Richelieu vs. Bismarck

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 1644
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Richelieu vs. Bismarck

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Fri Jun 16, 2017 9:12 pm

Dunmunro wrote: "VV had extra steam available, without forcing the boilers because some of the turbines were shut down. The boilers are always the weak links when forcing past safe limits is required."

Hi Duncan,
you are obviously right, especially on a long run, and I have pointed out this circumstance myself.

However, it is a fact that Littorio's never run the extra-power trials that were planned and even included in the contractual acceptance tests.
The normal full power trials ("prove a tutta forza normale"), when the ships developed over 139.000 HP, were run with 5,47 kg of oil per square meter of burning surface in the boilers, while the contract was including an extra-power capability trial ("prove a tutta forza massima") at 160.000 HP with 6,4 kg of oil per square meter in the boilers. Reference: E.Bagnasco, "Littorio" class battleships 1937-1948), chapter 4 pag.120 in the Italian edition.

Nothing happened, during the whole lifetime of the Littorio's, that could support the idea that the projected extra-power of 160.000 HP was not actually achievable. Vittorio Veneto behavior at Gaudo, when the ship developed 120% of the max power on the starboard machines, just lets imagine even something more than the contractual 160.000 HP.

Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

spicmart
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 5:41 pm

Re: Richelieu vs. Bismarck

Postby spicmart » Fri Jun 16, 2017 9:51 pm

Is it true that Richelieu, out of all modern BBs, was the only one that could reload without changing the elevation of its guns?

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2862
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Richelieu vs. Bismarck

Postby Dave Saxton » Sat Jun 17, 2017 1:12 pm

spicmart wrote:Is it true that Richelieu, out of all modern BBs, was the only one that could reload without changing the elevation of its guns?


The British 15" twin could. I'm not sure about the versions with max elevation increased to 30 degrees, however.
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.

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2862
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Richelieu vs. Bismarck

Postby Dave Saxton » Sat Jun 17, 2017 1:18 pm

spicmart wrote:
the french machinery needs roughly 8000 m³ in comparison to the german machinery which needs around 14000 m³, in my eyes a quantum leap, the best part of the french ship.


But this difference seems to be of an order of magnitude and even more so when one considers Richelieu's greater power output.


I just read that the Germans wanted extra large machinery spaces in their modern designs based on experience with previous designs. In the previous designs, tight, cramped, machinery spaces had made it difficult to make repairs or to perform routine maintenance. The difference in max power output is only 9%.
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.

spicmart
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 5:41 pm

Re: Richelieu vs. Bismarck

Postby spicmart » Sat Jun 17, 2017 4:02 pm

Dave Saxton wrote:
spicmart wrote:Is it true that Richelieu, out of all modern BBs, was the only one that could reload without changing the elevation of its guns?


The British 15" twin could. I'm not sure about the versions with max elevation increased to 30 degrees, however.


What hindered the other navies from incorporating such a feature in their modern turret designs?

Iranon
Member
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 9:23 am

Re: Richelieu vs. Bismarck

Postby Iranon » Sun Jun 18, 2017 6:38 am

Japanese 14" and 16" had this feature originally, but it was actually removed during their refits. The British always used shallow angles for their 15" in the end.

Any capability usually comes with engineering compromises, be it weight, complexity or reliability. At that time, any-angle-loading apparently wasn't worth the troubles it caused even when the system was designed for it.

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 563
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Richelieu vs. Bismarck

Postby paul.mercer » Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:57 pm

Gentlemen,
What about crew efficiency, were the Germans better trained and able to fire faster and more accurately?

jabeque
Junior Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 3:42 pm

Re: Richelieu vs. Bismarck

Postby jabeque » Wed Jun 21, 2017 4:40 pm

Dave Saxton wrote:
Mostlyharmless wrote:
Dave Saxton wrote:
There is only one deck in Richelieu (my very large TIFF images are actually of Jean Bart) between the 22 mm weather deck and the 170 mm armour deck over the main magazines. The weather deck further aft seems to be 26 mm over 150 mm but there is still only one deck between.

I think that the British, American and French ships have one deck while the German, Italian and Japanese ships have two decks between the weather deck and the main armour deck.

Added as edit: The images can be found via http://3dhistory.de/wordpress/warship-d ... uild-1940/


That is different from the cross sectional drawing I have of Richelieu which shows the main armoured deck two decks down. I now suspect that my drawing is incorrect.


Your drawing is probably correct. In these drawings are not draw the shelter deck ("Pont du Château") that in french battleships was integral with the hull. Your drawing probably has the shelter deck.

The main armoured deck was the "Pont Principal", Main Deck in english according Jordan-Dumas, just below upper deck.

Iranon
Member
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 9:23 am

Re: Richelieu vs. Bismarck

Postby Iranon » Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:09 pm

I believe that training standards would be overshadowed by technical differences in this case.

ede144
Member
Posts: 141
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:09 pm

Re: Richelieu vs. Bismarck

Postby ede144 » Fri Jun 23, 2017 11:25 am

paul.mercer wrote:Gentlemen,
What about crew efficiency, were the Germans better trained and able to fire faster and more accurately?


As far as I understood, KM main artillery was more mechanised than other navies. So basically it was push the right button at the right time.

Paul L
Senior Member
Posts: 288
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 9:04 pm
Location: Vancouver Canada

Re: Richelieu vs. Bismarck

Postby Paul L » Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:31 pm

ede144 wrote:
paul.mercer wrote:Gentlemen,
What about crew efficiency, were the Germans better trained and able to fire faster and more accurately?


As far as I understood, KM main artillery was more mechanised than other navies. So basically it was push the right button at the right time.



BUT then with Bismarck , they had time for gunnery training vs warships , but only limited time for training vs aircraft....which managed to be there undoing.
"Eine mal is kein mal"


Return to “Hypothetical Naval Scenarios”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests