Queen Mary 2, Macross "thumbs"

[KingNor]

anyone seen the Queen Mary 2? its got a thing called... well i don't know what its called, but it looks alot like the "thumbs" on the SDF Macross.

what it does is make a false wave infront of the ship and allows it to "slip" through the water as opposed to "cut" very neat to see it in action as the water just glides up the hull and back down with almost no "wave" effect. very cool, anyway. thought it looked like something MWers would be intrested in.

this is the BEST pic i could get of the thing, they recently ran a documentary about the ship on history/science channel or something. look for it.

[Agent ONE]

anyone seen the Queen Mary 2? its got a thing called... well i don't know what its called, but it looks alot like the "thumbs" on the SDF Macross.

You mean like on the Deadalous and Prometheous (or however you spell em), right?

[KingNor]

anyone seen the Queen Mary 2?  its got a thing called... well i don't know what its called, but it looks alot like the "thumbs" on the SDF Macross.

You mean like on the Deadalous and Prometheous (or however you spell em), right?

yes

[ewilen]

The Yamato had something similar, as illustrated in this model. The Iowas and some other battleships also have a somewhat bulbous bow. These links explain what the design is supposed to accomplish:

http://www.warships1.com/index_tech/tech-004.htm

http://www.chuckhawks.com/post_treaty_battleships2.htm

And still more here: http://members.shaw.ca/diesel-duck/library...ulbous_bows.htm

You can do a search on "bulbous bow" for many more links.

[David Hingtgen]

New carriers have them too, to restore the speed lost due to constant weight increases. USS Ronald Reagan has one, presumably all future CVN's will too. USS JFK and America have them, but only as sonar domes, not really for speed.

Most any modern cruiser/destroyer has a sonar dome mounted in a quasi-bulbous bow, 2 for 1 deal there.

[ewilen]

Good to know, David. For those interested, here are links to CVN-76 and CVN-77 pictures and models showing the bow.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/027602.jpg

http://www.2scale.com/image013.jpg

http://www.modelshipbuilding.com/reaganmodel.htm

http://www.motionmodels.com/ships/cv/cvn76.html

[Hybridchild]

IIRC most oil tankers have them too

Hybridchild

[Druna Skass]

Were those bulges intentionaly meant to look like thumbs on the Prometheus and Daedelus?

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Just about every large cargo ship has them nowadays. It was a novel idea back in the Yamato's time (1937) but pretty standard now.

[Aurel Tristen]

anyone seen the Queen Mary 2? its got a thing called... well i don't know what its called, but it looks alot like the "thumbs" on the SDF Macross.

what it does is make a false wave infront of the ship and allows it to "slip" through the water as opposed to "cut" very neat to see it in action as the water just glides up the hull and back down with almost no "wave" effect. very cool, anyway. thought it looked like something MWers would be intrested in.

this is the BEST pic i could get of the thing, they recently ran a documentary about the ship on history/science channel or something. look for it.

You are referring to a bulbous bow and bow divergence. CVN-76 had its bow redesigned and CVN21 (CVN-78) will be built with one.

[KingNor]

i'd always figured the bulges on the SDF's ships were simply to make them look hand-ish, i had no idea that those would be useful on real ships.

though the ones on the SDF look alot more claw like than the bulges on real ships.

i wonder if this was forward thinking on the anime's part, or if just happy coincidence

[Boxer]

I allways assumed these things were on big ships like Battleships, Carriers, tankers, etc. I thought it was a sonar array.

[David Hingtgen]

Sonar is used for hunting subs, little more. (Of course subs use it to hunt everything). No battleship had sonar, only 1 carrier ever actually got one (America) and I doubt a tanker ever would.

Bow-mounted sonar domes look very much like a bulbous bow, but are generally too low and wrongly shaped to serve as such, AFAIK.

[ewilen]

Bulbous bows on battleships is also somewhat of a vexed issue. Some of them (e.g., H.M.S. Dreadnought) had a "ram bow" which implied that they were designed for ramming other ships (a tactic which had been militarily significant for part of the 19th century).

Look here for an illustration: http://steelnavy.com/SNDreadnought.htm

But I've read in another forum that the "ram bow" of the Dreadnought and her immediate successors didn't have the structural support to actually function as a weapon, and was essentially "ornamental". The design was dropped around 1915. However, this page says that the bulbous bow was developed partly from the ram bow, and another page says that some US battleships were designed with a bulbous bow (not ram bow) for hydrodynamic reasons before the end of WW I.

From looking at interwar battleship designs, it seems to me that many of them had non-bulbous bows, while some did. Often the bulbosity (to coin a term) was fairly subtle.

[David Hingtgen]

If you want to see really subtle, look at the Iowa class. Iowa class was designed for speed and manueverability above all else. They had more of a "top speed/agility increasing" bow, rather than a "drag reducing at normal speed" bow like most bulbous bows are for. Iowa class suffered for it though, very wet up front and not too stable in rough seas or high speed. But they could out-turn and out-run most anything. Their turning circle is insanely small, it's on the order of most destroyers. And could stop in less than a boat-length at flank speed.

[VF-19]

If you want to see really subtle, look at the Iowa class. Iowa class was designed for speed and manueverability above all else. They had more of a "top speed/agility increasing" bow, rather than a "drag reducing at normal speed" bow like most bulbous bows are for. Iowa class suffered for it though, very wet up front and not too stable in rough seas or high speed. But they could out-turn and out-run most anything. Their turning circle is insanely small, it's on the order of most destroyers. And could stop in less than a boat-length at flank speed.

Ouch. That's pretty dexterous for a ship that big. And I thought the Tirpitz and the Bismark were nasty... Now I really don't want an Iowa class battleship on my tail...

While on the sub-subject of battleships, exactly how does one armour a battleship from enemy fire. I know you can't simply increase the thickness of the plating on the ship. Too heavy, and your ship may not want to float any more. Too light, and she'll not float due to all the holes in her. Is it possible to have multiple thin layers of armour to disperse the energy of the incoming round? Or am I asking silly questions?

And in addition to armour, are modern-day carriers armoured in any way. I've watched Discovery channel specials on construction of Nimitz class carriers, and the modular sections they were lowering into position didn't look to be armoured. I could be wrong (as I've never seen one of those sections up close), but considering that a Phalanx defence may not get every missile headed towards the ship, woudln't some sort of armour help to minimize the damage?

And now the Macross related response!

I agree with most people's ideas on the whole "thumb" look of the two ships attached to the arms of the SDF-1, but considering that the whole series takes place in the 2010s, bulbous bows aren't totally out of the question. Weren't the two ships built during the SDF-1's reconstruction phase?

[David Hingtgen]

Multiple layers are less effective than a single layer of equal thickness. A single 10-inch thick plate is better than an 8 inch and a 2 inch plate together. Formula I think is 50% for a "spaced" plate, 75% for a "combined" plate. So if you have a 2inch directly on top of an 8 inch, it's like 8+(.75x2)=9.5 inches of a single plate. If you have a 2inch separated from the 8inch by a space, it's equal to 8+(.5x2)=9 inch thick armor. The thicker the armor, the greater the difference. And yes, there are armors out there that are multi-layer combos, with and without spaces, and you end up with a nasty "3+5(.5)+8(.75(.5x2)3)+4" ratings.

So why have multiple plates? Because the thicker it is, the harder it is to manufacture. The failure rate for battleship armor is tremendous. Heck, the Iowa and New Jersery only got 98% of their rated armor, as there were so many failed batches, they ran out of time, despite a 4-year head start on the ship's construction. By the time the MO and WI were built, they'd had enough "successfull" batches that they got full rated armor. (The IA and NJ had a full armor set, but not all of it was up to spec---there are weak spots that didn't pass the tests, but it's the best they could get from what they had, and there was a war to fight)

Also, sometimes there's not room for really thick armor, and you must space it. So instead of like a 10-inch plate, you use 2 spaced 6.5's, which are about equivalent to a 10 inch plate.

As for how to protect: you basically calculate the most likely engagement ranges and angles, and try to project against shells along those trajectories. You assume you're fighting the most similar enemy ship to yourself---a weaker ship should run away from you, and you shouldn't be taking on a vastly superior ship---you're really only expected to be battling it out with an "equivalent" ship. The really basic rule is "protect against yourself". Your armor should be able to withstand being hit by your own guns at your own optimum firing range. That'll pretty much take care of the whole "similar enemy vessel" criteria.

As for modern armor: the simple answer is "no". The long answer is that modern carriers and destroyers (and many ships being retrofitted when they can) "kevlar blankets over vital areas to prevent the spread of shrapnel". Basically if the hull is hit, it'll be blown apart, but they're trying to protect the machinery within. Flight II Burke class destroyers are supposed to have thicker hulls over the vital areas, but not true "armor". The USS Cole is one of those, and was hit over a "protected" spot. And we all saw what happened. Most ships would have been far more damaged. Iowa-class ships are considered immune to all anti-ship missiles and all current naval guns. Only threat is aircraft, which is pretty much an equal threat to any modern ship, and they all have the same defenses---their own CIWS for up-close (nobody's got more CIWS installed than an Iowa) , and AEGIS cruisers escorting.

Edited May 27, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[VF-19]

Thanks for the information David. I had no idea that it was so hard to manufacture battleship armour. Then again, I really don't know how difficult it is to make any sort of armour. I guess this also partly explains the higher output of US tanks in ww2, since thinner armour would be easier to manufacture than thick armour. It also helped that the auto industry built the tanks too...

[Lightning]

AEGIS Destroyers?

[David Hingtgen]

AEGIS destroyers---what about them? Burke class and (likely) Zumwalt class.

Well, for US ships at least. JMSDF has some now too (the new Kongo class, including the Kirishima), as does Spain.

Edited May 27, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[ewilen]

I wasn't aware of the multiple layers vs. single formulas; however, I can say that the science of armoring ships is extremely complex. Or at least the history of it is, due to evolving metallurgical technology and the evolving ballistics technology. At first they used iron and it was preferred to steel because the latter, though "stronger", is more brittle. Later, iron with a steel face was used, and eventually a form of homogenous nickel steel. The people designing armor piercing shells then discovered that it was easier to punch through steel if you used a steel shell capped with iron, as opposed to a homogenous steel sheel. The reason this worked isn't entirely clear to me but this page claims to have the answer. In general, the armor piercing cap helps keep the steel shell from shattering on impact. In response to this, at least some battleships used a "cap stripping" armor which would remove the armor piercing cap from an incoming shell before it would strike the main armor.

Other factors in armoring a ship, as David notes, are the expected engagement ranges and enemy. Engagement range is especially tricky since depending on the range you not only have a different velocity of impact, but also a different angle of impact and perhaps most important, different impact zones. At close ranges, hits are going to be on the side of the ship, so belt armor is important. At long ranges, hits are going to be coming down from the top, so deck armor is important. Although there is controversy over exactly why the Hood blew up in her duel with the Bismarck (was it a penetrating shot through the deck, or a fire which spread from one area to the main magazine?), it appears that her commander may have been concerned about her weak deck armor and so deliberately tried to close the range quickly, even though that meant giving up nearly half his firepower (in the rear turrets of Hood and Prince of Wales) as he charged the Germans.

Due to the weight of armor, it wasn't possible to protect an entire ship. The Americans led the way with the "all or nothing" approach of only armoring the most crucial areas.

Finally, nearly as important as armor was the watertight compartmentalization of ships. Better compartmentalization meant that the flooding from a hit could be contained better.

This page looks to be of interest: http://www.combinedfleet.com/b_armor.htm

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Its surprising how many people out there think that battleships are actually armoured all over. e.g. they think that stuff like Harpoons and Exocets and Silkworms would bounce off the Iowas no matter where it hits.

In reality, only the most important areas (magazines, machinery etc) are covered. To cover the whole ship would make the armour so thin that smaller ships stand a chance of punching thru the armour.

Look at the Bismarck. She didn't sink even when pumped full of 15inch hits since the armour at the vitals held up very well in most instances. But the rest of the ship was so wrecked that she was out of combat and service way before she sank.

[ewilen]

Basically, you're right, but some authors have criticized the Bismarck's design for the ease with which the ship's guns were put out of action. The Germans made a nearly unsinkable ship, due not only to armor but watertight subdivision--but what good is a big metal raft that can't fight?

Might have a look at this: http://www.warships1.com/index_tech/tech-070.htm

Also, to get very nitpicky, the Bismarck wasn't pumped full of 15" shells--she was hit by several of Prince of Wales' 14" shells during the initial fight that saw the sinking of the Hood, and was finished off in the final battle by a combination of 14" shells (King George V), 16" shells (Rodney), smaller caliber guns, torpedos, and ultimately the ship's own crew, who scuttled her as they abandoned ship.

[VF-19]

Basically, you're right, but some authors have criticized the Bismarck's design for the ease with which the ship's guns were put out of action. The Germans made a nearly unsinkable ship, due not only to armor but watertight subdivision--but what good is a big metal raft that can't fight?

Might have a look at this: http://www.warships1.com/index_tech/tech-070.htm

Also, to get very nitpicky, the Bismarck wasn't pumped full of 15" shells--she was hit by several of Prince of Wales' 14" shells during the initial fight that saw the sinking of the Hood, and was finished off in the final battle by a combination of 14" shells (King George V), 16" shells (Rodney), smaller caliber guns, torpedos, and ultimately the ship's own crew, who scuttled her as they abandoned ship.

Part of the other reason why the British kept shooting at the Bismark was that they didn't want to leave it as a floating wreck, and have the possiblity that the Germans would tow it back to base, repair her, and send her back out again. Now granted, Bismark would probably have been more valuable as scrapmetal for use to build/repair other ships, but denying the Germans the chance to recover the Bismark was an important goal accomplished in sinking her.

[ewilen]

Hm, I thought it had more to do with simply wanting to have a clear-cut "vengeance" for the loss of the Hood. But either way I'm reminded of the fact that the Germans did manage not have any of their dreadnought-type battleships blow up, and the few that were sunk in the open seas only succumbed after sustaining a terrible beating. Perhaps my favorite battleship, the Seydlitz (it was battlecruiser, really), managed to get home from battle in 1916 with parts of the deck underwater. (Click here for an image.)

[Mislovrit]

Hm, I thought it had more to do with simply wanting to have a clear-cut "vengeance" for the loss of the Hood.

Think of it as a "three fot one" for why the Bsimark sunk.

On the subject of lack of armor on modern ships, I recalled reading during the Falkland War, where an Argentinian frigate was heavily swisscheese by British soldiers using MGs, AT weapons, mortars and sniper rifles (targetting the bridge crew).

Edited May 27, 2004 by Mislovrit

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Basically, you're right, but some authors have criticized the Bismarck's design for the ease with which the ship's guns were put out of action. The Germans made a nearly unsinkable ship, due not only to armor but watertight subdivision--but what good is a big metal raft that can't fight?

Might have a look at this: http://www.warships1.com/index_tech/tech-070.htm

Also, to get very nitpicky, the Bismarck wasn't pumped full of 15" shells--she was hit by several of Prince of Wales' 14" shells during the initial fight that saw the sinking of the Hood, and was finished off in the final battle by a combination of 14" shells (King George V), 16" shells (Rodney), smaller caliber guns, torpedos, and ultimately the ship's own crew, who scuttled her as they abandoned ship.

I always thought that the 4 x 2 turret design is inferior to the 3 x 3 designs.

4 turrets give you 1 less gun.

And its easier to knock out 1 turret if u have 4.

Lose one turret and either way you have 6 barrels left working.

Might as well save the weight and go 3 x 3.

[David Hingtgen]

Ok, the *most heavily armored* parts of the Iowa's are nigh-invulnerable.

However, one of the lesser known facts about the Iowas is that they are actually pretty much built of armor. Most nations build ships of "normal" (mild) steel, then armor the vital areas. The Iowas are not. Almost every "non-armored" area is built of STS armor. It's not nearly as good as face-hardened or cast armor, and actually ranks below class-B armor (but that'd be US class-B armor, which means it's as good as many nation's class B armor, and maybe somebody's class A), but it is still far far stronger than normal warship steel. There is very little "normal ship-building" steel in them. The basic hull, superstructure, and decks of the Iowa class is as strong as most other nation's light or even medium armor. Yeesh, the Missouri took a direct kamikaze hit, and it left a small dent in the most external hull layer. And presumably removed the paint from that section. Most missiles aren't going to do much better than a fully-loaded Zero at 500mph. So yeah, a lot of weapons will bounce off every square inch of an Iowa class. They'd decimate the Bismark or Yamato's superstructure, being unarmored normal steel, but with the Iowa's entire superstructure (asides from the funnels) being basically eqivalent to moderate armor, they could shrug off quite a few attacks.

There's battleships, then there's the Iowas (and the South Dakotas). Frankly, only the US could afford (and had the raw materials) to build a class of ships made almost entirely of armor. Sure, some parts are much more heavily armored than others, but even the weakeer parts of the ship are far stronger than many other ship's moderately armored sections. They will not have their superstructure blasted away bit by bit from little guns like the Bismarck did.

PS--I was wrong about the Cole, it is a late Flight I, not a Flight II Burke. (like many other things, the programme was delayed---like DDG66-78 should have been Flight II, but only 72-78 were) No kevlar. Though it likely got it while being repaired, for it got several other later Burke features added on and there'd never be a better time to do it.

Edited May 28, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[ewilen]

I always thought that the 4 x 2 turret design is inferior to the 3 x 3 designs.

4 turrets give you 1 less gun.

And its easier to knock out 1 turret if u have 4.

Lose one turret and either way you have 6 barrels left working.

Might as well save the weight and go 3 x 3.

But if you have 3 turrets, one penetrating hit will wipe out 33% of your firepower. It's a tradeoff.

More important, probably, is the weight savings which you point out.

The last French battleships were designed with just two turrets in front, none in back, and four guns per turret.

The effect of all this on arcs of fire is an interesting question that came up in another thread recently, and which I raised on another forum. It would appear that with the exception of the Germans, everyone eventually agreed from 1920 on that firepower in the rear arc wasn't very important. In addition to the French ships I just mentioned, there were also a couple of British battleships which gave up big guns in the rear. They had three turrets one behind another in the front, with the middle one raised to allow it to fire forward over the frontmost. Italy, the US, and Japan all went with the 3x3 plan (two in front, one in back), while Britain's King George V class had 1x4 and 1x2 in front, with 1x4 in back. HMS Vanguard reverted to the 4x2 plan; however, this may have been a cost saving measure as it enabled Britain to recycle the turrets from earlier ships.

OTOH, the American plans for the Montana class had a 4x3 layout.

[Noyhauser]

Yeesh, the Missouri took a direct kamikaze hit, and it left a small dent in the most external hull layer. And presumably removed the paint from that section. Most missiles aren't going to do much better than a fully-loaded Zero at 500mph. So yeah, a lot of weapons will bounce off every square inch of an Iowa class. They'd decimate the Bismark or Yamato's superstructure, being unarmored normal steel, but with the Iowa's entire superstructure (asides from the funnels) being basically eqivalent to moderate armor, they could shrug off quite a few attacks.

I'm sorry, Im going to have to disagree on this. Unless the US's steel manufacturing was "that much" better than the Japanese , the Yamatos were far stonger ships(and there are studies that point to Japanese armor being even superior to their American counterparts). According to Janes Battleships of the 20th Century, the Yamato had a continous belt of 16.1 inches that was angled at 20 degrees. The Iowa's belt was not continous, running at 12.1 inches at its maximum. The Yamato's Conning tower was a staggering 19.7 inches and its turrets 25.6 inches. It is also said that the deck and conning tower armor was possibly 25% stronger than US class A, with the US armor worsening in performance as the shell size increases. If density is any measure, the Yamatos were 263 meters long, while the Iowas 270, and yet the Yamatos were 68,000 Tons while the Iowas were 52,000. Overall the Yamatos carried more armor, and possibly better armor as well.

I could go into armaments and speed but that wasn't the point of your post. so I'll leave it there.

the Hood blew up in her duel with the Bismarck (was it a penetrating shot through the deck, or a fire which spread from one area to the main magazine?), it appears that her commander may have been concerned about her weak deck armor and so deliberately tried to close the range quickly, even though that meant giving up nearly half his firepower (in the rear turrets of Hood and Prince of Wales) as he charged the Germans.

The Hood and many of her contemporary British Battlecruisers had major weakenss to plunging fire. The rapid evolution of Naval combat during the dreadnaught era created an oversight in british design for this type of hit, so that there was a huge hole in its Immunity zone. Plunging fire devestated three british battlecruisers during the Battle of Jutland and nearly sank a fourth. Once within flat arc trajectory the Hood 's Armor was quite strong, being a flared 12 inch belt.

Perhaps my favorite battleship, the Seydlitz (it was battlecruiser, really), managed to get home from battle in 1916 with parts of the deck underwater.

The Seydlitz was a true veteran. Fought in the Battle of Dogger bank and Jutland, the ship took a beating in both battles that most battleships wouldn't survive (she was a battle cruiser) and continued fighting.

If I had to rate my top three, the first would be the last British Battleship the Vanguard, then the Yamato, and finally the Vittorio Veneto (thats a beautiful ship)

[David Hingtgen]

This page is pretty useful for a quick comparison: http://www.combinedfleet.com/b_armor.htm

But basically--yes, Japanese armor quality was quite poor. Sheer lack of materials. When you need .2% this, and .5% that, and 1.8% that to make the really good alloys---Japan simply didn't have many crucial "exotic" metals to do so. They basically had to use late 1800's materials, and many "substitute" metals. They had the formulas, and the knowledge to make good armor, but absolutely didn't posess the materials to do so. Yes, the Yamato's had THICK armor. But it simply wasn't that GOOD. The thickest, heaviest armor (turret faces) was pretty much impervious due to sheer thickness. But their 16 inch belt was maybe equivalent to US quality 13 inch. Better than most battleships, but not by much at all. Also, the quality was quite inconsistent. There'd be quite a lot of areas that were only as good as 11 or 12 inch US/UK equivalent. I must say I do not know how the Yamatos' superstructure was armored. Conning tower of course, but what of the fire control towers and directors, etc? Yes, Yamato had a lot more armor by weight, but only because it was "bulky, low-quality armor". Better than raw cast iron plates, but nowhere near what US/UK/Germany could do, pound for pound.

Finally--AFAIK, most every anti-ship missile aims for the mid-section around waterline (usually a bit above, as hitting the water is bad for a missile), where any armored ship generally is armored decently well. If you launch 5 Harpoons at something, you won't do any damage to the superstructure, they'll all go for the (armored) midsection.

[Noyhauser]

I don;t think thats quite correct. I did some fishing on the web to back up what I was looking for and I found this.

http://members.aol.com/ghe101/ijn_yamato_vs_uss_iowa.htm

I've been trying to find out who this guy is, since he seems to be party to some excellent information. If what he says is true, Japanese armour would be actually better than their american counterparts in some cases. This shouldn't be too hard to believe.

Remember that the Japanese poured in huge amounts of their national wealth into their Navy, which was seen as the most prestigious service. They were not hampered by material shortages until the later part of the war, long after the Yamatos were built. Also Japanese battleship development did not fully stop during the interwar period as Japanese designers put out some of the best Heavy cruisers designed, such as the Mikumas. They were undoubtedly the world leaders in this field, prompting the construction of the Alaska class BCs. The Nagato was considered the best battleship of her period (1920s and 30s), superior to the Queen Elisabeth class so to say that their armour was stuck in 1800s is untrue.

[David Hingtgen]

That pretty much goes against Nathan Okun's stuff, who's probably the most-referenced guy for armor.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/okun_biz.htm (huge, mainly about Bismark)

He basicallly compares every major WWII BB class to Bismark, mainly "how would it do against the 15in guns of the Bismark". Notably:

<<<I am going to throw in the belt protection of the IJN YAMATO here as a "worst case" comparison, though the Japanese Vickers Hardened (VH) armor was the weakest form of face-hardened armor used in any WWII warship, being a modified, but not upgraded, form of the WWI British Vickers CA with the cemented surface eliminated and a higher carbon content to make decrementally hardening it easier. The waterline belt of the YAMATO was 16.1" (410 mm) VH at a 20o outboard inclination to increase the minimum impact obliquity (the greatest inclination of any belt armor in a WWII battleship) laminated to a 1" (25.4 mm) cement layer (assuming British practice was followed) and a 0.63" (16 mm) D-steel bulkhead. The portion below the waterline was covered by a spaced curved outer hull plate of 0.55" (14 mm) D-steel, but the upper portion of the belt was exposed - this thin hull plate would not appreciably slow down or decap any large impacting projectile, in any event. >>>

<<The Japanese enlarged their warship designs but did not keep up in face-hardened armor quality and because of this did no more than break even with the best foreign designs.>>

[ewilen]

Noyhauser, there's some controversy over whether the Hood was really sunk by plunging fire piercing her vitals. At least, I've seen some theories that a fire was started among the ammo for a secondary weapon, which then spread into the main magazine. After doing some searching and reading, though, I see that the idea of a spreading fire has fallen out of favor, and the original conclusion, that the Hood sank from a shell piercing her deck armor, is generally preferred. The discovery the wreck of the Hood may have helped settle the controversy.

[ewilen]

I think the two of you are wading into an old feud/debate. The person favoring the Yamato armor is George Elder; he and the combinedfleet people seem to have a longstanding disagreement, and no one is likely to sort out who is right without a great deal of research and study.

I will say this about Elder's analysis, though: he seems not to give US radar fire control its due. The experience of Washington vs. Kirishima at Guadalcanal, and later the battle of Surigao Strait, say to me that the system worked very well indeed.

Edit: This seems like an extensive debate between the two sides: http://f16.parsimony.net/forum26300/messages/9264.htm

But I don't know how helpful it really is in sorting out who is right and who is wrong. Elder is apparently a fan of the Bismarck, so he's bothered by the low rating given the Bismarck on the combinedfleet.com site. Nevertheless, the discussion might shed some light on the Yamato and Iowa armor issues.

Edited May 29, 2004 by ewilen