Comments by "" (@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684) on "Drachinifel"
channel.
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@arunta5 Are you aware that Hood as originally conceived was an improvement on the earlier Lion, Indefatigable & Tiger class battlecruisers that you allude to in your OP, but as a result of the events at Jutland in 1916 she was FURTHER redesigned while still being constructed to include an extra 5000 tons of armour, which resulted in her armour levels being on a par with contemporary WW1 battleships, while STILL being 7-8 knots faster?
The earlier battlecruisers had belt thicknesses of 4 - 6in and decks in the region of 1 - 2 in. Hood sported an angled belt of 12in (effectively 13 inches due to the angling) and a main 3 inch armoured deck which was sufficiently thick to protect her from gunnery of the WW1 period, but due to improvements in range finding and gun technology throughout the 1920s and 30s, longer range gunnery with steeper plunging fire angles at those longer ranges meant that Hood's deck armour was rendered less and less effective. She did receive a number of refits during her 20 year career, but due to the demans placed on her during the interwar years, she was the last of the battlecruisers to receive a major redesign of her armour, which had been scheduled to tke place in 1942, had not WW2 & Bismarck intervened.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@PhilipLeitch I don't demonstrate my point? Have you demonstrated YOUR point? I've provided FIRST hand accounts of it happening, but you choose to ignore it. You're ANOTHER self appointed "expert" making ridiculous blanket statements to make you sound authoratative, but failing miserably.
When does a sailor bobbing momentarily under the water have to hold his lungs to bursting point as described in the example I provided you, by Ted Briggs?
You even display your lack of understanding, by stating a case, that of Titanic (in which you make the seemingly groundless assumption that none of the 1512 deaths were caused by drowning by suction, can you direct me to where that is stated by a reputable source?), and even IF what you state was true then you baselessly extrapolate out from that to conclude that it somehow proves that suction NEVER happens, whereas I quite correctly state that while it may not happen in every situation, that it can and does happen when all of the myriad factors & forces in a complex dynamic system, i.e a large sinking ship, create the right conditions for it to happen.
Its the same as concluding that inspite of all the lightning strikes I've witnessed in my life, that because I've NEVER seen or know of anyone who has been struck by lightning, that proves that all the cases where people say they've been struck can be safely discounted as hearsay.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@wesleyjarboe9571 Likening HMS Hood to the "Invincible" and "indefatigable" class battlecruisers that took part in Jutland is akin to suggesting a Keonigsegg Gemera is the same as a Honda S2000. Yes, both are considered "super cars" but their handling & performance and specifications are leagues apart.
I realise Arizona was hit by more than 1 bomb, but it had shrugged off the others, just as Hood had shrugged of a number of previous hits in Denmark Strait, but like Hood its sinking was not attributable to progressive damage from multiple hits, but directly as the result of catastrophic damage from one single hit on Arizona's forward magazine.
I illustrate the "million to one" shot with the following explanation & analogy of long range naval gunnery.
A full salvo of main gun fire from a battleship is analogous to a scatter of lead shot from a shotgun. During the battle of Denmark Strait, the Bismarck aimed at Hood from 8-9 nautical miles (Approx 17-18,000 yards) away. The German's own naval gunnery data tables provided by their AVKS ("Artillerie Versuchs Kommando für Schiff" or naval artillery evaluation command) show that at that range of 18000 yards the 38 cm SK C/34 (Bismarck's main armament) had a CEP (circular error probability - effectively the RADIUS of a circle within which 50% of its shots would be expected to fall) of 100m. That means that if 8 of Bismarck's 15in guns fired at a single point 8-9 nm away, 4 of her shells would be expected to land (with completely random distribution) within an ellipse (think of it as a stretched circle, due to the angle of fall of the shells) measuring approximately 200m (660ft) wide, (or to put it another way 76% of HMS Hood's 860ft length), by more than two thousand feet long. The other 4 shots would probably land even FURTHER away from the aiming point. That being the case, how can an individual shell be aimed specifically at a tiny part of HMS Hood's structure, namely the 4in HA magazine, that its believed triggered off the "domino effect" of Hood's detonation? I'll give you a hint, there's a little clue in my paragraph above....where it says "completely random distribution".
A simplified analogy is that if you prop a dartboard up 50 yards away and can consistently knock it over with a shotgun at that range then that is pretty good shooting, just as Bismarck / PE achieved during the Denmark Strait encounter.
Now you can "knock the dartboard over" with the shotgun all day long and STILL NOT hit the bullseye (magazine) with an individual pellet. As opposed to being a skillful shot by knocking over the dartboard, whether you hit the bullseye with an individual pellet is complete "million to one" luck.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Its life Jim, but not as we know it.
IF any scuttling actually took place then all that was scuttled was a 51000 ton mountain of sinking, flaming scrap metal. All guns silenced, her superstructure devastated, her main armour belt broken and penetrated in several places, her command staff physically obliterated, internally aflame from end to end, her stern and port gunwales already underwater, a thousand of her crew dead, and further hundreds of her crew already in the water behind her.... All that any scuttling did was to sink her a few minutes earlier than was already happening.
In the world of boxing the crew's scuttling efforts are what is known as "throwing in the towel", submission of a boxer AFTER he has been punched senseless by a more skillful & powerful opponent, and only a deluded child would say, "the victor didn't win because his opponent killed himself before he lost.", when the truth is the loser had his arse ripped off by the victor and handed back to him on a plate.
Imagine the ignominy of being forced to commit suicide by your opponent?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"(The Hood) ships were not worth their industrial cost"
Great Britain had FAR greater ship building capacity than did Germany. Germany had only TWO shipyards with the requisite capacity to construct the Bismarck class, which means Bismarck took up 50% of Germany's major slipways for 5 YEARS (and Tirpitz occupied the other), and all for 7 days of active service. Compare that to Hood, who utilised only a small percentage of GB's capacity and provided over 20 years of outstanding value to her mother country.
Then if you use "financial outlay" as the yardstick, then Bismarck qualifies as possibly the "worst buy" in naval history.
193,000,000rm for 7 days of active service, compared to Hood's £6,000,000 for 20 years of CEASELESS service.
Thats the same as buying a Bugatti Veyron and writing it off on its first outing, against buying a Rolls Royce Silver Ghost and getting 20 years of unstinting, loyal and prestigious service from it..... before the idiot in the Veyron crashed into it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2