Admiral Hipper class vs contemporaries

From the Washington Naval Treaty to the end of the Second World War.
Texas Jäger
Junior Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2020 11:20 pm

Admiral Hipper class vs contemporaries

Post by Texas Jäger » Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:48 am

I know they had a much larger displacement but wasn’t that thanks to all of the internal armor/scarp triangle? How would you compare her chances against her peers in combat? In particular compared to the New Orleans class they are vastly larger yet a New Orleans has one extra gun and a thicker belt, but weren’t the 8” guns on Hipper superior? And would you say AHs turtleback made her in fact better armored?

Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: Admiral Hipper class vs contemporaries

Post by Steve Crandell » Sat Aug 01, 2020 7:17 pm

They were simply bigger ships. And yes, they had 60 cal vs 50 cal guns. I believe USN observers were impressed with their accuracy in post war tests.

I think the Baltimore class were more in their league than New Orleans.

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 240
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: Admiral Hipper class vs contemporaries

Post by HMSVF » Fri Aug 07, 2020 1:10 pm

Texas Jäger wrote:
Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:48 am
I know they had a much larger displacement but wasn’t that thanks to all of the internal armor/scarp triangle? How would you compare her chances against her peers in combat? In particular compared to the New Orleans class they are vastly larger yet a New Orleans has one extra gun and a thicker belt, but weren’t the 8” guns on Hipper superior? And would you say AHs turtleback made her in fact better armored?

Weren't their high pressure steam plants a bit "iffy" on occasion?

Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 758
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Admiral Hipper class vs contemporaries

Post by Thorsten Wahl » Mon Aug 10, 2020 12:40 pm

HMSVF wrote:
Fri Aug 07, 2020 1:10 pm
Weren't their high pressure steam plants a bit "iffy" on occasion?
the Germans itself formulated the problems with their powerplants.
the technology was very new and they adopted a landinstalled point-optimized systems to warships, wich had a very wide range of service conditions.

The three powerplants (Hipperclass Scharnhorst class and Bismarck class) had about the same Basic Output.
Reliability of the Tirpitz powerplant was stated as satisfactory, machinery problems like Scharnhorst were uncommon.

But all powerplants had shortcomings especially in the auxillary machinery and the number of boilerrroms. Every boiler room had about 30 auxillary machines mostly steam driven, wich require a complicatet and error prone steam supply. Additionally machine malfunctions partly require specialists from the construction companies. Bigger boilers in lesser boilerrooms would have reduced the number of auxillary machines considerably and replacing all steam driven auxillaries by electric driven , increasing handling and robustness (according "Inbetriebnahmeprotokoll Kreuzer Blücher", Kriegserfahrungen mit dem Schlachtschifftyp Bismarck, Marineoberbaurat Krux.)

Most of these auxillary machines are required to run continously, causing a holiday load on all three ship classes of about eight to ten tons oil per hour. At high load the performance of the powerplant was good and comparable to foreign ships(my assessment).

When comparing the consumption data of german ships, it should be taken into account, that they used a particularly inferior oil for calculating ranges according instructions of the naval high command.

-------------------------
Heavy Cruisers were a class of ships the Germans not necessarily want to possess, but they were allowed by aggreement, so they built them. They were "large ships that are expensive and difficult to protect versus their own guns even with considerable overweight".
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!

Post Reply