1919: Analysis of Hood's magazine protection
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4349
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
- Location: Bucharest, Romania
1919: Analysis of Hood's magazine protection
Hello,
I just found a piece of work from 1919. It's an analysis of Hood's defensive scheme against 15" APC shell.
It is absolutely remarkable, especialy the drawing on the bottom of the article...
For me, it is a new paper, maybe some of you already know it...
anyhow,
here it is:
http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 1-9226.htm
I just found a piece of work from 1919. It's an analysis of Hood's defensive scheme against 15" APC shell.
It is absolutely remarkable, especialy the drawing on the bottom of the article...
For me, it is a new paper, maybe some of you already know it...
anyhow,
here it is:
http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 1-9226.htm
Re: 1919: Analysis of Hood's magazine protection
Very interesting, thanks!
I was just looking for that old thread about the Hood's front magazine also possibly exploding from the blast channeled down the length of the ship. In spite of the bow apparently being blown off, it seems unlikely to me as eyewitness accounts don't seem to verify it.
I was just looking for that old thread about the Hood's front magazine also possibly exploding from the blast channeled down the length of the ship. In spite of the bow apparently being blown off, it seems unlikely to me as eyewitness accounts don't seem to verify it.
- paulcadogan
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1148
- Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:03 am
- Location: Kingston, Jamaica
Re: 1919: Analysis of Hood's magazine protection
Hi Djoser,
The double explosion hypothesis has long been completely debunked by those in the know - chief among them Bill Jurens - in this and in the Hood forum (which sadly has now passed into internet history).
Even if you look at the wreck you can see that the forward break-up occurred forward of magazines' location (that part of the upturned hull is "intact" - i.e. not blown up). It was purely due to implosive forces as the ship went down.
http://www.hmshood.com/hoodtoday/2001ex ... /index.htm
The double explosion hypothesis has long been completely debunked by those in the know - chief among them Bill Jurens - in this and in the Hood forum (which sadly has now passed into internet history).
Even if you look at the wreck you can see that the forward break-up occurred forward of magazines' location (that part of the upturned hull is "intact" - i.e. not blown up). It was purely due to implosive forces as the ship went down.
http://www.hmshood.com/hoodtoday/2001ex ... /index.htm
Qui invidet minor est - He who envies is the lesser man
Re: 1919: Analysis of Hood's magazine protection
So a 15in shell could penetrate 7in + 1in HTS of side armour inclined at ~40 degs and still go through a 2in scarf at 10degs and still perforate a 2in deck inclined at 70 degs. This shows how very vulnerable Scharnhorst's deck was to plunging fire and it even implied that Bismarck was vulnerable through her upper 145mm ( 5.7in) belt.
- Dave Saxton
- Supporter
- Posts: 3148
- Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
- Location: Rocky Mountains USA
Re: 1919: Analysis of Hood's magazine protection
Your comparing apples to oranges.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
Re: 1919: Analysis of Hood's magazine protection
Why so?Dave Saxton wrote:Your comparing apples to oranges.
-
- Member
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 3:18 pm
- Location: Scotland
Re: 1919: Analysis of Hood's magazine protection
I'm guessing it's down to the difference between 1918 armour and 1930s.
Re: 1919: Analysis of Hood's magazine protection
We are comparing rather thicker side armour on Hood (~170mm on Hood versus 45mm for Scharnhorst and 145mm on Bismarck) than the KM ships, and the side armour on Hood is being struck at 40 degs inclination rather than ~20 as would be the case on Bismarck or Scharnhorst, and it is being penetrated by a ~1919 vintage AP shell, so all in all, I would say that it exaggerates the protection offered by the 145mm upper belt on Bismarck, even considering the differences in armour quality.MikeBrough wrote:I'm guessing it's down to the difference between 1918 armour and 1930s.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4349
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
- Location: Bucharest, Romania
Re: 1919: Analysis of Hood's magazine protection
.. Hood's main belt was declined at 10*, so the impact obliquity was 30* in the drawing.dunmunro wrote:and the side armour on Hood is being struck at 40 degs inclination rather than ~20 as would be the case on Bismarck or Scharnhorst, and it is being penetrated by a ~1919 vintage AP shell, so all in all, I would say that it exaggerates the protection offered by the 145mm upper belt on Bismarck, even considering the differences in armour quality.MikeBrough wrote:I'm guessing it's down to the difference between 1918 armour and 1930s.
.. Bismarck's belt near the magazines was declined at angles between 7 - 17*.
I find it rather hard to see how a 15" shell could perforate 95mm of Whotan horizontal armor after passing through the upper belt...
Re: 1919: Analysis of Hood's magazine protection
The drawing clearly shows that the target's 7in+1in HTS armour was penetrated at 40 degs inclination, and the shell went on to penetrate another 2in scarf, .75in bulkhead and perforated a 2in HTS deck after striking it at 70 degrees inclination.alecsandros wrote:.. Hood's main belt was declined at 10*, so the impact obliquity was 30* in the drawing.dunmunro wrote:and the side armour on Hood is being struck at 40 degs inclination rather than ~20 as would be the case on Bismarck or Scharnhorst, and it is being penetrated by a ~1919 vintage AP shell, so all in all, I would say that it exaggerates the protection offered by the 145mm upper belt on Bismarck, even considering the differences in armour quality.MikeBrough wrote:I'm guessing it's down to the difference between 1918 armour and 1930s.
.. Bismarck's belt near the magazines was declined at angles between 7 - 17*.
I find it rather hard to see how a 15" shell could perforate 95mm of Whotan horizontal armor after passing through the upper belt...
Re: 1919: Analysis of Hood's magazine protection
I can't find where in that paper are Scharnhorst and Bismarck mentioned?dunmunro wrote:So a 15in shell could penetrate 7in + 1in HTS of side armour inclined at ~40 degs and still go through a 2in scarf at 10degs and still perforate a 2in deck inclined at 70 degs. This shows how very vulnerable Scharnhorst's deck was to plunging fire and it even implied that Bismarck was vulnerable through her upper 145mm ( 5.7in) belt.
Re: 1919: Analysis of Hood's magazine protection
could all those values be double checked using facehard?dunmunro wrote:The drawing clearly shows that the target's 7in+1in HTS armour was penetrated at 40 degs inclination, and the shell went on to penetrate another 2in scarf, .75in bulkhead and perforated a 2in HTS deck after striking it at 70 degrees inclination.
Re: 1919: Analysis of Hood's magazine protection
Why would we want to double check actual test results against a computer program?Pandora wrote:could all those values be double checked using facehard?dunmunro wrote:The drawing clearly shows that the target's 7in+1in HTS armour was penetrated at 40 degs inclination, and the shell went on to penetrate another 2in scarf, .75in bulkhead and perforated a 2in HTS deck after striking it at 70 degrees inclination.
But if you feel so inclined, please do so and give us the results.
Re: 1919: Analysis of Hood's magazine protection
I can't believe that you are unable to draw the obvious comparisons and conclusions.Pandora wrote:I can't find where in that paper are Scharnhorst and Bismarck mentioned?dunmunro wrote:So a 15in shell could penetrate 7in + 1in HTS of side armour inclined at ~40 degs and still go through a 2in scarf at 10degs and still perforate a 2in deck inclined at 70 degs. This shows how very vulnerable Scharnhorst's deck was to plunging fire and it even implied that Bismarck was vulnerable through her upper 145mm ( 5.7in) belt.
Re: 1919: Analysis of Hood's magazine protection
to see how accurate that computer program is. You have mentioned facehard several times before to support many of your arguments, so why not?dunmunro wrote: Why would we want to double check actual test results against a computer program?
If I asked is because I don't know how to use that software.dunmunro wrote:But if you feel so inclined, please do so and give us the results.