Originally posted by mdiehl
You are, as usual, wrong, and you have, as usual, fabricated a straw man and attributed it to me. I made no assumption that decapping a shell renders it "ineffective." If you knew what you were talking about at all, or had actually read the guns and armor page, you'd know that decapping a shell pretty much prevents it from penetrating the inner armor layer and tends to lead to higher rates of low-order detonation.
I notice you use your "Straw man" statement whenever you make a faulty statement and get called on it. You will recall your own words;
****
"All right, now I have *no* idea to whom you are responding. I made no statements about Kirishima or Washington or any other particular BB recently. FWIW, Kirishima's main batteries could not penetrate Washington's (or her sister, South Dakota, the one whose power failed) belt or citidel armor with an intact explosive charge (see the Guns and Armor page linkable via www.combinedfleet.com). The keyword you want there is "decapitation" (which is what happens to any IJN shell other than the 18" fired at close range). In contrast, there was no range or armor-area on Kirishima at which the Washington or SoDak's 16" would *not* penetrate with an intact explosive charge."
****
It takes more than reading one article on a website and calling it incorrectly "Decapitization" to understand the dynamics of heavy shells. Decapping of a shell theoretically reduces an AP shell's penetration but it does not negate it. We are not talking gravity bombs but multi ton projectiles traveling at greater than the speed of sound. Further, the hull skin theory of the SoDak class is unproven, and tests (at simulated BB range, not 9700 yards) revealed that even the elaborate Italian design did not always keep shells out at ranges it was expected.
Ina desperate attempt to salvage an unsustainable opinion, Nik introduces the completely speculative qualifier that the IJN may have fired HE.
There is nothing desperate about quoting a source, in this case US battleships of WWII by William H., Jr. Garzke which documents each hit. I also base my opinions on the pereformance of a 14 inch shell on tabulated penetration figures in multiple sources. At 9700 yards armor around 20 inches could be punched through by an AP shell of those general characteristics. Washington and SoDak were designed to resist such massive shells at ranges around 22,000 yards.
As usual you attempt to reshape a discussion to make it look like the person debating against you is "desperate" and formulating unsustainable opinions. You are the one who claims Washington and/or SoDak would be immune at 9700 yards. Provide your sources. Explain your answer.
Until you do, i stand by my statements
Washington's armor belt would not decap a shell before being struck because it was externally mounted and therefor the shell would impact *it* first
SoDak's 12.2 inch belt @ 9700 yards would be very unlikely to withstand a point blank shot by a 14 inch shell. It was never designed to in the first place. Note that withstand includes the kinetic destruction of the armor plate itself being blown into large chunks and hurled into the interior of the ship.
