Comments by "William Cox" (@WildBillCox13) on "Drachinifel"
channel.
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
A most interesting question. Here's my spin on it:
First? My understanding of topic.
Reduce cross section of penetrator and you increase penetration for an equal weight/mass round (and propellant charge*). Smaller impact area transfers more energy into a smaller point, concentrating stress on a hard, but brittle, surface (face hardened plate is the similar to Tempered Glass for its method of impact resistance). That's the good part.
Unfortunately, artillery rounds in flight are affected by aerodynamic/fluid dynamic factors the same as any Mach2-3 Jet. There is a "perfect" length versus diameter plus optimal ogive for every particular caliber of gun. Make an artillery round too long (L:W) and it tends to nutate severely in flight, which loses accuracy, and absorbs muzzle energy through greatly increased drag. That's the bad part.
Now for a bit of hard evidence.
Planet Slo-Mo has a video posted where they fire both the 12.2cm P Obr 42/L46 AND the M4 (L) Tank's 76mm M1A1/L51, and follow the rounds in flight. Notice that even these, supposedly "perfect" shapes are prone to nutation throughout their flight. Longer L:W rounds are far worse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpJ8EoGmLuE
So-o, why not? Diminishing returns.
Disclaimer: I am no military expert. I am old and have spent most of my life reading military history and technological examinations of military gear. For absolute understanding, let me recommend Ian Hogg.
*Reducing barrel diameter makes you increase the heat and pressure in your chamber, too. You'll need a reinforced Breech,, Chamber and Barrel to push the same mass the same speed through a smaller barrel.
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Germany could just buy the A6M2 for Graf Zeppelin . . . the Stuka would be good enough for an Intruder, trading slow speed for pinpunkt accuracy. As for Torpedo Bombers, why not just buy those superannuated Fairy Swordfish Great Britain is trying to sell off? They'll have the far superior Albacore, of course, but . . . why are you laughing?
World War Two seems to indicate that ships without carrier air support are balls flapping in the wind. The Z Plan was cool and all, but more Carriers and Heavy Cruisers were all that Germany really needed. About twenty of each.
The Merchant Raider group . . . pursuing the Guerre du Course, or Handelskrieg . . . was a great idea--for World War One. Once the B24 Bomber was drafted to patrol the "U--Boat gap", however, the paradigm had been ruined. Until then the Armed Merchantman, Merchant Raider/Panzerschiff, or Cruiser Submarine, was still a viable option for a cash strapped nation to examine. Once Air Cover became more or less universal it spoiled everything.
You need Carriers to support your convoy raiders. You need heavy cruisers to support your carriers with AAA. You need Fleet Destroyers . . . or whatever the La Fantasque was . . . to physically screen the Carriers and Cruisers (or, for rich nations, battleships) from questing motobomba . . . and, suddenly, you're in a naval race* against Great Britain and the USA. Which you can't win.
Back to submarines!
*Naval Arms races never mention the most vulnerable factor in the coherent plan of operations at sea: the fleet replenishment train. You can cripple your enemy if you find his before he finds yours. His ships WILL run out of fuel, food, and, especially, ammunition and medical supplies after any regular engagement. If you take out his oilers and ammunition ships, he will soon be a paper tiger. If Bismarck had . . . nothing. Just finding her pre--positioned replenishment ships would have been a dangerous passage, with every supply ship used soon after destroyed on its way back to base. And, once they'd all been sunk, there'd be no second Bismarck sortie from Brest or St Nazair.
There is an argument to be made that Imperial Japan ignored our Fleet Replenishment Train with her submarine force. Had her skippers sought out the USN oilers and ammunition ships . . . and hospital ships . . . she might've slowed our expansion into what she considered her personal sphere of influence. Submarine Ninja; Skulkers and Assassins; rather than stealthy Shinobi seeking a favorable advantage against a mighty foe. Oilers are critical weapons of war. We crippled Japan by sinking all of her oilers. The lack of oil paralyzed her fleet. Similarly, our war against Germany was a war against her ability to supply herself with fuel for her Panzerwaffe, Luftwaffe, and U--waffe. lack of oil grounded her fighters, stopped her tanks, and made her ships floating hulks.
"Screw that well screened battleship! I'm looking for those vulnerable, juicy, oilers!" --Smart Sub Skipper
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Gato class submarines weren't like those from other nations, but paved the way for future innovations and alterations of design for everyone. A) Bigger hulls can carry more in terms of specialists and specialist equipment. Wartime patrols from all nations with submarines found strange bedfellows and fellow travelers aboard at the worst moments. B) Air Conditioning (Crew Comfort +1), C) Onboard Refrigeration. Without a doubt, USN submariners ate the best. (Crew Comfort+1), D) Better sensors for surface operations. RaDAR was a luxury few other nations could afford to mount on their submarines. Few will deny that RaDAR for target detection and shadowing was the greatest advantage of all. And, since most submarine existence was on the surface (the U-waffe was effectively neutered once the British concentrated surface and airborne ASW patrols just outside of Brest. Put simply: submerged transit was exhaustively expensive in time and fuel. That defeated the U-Boat arm BEFORE ElInt and code-breaking is factored in.). Good show, you lot. E) better weaponry for fighting it out when surprised or unable to dive. Surface weapons on submarines were effective; torpedoes were hugely expensive. They were the sexiest (highest sticker price) budget item for individual rounds, other than wunderwaffe. Many, many, many, submarines resorted to deck guns during patrols, especially early on (for almost everyone), and near the end (for the USN). This truth has been overshadowed by submersible fanboiz, who favor the torpedo (perhaps the most inaccurate way to deliver a single warhead ever*) in their popularist accounts. Remember, submarines of the period were surface ships, not Aquaman: they were slow and relatively unmaneuverable when submerged. E) Gatos were better sea boats than the submarines of other nations, able to maintain a higher speed for longer in an open seaway. As Drachinifel points out, T-Class were very short ranged for fleet boats. This precludes their effective integration into the PTO . . . which was one third of the war for the UK (unless you ask Singapore, Hong Kong, India, Australia, or New Zealand), and half of the war for the USA**.
The downside to the larger boats should be included in any look, of course. For one thing, Gatos (and Typ IX, and B1) had longer diving times (not that much longer in practice, btw), and were more awkward when maneuvering in close spaces. Drachinifel also rightly points out that UK and, especially, Deu, boats could run a bit deeper (considerably deeper for the Deutschers) with confidence. This can be very effective in keeping you alive . . . once you're trapped and held down by enemy ASW assets. Which is the one thing EVERY submarine commander wants to avoid. It's also more of a tribute to your welding and packing gland technology than it is to the metal of your hull.
*I am talking CEP here. One did not use a V2 on a ship at sea. And Tallboys NEVER hit fish, whales, or dolphins . . or invisible wreckage or chunks of floating ice) on their way to target. Further, no dropped iron bomb ever circled around to strike the bomber who dropped it (though a few bounced). Also, air currents do not divert bombs with anything like the effect that water currents have on torpedo tracks. And, of course, bombs aren't near as likely to porpoise.
** And here is where code-breaking really came into its own. Both Germany and Japan were interested in trading materials and tech. Several trading missions were perpetrated through submarine means; only one of these really came through and that but partially. Google I-51 for more on that. These submarine missions of military mercy were intercepted, in the main, thanks to a combination of code-breaking and SonoBouy+FIDO tactical coordination. So that extreme long radius of action of fleet boats (for IJN, KM, and USN types) should not be discounted or marginalized.
Finally, never underestimate the effect that crew comfort has on combat efficiency, which is not quite congruent with, but heavily affects, efficacy.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5