Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
XX_Emeraldking_XX

Germany still makes bad ships

207 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,483
[REVY]
Members
6,174 posts
5,164 battles
3 hours ago, TornadoADV said:

Steering with just the screws? Oh man, that'd take forever.

Weird, that _RC1138 guy said he was a nautical engineer, and he said most of the steering power of a ship comes from the screws.  I mentioned that I read somewhere that the Yamato did a test in an attempt to replicate what happened to the Bismarck, and found that if the ship had jammed it's main rudder, the auxiliary rudder and the screws could not overpower the turn. (I cannot recall where I read this though) He never replied to that, so I'm not entirely sure what to believe anymore.

 

On 12/22/2017 at 8:35 PM, _RC1138 said:

Well, not to get into it, BUT one thing that has always driven me nuts, as the guy who DESIGNED the propulsion systems on ships of similar tonnage and HP,  I never understood WHY Bismarck was unable to maneuver. And I've seen the pictures from Cameron's expedition where he photo'd the rudder pushed up into the center screw, and I still don't understand why it couldn't maneuver. Rudders only account for ~15-17% of your turning power: most comes from your outboard screws and changing their revolution speeds independently. Nothing in the torp hit on Bismarck suggested that the outboard screws or translations were damaged, so WHY on earth could they not maneuver with their outboard? I mean I get that the speed would have tanked, but the real reason he didn't get away was because he kept turning north to where the RN was coming from.

Edited by Sventex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,585
[5BS]
Members
8,043 posts
10 minutes ago, Sventex said:

Weird, that _RC1138 guy said he was a nautical engineer, and he said most of the steering power of a ship comes from the screws.  I mentioned that I read somewhere that the Yamato did a test in an attempt to replicate what happened to the Bismarck, and found that if the ship had jammed it's main rudder, the auxiliary rudder and the screws could not overpower the turn. (I cannot recall where I read this though) He never replied to that, so I'm not entirely sure what to believe anymore.

 

The only explanation I can think of in the case of the Bismarck an the Yamato is that the outboard screws are to close to the center line, in which case they have a much reduced turning capacity. It's the same principle of physical torque; the closer to the axis of turn you apply force the less force is applied (trying to turn a door by pushing just shy of the hinges for example). Most ships are designed with this in mind and thus allow a high degree of axis of turn for the outboard screws. If the IJN and KM were incapable of appreciating this basic concept, torque, it's one more reason to consider their ships lower than their USN/RN counterparts (who DID allow for maneuvering with outboard screws, hell that's HOW Warspite got away at Jutland after tanking damage from the entire German battle line).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,483
[REVY]
Members
6,174 posts
5,164 battles
8 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

The only explanation I can think of in the case of the Bismarck an the Yamato is that the outboard screws are to close to the center line, in which case they have a much reduced turning capacity. It's the same principle of physical torque; the closer to the axis of turn you apply force the less force is applied (trying to turn a door by pushing just shy of the hinges for example). Most ships are designed with this in mind and thus allow a high degree of axis of turn for the outboard screws. If the IJN and KM were incapable of appreciating this basic concept, torque, it's one more reason to consider their ships lower than their USN/RN counterparts (who DID allow for maneuvering with outboard screws, hell that's HOW Warspite got away at Jutland after tanking damage from the entire German battle line).

That is what this """documentary""" says at 24:20.  However, the Nazi Megaweapons show is rather pulpy, so I'm not 100% sure of it's accuracy.  The animation especially has the propeller clipping into the ship because it was done so poorly.

"While other ships might engage their propellers to counter act the turn, the Bismarck has a fatal design flaw.  The propellers are grouped so close together, they are completely ineffective as a means of steering"

 

Edited by Sventex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,585
[5BS]
Members
8,043 posts
3 hours ago, Sventex said:

That is what this """documentary""" says at 24:20.  However, the Nazi Megaweapons show is rather pulpy, so I'm not 100% sure of it's accuracy.  The animation especially has the propeller clipping into the ship because it was done so poorly.

"While other ships might engage their propellers to counter act the turn, the Bismarck has a fatal design flaw.  The propellers are grouped so close together, they are completely ineffective as a means of steering"

 

It's a helluva unforgivable design flaw on the engineer's part: It's not like the concept of torque has not been understood for about oh say, 2000 years. Hell most submarines during WWI and WWII were designed with this in mind, as it was quieter to change revolutions on one screw or the other than it was to turn the rudder. Hell the Titanic itself tried to maneuver around the iceberg by changing screw speed. It's kind of a normal thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
584
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,967 posts

Bizmarck/Tirpitz don't exactly have small machinery spaces, so I can't figure why the screws are so cramped, placement wise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
487
[REVY]
Members
1,591 posts
10,120 battles
On ‎1‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 10:55 AM, The_first_harbinger said:

Didn't the hit jammed propeller shafts too?

 

On ‎1‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 11:00 AM, BrushWolf said:

I think they got them turning again but may have been down one. Even being down one shaft they could have easily made Brest if they could have controlled the ship.

 

On ‎1‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 11:11 AM, Fog_Repair_Ship_Akashi said:

No the shafts were damaged but operational, the loss of steering is what doomed the Bismark.

 

Based on the photos of the wreck, it would be pretty hard to steer the ship based on props when your rudder is bent off in a direction that would hamper control.

 

08_rudder_area.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,922
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
22,206 posts
12,421 battles
1 hour ago, Lord_Slayer said:

 

 

 

Based on the photos of the wreck, it would be pretty hard to steer the ship based on props when your rudder is bent off in a direction that would hamper control.

 

08_rudder_area.jpg

That is why they put charges to blow off the rudder on their ships after the Bismarck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
487
[REVY]
Members
1,591 posts
10,120 battles
1 hour ago, BrushWolf said:

That is why they put charges to blow off the rudder on their ships after the Bismarck.

 

I am assuming you mean that charges were on board somewhere and that a trained diver would place them during an emergency.

The way you phrased it put a mental image in my head of charges already being placed in the rudder shaft ready to go at the push of a button which makes no sense in a warship of the era.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,922
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
22,206 posts
12,421 battles
6 minutes ago, Lord_Slayer said:

 

I am assuming you mean that charges were on board somewhere and that a trained diver would place them during an emergency.

The way you phrased it put a mental image in my head of charges already being placed in the rudder shaft ready to go at the push of a button which makes no sense in a warship of the era.

You are most likely right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,483
[REVY]
Members
6,174 posts
5,164 battles
10 hours ago, Lord_Slayer said:

 

I am assuming you mean that charges were on board somewhere and that a trained diver would place them during an emergency.

The way you phrased it put a mental image in my head of charges already being placed in the rudder shaft ready to go at the push of a button which makes no sense in a warship of the era.

"The rudder system was also designed with an explosive charge to detach the rudders in the event they became jammed."- Wikipedia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
10,150 posts

 

Worst flub of German naval engineering occurred all recently.  Surprised that people are not aware of it.

 

1.  The sinking of the Argentine submarine that took 44 lives.  The submarine, the ARA San Juan, is a German built one, a TR-1700 class that resembles Type 209s, built in the mid eighties, but had a midlife refit around 2013 that was done by German firms.    A probe has started, and the Argentine people want answers.

 

2.  Various issues left Germany's entire submarine fleet inoperable and on dock by December 2017, not counting the ones that are on sea trials.  

 

Still, Germany still has a chock full of submarine orders to fill, and started production of a new batch of Type 218SG submarines for Singapore.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,791
[HINON]
Privateers, In AlfaTesters
7,704 posts
2,122 battles

Bismarck had three major flaws imo-

1. Rudders to close together. One hit like that totally disabled her steering ability, but it shouldn't have been able to. A design that spreads rudders and props out (like the Littorio-class, for example) is much more resistant to damage.

2. Turret roofs and slopes. These were very thin and made the turrets exceedingly vulnerable to enemy shellfire (slopes in particular were a bad idea.

3. The low main deck. Even ignoring how thin it was for a ship of that size, it caused the effectively protected volume of the ship's hull to be much less than other ships. A low citadel is not the advantage irl that it is in-game.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
199 posts
1,946 battles
On ‎1‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 9:31 AM, Lord_Slayer said:

 

 

 

Based on the photos of the wreck, it would be pretty hard to steer the ship based on props when your rudder is bent off in a direction that would hamper control.

 

08_rudder_area.jpg

 

To be fair, we don't know if the damage to the rudder in the picture was caused by the Swordfish's torpedo, of from the Bismarck impacting with the ocean floor.  Sunken ships, especially ones as large as the Bismarck, can hit the bottom with a force greater than a train locomotive hitting the side of a mountain at full speed.  The rudder and prop in the picture might have been wrenched to that location by the torpedo, or by impacting the seabed. 

 

As to Germany making bad ships, practically every modern Navy has had screw-ups with their newer Destroyers and Frigates, this is just the latest flop.  If I'm not mistaken, Britain's new Destroyers don't like working in warm water.  The reason given was that the firm that designed and built them wasn't aware that they had to operate in warm water. 

As for Germany making bad ships in WWII, it wasn't their ship designs that were faulty, it was their doctrine and plans, a fault that seems to shared by Italy and Japan during the war.  Each nation knew that they couldn't match the Allies for shipbuilding capabilities, so they went for quality of quantity.  Similarly, they planned their doctrines around a "fleet in being", meaning large, conventional capital ships, like BBs and CAs, instead of CVs.  Only Japan managed to amend their doctrine, but by the time that they did, it was far to late. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,338 posts
2,850 battles
59 minutes ago, Ie_Shima said:

As for Germany making bad ships in WWII, it wasn't their ship designs that were faulty, it was their doctrine and plans, a fault that seems to shared by Italy and Japan during the war.  Each nation knew that they couldn't match the Allies for shipbuilding capabilities, so they went for quality of quantity.  Similarly, they planned their doctrines around a "fleet in being", meaning large, conventional capital ships, like BBs and CAs, instead of CVs.  Only Japan managed to amend their doctrine, but by the time that they did, it was far to late. 

Germany had plenty of questionable ships and design traits, similar to Japan. From outdated armoring practices, various massive weight inefficiencies, unreliable systems and so on. 

There was no quality over quantity with Germany.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,922
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
22,206 posts
12,421 battles
14 minutes ago, Dunk_Master_Flex said:

Germany had plenty of questionable ships and design traits, similar to Japan. From outdated armoring practices, various massive weight inefficiencies, unreliable systems and so on. 

There was no quality over quantity with Germany.

Germany was a land animal and even though they were extremely great engineers they really didn't know how to properly apply that knowledge to warships. Japan was better at design but their damage control abilities were not very good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,338 posts
2,850 battles
15 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

Germany was a land animal and even though they were extremely great engineers they really didn't know how to properly apply that knowledge to warships. Japan was better at design but their damage control abilities were not very good.

The myth of German engineering superiority is laughable at best, it doesn't take a lot of Wikipedia skimming to come to that conclusion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,922
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
22,206 posts
12,421 battles
3 minutes ago, Dunk_Master_Flex said:

The myth of German engineering superiority is laughable at best, it doesn't take a lot of Wikipedia skimming to come to that conclusion. 

The Germans had (have?) the habit of over complicating their engineering work, the Pzkw V being a prime example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,483
[REVY]
Members
6,174 posts
5,164 battles

To be fair, Battleships are unique among Human Technology in that it's too expensive and time consuming to build to bother with prototypes to iron out the flaws.  The best way to built a better Battleship was to learn from failure.

Edited by Sventex
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
584
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,967 posts
5 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

The Germans had (have?) the habit of over complicating their engineering work, the Pzkw V being a prime example.

That's what happens when you try to work with poor steel and a near total lack of petroleum. You make engineering compromises in your design to try and account for them.

52 minutes ago, Sventex said:

To be fair, Battleships are unique among Human Technology in that it's too expensive and time consuming to build to bother with prototypes to iron out the flaws.  The best way to built a better Battleship was to learn from failure.

Well, that's why BB design tends to be evolutionary, making changes over many classes rather then all at once

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,338 posts
2,850 battles
4 minutes ago, Kingfishercritic said:

Wasn't the F-125 intended to carry the 155mm mount adapted from an SPG? What happened to that?

Wikipedia says

"The initially considered 155mm MONARC gun, as well as the naval GMLRS rocket launcher, were dropped due to problems with the navalization of these land-based systems. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
10,150 posts

 

Two out of three ain't bad.  While the F125 stinks, the F124 is one of the finest frigates in the world today, and the MEKO A200 has been a solid platform for many of the world's frigates.  A MEKO A200 variant has been proposed to the USN's FFG(X) for consideration.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
584
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,967 posts
39 minutes ago, Eisennagel said:

 

Two out of three ain't bad.  While the F125 stinks, the F124 is one of the finest frigates in the world today, and the MEKO A200 has been a solid platform for many of the world's frigates.  A MEKO A200 variant has been proposed to the USN's FFG(X) for consideration.  

Still trying to figure out why the F124 doesn't carry 16 Harpoons amidships when she has the room for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
10,150 posts

 

Beats me.   It may have been originally designed with 16 racks in mind.  Adding more racks won't be difficult and done quickly enough if it comes to it.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×