My sources would indicate that the 12” belt was equivalent to approximately 14-15” of vertical protection due to its slope. There were contemporary trials undertaken and this system performed well against 15” shells. In any event, the graphs produced tend to suggest that even a 12” belt would have a reasonable chance of keeping out a 15” shell at 18,000 yards.To compare with something else slightly more modern
You can see the Hood was no match for a modern armour scheme
This is entirely supposition on the part of the divers and those who have viewed videotape and still footage of the wreck. It is equally plausible to say a scuttling charge broke the bow off or it simply tore off during the stresses of sinking, and sank a distance away.Review of TV documentary on dive
Her bows lie broken and twisted some distance from the hull blown away as aresult of a magazine explosion , when death came to Scharnhorst it came sudden and violence.
I've attached what is I think the most recent and definitive analysis of Hood's sinking (and also Bismarck's). This was made following the 2001 expedition to the wrecks with ROVs. In the attached file, the analysis of Hood starts near the bottom of page 14, although the rest is quite interesting, too.My understanding of the Hood is that she was probably better protected than any of the pre war designs due to sloping armour. Also that the suggestion that she was lost due to a shell detonating in her magazine via belt or deck is now considered unlikely. The most likely current theories as to her loss relate more to issues with the ammunition for the 4” guns which were added post completion. Thus her loss could be considered more of a fluke and no more likely to occur than in any contemporary ship.
Well, there's no doubt at all, from the examination of the wreckage, as to what blew up. And minute rehashing of the available evidence ever since has shown conclusively that it was Bismarck, not PE, that did it. It seems way more likely than not that the shell actually exploded inside the magazine, based on various tests. However, there will always be argument over how the shell arrived in the magazine. Given that the forensically critical part of the ship was blown to bits, you can't line up bullet holes with rods like they do on CSI.Interesting article though I must admit I'm more a practical man than mathmetician, though I am fascinated by his reference to Y turret. Anyway looking at ADM 239/268 circa 1939 and reading the article the Admiralty don't quite have the same faith that either the belt armour or deck armour (3 inchs the Belfast was 3 inchs) as Mr Jurens
No argument there. See that pic early in the Jurens article showing how the addition of a narrow flat deck extension in the wings would have closed at least one (of several) windows of vulnerability to the type of hit that killed her. But Their Lordships kept putting that off until it was too late.The RN knew the Hood was a turkey.
Any ship hit well aft by a torpedo is at serious risk of losing her stern, regardless of the number of shafts she has. All stern designs are essentially cantilevered out abaft the screws with little buoyant support below. A number of 4-shaft, non-German cruisers lost their sterns from such hits. Not counting US ships hit by huge IJN torpedoes, off the top of my head I can think of Edinburgh (hit by a German torp) and Myoko (hit by a US torp).The spectacular stem failures of the armored cruiser Lützow and heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen were examples of this
I disagree. Structurally, a odd-numbered shaft arrangement is stronger than an even-numbered outfit because the central shaft's support extends the run of the keel further aft. As mentioned in my last. losing sterns was quite common for ships torpedoed aft so IMHO there's no basis for saying KM ships were worse off in this regard than anybody else's. The Germans didn't have very many ships and by sheer chance the few they had happened to get hit far aft statistically more often than ships of other navies. That, IMHO, is all there is to it.For sure any stern hit is a bad hit, I dont really think it was a design flaw rather a design compromise but the exaggeration and therefore vunerability was greater in KM ships.
Actually, high metacentric heights increase rolling motions, but they also increase the amount of list/heel/roll that the ship can recover from. IOW, ships that can't capsize bob like corks or "roll their guts out" in old sailor parlance. OTOH, ships with low metacentric heights are quite stable but will capsize at a lower angle of roll.Besides making capsizing less likely, what is the advantage to a high(er) metacentric height? Will it reduce rolling motion? Can the ship sustain harder turns? Are there any other practical benefits?