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.....
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
Also in other threads I believe that there were claims that Bismarck's armoured belt was not penetrated,
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!"
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.
would the armour piercing shells have gone straight through the lightly armoured cruisers?
Thorsten Wahl wrote:would the armour piercing shells have gone straight through the lightly armoured cruisers?
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.
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 "
The one test of this is the River Plate battle. Neither Ajax or Achilles suffered any purely internal shell bursts from 11 inch shells.
What an arrogant response, totally over the top and totally unnecessary.
The one test of this is the River Plate battle.....
Thorsten Wahl wrote:
I dont know the "Millington-Drakes compendium". So it would be useful for me to get more details.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests