Raverdave
Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002 From: Melb. Australia Status: offline
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by madflava13 [B]US and Jap ships were designed with long range fire in mind, but the opportunity never came up - Most battles - all battles?- were medium/short ranged skirmishes. ... [/B][/QUOTE] Got this following piece from http://www.warships1.com/W-Tech/tech-006.htm [I]by Tony DiGiulian on December 18, 1998 at 03:14:04: Which Battleship scored the longest-range hit on an enemy warship? The HMS Warspite hit the Guilio Cesare in July 1940 at 26,400 yds. Up until now, I've always believed that this was the longest range hit ever scored on a moving target in a naval combat engagement. Recently, I reread an old book of mine that is an English translation of a German history of the Kriegsmarine in WWII. In it, there is a summary of the Glorious sinking based upon the German after action reports. In this report, there is enough data to have made me think that the Scharnhorst hit the Glorious at a greater range than the Warspite hit the Guilio Cesare. I've been trying to confirm this ever since. I can now report success. I have found an on-line website that has an article on the engagement: http://www.primenet.com/~inro/no11994.htm This is an on-line copy of an article published in Warship International in 1994, titled "Loss of the HMS Glorious," by Vernon W. Howland, Captain, RCN (Retd.). Some data points from the article (found in various places): 1) Scharnhorst was 28,600 yds. distant at 1632 when she opened fire 2) Her third salvo hit the Glorious at 1638. 3) Scharnhorst was 26,465 yds. distant or slightly less from the Glorious between 1636 and 1638. Notes on above data points: a) 1 and 2 above agrees with the German after action report summary that I have a translation of, and what started this whole quest of mine. b) The conversion from hectometers to yards appears to have been poorly done in the table given in the article. It appears that the author converted from hectometers (what the Germans used in their reports) to yards, and then back to hectometers to create the table. I can rationalize the table in no other way. This appears to have led to errors and typos. For instance, at 1641, the range in the table is given as 26,137 yds. and 230 hectometers. Actually, the correct hectometer conversion would be 239. I am assuming that the yard values are correct, as this is what the author should have been most familiar with - he is, after all, Canadian. However, it is possible that, in this one instance, the decameter distance given in the table is correct. If so, then the distance at 1639 would have been 240 hectometers, or about 26,260 yds. I do not believe that this materially affects the end result, but I'll accept that it may be a flaw in my reasoning. Some analysis of the above data points: In the three minute period between 1636 and 1639, the distance appears to have remained constant at 26,465 yds., or it may have decreased somewhat to 26,260 yds. For the Scharnhorst to have hit the Glorious at 1638, she must have fired no later than 1637 (allowing for a maximum flight/spot/reload time of 90 seconds and assuming that the times are rounded off to the nearest minute). At 1637, assuming a constant closing rate, the Scharnhorst would have been at about 26,400 yds. So, I think that somewhere between 26,400 to 26,465 yds. is the correct distance, whatever the errors in the table may be. Bottom line: It appears that the Scharnhorst hit the Glorious at about 26,465 yds. or slightly less. To me, this is essentially the same distance reported for the Warspite striking the Guilio Cesare, 26,400 yds. So, it's really a tie between the HMS Warspite and the KM Scharnhorst. [/I]
_____________________________
Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
|