Comments by "HaJo Os." (@hajoos.8360) on "Battleship Guns of WW2 - A series of tubes" video.
-
16
-
@justforever96 Yes, that's correct. But at the doggerbank were only 11, 12 & 13,5 inch guns present. At Jutland the Brits had some 15 inch gun ships. The weight of a British 15 inch gun was around 880 KG on Hood. The German 15 inch gun had a weight of 750 KG,. on Bismarck 800 KG. The 11-inch high velocity-projectile of the Scharnhorst-class had only a weight of slightly above 300 KG. On paper the Scharnhorst could shot 3,5 rounds a minute, same as Bismarck, caused by the same simple reload system. But Schneider shot at Denmark Strait in average 1 round a minute. The 11 inch gun had several advantages, more projectiles in the magazine and the guns had more stamina than 15 inch guns. 15 inch guns could survive 254 rounds, 11 inch guns a 100 rounds more. Scharnhorst's 11 inch guns could penetrate most of all existing armaments except the main belts. The fatal hit on Scharnhorst at the North Cape by Duke of York's 14 inch guns reached the propulsion room slightly above the main belt. This hit was deadly by his lucky accuracy not by the weight of the projectile. When Kirishima was hit by Washington's 16 inch guns of several broadsides on nearly point blank range, the broadside weight made no difference. As You mentioned, smaller calibre, more broadsides available. And in WWII only 2 British BB-constructions were sunk by artillery.
5
-
Drach made a lot of work, and he is, on paper, right. But as we learned from Drach himself, the guns are always in relation to the hull. And in reality it makes no difference between 11 or 16 inch guns. There were several DKM-officers, who stated against a "Repulse"sation of Gneisenau. Please correct me, but we have seen in WWII only 2 sinkings by artillery, Hood and Kirishima. As you all know, Hood exploded and Kirishima made very slowly too much water, so the ship was abandoned. Even with 16 inch-guns Rodney was not able to sink the sitting duck, Bismarck. To destroy Bismarck's infrastructure and knocking the turrets out, would have been done with Scharnhorst's 11 inch or Andrea-Doria's 12,xx inch guns, too. The same counts for Kirishima. In an ambush Andrea Doria could have sunk this japanese BB, too, firing on point blank range. The reason is very simple. Hood was a british ship and Kirishima was built in Japan according to British construction-plans. It was possible to sink British ships with artillery, but not German - or US-BBs. Kirishima itself was not able to sink South-Dakota. So in reality the decisive hit counts and not the weight of a BB-gun-shell.
1
-
@LucioFercho You are not very educated in navy-affairs. Bismarck's ability to fire 3,5 rounds a minute was documented during the sea-trials. DoY made 14 x 14 inch hits on Scharnhorst, are all witnessed. The second very effected hit knocked turret A out of action. And yes, Sir, the ship Bismarck is not responsable for an admiral, who is an idiot and a coward. And as I said, only 2 BBs in WWII were sunk by artillery, Hood and Kirishima, both british constructions. And again, You are correct, it is idiocy of the SKL to bring BBs during winter into action which had a under-devloped radar-system. In the mediterranean Scharnhort would have sunk the entire British squadron. In 1943 the British radar was well developed. Before 1943 the British performances via the usuall optical methods with rangefinders were very poor. Nearly 3k shells were needed to hit a 250 meter target, a sitting duck on point blank range. It can only mean, the Brits were, as usual, all drunk.
1