Scharnhorst vs a KGV

[alecsandros]

You want to tell me, that the german had the exact datas of the british guns?

Muzzle velocity, kg of the shells, nose shape, angle of fall? When did Germany tests the british 15 inch guns against their KC/nA?
This was an estimation!
We know the exact datas today, but the german writers of the GKDOS did an obvious over estimation.

If you claim this, I have no words, it is realy absurd!

That's not the point. The KM via GKDOS thought that the belt/scarf could be penetrated, and KM estimates of RN performance are probably fairly close to reality as they had the almost exact MV and weight of the RN 15in.

The RN did test RN 14in and 15in guns against Tirpitz 320mm KC plate and the tested 14in perforation (intact penetration) limit was only 1370 fps at 30 deg inclination; the GKDOS estimate for 320mm @ 30degs for the KM 38cm was 1558 fps (475 m/s)! The RN tested limit against 320mm KM KC for the RN 15in Mk 17B was 1485fps.

Duncan, I'm fed up with your bullshit.

You know very well that the 320/350 + 105mm + 45mm TDS arrangement was absolutely impregnable, yet you come to flash off "perforatin of 14" shell through the magazines" .

For your information, GKDOS 100 was written without considering decaping, yaw , fuze blindness, and all other phenomenons associated with heavy shells impacting heavy armor !

Furthermore, the main belt of Scharnhorst and Bismarck was backed by teak planking, laid on St 52 construction steel.
Do you know the properties of teak wood and why was the teak placed there ?

===

Speaking of GKDOS 100, I don't know where you are getting those absurd values ?

See here:
http://kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.ph ... cel#p38187

download the excel and play with it.

===

The British trials against German Tirpitz armor were executed against 12.17" thick German plates and 12.7" British plates.
But the comparison of fps did not take into account this !

AND during the same trials, the smaller plates from TIrpitz performed better than the British ones.

See here:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=132

[alecsandros]

NAaB predicts penetration of 180mm turret face facets @ 68deg by the RN 14in at ~16km and beyond but this is complicated by roll could could easily reduce or increase thise ranges substantially.

The level of bullshit you are pumping into this forum becomes unbearable.

[alecsandros]

And if the 45mm side armour doesn't decap the 14in shell? GKDOS predicts penetration of Scharnhorst's 105mm deck from 23.3km by Hood or R-class BBs -seems like GKDOS doesn't predict decapping. GKDOS states that Scharnhorst's belt is 320mm, and it predicts penetration of the belt and scarf at 16.7km

It would still require a range of 28.000 yards to perforate the 105mm MAD.

KGV's deck armour over the magazines consists of the 30mm weather deck/side hull plus 5.88in (149mm) over 20mm D steel plate and the magazines are three decks further down (see the armour diagram http://www.sfu.ca/~dmunro/images/KGV_Scharnhorst.jpg ) and protected by another 38mm of D steel.
At 30km GKDOS predicts SV = 420m/s and AoF = 35degrees (55 from normal) and it predicts penetration of ~130mm of H. armour.

Simply put, you're lying.

There was no armor grade material in the "upper deck" of KGV! It was construction steel, the BRitish equivalent of German ST52.
The only armore grade material was in the main armor deck herself, of ~ 150mm.

USN experience was that the Conn was useless in battle because of it's very poor visibility. The vision slits had to be large enough that small calibre shells could actually enter them anyways, while direct hits on a vision slit, by a heavy shell, would undoubtedly kill everyone inside.

Despite this, Iowa class still retains 400mm con tower.
All otehr major navies also produced heavily armored con towers.

The Royal Navy was the only navy to have her battleships con towers vulnerable to light cruiser fire.

[alecsandros]

The shell which struck the boiler room may not have needed to find the small flaw or gap in the ship's armour scheme to strike home, if it struck below water when the ship was on the roll. If the roll laid the ship's main belt at 90 degrees to the angle of strike, the main belt would be perforated. In the end it all comes down to who can get the greatest number of hits.

... Where is this from ?

First of all, why do you think a shell hit the boiler room ?

Second of all, how and why do you think the belt would be perforated ?

[dunmunro]

That's not the point. The KM via GKDOS thought that the belt/scarf could be penetrated, and KM estimates of RN performance are probably fairly close to reality as they had the almost exact MV and weight of the RN 15in.

Source for this claim? When and where get the germans the exact datas. To my sources they estimated a muzzle velocity of 820-830ms, much more then reality and a much more flat trajectory with a higher vertical penetration.

The RN did test RN 14in and 15in guns against Tirpitz 320mm KC plate and the tested 14in perforation (intact penetration) limit was only 1370 fps at 30 deg inclination; the GKDOS estimate for 320mm @ 30degs for the KM 38cm was 1558 fps (475 m/s)! The RN tested limit against 320mm KM KC for the RN 15in Mk 17B was 1485fps.

Are you kidding me?

There were several 320mm KC/nA plates at this tests and you picked here by far the worst plate , at other plates at this test, the limit was at 1500fps.
Believe your biased dreams, but perhaps you should talk to Mr. Jurens, Thorsten or delcyros, they are can explain this better to you and they are far away from your "dreams".

Also you have till now not explained, how a decapped shell after 320mm main belt, will be able to punch through round about (22 degree + 14 degree =36 degree) sinus 36 degree ; 105/sinus of 36 degree= 180mm steell at 16500 yards?

KM estimates for the RN 15in were 745 m/s (2444 fps) and 875 kg (1929 lb) which is a very close match to the 15in Mk 17B (2458 fps and 1938 lb). This is taken directly from GKDOS.

I'm sorry if you find the RN conclusions to be unpalatable...

I guess you'll have to direct your question to the authors of GKdos...

[alecsandros]

KM estimates for the RN 15in were 745 m/s (2444 fps) and 875 kg (1929 lb) which is a very close match to the 15in Mk 17B (2458 fps and 1938 lb). This is taken directly from GKDOS.

I'm sorry if you find the RN conclusions to be unpalatable...

I guess you'll have to direct your question to the authors of GKdos...

GKDOS doesn't calculate decap, yaw, fuze blindness, etc.

[dunmunro]

NAaB predicts penetration of 180mm turret face facets @ 68deg by the RN 14in at ~16km and beyond but this is complicated by roll could could easily reduce or increase thise ranges substantially.

The level of bullshit you are pumping into this forum becomes unbearable.

LOL...I give replies that are sourced to KM and RN documents and this is the level of discourse that I get in reply...

[alecsandros]

NAaB predicts penetration of 180mm turret face facets @ 68deg by the RN 14in at ~16km and beyond but this is complicated by roll could could easily reduce or increase thise ranges substantially.

The level of bullshit you are pumping into this forum becomes unbearable.

LOL...I give replies that are sourced to KM and RN documents and this is the level of discourse that I get in reply...

What "source" do you have that predicts 180mm Whotan perforated at 68* and 16km ?

[alecsandros]

But in this forum facts are obviously not counting anymore only unsubstained claims.

Facts like that DOY reduced Scharnhorst to a defenceless wreck,

... Actualy, Schanrhorst battled 3 British cruisers BEFORE her engagement with Duke of York and Jamaica,
and lost a vital piece of equipment during that battle.

... Duke of York obtained maybe 3-4 direct hits on Scharnhorst BEFORE the destroyer attack, from ranges of 11-15km. The most important damage was done in the first salvo - turret A was jamed, and her magazines flooded to prevent explosion. Turret Bruno was also disabled for about 30 minutes, after which it resumed firing. 45 minutes later, turret Bruno was disabled after another hit from Duke of York which "broke the turret ventilation system making the turret unusable because of smoke from the guns when fired"

So there was no permanent or crippling damage done. Turrets A and B were damaged, but not destroyed.

... It was the 4 destroyers that managed to cripple Scharnhorst (hitting her with 4 torpedoes), what Duke of York, Jamaica and Belfast did afterwards was mopping up and finishing her off.

Also, we don't know for sure if DOY really scored that last hit in the boiler room.

... It is unlikely.
Scharnhorst had 6 boiler rooms, and the loss of 1 of them would not have reduced speed to 8kts.
It was most likely a machinery breakdown - one of the many, many such problems that plagued the German warship thorughout her career.

[Wordy]

The niveau of this forum is realy sinking, I wanted to write a lot in this thread, but after the last posts here, thiis the same german bashing on unsubstained claims and lies as at the Navyweapons forum.

You are joking right?

It seems to me that reading some of the posts on here that the Royal Navy operated a fleet of wooden rowing boats during WW2!

[alecsandros]

The niveau of this forum is realy sinking, I wanted to write a lot in this thread, but after the last posts here, thiis the same german bashing on unsubstained claims and lies as at the Navyweapons forum.

You are joking right?

It seems to me that reading some of the posts on here that the Royal Navy operated a fleet of wooden rowing boats during WW2!

No,
What matters is that these discussions have already taken place, and a lot of primary documents uploaded on this very forum.

The knowledge on GErman , British and US battleship designs, strengths and flaws, greatly increased in the previous 3-4 years, yet there are people that simply come again and again using the same arguments that have been proven WRONG countless times.
What's even more upsetting is that the same persons HAVE PARTICIPATED in the discussions based on primary documents, but somehow forgot their conclusions.

[Matrose71]

It would still require a range of 28.000 yards to perforate the 105mm MAD.

Here I disagree alecsandros.

If a shell (14 inch GB), will penetrate above 20000 yards the 2,30 m hight, 45mm upper belt, it was possible for the shell to travel direct to the 80mm main deck (above the machinary) and could penetrate this deck, because decapping of the shell wasn't guaranteed through the 45mm upper belt.
SH's design had to me a clear vulnerability betweeen 20000-23000yards, where hits with the rifgt angle of fall are possible to punch the upper belt and go directly to the arnoured deck or 105mm slopes.

This vulnerability is given, till the the angle of fall is to steep to hit the 2.30m upper belt.

Your claim is correct for the combination of 50mm weather deck and 80/95mm main armour deck as spaced array horrizontal protection through decapping and yaw, after ADM papers and shooting tests post war from GB, but not for shells which entered through 45mm thin the upper belt.

This upper belt is the major difference to BS and a clear design flaw from the SH/GS

[alecsandros]

This upper belt is the major difference to BS and a clear design flaw from the SH/GS

Hi Matrose,

I was refering strictly to the magazine protection. My bad for 105mm MAD... it was 95mm, of course...

The 95mm whotan armor could not be perforated by 14" shell under normal circumstances at ranges smaller than 23km... And at ranges > 23km, it could not be hit through the upper belt... but only through the upper deck... meaning decaped shell... thus no perforation at all...

Machinery was vulnerable as you say....

[Dave Saxton]

B Hoyer, who was intimately familar with Gkdos100, spoke to the value of thick scarps by pointing out that the necessary velocity required to defeat both the belt and the scarps would cause any shell to exceed its critical velocity in the capped state. Therefore, although theoretically possible for the shell to penetrate both; in practice it was not possible for a shell to penetrate such an array intact. In other words if the velocity is high enough, then the shell will shatter against the main belt, and if the V is not high enough, then the shell will not retain enough energy after penetrating the belt to penetrate the scarp at the likely striking obliquity.

[Dave Saxton]

I think Moritz was probably right about a torpedo hit and Birkle was a bit mixed up. It is now known the bow was blown off at the A-turret magazine by a late torpedo hit. The bow seperating was noted by crewmen noticing the anchor chains running out right after a severe blow forward. Hintze then ordered Action Number 5 at around 1930 hours. This happened after Fraser had ordered SH finished off by torpedoes and so after DoY had ceased fire (1919 hours). During the period before DoY ceased fire (we are talking about the time period of the final connonade-not the end of the stern chase segment) The order was given to transfer shells from A magazine to C magazine. This was of course not possible if A magazine was destroyed.