KGV article on wikipedia

Warship design and construction, terminology, navigation, hydrodynamics, stability, armor schemes, damage control, etc.
Lutscha
Member
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: KGV article on wikipedia

Post by Lutscha »

Karl Heidenreich wrote:José:

I Starting for the overall displacement and beam there are catches.
Sorry, I don't understand what you are hinting at.

Btw, imo R&R are good as far as British ships are conerned, but their opinions for foreign designs seem highly biased (e. g. british 15inch gun was the best battleship gun of the war and others I don't recall right now).
Dumas and Jordan have R's TDS in high regard though their were some deficits in quality control during construction which allowed unnecessary leakages.

Allied BBs is the only volume of G§D I'm still lacking what do they write. Imo G&D are the most credible but thats just my opinion.

The Germans made a comparison between R and BS and rated their respective TDS' as roughly equal which I consider quite dubious due to the much larger breadth of R's system. I have only 3 pages of this paper and I'd like to know, if it is part of a larger one.
User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: KGV article on wikipedia

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Lutscha wrote: The Germans made a comparison between R and BS and rated their respective TDS' as roughly equal which I consider quite dubious due to the much larger breadth of R's system. I have only 3 pages of this paper and I'd like to know, if it is part of a larger one.
To be exact, they rated the effect of the torpedo bulkhead, which was one and a half times thicker, roughly equal.
However, there's another part of this paper (this part sounds a little bit hysterical, because they knew BS was inferior on paper). They recommend to reduce the space of the engine rooms in the future. 6 m is considered to be the minimum breadth for a TDS.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Lutscha
Member
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: KGV article on wikipedia

Post by Lutscha »

Do you know if there is a longer version than this 3 sheet paper?
User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: KGV article on wikipedia

Post by Herr Nilsson »

The 3-sheet paper is actualy part of a 4-sheet paper. The missing first sheet contains no additional information except when and why it's was written. "Auf Befehl des Ob.d.M. ...blablabla". However it's also said, that this is a preliminary paper that has to be refined. This first paper was probably used when Raeder reported Hitler on March 18th (IIRC).

There is a short second paper, in which the different weights of both ships are updated and compared. It was made a few days after the loss of BS.
About three weeks later there is a third paper, in which the different aspects are compared in detail.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Lutscha
Member
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: KGV article on wikipedia

Post by Lutscha »

Do you have the third one? :D

Edit: Nevermind, someone already offered it. :wink:
User avatar
José M. Rico
Administrator
Posts: 1008
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:23 am
Location: Madrid, Spain
Contact:

Re: KGV article on wikipedia

Post by José M. Rico »

I will be happy if I could take a look at that paper too! :D
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: KGV article on wikipedia

Post by Dave Saxton »

Liquid sandwich type TDS systems, and TDS systems like Bismarck's, operate on two entirely different concepts. With the liquid sandwich type; the energy is consumed by the displacement of the liquid's mass. With the other system the energy is consumed by the deformation of the main armored bulkhead, with the liquid distributing the force over a large area of the bulkhead. Here the mechanical and strength properties of the bulkhead are what is important. The Japanese studies indicated that the two concepts could be equally effective.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 919
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

TDS Bismarck

Post by Thorsten Wahl »

Damage analysis of ww1 torpedo and mine hits on german ships and excessive testing reveal that the problems of underwater explosions mostly didnt come from the explosionforce itself but more from high speed fragments of the outer hull and other metal parts.

So the german conclusion was to put the main torpedodefense as far as possible outwards of the detonation point and left at least material as possible between point of detonation and torpedodefense to prevent splinterdamage.
Only a thin Ww fuelbulkhead was left in this space. the Ww material had also a tendency to tear instead of creating splinters

A further recognition was putting liquids directly in front of the bulkhead to distribute the explosion force on larger areas of the bulkhead

in addition the 45 mm bulkhead should be able to prevent disruptive discharge from most projectiles exploded in front of the bulkhead
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: KGV article on wikipedia

Post by Dave Saxton »

An advantage to placing the liquid load inboard against the main Ww bulkhead is that the liquid will slow down splinters and fragments before impacting the Ww bulkhead. Outboard or center liquid loads have tendancy to be converted to an aerosol.

Ww compared to Wh had the carbon reduced from 0.29% to 0.22% and the Ni also reduced to virtually a trace. Ww retained an elongation of 25% while at 75kg/mm2 tensile. As I understand it, the bukhead was 45Ww over 20mm ST-52 laminate. The Ww extends as one piece about 1.5 meters above the panzer deck/scarps joint on the Bismarcks.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: KGV article on wikipedia

Post by dunmunro »

Lutscha wrote:
Karl Heidenreich wrote:José:

I Starting for the overall displacement and beam there are catches.
Sorry, I don't understand what you are hinting at.

Btw, imo R&R are good as far as British ships are conerned, but their opinions for foreign designs seem highly biased (e. g. british 15inch gun was the best battleship gun of the war and others I don't recall right now).
Dumas and Jordan have R's TDS in high regard though their were some deficits in quality control during construction which allowed unnecessary leakages.

Allied BBs is the only volume of G§D I'm still lacking what do they write. Imo G&D are the most credible but thats just my opinion.

The Germans made a comparison between R and BS and rated their respective TDS' as roughly equal which I consider quite dubious due to the much larger breadth of R's system. I have only 3 pages of this paper and I'd like to know, if it is part of a larger one.
From what I've read, one the of the key factors in TDS design, was allowance for venting of overpressure from the torpedo hit, and most systems do not have any allowance for upward venting, with KGV being a noticable exception. Richelieu and Bismarck's designs, for example, have the TDS capped by an armoured deck. This is going to force the torpedo to vent into the ship, into the area the TDS is trying to protect, rather than upward. This in turn will probably cause the holding bulkheads to fail and was probably responsible for blast effects entering NC's magazines and handling spaces. This probably accounts for the superior performance of the KGV's SPS.

G&D are just as prone to errors as anyone, and they made some rather glaring errors in Allied Battleships.
Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: KGV article on wikipedia

Post by Bill Jurens »

Dunmunro wrote:

"From what I've read, one the of the key factors in TDS design, was allowance for venting of overpressure from the torpedo hit."

I'd be interested in knowing where you read this.


"G&D are just as prone to errors as anyone, and they made some rather glaring errors in Allied Battleships."

Could you list a few examples, please?

Thanks in advance...

Bill Jurens.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: KGV article on wikipedia

Post by dunmunro »

Bill Jurens wrote:Dunmunro wrote:

"From what I've read, one the of the key factors in TDS design, was allowance for venting of overpressure from the torpedo hit."

I'd be interested in knowing where you read this.


"G&D are just as prone to errors as anyone, and they made some rather glaring errors in Allied Battleships."

Could you list a few examples, please?

Thanks in advance...

Bill Jurens.
The Nelson class battleships, for example, were carefully designed to allow for upward venting of overpressure. R&R, Britsh BBs, p293:"Experiments had demonstrated that the Nelson system for venting underwater explosions outboard, by providing internal armour and vent-plates in the ship's sides was not so great an improvement as had been originally thought. The vent plates were shown to be ineffective at the time of maximum pressure and it was found that explosions, vented inboard of the citadel, caused little more damage than those venting outboard. " So venting is essential, but not necessarily outboard venting. G&D discuss some of the conclusions of interwar SPS trials, and note, on p364, that: " If magazines are not protected against splinters or flash, then venting arrangements of sufficient strength should be included". So again the value of venting was proven, and the results with North Carolina seem to bear out the RN test results, since NC's magazines were not protected against flash (KGV had a void space between the holding bulkhead and the the magazine and another non-essential space over the SPS) and the design of her TDS forced inboard venting.

G&D's assumption that a torpedo defeated the SPS at frame 206 (p244-245) is a rather glaring error, although perhaps excusable because the wreck had not been properly surveyed.

KGV class
A few other errors: Incorrect MV for the 14" guns
Incorrect fuel consumption and range information by quoting endurance (based upon a formula with a built in reserve) rather than hourly fuel consumption.
stating that KGV burned more (39% more but no specific speed given) fuel at low power than Washington and then not stating that KGV is more (about 30% more economical at Washington's full power) economical at full power.
stating that KGV class BBs were twice refueled by USN frigates when operating with the BPF. This is completely untrue.

Dunkerque Class

We had a discussion recently where it was shown that G&D apparently mistranslated a French language report where it was stated that Hood's 15" shells passed through the main belt, rather than through the main deck. G&D's damage summary states that the 15" shells passed through the 4.5" deck armour at something like 14K yds.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: KGV article on wikipedia

Post by dunmunro »

More glaring errors, on page 180; they state that PoW's A turret ceased fire after one round at DS; they also state that A turret Jammed at DS.
On page 190 they state that after Y turret jammed, at 0613, that only two 14" guns remained in operation. Y-turret jammed at 0603 and 5 guns remained operational after Y turret jammed.
Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: KGV article on wikipedia

Post by Bill Jurens »

To Dunmunro:

Thanks for the previous memos.

Without going into great detail, I think you have probably exaggerated the necessity for 'venting' torpedo explosions via some sort of formal system. In general, the bigger the protection system, the better; whether one considers the addtional spaces as being used for 'venting' is somewhat a matter of terminology. The reclassification of various American sources makes it difficult to discuss these sorts of issues in detail.

Regarding the flash issue on North Carolina, the Bureau of Ships, in their postwar analysis of this incident incident did not seem to be very concerned regarding venting or flash. They did note that flashes were noted where bulkheads failed, but also noted that these were observed not in the magazines per se but in adjacent compartments, including the Electrical Booth, where -- presumably due to energized electrical circuits -- I would expect various types of flash in any case. The BuShips observation was that no flash of any significance reached the magazines, and that the flash which did get that far propagated through the ventilation system. The situation aboard North Carolina was somewhat unusual as the ship was not at General Quarters when the torpedo struck. This meant that some vents and doors which would normally have been closed during General Quarters were open, and that there were no bare charges in the magazines anyway. Had the ship been at General Quarters, the vents and doors would have been closed -- which would have decreased flash propagation -- but bare charges would (probably) have been exposed in the handling rooms, which would have increased the danger of ignition. Recognizing that flash might have reached the magazines directly if the torpedo hit had been in a slightly different position, they noted that the duration of same would have been unlikely to have ignited even bare charges, that in any case only a fire and not an explosion would have occurred, and that the same openings which admitted flash would thereafter have admitted water and extinguished the fire more or less immediately, as on USS Boise.

While it's true that the Garzke and Dulin series do contain some errors, all things considered, I would really not consider them 'glaring', particularly as the books were intended primarily as a technical history rather than as an operational description. In that regard, the descriptions of various actions are indeed somewhat truncated and some errors have crept in, mostly I think, due to the need to compress a great deal of history into finite space restricted by the publishers. Space limitations meant that more complete (and more correct) descriptions of operational issues would have necessarily meant deleting some technical detail. One must also remember that, particularly when one is dealing with American warships, security restrictions were still in place, which required the authors to somewhat 'dance around' some of the classified details. Considering the magnitude of this set of books -- which entered the market when most other technical descriptions were distinctly of the "Janes Fighting Ships" variety -- I think we can cut them a bit of slack. Before criticizing another's work, one should, I think, consider if one could do better himself overall. The G&D series are not perfect, but -- especially considering their age, and the restrictions the authors worked under -- they do remain very very good.

My recent work in editing a rather lengthy paper on the development of U.S. Naval fast battleship propulsion plants, for publication in an upcoming issue of Warship International, has made it very clear to me how difficult it can be to compare the performance of various plants directly, even when the installations are nearly the same. Although I have not done the necessary research to prove this, I suspect that your comments regarding the Garzke/Dulin comparison of the North Carolina and KGV propulsion plants may fall into this sort of grey area. A lot depends upon whether or not one includes 'hotel' loads in the fuel consumption figures, on displacement (e.g. whether the range etc. is computed for constant displacment or for a constantly decreasing displacement, and on operational issues such as the number of boilers which one feels it is necessary to keep available for immediate service, etc. A valid comparison would probably require the use of primary source material regarding the fuel consumption of the ships one wanted to compare and the presence of a competent naval engineer who could interpret the source documents correctly. Even at best, many of these figures represent "apples and oranges" when one attempts direct comparison -- ships in different navies were just not run the same way.

It would be difficult -- and might be interpreted as being merely argumentative -- to discuss some of the other 'glaring errors' you noted in detail. Clearly some are legitimate. Others are a little more problematical. As an example, you state that Garzke and Dulin list an incorrect initial velocity for the British 14" gun. To me at least, that's a matter of interpretation. My range tables for the gun are all computed on the basis of a 2400 f/s initial velocity, as in G&D. As they do reproduce range table figures for range, striking velocity, and angle of fall etc. in tables in the book, it only makes sense to reproduce the nominal range table initial velocity as well, otherwise the data is internally inconsistent. The higher velocities one sometimes sees in other sources, ranging from c.2450-2475 f/s appear to be from new gun powder proof shots, with 2400 f/s representing the average worn gun velocity. My tables, at least, indicate a new gun velocity of 2471 f/s at zero wear down to 2333 f/s at 375 effective full charges. A 2400 f/s velocity corresponds to about 140 e.f.c., i.e. about a half-worn gun. At 70 degrees F. So it's hard to say the 2400 f/s G&D value is 'wrong', although it may not be the one some other might have chosen.

Bill Jurens
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: KGV article on wikipedia

Post by dunmunro »

I don't mean to single out G&D for criticism and all 3 of my G&D Battleship volumes are very well worn as I refer to them constantly. You are correct that their work reprsents a mammoth undertaking, and anyone interested in Naval History is deeply in their debt. I have no hesitation in recommending the purchase of any of these volumes but their work does contain some errors.

Unfortunately, the errors contained in the chapter on the KGV class are serious enough that they create a very incorrect impression of that class, in comparison to their contemporaries. For example, the reduced MV of the KGV class would not be a serious error if it was stated to be reduced from the new gun value, and if the MV of the other BB guns, in their comparison on p349 was similarly reduced to average in-service values. Yet even the WW1 RN 14" has the new gun MV listed, and most readers, will come away with a very misleading impression of the RN 14" MkVII gun. Given that R&R and Campbell state the correct values, it is hard to understand how it could have crept into their work. Unfortunately, by understating, the gunpower, cruising range, and SPS they create a completely unwarranted impression of the KGV class.

Regarding the issue of flash, my understanding is that propellant charges were ignited in NC's handling rooms, and flash from the torpedo hit seems to have been the likely cause.

The RN realized that venting would occur, and that either a formal venting system had to be provided, or arrangements had to be made to allow for venting into non-essential areas of the ship, and thus the SPS holding bulkhead is surrounded by non-essential spaces, while above the SPS, there is a space below the MAD, where venting can occur. The RN, according to R&R (p122-123)was conducting full scale SPS trials with 1000lb charges in 1922, where it was demonstrated that Nelson's SPS design could and did defeat a 1000lb charge, and again in the 1930s, with the Job 74 trials, the RN again demonstrated the ability to defeat a 1000lb charge. In both designs the magazines are surrounded by non-essential spaces in-board of the holding bulkhead.
Post Reply