022d9edd
XPost: alt.revisionism, alt.fan.adolf-hitler, rec.aviation.military
XPost: soc.culture.usa
From: keithnospam@demon.co.uk
Eunometic wrote:
> On May 14, 3:46 am, Dean Markley wrote:
>> On May 13, 11:05 am, eunome...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
>>
>> That was a key mistake on his part. Actually building such ships as
>> Bismarck was pointless. It was a First World War design and
>> essentially obsolete for a raiding purpose.
>
> Not true.
>
>> The Germans could have
>> gotten many more u-boats for that huge expenditure.- Hide quoted
>> text -
>
> Not true.
>
> The Bismark was designed to outfight anything it couldn't outrun and
> to outrun anything it couldn't out fight.
> It was faster than the KGV class it could outfight such lightweights
> as the Battlecruiser Hood.
>
Which didnt turn out to be the case.
> The claim that it was out of date is based on the Germans not
> accepting the 'all or nothing' armour theory.
>
And other features of its design
> They more evenly distributed the armour over their ship (say 80%)
> against say 60% for US and British ships. They also had an armoured
> citadel. (note how PoW bridge crew was killed by a shell).
You do know the Bismarck bridge crew died the same way dont you ?
Mr. Josef Statz and two shipmates escaped from the Damage Control Central,
which was located at the base of the communications tube to the forward
conning tower. Statz and his companions climbed up this narrow 750mm
diameter tube containing vital electrical and control cabling. He made his
ascent in a listing, rolling, and pitching ship. When he arrived at the
access hatch to the forward conning tower, the scene before him was one of
utter and complete desolation. All of the ship's control equipment was
demolished and in two piles of rubble forward and aft of the hatch from
which he was about to emerge.
The conning tower interior was wrecked and the deck creating the two-level
interior structure had disappeared. Light was streaming in from holes in
the roof armor, where the forward rangefinders had been located, from the
riddled port side armor, and from the forward end, where the deck had
separated from the vertical 350mm armor.
> Bismarks
> guns were high velocity guns designed to fire at shallow angles and
> medium ranges appropriate to the visibillity conditions of the Nth
> Altantic. They were limited by elevation not velocity.
>
> Bismarks armour was designed to provide overall resistance to the fast
> firing and very damaging guns of 6 and 8 inch guns of cruisers rather
> than 15 inch guns of battleships. She was more likely to encounter
> cruisers. Battleships she would generally avoid engaging as numerical
> inferioty required this untill the Kriegsmarine could be built up.
>
A claim that is entirely false and contradicts your earler statement
>it could outfight such lightweights
> as the Battlecruiser Hood.
Hood had 15" guns and side armour to battleship standard
> Remember to the Bismark had 3 layers of armour from bow to stern added
> up that is quite a lot. She could predetonate and defuze shells.
>
Which turned her into a blazing hulk with all guns out of action
> Her 16 x 105mm guns could fire 18 round per minute, over twice as fast
> as the 16 x 5.25" shells of the KGV class.
4" guns were rather unlikely to penetrate KGV's armor and as the guns were
not turreted their crews were killed rather quickly
> On top of that she still
> had her 12 x 150mm secondary armament. Her shells were 60% of the
> weight of the US 5" but had a much higher velocity and range.
>
> Forget about the Iowa class they came years latter.
About 2 years in fact.
Keith
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
