parsifal
Colonel
Hi Richard
Its gotten a bit rough Richard, but I am hopeful it can return to some sort of normality soon
Its gotten a bit rough Richard, but I am hopeful it can return to some sort of normality soon
What was the most powerful CA and CL in a straight duel, December 1941?
- Thread starter Lucky13
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Hello parsifal,
Actually I did follow up on this thread, but somehow I am loosing it. What is it about in the meantime?
No party has forwarded that the Bismarck was unsinkable. Maybe I am mistaken, but I did have the impression that you were trying to prove your statement about the Bismarck being a ship without possessing the profound technology and capability as it was forwarded by others.
IMO no ship whatsoever could have survived the onslaught as in the final stages of the Bismarck pursuit – as such I would not see any relevance or prove in the sinking of the Bismarck as a indication towards not being a sound design or as capable as a Rodney.
Regards
Kruska
Actually I did follow up on this thread, but somehow I am loosing it. What is it about in the meantime?
No party has forwarded that the Bismarck was unsinkable. Maybe I am mistaken, but I did have the impression that you were trying to prove your statement about the Bismarck being a ship without possessing the profound technology and capability as it was forwarded by others.
IMO no ship whatsoever could have survived the onslaught as in the final stages of the Bismarck pursuit – as such I would not see any relevance or prove in the sinking of the Bismarck as a indication towards not being a sound design or as capable as a Rodney.
Regards
Kruska
parsifal
Colonel
Hi Kruska
The whole issue concerning the Bismarck if you want to go right back to the beginng was a comparison as to what happened to her, and the destructive power of CPBC ammunition.
My point was basically this with respect to the original issue
CPBC ammunition (a round used by the British with non-optimal AP capabilities) was still quite lethal because of the damage it does to the upper works of its opponents. I then said that damage to upper works was the usual way that enemy ships were overcome, rather than reducing them to sinking condition by gunfire alone, and pointe to what I believe are the facts concerning the Bismarck, namely that she was destroyed mostly by damage to her upper works.
This then led to a very bruising argument with Del, who points out that armour penetrations of some sort occurred on the Bismarck in order to destroy her. Which I agree with, but the penetrations of the main belt did not occur until the very end after it didnt matter, and if at all.
The argument then diverged as to how quickly the Bismarcks gunnery was overcome. My position was that her guns were silenced quite quickly, and that this appeared to me to be due to design faults in her design. This position caused a pretty strong reaction because it challenges the long held mythology that surrounds this ship. She was very tough, but not invincible.
Having said that the british were unable on the day to reduce the Bismarck to sinking condition by gunfire alone. Bismarck was either scuttled, or she was sunk by torpedoes. We never got into this part of the debate thankfully.
It was a bruising debate that got completely out of hand,
The whole issue concerning the Bismarck if you want to go right back to the beginng was a comparison as to what happened to her, and the destructive power of CPBC ammunition.
My point was basically this with respect to the original issue
CPBC ammunition (a round used by the British with non-optimal AP capabilities) was still quite lethal because of the damage it does to the upper works of its opponents. I then said that damage to upper works was the usual way that enemy ships were overcome, rather than reducing them to sinking condition by gunfire alone, and pointe to what I believe are the facts concerning the Bismarck, namely that she was destroyed mostly by damage to her upper works.
This then led to a very bruising argument with Del, who points out that armour penetrations of some sort occurred on the Bismarck in order to destroy her. Which I agree with, but the penetrations of the main belt did not occur until the very end after it didnt matter, and if at all.
The argument then diverged as to how quickly the Bismarcks gunnery was overcome. My position was that her guns were silenced quite quickly, and that this appeared to me to be due to design faults in her design. This position caused a pretty strong reaction because it challenges the long held mythology that surrounds this ship. She was very tough, but not invincible.
Having said that the british were unable on the day to reduce the Bismarck to sinking condition by gunfire alone. Bismarck was either scuttled, or she was sunk by torpedoes. We never got into this part of the debate thankfully.
It was a bruising debate that got completely out of hand,
Okay, thanks I am back on track again 
I am not very knowledgeable about naval issues. The interesting part to me is, that the Germans learned their lesson – no ship could survive without the necessary air cover. IMO despite the Bismarck incident the British did not seem to have studied it thoroughly. The loss of the HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales in Malaya was actually due to the British Admiralty staging their own Bismarck debacle.
Regards
Kruska
I am not very knowledgeable about naval issues. The interesting part to me is, that the Germans learned their lesson – no ship could survive without the necessary air cover. IMO despite the Bismarck incident the British did not seem to have studied it thoroughly. The loss of the HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales in Malaya was actually due to the British Admiralty staging their own Bismarck debacle.
Regards
Kruska
Well I have been out for a little while, so I can not keep track of all that has been said here.
Lets just keep this to a civil debate okay...
Lets just keep this to a civil debate okay...
parsifal
Colonel
The debate has gotten a little rough, but it may be under control now. Certainly not on the scale of ferocity that I have seen in some of the threads. I am hopeful we may be able to reach some level of understanding and then move forward, soon
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
Let me expain why CPBC-ammo (CommonPiercingBallisticCapped) had a number of shortages: The most important beeing the soft AP-cap attached to them. Soft AP-caps usually are there in order to destroy the hard, thin, cementated layer of the face hardened armour before this ultra hard part begins to work against the projectile itselfe, shattering nose and possibly body. Shatter does have two effects:
1) Shatter destroys the nose of the projectile, leaving a blunt shaped frontal projectile area. After shattering, the projectile has a much harder way to engage the armour because the pointed nose is destroyed. The armour now can only be engaged by punching, not by boring. And since the work of punching is more difficult to perform, a shatter will always result in an ca. 30% increase in effective thickness of the armour in terms of stopping power.
2) Shatter, in case it reaches the lower body of the projectile will render the fuse useless. The number of duds and prematures (burst in holing) is drastically increased. Esspeccially if only thin projectile walls are used (high capacity rounds and to differing degrees CPBC)
Unfortunately, soft capped projectiles have capricious abilities in this regard. They usually work at obliquities under 15 degrees and generally don´t work at obliquities over 20 degrees. In the area in between results are inconclusive.
The more modern type of face hardened armour in general use by ww2 (introduced at first by the austrian manufacturer Witkowitz in 1909, by british face hardened armour from 1911 onwards) was able to shatter soft capped projectiles (except Midwale unbreakable soft capped APC, which only US Betlehem thick chilled and austrian Witkowitz fh armour was able to destroy by then before in the 30´s virtually all armour could do the same) as if there was no cap attached to them.
In within ww1 this issue was already known and lead to hard capped APC´s after Jutland (GREENBOY APC projectiles). Why the british still kept soft capped CPBC ammo in use by ww2, when all enemys had armour effectively able to handle soft capped projectiles equal to uncapped ones is hard to understand.. Why they knowingly never issued hard AP-caps to their CPBC ammo? Hard caps -unlike soft ones- always work in destroying the cementated face of face hardened armour.
Indeed Bismarck was mostly silenced by hits on the upper works (exposed vitals in my definition). However, these hits were not CPBC but APC and SAP and thus could be expected to achieve this kind of damage. CPBC is at a distinctive disadvantage achieving this kind of damage when the exposed vitals are shielded by face hardened armour, which usually was the case for most -admittently not all- of their opposition (PBB´s, Hippers, K´s, Leipzig Nürnberg, Zaras, others).
parsifal
Colonel
Hi Del
I agree that the CPBC ammunition was a disadvantage to the british, for the reasons you have outlined. I confess your explanation is a very good one.
Nevertheless, the armour piercing capabilities of CPBC ammunition is okay, within its limits.
I was snooping around The Nathan Okun Naval Gun/Armor Data Resource webpage, and came across a ready reckoner for armour piercing capabilities. This is essentially a tabular presentation of the programmable calculations that Okun presents. I am fairly sure that you would be familiar with them, but wasnt sure....
I wanted to see just how bad the CPBC ammo was in comparison to the 5.91' AP rounds you were talking about. I was particulalry interested in the relative performances at the 10-12-14000 yds ranges
This is what i found
A= Brit 6"/50 cal CPBC
B= 5.9/55
C = 5.9/60
Range Side Penetration (Br PP Armour)/(Deck Penetration (Brit steel))
10000:
A 4.0/ (0.58 )
B: 3.8/ (0.52)
C: 4.6/(0.52)
12000
A 3.5/ (0.70)
B: 3.0/ (0.63)
C: 3.8/(0.63)
14000
A 3.0/ (0.82)
B: 2.5/ (0.73
C: 3.2/(0.73)
Ther is no doubt just from this rather simple extract, that the british gun is at a disadvantage as far as AP capabilities are concerned. however, i dont thhink it is all doom and gloom either. Firstly, the AP advantage for the 5.9/60 is falling more rapidly as the range increases. I am not sure why this might be so (perhaps you could explain?). The difference at 10000 is 0.6", whereas by the time it gets to 14000, the difference is just 0.2".
From your discussion, I get the understanding that the AP capabilities of the british round were not good at oblique angles, because there was a tendency for the British round to "bounce off". I am not able to either agree or disagree with that, because I just dont know. But what is apparent from the above analysis from Okun, is that the british round did enjoy superior deck penetrating capability (provided it could actually penetrate, and not "bounce off").
The British round was a projectile with a weight of 112 lbs. Being CPBC, I am almost certain that it carried a greater proportion of explosive than metal, hence its lesser AP qualities (exacerbated by the ballistic shape of the round, i will concede). By comparison, the 5.9"/60 had a 100.3 lb projectile, which, as an AP round, was less explosive than the CPBC round of the british CLs. The British advantage in explosive capability was poor substitute for its relatively poor AP performance, but when you consider that the difference was small, particularly at the "typical"ranges of 14000 yds+ that most cruiser actions occurred, then the German advantage starts to dwindle. its still there, but I think it is a relatively small advantage.
Finally, the british gun designers never aimed for extreme performance. They always kept a weather eye on barrel life, and this was achieved mostly by not overstressing the barrels with super high muzzle velocities. Whereas the british guns had a barrel life of 1100 EFC (equivalent full charges) the German gun was less than half that, at 500 EFC.
Finally ther is the mandatory historical check of all this. We will need to look much more deeply at the history I am sure, but British 6" CPBC armed CLs seem to have done quite well for themselves. One of the best examples I can think of is the serious damage inflicted by them at barents Sea, on a ship that should have been immune to their fire (Hipper) . here the british cruisers, with their 6" CPBC were still able to inflict serious damage on the hipper
I agree that the CPBC ammunition was a disadvantage to the british, for the reasons you have outlined. I confess your explanation is a very good one.
Nevertheless, the armour piercing capabilities of CPBC ammunition is okay, within its limits.
I was snooping around The Nathan Okun Naval Gun/Armor Data Resource webpage, and came across a ready reckoner for armour piercing capabilities. This is essentially a tabular presentation of the programmable calculations that Okun presents. I am fairly sure that you would be familiar with them, but wasnt sure....
I wanted to see just how bad the CPBC ammo was in comparison to the 5.91' AP rounds you were talking about. I was particulalry interested in the relative performances at the 10-12-14000 yds ranges
This is what i found
A= Brit 6"/50 cal CPBC
B= 5.9/55
C = 5.9/60
Range Side Penetration (Br PP Armour)/(Deck Penetration (Brit steel))
10000:
A 4.0/ (0.58 )
B: 3.8/ (0.52)
C: 4.6/(0.52)
12000
A 3.5/ (0.70)
B: 3.0/ (0.63)
C: 3.8/(0.63)
14000
A 3.0/ (0.82)
B: 2.5/ (0.73
C: 3.2/(0.73)
Ther is no doubt just from this rather simple extract, that the british gun is at a disadvantage as far as AP capabilities are concerned. however, i dont thhink it is all doom and gloom either. Firstly, the AP advantage for the 5.9/60 is falling more rapidly as the range increases. I am not sure why this might be so (perhaps you could explain?). The difference at 10000 is 0.6", whereas by the time it gets to 14000, the difference is just 0.2".
From your discussion, I get the understanding that the AP capabilities of the british round were not good at oblique angles, because there was a tendency for the British round to "bounce off". I am not able to either agree or disagree with that, because I just dont know. But what is apparent from the above analysis from Okun, is that the british round did enjoy superior deck penetrating capability (provided it could actually penetrate, and not "bounce off").
The British round was a projectile with a weight of 112 lbs. Being CPBC, I am almost certain that it carried a greater proportion of explosive than metal, hence its lesser AP qualities (exacerbated by the ballistic shape of the round, i will concede). By comparison, the 5.9"/60 had a 100.3 lb projectile, which, as an AP round, was less explosive than the CPBC round of the british CLs. The British advantage in explosive capability was poor substitute for its relatively poor AP performance, but when you consider that the difference was small, particularly at the "typical"ranges of 14000 yds+ that most cruiser actions occurred, then the German advantage starts to dwindle. its still there, but I think it is a relatively small advantage.
Finally, the british gun designers never aimed for extreme performance. They always kept a weather eye on barrel life, and this was achieved mostly by not overstressing the barrels with super high muzzle velocities. Whereas the british guns had a barrel life of 1100 EFC (equivalent full charges) the German gun was less than half that, at 500 EFC.
Finally ther is the mandatory historical check of all this. We will need to look much more deeply at the history I am sure, but British 6" CPBC armed CLs seem to have done quite well for themselves. One of the best examples I can think of is the serious damage inflicted by them at barents Sea, on a ship that should have been immune to their fire (Hipper) . here the british cruisers, with their 6" CPBC were still able to inflict serious damage on the hipper
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
Hi Parsifal,
the ww2guntables are indeed based on Nathan Okuns M79APCLC (for deck armour) and facehad (for face hardened armour). It also used wiggle matched McTraj ballistic estimations of the projectiles in question. In my view this is a reasonable approach altough there are multiple, unfixed issues worth to keep in mind:
1) Lundgren didn´t actualized on the more recent versions of Nathans facehd, his use of an older facehd version is therefore problematic
2) M79APCLC does not sim CPBC. Nathan Okun is pretty clear on this. The program (used for deck penetrations) is based on the US 3" M79 AP-shot ammo (without cap and with inert filler, a thick bodied armour piercer) and it´s respective performances against ductile, homogenious armour. It is reasonably accurate for all other, decapped AP-rounds (error is negliable) but if You use it for CPBC (or HE for that matter) it will always sim as if they were true AP´s (but decapped) with resulting greater penetrative ability. Unlike Nathans Facehd, where You may choose between projectiles, You can only enter weight, size, striking velocity and obliquity of the projectile into M79APCLC...
Another problem encountered in our specific comparison, just from a first impression are the inconsistent ballistic performances (plotted #1 vs #2 with curvefinder). A comparison with NaAB gives these ballistic performances:
------6"/50BL MK 13-------------15cmL60C28-------
range----velocity----fallangle---velocity----fallangle
2500y----2347fps----1.79------2636fps----0.54----
5000y----1976fps----2.51------2195fps----2.16----
6000y----1839fps----3.47------2022fps----3.43----
7500y----1649fps----5.31------1798fps----4.29----
10000----1384fps----9.32------1466fps----8.28---
15000----1099fps----22.51-----1097fps----20.34--
16000----1077fps----25.31-----1069fps----23.45--
17500----1061fps----30.86-----1046fps----28.3---
20000----1062fps----38.23-----1040fps----36.51--
25000----1132fps----55.9------1094fps----52.38--
26000----out of range----------1110fps-----55.45-
28000----out of range----------1159fps-----63.5--
30000----out of range----------out of range-------
Two things are notable:
A) NaAB and ww2 guntables are both based on exterior ballistic computation, not on primary sources. As a result, both approaches show differing results, reflecting the different programs in use.
B) The 112lbs 6" round starts with less muzzle velocity but is able to keep the energy much better than the lighter 5.91"/60. The 5.91"/60 uses 8.5 crh windscreens but the bottomline is that the higher sectional density -an advantage inherent for the 6" round- greatly enhances it´s energy retention. There is a trade effect for this: Higher angles of fall. Higher angles of fall are welcome against deck armour but here again M79APCLC clearly overstates CPBC performances in this regard so we have to be very careful with the deck penetration figures suggested by ww2 guntables and NAaB (the latter program does share the same methodological approach, using Nathan Okuns M79APCLC for all deck related computaions).
That is an interesting side aspect worth to be mentioned. The Royal Navy had by ww2 the best sloution for a virtually indestructable delay fuse. The specifications called for a fuse able to work even if the projectile bounces off (every condition other than base first, which would be asking perhaps to much), beeing rejected by armour, incredible.
But what I wanted to mention with the soft AP-caps is that by ww2 standarts and in case the projectile engages face hardened armour (rare on cruiser belts but quite often used for CT, barbettes and turret faces), soft capped projectiles don´t work anymore, regardless of obliquity. Against KC-type armour of pre ww1 standart, they work, given a low obliquity. Against 1930 period face hardened armour, soft caps will always be shattered before they can accomplish destroying the facelayer of the plate. A shattered projectile will still be able to hole the armour and considerable parts of the projectile up to the forward burrolet may pass the plate but the effect of the burst is always outside or mostly so, unlike a true APC, which may achieve full penetration in a condition fit to burst (effective penetration in Nathans definition).
However, they do always work againt homogenious armour (all deck armour and most cruiser belt armour other than US cruisers and PBB´s) in cases for obliquities lower than 20 deg and they also help improving the "normalization" of the projectile.
Worth to consider. Agreed.
The Barent Sea is an example of 6"CPBC inflicting serious damage to Hipper. But 6" CPBC didn´t engaged armour in this event. Hipper was on flank speed and the depression of the self induced wave exposed the amidship region. During it´s turn she heeled over and these two events made it possible that a 6" CPBC could strike below the main belt. The projectile entered the hull and exploded in a liquid outboard wingtank. Splinters defeated the 20mm torpedo bulkhead and serious flooding to one boiler room commenced. Another boiler room was flooded progressively via drainage and bilges later as a consequence of this hit. The other 6" rounds hit the hangar and the foreship, starting a fire each.
best regards,
parsifal
Colonel
The Barent Sea is an example of 6"CPBC inflicting serious damage to Hipper. But 6" CPBC didn´t engaged armour in this event. Hipper was on flank speed and the depression of the self induced wave exposed the amidship region. During it´s turn she heeled over and these two events made it possible that a 6" CPBC could strike below the main belt. The projectile entered the hull and exploded in a liquid outboard wingtank. Splinters defeated the 20mm torpedo bulkhead and serious flooding to one boiler room commenced. Another boiler room was flooded progressively via drainage and bilges later as a consequence of this hit. The other 6" rounds hit the hangar and the foreship, starting a fire each.
An extremely unusual way of getting around the main belt dont you agree
. I diddnt know this, so thankyou for that informatiuon
An extremely unusual way of getting around the main belt dont you agree
. I diddnt know this, so thankyou for that informatiuon
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
Would have been interesting to see how this scenario would evolve with HIPPER beeing mauled by SHEFFIELD and JAMAICA. I regard those british CL´s highly in every respect.
Does Your offer with revisiting the ranges still stands? I have checked some sources for relevant material and found something very useful for this context.
best regards,
Does Your offer with revisiting the ranges still stands? I have checked some sources for relevant material and found something very useful for this context.
best regards,
parsifal
Colonel
yes of course. Hopefully we can come up with a reasonably accurate set of figures for cruiser ranges
My source for this list is MJ Whitley "Cruisers of WWII - An International Encyclopedia", Brookhampton press, 1995
The figures are listed, range (ie there and back) in nm and most economic cruising speed. At this stage I did not want to get into the specifics of the differing methods of undertaking range trials, but Whitney implies in the text that his figures for different nationalities are comparable
Argentina
De Mayo (Argentina): 8030/14
La Argentina: 10000/12
Australia
County Class: 9500/12
Sydney Class: 7180/12
Brazil
Bahia Class: 6600/10
Chile
Blanco Class 3550/9.5
General OHiggins 4580/8
Chacabuco 7200/12
France
Duguay Trouin Class 3000/15
Duquesne Class: 4500/15
Suffren Class: 4500/15
Jeanne De Arc 5200/11
Algerie Class: 8700/15
Emile Berin : 3600/15
La Galissonniere Class: 7000/12
Germany
Emden: 5300/18
Konigsberg; 3100/13
Leipzig: 3800/15
Nurnberg: 2400/13
Hipper/Blucher (?): 6500/17
Eugen: 5050/15
M Class: 8000/19 (design)
SpahKreuzer: 7000/19 (design)
Gt Britain
Caledon Class: 5900/10
Ceres Class: 5900/10, 3250/12 (AA Conversions)
Carlisle Class: 5900/10
D Class 6700/10
Hawkins Class: 5400/14
E Class: 8000/15
Kent Class: 9350/12
London Class: 9120/12
Norfolk Class: 12500/12
York Class: 10000/14
Leander Class: 5730/13
Arethusa Class: 5300/13
Southampton Class: 7700/13 (1st gp), 7850/13 (Manchester),
7320/13 (Gloucester)
Edinburgh Class: 8000/14
Dido Class: 4850/11
Mod Dido Class: 7400/12
Fiji/Uganda/Minotaur: 6520/13
Italy
Barbiano: 3800/18
Cadorna: 2930/16
Montecuccolli Class: 4122/18 4411/18 (attendolo)
Aosta Class 3900/14
Abruzzi Class: 4125/121.7
Romani Class: 3000/25
Trento Class: 4160/16
Zara Class: 5434/16
Bolzano Class: 4432/16
Bari: 4500/10
Taranto Class 5000/12
will continue kisting in next posts
My source for this list is MJ Whitley "Cruisers of WWII - An International Encyclopedia", Brookhampton press, 1995
The figures are listed, range (ie there and back) in nm and most economic cruising speed. At this stage I did not want to get into the specifics of the differing methods of undertaking range trials, but Whitney implies in the text that his figures for different nationalities are comparable
Argentina
De Mayo (Argentina): 8030/14
La Argentina: 10000/12
Australia
County Class: 9500/12
Sydney Class: 7180/12
Brazil
Bahia Class: 6600/10
Chile
Blanco Class 3550/9.5
General OHiggins 4580/8
Chacabuco 7200/12
France
Duguay Trouin Class 3000/15
Duquesne Class: 4500/15
Suffren Class: 4500/15
Jeanne De Arc 5200/11
Algerie Class: 8700/15
Emile Berin : 3600/15
La Galissonniere Class: 7000/12
Germany
Emden: 5300/18
Konigsberg; 3100/13
Leipzig: 3800/15
Nurnberg: 2400/13
Hipper/Blucher (?): 6500/17
Eugen: 5050/15
M Class: 8000/19 (design)
SpahKreuzer: 7000/19 (design)
Gt Britain
Caledon Class: 5900/10
Ceres Class: 5900/10, 3250/12 (AA Conversions)
Carlisle Class: 5900/10
D Class 6700/10
Hawkins Class: 5400/14
E Class: 8000/15
Kent Class: 9350/12
London Class: 9120/12
Norfolk Class: 12500/12
York Class: 10000/14
Leander Class: 5730/13
Arethusa Class: 5300/13
Southampton Class: 7700/13 (1st gp), 7850/13 (Manchester),
7320/13 (Gloucester)
Edinburgh Class: 8000/14
Dido Class: 4850/11
Mod Dido Class: 7400/12
Fiji/Uganda/Minotaur: 6520/13
Italy
Barbiano: 3800/18
Cadorna: 2930/16
Montecuccolli Class: 4122/18 4411/18 (attendolo)
Aosta Class 3900/14
Abruzzi Class: 4125/121.7
Romani Class: 3000/25
Trento Class: 4160/16
Zara Class: 5434/16
Bolzano Class: 4432/16
Bari: 4500/10
Taranto Class 5000/12
will continue kisting in next posts
parsifal
Colonel
Cruiser ranges part II
Japan
Tenryu Class: 6000/10
Kuma Class: 9000/10
Nagara Class: 9000/10
Sendai Class: 7800/10
Yubari Class: 5500/10
Kako Class: 6000/14
Aoba Class: 6000/14
Myoku Class: 8000/14
Takao Class: 8000/14
Mogami Class: 8150/14
Tone Class: 9000/18
Agano Class: 6300/18
Oyodo: 10600/18
Ibuki: 8150/18
Netherlands
Java Class: 3600/12
De Ruyter : 6800/12
Tromp: 6000/12
Peru
Bolognesi: 3700/10
USSR
Komintern Class: 2000/10
Kavkaz: 3500/15
Chervona: 3700/14
Krim: 3350/14
Kirov Class: 3750/18
Chapayev Class: 7000/20
Spain
Navarra 4500/15
Nunez: 5000/13
Galicia Class: 5000/15
Canarias: 8700/15
Sweden
Fylgia: 5770/10
Gotland: 4000/12
United States
Omaha Class: 8460/10
Pensacola Class 10000/15
Northampton Class: 10000/15
Portland Class: 10000/15
New orleans: 10000/15
Brooklyn Class: 10000/15
Wichita: 10000/15
Atlanta Class: 8500/15
Cleveland Class: 11000/15
Baltimore Class: 10000/15
Des moines Class: 10500/15
Alaska Class: 12000/15
Worcester Class: 8000/15
Japan
Tenryu Class: 6000/10
Kuma Class: 9000/10
Nagara Class: 9000/10
Sendai Class: 7800/10
Yubari Class: 5500/10
Kako Class: 6000/14
Aoba Class: 6000/14
Myoku Class: 8000/14
Takao Class: 8000/14
Mogami Class: 8150/14
Tone Class: 9000/18
Agano Class: 6300/18
Oyodo: 10600/18
Ibuki: 8150/18
Netherlands
Java Class: 3600/12
De Ruyter : 6800/12
Tromp: 6000/12
Peru
Bolognesi: 3700/10
USSR
Komintern Class: 2000/10
Kavkaz: 3500/15
Chervona: 3700/14
Krim: 3350/14
Kirov Class: 3750/18
Chapayev Class: 7000/20
Spain
Navarra 4500/15
Nunez: 5000/13
Galicia Class: 5000/15
Canarias: 8700/15
Sweden
Fylgia: 5770/10
Gotland: 4000/12
United States
Omaha Class: 8460/10
Pensacola Class 10000/15
Northampton Class: 10000/15
Portland Class: 10000/15
New orleans: 10000/15
Brooklyn Class: 10000/15
Wichita: 10000/15
Atlanta Class: 8500/15
Cleveland Class: 11000/15
Baltimore Class: 10000/15
Des moines Class: 10500/15
Alaska Class: 12000/15
Worcester Class: 8000/15
Hmmm...
In my opinion discussions as this miss a lot of important points.
Weather, crew training, surprise, mission goals, ammunition quality and so on.
What will a straight duel be?
Are the ships allowed to move?
What is the best CA/CL in a straight duel is an intellectual exercise and a fruitless one.
A thread like this is an amusing read but nothing more.
Otherwise you could calculate the next Super Bowl winner or the outcome of the next car race.
P.S.
Every time i read "Nathan Okun" and "armour penetration calculator" i roll my eyes.
Sorry.
In my opinion discussions as this miss a lot of important points.
Weather, crew training, surprise, mission goals, ammunition quality and so on.
What will a straight duel be?
Are the ships allowed to move?
What is the best CA/CL in a straight duel is an intellectual exercise and a fruitless one.
A thread like this is an amusing read but nothing more.
Otherwise you could calculate the next Super Bowl winner or the outcome of the next car race.
P.S.
Every time i read "Nathan Okun" and "armour penetration calculator" i roll my eyes.
Sorry.
parsifal
Colonel
Hmmm...
In my opinion discussions as this miss a lot of important points.
Weather, crew training, surprise, mission goals, ammunition quality and so on.
They can do, and ours is no exception, however, the aim is to pool knowledge and reach a collective opinion that is superior to each individual part.
What will a straight duel be?
Are the ships allowed to move?
What is the best CA/CL in a straight duel is an intellectual exercise and a fruitless one.
Agreed, it is an intellectual excercise, but there are quite a few that have a deep interest in the capabilities of ships. Incidentally, this sort of exercise, but to a much more technical degree is routinely undertaken by design bureas across the world.
A thread like this is an amusing read but nothing more.
Otherwise you could calculate the next Super Bowl winner or the outcome of the next car race.
I am sure there are forums that do try to predict the next superbowl winner, or the next F1 winner. We look at ships, and try to work out which one, overall, is the better
P.S.
Every time i read "Nathan Okun" and "armour penetration calculator" i roll my eyes.
Why do think the armour penetration calculator is no good. From all that i have seen, Nathan Okun is considered one of the foremost naval gunnery/armour experts that there is on the planet.
PPS
You need to back up your comments if you want to make statements like that
In my opinion discussions as this miss a lot of important points.
Weather, crew training, surprise, mission goals, ammunition quality and so on.
They can do, and ours is no exception, however, the aim is to pool knowledge and reach a collective opinion that is superior to each individual part.
What will a straight duel be?
Are the ships allowed to move?
What is the best CA/CL in a straight duel is an intellectual exercise and a fruitless one.
Agreed, it is an intellectual excercise, but there are quite a few that have a deep interest in the capabilities of ships. Incidentally, this sort of exercise, but to a much more technical degree is routinely undertaken by design bureas across the world.
A thread like this is an amusing read but nothing more.
Otherwise you could calculate the next Super Bowl winner or the outcome of the next car race.
I am sure there are forums that do try to predict the next superbowl winner, or the next F1 winner. We look at ships, and try to work out which one, overall, is the better
P.S.
Every time i read "Nathan Okun" and "armour penetration calculator" i roll my eyes.
Why do think the armour penetration calculator is no good. From all that i have seen, Nathan Okun is considered one of the foremost naval gunnery/armour experts that there is on the planet.
PPS
You need to back up your comments if you want to make statements like that
@parsifal
I´m checking with my information.
I have two aquaintances, former workmates. One works with the marine department of his company for the german navy and the other "designs" tanks and armoured vehicles. Maybe they can enlight me about the art of calculating armour penetration. With sources of course.
Maybe i`m wrong and i will apologize.
Yes, you are right i was a little bit harsh in my post.
Sorry for that.
I´m checking with my information.
I have two aquaintances, former workmates. One works with the marine department of his company for the german navy and the other "designs" tanks and armoured vehicles. Maybe they can enlight me about the art of calculating armour penetration. With sources of course.
Maybe i`m wrong and i will apologize.
Yes, you are right i was a little bit harsh in my post.
Sorry for that.
Hey folks, new poster and avid WW2 naval fan here. Hope I'm not rocking the boat but I woudl suggest Japan had by far the best curisers as of late 1941. They would retain "curiser superiority" briefly until the US started releasing the Baltimores, Brooklyns and Clevelands. Just my opinion, of course. Cheers.
