Page 6 of 6

Re: Serious design flaws in King George V class Battleships?

Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 5:32 am
by alecsandros
But if it is same battle as above, there is a difference between the ranges reported by the 2 sides (a situation not at all uncommon...)

Re: Serious design flaws in King George V class Battleships?

Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 5:54 am
by dunmunro
alecsandros wrote:But if it is same battle as above, there is a difference between the ranges reported by the 2 sides (a situation not at all uncommon...)
Sydney plotted the ranges on her AFCT which created a permanent record via its plotter output and the ranges in the Battle Summary are those recorded during the battle.

The RM ranges may have suffered from translation errors or maybe they just had incorrect ranges and that accounts for their poor shooting.

Re: Serious design flaws in King George V class Battleships?

Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 5:57 am
by alecsandros
Are you sure it's the same battle ?

Re: Serious design flaws in King George V class Battleships?

Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 6:15 am
by dunmunro
alecsandros wrote:Are you sure it's the same battle ?
http://www.world-war.co.uk/sydney_story.php3

the ranges are from Sydney's action report.

Re: Serious design flaws in King George V class Battleships?

Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 6:21 am
by alecsandros

Re: Serious design flaws in King George V class Battleships?

Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 6:23 am
by alecsandros
Anyway, it's a digression from the discussion,
as Sidney did not have 5.25" guns, and her target wasn't a destroyer, but a light cruiser.

For the record , Sidney's ammo consumption at Cape Spada was 963 x 6" rounds.

Re: Serious design flaws in King George V class Battleships?

Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 3:03 pm
by Harry Lime
Thanks for posting your interesting material dunmonro. I think we can agree that HMAS Sydney scored hits at about 18,000 yards possibly a little more, UP to maybe 20,000 yards.