Text 14244, 81 rader
Skriven 2005-10-06 12:14:29 av Ward Dossche
     Kommentar till en text av Roy Witt
Ärende: Re: Katrina
===================
> RW>> Ship:             Bismarck        Hood
 
> RW>> Displacement:     50,900 mt       48,400 mt
> RW>> Armour:
> RW>> ú  Main belt:     320mm           305mm
> RW>> ú  Turrets:       130-360mm       127-381mm
> RW>> ú  Upper deck:    50-80mm         38mm
> RW>> ú  Armour deck:   80-120mm        75mm
...
> See above. Armour deck is that which covers the hull.
 
You're so stupid ... "Main Belt" is what covers the hull, and not even all of
it.
 
> Hood's gun turrets and main belt are well within the ballpark. Dossche
> seems to think there's a difference between a Battle-ship and a
> Battle-cruiser, but they're nearly the same.
 
A battle-cruiser is an old concept mainly stemming from the need for a faster
gun-platform than the old dreadnoughts which could load an impressive amount of
explosives on an enemy but were too slow.
 
Enter the "battle-cruiser" concept ... faster and narrower than a dreadnought,
still impressive weaponry. Only a handfull were built and none were that
impressive fighting machines in the end because of lack of armor.
 
HMS Hood was an exception in that they added about 10,000 tonnes of extra
armour in comparison to other battle-cruiser designs to overcome the dreadful
losses during the Battle of Jutland due to insufficient armor of the battle
cruisers.
 
HMS Hood was the last of its kind and 4 sisterships were never build because
the other nations did not follow the trend. Towards completion it was suggested
to never commission her but send her to the scrapyard without ever having been
used. This was not done and eventually due to her size she became a British
showpiece.
 
She was sent into a battle she never should have ended-up in and the rest is
history.
 
> Bismarck's 8, 15" guns fired a minimum of 93, 38cm Psgr. L/4,4 (m.Hb),
> Panzersprenggranate L/4,4 (mit Haube).
 
When cut-and-pasting from other sources you could at least have the decency to
translate the languge to preserve at least some credibility that one or the
other loner might have with regards to your ... ehr ... expertise.
 
> Finally, it was Prinz Eugens that drew first blood that counted and the
> Hood went down in 3 or 4 minutes after her 2nd volly.
 
> The Hood and Prince of Wales both had 14 inch guns, but not the firepower
> of either German ship.
 
HMS Hood had 8 15" guns, if you have other information then ... "hahahaha".
 
It fired the same type of armor-piercing grenades as Bismarck did and could
fire at a faster ratio. Hower its stern-turrets never saw action and she
mistakingly fired on Prinz Eugen rather than Bismarck.
 
The 10 14"-guns of HMS Prince of Wales also fired formidable armor-piercing
shells and there is not a single credible naval source which will state its
firepower was inferior. It was a "King George V"-class battleship and the
firepower of these vessels was demonstrated a few days later when the HMS King
George V herself went on a turkey-shoot with Bismarck as the victim.
 
Prinz Eugen was a heavy cruiser from the Hipper-class and its main armament
were 4 turrets with 2 8-inch guns each. Talk about undergunned.
 
Again your "information is as fucked-up as you are yourself.
 
Nevertheless, thank you for the field day you accorded me.
 
For those interested in details ... The British naval unit brought 8 15-inch
and 10 14-inch guns into the battle while the Germans had 8 15-inch and 8
8-inch guns. It doesn't take a specialist to see who had the superior
fire-power.
 
 \%/@rd

--- DB 1.58/001877
 * Origin: "Leonard will be free" - http://www.leonardpeltier.org (2:292/854)