WW II Historical Thread, Discussion, Pics, Videos

[Jura The idiot]

Garzke, William H., Jr.; Dulin, Robert O., Jr. (1980). British, Soviet, French, and Dutch Battleships of World War II.

Some concepts involve 30 knot hulls with standard displacement of 56,000 - 60,000 tons, but has only 6 16" guns in 2 triple turrets. i.e. substantially larger and slower than the Iowa, but has only 2/3 the main armament.

Were you referring to the Lion-class designs "incorporating lessons learned in the war", pp. 263--266 ?? I can't see there the displacements you quoted above, and the six-gun design was of ... battleship-carrier, so please tell me which chapter(s) of Garzke & Dulin (1980) you meant, thanks.

 

[Jura The idiot]

No, what Churchill described was the gun firing 2 different types of APC shells, using different propellant charges, one specifically to attack side armor and optimized for best penetration at low impact obliquity, and high face hardness armor, and another specifically to attack deck armor, and optimized for best penetration at high obliquity against homogenous armor. The design you find I think uses a single type if shell, always fired at full charge, but with better deck penetration than older type, but not specifically formulated to attack the deck.

In churchill's recollection the new battleship was supposed switch between different types of ammunition and propellant charges as ranges changed. This is different from using a standard shell with better all round performance.

I kept looking, though Campbell again, p. what?? no page number here, chapter Great Britain/PROJECTILES, the end of the last paragraph (from right), quote,
It was also considered that the policy of having APC made primarily for the attack of vertical armour was unsound, as most actions had been chasing ones, in which impact on side armour would be very oblique. This neglected barbette and turret face armour and, in any case, might have been entirely erroneous against the Japanese.

PLEASE EXPLAIN THE JAPANESE PART

However, it became approved policy to develop new APC primarily for the attack of deck armour and, for ranges where the trajectory was too flat, to use new HE piercing shell designed to go through a 2" (50 mm SIC! IT'S 51 HEHEH) deck and burst with maximum CONTINUED ON THE NEXT PAGE effect beyond it. The battleship outfit would become 24% APC, 36% HE piercing and 40% HE, instead of 95% or so APC unless on bombardment duty.
end of quote

chuck731?

 

[Lezt]

I kept looking, though Campbell again, p. what?? no page number here, chapter Great Britain/PROJECTILES, the end of the last paragraph (from right), quote,
It was also considered that the policy of having APC made primarily for the attack of vertical armour was unsound, as most actions had been chasing ones, in which impact on side armour would be very oblique. This neglected barbette and turret face armour and, in any case, might have been entirely erroneous against the Japanese.

PLEASE EXPLAIN THE JAPANESE PART

However, it became approved policy to develop new APC primarily for the attack of deck armour and, for ranges where the trajectory was too flat, to use new HE piercing shell designed to go through a 2" (50 mm SIC! IT'S 51 HEHEH) deck and burst with maximum CONTINUED ON THE NEXT PAGE effect beyond it. The battleship outfit would become 24% APC, 36% HE piercing and 40% HE, instead of 95% or so APC unless on bombardment duty.
end of quote

chuck731?

My interpretation is, a lot of Japanese/allies action is fought at very close range and many times at night, unlike in Europe where the KMS and the RM fought mainly at long range. i.e. penetrating the vertical armor is important.

 

[chuck731]

Were you referring to the Lion-class designs "incorporating lessons learned in the war", pp. 263--266 ?? I can't see there the displacements you quoted above, and the six-gun design was of ... battleship-carrier, so please tell me which chapter(s) of Garzke & Dulin (1980) you meant, thanks.

I do not have that volume of grazke and dulin in my possession, so I can't tell you the page number off hand. The variety of proposals for Lion mark 2 was outlined in a different source, as I recall in one issue of "WArship" annual publication by Conway from the late 1980s. It was not just the hybrid carrier version that had 2 triple 16 inch main armament. Most versions were well over 50,000 tons.

 

[chuck731]

I kept looking, though Campbell again, p. what?? no page number here, chapter Great Britain/PROJECTILES, the end of the last paragraph (from right), quote,
It was also considered that the policy of having APC made primarily for the attack of vertical armour was unsound, as most actions had been chasing ones, in which impact on side armour would be very oblique. This neglected barbette and turret face armour and, in any case, might have been entirely erroneous against the Japanese.

PLEASE EXPLAIN THE JAPANESE PART

However, it became approved policy to develop new APC primarily for the attack of deck armour and, for ranges where the trajectory was too flat, to use new HE piercing shell designed to go through a 2" (50 mm SIC! IT'S 51 HEHEH) deck and burst with maximum CONTINUED ON THE NEXT PAGE effect beyond it. The battleship outfit would become 24% APC, 36% HE piercing and 40% HE, instead of 95% or so APC unless on bombardment duty.
end of quote

chuck731?

What Japanese part?

The reference to Churchill's recollection was not from Cambell. It was from British Battleships of WWII by Alan Raven and John Roberts.

The notion that in chasing action strikes against vertical armor would be oblique is somewhat odd, since in a strict stern chase, it would the vertical transverse armored bulkheads at the ends of the citadels which presents the biggest target.

But what ever the aspect angle of the target, some large section of the vertical armor, either the side belt, or the transverse armored bulkhead, would present less than 45 degrees of impact angle to low trajectory shell. At typical range at which a modern battleship's belt or bulkhead becomes immune to low trajectory shells, which is usually around 20km, any impact angle against the deck would still be at 65 degrees or more. So there is clearly much to be gained in pushing out the outer limits of belt penetration by improving shells designed to penetrate at low obliquity, while reeling in the inner limits of deck penetration by simultaneously improving a differnt type of shell designed to penetrate at high obliquity.

 

[Jura The idiot]

My interpretation is, a lot of Japanese/allies action is fought at very close range and many times at night, unlike in Europe where the KMS and the RM fought mainly at long range. i.e. penetrating the vertical armor is important.

The following two sentences from my recent post, quote,
For perforating heavy deck armour at greater angles that 30 degrees to the normal, a blunter shell head than 1.4crh was needed, perhaps in the form of a truncated cone. LET'S SAY THIS IS OK BUT NOW: This, however, increased the chance of shearing the threads holding the adaptor, due, it was thought to the violent elastic recovery of the shell as the first pressure wave on hitting returned from the base as a tensile wave.
end of quote
Lezt, check731, Rutim, anybody?

 

[chuck731]

The following two sentences from my recent post, quote,
For perforating heavy deck armour at greater angles that 30 degrees to the normal, a blunter shell head than 1.4crh was needed, perhaps in the form of a truncated cone. LET'S SAY THIS IS OK BUT NOW: This, however, increased the chance of shearing the threads holding the adaptor, due, it was thought to the violent elastic recovery of the shell as the first pressure wave on hitting returned from the base as a tensile wave.
end of quote
Lezt, check731, Rutim, anybody?

It seems to say shells shaped for best performance during high obliquity impacts against homogenous armor (armored decks are universally made from non-hardened, or homogenous, armor plates) must sacrifice the efficiency of specific features (hardened nose section and wind cap screwed onto the main body) of the shell designed to overcome the hardened portion of face hardened armor. Heavy vertical armor are almost always made from face hardened armor plates.

 

[Jura The idiot]

I do not have that volume of grazke and dulin in my possession, so I can't tell you the page number off hand. The variety of proposals for Lion mark 2 was outlined in a different source, as I recall in one issue of "WArship" annual publication by Conway from the late 1980s. It was not just the hybrid carrier version that had 2 triple 16 inch main armament. Most versions were well over 50,000 tons.

no problem; maybe if you were able to identify the article here:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

there could be a chance to buy it on ebay (random search:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

)

Anyway, what seemed funny to me two days ago (why would a battleship use two types of ammo instead of maneuvering http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/mil...-startegy-discussions-11-6728.html#post267150) was something else for the Royal Navy in 1944, with the prospect of meeting the Yamato-class and only the Vanguard being faster ... I know Vanguard was launched on November 30 and Musashi sank on October 24 ... what I didn't realize is the US Navy could have used four fast battleships and go on a parallel (or any reasonable) course with Yamato and just shoot, but Vanguard ...

 

[Jura The idiot]

What Japanese part?

...

The notion that in chasing action strikes against vertical armor would be oblique is somewhat odd, since in a strict stern chase, it would the vertical transverse armored bulkheads at the ends of the citadels which presents the biggest target.

...

I'm armchair admiral who will go against the Yamato; I have 15"/42 guns in the Mk I/N turrets -- maximal elevation 30 degrees -- and Garzke and Dulin just told me I'm protected vertically against 15" from 14 thousand yards (but Yamato has more than 16", I suspect) and I have less than 6" of deck armor; what should I do??

 

[Jeff Head]

I'm armchair admiral who will go against the Yamato; I have 15"/42 guns in the Mk I/N turrets -- maximal elevation 30 degrees -- and Garzke and Dulin just told me I'm protected vertically against 15" from 14 thousand yards (but Yamato has more than 16", I suspect) and I have less than 6" of deck armor; what should I do??

Speaking from a perspective of history...disengage and withdraw under smoke...or die.

Speaking from the perspective of the moment, maneuver well into range and bring your main batteries to bear at optimal bearing.