Jump to content


Photo

Errata


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#21 Jim O'Neil

Jim O'Neil

    Lieutenant

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

Posted 09 January 2007 - 08:16 PM

http://www.dcfp.navy...Damage/57.pdfGo to paragraph 36; they identify the 14" shell... they do not specify type, although it has to have been AP to make that deep an impression in a 17.3 inch face hardened plate. I think you'll agree that HE or the special incendiary shell couldn't do this.

#22 Radek Gozdek

Radek Gozdek

    Corporal

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 10 January 2007 - 03:19 AM

but I wrote about no 25 hit - paragraph 35. First taken as 6" hit, later sa 8" hit.

#23 Jim O'Neil

Jim O'Neil

    Lieutenant

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

Posted 10 January 2007 - 07:39 PM

Undoubtedly 8"... and as I aver, another that found the worst possible spot, but it was stopped. The US 8" Projectiles went through the KONGO classes armor too.At short range, an AP shell will normally penetrate its diameter or a bit more... I miss the point.Neither S&G nor BISMARCK would have survived better

#24 Cpt M

Cpt M

    Colonel

  • ODGW Staff
  • 939 posts

Posted 10 January 2007 - 07:54 PM

According the paragraph you noted, the shell in question (assumed to be an 8" round, but I have seen other references, based on extensive post-war analysis, propose that this was a 14" shell) penetrated 7" to 8" of the 12.2" bulkhead before the shell, already broken apart came to a stop. Given the extremely short ranges involved, it would not be unheard of for a 8" shell to acheive this level of penetration. In any case, the round was defeated by the armor; it did not pass through. I refer you to paragraph 40 which states: "No projectile penetrated the armored box. Hits Nos. 3, 4, 17, 24, 25, and 26 struck armor before detonation and failed to penetrate."

#25 Radek Gozdek

Radek Gozdek

    Corporal

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 11 January 2007 - 04:43 PM

range was 6 000 yards. Big quality of A armour bigger then 200 mm was signal by Royal Navy after gun tests after II WW. And is puzzling tah turret front armour was ... B type. Maybe American had the same test results as British?Backing to Germancompare belt armour USS North Carolina (black)5,50 m and 305 mm, tappered to 166 mm Bismarck (colour) 5,20 m, 320 mm, tappered 170 mm [img size=150]http://www.fow.aplus.pl/bis/noca.jpg[/img]blue - shell hit NC below armour, hit Bismarck armour - small different, but on Bismarck plus.(blue - 19000-20000 m hit 23')german have different idea to armour BB - but different doesn't mean bad!

#26 Jim O'Neil

Jim O'Neil

    Lieutenant

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

Posted 11 January 2007 - 07:13 PM

Every nation had difficulty in making quality plate as thick as 19"... good quality Class B has great resistance and in many cases (shell arriving at an angle or over-matching the armor) is much better than class A.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users