BS & TP - wet ships?
Moderator: Bill Jurens
- _Derfflinger_
- Supporter
- Posts: 136
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:01 pm
- Location: Missouri, USA
BS & TP - wet ships?
In moderate to heavy seas, both Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were very wet ships forward, in spite of the addition of their "Atlantic" bows.
Were Bismarck and Tirpitz free of this problem? I know they were better than SH and GU, but were they described as being "wet" ships also?
Thanks.
Derf
Were Bismarck and Tirpitz free of this problem? I know they were better than SH and GU, but were they described as being "wet" ships also?
Thanks.
Derf
In February 1941 the Seekriegsleitung, the German Naval High Command, discussed a memoir about the performance of the Kriegsmarine vessels during the first year of the war and of subsequent requirements for further projects.
In depth and length the bad sea keeping qualities of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau are described. Then it goes: “… The sea keeping qualities of the vessels have to improve significantly. After preliminary examination even with the latest additions (battleships type ‘Bismarck’ and destroyer 36a) there are doubts if an improvement has been achieved already.“
It seems they were less than impressed.
An other hind would be the removal of the Rangefinders of Bismarck’s turret Anton. They apparently were useless due to spray in everything but a village pond.
So I think there was a big improvement versus the Scharnhorst class but it seems they did not really stamp out all the trouble.
Ciao,
Ufo
In depth and length the bad sea keeping qualities of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau are described. Then it goes: “… The sea keeping qualities of the vessels have to improve significantly. After preliminary examination even with the latest additions (battleships type ‘Bismarck’ and destroyer 36a) there are doubts if an improvement has been achieved already.“
It seems they were less than impressed.
An other hind would be the removal of the Rangefinders of Bismarck’s turret Anton. They apparently were useless due to spray in everything but a village pond.
So I think there was a big improvement versus the Scharnhorst class but it seems they did not really stamp out all the trouble.
Ciao,
Ufo
So how drastic a solution would you need to go to, in order to resolve that problem... without range finders guns can't shoot?
With S&G if you removed the front A turret and plated over the deck with maybe a twin 6" turret or couple of flak batteries....would that have solved the 'wet problem' of these ships?
How much difference did it really make?
With S&G if you removed the front A turret and plated over the deck with maybe a twin 6" turret or couple of flak batteries....would that have solved the 'wet problem' of these ships?
How much difference did it really make?
- ontheslipway
- Supporter
- Posts: 233
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 8:19 am
- ontheslipway
- Supporter
- Posts: 233
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 8:19 am
I assume you mean not going to sea is. If the rangefinders are rendered ineffective by spray and the turret is frequently flooded, replaced it with a smaller turret does NOT solve the problem. Adding open Flak batteries is certainly very unpleasant and they are washed away in heavy seas easily. A breakwater may help somewhat, but a lot of spray also comes from the bowwater over the sides. The ships were already fitted with a double breakwater, one in front of A-turret and one flanking B turret, a setup used by most navies.Maybe , but would if have solved the problem.
- ontheslipway
- Supporter
- Posts: 233
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 8:19 am
Although getting a turret out may indeed reduce trim (I misunderstood you on this point), her hull characteristics aren't changed much. The weight distrubution changed somewhat but in heavy swells isn't going to radically change the seakeeping habits of bow diving. Not only the bow, but more of less the entire midsection of the ship was sometimes flooded. Changing to a newer bow can help but I think it would be difficult to add a lot of buoyancy the the bow area?
Removing a turret basically reduces her to a panzerschiff, while she's better of with twin 15"'s (other discussion).
Removing a turret basically reduces her to a panzerschiff, while she's better of with twin 15"'s (other discussion).
Seems like there is no easy answer here and alot of this could be seen as a 'design choice'? Heres a comment from another board.
Note he is referening to prewar designs .It applies to all ships to different extents. RN ships were generally very poor sea boats due to a requirement that they could fire over the bows at zero elevation. The KGVs were very wet forward in even moderate seas and during the bismark action the forward magazines were nearly flooded by water coming over the bows and through the turret openings.
S & G were given clipper bows which improved things somewhat but didn't elimate the problem.
Hood had a general problem in that she was heavily overweight relative to her design displacement. At high speed the quarter deck could be unsafe due to the water coming over it. This led to her being named the largest submarine in the fleet.
I don't know any RN battleships from this period that were poor seaboats. Wetness is only one factor."RN ships were generally very poor sea boats due to a requirement that they could fire over the bows at zero elevation."
I also can't specify which designs had the spec for 0deg fire forward. It apparently was part of the KGV requirement, but that's all I know.