here you can see the influence of projectile head shape on pentration
Kopfradius.jpg (63.66 KiB) Viewed 2015 times
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
but cap shape had also considerable influence on projectile pentration
as long as the cap+projectile act as monobloc projectile the modified head shape of the cap suppresses the turning moment and therfore increases the pentration capabilites at high oblique impacts
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!
RF wrote:Yes, but would the 16 inch be that much better than 15 inch for the Germans? The Japanese for example had 18 inch guns
The differences are more to do with battle range considerations. The larger projectile retains more velocity and therefore flatter trajectories to greater ranges. This means it strikes vertical armour at long range with greater striking velocity and at more favorable striking angles than the smaller projectile.
...
Yes, but the amount of devastation a 16" shell delivers behind the armor plate was greater than that of the 15" gun.
This is why all post-Bismarck German batleships were planned to have the 16"/L52 on board...
I think we should not forget the compromise between armour and total cannon weight. Added to that is the limitation on design related to strategic concerns various nations had to compile. Case in point is America's use of the Panama canal, which limits the beam to approximately 107 to 110 feet. Any lock system limits the maximum displacement of ships wanting to use the lock. I stand corrected if I am wrong but was the Montana design not panmax limited?. This should indicate that to float 12 'tubes' the restriction needed to be lifted? Basically what I am saying here is although size does matter on one level, it is not the be all and end all of a good 'balanced' design. Just look at the H class, to float the heavier battery of 16 Inch cannon there was a reduction of the main belts armour from 320mm max to 300mm. Even inclined at 13° the immunity zone is non existent over the report favoured combat ranges preferred by Germany. The H39 class ability to stand in a 'line of battle' against the likes of a faster USA design is seriously questionable. The Bismarck only did as well as he did due to his balanced design. I am fascinated by the thought of just how well he could have defended himself if a stable heading could have been maintained.
Just look at the H class, to float the heavier battery of 16 Inch cannon there was a reduction of the main belts armour from 320mm max to 300mm. Even inclined at 13° the immunity zone is non existent over the report favoured combat ranges preferred by Germany. The H39 class ability to stand in a 'line of battle' against the likes of a faster USA design is seriously questionable.
The decrease in vertical protection was, if I recall, accompanied by an increase in horizontal protection, which might indicate a changing priority on the part of the designers of the H class. It could be that advances in gunnery control was pushing the battle ranges out and the Germans recognized this. There was still the necessity to compromise though, as there were constraints on how big the ships could be and still operate in Germany's relatively shallow home waters.
Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood and Earth's foundations stay;
What God abandoned these defended;
And saved the sum of things for pay.
In weight terms alone the extra weight of the horizontal armour was minimal. If you look at overall balance ( stability) of the design with the relatively large increase in artillery weight together with draft limitations; The reduction in belt weight has a majority effect. I will admit that I was a bit surprised at the results returned when I rendered the specification for this class into the marine design programme I use to investigate historical designs. By varying the specs was able to obtain some interesting results as to why the ship was design the way it was. As for the 2:1 post please refer to my posts on tripple turrets subject else where on this forum.
sineatimorar wrote:In weight terms alone the extra weight of the horizontal armour was minimal.
German battleship protection was an armor array. If you will look carefully, you'll see that the H-39 had MORE vertical proteciton than the Bismarck [300mm belt + 150mm slopes + 45mm bulkhead; 385mm con tower, etc]
alecsandros wrote:
This is why all post-Bismarck German batleships were planned to have the 16"/L52 on board...
Could that also have applied to the planned upgrading of the guns for the Scharnhorsts ie 16 inch rather than 15 inch?
I don't know ? Perhaps ?
G&D mention that plans for up-gunning S&G with 6x15"/L52 each were prepared. But this meant changing the barbette also, so a lot of work all in all.
The twins were more narrow than the Bismarck's , so it is possible that an even larger barbette structure may not have been accomodated there.
Very true the H class was a larger heavier design. All I am saying is to maintain the designs specs related to draft which is of course linked to total displacement, the main belt had to be reduced. Yes the overall 'spaced' armour arrangement was increased over the Bismarck. Reducing the thickness of the first layer of armour changes the 'immune zone' for the overall design. My understanding of this zone is it is direct reflection of what ranges initial penetration of the the design's armour that causes internal damage. If you take careful note of survivor's accounts of the performance of the armour array of the Bismarck you will see that while structurally the fighting ability of the ship was not overly effected, You can not say the same about the effects on the fighting efficiency of the men on board the ship. There is really no point in having a ideally 'Unsinkable Gun Platform' if the design allows the crew to be turned into mince meat in the process. Mind you every design of any warship past or present does not account enough protection for personal anyway, it is always the protection of critical equipment that is been considered. If you are lucky enough to man this equipment then 'bully for you' you are better protected than the poor smuck maning a less critical area or equipment.When considering the overall ability to take and maintain it's postion in the line of battle crew survivabilty must be considered and as the H class design is allowing damage to occur at greater ranges than the Bismarck class; the H class will be damaged earlier on in any battle time span, therefore is rated at a lesser value than the Bismarck on purely design considerations. Converse to this is the H Class ability to inflict more critical damage in a shorter time span than the Bismarck would therefore the designers would be thinking that the amazing accuracy of the Bismarck would carry over to the harder hitting H class, therefore reducing the overall time span of any battle to the point that crew survivabilty rating is improved over the Bismarck class due to the shorter battle time. Remember any battle is based on probabilities of percentage of the number of hits per salvo in any given amount of time.
sineatimorar wrote: My understanding of this zone is it is direct reflection of what ranges initial penetration of the the design's armour that causes internal damage.
German armor was designed in layers, because a single plate was not considered capable of offering protection against modern guns. [Littorio was built with the same idea in mind]
All battleships had lots of vulnerable volumes. What was considered important was to protect the vitals (machinery, magazines) as best as possible.
[KGV's upper works, including con towers and turrets, were vulnerable up to 25km against 38cm/L52 guns. But the vitals on the other hand were very well protected]
alecsandros wrote:
[KGV's upper works, including con towers and turrets, were vulnerable up to 25km against 38cm/L52 guns. But the vitals on the other hand were very well protected]
I have queried on other threads as to how a shell from Prinz Eugen ended up in one of the POW's shell handling rooms, but so far nobody has attempted to explain this. Apparently the shell was a dud and thus didn't explode, but if it had....
KGV's vitals well protected ???
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
alecsandros wrote:
[KGV's upper works, including con towers and turrets, were vulnerable up to 25km against 38cm/L52 guns. But the vitals on the other hand were very well protected]
I have queried on other threads as to how a shell from Prinz Eugen ended up in one of the POW's shell handling rooms, but so far nobody has attempted to explain this. Apparently the shell was a dud and thus didn't explode, but if it had....
KGV's vitals well protected ???
..... I have not examined the structural details of PoW, but visits to USS Massachusetts have revealed topside ammunition handling or passing rooms immediately below each 5/38 turret. It's not a magazine or shell room per se, simply a compartment which functions as the terminus for the hoists carrying ammunition up from below. IIRC, these compartments had splinter protection only.
