Serg wrote:It seems Bismarck's secondary battery simply forgotten in battle reports. So how good was her secondary at DS? How many 150mm shells were fired by Bismarck?
José M. Rico wrote:Serg wrote:
It seems Bismarck's secondary battery simply forgotten in battle reports. So how good was her secondary at DS? How many 150mm shells were fired by Bismarck?
Bismarck secondary battery opened fire at about 0558 hours on the Prince of Wales. I don't think it fired more than 40-50 shells overall but this is just a guess. The British didn't report any other hits than the already known from 15 and 8-inch shells, so it seems there were no hits from the secondary battery, or if there were the damage must have been insignificant. What would be the effect of a small 5.9-inch shell striking a heavy 13-15-inch armored plate?
...A towering wall of water leapt out of the sea close at hand where a 15-in. salvo had landed. It was swiftly followed by the slightly smaller splashes of the Bismarck's secondary armament (5.9)-in. shells, salvoes of which, mingling with and scarcely distinguishable from those of Prinz Eugen's 8-in., began to fall one on top of the other with whirlwing rapidity about every ten to fifteen seconds. The din was tremendous, the rush and crash of the enemy's shells combining with the roar and banging of the Prince of Wales' heavy and light guns and the hiss of falling spray from nearby shell splashes to make what seemed a continuous deluge of sound.
José M. Rico wrote:[
What would be the effect of a small 5.9-inch shell striking a heavy 13-15-inch armored plate?
delcyros wrote:The after action damage evaluation on HMS PRINCE OF WALES considered these two hits on the far waterline aft to be either 5.91in or 8in, thus it was found to be impossible to assess the damage to either calibre in a definite way. I don´t know when authors started to attribute them exclusively to 8in, though, but it happened.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Vic Dale and 3 guests