![]() ![]() I would expect the 16"/L52 to require more turret space, barbette space and, if the ammo capacity would stay the same as per Bismarck (120 rounds/gun), given the larger volume occupied by the 16" shells, probably a larger diameter of the main magazines, and thus a slightly increased beam of the ship. The only advantages for the 16" came at extreme battle ranges.īut the 16" would have an extra advantage - more devastation delivered to the target, because of the much heavier shell. In terms of belt penetration, velocity is the more important factor. ![]() The 15" had greater deck penetration out to 32km before the 16" eclipsed it. Bismarck probably could have been equipped with the 16" but the increase in firepower was actually marginal. The 16" gun was heavier and so would have required larger and heavier supporting structures, increasing the tonnage of the ship slightly. The Italians and the French (the preceived most likely opponant at the time) had already decided to go with 15" and the British were pushing for a new treaty limit of 14". Dave Saxton wrote:The 38cm gun was used largely because it was thought, circa 1935, since only the Nelson class were equipped with 16" guns in Europe, a 16" Bismarck would antagonize the British. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |