KGV article on wikipedia

Warship design and construction, terminology, navigation, hydrodynamics, stability, armor schemes, damage control, etc.

Re: KGV article on wikipedia

Postby USS ALASKA » Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:59 pm

Lutscha wrote:

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.



Sir, good luck with adding that volume to your collection. Just got a copy myself and it was a little pricey to say the least.

USS ALASKA
USS ALASKA
Member
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:05 pm

Re: KGV article on wikipedia

Postby Thorsten Wahl » Wed Mar 03, 2010 5:24 pm

dunmunro wrote:
Bgile wrote:

The total width of KGV's SPS abreast the forward engine room is ~16 ft. NC's TDS width is ~18ft at approximately the same area. Bismarck has about 19ft of width, yet Bismarck has the lowest rated SPS in terms of charge weight. Clearly, design is important, not just width.


You dont know how much comparable the different methods of measuring the effectiveness of TDS were.

As discovered by the USNTMJ
here
http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_ ... S-01-9.pdf
pages 73- 79
japanese TDS-research attributes to the german Bismarck TDS an protective strenght of 900 kg picric acid
as
Yamato having 520 kg
and Colorado 400 kg
Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: KGV article on wikipedia

Postby dunmunro » Wed Mar 03, 2010 9:47 pm

Thorsten Wahl wrote:
dunmunro wrote:
Bgile wrote:

The total width of KGV's SPS abreast the forward engine room is ~16 ft. NC's TDS width is ~18ft at approximately the same area. Bismarck has about 19ft of width, yet Bismarck has the lowest rated SPS in terms of charge weight. Clearly, design is important, not just width.


You dont know how much comparable the different methods of measuring the effectiveness of TDS were.

As discovered by the USNTMJ
here
http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_ ... S-01-9.pdf
pages 73- 79
japanese TDS-research attributes to the german Bismarck TDS an protective strenght of 900 kg picric acid
as
Yamato having 520 kg
and Colorado 400 kg


The IJN made estimates based upon their research using scale models. These estimates may not necessarily hold true in full scale testing. The model for Bismarck varies considerably from the actual Bismarck SPS in that it has a full height void behind the armoured holding bulkhead, something that Bismarck doesn't have (but KGV does). The KM and the RN, OTOH, tested their designs full scale. I would guess that the IJN made a mistake regarding the Yamato design, and underestimated the brittleness of the armoured bulkhead.
dunmunro
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2232
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: KGV article on wikipedia

Postby dunmunro » Mon Mar 08, 2010 7:55 pm

dunmunro wrote:I attempted to purchase ADM 116/3594, but the document was too long for the Digital express service. I will try and order a copy via their regular service next week.


OK, I got an estimate for ADM 116/3594, 128 pages mailed (digital service not available for this) = UK 57.60. = ~$90 Cdn. I'll have to ponder this for a bit. Anyone care to share the cost, in exchange for me sending you a copy?
dunmunro
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2232
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: KGV article on wikipedia

Postby Thorsten Wahl » Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:10 pm

I would provide some money, but i'm afraid that shipment around the world will cost more than the piece itself.
I will ask my bank for shipment costs.
Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: KGV article on wikipedia

Postby dunmunro » Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:33 pm

Thorsten Wahl wrote:I would provide some money, but i'm afraid that shipment around the world will cost more than the piece itself.
I will ask my bank for shipment costs.


I could make digital copies for you and send you them, or provide a private link for you to download them.
dunmunro
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2232
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: KGV article on wikipedia

Postby chcrawfish » Sun Mar 14, 2010 4:39 am

Karl Heidenreich wrote:José:

Yes, Richelieu's TDS is generally considered the best. That's why I find KGV data hard to believe.


It is according to the navweaps and combinedfleet. However Friedman does not speak that well of it and I think (have to check, anyway) that R&R neither. Starting for the overall displacement and beam there are catches.


The two articles on combinedfleet (Guns n Armor, Best Battleship) both rank the SoDak and Iowa classes highly, and ding the KGV class as having the worst, especially because the tops were open for venting.
http://www.combinedfleet.com/b_underw.htm

Interestingly enough, they give Yamato the 2nd highest score, while saying that her design was poor because American torps breached it even though their warheads were below the supposed protection level.
"Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity."
- General George S. Patton, Jr
User avatar
chcrawfish
Member
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:39 pm
Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Re: KGV article on wikipedia

Postby dunmunro » Sun Mar 14, 2010 6:13 am

chcrawfish wrote:

The two articles on combinedfleet (Guns n Armor, Best Battleship) both rank the SoDak and Iowa classes highly, and ding the KGV class as having the worst, especially because the tops were open for venting.
http://www.combinedfleet.com/b_underw.htm

Interestingly enough, they give Yamato the 2nd highest score, while saying that her design was poor because American torps breached it even though their warheads were below the supposed protection level.


Note how the combined fleet article states that KGV had a "shallow" belt. Not!
dunmunro
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2232
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: KGV article on wikipedia

Postby Thorsten Wahl » Sun Mar 14, 2010 1:31 pm

dunmunro wrote:
Thorsten Wahl wrote:I would provide some money, but i'm afraid that shipment around the world will cost more than the piece itself.
I will ask my bank for shipment costs.


I could make digital copies for you and send you them, or provide a private link for you to download them.


Did you receive my PN?
Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: KGV article on wikipedia

Postby José M. Rico » Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:32 pm

dunmunro, I was just wondering, are you the one who is editing the KGV article on the Wikipedia? I'm just curious. :think:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_George_V_class_battleship_(1939)#Underwater_protection
User avatar
José M. Rico
Administrator
 
Posts: 798
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:23 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: KGV article on wikipedia

Postby dunmunro » Sun Mar 14, 2010 8:26 pm

José M. Rico wrote:dunmunro, I was just wondering, are you the one who is editing the KGV article on the Wikipedia? I'm just curious. :think:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_George_V_class_battleship_(1939)#Underwater_protection


Sorry, but I can't say its me.
dunmunro
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2232
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: KGV article on wikipedia

Postby Thorsten Wahl » Thu Mar 25, 2010 6:23 pm

Bill Jurens wrote:Here are the Job 74 files as listed at the National Archives in Kew:

ADM 116/3594
"Vulnerability of British warships to torpedoes and bombs: Job 74 experiments 1935-1937
ADM 324/4
"Trials carried out during the period 1935-1937 using full scale experimental floating structure known as Job 74” 1937 Jan 01-1937 Dec 31
ADM 226/50
"Job 74" 1944 Nov 2
ADM 226/50
“Job 74: further towing experiments” 1944 Nov 11
ADM 226/50
"Job 74: further towing experiments model CC” 1944 Nov 16
ADM 253/102
"Job 74 trials: "B" bomb shot; bullhead and deck accelerations” 1935
ADM 253/103
“Job 74 trials:"B" bomb trials: gauge measurements below target” 1936
ADM 253/118
"Job 74 trial: 1000lb contact charge against starboard bulge” 1936
ADM 253/119
"Job 74 trial: 1000lb charge against starboard bulge” 1936
ADM 253/130
"Job 74 trial: Second1000lb charge against starboard bulge” 1937

The best summary, I think, is in the first document, i.e. ADM116/3594.

If you do decide to chase these down, please let me know what you come up with, as I might like to add a few of the totally missing reports to my own files, and touch up a few of my existing files that are missing various pages. Copying technology has come a long way since 1980 or so...

Bill Jurens
bjurens@shaw.ca


ADM 116/3594 £57.15
A3 Mono. copies 127 x £0.45 = £57.15
ADM 324/4 £0.00
Document not available for estimate
ADM 226/50 £183.15
A3 Mono. Copies 407 x £0.45 = £183.15
ADM 253/102 £81.05
A3 Mono. copies 9 x £0.45 = £4.05
A2 Mono. prints 14 x £5.50 = £77.00
ADM 253/103 £103.30
A3 Mono. Prints 31 x £2.80 = £86.80
A2 Mono. prints 3 x £5.50 = £16.50
ADM 253/118 £15.50
A3 Mono. copies 10 x £0.45 = £4.50
A2 Mono. prints 2 x £5.50 = £11.00

Can't be ordered ADM 253/119 £0.00
Can't be ordered ADM 253/130 £0.0
Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: KGV article on wikipedia

Postby Bill Jurens » Thu Mar 25, 2010 7:58 pm

Thanks for this, Thorsten.

I'm surprised to see that some documents do not seem to be available for copying. I will have to look more carefully in my files to see exactly what I have on this. I store material on the U.S. Navy quite carefully, but am not quite as organized with Royal Navy stuff, so it's scattered a bit, and (in some cases) hasn't been looked at in years.

Bill Jurens.
Bill Jurens
Supporter
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Previous

Return to Naval Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests