Comments by "Frank DeMaris" (@kemarisite) on "The Drydock - Episode 205" video.

  1. 42
  2. This is a question that pops up every few videos, at least as far as translating antitank munitions into anti-ship concepts. The basic issue with that is how big ships are. With a tank, all kinds of important stuff like ammo and crew are right behind the armor, so just the shot itself and resultant spall can be enough. With a ship, outside of the turrets and armored conning tower, there is a lot of room behind the armor for reserve buoyancy to keep a damaged ship afloat, so once you get through the armor you need a significant behind armor effect. You'll never sink a ship by putting fist sized holes through the top above the waterline, outside of catastrophically bad ammunition safety in the turrets like the British battlecruisers at Jutland. That said, there were a few interesting projectile variants put out during the war. The French and Japanese developed non-standard AP shells that were optimized for underwater travel with the intention they would land short and punch into the target under the belt (see USS Boise for the one know example of this working). You mentioned the Japanese heavy AA shells, but the Germans developed something similar for the 15" guns on Tirpitz. Both the US and Japan developed small-ish caliber anti-submarine projectiles with flattened noses for shooting at diving or just submerged submarines at to a few thousand yards, although the US developed theirs in the 50s for the 5"/38. The US also had chaff and white phosphorus projectiles available for the 5"/38 as variants on the standard illumination round or "star shell".
    3
  3. 2