Comments by "Frank DeMaris" (@kemarisite) on "Drachinifel"
channel.
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
The first question, in which Drach mentions the effect of director control tables on the Battle of the Falkland Islands in 1914, goes a long way to answer the question I've posed a couple of times and had answered, but only in part, once. If these two battlecruisers had yet to be refitted with a fire control table, then it seems wildly unlikely that the armored cruisers in Troubridge's squadron in the Mediterranean had. If SMS Moltke did have that kind of fire control table, then that would appear to give Moltke a huge advantage over the armored cruisers to go along with its speed. If Moltke has the speed to control the range, and a central fire control table, then it can deliver well-aimed salvos at 10-12,000 yards while the British armored cruisers are throwing out shells with only the barest slim chance of scoring a lucky hit. So it would appear the key issue is whether Moltke had that fire control table or not.
Edit: as noted below, Goeben rather than Moltke. Since Goeben wasn't assigned to the Mediterranean until 1912, there may have been time for her to have been refitted with a central fire control table before that assignment.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@baronungernthebloody553 warships could comfortably fight in the 15-20,000 yard range, although the average would be dragged down a bit by some actions like Cape Matapan and the Washington/Kirishima engagement. At Surigao Strait, the battle force commander ordered the line to open fire at 26,000 yards, but for target identification reasons they held fire until a little over 20,000 yards. At this kind of range, a smaller and lighter shell is worse because it has less inertia and loses velocity faster. As an example, the US had two general types of 16"/45 guns, those on the Colorados which used a 2,200 lb AP shell at a velocity of 2,500 fps, and those on the North Carolinas and South Dakotas which fired a 2,700 lb AP shell at about 2,300 fps. At 20,000 yards, both shells are traveling a little over 1,600 fps, but the extra mass gives the heavier shell an extra inch or so of armor penetration. The Nelsons in British service fired a 16" shell of just over 2,000 lb at about 2,600 fps at the muzzle, but at 20,000 yards it had also fallen to a velocity of about 1,600 fps. The German Scharnhorsts fired an 11" shell of just over 700 lb at 2,900 fps, but at 20,000 yards it had fallen to slightly under 1,600 fps. So at combat ranges these shells all tend toward the same velocity, regardless of size and weight, but as long as the shell and gun combo are still competitive in velocity at those combat ranges, the heavier shell will win (shell construction being equal).
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@TheKingofbrooklin it's a shorthand qualitative basis for comparing the firepower of two ships when the guns aren't the same caliber. If both ships have, say, 8" guns (treaty heavy cruisers), then it's easy to count the number of guns and compare. But, for example, does a Cleveland class CL with twelve 6" guns outgun a County class cruiser with eight 8" guns? You can calculate broadside weight by multiplying the number of guns by the weight of the shell for each ship. The Cleveland's 6" guns fire a shell weighing 130 lb, so the broadside weight is 1,560 lb, while the County's shells weigh 256 lb for a broadside weight of 2,048 lb. Broadside weight suggests the County has more main battery firepower than the Cleveland, all else being equal. This estimate can be refined by incorporating the rate of fire; if the County fires three times while the Cleveland fires 8 times, the broadside weight over one minute is now 6,144 lb for the County vs 12,480 lb for the Cleveland, which nearly explains why the US and UK built so many Brooklyns, Clevelands, Towns, and Crown Colonies.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@sergarlantyrell7847 true range was in the neighborhood of 14,000 m (15,300 yd). At this range Bismark's shell is falling at an angle just under 10 degrees and should penetrate just under 3" of deck armor. However, Hood was also heeling 20 degrees in a turn to bring the stern guns to bear. This makes the angle of fall almost 30 degrees, analogous to a shot from closer to 30,000 m. At this distance, Bismark's shell should penetrate about 5" of deck armor. So yes, if it hadn't been for that turn at that time, Bismark's shell should have just skipped off Hood's deck armor.
Edit: after further review I realized the 20 degrees was Hood's rudder setting. So the general principle above is correct, Hood would be heeling in Bismark's direction and presenting a steeper deck angle, but the specifics about the 20 degrees and resulting penetration of deck armor are not. I have not been able to quickly find anything that would indicate how much Hood would heel at the start of a turn with 20 degrees of rudder at speed.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@lexington476 quality of coal is mostly a question of impurities, untenable waste content, and water. Heating value of high quality coal (anthracite) will be greater for a given weight, so a ship with 100 tons of high-quality Welsh anthracite will have more energy available in its fuel bunker than a ship with 100 tons of lower quality bituminous coal or lignite. As a result of having more energy in its fuel, the ship burning high quality coal can travel further on 100 tons of coal than the same ship burning lower quality coal, or can burn those 100 tons over the same time period and be going faster. In addition, the ship burning high quality coal (which has fewer non combustible impurities) will emit less smoke (nondurable ash) to be spotted and confound visual gunnery, while producing less slag or bottom ash that still doesnt burn but remains in the boiler and will need to be cleaned out. Therefore, a ship burning good coal will be faster or go farther than a ship burning bad coal, while being more difficult to spot from its smoke, giving its gunners an easier time spotting and hitting the enemy (because they're less affe ted by their own smoke) and requiring less intensive maintenance.
6