Bismarck with 3 triple turrets

[Karl Heidenreich]

The super H-Class was supossed to have 4 double turrets with 21" guns. Well, with 21" guns you don´t need triple turrets, you need a radar capable of directing your fire across the Atlantic. The "standard" H-Class had 4 x 2 with 16" guns.
Following this idea, I suposse that a 260+mts. 60,000 ton ship can accomodate 4 x 3 with 15" or 16" guns. A 80,000 ton ship could accomodate 4 x 18".
Being a ship the size of a Yamato (or the lenght of the Hood or Iowa) it´s likely you can acomodate 4 triple turrets.

Best regards.

[sineatimorar]

This is probably a defunct stream on triple turrets, but as I am doing some hypothetical h class design work "what ifs" if you like; I feel the question on size etc. could be answered by asking the question " For what reason could not the triple turret design for then 11inch sk c34 design be upgraded and scaled to fit the 15 inch caliber or 16 inch for that matter?". In the case of the Bismarck it a matter probably of been too big/ heavy and maintain her 'balance of design'. Same for the Initial H39 class. The interesting question would therefore be "what about the later h series designs? Most designs theorize a basic concept not much different to the initial Bismarck layout. This dispite the little mentioned high elevation 5.9 turrets initially designed for the
O and P class ( latter found on some destroyer as a forward turret) and a fully inclosed ( turret ) for the 12.8 cm AAA TWIN cannon mount. Extremely limited info except for width between barrels ( quoted at 97 cm) full rpc capability which indicates something maybe like the turret on the Z51 class or highly modified Bismarck 5.9 inch type turret . So as there is little recognition into theses areas relating to secondary battery reasearch, maybe the same could said about main turrets. Is it just a assumption that the latter designs followed the 'basic layout' or is there more too it? A tantalizing hint comes up with the Initial 1937 listing for the follow-up design after the Bismarck of having 16x 5.9 inch in twin turrets not the latter 12 x 5.9 in the case of the Bismarck. I suspect the very lack of design options that usually accompany most designs in the earlier concept phase is due to destruction of records or the security involved in document storage by the Russians.

[RF]

" For what reason could not the triple turret design for then 11inch sk c34 design be upgraded and scaled to fit the 15 inch caliber or 16 inch for that matter?". In the case of the Bismarck it a matter probably of been too big/ heavy and maintain her 'balance of design'. Same for the Initial H39 class.

I take it we are talking of the four turret arrangement as per the plans for these ships.

But what about Bismarck as an enlarged version of Scharnhorst?

[sineatimorar]

At the moment yes. Although I have not come up with any final answers yet. So far I can be reasonable confident that the H39 hull size would be definitely outside the 'balanced design' ethos always mentioned. Personally the extreme size mentioned in the H44 concept is unnessasy and operationally improbable, even if the war had started later as the navy wanted. To limit the amount of speculation I limited any hull size to the maximum that could pass thru the Kiel canal. That been 310m x 42m x 9.5m. This ruffly equates to a 65,000 ton displacement. Deep loading raises this to 78,000 to 80,000 tons. Taking this further at least 4 dry docks measuring 350m x 55/60 m were in the process of construction at the time war was declared, so making this size of vessel at least a feasable concept.
The economic argument that Germany's economy could not support any fleet running to the Z Plan has been completely debunked. Detail proof of which I will publish on my website when I have nailed everything down to my satisfaction. As far as the boring out of the 406mm sk c34 or the mythical 21 inch weapon, neither is required as in 1938 to 1942 a 53cm monster was developed. When I have finished programming a realistic computer model software for large calibre weapons it will probably confirm that it's ballistic performance would have made it completely unrealistic to armor a ship in defense against it. Currently I have to admit that my current published ballistic charts are in error for elevations above 15°as the software uses a formula proven in the 1920's 30's as not been accurate above this elevation. I allowed it stand as all indications show an increase performance, so I am not so worried about it as my argument is still valid. The area against the use of large calibres is the reported slow firing rates. Although every calibre above 406mm is said to be 1 round every minute; I do not see it translated into actual power assisted loading figures for the Japanese 18inch as they are listed at the minimum required 2 rounds per minute that seems to be the universal naval standard. The slow rate is more probably a reflection of the lack of a powered barpet system when initially proofing firing theses larger calibres. Something that will remain unprovable as most never got past initial proofing process before development was stopped. What really interests me at the moment is any data on reliability of the German triple turret compared with the twin turret and any engineering problems up sizing from 11

[Thorsten Wahl]

oversized ship designs would have been homed to Trondheim, the planned naval mainbase of the german post war fleet. So the Kaiser Wilhelm Channel was not more a limiting factor.

some data on preplanned german very heavy guns and turrets can be taken from the following dokument (feasibility study)
"Vermerk für OB. d.M. Überschwere Kaliber für Kriegsschiffneubauten 06.11.1942 B.Nr. 7763-42 gKdos."

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B12aaMD ... sp=sharing

[sineatimorar]

Dear Thorsten,

You touched on a little mentioned area of the war from western (allied) sources . Germany's post war plans like the major naval base in Norway. Could you possibly direct me to more information along this line as it would make the larger vessels more feasible options. Thanks for the last direction, got to get translating it to English.

[RF]

Germany's post war plans like the major naval base in Norway. .

This will be after Germany has at least defeated Britain - so we are talking post Z Plan here. With Britain out of the equation such naval force could only be developed for use against the USA.

[Iranon]

The limits of what was technically feasible may not be the only consideration.
To my knowledge, four twin turrets were expected to score more hits than three triple turrets under otherwise identical conditions, from many small factors adding up to a great effect than having an additional barrel. Things like in-flight interference, turret whip, optimal salvo fire and their effects on fire control - and before considerations of redundancy or reliability.

A layout with hree triple turrets instead would be most attractive for the weight it saves, a significant amount if it also allows reduction of the protected length. This didn't apply to Bismarck's armour scheme: German designers felt they'd get more for their armour weight if they forced enemy shells to go through belt AND armour deck at likely battle ranges, by placing the armour deck very low... even if this necessitated more protected length to have enough volume behind armour.

Bismarck seems quite consistent as it was built. Scharnhorst, built on a similar philosophy, involved more compromises necessitated by its smaller size and convoluted planning/design process. I'm not very well informed on the larger ships planned.

[sineatimorar]

Anyone access the file indicated by earlier post answering my one of my posts?
Very interesting information on turret comparisons with dimensions of armour thickness, barpet diameters which indicate turret designated C/42h2 C/42h3 etc.. Assuming h2,h3 indicates cannon numbers per turret.
Did the z plan include more than fleet numbers ? Where can I access the fleet operations for the z plan information?

[paul.mercer]

Gentlemen,
Were the replacements for the Iowas designed to have 12x16" and if so how long and how heavy would they have been?
I have to say that a Bismarck with 9x15" would have been even more formidable!

[alecsandros]

Gentlemen,
Were the replacements for the Iowas designed to have 12x16" and if so how long and how heavy would they have been?
I have to say that a Bismarck with 9x15" would have been even more formidable!

If you're thinking about the Montanas, they were designed with 4 triple 16"/L50 turrets, at a displacement of ~ 65000 tons standard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana-class_battleship

[RNfanDan]

I have to say that a Bismarck with 9x15" would have been even more formidable!

More formidable than a Montana-class battleship?

Or, more formidable than the Bismarck, as it existed...? <<<(Please choose THIS option!)

[sineatimorar]

The Montana's 4 turret arrangement indicates I think that three main turret Designs were more as a result of treaty limitation than any superior gunnery aspect. It is attempt by designers to ship the heaviest calibre of weapon while maintaining maximum number of 'tubes' to maintain maximum probability of hitting target area, while trying to adhere to treaty limits.

The Montana would have been the first non-treaty allied built class not directly linked to weight limitations. The most desired outcome is to have equal amounts of fire power fore and aft. Both as a offensive consideration and defensive reason.

This is my reason for initially maintaining published main turrets. Can not help but think that any ship built would have changed the split purpose seconda.y battery standard to a dual purpose 16 tube battery arrangement.

Having translated the info on turret contained in the 1942 proposal mentioned by previous post, shows that I am at least getting the basic dimensions equal to the historical proposals. There also some indication that the shell weights and corresponding muzzle velocity needed to be increased.

I am also incorporating design principles mentioned in the 1943 armour conference held in Berlin. - hence the H43 name been used. The. Class been named for the year only, "H" to indicate any German design post Bismarck and "43" ,for historical link to information been incorporated into my theoretical model. I underestimated turret weight so I am been forced to increase displacement,while maintaining light load draft of 9.5 meters.

[RF]

I think that three main turret Designs were more as a result of treaty limitation than any superior gunnery aspect. It is attempt by designers to ship the heaviest calibre of weapon while maintaining maximum number of 'tubes' to maintain maximum probability of hitting target area, while trying to adhere to treaty limits.
.

But this argument wouldn't apply to the Japanese when they designed the Yamato class battleships. The fact is they still went for triple turrets, with three guns on the stern section instead of four that would go with four double turrets....

[Iranon]

You can't consider turret arrangement without looking at how it will affect the rest of the ship's layout.
Protected length was 50% for Yamato, 70% for Bismarck. As I stated, Bismarck can't shorten its citadel by switching to 3 triple turrets, eliminating the major reason to do so. Likewise, Yamato can't change to a 4-turret layout without completely changing the protection scheme or gaining a lot of weight.