Bismarck construction flaws

[lwd]

Not at all. If the fuze did not initiate vs the turret or barbette why would it have initiated vs lesser armor?

Because the shell was broken up by the impact and the compounded obliquity was quite high.

It all depends on the exact forces acting upon the shell (and most importantly upon the back side of the shell) on the moment of impact. If those forces allow the base of the shell to be relatively undamaged during the initial fases of the impact, the fuze may be activated; if not, and the intitial phases include base slap, or any other damage producing phenomenon on the back of the shell, the fuze may not work at all.

It was common knowledge in all major navies that non-penetrating AP hits were most likely to become inert. Everyone knew about it, but soluitions were very hard to come by.

It was called "fuze blindness" IIRC.

The fuze should be initiated on impact regardless. The events you describe may interupt the fuze or prevent it from igniting the burster but they shouldn't stop the fuze from being initiated.

[alecsandros]

The fuze should be initiated on impact regardless.

In theory, maybe. Real life works differently.

[lwd]

The fuze should be initiated on impact regardless.

In theory, maybe. Real life works differently.

Does it? Care to site a source? I can see it in a few instances where for instance the projectile impacts multiple obstructions and ends up with say a base first impact but that's got to be very rare.

[alecsandros]

The fuze should be initiated on impact regardless.

In theory, maybe. Real life works differently.

Does it? Care to site a source? I can see it in a few instances where for instance the projectile impacts multiple obstructions and ends up with say a base first impact but that's got to be very rare.

I;ll look into some sites;
It's not necessary to pass trough multiple layers, it's enough for the geometry of the impact to be bad, like in a glancing blow or a near over-shot were the head passes little bit over (or below)the armored portion, while the back hits the armor surface because oif the inclination at which the shell travels.

[lwd]

It's not necessary to pass trough multiple layers, it's enough for the geometry of the impact to be bad, like in a glancing blow or a near over-shot were the head passes little bit over (or below)the armored portion, while the back hits the armor surface because oif the inclination at which the shell travels.

These are reasons for fuze failure but not necessarily failure of the fuze to initiate.

[alecsandros]

To read:
http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Ba ... nimums.pdf

[lwd]

Ok it looks like as long as the obliquity is less than 60 degrees you will the fuze will be initiated with the US design. He estimates a straight line reduction form 60 to 80 degrees obliquity most of which seems to be due to the fuze not initiating. This would hardly seem to apply to the turret hit on Jean Bart. It's not clear about the other but if it was a barbett hit the possiblity of hit being initiated by the belt also needs to be considered.

[ede144]

@lwd
I don't want to chastise you. However your discussions with Karl often look like, that Karl describes a picture frm Chagall and you criticize that the sun is painted in. Wrong color. And when Karl or someone else is showing the picture than you usually claiming this is irrelevant because it's the wrong picture.

Regards
Ede

[Karl Heidenreich]

lwd:

Does it? Care to site a source? I can see it in a few instances where for instance the projectile impacts multiple obstructions and ends up with say a base first impact but that's got to be very rare.

When have you brought up you sources to support your claims? Bring up your own sources and then ask for the rest to show theirs. You break down the claims or arguments of the rest and put them out of context, try to mock and ridiculize the rest and show you "superior knowledge" and usually in front of evidence you came with Reduction Ad Absurdum and try to go to rethoric and semantics, not even discussing the topic. Sick, sick, sick!!!

[lwd]

When have you brought up you sources to support your claims?

When I make claims I useually post sources especially if requested.

Bring up your own sources and then ask for the rest to show theirs.

In many cases I'm not even sure sources exist. What you don't seem to realize is that a lot of times people assume something is one way when there is no real evidence to support it. This doesn't mean they are wrong, they may indeed be right but it does mean that the claim is based on an assumption/opinion only unless there is some supprot.

You break down the claims or arguments of the rest and put them out of context,

The intent is to to take them out of context but to look at particular claims/assumptions/opinions to see if they stand on their own. If they do then they contribut to the logical argument for whatever the post was claiming if not then they bring it into question.

try to mock and ridiculize the rest and show you "superior knowledge"

I very seldom "try to mock", indeed I seldom mock people. When I do I'm usually sucessful at it. As for superior knowledge, again in many cases I'm not attempting to show it I'm attempting show that the "knowledge" that some claim is simply not there for any of us. Of course there are those who over use superlatives and what might otherwise be a valid point runs afowl of that.

and usually in front of evidence you came with Reduction Ad Absurdum and try to go to rethoric and semantics, not even discussing the topic. Sick, sick, sick!!!

Well let's see you accuse me of relying on rhetoric, looking at: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rhetoric we find as the first definition:

: the art of speaking or writing effectively: as
a : the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times
b : the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion

Guess I'll plead guilty as charged to that one.
And of relying on Semantics using the same source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/semantics it defines the word to mean:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/semantics

Since I try to use the correct words to get my meaning across guess I'll plead guilty to this one too.
As for using using reductio ad absurdum lets look at: http://www.iep.utm.edu/reductio/ where it states:

Reductio ad absurdum is a mode of argumentation that seeks to establish a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial, thus arguing that a thesis must be accepted because its rejection would be untenable. It is a style of reasoning that has been employed throughout the history of mathematics and philosophy from classical antiquity onwards.

This shows it to be a valid form of argument however I don't think I use it all that much. What I do point out is often times applying th elogic some do leads to the absurd if other cases are considered. The implication of course is that something more is at work at the least or they are wrong at the worse.
Hardly sick in my book.

[Karl Heidenreich]

[lwd]

This was a very good catch and got me wondering as well:

... The non-detonating shells would travel to fast to be stopped by anything Kriishima had on board. This would mean double holes for most trajectories (through-and-throgu), thus the ship being holed twice by many shells.
HOwever, there is no mention of this on Lundren's paper, which makes me wonder...

Looking back at one of his papers he mentions not even the whole starbord side was filmed and that Ballard kind of lost interest when he saw the condition of the Kirishima. Which leads to the question was the port side filmed at all? I've asked over on the j-aircraft ijn board as there are some people there who keep up with such things but no answer yet.

[alecsandros]

Looking back at one of his papers he mentions not even the whole starbord side was filmed and that Ballard kind of lost interest when he saw the condition of the Kirishima. Which leads to the question was the port side filmed at all? I've asked over on the j-aircraft ijn board as there are some people there who keep up with such things but no answer yet.

Good question. IIRC, there is a discussion also on the navweapons board between Jurens and Lundgren concerning the wrekc.
Jurens expressed the question if it's not actualy Hiei... So probably aren't so clear down there...

[lwd]

One of the main reasons I don't like absolutes. The data we have is not always as good as we would like and often not as good as we think.

[alecsandros]

Yup... prett y much..