Guns vs naval armour in ww1

[delcyros]

Some preliminary critics on the approach may be formulated herewith:

A) The amount of selected informations is considerable. The engagements are not comprehensive: The hits on ACR BLUCHER, GNEISENAU and SCHARNHORST are missed and their numbers are important. Unfortunately no detailed informations exist for these hits.

B) The allowance for target angles and obliquities is not known for all shells in question.

C) The exact mark of shell is usually unknown for all cases

Both limit any conclusioin drawn on the base of the datas. Nevertheless it appears unprobable that deck hits were given a larger percentage at long range than belt hits for Doggerbank, even if the significance is limited owing to A). More complete information, however, is aviable for Jutland. Note that the angle of fall for the ww1 UK 13.5"/45 at ca. 17.500 yards (LION TIGER at Doggerbank) approximates the angle of fall of the ww2 UK 14"/45 and US 16"/45 with 2.700lbs APC to ca. 20.000 yards, thus attributing Doggerbank as "long range action" (hits on BLUCHER not counted. But probability is against numerous deck hits from point blanc range in this case).

The huge amount of damage absorbed by HMS TIGER and HMS LION in this action point to some interesting questions. Where british BC really that poorly protected / designed as we might read? I think that the degree of protection given to the Splendid Cats was adaequate for such a long distance of engagement. On the other hand the terrible long range shooting of PRINCESS ROYAL, TIGER and LION compared to that of SEYDLITZ, DERFFLINGER and MOLTKE foreshadow the run to the south of Jutland. Campbell is right in stating that it was probably fortunate for the british that Hipper broke contact...

 

[boater]

This is quite fascinating, especially given the discussions going on about Naval Gunnery for the forthcoming game "Jutland" at Distant Guns! - GameSquad Forums.

Good, solid, attributed data on the effectiveness of big guns in the dreadnought era would be fabulous.

In your available data have you kept track of where each data point was obtained, so it can be verified and not just dismissed as 'someone's opinion?' The data is nice to have, but being able to scrutinise and verify it would make it ever so much more useful.

Regards

Boater

 

[delcyros]

In your available data have you kept track of where each data point was obtained, so it can be verified and not just dismissed as 'someone's opinion?' The data is nice to have, but being able to scrutinise and verify it would make it ever so much more useful.

Primary and secondary sources for each datapoint exist and can be verified. They are based on british after action reports, the comprehensive 1920" Panzertreffer (source aviable in Bundesarchiv, Koblenz )detailing every hit in ww1 above 20mm armour for the HSF, and of course on scholarly works of brooks, padfield, Campbell Co.