of a recommendation using AP or SAP shells against light cruisers.

Hope this clears up the problem I had with your first response.
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7488
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Postby RF » Thu Jan 05, 2017 7:15 pm

Thorsten Wahl wrote:
I dont know the "Millington-Drakes compendium". So it would be useful for me to get more details.


Eugen Millington-Drake was the British ambassador to Uruguay at the time of this battle.

After WW2 he compiled a very large book utilising a number of sources including official RN and RNZN documentation, the personal testimonies of the Allied commanders, all of whom he knew personally. He also utilised from the German side the publication by F W Rasenack, a junior gunnery officer on AGS, entitled ''Panzerschiffe Admiral Graf Spee'' plus also personal accounts of German internees in Argentina after AGS was scuttled. The book was published around 1958 and was out of print by 1970. I read a copy held in a public library in the early 1970's, and have not seen a copy since.

The book was entitled ''The Battle of the River Plate: a compendium.''
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.


Return to “Hypothetical Naval Scenarios”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest