Naval History Forums

pgollin wrote:.

The observation of a "hit" was quite easy when the explosion caused a flash, however small.
.

But in a snowstorm? Also if they say they saw a flash on her "ab aft" section, then that infers that they could rather clearly see the ship. Seems abit odd to me

Many thanks Tommy :)

What type of machinery failures did she suffer from? Could a breakdown have caused some sailors to feel a thump?

There's also the possibility that some other spot was hit of course. But again how was it possible to observe any hits in a snowstorm?

Is there any in depth information on Yamato's fire control system, or was it all lost at wars end when the Japanese disposed of her plans? If so how much is actually known about her fire control system, and is there a chance she was more capable than believed?

What's odd is the observed hit, how could they observe a hit in a storm where visibility was below 7 miles?

That the speed was regained strongly suggests that the boiler room was not hit at least.

There seems to be some controversy in regards to what happened during the latter part of the engagement between Scharnhorst and Duke of York. Scharnhorst suddenly lost speed, but was this due to a hit to the engine/boiler compartment (as the legend goes) or was it yet another engine malfunction? Wha...

Question is then what is the formula for the USN calculations?

Btw, who is Nathan Okun? Is he a historian, or just the owner of Navweaps?

I don't know if I find it odd that a 28 cm gun could out penetrate a 35 cm gun, esp. when the muzzle velocities are considered. The 28cm C/34's did after all fire their projectiles ~120 m/s faster, which would also help reduce the impact angle vs vertical belt armour. You can't find it odd, because...

The 380mm SK C/34's still have a noticably higher energy concentration than the 356mm Mark VII's though: 800 kg @ 820 m/s: 268960 kj 268960 / 1134 sq.cm = 237 kj/sq.cm[ 721.2 kg @ 750 m/s: 202837 kj 202837 / 995 sq.cm = 203 kj/sq.cm Velocity at 18,500 m (20,231 yards) for the 380mm C/34 AP round wa...

The 380mm SK C/34's still have a noticably higher energy concentration than the 356mm Mark VII's though: 800 kg @ 820 m/s: 268960 kj 268960 / 1134 sq.cm = 237 kj/sq.cm[ 721.2 kg @ 750 m/s: 202837 kj 202837 / 995 sq.cm = 203 kj/sq.cm Velocity at 18,500 m (20,231 yards) for the 380mm C/34 AP round was...

But we also need to consider the impact angle at said ranges as they have an effect on the relative armour thickness. Hence if a projectile strikes at a lower angle then it will also be able to defeat a thicker plate as compared to when striking it at a higher angle. In other words a higher muzzle ...

But we also need to consider the impact angle at said ranges as they have an effect on the relative armour thickness. Hence if a projectile strikes at a lower angle then it will also be able to defeat a thicker plate as compared to when striking it at a higher angle. In other words a higher muzzle v...

I don't know if I find it odd that a 28 cm gun could out penetrate a 35 cm gun, esp. when the muzzle velocities are considered. The 28cm C/34's did after all fire their projectiles ~120 m/s faster, which would also help reduce the impact angle vs vertical belt armour. Thus I don't find it unlikely t...

According to the penetration data I have available the 28cm C/34 infact does outperform the 14" Mark VII at 20,000 yards vs belt armour, the 28cm C/34 penetrating 291mm of armour to the 285mm of the 14" Mark VII. Against German plates the 28cm C/34 penetrated 348mm of armour at a 652 m/s S...

A 300kg projectile traveling at 500m/s however has far fewer chances of knocking out the same turret in the same circumstances, because it carries 2.5 times less kinetical energy. One thing to remember though is that kinetic energy is equal to mass times the square of velocity, Take a look a Scharn...