- 28 Ιούλ 2015, 14:11
#143778
cabala10 έγραψε:δεν το ξερουμε ομως γιατι δεν προλαβαμε να δουμε καποιο απο αυτα σε σοβαρη ναυμαχια εκτως του bismark που εκανε ονομα ανταξιο της φημης του..
The tradeoffs the Japanese made for these shells don't seem to have been worth it. The only textbook example of an optimal Type-91 hit was an 8" shell that struck the magazine of the U.S. light cruiser Boise during the Battle of Cape Esperance. In this case, rapid flooding prevented a catastrophic detonation of the magazine. Thus, the shell hit, while causing massive damage to Boise, did not achieve the sort of critical damage the Japanese had sacrificed so much for in terms of raw penetrative power in the design of their Type 91 ammunition. Further, it should be noted that the very long fuze delay times in these sorts of shells (necessary for allowing adequate delay if the shell was transiting underwater to the target) had undesirable effects when the shell struck light plating at flat trajectories (such as superstructures). In these cases, Type-91 shells frequently detonated well after the shell had carried through the target ship and was in mid-air on the other side. In a long-range gunnery duel, plunging fire from a Type-91 shell might conceivably pass through the armor deck and then through the bottom of the target ship before detonation -- again, not a trivial hit, but hardly the optimal amount of damage to be expected from a very large caliber shell penetrating to the vitals of the target.
http://www.combinedfleet.com/f_guns.htm#7
