It's more a matter of metacentric height. Steadiness isn't stability: The former affects gunnery in open sea, the later indicate the ship's resistance to capsizing. For exemple, flat-bottom vessels are very stable yet are crappy gun platforms on a choppy sea. You mess with a ship's hull form, you mess with the whole of its nautical qualities. You basically make a new ship.
I do talk about two different things. You were the one who merged the two. You don't gain steadiness, as in gun platform performence, with bulges. Quite the contrary. You also lose seakeeping. Those two can be adressed by heightening the freeboard, but doing so will negatively affect recoil, flotation and yes, stability. Everything is a trade-off. No need to get rude. Don't believe me if you don't want to. I suggest informing yourself. These topics are all over the 'net.
Well, sailboats follow pretty much the same nautical rules, to an extent. And when I was using flat-bottom ships as an exemple, I didn't have battleships in mind, but rather the corvettes that were used to escort north Atlantic convoys, which were of civilian construction, and not meant for the open sea, althought their flat bottoms made them very stable. Everyone were seasick on these boats.
Those are two different ships with two different functions with at least an order of magnitude in size, mass and weight. BUT this is still off topic, the original OP was a simple question. How did a Bismarck AP shell arrive into the Hood's aft magazine? Where was the failure, considered the range and bearing of the Hood? Did the ship complete her 2 Blue turn to port? A good indicator would be if the Hood ever fired her aft turrets.
Flat bottom boats are highly unstable in hard seas. They poise serious capsize dangers as well. They are stable until they are not, and then they capsize. However, outside of hard seas they are more stable as they are more resistant to tilting. Battleships are so deep and heavy this likely would not be an issue.
I think you'll have to go back as far as the Russian Novgorod "things" to find a flat-bottomed ship of war. They were execrable seaboats and gun platforms, but man were they stable - Practically un-sinkeable, sure, but practically un-useable as well.
Flat bottom boats in sailboats were called "sharpies." They are faster and have a much shallower draft with less surface area water resistance per displacement. For size, they can carry more weight. However, they need a wider beam to try to avoid capsizing. They are very stable until the reach the point of instability - and then quickly capsize. There is little warning. They ride over waves more than cutting thru them so are bouncy and under power in hard seas will pound like crazy. Would make for a very stable gun platform in moderate seas because they don't roll. However, in heavy seas they would ride the waves like a roller coaster. A round bottom rolls and therefore safer, particularly for a sailing ship as the tilt bleed off wind force as an inherent safety feature. But they also are slow and roll like crazy. This is why most sailing warships and merchant ships had very rounded bottoms. Flat bottom boats are stable and fast with a shallow draft, but poise extreme capsize danger in a sailing ship or boat. That is why river ships generally are flat bottomed. They also are much easier to build as it the hull surfaces are 2 dimensional, not 3. For a large ship such as warship, the bottom is a balance between the two. It will not be perfectly round, but rather will have rounded edges. It is a compromise concerning speed, draft, displacement, cutting thru waves and stability.
Is that the Russian ship that was essentially a bowl within a bowl to allow the inner bowl to tilt counteracting wave roll?
But the ranges for the armor penetration don't work out. That is unless the gunnery tables were wrong and there are no surviving recordings only copies. The PoW did not survive the war and the PE logs were lost. Also the surviving German gunnery officer was only observing. If the range was greater than 20K yards I might go with it. The greatest range recorded was at about 18K yards. Maybe. A 5 inch STS deck would defeat any WW2 shell with the exception of the Yamato and the American 16 inch shells at that range and that's still a big maybe.
That's simply not true - and the Navy knew it too. It was vulnerable to torpedoes then - even more so now - including the prospect of breaching a magazine causing a HMS Hood like catastrophic explosion. For maximum speed, the IOWA had a notably narrow beam - reducing weight carrying ability. The extremely long bow, lightly armored, also was for speed. For battleships, speed versus armor was always an unsolvable problem. If the battleship was slow, it was only usable for shore landings as it couldn't catch anything on the seas. If it was fast, it was deficient in armor as it couldn't float enough weight because it had to be increasingly longer with an increasingly narrow length to beam ratio. Steel is heavy. https://forum.worldofwarships.com/t...tection-problems-with-iowa-class-battleships/ It also notes that the South Dakota, though a previous modern generation battleship, was knocked out of service by smaller 8 inch rounds including eliminating all sensor, radar and range finding equipment, making the big guns worthless at any significant range. Another example was the Bismark, with excellent armor. It has been pounded to no longer able to fire any rounds, but still not sinking. However, it was just a floating hulk and was scuttled by the crew. The issues of battleships is not sinkability. It is how easily they can be completely blinded and thereby rendered useless, the exorbitant costs of building, maintaining and operating, and the necessity of costly and vulnerable smaller escorts given how much is invested in the battleship. The advancement of shaped charges eliminated any pretending there was such a thing as an unsinkable ship no matter how thick the armor is.
I don't pay much attention to armchair admirals on a forum like "forum world of warships" where it's members are given commissions like Captain, Admiral. One member said this. Orange Plan that was used to win the war in the Pacific and was adopted around 1924 and the Philippine Islands were never intended to be reinforced if Japan went to war against the United States. The PI's were expendable and Plan Orange never called for the Pacific Fleet to come to the rescue and the mother of all naval battles that the IJN were counting on never happened. (The fuse for war in the Pacific Japan vs. USA was lit in 1905 and it's why Japan declared war against Germany during WW l. Japan needed Germany's territorial islands in the Micronesian Islands "Mandate Islands" to wage that mother of all naval battles to sink the Pacific Fleet. Plan Orange wasn't written by any admirals or generals but by two field grade Marine Corps officers.) The four Iowa's are fast battleships designed to escort fleet aircraft carriers listed at 32.5 knots but their top speed is classified but have reached 34 knots but no one really knows how fast they can go. During the Vietnam War the USS New Jersey BB-62 and fourteen 6" and 8" gun cruisers were classified as Fire Support Ships. To provide naval shore fire support for the Marine Corps and bombard North Vietnam. A ship doesn't need radars or range finders conducting naval shore fire support missions, 0849's (Marine naval gun spotters) on the ground do all of the work or FAC NSFS spotters in the air do the spotting and by the 1980's the Iowa's had their own UAV's (drones) doing the spotting. Torpedoes??? The Iowa's during the 80's and early 90's usually had an escort of one cruiser and six destroyers providing AA and ASW. The Iowa's have a different kind of armor plating than the North Carolina's or South Dakota's with a high nickle contents.
The Hood wasn't fully deck armored half had the new metal deck plating and half never got it due to the ceremonial and show the flag duties, where the shell hit her if it had its full modified deck armor it likely wouldn't have penetrated and might have bounced off at the angle in question. The ship was more than capable of blasting the Bismark out of the water and had the most experienced crew and commander in the British fleet. The attack run was textbook move up, turn at the last minute hitting the ship with your guns at close exchange and then evade to reload and fire again and keep the ship angled to minimize the chance of a critical hit on her. And remember it had escorts under orders it was a fight between a strike group and one ship. The commander knew how to use his ships to their strengths he just had a ship not deck armed to the new world of more plunging fire. That's why he wanted in closer the shells the Bismark fire would lose that advantage and it would have been a good slugging match with a ship fully capable of giving as good as it got. The Admiralty should have dry docked her when the engineers said they should and the fight would have been totally different.
For anyone who's in the UK, the story of the Hood is on iplayer at the moment. It's absolutely fascinating too. I've watched it twice.
Did you even read the article you quoted or the link you provided? "No amount of armor can protect from all threats. " "Conclusion - Damage will exploit design deficiencies and inherant vulnerability such as electronics, superstructure, and rudders. The Iowa's are niether invulnerable nor unsinkable. They possess characteristics that should limit the effects of damage from each sustained hit. These are defences of last resort and can be overwhelmed by massed attack or a series of lesser attacks just like Yamato. However along with the big carriers the Iowa's are more damage resistant than any ship afloat today". Reading further down your link: An example; A SM2ER missile weighs about 3,000 lbs and travels at Mach 10. That is an 18" shell traveling over 3 times faster than Yamato could ever fire and Iowa would never be able to resist Yamato's shells at the muzzle. Though the missile of course will be reduced to a smashed up ball of metal its impact will knock out the armored plug, penetrate, rip through the ship, hit the opposite side punch out another plug and exit the ship. No amount of armor will stop it. Tests have shown this type to rip through a ship length wise. There are Russian missiles now that are also hypersonic which will do the same and the warhead is not even relevant. The mass and speed of the missile alone will penetrate the armored citidel. The Iowa was tough for its era, but the days of battleships ended during WW2. They are vastly too cost disadvantageous to use for the rare to never storm the beaches and otherwise require astronomically expensive support including support vessels. Bringing it that close to shore makes is notably more vulnerable as there would be essentially zero time to react to incoming. Massive beach landings and big gun ships battling it out at sea is not how war is fought anymore. We can attack anywhere in the world within hours by aircraft - and not limited to shorelines. There is essentially no use for a big gun ship and both the costs and liabilities of it make it foolish to consider them anymore.
The depends if the cruise missile has any fuel left. If fired from maximum range chances are it burns through all its fuel before striking the targeted vessel.
Nonsense as modern cruise missiles are design to deal with zero or near zero armor warships not ww2 battleships and they would bounce off the sides of ww2 battleships.
Weapons are designed to destroy what exists, not what does not. If WW2 battleships existed, so would missiles to destroy them. THE greatest mistake ALL Navies made prior to WW2 was to not accept the age of the battleship was over. Germany should have had 500 long range submarines, not 78 and some worthless battleships, and if so likely the Britain would have been broken. If Japan has built more aircraft carriers rather than the Yamato and so many heavy cruisers, the war in the Pacific could have gone much differently.
The Hood should have been converted to an aircraft carrier - as should all Navies have done done so with their heavy cruisers and older battleships.
No, they would explode on impact and spread lots of burning jet/rocket fuel. This is ignoring the fact that Russian anti-ship missiles are most definitely designed with armor penetrating warheads.
Still has the explosive force from its warhead, which is enough to penetrate unarmored areas (many WW2 battleships used an all or nothing armor scheme) and wreck any antennas or equipment outside of the armor.
Re: While I have not done nearly the amount of research as has been done by other Posters, I have been intrigued by the remarkable performance of the Bismarck & do subscribe to the theory of Occam's Razor. Could the answer to the question above be simply because of the Bismarck's guns of a higher velocity than those normally expected (1)? "ARMAMENT" (of the Bismarck) http://www.kbismarck.com/armament.html EXCERPT "A special characteristic of these guns was their high muzzle velocity and low shell trajectories with a short flight time, which permitted to obtain a very accurate and rapid fire. This was fully demonstrated in the morning of 24 May 1941 during the naval engagement with the British battlecruiser Hood."CONTINUED
So the Russian are employing weapons that are design to deal with the very heavy armor of ships that are no longer in service but are being use as floating museums instead?
They use HEAT warheads designed to penetrate multiple decks at once that would penetrate thick steel armor. Remember the Russians build anti-ship missiles with the mission of killing or permanently crippling a floating city with a single hit.
