Bismarck Tirpitz Scharnhorst vs King George V Prince of Wales Hood

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
Christian VII.
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:49 am

Re: Bismarck Tirpitz Scharnhorst vs King George V Prince of Wales Hood

Postby Christian VII. » Wed Sep 02, 2015 3:23 pm

Question is then what is the formula for the USN calculations?

Btw, who is Nathan Okun? Is he a historian, or just the owner of Navweaps?

User avatar
tommy303
Senior Member
Posts: 1526
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:19 pm
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: Bismarck Tirpitz Scharnhorst vs King George V Prince of Wales Hood

Postby tommy303 » Wed Sep 02, 2015 7:23 pm

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/default2_bioNO.htm

In some ways you could really say he is a rocket scientist.

Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood and Earth's foundations stay;
What God abandoned these defended;
And saved the sum of things for pay.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3990
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Bismarck Tirpitz Scharnhorst vs King George V Prince of Wales Hood

Postby alecsandros » Thu Sep 03, 2015 5:45 am

Christian VII. wrote:Question is then what is the formula for the USN calculations?

Which calculations are you reffering to ?

Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 643
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Bismarck Tirpitz Scharnhorst vs King George V Prince of Wales Hood

Postby Thorsten Wahl » Thu Sep 03, 2015 3:14 pm

Christian VII. wrote:Question is then what is the formula for the USN calculations?


the data for the british guns published at navweaps came from british fireeffect tables CB....(do not remember the correct number)

as the british had a radical different approach on armour protection<->projectileperformance their expectations differ considerably from that of other navies

Americans used a worst case scenarion for armor protection based on pure theoretical calculations using F-Formula based on ballistic data for new guns
at low obliquity(<30°obliquity) F-Formula generally tend to predict to low projectile performance
at high obliquity (>45° obliquity) F-Formula tend to overestimate projectile performance (at 60° obliquity up to 25%)so the excellent pentration of US projectiles versus horizontal armor seems based on paper calculations, I could comprehend the lower high obliquity performance for army type projectiles and I suspect the same error applys to heavy naval projectiles.

British used a worst case scenario for projectile performance using average gun velocity and they seemingly also took further discounts from shooting range results

Germans used a roughly similar approach as the Americans but based on real performance of their projectiles as Krupp Formula was a mathematical expression(nevertheless simplified solution) of the real performance of their projectiles.
but they consider also an about 5% discount from the shooting range results but used velocity for new gun
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!

Djoser
Senior Member
Posts: 382
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:45 am
Location: Key West Florida USA

Re: Bismarck Tirpitz Scharnhorst vs King George V Prince of Wales Hood

Postby Djoser » Fri Dec 04, 2015 4:18 am

Dave Saxton wrote:
But could 14", 15", and 16" armaments deliver quick knock out blows against equally modern opponents barring short battle ranges? SH could do just as much outside the citadel damage with its 11"ers as could the larger guns.


The problem at the time of DS, or probably even a few months later in my version of this scenario (so Tirpitz more logically added), being that POW's mechanical difficulties with the main turrets meant that she was unable to SUSTAIN any kind of rapid or regular fire. The KGV having similar problems (though not quite so severe) during the final battle & the sinking of BS. In this scenario, the edge is heavily in favor of the Germans, especially if the Hood leads.

Add the R & R, or even one of them (due to their infamous need for 'Refit & Repair'), and the scenario becomes much less predictable.

I would be very interested to know the true extent of the KGV's difficulties in the final battle. On the one hand you read there was major trouble, on the other not so much. It still seems obvious the Rodney did most of the work.

Djoser
Senior Member
Posts: 382
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:45 am
Location: Key West Florida USA

Re: Bismarck Tirpitz Scharnhorst vs King George V Prince of Wales Hood

Postby Djoser » Fri Dec 04, 2015 4:29 am

DOY vs SH was an entirely different situation. By that point the Brits had had sufficient time to correct the teething trouble with the armament layout, etc. Plus SH was not merely running away from DOY. She was running away from a small fleet, with DOY as the main opponent.

And it was an 8" round which took out the SH's forward radar at North Cape, was it not? So perhaps the efficacy of well-directed medium caliber gunfire shouldn't be so easily dismissed, if you even want to consider the 11" guns 'medium caliber'.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3990
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Bismarck Tirpitz Scharnhorst vs King George V Prince of Wales Hood

Postby alecsandros » Fri Dec 04, 2015 7:32 am

Djoser wrote:I would be very interested to know the true extent of the KGV's difficulties in the final battle. On the one hand you read there was major trouble, on the other not so much. It still seems obvious the Rodney did most of the work.

... AFAIK, King George fired first salvo from ~ 23km on radar guidance. Her gunnery radar became unserviceable soon thereafter, due to shock damage from her own guns.

Her output was steady in the first 30 minutes, with no notable problems to be mentioned. Problems started at the 30 minutes battle mark, when the ship made a significant turn (it appears that the early teething troubles of KGV class quad turrets were manifesting themselves during heavy turns). From then on, problems kept on appearing until the end of the battle, with time segments having either 1 or both quad turrets jammed. IIRC, average workable guns from 9:12 (start of the heavy turn)to 10:10 (end of battle) was 5 out of 10.

Duncan would have better info on this...

Djoser
Senior Member
Posts: 382
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:45 am
Location: Key West Florida USA

Re: Bismarck Tirpitz Scharnhorst vs King George V Prince of Wales Hood

Postby Djoser » Fri Dec 04, 2015 12:48 pm

alecsandros wrote:
Djoser wrote:I would be very interested to know the true extent of the KGV's difficulties in the final battle. On the one hand you read there was major trouble, on the other not so much. It still seems obvious the Rodney did most of the work.

... AFAIK, King George fired first salvo from ~ 23km on radar guidance. Her gunnery radar became unserviceable soon thereafter, due to shock damage from her own guns.

Her output was steady in the first 30 minutes, with no notable problems to be mentioned. Problems started at the 30 minutes battle mark, when the ship made a significant turn (it appears that the early teething troubles of KGV class quad turrets were manifesting themselves during heavy turns). From then on, problems kept on appearing until the end of the battle, with time segments having either 1 or both quad turrets jammed. IIRC, average workable guns from 9:12 (start of the heavy turn)to 10:10 (end of battle) was 5 out of 10.

Duncan would have better info on this...


Many thanks

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3096
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck Tirpitz Scharnhorst vs King George V Prince of Wales Hood

Postby dunmunro » Sat Dec 05, 2015 2:27 am

Djoser wrote:
alecsandros wrote:
Djoser wrote:I would be very interested to know the true extent of the KGV's difficulties in the final battle. On the one hand you read there was major trouble, on the other not so much. It still seems obvious the Rodney did most of the work.

... AFAIK, King George fired first salvo from ~ 23km on radar guidance. Her gunnery radar became unserviceable soon thereafter, due to shock damage from her own guns.

Her output was steady in the first 30 minutes, with no notable problems to be mentioned. Problems started at the 30 minutes battle mark, when the ship made a significant turn (it appears that the early teething troubles of KGV class quad turrets were manifesting themselves during heavy turns). From then on, problems kept on appearing until the end of the battle, with time segments having either 1 or both quad turrets jammed. IIRC, average workable guns from 9:12 (start of the heavy turn)to 10:10 (end of battle) was 5 out of 10.

Duncan would have better info on this...


Many thanks


IIRC, KGV opened fire at 0848, her type 284 radar failed at 0913, and the turret jam occurred at 0920:

Image

There was no recorded loss of output until 0920, although the salvo rate slowed after the type 284 radar failure. Around 0940 KGV switched her type 279 AW radar into surface ranging mode and she used that until near the end of the battle. KGV did not have the same visibility to the target as Rodney and KGV had to cease fire for some minutes due to poor visibility. Rodney fired 385 rnds versus 334 for KGV (IIRC) but KGV did miss about 10-15 salvos due to visibility so if she had steered the same course as Rodney, her output would have been almost the same.

Paul L
Senior Member
Posts: 303
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 9:04 pm
Location: Vancouver Canada

Re: Bismarck Tirpitz Scharnhorst vs King George V Prince of Wales Hood

Postby Paul L » Sat Dec 05, 2015 3:38 am

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_16-45_mk1.htm

Rodney averaged about 1 salvo per minute

9) The following description of the problems encountered by King George V is taken from "The Final Action: The Sinking of Bismarck, 27 May 1941" by John Roberts:

"Initially she did well achieving 1.7 salvoes per minute while employing radar control but she began to suffer severe problems from 0920 onward [Note: King George V had opened fire at 0850 - TD]. 'A' turret was completely out of action for 30 minutes, after firing about 23 rounds per gun, due to a jam between the fixed and revolving structure in the shell room and Y turret was out of action for 7 minutes due to drill errors. . . Both guns in B turret, guns 2 and 4 in A turret and gun 2 in Y turret were put out of action by jams and remained so until after the action - 5 guns out of 10! There were a multitude of other problems with mechanical failures and drill errors that caused delays and missed salvoes. There were also some misfires - one gun (3 of A turret) misfired twice and was out of action for 30 minutes before it was considered safe to open the breech."
[Editor's Note: The ellipsis in this paragraph is to omit what I believe is actually a reference to the performance of Rodney's 16" (40.6 cm) guns which was mistakenly included in this description]



Sounds like KGV could have averaged more salvos than Rodney?

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_14-45_mk7.htm
"Eine mal is kein mal"

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3096
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck Tirpitz Scharnhorst vs King George V Prince of Wales Hood

Postby dunmunro » Sat Dec 05, 2015 4:17 am

Paul L wrote:http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_16-45_mk1.htm

Rodney averaged about 1 salvo per minute

9) The following description of the problems encountered by King George V is taken from "The Final Action: The Sinking of Bismarck, 27 May 1941" by John Roberts:

"Initially she did well achieving 1.7 salvoes per minute while employing radar control but she began to suffer severe problems from 0920 onward [Note: King George V had opened fire at 0850 - TD]. 'A' turret was completely out of action for 30 minutes, after firing about 23 rounds per gun, due to a jam between the fixed and revolving structure in the shell room and Y turret was out of action for 7 minutes due to drill errors. . . Both guns in B turret, guns 2 and 4 in A turret and gun 2 in Y turret were put out of action by jams and remained so until after the action - 5 guns out of 10! There were a multitude of other problems with mechanical failures and drill errors that caused delays and missed salvoes. There were also some misfires - one gun (3 of A turret) misfired twice and was out of action for 30 minutes before it was considered safe to open the breech."
[Editor's Note: The ellipsis in this paragraph is to omit what I believe is actually a reference to the performance of Rodney's 16" (40.6 cm) guns which was mistakenly included in this description]



Sounds like KGV could have averaged more salvos than Rodney?

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_14-45_mk7.htm


The above quote is from Navweaps and it is a misquote of Roberts' article. This is more accurate:

At 0847 Rodney opened fire...at a gun range of 23500 yards, followed by King George V one minute later at 24,600 yards... Initially she [KGV] did well achieving 1.7 salvoes per minute while employing radar control but she began to suffer severe problems from 0920 onward [Note: KGV had opened fire at 0848 and fired for about 25 minutes at 1.7 salvoes per minute until 0913, when the type 284 radar broke down, but with no recorded loss of 14 inch gun output until 0920]. KGV recorded 14 straddles out of 34 salvoes fired from 0853 to 0913, when using her type 284 radar for ranging and spotting. 'A' turret was completely out of action for 30 minutes [From 0920], after firing about 23 rounds per gun, due to a jam between the fixed and revolving structure in the shell room and Y turret was out of action for 7 minutes due to drill errors... Both guns in B turret, guns 2 and 4 in A turret and gun 2 in Y turret were put out of action by jams and remained so until after the action – 5 guns out of 10! There were a multitude of other problems with mechanical failures and drill errors that caused delays and missed salvos. There were also some misfires – one gun (3 of A turret) misfired twice and was out of action for 30 minutes before it was considered safe to open the breech.


Rodney averaged 1.6 salvos/min in salvo firing and 1.1 broadsides/minute in broadside firing.

Actual ammo expenditure was 339 for KGV and 375 for Rodney.

Djoser
Senior Member
Posts: 382
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:45 am
Location: Key West Florida USA

Re: Bismarck Tirpitz Scharnhorst vs King George V Prince of Wales Hood

Postby Djoser » Sat Dec 19, 2015 1:20 pm

Great posts, many thanks.

I'd be very interested to hear about the results of any of the more exhaustive rules miniatures/wargames dealing with alternate DS scenarios like these. For instance the relatively detailed Avalon Hill Bismarck designed by Jack Greene (which if I recall correctly was based on good miniatures rules), includes a Tirpitz, a Graf Zeppelin, and other major German warships in the potentially available order of battle. The British also get additional warships. Could be a lot of fun to dig that up out of storage


Return to “Hypothetical Naval Scenarios”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest