Search results

In some regions, here in Italy, we say: "e sticazzi?". That means: "who cares?" (no offense intended!)

The largest non-nuclear explosion in history wasn't the N1 rocket explosion?

Surely in a one-on-one clash, the main problem of the NC is that, being developed with the Kongo class in mind, her armor was designed to withstand 356 mm shells. Obviously Tirpitz has 380 mm, so still can inflict critical damage in some areas (probably not at the main guns). But NC has far more...

"Treaty" or not, they (NC and SD) were fearsome ships. I agree completely with the author when it states: "Washington served with the British Home Fleet in 1942, but despite the hopes and prayers of her crew, the German super battleship Tirpitz never came out to fight. I have always thought...

Interesting that, unlike many of the other observers, the author of the article gives the title of best treaty battleship not at the South Dakota, but at the North Carolina class. I'm glad because NC is my favourite battleship, but is unusual. Aside from the NC underwater protection, that is...

An interesting in-depth analysis of the "treaty" battleships. http://www.chuckhawks.com/treaty_battleships.htm

Surely some Russian missiles are far more lethal than Harpoon. My guess is that some of them, back in the Eighties, was developed with the newly commissioned Iowas in mind... ---------- Post added at 10:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:37 PM ---------- Oh, the good old Kitchen. Back...

Surely. Well, this apply also in the previous "Bismarck vs Yamato" discussion. Bismarck has weak guns in comparison with the amount of armor Yamato shows, but still can hurt if his shells hits in the appropriate positions.

My bad, memory made a bad joke. Well, the HE shells has nearly 70 kg, not bad. My source: http://wargametechnology.weebly.com/comparazione-cannoni-di-grosso-calibro-navali.html Yeah a missile as the harpoon has more explosive... but if isn't capable to penetrate, who matters? Also, the data...

Well, let me a confrontation. Harpoon: - weight: about 700 kg - warhead: about 220 kg - speed: about 900 km/h 406/50 shell: - weight: 1,225 kg - warhead: 300 kg - muzzle speed: 2,750 km/h - impact speed: I don't know, let's say 1,500-1,700 km/h? ---------- Post added at 03:24 PM ----------...

I don't think that a mere harpoon can have any hope to penetrate the citadel. A missile is far "softer" than a shell specifically designed to penetrate armor.

An interesting topic is how a battleship, let's say a treaty or post-treaty one, can behave against a modern anti-ship missile (for example an Harpoon). Opinion on this topic are very mixed on the web.

nope. SRB were recovered and reused multiple times Also, STS recovered and reused even the second stage (the orbiter itself, obviously), a feat that was abandoned on F9.

Yep, the ship should be a little cramped despite his large size. Another cramped ship was the otherwise excellent South Dakota class. These ships was possibly the shortest of all the "treaty" battleships; in addition, the armored belt was well inside the hull, further reducing the living...

Wikipedia provides this interesting image of the Littorio under construction, with the Pugliese cylinders clearly visible:

Really a "shot trap". Nevertheless, in the maximum diameter area, the system can work in theory. In reality... well, three torpedos were enough to sink Littorio at Taranto... ---------- Post added at 10:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 PM ---------- Anyway... Determining the...

Very good in theory, but pratically effective only in a narrow area at center ship, the only site where the diameter of the absorber cylinder is adequate for the job. Not really a good system if it demands to the enemy to hit exactly in the only area in which it works well... :lol: Despite the...

I've mentioned the Littorio class above. Scarcely efficient, but beautiful indeed: ---------- Post added at 06:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:47 PM ---------- An italian site proposes a really in-depth analysis of a confrontation between Littorio and Bismarck. Despite the superior...

Surely was conservative when he had to say that in NATO exercises, Iowa was defeated by Vanguard and her WWI guns... :lol: ---------- Post added at 07:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:27 PM ---------- So, Iowa was capable of at least +2 knots over the specs; Bismarck +1... We Italians...

For sure. I must admit that they managed to create a very sleek and effective hull, even without radical designs (for the time) as the bulbous bow of the Yamato. For the record, the 27.4 knots of the Yamatos, to me, are as impressive as the 32 knots of the Iowas, given the displacement of these...