Jump to content


Photo

Errata


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 Bob Benge

Bob Benge

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 1,202 posts
  • LocationLas Cruces, NM

Posted 08 December 2006 - 07:24 AM

As I was perusing through the PDF file I happen to notice minor issue may have been missed. The Italian Ship Charts titles were different (pages 159-161 in the pdf file). The first page is: REGIA MARINA ITALIANAThe second page is: Regia Marina Italiana DDsThe third page is: Regia Marina Italiana Escorts (and a smaller font)The Caps are different. The first is all CAPS the second and third are Title Caps. I think that the third entry's smaller font size maybe due to the length of the title so that is understandable. Are the difference in the Caps by design?

#2 Cpt M

Cpt M

    Colonel

  • ODGW Staff
  • 939 posts

Posted 08 December 2006 - 02:43 PM

Has no impact. I think (looking at the sheets) that it has more to do with room for the titles, than anything else.Mike

#3 Guest_ragozd_*

Guest_ragozd_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 December 2006 - 05:05 PM

IMHO HMS Hood should have BB/BC class. BB belt armour and BC deck armour.Yamato should have additional hull box to give proper hull ratio vs Iowa

#4 Radek Gozdek

Radek Gozdek

    Corporal

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 25 December 2006 - 05:18 PM

also: Scharnhorst/Gneisenau should have BA class - had 350 mm belt armour

#5 Jim O'Neil

Jim O'Neil

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • 218 posts
  • LocationSE Arizona, Sierra Vista/ Ft Huachuca area

Posted 25 December 2006 - 07:58 PM

and BC Deck Armor.

#6 Cpt M

Cpt M

    Colonel

  • ODGW Staff
  • 939 posts

Posted 26 December 2006 - 07:10 AM

ScharnhorstActually, according to three different sources, Scharnhorst's belt had a maximum thickness of 320mm that tapered to 170mm (the 350mm oft quoted in secondary sources is some sort of urban myth). The thickest part was relatively narrow, so, for game purposes, a aggregate thickness equal to BB (10"-12") would better represent her armor class. As for the deck armor, this was split into multiple decks that had an aggregate total of 130mm to 145mm. This arrangement is less effective than a single deck of equilvalent thickness, so a net effective thickness of BB (3"-5") is not out of line. Additionally, the German armor scheme, basically pre-Jutland, for this class and the Bismarck class was obsolete by a full generation and not nearly as effective as the all-or-nothing scheme used by most every other navy. (To be honest, I've never understood the fascination for the German heavies. Bluntly put, Bismarck is wonderful example of unmodified WWI battleship design; too bad it had to fight in WWII.)Armor ClassificationsThe Armor Classifications as outlined (see page 1-11) are belt and deck inclusive and keyed to the combat system which accounts for deck penettration at long range and belt penetration at short range. Consequently, there is no need for separate ratings for belt and deck (such as BB/BC) and, actually, would complicate and possible skew the system.

#7 Jim O'Neil

Jim O'Neil

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • 218 posts
  • LocationSE Arizona, Sierra Vista/ Ft Huachuca area

Posted 26 December 2006 - 11:45 AM

Coastal,I wouldn't quibble with your view ... I would note that SCHARNHORST did have a portion of her decks raised over the machinery spaces, that was not well armored ... the spot in fact that KG V's fortunate hit seems to have found. The rule seems to be "If you leave a weak point, that's where you'll get hit" ... it's almost like a Law of Physics or something.SCHARNHORST also had a weak stern, as a torpedo hit in the vicinity of the aft turret was likely to blow through all the protection systems, as they had to be narrowed excessevily there. Such a hit destroys a screw shaft and could drop the stern , perhaps jamming the rudder as happened to BISMARCK. It was an unseen flaw, which subsequent Naval Architect evaluation seems to have confirmed. Until late '41, her forward turret was frequently flooded and put out of service in heavy seas, if she had to run into them. Her turret design is optimised for Short Range battles, and the forward turret roof is very vulnerable in a long range gun fight.But they really Look powerful...

#8 Cpt M

Cpt M

    Colonel

  • ODGW Staff
  • 939 posts

Posted 26 December 2006 - 02:09 PM

Yes, the infamous "bump" where the boilers popped through the armor deck. And, in accordance with Murphy's Law, that is precisely where she took the fatal hit from Duke of York. That's bad luck with compound interest!Gotta admit, they were good lookers!!The weak stern problem seemed to show itself in several of the German designs; may well have been a flaw in the underlying design philopsophy (now there's a subject for a article...). In their defense, the stern area has always been headache for marine architects, no matter the nation. So the Germans were in good company there.

#9 Radek Gozdek

Radek Gozdek

    Corporal

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 27 December 2006 - 09:41 AM

you have no right. 14.245 tons of armour, 43.69% of ships - the best % of BS armours! Scharnhorst have 170 mm in that places than US battleship had nothing. If you wants to aggregate thickness down, you should look at US Navyhttp://www.schlachtschiff.com/kriegsmarine/schlachtschiff_scharnhorst/technik/panzerung.asp

#10 Jim O'Neil

Jim O'Neil

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • 218 posts
  • LocationSE Arizona, Sierra Vista/ Ft Huachuca area

Posted 27 December 2006 - 09:53 PM

With all due respect, the USN either had a lot of armor, or none ... allowing that STS was used widely as a construction steel at thicknesses of an inch or inch and a half (25-37 mm), although it was an improvement of Wotan Weich homogenous armor. 170 mm (6.7 inch) armor is a waste on a capital ship, it is too thick for just fragments and way too thin for Large caliber shells. Capital ships don't fight Cruisers often, and when they do, it's seldom for long.The German Pocket battleships (Panzerschiffe) were novel, powerful and a good use of tonnage . The SCHARNHORST and BISMARCK classes were not! They were WW 1 designs that entirely missed the advances in naval design between the wars. The concept of "all or Nothing" was wholly missed ... the weight needed to make these ships was vastly more than equivalent ships in other navies. I am not here to bash anyone... I just deal in hard cold facts. Compare SCHARNHORST to STRASBOURG and weep. BISMARCK's only advantage over most 35,000 ton battleships was about 2 knots of speed.RICHELIEU or SOUTH DAKOTA would have shredded BISMARCK in almost any situation.

#11 Radek Gozdek

Radek Gozdek

    Corporal

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 28 December 2006 - 03:17 AM

similiar as Hood, PoW, Rodney and KGV :Pfirst sunk, second had unexploded hit near ammo, next ones could figth because Bismarck has unluck torpedo hit and use a lot of ammo without serious damages below water after more than 80 hits by 16" and 14" !!!Very poor armour :P At least, 70% of S & G armoyr was 320mm, rest was below water line - then hit impact was halved by water. And USN waste a lot of tonnage on Montana project for 8.5" armour below water line http://www.navsource.../016715.jpgalso Iowa class had a lott of wasting tonnage when lower belt "is Class B armor, 12.1 inches thick at the top and tapered to 1.62 inches at the bottom"http://www.battleshi...ss/Armor.htmAnd all USN modern BB has no 13+" armour and should have BB class :evil: :woohoo: :evil:

#12 Radek Gozdek

Radek Gozdek

    Corporal

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 28 December 2006 - 03:17 AM

at the end - Sch. & G. had no good tonnage use by guns, not armour. Version with 6 x 380mm looks much more nice :)

#13 Cpt M

Cpt M

    Colonel

  • ODGW Staff
  • 939 posts

Posted 29 December 2006 - 03:32 AM

"And all USN modern BB has no 13+" armour and should have BB class"Well, no. The belt armor for the North Carolina class was 12" of Class A armor on a .75 STS backing, inclined at 15 degrees with the lower edge inboard. This inclination provided an effective thickness of 16" of vertical plate. For the South Dakota class, the belt was 12.2" of Class A armor on a .875" STS backing, inclined at 19 degrees, also with the lower edge inboard, with an effective thickness of 17.3" of vertical plate (a considerable improvement over the North Carolina). And for the Iowa's, 12.1" of class A armor over a .875" STS backing, also inclined at 19 degress, with an effective thickness of 17.3" of vertical plate. All three fall well within, if not slightly exceed, the limits for BA classification."also Iowa class had a lott of wasting tonnage when lower belt "is Class B armor, 12.1 inches thick at the top and tapered to 1.62 inches at the bottom"The Iowa's lower belt of class B armor is the main torpedo bulkhead and, to my knowledge, one of the few designs that carries a torpedo bulkhead of this strength."And USN waste a lot of tonnage on Montana project for 8.5" armour below water line" And finally, the Montana class. Her belt, 16" of class A on 1" STS backing inclined 19 degrees, for an effective thickness of 21" of vertical plate. The very strong inner torpedo bulkhead was to be 7.2" (not 8.5") tapering to 1". True, a lot of armor, but it's a lot of ship.

#14 Radek Gozdek

Radek Gozdek

    Corporal

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 29 December 2006 - 06:29 AM

at final, one BB Iowa class was effective two BB :PIn theory looks great, but in practice was not tested seriously.Old design Bayer armour receive averagie notes, but funnily enough pass another exam on Bismarck.I leave it at you discretion, but IMHO you have too big US Navy centric outlook on it. Another nations had different ad sometimes better solutions and good results (ex. First Battle of Savo Island ) :P

#15 Jim O'Neil

Jim O'Neil

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • 218 posts
  • LocationSE Arizona, Sierra Vista/ Ft Huachuca area

Posted 29 December 2006 - 02:31 PM

Your point on BISMARCK's Armor (armour) is correct in so far as you go with it, and as I said, the ships were designed for a close in fight ... at close range (and 4,600 yards is rather close) her hull armor stood up very well to the pounding that the two British battleships gave it. But she was a worthless hulk at that point, as her upper works, turrets and fire control were destroyed, her stern had jammed her rudder and she was through. The fact that the Germans scuttled her is moot, as the British would have sunk her, if the Germans hadn't. It was just a question of time.I cannot think of any other battleship which might have done any better under those specific conditions. They are, of course, conditions no navy would like to see their ship in, but BISMARCK probably survived better than any of the more modern designs would have under a close range pounding by Naval Gunfire.In almost any other situation, BISMARCK would have done worse than any other modern Battleship. If you place her in the Pacific or in a long range gunnery duel, she does much less well.I agree that the S&G with 15" guns become much more interesting ... they are still a flawed design, but with more potential against another capitol ship then.As for Savo Island... try this, place WASHINGTON and BISMARCK in the Second battle of Guadalcanal on the 14-15th of November 1942 (say the Dutch bought her... if you need a reason) and see how she does compared to how SOUTH DAKOTA did.

#16 Radek Gozdek

Radek Gozdek

    Corporal

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 04 January 2007 - 06:24 AM

I have problem wit my english esp. technic, but try:South Dakota at Guadalcanal receive 8" hit (shell 91 Shiki 20 cm Hib˘ Tetsukodan - with no fame as exceptional penetration).Shell was driven in armour on 8"!. Penetrate decaping plate, 32 mm STS plate, HTS bulkhead(?) and all harden and transitional layers, remained 4" rather soft steel (~220 HB ). That was a close shave to to knock out cork of plate without penetration. 8" shell - armour was projected for 14" shells ...Effective thickness of 17.3" is credibility for me as CIA data about Iraq before last atack :P

#17 Jim O'Neil

Jim O'Neil

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • 218 posts
  • LocationSE Arizona, Sierra Vista/ Ft Huachuca area

Posted 04 January 2007 - 09:05 PM

Well there is a good bit of argument (discussion) about that... a group of knowledgable people think that was a 14" APC round that did mostly superficial damage after striking the Barbette and deflecting down... they can make a decent case, but no one can prove anything. The gouge in the hatch coaming is not from an 8" projectile. Adm Lee's After Action report specifically says that two 14" hits were defeated by the South Dakota's Armor, from shells fired at under 10,000 yards range.Had BISMARCK been engaged from 30,000 meters, she would have been very, very vulnerable to serious damage... much more than any of the other ships, excepting HMS HOOD, which also had WW 1 level deck protection.

#18 Radek Gozdek

Radek Gozdek

    Corporal

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 06 January 2007 - 06:32 PM

backingg to german BBhttp://www.kbismarck.com/ma6.zip Graff Spee had 80mm belt armour (like CL, but additional 40-45mm armour makes it CA. Similiar Admirall Hipper - 80mm belt + 20-30mm additional, and Scharnhorst 350 mm tappered to 170mm + 105mm. Similiar Bismarck - 320 tappered to 170mm + 100mm. Bismarck and Scharnhorst had comparable level of armour, and you have 2 solutions - both BB or both BA ;)Do you know the bigest range of hit at II WW? 26 400y. German planed his ship for real not theoretical battles ;)

#19 Jim O'Neil

Jim O'Neil

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • 218 posts
  • LocationSE Arizona, Sierra Vista/ Ft Huachuca area

Posted 06 January 2007 - 07:42 PM

That may well be, but they certainly forgot the bombers and dive bombers they used so effectively on the British... At 22,000 and 24,000 yards, the Britsih and USN 15" and 16" guns all just penetrate the Bismarcks total deck armor (5 to 25 mm extra penetration at those ranges). The US 14" and none of the French 15" shells seem to quite make it. But the French 13.4 " gun will just penetrate at 24,000 yards. The 13" of STRASBOURG / DUNKERQUE is unable to penetrate at those ranges.All (everythig 12" and up) will penetrate her turrets at those ranges and less. Not Good.Of course all these ships are susceptable to having mincemeat made of their upper works and losing combat effectiveness, if enough ships hit them.I am not ready to change my evaluation ... probably the worst WW 2 design, although I must admit you do have some points ...

#20 Radek Gozdek

Radek Gozdek

    Corporal

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 09 January 2007 - 03:30 PM

Bravo6 wrote:

Well there is a good bit of argument (discussion) about that... a group of knowledgable people think that was a 14" APC round that did mostly superficial damage after striking the Barbette and deflecting down... they can make a decent case, but no one can prove anything. The Gouge in the hatch coaming is not from an 8" projectile. Adm Lee's After Action report specifically says that two 14" hits weredefeated by the South Dakota's Armor, from shells fired at under 10,000 yards range.

really?http://www.dcfp.navy.mil/cgi-bin/WarGalleryPop.cgi?id=298hit no. 25 - 8"http://www.dcfp.navy...yPop.cgi?id=290




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users