Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
So you dont think the ability to place a an 1140 lb shell, capable at that range (18000 m) with armour penetration of about 14 inches is going to hurt the German Battlecruiser.
By comparison the the German ship can penetrate about 8.8 inches of plate, which is not quite enough to penetrate the main belt of the Alaska, once the angle of the hit is taken into account, as well as the STS bulkheads on which the Alaskas belt is hung
I think you should check the gunnery tables again.
At 18000 metres the Alaska could use her 5 inche guns with a firing cysle on average threee time the rate of the 5.9 inch guns on Scharnhorst.
Parsifal we need noted that the new british 14'' has heaviest projectile and near same MV of new US 12''. and the table on naval weapons page for 14'' it's for average gun (so lowest MV) and for 12" it's for new gun the tables are not build with 100% same method.
p.s. on Hawks article not all it's true
Hi Vincenzo
AFAIK the Alaska used the MK 18 shell (ie the 1140 lb version) throughout its operational carreer. In any event the issue being asserted is not what shell is being used or was used by the Alaska, but specifically that the MK-18 "supershell" could not overpower the defensive scheme of the German ship. Clearly avery reputable reference on this round suggests otherwise, but lets not let the truth get in the way of a cherished myth.....
So what is the belt defences of the Scharnhorst. Conways has it listed as 6.75 inches through to 13.75 inches. There was an armoured deck of 3inches, main deck of 2inches, sloped to 4 inches. I dont follow why it is impossible to penetrate this with a weapon able to penetrate 15.5 inches at 15000 yards
Its intersting that you and DONL both claim that the 12/50 with the new AP-18 1140 lb charge with an MV of 2500fps cannot penetrate the main belt of the Scharnhorst. As I said, at that range, with the new round it can penetrate 15.56 inches of armour plate.
You also omit that the Alaska has a 0.625 STS belt behind the 9 inch main belt and than a 4 in sloped armoured deck designed to protect its vital areas in a similar armoured box manner as the Scharnhorst, as well as a further 1.4 inch main deck as well.
Alaska is not as well protected as Scharnhorst, particularly in her below the waterline arrangements and in her internal subdivision. However, she possessed an immune zone against the 12 in 1140 lb shell of 18-24000 yards so I am not exaggerating when I say it was also designed to resist the effects of the weaker 28cm weapon at hose ranges as well.
To support the notion that Alaska was designed to withstand fire from ships like the Scharnhorst, I direct you to an article by Chuck Hawks, who is a prolific and competent historian having written extensively on many aspect of naval warfare
I know that the british shell is the "standard" shell, but nevertheless this standard shell was able to fairly easily overpower the defensive scheme of the Scharnhorst......so why can a gun and a shell with an even higher rating not do that as well?
In reality, using similiar, comparable figures we get, at 20 000 yards, using in both case the USN Empirical Formula for Armor Penetration.
28 cm/54.5 (11") SK C/34 11.47" (291 mm) 1.87" (48 mm)
12"/50 (30.5 cm) Mark 8 : 12.73" (323 mm) 3.02" (77 mm)
This was up from 18000m or her turrets and there is no secret that the turrets of SH were a weak point.I know that the british shell is the "standard" shell, but nevertheless this standard shell was able to fairly easily overpower the defensive scheme of the Scharnhorst
Hi Vincenzo
AFAIK the Alaska used the MK 18 shell (ie the 1140 lb version) throughout its operational carreer. In any event the issue being asserted is not what shell is being used or was used by the Alaska, but specifically that the MK-18 "supershell" could not overpower the defensive scheme of the German ship. Clearly avery reputable reference on this round suggests otherwise, but lets not let the truth get in the way of a cherished myth.....
I know that the british shell is the "standard" shell, but nevertheless this standard shell was able to fairly easily overpower the defensive scheme of the Scharnhorst......so why can a gun and a shell with an even higher rating not do that as well?
What bits of the extract I produced do you think are not true......do I just have to accept your say so, or do you have some alternative sources??? What specifically dont you believe, so that we can examine the evidence and achieve a better understanding of the problem...
Well the only one creating myths around here is you as well as using strawmen arguements. It was quite clearly stated that the 12" shell, for that matter, far more powerful shells are completely incapable of hurting the combination of 350 mm KC n/A plus a backing slope of 105 mm Wh. Nathan Okun did a lenghty analysis of Bismarck's protection scheme (which was 320 mm Kc n/A with 110 mm slope of Wh), the conclusion which I am fairly certain you are aware of was that even the Yamato's 18,1" guns would be needed to put right next to main belt (range=0 yards) to have even a chance to go through both plates and reach the vitals intact, as stated by Okun.
The Alaska class's armor armor composition was quite different, as usual a single moderately thick - compared to US BBs - armored deck upon the top of the side belt, on the scale of that of Scharnhorst, but had no slope backing up the main belt as on the Scharnhorst.
You changed that to an absolute, that could not overpower the defensive scheme of the German ship - nobody said that. Certainly it was possible to overpower it, especially against the deck, if the range was long enough, ca 23-25 000 yards or greater. The main belt was another matter, as explained above.
These are the facts Kurfurst, which even you cannot deny. The Scharnhorsts defensive scheme was defeated by the 14/45 guns of the DOY, including the turrets of the German ship. I dont really care if the main belt was penetrated or not....I happen to think it was penetrated, you obviously think otherwise....all i know is that a shell of lesser power than the 12/50 was able to defeat the Scharnhorst defences, relatively easily. You and any body else can argue all day about the alleged invincibility of these armouring schemes, but in the cold hard light of day the armouring schemes of these ships were not enough to save them. If the Scharnhorst could not withstand the effects of the 14/45 at those ranges, it would not have been able to withstand the effects of the 12/50, with the heavier shell and superior AP capabilities. This is because the 12/50 with Mark 18 shell was superior in AP qualities to the guns actually used to sink the Scharnhorst
And for the record, Bismarck was silenced very quickly in her last battle, taking less than an hour to be silenced. Though her hull was well protected, her combat capability was knocked out with relative ease in her last fight. So much for the uber defences of the German Battleships.......
These also are the facts...at 18000 yards, the 12/50 with Mk 18 shell can penetrate about 14 inches of armour plate. Thats enough to penetrate your 350 mm main belt. At that same range the 28cm weapon can penetratre about 8.8 inches of plate, which is not quite enough to assure penetration of the main belt. This is exactly the same situation as the Bismarck....the British BBs had enough power to get to the vitals of the ship, though not the citadel. It was enough to knock the ship out easily and quickly. And there is no reason to suggest that the the higher powered 12 inch round would not have the samer effect.
Whats this parsifal? Do you want to provoke?
You are talking nonsens in this post.
Whats this parsifal? Do you want to provoke?
You are talking nonsens in this post.
you uber germans say