Naval History Forums

Which is the thickness of armor for which Face Hard gives "no penetration and shell destroyed" for the Italian gun at 16 km ? This would be the equivalent thickness of the array, in case that the Italian design is working, of course. :wink: 14.6" - full penetration 14.7" - parti...

BTW Just to satisfy my curiosity. I checked penetration parameters of Italy 15" shells predicted by Face Hard ( with all known comments about that program ) If we include 15 degree slope of belt, at ~16 km Italian 15" shell fired from Littorio ( new gun ) hit at 14.8" armour, returned...

I think you are mis-interrupting the meaning in the English language here. It could be re-worded to say that: " APC BC shells shatter on impact against face-hardened plate if the cap is not present, thereby defeating the design purpose of fitting the shell with a cap in the first place, if the...

once we are all in agreement that the actual Littorio class array has never been tested by other navies than RM, therefore Pugliese theory has been contradicted neither by tests nor by a theoretical work, let's move to shell design. You have one veto. See those pictures in scale. Test done in Italy...

The most critical parameter are IMHO outer plate thickness (influencing the quantity of the "precession motion") and mostly the distance between plates that is neither enough to allow full de-capping nor the good one to ensure that the shell is hitting the inner plate with an unfavorable ...

Sorry, but I think I mixed some data, so I made some confusion. I don’t have exact data of tests older than 1945. Some data – yes, but not as precise as I asked for Italy and German tests. More or less on the same level of accuracy as I have about Italy tests – so with doubtful value. With certainty...

Only now I had opportunity to check Bagnasco and de Toro book about Littorio class battleships. In my English edition on page 35 it is stated, that it was full scale test. 280 mm KC plate + 70 mm non cemented homogeous plate, and distance 25 cm between them. It was fired by 320 mm shell ( nothing ab...

VV hull was quite fine forward and aft. Very precise ;) on eye measure suggest considerably finer lines than KGV. Pure dimensions could be misleading. See G3 and N3 with more or less the same displacement, or Lexington and South Dakota (WWI era). And one tking more. In standard displacement ammo is ...

I checked Raven&Roberts and Friedman. As stated by Dunmunro, R&R gives displacement of KGV in 1940 - 36 727 tons Full load 42 076 tons Friedman: 36 730 tons, standard ( slight difference in each element, resulted in 3 tons difference in sum - personally I think, totally unimportant ) Trial d...

I checked Raven&Roberts.
All they stated is "air compressed system similar to that in submarine".
So who knows? Tanks? Air compressed in real time?

Thank You.
BTW what was increase of light AA guns on Tirpitz?
On allied battleships considerable. On Tirpitz? I remember many 20 mm guns, others?
What was weight increase?

Standard displacement was something not used by Germans in any practical sense, it has to be calculated. data 1940/41 Full load displacement of Bismarck ~53 000 ( actually a bit more ). Fuel, feed water, gas for planes and so one 9 900 tons ( say 10 000 ) So displacement 43 000. Fiquids in SPS 1800 ...

From pure ship design point of view, after mastering procedure of firing oil ( and storing, transfering and so one ) there were little to choose. But coal was common in use. There were coal ewerywhere. Thausands of private coilers ( from smallest to really large ) were available, so if really need, ...

Unfortunately I don’t know detail. Information about blowing tanks come from one of secondary sources. Possibly Raven & Roberts or Campbell ( I can check it next week, I’m far from my printed books now, only electronic versions are with me ). There are shipyards plans in existence in one of the ...

G3 final G3 was promising, but needed many modifications. 1. Disposition of secondary guns. Numbers of guns were OK, but disposition far from perfect. Forward 6” turrets were OK, but rest not. They were too close, and all 3 of one site could be put out of action by one (un)lucky hit. More important ...