40.6 cm SK C/34's on the Bismarck class
Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 2:54 am
Would it have been possible to mount the 40.6cm SK C/34 guns on the Bismarck class BBs?
Warships, naval battles, technology, weapons, navies of all eras, modeling, etc.
http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/
... true,Dave Saxton wrote:The 38cm gun was used largely because it was thought, circa 1935, since only the Nelson class were equipped with 16" guns in Europe, a 16" Bismarck would antagonize the British. The Italians and the French (the preceived most likely opponant at the time) had already decided to go with 15" and the British were pushing for a new treaty limit of 14".
The 16" gun was heavier and so would have required larger and heavier supporting structures, increasing the tonnage of the ship slightly. Bismarck probably could have been equipped with the 16" but the increase in firepower was actually marginal.
The 15" had greater deck penetration out to 32km before the 16" eclipsed it. In terms of belt penetration, velocity is the more important factor. The only advantages for the 16" came at extreme battle ranges.
Exactly what the H-Class was!alecsandros wrote:I would expect the 16"/L52 to require more turret space, barbette space and, if the ammo capacity would stay the same as per Bismarck (120 rounds/gun), given the larger volume occupied by the 16" shells, probably a larger diameter of the main magazines, and thus a slightly increased beam of the ship. This would take away some of it's speed...
But the 40.6cm C/34 fired at a velocity just a mere 10 m/s slower than the 38 cm C/34, thus I'd expect the 40.6 cm to feature a similar trajectory?Dave Saxton wrote:The 38cm gun was used largely because it was thought, circa 1935, since only the Nelson class were equipped with 16" guns in Europe, a 16" Bismarck would antagonize the British. The Italians and the French (the preceived most likely opponant at the time) had already decided to go with 15" and the British were pushing for a new treaty limit of 14".
The 16" gun was heavier and so would have required larger and heavier supporting structures, increasing the tonnage of the ship slightly. Bismarck probably could have been equipped with the 16" but the increase in firepower was actually marginal.
The 15" had greater deck penetration out to 32km before the 16" eclipsed it. In terms of belt penetration, velocity is the more important factor. The only advantages for the 16" came at extreme battle ranges.
José M. Rico wrote:Exactly what the H-Class was!alecsandros wrote:I would expect the 16"/L52 to require more turret space, barbette space and, if the ammo capacity would stay the same as per Bismarck (120 rounds/gun), given the larger volume occupied by the 16" shells, probably a larger diameter of the main magazines, and thus a slightly increased beam of the ship. This would take away some of it's speed...
http://www.kbismarck.com/h-class-battleships.html
... navweapons is a perfectible source.Christian VII. wrote:But the 40.6cm C/34 fired at a velocity just a mere 10 m/s slower than the 38 cm C/34, thus I'd expect the 40.6 cm to feature a similar trajectory?Dave Saxton wrote:The 38cm gun was used largely because it was thought, circa 1935, since only the Nelson class were equipped with 16" guns in Europe, a 16" Bismarck would antagonize the British. The Italians and the French (the preceived most likely opponant at the time) had already decided to go with 15" and the British were pushing for a new treaty limit of 14".
The 16" gun was heavier and so would have required larger and heavier supporting structures, increasing the tonnage of the ship slightly. Bismarck probably could have been equipped with the 16" but the increase in firepower was actually marginal.
The 15" had greater deck penetration out to 32km before the 16" eclipsed it. In terms of belt penetration, velocity is the more important factor. The only advantages for the 16" came at extreme battle ranges.
At least according to navweaps the 40.6cm gun featured superior belt penetration at all distances, and better deck penetration up until around 20 km.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_15-52_skc34.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_16-52_skc34.htm
The 1030kg weight vs 800kg weight means that the heavier shell will lose less velocity per range. This means that the lighter shell will start getting steeper angles of fall sooner. This is why the 15" will have greater deck penetration until the battle range is very great.Christian VII. wrote:But the 40.6cm C/34 fired at a velocity just a mere 10 m/s slower than the 38 cm C/34, thus I'd expect the 40.6 cm to feature a similar trajectory?
But at such high weights wouldn't the difference in fall off be rather small? And considering that the lighter shell starts out faster I'd suspect that the extra 10 m/s wouldn't be all lost until quite some range?Dave Saxton wrote:The 1030kg weight vs 800kg weight means that the heavier shell will lose less velocity per range. This means that the lighter shell will start getting steeper angles of fall sooner. This is why the 15" will have greater deck penetration until the battle range is very great.Christian VII. wrote:But the 40.6cm C/34 fired at a velocity just a mere 10 m/s slower than the 38 cm C/34, thus I'd expect the 40.6 cm to feature a similar trajectory?
Christian VII. wrote:I've always been of the opinion that the German 11" gun was a great design, was very deadly for its size and IIRC featured the smallest salvo spread of any naval gun in the world.
The older 28cm of the Panzerschiffe used a shorter L/3.7 APC shell. The 28cm L/54 of the Scharnhorst class was designed around the new, vastly improved L/4,4 family of APC. This new shell gave the twins much better armour penetration, but had a too great an overall length to fit in the shell hoists of the Panzerschiffe. I would not say Germany could ill afford having the new 28cm gun, as it represented an incremental design improvement and its design specification dated to before Hitler renounced the Versailles treaty which limited ships to 28cm calibre maximum.If it had been able to retro fit it to the PBS I would have supported it, but making it exclusively for the Twins was a luxury Germany could not afford. The 11C28 was excellent Panzerschiffe weapon.
tommy303 wrote:The older 28cm of the Panzerschiffe used a shorter L/3.7 APC shell. The 28cm L/54 of the Scharnhorst class was designed around the new, vastly improved L/4,4 family of APC. This new shell gave the twins much better armour penetration, but had a too great an overall length to fit in the shell hoists of the Panzerschiffe. I would not say Germany could ill afford having the new 28cm gun, as it represented an incremental design improvement and its design specification dated to before Hitler renounced the Versailles treaty which limited ships to 28cm calibre maximum.If it had been able to retro fit it to the PBS I would have supported it, but making it exclusively for the Twins was a luxury Germany could not afford. The 11C28 was excellent Panzerschiffe weapon.