I won't quote all your work but thanks for the very clear and well written description of the problem with British shells. Interesting that you mention that the engagements were at longer ranges than expected as I would think this would decrease the probabilty of bursting or detonating on impact.boredatwork wrote: ...
What was wrong with the Baden?
Moderator: Bill Jurens
Re: What was wrong with the Baden?
Re: What was wrong with the Baden?
Some concentrated information about the philosophy and changing perception of armour and AP performance of german battleship armour- both before and after ww1 written by Thorsten and me can be found here:
http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.c ... ply-222173
It´s important to note development went from various forms of incremental to AON (kind of) with the pocket battleships and then back to incremental with heavy slopes (not unlikely to the first decade of the 20th century design philosophy) but with emphasize on deck armour. The progress of AP performances triggered armour layout solutions and vice versa.
The BADEN´s are not related to BISMARCK´s design. They had a thick enough main belt to keep AP at battledistance out (how much thicker than 350mm belt would have been possible?) but the internal slope wasn´t thick enough to do something against close range, penetrating hits.
The development is clearly:
BRANDENBURG>>>BRAUNSCHWEIG>>>MOLTKE/BADEN>>>MACKENSEN>>>>Pocket battleship
------------------------------------------------------------------------->>MACKENSEN>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>SCHARNHORST>>>>>BISMARCK
There was an evolution. But BISMARCK really had more in common with the BRAUNSCHWEIG class PDN´s (who also hd a thick slope, intended to destroy close range penetrating belt hits) than with the BADEN´s.
http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.c ... ply-222173
It´s important to note development went from various forms of incremental to AON (kind of) with the pocket battleships and then back to incremental with heavy slopes (not unlikely to the first decade of the 20th century design philosophy) but with emphasize on deck armour. The progress of AP performances triggered armour layout solutions and vice versa.
The BADEN´s are not related to BISMARCK´s design. They had a thick enough main belt to keep AP at battledistance out (how much thicker than 350mm belt would have been possible?) but the internal slope wasn´t thick enough to do something against close range, penetrating hits.
The development is clearly:
BRANDENBURG>>>BRAUNSCHWEIG>>>MOLTKE/BADEN>>>MACKENSEN>>>>Pocket battleship
------------------------------------------------------------------------->>MACKENSEN>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>SCHARNHORST>>>>>BISMARCK
There was an evolution. But BISMARCK really had more in common with the BRAUNSCHWEIG class PDN´s (who also hd a thick slope, intended to destroy close range penetrating belt hits) than with the BADEN´s.
Re: What was wrong with the Baden?
Was there something wrong with SMS BADEN?
Well perhaps, depnding on Your persepctive. But by reference of it´s time from 1916 to 1918, SMS BAYERN & SMS BADEN qualify for beeing the most powerful and best protected battleships afloat. They had the thickest main belt of all period battleships, covering a larger area than other battleships before (both, vertically and horizontally) and additionally protected the remainder of the hull by a comparably thick upper side belt (about as thick as the thickest barbette armour on the REVENGE class dreadnoughts). The exposed vitals were also well protected with 350mm turret faces and barbettes (compare REVENGE class with 13in turret faces but 10" barbettes). All this protection would make the ship immune to all except the heaviest projectiles.
The deck armour of the class is poor but not specially so compared to other periods designs (with the notable exception of U.S. american standarts) and period projectiles were not striking at an angle to easily faciliate deck penetration (U.S. standarts had a gun elevation of max. 15 deg), let alone think about fuse issues with period projectiles (there was no reliable fuse in service at any nation to fuse properly with 70 deg obliquity!).
Against very large projectiles, the many thin deck armour layers were weight efficient because thin plates flex more (trampoline effect) in case the impact obliquity is very high and the margin of excess velocity compared to necessary velocity to penetrate is very small. That allowed a degree of protection exceeding the relative weight of armour in this specific condition. Later on, when APC were striking at a less acute angle, this became disadvantageous but this development postdates the BADEN´s by nearly a decade.
The naval rifles of the 38cm L45 gun were extremely powerful. Originally designed for an extremely high muzzle velocity, resulting in poor dispersion patterns (barrel to short for that), the muzzle velocity was reduced to augment the gun patterns. Rate of fire was much superior with this gun and still, there is evidence that the 38cmL45 with period ww1 Krupp naval APC penetrated 13.23in KC at a distance of 21,872yard, an awesome capability for the standarts of the time (compare: U.S. 14in/50 was 6.7in US class A at 20,000 yard; U.S. 16in Mk1 was 11.5in US class A at 20,000 yard and U.K. 15in/42 was 11.0in CA at 19,707 yard).
Firecontroll gears on these battleships were continously updated and both ships received heavy tripod masts with an FC director aloft. They shipped longer baselength RF, including an 8.2m device, capable to accurately measure ranges in very long range engagements installed high atop and enjoied helmfree fire capability with the Petravic Abfeuerungs- und Mittlungsgerät.
With regard to speed, the two ships were quite capable. Unfortunately, they had to run wartime trials at a rather shallow measured mile, which resulted in speeds well below what would have been possible in a deep mile off Borkum or under peacetime rules (High quality Whelsh steaming coal aviable, lighter displacement, more overload tolerated). BADEN achieved a speed of 22.3kts in these trials (at 52,815SHP), which would have resulted according to K-office calculations in a speed of in between 23.5kts and 24.0 kts in proper conditions. You may speculate whether or not You would see a difference in speed had You submitted SMS BADEN to the same set of trials the QE class was subject to. The reason why GROßER KURFÜRST and BAYERN were submitted to the 1st SG after Jutland was their speed. These ships claimed to be the fastest Dreadnoughts in the HSF.
The Goodall report has more critical information to these ships. The flashproof arrangement of the magazines appearently wasn´t up to british standarts, but it needs to be stressed that they preferred sealed brass cages with very slow burning RPC propellant instead of cordite in silk bags as was the standart in the GF.
The watertight bulkheads had a lower safety margin than british w/t doors and bulkheads and this could also have been observed in the gun design but it needs to be factored that excess safety was weight excessive and was avoided by very careful metallurgy and quality controll in german designs. Even the ship-piano was made from aluminium to save weight.
Some critizism arised from details of crew accomodation on these ships, too. But by US standarts they were considered very good & innovative in this regard, offering personal lockers for each and every crewmen, a luxury not known in british warships. Personal lockers are a social instrument, they provide a social individuum with the ability to put away important belongings into safety, something which has been stressed since the 20´s as extremely important in isolated social environments. German crews were also not entitled to stay and live aboard the ship as was the practice in the GF.
Well perhaps, depnding on Your persepctive. But by reference of it´s time from 1916 to 1918, SMS BAYERN & SMS BADEN qualify for beeing the most powerful and best protected battleships afloat. They had the thickest main belt of all period battleships, covering a larger area than other battleships before (both, vertically and horizontally) and additionally protected the remainder of the hull by a comparably thick upper side belt (about as thick as the thickest barbette armour on the REVENGE class dreadnoughts). The exposed vitals were also well protected with 350mm turret faces and barbettes (compare REVENGE class with 13in turret faces but 10" barbettes). All this protection would make the ship immune to all except the heaviest projectiles.
The deck armour of the class is poor but not specially so compared to other periods designs (with the notable exception of U.S. american standarts) and period projectiles were not striking at an angle to easily faciliate deck penetration (U.S. standarts had a gun elevation of max. 15 deg), let alone think about fuse issues with period projectiles (there was no reliable fuse in service at any nation to fuse properly with 70 deg obliquity!).
Against very large projectiles, the many thin deck armour layers were weight efficient because thin plates flex more (trampoline effect) in case the impact obliquity is very high and the margin of excess velocity compared to necessary velocity to penetrate is very small. That allowed a degree of protection exceeding the relative weight of armour in this specific condition. Later on, when APC were striking at a less acute angle, this became disadvantageous but this development postdates the BADEN´s by nearly a decade.
The naval rifles of the 38cm L45 gun were extremely powerful. Originally designed for an extremely high muzzle velocity, resulting in poor dispersion patterns (barrel to short for that), the muzzle velocity was reduced to augment the gun patterns. Rate of fire was much superior with this gun and still, there is evidence that the 38cmL45 with period ww1 Krupp naval APC penetrated 13.23in KC at a distance of 21,872yard, an awesome capability for the standarts of the time (compare: U.S. 14in/50 was 6.7in US class A at 20,000 yard; U.S. 16in Mk1 was 11.5in US class A at 20,000 yard and U.K. 15in/42 was 11.0in CA at 19,707 yard).
Firecontroll gears on these battleships were continously updated and both ships received heavy tripod masts with an FC director aloft. They shipped longer baselength RF, including an 8.2m device, capable to accurately measure ranges in very long range engagements installed high atop and enjoied helmfree fire capability with the Petravic Abfeuerungs- und Mittlungsgerät.
With regard to speed, the two ships were quite capable. Unfortunately, they had to run wartime trials at a rather shallow measured mile, which resulted in speeds well below what would have been possible in a deep mile off Borkum or under peacetime rules (High quality Whelsh steaming coal aviable, lighter displacement, more overload tolerated). BADEN achieved a speed of 22.3kts in these trials (at 52,815SHP), which would have resulted according to K-office calculations in a speed of in between 23.5kts and 24.0 kts in proper conditions. You may speculate whether or not You would see a difference in speed had You submitted SMS BADEN to the same set of trials the QE class was subject to. The reason why GROßER KURFÜRST and BAYERN were submitted to the 1st SG after Jutland was their speed. These ships claimed to be the fastest Dreadnoughts in the HSF.
The Goodall report has more critical information to these ships. The flashproof arrangement of the magazines appearently wasn´t up to british standarts, but it needs to be stressed that they preferred sealed brass cages with very slow burning RPC propellant instead of cordite in silk bags as was the standart in the GF.
The watertight bulkheads had a lower safety margin than british w/t doors and bulkheads and this could also have been observed in the gun design but it needs to be factored that excess safety was weight excessive and was avoided by very careful metallurgy and quality controll in german designs. Even the ship-piano was made from aluminium to save weight.
Some critizism arised from details of crew accomodation on these ships, too. But by US standarts they were considered very good & innovative in this regard, offering personal lockers for each and every crewmen, a luxury not known in british warships. Personal lockers are a social instrument, they provide a social individuum with the ability to put away important belongings into safety, something which has been stressed since the 20´s as extremely important in isolated social environments. German crews were also not entitled to stay and live aboard the ship as was the practice in the GF.
-
boredatwork
- Member
- Posts: 234
- Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:42 pm
Re: What was wrong with the Baden?
Presumably though the QEs would have an easier time sustaining top speed for prolonged periods?delcyros wrote: You may speculate whether or not You would see a difference in speed had You submitted SMS BADEN to the same set of trials the QE class was subject to. The reason why GROßER KURFÜRST and BAYERN were submitted to the 1st SG after Jutland was their speed. These ships claimed to be the fastest Dreadnoughts in the HSF.
Re: What was wrong with the Baden?
Possible, but is this tactically useful? Jellicoe decidedly disagreed here, judging strictly by the difficulties the 5thBS experienced in the run-to-the-north trying to disengage from SMS KÖNIG & SMS GROßER KURFÜRST.
Given the reported condenser problems and other mechanical issues of the small-tube-boiler operated german powerplants as a general statement I would agree but as a specific case I would disagree.
Given the reported condenser problems and other mechanical issues of the small-tube-boiler operated german powerplants as a general statement I would agree but as a specific case I would disagree.
Re: What was wrong with the Baden?
I don't know how I missed this before. Great post!delcyros wrote:Was there something wrong with SMS BADEN?
Well perhaps, depnding on Your persepctive. But by reference of it´s time from 1916 to 1918, SMS BAYERN & SMS BADEN qualify for beeing the most powerful and best protected battleships afloat....But by US standarts they were considered very good & innovative in this regard, offering personal lockers for each and every crewmen, a luxury not known in british warships. Personal lockers are a social instrument, they provide a social individuum with the ability to put away important belongings into safety, something which has been stressed since the 20´s as extremely important in isolated social environments. German crews were also not entitled to stay and live aboard the ship as was the practice in the GF.