trackend
Chief Master Sergeant
I think so SY with a big hammer you only need a gentle tap to crack a walnut (gun boat diplomacy still works even nowadays)syscom3 said:
German Battleships and convoy hunting.
- Thread starter carpenoctem1689
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Nonskimmer
Captain
Besides, as the US is the only nation on earth capable of supporting and sustaining multiple carrier battle groups, it pretty much assures USN superiority of the seas. In reality, even one or two such groups would be enough against the majority of rival naval powers to ensure American dominance. That's what it would boil down to in a conflict, wouldn't it? Even many of the world's air forces would be tested against that kind of might.
The whole point of the Carrier today is being able to project power anywhere in a relativly short period of time. Lets say that a militant group in Zimbabwe takes over the country and takes all westerners hostages and declares war on the World! (This is just a poke fun at the situation scenerio!) Within 24 hours he can have Carrier jets pounding down on him.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
But we can have long range drones begin to do the work.
True but in the end they will never take completely over man piloted aircraft.
Nothing in the near future will be able to replace the aircraft carrier. In my opinion, nothing ever will because it's much easier, and safer, for the crews of the aircraft if their supply base is close. You could have long-range machines but why fly thousands of miles, when you can move the airbase to within a few hundred miles?
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
i was just wondering because, well, they used to think they could never replace the battleship, look what happened there.........
That was before aircraft came along. As soon as aircraft were seen as combat capable there were people who instantly saw the potential of putting them on ships.
The only thing that is an improvement over aircraft would be ...teleportation. Then you can teleport your bombs to target...
The only thing that is an improvement over aircraft would be ...teleportation. Then you can teleport your bombs to target...
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
well that's the thing, there'll proberly be something in the future that we haven't thought of yet, and they'll look back at us and laugh because we thought aircraft carriers were the best think since sliced bread.......
I agree, until we start sending aircraft carriers into space, there will be no replacement for them.
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
You are partly wrong, Syscom.
1.) Contemporary Frite controll in 1941/early 42:
Bismarck 1941: 3 DeTeGe (one mounted on each rangefinder),originally 50 cm(1934), later (1939) 80 cm wavelength, range up to 23.000 yrds for fire controll only (my detect flashes of 15" at 20.000 yrds), preciseness: +- 50 yrds
Washington: 1 XCAM (1941, later SC) (sea search only, limited fire controll)
South Dakota: 1 SC (1942) - mounted on the conning tower
wavelength: 40 cm, range 27.000 yrds for fire controll and sea search (may detect 16" splashes up to 23.000 yrds), preciseness: +- 40 yrds
Compare Friedmann et al. It wasn´t until introduction of SK radar in late 1942 (Washington), that US had a considerable advantage in Radar firecontroll. With SK-2 Radar in 1944 they were superior in this field.
Differance is not that striking, the US model has the better quality but was a singularly one, easily to knock out (Bismarck had three radar plus the firecontroll tech to compare all solutions which will offset the shortcomings of the device´s preciseness)
The optical rangefinders of Bismarck are superior because all are three axes stabilized and tachimetric mounted, which will undoubtly makes them superior to any but the Yamato´s special optical device for firecontroll. The South Dakota and Iowa had two axes stabilized, non tachimetric, which is sufficiant but costs a lot effectiveness at long distances.
South Dakota has not the range of Bismarck´s heavy artillery if using 2.700 lbs Mk 8 ap shells (max 36.800 yrds at 45 degrees elevation while 38.900 yrds at 30 degrees in case of Bismarck). 40.000 yrds are in possibilities if using the inferior 2.300 lbs MK 5 ap shell! You may choose..
1.) Contemporary Frite controll in 1941/early 42:
Bismarck 1941: 3 DeTeGe (one mounted on each rangefinder),originally 50 cm(1934), later (1939) 80 cm wavelength, range up to 23.000 yrds for fire controll only (my detect flashes of 15" at 20.000 yrds), preciseness: +- 50 yrds
Washington: 1 XCAM (1941, later SC) (sea search only, limited fire controll)
South Dakota: 1 SC (1942) - mounted on the conning tower
wavelength: 40 cm, range 27.000 yrds for fire controll and sea search (may detect 16" splashes up to 23.000 yrds), preciseness: +- 40 yrds
Compare Friedmann et al. It wasn´t until introduction of SK radar in late 1942 (Washington), that US had a considerable advantage in Radar firecontroll. With SK-2 Radar in 1944 they were superior in this field.
Differance is not that striking, the US model has the better quality but was a singularly one, easily to knock out (Bismarck had three radar plus the firecontroll tech to compare all solutions which will offset the shortcomings of the device´s preciseness)
The optical rangefinders of Bismarck are superior because all are three axes stabilized and tachimetric mounted, which will undoubtly makes them superior to any but the Yamato´s special optical device for firecontroll. The South Dakota and Iowa had two axes stabilized, non tachimetric, which is sufficiant but costs a lot effectiveness at long distances.
South Dakota has not the range of Bismarck´s heavy artillery if using 2.700 lbs Mk 8 ap shells (max 36.800 yrds at 45 degrees elevation while 38.900 yrds at 30 degrees in case of Bismarck). 40.000 yrds are in possibilities if using the inferior 2.300 lbs MK 5 ap shell! You may choose..
Erich
the old Sage
stick with the submarine, the KM although making advances with the craft were way too slow, along with the RAF bombing the U-boot pens to smitherines.
by the way one of the great KM U-boot aces, Erich Topp passed away on Decmber 26, 2005
by the way one of the great KM U-boot aces, Erich Topp passed away on Decmber 26, 2005
Nonskimmer
Captain
Erich said:
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
2.) Armor protection of the vitals (ignoring superstructures, waterline and so on):
Contenders:
2.1.) Bismarck
using 15"/52 AP 1780 lbs shell (against US class A armor):
at 0 yrds: 32.7"/0 degrees; at 5000 yrds: 27.9"/1.9 degrees; at 10.000 yrds: 23.9" /5 degrees; at 15.000 yrds: 20.1"/ 9.2 degrees; at 20.000 yrds: 17" /14.4 degrees; at 25.000 yrds: 14.6"(deck:4.6") /20.5 degrees;
at 30.000 yrds: 12.7"(deck:5.9")/ 24.5 degrees; at 35.000 yrds:11.1" (deck: 8.3") /29.2 degrees
2.2.) South Dakota
using 16"/45 AP 2.700 lbs shell Mk.8 (against KC new armor)
at 0 yrds: 28.1" / 0 degrees; at 5.000 yrds: 24.3" / 3 degrees; at 10.000 yrds: 20.9" /6.8 degrees; at 15.000 yrds: 18" / 11.8 degrees; at 20.000 yrds: 15.6" (deck: 4.5")/17.8 degrees; at 25.000 yrds: 13.7" (deck: 5.9")/ 25.3 degrees; at 30.000 yrds: 11.9"(deck: 7.8") /34.3 degrees; at 35.000 yrds: 10.1" (deck: 10.6") / 44.3 degrees
note: armor penetration of Bismarcks 15" is always better against belts, while the ap capabilities of South Dakotas 16"/45 AP MK 8 is better in deck penetration and will start sooner compared to the flat trajectory 15" gun. The better KC N armor benefits the Bismarck a little in this comparison.
[0]: penetration is impossible
[1]: penetration may occur but is improbable (only at direct impact angles)
[2]: penetration may occur but not for all vitals (in this case not the magazines, since they are better protected)
[3]: penetration will happen deep into the vitals
distance in yrds:1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Bismarck.............[0].....[0].....[0].....[0]....[0]....[0]....[0].....[0]...[0].....[0]
South Dakota......[3].....[3].....[3].....[3]....[3]....[3]....[3].....[3]...[3].....[2]
-this shows flat trajectory impacts. Bismarck´s vitals are protected while SD shows significant weaknesses against the 15"/52 in close distances.
This wasn´t the usually intended fighting distance at bb encounters, nethertheless a few (Bismarck vs KGV and Rodney, Guadacanal, latter part of Surigano street) combats are recorded in this distances.
distance in yrds: 11.Kyrds 12.Kyrds 13.Kyrds 14.Kyrds 15.Kyrds 16.Kyrds 17.Kyrds 18.Kyrds 19.Kyrds 20.Kyrds
Bismarck.............[0].............[0]............[0]..........[0]..........[0].........[0]..........[0}.........[0].........[0]........[0]
South Dakota..........[2]...........[2]............[1]..........[0*]............[0*]...........[0]..........[0]..........[0]........[0]......[0]
-This graph shows that only a fluke may get the way through the vitals of South Dakota at 13.000 yrds distance (mainly thanks to two STS plates), Bismarck and South Dakota are quite immune in this range. The majority of battles with bb involvement took place in this distance (including River plate, first Savo, Bismarck vs. Hood and POW, Scharnhorst vs DoY, Jean Bart vs Massachus.)
*) penetration may be possible but is unlikely. (I also took notice of longitudinal impact angles) This is matter of concern at belt penetrations only, and therefor benefits the South Dakota here.
distance in yrds: 21Kyrds 22Kyrds 23 Kyrds 24 Kyrds 25 Kyrds 26 Kyrds 27 Kyrds* 28 Kyrds* 29 Kyrds* 30 Kyrds*
Bismarck------------[0]--------[1]----------[2]-------[2]-------[3]--------[3]---------[3]-------[3]--------[3]--------[3]
South Dakota-----[0]--------[0]--------[0]-------[0]-------[0]--------[0]--------[0]--------[0]-------[0]----------[0]--------[0]
The long distance comparison shows the weakness of the Bismarck´s armor layout. The South Dakota will be safe. It may (theoretically) reach Bismarcks vitals from 22.000 yrds but more likely from 24.000 yrds. soonest. Take notice that the Iowa 15"/50 has less deck penetration because of the flater trajectory of it´s guns. The Iowa will start reaching the Bismarcks vitals as close as 23.700 yrds but more reasonably at distances further away than 25.000 yrds.
*)For comparison:
longest distance hit on a BB:
Warspite vs. Caio Duilio at 26.000 yrds
longest distance hit on a freely moving target:
Scharnhorst vs Glorious at 27000 - 26.450 yrds (the latter is more reasonable according to the shells flighttime)
This clearly underlines that the Bismarck has a wider immune zone compared to South Dakota / resp. Iowa(same armor sheme).
Theoretically you may also include 30-35 Kyrds but this is gaming, only. My point is that South Dakota is -thanks to the unmatched deck penetration of her guns- the most dangerous BB for Bismarck to battle but Bismarck has a better protection of her vitals according to these datas. (adding all hits together up to 30 Kyrds distance: Bismarck: 11 (plus 12 theoretically=23); South Dakota/Iowa: 34 (plus 2 theoretically=36)
Keep in mind that the vitals of Bismarck are also one deck lower positioned and narrower than those of South Dakota, the target size is therefor smaller. WW2 records show us that the US BB never hit a freely moving target with any reliability in the Bismarcks critical distances.
Of course, This reflects only the ability to withstand catastrophic damage due to boiler/magazine hit. Even a non penetrating hit may cause a lot of damage because of sheets of armor destroyed, flooding caused, fragmentation and so on. The effectiveness of non penetrating hits of 15"/ 52 with it´s lower weight and higher speed are worrisome, not to speak of 2.700 lbs heavy 16" rounds! The worse scaling effects of US class A face hardened armor are reducing the safeness of south Dakota: A non penetrating 15"/52AP shell hit from 18.000 yrds distance against the belt will punch out some 1.200 lbs of armor and throw it into SD´s vitals (not containable by 19 mm non armor grade STS plates), while a 16"/50 AP 2.700 lbs belt penetrating, non 105 mm belt penetrating hit against Bismarck (any distance) will punch out some 500-700 lbs of armor (which will be stopped by 45 Ww armor grade torpedo bulkhead.) Now we look for deck penetration: The South Dakota is immune to Bismarck in all distances considered (The flat trajectory 15"ers may penetrated the deck at very far and therefor unprobable distances only), even against non penetrating hits because of the multilayer armor layout.
Non penetrating 16"/45 deck hits on Bismarck are 1) reflected by the heavily armored weather deck (up to 25.000 yrds) or
2) not reflected but delayed and stopped by the main deck. A 2.700 lbs AP Mk 8 shell at 40 degrees impact angle will throw out some worrisome 1.600 lbs of armor and throw it into the Bismarcks vitals (keep in mind that Wh main deck armor is less resistant against AP than KC new but it´s homogenious quality has far less scaling effects than KC also)
Contenders:
2.1.) Bismarck
using 15"/52 AP 1780 lbs shell (against US class A armor):
at 0 yrds: 32.7"/0 degrees; at 5000 yrds: 27.9"/1.9 degrees; at 10.000 yrds: 23.9" /5 degrees; at 15.000 yrds: 20.1"/ 9.2 degrees; at 20.000 yrds: 17" /14.4 degrees; at 25.000 yrds: 14.6"(deck:4.6") /20.5 degrees;
at 30.000 yrds: 12.7"(deck:5.9")/ 24.5 degrees; at 35.000 yrds:11.1" (deck: 8.3") /29.2 degrees
2.2.) South Dakota
using 16"/45 AP 2.700 lbs shell Mk.8 (against KC new armor)
at 0 yrds: 28.1" / 0 degrees; at 5.000 yrds: 24.3" / 3 degrees; at 10.000 yrds: 20.9" /6.8 degrees; at 15.000 yrds: 18" / 11.8 degrees; at 20.000 yrds: 15.6" (deck: 4.5")/17.8 degrees; at 25.000 yrds: 13.7" (deck: 5.9")/ 25.3 degrees; at 30.000 yrds: 11.9"(deck: 7.8") /34.3 degrees; at 35.000 yrds: 10.1" (deck: 10.6") / 44.3 degrees
note: armor penetration of Bismarcks 15" is always better against belts, while the ap capabilities of South Dakotas 16"/45 AP MK 8 is better in deck penetration and will start sooner compared to the flat trajectory 15" gun. The better KC N armor benefits the Bismarck a little in this comparison.
[0]: penetration is impossible
[1]: penetration may occur but is improbable (only at direct impact angles)
[2]: penetration may occur but not for all vitals (in this case not the magazines, since they are better protected)
[3]: penetration will happen deep into the vitals
distance in yrds:1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Bismarck.............[0].....[0].....[0].....[0]....[0]....[0]....[0].....[0]...[0].....[0]
South Dakota......[3].....[3].....[3].....[3]....[3]....[3]....[3].....[3]...[3].....[2]
-this shows flat trajectory impacts. Bismarck´s vitals are protected while SD shows significant weaknesses against the 15"/52 in close distances.
This wasn´t the usually intended fighting distance at bb encounters, nethertheless a few (Bismarck vs KGV and Rodney, Guadacanal, latter part of Surigano street) combats are recorded in this distances.
distance in yrds: 11.Kyrds 12.Kyrds 13.Kyrds 14.Kyrds 15.Kyrds 16.Kyrds 17.Kyrds 18.Kyrds 19.Kyrds 20.Kyrds
Bismarck.............[0].............[0]............[0]..........[0]..........[0].........[0]..........[0}.........[0].........[0]........[0]
South Dakota..........[2]...........[2]............[1]..........[0*]............[0*]...........[0]..........[0]..........[0]........[0]......[0]
-This graph shows that only a fluke may get the way through the vitals of South Dakota at 13.000 yrds distance (mainly thanks to two STS plates), Bismarck and South Dakota are quite immune in this range. The majority of battles with bb involvement took place in this distance (including River plate, first Savo, Bismarck vs. Hood and POW, Scharnhorst vs DoY, Jean Bart vs Massachus.)
*) penetration may be possible but is unlikely. (I also took notice of longitudinal impact angles) This is matter of concern at belt penetrations only, and therefor benefits the South Dakota here.
distance in yrds: 21Kyrds 22Kyrds 23 Kyrds 24 Kyrds 25 Kyrds 26 Kyrds 27 Kyrds* 28 Kyrds* 29 Kyrds* 30 Kyrds*
Bismarck------------[0]--------[1]----------[2]-------[2]-------[3]--------[3]---------[3]-------[3]--------[3]--------[3]
South Dakota-----[0]--------[0]--------[0]-------[0]-------[0]--------[0]--------[0]--------[0]-------[0]----------[0]--------[0]
The long distance comparison shows the weakness of the Bismarck´s armor layout. The South Dakota will be safe. It may (theoretically) reach Bismarcks vitals from 22.000 yrds but more likely from 24.000 yrds. soonest. Take notice that the Iowa 15"/50 has less deck penetration because of the flater trajectory of it´s guns. The Iowa will start reaching the Bismarcks vitals as close as 23.700 yrds but more reasonably at distances further away than 25.000 yrds.
*)For comparison:
longest distance hit on a BB:
Warspite vs. Caio Duilio at 26.000 yrds
longest distance hit on a freely moving target:
Scharnhorst vs Glorious at 27000 - 26.450 yrds (the latter is more reasonable according to the shells flighttime)
This clearly underlines that the Bismarck has a wider immune zone compared to South Dakota / resp. Iowa(same armor sheme).
Theoretically you may also include 30-35 Kyrds but this is gaming, only. My point is that South Dakota is -thanks to the unmatched deck penetration of her guns- the most dangerous BB for Bismarck to battle but Bismarck has a better protection of her vitals according to these datas. (adding all hits together up to 30 Kyrds distance: Bismarck: 11 (plus 12 theoretically=23); South Dakota/Iowa: 34 (plus 2 theoretically=36)
Keep in mind that the vitals of Bismarck are also one deck lower positioned and narrower than those of South Dakota, the target size is therefor smaller. WW2 records show us that the US BB never hit a freely moving target with any reliability in the Bismarcks critical distances.
Of course, This reflects only the ability to withstand catastrophic damage due to boiler/magazine hit. Even a non penetrating hit may cause a lot of damage because of sheets of armor destroyed, flooding caused, fragmentation and so on. The effectiveness of non penetrating hits of 15"/ 52 with it´s lower weight and higher speed are worrisome, not to speak of 2.700 lbs heavy 16" rounds! The worse scaling effects of US class A face hardened armor are reducing the safeness of south Dakota: A non penetrating 15"/52AP shell hit from 18.000 yrds distance against the belt will punch out some 1.200 lbs of armor and throw it into SD´s vitals (not containable by 19 mm non armor grade STS plates), while a 16"/50 AP 2.700 lbs belt penetrating, non 105 mm belt penetrating hit against Bismarck (any distance) will punch out some 500-700 lbs of armor (which will be stopped by 45 Ww armor grade torpedo bulkhead.) Now we look for deck penetration: The South Dakota is immune to Bismarck in all distances considered (The flat trajectory 15"ers may penetrated the deck at very far and therefor unprobable distances only), even against non penetrating hits because of the multilayer armor layout.
Non penetrating 16"/45 deck hits on Bismarck are 1) reflected by the heavily armored weather deck (up to 25.000 yrds) or
2) not reflected but delayed and stopped by the main deck. A 2.700 lbs AP Mk 8 shell at 40 degrees impact angle will throw out some worrisome 1.600 lbs of armor and throw it into the Bismarcks vitals (keep in mind that Wh main deck armor is less resistant against AP than KC new but it´s homogenious quality has far less scaling effects than KC also)
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
In the end as pointed out above, Bismarck was excellent protected against belt penetrations (but the SD´s 16"/45 is a worrisome deck penetrator) while South Dakota is excellent protected against deck penetration (but the Bismarck´s 15"ers are flat trajectory, belt penetrator guns)
Armor penetration is one thing, another is fuse quality.
A good number of hits at POW (?6 out of 8 ) went into the ship and did not blew up. The POW was safed by this.
A 8" AP shell from Prinzu Eugen penetrated the belt and moved into the starboard ammo handling room and did not blew up. It is considered a dud. Another 15" AP shell penetrated the bridge, killing all but the captain and one more. This shell also did not blew up.
I am still reading the details but I have found some interesting stuff. The german fuzes seems to have failed a number of times, exclusively if facing the british cementated armor.
The US AP shells have the best quality and showing a little number of duds, mostly against japanese face hardened armor.
I believe, but am not sure in all, that this not exclusively reflect the fuze quality but to a high degree reflects the ability of the armor to resist the projectile, break it´s body and fuze mechanism. Britisch cementated was by far the best face hardened armor it showed extensively bending abilities, japanese was the worst of all and simply cracked or shattered away. I compared test results of 15"/52 against KC armor plates and found out that there were a number of duds (around 12%), which was usual for the time. Post war tests with britisch cementated showed that US AP failed a lot of time to blew up after passing the plates (~20% duds), something what rarely happened against japanese armor.
This has some significance here. At first, it wasn´t the german worse fuze, which safed Prince of Wales in the Denmark Street but the superior quality of british cementated armor.
Second, the reliability of german AP fuzes would increase against US class A armor (which is of worser quality than British cementated) while in the same reverse situation the reliability degree of US AP fuzes would decrease while facing KC new armor (which is of better quality than japanese ones).
Armor penetration is one thing, another is fuse quality.
A good number of hits at POW (?6 out of 8 ) went into the ship and did not blew up. The POW was safed by this.
A 8" AP shell from Prinzu Eugen penetrated the belt and moved into the starboard ammo handling room and did not blew up. It is considered a dud. Another 15" AP shell penetrated the bridge, killing all but the captain and one more. This shell also did not blew up.
I am still reading the details but I have found some interesting stuff. The german fuzes seems to have failed a number of times, exclusively if facing the british cementated armor.
The US AP shells have the best quality and showing a little number of duds, mostly against japanese face hardened armor.
I believe, but am not sure in all, that this not exclusively reflect the fuze quality but to a high degree reflects the ability of the armor to resist the projectile, break it´s body and fuze mechanism. Britisch cementated was by far the best face hardened armor it showed extensively bending abilities, japanese was the worst of all and simply cracked or shattered away. I compared test results of 15"/52 against KC armor plates and found out that there were a number of duds (around 12%), which was usual for the time. Post war tests with britisch cementated showed that US AP failed a lot of time to blew up after passing the plates (~20% duds), something what rarely happened against japanese armor.
This has some significance here. At first, it wasn´t the german worse fuze, which safed Prince of Wales in the Denmark Street but the superior quality of british cementated armor.
Second, the reliability of german AP fuzes would increase against US class A armor (which is of worser quality than British cementated) while in the same reverse situation the reliability degree of US AP fuzes would decrease while facing KC new armor (which is of better quality than japanese ones).
syscom3
Pacific Historian
I could imagine in a couple of decades, we will have drones so cheap and capable, they could do many of the roles that are tasked for manned aircraft.
Good post up there delcyros. Enjoyed reading them.
syscom3 yes you are right there will be drones capable of doing most things that manned aircraft can do, however in such roles as troop movement, air assault, and so forth.....manned aircraft will not be replaced.
syscom3 yes you are right there will be drones capable of doing most things that manned aircraft can do, however in such roles as troop movement, air assault, and so forth.....manned aircraft will not be replaced.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Im reffering to the attack role.
They are already being used in attack roles as we speak. They have used them in Afganistan and Iraq.
