Comments by "Alex" (@Alex-cw3rz) on "King George V class - Design, Service and Myths" video.

The talk about the turret was fascinating I just presumed it was all faults with the design, and hadn't thought about the human element or the sea states they were fighting in or the fact they were firing more rounds than 6 battleships over an entire battle.
126
This video really shows why South Carolina was able to fit 9 16 inch guns, it was all in the armour, with less thick armour over smaller areas, it was able to get to the desired number of guns, but sacrifice armour.
81
1:46:04 this table really does put it into context yes it's a smaller gun, but looking at this table it doesn't matter what it faces it will penetrate at 16,000 yards and if it's deck penetration at 26,000 yards nothing will go through the Yamato's deck and it can penertrate points on all other ships, just like the other ships will find this issue penetrating any point of King George V's deck
46
@malcolmtaylor518 if they didn't penertrate her belt armour, how did she start listing? I truly hope the 1 like was yourself and you haven't spread more misinformation under a video trying to dispell these myths either delete or edit your comment so you can get rid of your silly statement
34
do aircraft carrier decks have drains or/and does the top have a camber like a road, to reduce water pooling?
16
@dbuckleton well it had slight list and then it took on a much heavier list after Rodney and KGV started shooting at it. Which can only have been penertration of the vitals, as they have much larger volume. I mean it would be quite surprising that the Turtle back held seen as it was an old design that had been replaced by better designs and that at the end if the battle Rodney was just shooting dozens of holes all across Bismarck entire length with every round going through the ship and out the other side due to the exceptionally short range. The thing is if bismarcks armour held, that would make KGV, Nelson, The scharnhorst and Yamato bascially unsinkable from gun fire as all of those had thicker and in some cases (KGV) better armour schemes than Bismarck. Not just that Scharnhorst with it's thicker armour was breached by Duke of York
12
I heard that HMS Warspite when doing shore bombardment of Normandy during the D-day landings was able to successfully jam the radar of the German's guns was this common during WW2?
11
@stevevalley7835 Just to preface this the fact you haven't even watched the video and talking this confidently is baffling in it's ignorance. Now back to your inane comment. Firstly at 24,000 yards the shell would be dropping at a 23.8 degree angle, so most likely not a hit on the belt secondly a much more likely hit on the deck would not penertrate at 24,000 yards. Thirdly that's not KGV it was put up against, that was standard armour plate, the Royal Navy had better battleship armour plate than any other nation, I believe it was equivalent too 7% thicker than German armour plate of the same inch and 15% for the US. Fourth your article is disputed by other sources in others 24,000 yards it can only penertrate 13 inches of armour so it would penertrate any battleship but KGV and Yamato Fifth the Germans historically only managed to hit hood at 18,000 yards at which any ship will be penertrated, even with the excellent armour KGV had compared to it's contemporaries. Sixth if you bothered to watch the video you'd have seen that at 24,000 yards KGV's penertration is still very competitive, in fact punching through thicker armour than the 16 inch on the North Carolina. Historically Bismarck didn't dictate range and that's because getting up to full steam takes a long time, and with Royal Navy gunnery being very good, you've already been hit and your speed has been reduced by that time. Why in the world would a video about KGV talk about some Americans and their moronic ideas, it's pretty obvious you are coming into this with a very big cognitive bias. P.s. what in the world was the point in bringing up Surageo Straight, if the point wasn't to do with those shots
10
@Abysslord1234 very true
6
@stevevalley7835 because most fights are closer and yes West Vaginia opened up at 22,000 yards but the ship wasn't sunk at 22,000 yards, 22,000 yards is 16,600 yards off King George V's guns maximum, the Royal Navy was also the best trained navy on the planet with the joint longest ranged hit ever which was more than 22,000 yards, and that was against at least a competent enemy, in not the best condition humanly possible which occurred at Surigao Straight. The Royal Navy is really not the ones who have to worry about range here.
6
49:57 has one of the secondaries on this ship been replaced by an AA mount or is the secondary hiding behind the turret on the Left side and I'm mistaken?
6
@grathian a 14 inch hit penertrated the conning tower which is thicker than the armour belt. The sharnhorst had thicker armour than Bismarck and oh wow that was penertrated a lot.
4
@michaelkovacic2608 Sharnhorst had the exact same layout except being thicker and it was penertrated with ease by Duke of York, not just that it did it from greater distances than when bismarck was hit. The fact you just claimed it was impossible to penertrate is mind-numbing. Not to mention you have actually made up how that deck works, not to mention when you are talking about battleship grade guns, two layers of armour is less effective than one. The gall to mention torpedo defences when KGV had a better Torpedo defence and much thicker armour is baffling, as therefore KGV is more than impossible to penertrate according to you.
4
@dbuckleton not to mention the conning tower on the Bismarck which had the thickest armour was penetrated by a 14 inch shell meaning the belt was is garentueed to have been penetrated
3
@NighthawkAquila well yes ship to ship of course as that's what the chart is about. In terms of the furthest range it was the Littorio class battleships, by quite a way compared to the 16 inch 50.
3
@MrTScolaro they were using radar and the Japanese weren't the fact it was moonless made it better not worse for the Americans. Now three things can you provide a source that west Vaginia got a shot that landed everytime. Secondly the two other shots happened years before and in war that is equivalent to decades of development in peace time, so to compare them is laughable especially as West Virginia did worse than both of them. Thirdly the sea states were competetly different and Fourth they were against competent enemies, who could see them, one was shooting back as well, unlike West Vaginia, who as I will reiterate had the best possible conditions. Now I can see you have a cognitive bias for the American ship but remember your bias isn't rooted in reality and it won't change any facts.
3
@dbuckleton what evidence says it wasn't penertrated we can't even see the side that they were shooting at as it capsized onto that side. If you are saying it wasn't penertrated then that means you cannot penertrate KGV armour as it's better and thicker than Bismarcks. Not just that one says that Scharnhorst's vitals were penertrated but she had thicker armour than Bismarck.
3
@dbuckleton I know Prince Of Wales belt was not penetrated my point was that if Bismarck cannot be penetrated by point blank 16 inch fire then king George V must be invulnerable to everything, yes or do you want to admit that what you said was ridiculous. You don't know what turtle back armour is do you. Not to mention two layers of armour with battleship grade guns is actually less effective than one thicker layer, as this channel has gone over again and again. Then how many times does this have to be said Sharnhorst had thicker armour than Bismarck, yet Duke of York was easily penetrating it.
3
Brilliant Video
2
@dbuckleton the Turtleback is only effective if the trajectory of shells are flat, and the shell does not have the penertration statistics of battleship guns at point blank. That is why all other navies got rid of it. The 14.7 - 15 inches on the British armour was also better armour, German armour was not as good quality as British armour, as Drach has explained many a time. Please understand the King George V had thicker armour, better quality armour and a more modern set up of armour than Bismarcks. James Cameron has proved on the side that barely faced the British there are 2 full penertrations from 14 inch shells, if we could see the other side we would most likely see dozens of penetrations. Not just that we have German accounts saying British shells were getting all the way through. It's hilarious you pretend if you just say how it works again but harder that will disprove all evidence, it will not.
2
@OTTAWAthoughts thanks
1
@dclark142002 also to add the two KGV's that fought Bismarck as you say were not damaged much by her, but they inflicted immense damage on Bismarck. With Prince of Wales even though less than half her guns were working at a time, with barely any time to fit out with maintenance crew still on board, she was the first to land a shot and she mission k illed bismarck.
1
@ricoh.3162 you've just made that up, if you had bothered to look at the comments and drachinifels work we know the belt was penertrated as even on the side that barely faced the British ship there are two 14 inch penertrations of the belt. We even have post action reports from the germans that they know it had been penertrated and were having many shells exploding inside and the fact the conning tower was chewed up with ease and had thicker armour than the German belt. If you knew anything about the Bismarcks armour scheme as Drachinifel has exhaustedly explained, having turtleback was ineffective. There is a reason turtleback was got rid of, due to it being ineffective at any sort of battle ranges, due to the fact as soon as the guns were not firing at a flat trajectory, it doesn't work. It was actually really St upid of you to bring up penertration because at 0 elevation the British shells would destroy Bismarcks armour with ease, as did happen. Sharnhorsts belt was penertrated how can you argue something that has been proved to have happened and it was thicker. The German 15 inch gun could penetrate more but this is superfluous when due to the armour they have, both ships can panertrate each others belt at the same distance and this is if we be exceptionally kind to the Germans and pretend the British armour is as low quality as the German armour. This also brings up a secondary issue, that this is two test from different nations making them hard to compare, especially when we know British armour was a lot better than German armour. You have a very weird definition of "much more powerful" when it's barely any more penertration and there is a chance it may even be lower pertration depending on the armour used in the tests.
1
@jakemillar649 that wouldn't work in dock and most sea states in the Pacific and a lot of days in areas with rougher seas would have pooling
1