7e7efe65   
   XPost: alt.revisionism, alt.fan.adolf-hitler, rec.aviation.military   
   XPost: soc.culture.usa   
   From: skelton.peter@gmail.com   
      
   On 19/05/2011 8:31 PM, Eunometic wrote:   
   > On May 20, 12:35 am, Dean Markley  wrote:   
   >> On May 19, 8:01 am, Peter Skelton  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>> On 19/05/2011 1:58 AM, Eunometic wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>> On May 19, 3:06 pm, Dan    wrote:   
   >>>>> On 5/18/2011 11:57 PM, Eunometic wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>>>> Forget about the Iowa class they came years latter.   
   >>   
   >>>>>     OK, what about Colorado, North Carolina and South Dakota classes?   
   >>   
   >>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired   
   >>   
   >>>> Bismark was 2 knots faster than all of those classes.   
   >>   
   >>> It was a Nelson that caught her and shot the sh*t out of her, wasn't it?   
   >>> Of course that was after a plane slowed her down and a cruiser disabled   
   >>> her gunnery.   
   >>   
   >>>> The follow on from the Bismark class was 6 x H39 battleships.  Though   
   >>>> about 1700 tons of keel was layed for two of them like most   
   >>>> battleships at that stage they were scrapped in order to free   
   >>>> resources for weapons that could be more quickly finished.   
   >>   
   >>>> They were to add an enclosed armoured version of the duel FLAK 105mm   
   >>>> guns, still triaxially stabalised and inclusive of radar built on to   
   >>>> the mount.   
   >>   
   >>> They'd have been an even more serious waste of resource than the Iowas,   
   >>> but the US could afford it, Germany couldn't.   
   >>   
   >>> --   
   >>> Peter   
   >>   
   >> Peter, good point there about the cruiser fire disabling Bismarck.   
   >   
   > Never happened.   
   >   
   Flat lie.   
      
   >> Euno claims Bismarck was proof against cruisers but but he tends to   
   >> ignore facts and focus on what-ifs instead.-   
   >   
   > You on the other hand never checked the facts.   
   >   
   > Bismarck had more evenly distributed armour including an armoured   
   > bridge and citadel ie slightly thinner but over a wider area.  While   
   > the armoured bridge/citadel could not resist hits from a battleship it   
   > could resist hits from cruisers.  The 'All or nothing" concept on UK   
   > and USN ships simply tended to eliminate armour (mainly on the deck)   
      
   I'd like a reference for the elimination of deck armour (yes, you're   
   being called a liar again)   
      
   > on what were cenceived of as non-critical areas (such as the bridge)   
   > and concentrate it more heavily areas so that they might provide more   
   > complete protection.   
      
   The reduction in conning tower armour happened in all fleets (except in   
   the incompetent German designs), to allow more interior space and reduce   
   top weight. Because of the narrow dimensions, armour to resist cruiser   
   fire was considered appropriate ad BB AP rounds would pass clear through   
   unexploded as happened on PoW.   
      
   At closer range engagements, which the Germans   
   > expected to be normal, the shallow striking angle provides protection   
   > to Bismarck.  Bismarck is thus more vulnerable only at long range   
   > (from plunging fire) and only from a Battleship.  Bismarck was not   
   > intended to fight battleships often and then only at close range (due   
   > to poor visibillity in the Atlantic).  The all or nothing idea assumed   
   > the shell would simply pass throught or not cause serious damage.   
   >   
   I'd like a reference for that last bit of BS. It's as absurd as your   
   earlier statements about B's main armament.   
      
   > Now consider what happens when a German Navy Heavy-Cruiser like Prinze   
   > Eugen engages with a USN or RN style Battleship.  Prinze Eugen might   
   > only be 1/3rd the size but 8 inch guns had almost the same range as   
   > that of the 14-16 inch guns of a battleship, certainly near the limits   
   > of radar and optics and moreover had 3 times the fireing rate.   
      
   Reference for the firing rate please. You're claiming 6/min. Pnly the   
   British counties could maintain that rate.   
      
   It is   
   > likely that a Heavy Cruiser may get the first hits not only damaging   
   > fire control and radar but getting penetrations into the Bridge and   
   > the 'nothing' part of the 'all or nothing' armour concept areas.  The   
   > compromised secondary "Duel Purpose" armament the allied ships would   
   > tend to be too weak to partake in accurate fire at long range.   
   >   
   > Bismarcks purpose as a commer raider meant she had to be optimised to   
   > dominate heavy-cruisers.   
      
   I would like a reference to B's being designed to dominate heavy   
   cruisers. It is not the truth, raiding was a secondary consideration. B   
   was designed to fight battleships, she was an interim step towards the   
   ultimate ships planned for the war to start around 1944.   
      
      
   --   
   Peter   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)