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

566
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,962 posts
46 minutes ago, Eisennagel said:

 

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.  

 

Yeah, isn't Harpoon installation just a simply deck bolt job as far as the physical part goes? (I mean, besides ensuring the what you bolt it to won't melt from the launch exhaust.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
10,132 posts

 

54 minutes ago, TornadoADV said:

Yeah, isn't Harpoon installation just a simply deck bolt job as far as the physical part goes? (I mean, besides ensuring the what you bolt it to won't melt from the launch exhaust.)

 

The area where the Harpoons are and the empty area all look to to be the same surface, and I can't see any difference.   There are no deflectors for the Harpoon launchers.  Furthermore there is something sticking out in the empty floor and i can't be sure what it is.  

 

The space for the VLS also seems a bit too spacious, like its possible to put two more modules of VLS.    Not bad having two RAM launchers and two hangers for helos.

 

ILdHPE0.jpg

Edited by Eisennagel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
566
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,962 posts
15 minutes ago, Eisennagel said:

 

 

The area where the Harpoons are and the empty area all look to to be the same surface, and I can't see any difference.   There are no deflectors for the Harpoon launchers.  Furthermore there is something sticking out in the empty floor and i can't be sure what it is.  

 

The space for the VLS also seems a bit too spacious, like its possible to put two more modules of VLS.  

 

ILdHPE0.jpg

No deflectors? That's weird, even the Iowas had deflectors on their launchers and they have deck armor thicker then any modern ship's primary bulkhead. But it does look like the F124 was designed for eventual expandability for payload and then the Germans decided to just build whole new Frigates instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
10,132 posts

 

I think the whole ship could have been armed with 48 VLS and 16 ASM launchers, so the ship is under living the full potential of its design.  For a supposedly radar stealthy ship, the rounded gun turret is a radar reflector.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
566
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,962 posts
1 hour ago, Eisennagel said:

 

I think the whole ship could have been armed with 48 VLS and 16 ASM launchers, so the ship is under living the full potential of its design.  For a supposedly radar stealthy ship, the rounded gun turret is a radar reflector.

Were the 76mm OTOs transplants from the F123 class? That seems the only logical explanation for the use of non-LO deck gun design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,741
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles
On 1/15/2018 at 9:52 AM, BrushWolf said:

 

The design flaw was the ship couldn't be steered with propulsion which after the lucky torp hit doomed the ship.

 

She could steer with propulsion only (albeit not very well)... just not with one rudder jammed hard over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,741
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles
On 1/22/2018 at 10:53 AM, 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.

 

Well when you consider the ships Germany was building their ships to compete with, they were definitely of superior quality, at least on paper.

 

K-class and Leipzig class light cruisers were built to take on France's Duguay-Trouin. Compared to Duguay-Trouin, the German ships have an extra main battery gun, thicker armor, similar top speed, more than twice the operational range, an equal number of torpedo tubes and superior AA weaponry... all that on top of being some 1,000t lighter. The German lights were clearly superior to D-T.

 

The Scharnhorst's were built to take on Strasbourg. Compared to Dunkerque the Scharnhorst's were faster, much better armored, had an extra main battery gun, more secondary guns, better AA.... the Scharnhorsts were clearly superior to the Strasbourg.

 

The Bismarcks were built to take on the Richelieu. The Bismarcks were faster, larger, boasted more armor, and faster firing guns compared to Richelieu's guns of the same size... overall the Bismarcks are slightly superior.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
10,132 posts
46 minutes ago, TornadoADV said:

Were the 76mm OTOs transplants from the F123 class? That seems the only logical explanation for the use of non-LO deck gun design.

 

I don't know.  They are not the only stealth frigates that have the old round turret oto.  The others are Taiwan's Ka Ding class (La Fayette), and the Danish Iver Huitfeldt class.  There could be a common reason for all three or each can have their own unique reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,483
[REVY]
Members
6,170 posts
5,164 battles
13 minutes ago, dseehafer said:

 

Well when you consider the ships Germany was building their ships to compete with, they were definitely of superior quality, at least on paper.

 

K-class and Leipzig class light cruisers were built to take on France's Duguay-Trouin. Compared to Duguay-Trouin, the German ships have an extra main battery gun, thicker armor, similar top speed, more than twice the operational range, an equal number of torpedo tubes and superior AA weaponry... all that on top of being some 1,000t lighter. The German lights were clearly superior to D-T.

 

The Scharnhorst's were built to take on Dunkerque. Compared to Dunkerque the Scharnhorst's were faster, much better armored, had an extra main battery gun, more secondary guns, better AA.... the Scharnhorsts were clearly superior to the Dunkerque.

 

The Bismarcks were built to take on the Richelieu. The Bismarcks were faster, larger, boasted more armor, and faster firing guns compared to Richelieu's guns of the same size... overall the Bismarcks are slightly superior.

I don't think the Bismarcks were built to take on the Richelieu as the Richelieu class were built to counter the Littorio-class in the Mediterranean.

Also, Richelieu achieved 32kts during speed trials, and Bismarck only managed 30.01kts in her trials, and the Richelieu class had more armor.  The problem with the Richelieu was that she wasn't finished when France fell, and would not have been able to compete during that short time frame.  The only real advantage Bismarck seems to have is rate of fire and a better radar set against pre-refit Richelieu.

 

Edited by Sventex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,741
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles
12 minutes ago, Sventex said:

I don't think the Bismarcks were built to take on the Richelieu, the Richelieu class were built to counter the Littorio-class in the Mediterranean.

Also, Richelieu achieved 32kts during speed trials, and Bismarck only managed 30.01kts in her trials.  Also the Richelieu class had more armor.  The problem with the Richelieu was that she wasn't finished when France fell, and would not have been able to compete during that short time frame.

 

 

Until France announced its plans to build a 15" battleship in response to Italy's own 15" battleships the project Germany was working on for their next battleship was to be armed with 8x 13" guns and displace 35,000t. Once France announced its intentions to build a 15" battleship Germany's new battleships grew to 45,000t to allow for the incorporation of 15" guns of her own. That battleship design became Bismarck and Tirpitz. So yes, the Bismarcks were designed to take on the Richelieu.

 

Richelieu was designed for a top speed of 30kn, compared to Tirpitz's design top speed of 31.5kn. Trail speeds do not represent service speed, that's why design speeds tend to be more conservative. Tirpitz achieved 30.8kn on trials at operational load with power to spare and then some.

 

Bismarck boasted 18,700t of armor compared to Richelieu at 16,045t. Further, French naval armor was of absolute terrible quality as it was found to be riddled with metallurgical defects (this is probably why Massachusets was able to pen Jean Bart's deck armor when she shouldn't have been able to do so at the ranges she was firing from.. JB's armor was just that poor of quality.)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,483
[REVY]
Members
6,170 posts
5,164 battles
1 minute ago, dseehafer said:

 

Until France announced its plans to build a 15" battleship in response to Italy's own 15" battleships the project Germany was working on for their next battleship was to be armed with 8x 13" guns and displace 35,000t. Once France announced its intentions to build a 15" battleship Germany's new battleships grew to 45,000t to allow for the incorporation of 15" guns of her own. That battleship design became Bismarck and Tirpitz. So yes, the Bismarcks were designed to take on the Richelieu.

 

Richelieu was designed for a top speed of 30kn, compared to Tirpitz's design top speed of 31.5kn. Trail speeds do not represent service speed, that's why design speeds tend to be more conservative.

 

Bismarck boasted 18,700t of armor compared to Richelieu at 16,045t. Further, French naval armor was of absolute terrible quality as it was found to be riddled with metallurgical defects.

Right, my mistake "At the time, France, which had begun a program of naval expansion, was viewed as the most likely threat, not Great Britain. As a result, Bismarck and Tirpitz were intended to counter the new French battleships being built at the time."

Nevertheless, Bismarck only achieved 30.01kts in her speed trials.  Less then the Richelieu.  Both ships were designed for 30kts anyway.

"Richelieu has the armor advantage: superior vertical protection, similar horizontal protection (in fact her belt is 10mm thicker, although Bismarck's internal turtleback shouldn't be discounted even if its real-world effects weren't as drastic as they are in-game), and better turret armor (430mm to the Germans' 360). " -Tengublade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,741
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles
2 minutes ago, Sventex said:

Right, my mistake "At the time, France, which had begun a program of naval expansion, was viewed as the most likely threat, not Great Britain. As a result, Bismarck and Tirpitz were intended to counter the new French battleships being built at the time."

Nevertheless, Bismarck only achieved 30.01kts in her speed trials.  Less then the Richelieu.  Both ships were designed for 30kts anyway.

"Richelieu has the armor advantage: superior vertical protection, similar horizontal protection (in fact her belt is 10mm thicker, although Bismarck's internal turtleback shouldn't be discounted even if its real-world effects weren't as drastic as they are in-game), and better turret armor (430mm to the Germans' 360). " -Tengublade

 

Again, Tirpitz achieved 30.8kn at combat load (September/41 trials after final fittout in dry-dock before being declared combat-ready) with power to spare. The 32kn speed trials for Richy were almost certainly done on an empty load. In either event, Tirpitz had a higher design top speed.

 

Which ship was better protected is debatable... I simply stated that Bismarck had more armor... which she did. On top of this, unlike Richelieu, Bismarck's armor quality didn't suck. I'd still give the overall survivability advantage to Bismarck class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,483
[REVY]
Members
6,170 posts
5,164 battles
6 minutes ago, dseehafer said:

 

Again, Tirpitz achieved 30.8kn at combat load (September/41 trials after final fittout in dry-dock before being declared combat-ready) with power to spare. The 32kn speed trials for Richy were almost certainly done on an empty load. In either event, Tirpitz had a higher design top speed.

 

Which ship was better protected is debatable... I simply stated that Bismarck had more armor... which she did. On top of this, unlike Richelieu, Bismarck's armor quality didn't suck. I'd still give the overall survivability advantage to Bismarck class.

 

Richelieu during speed trials in April 1940, developing 123,000 hp 30 knots (56 km/h; 35 mph) were maintained with near 42,000 tonnes (41,000 long tons) displacement and, in June, 32 knots (59 km/h; 37 mph) were maintained for 3 hours and 30 minutes, with 43,800 tonnes (43,100 long tons) displacement and 155,000 hp, and 32.68 knots (60.52 km/h; 37.61 mph) were reached with 179,000 hp forcing.

Displacement:    
35,000 tons (standard)
47,548 t (full load)

She's wasn't full load, but she wasn't empty either.

Edited by Sventex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,741
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles
20 minutes ago, Sventex said:

 

Richelieu during speed trials in April 1940, developing 123,000 hp 30 knots (56 km/h; 35 mph) were maintained with near 42,000 tonnes (41,000 long tons) displacement and, in June, 32 knots (59 km/h; 37 mph) were maintained for 3 hours and 30 minutes, with 43,800 tonnes (43,100 long tons) displacement and 155,000 hp, and 32.68 knots (60.52 km/h; 37.61 mph) were reached with 179,000 hp forcing.

Displacement:    
35,000 tons (standard)
47,548 t (full load)

She's wasn't full load, but she wasn't empty either.

Thank you for checking.

 

One more thing to note is that German speed trials were recorded over the measured mile, that is to say that they have one mile to achieve the best speed possible and once the mile is met the current speed is recorded. This ultimately Rob's the ships of the ability to achieve the greatest speed possible. A good example is Dresden II which achieved a speed of 27kn over the measured mile but achieved 29kn during her wartime career. Or Gneisenau who achieved 33kn while chasing down Glorious despite being some 2kn slower over the measured mile. So 30.1kn for Bismarck isn't necessary her maximum speed, just the best speed she achieved over the measured mile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,483
[REVY]
Members
6,170 posts
5,164 battles
58 minutes ago, dseehafer said:

 

The Scharnhorst's were built to take on Dunkerque. Compared to Dunkerque the Scharnhorst's were faster, much better armored, had an extra main battery gun, more secondary guns, better AA.... the Scharnhorsts were clearly superior to the Dunkerque.

 

The Bismarcks were built to take on the Richelieu. The Bismarcks were faster, larger, boasted more armor, and faster firing guns compared to Richelieu's guns of the same size... overall the Bismarcks are slightly superior.

 

Just now, dseehafer said:

Thank you for checking.

 

One more thing to note is that German speed trials were recorded over the measured mile, that is to say that they have one mile to achieve the best speed possible and once the mile is met the current speed is recorded. This ultimately Rob's the ships of the ability to achieve the greatest speed possible. A good example is Dresden II which achieved a speed of 27kn over the measured mile but achieved 29kn during her wartime career. Or Gneisenau who achieved 33kn while chasing down Glorious despite being some 2kn slower over the measured mile.

I just feel the comparisons aren't as clearcut.  The Dunkerque were built to hunt down the Pocket Battleships, and were effectively better then them in every way.  Scharnhorsts could effectively counter the Dunkerque, but the Strasbourg was given added armor to resist 12" shells, which could have made her dangerous to the Scharnhorsts.  But then again the Scharnhorsts were going to be retrofitted with 15" guns, so in figuring out the "who built better" contest, my head is starting to spin.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0
[BSNRO]
Members
3 posts
11,587 battles

Hood, the mighty Hood, Royal Navy's pride... This is a fair example of a bad ship... Just like the first generation of british BCs... less than a handful of AP hits and they simply blew up... Unlike the German ones... who always took a thunderous beating and generally limped it home... To say that Germany is still building bad ships is not a fair quote... completely biased!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
760 posts
62 battles
On 15.1.2018 at 2:20 PM, XX_Emeraldking_XX said:

Bismarck wasn’t a bad ship - a tad heavy for its class but overall a capable ship.

The F125 are just garbage though. A fighting ship incapable of fighting - they are nickname “Colonial Cruisers” as they are basically useless coast guard ships (in expensive form). And I am not talking about teething problems but about the overall concept of building a 700m€ coast guard ship. Idiotic decisions and no freaking clue what the navy wants to do with them other than hunting pirates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,879
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
22,086 posts
12,338 battles
6 hours ago, dseehafer said:

 

She could steer with propulsion only (albeit not very well)... just not with one rudder jammed hard over.

During the shake down trials they found the ship almost uncontrollable using only propulsion and that was with the rudders in the neutral position. So yes they were doomed without the rudders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,741
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles
10 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

During the shake down trials they found the ship almost uncontrollable using only propulsion and that was with the rudders in the neutral position. So yes they were doomed without the rudders.

 

Of course, I am aware of this. There is a difference between almost uncontrollable and entirely uncontrollable. What you and I said in that regard is the same thing only worded differently -> Bismarck could turn on props alone, just not very well. One rudder jammed to port, counteracting what little steering power the ships had with the screws alone. That is why Bismarck was doomed, because one rudder was jammed hard over, not because the rudders were inoperable. Had they been inoperable, but in a neutral position, Bismarck would not have been so helpless. Though, its still unlikey she could have escaped regardless, you cannot maintain high speed whilst simultaneously steering with the props.. so she couldn't have outrun anybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,285
[RKLES]
Members
10,219 posts
11,936 battles

Could it have been possible for battle reasons to group the Bisnarck propellers close together perhaps for armor reasons or maybe in case of damage that any of the shafts could do the work of moving the ship forward in a straight line?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
566
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,962 posts
3 hours ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

Could it have been possible for battle reasons to group the Bisnarck propellers close together perhaps for armor reasons or maybe in case of damage that any of the shafts could do the work of moving the ship forward in a straight line?

Her machinery spaces were cramped behind/under the turtleback armor the Germans used, unlike everybody else during that time period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,741
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles
2 hours ago, TornadoADV said:

Her machinery spaces were cramped behind/under the turtleback armor the Germans used, unlike everybody else during that time period.

 

Dunkerque and Strasbourg used a turtleback, so did Richelieu, the Littorios also had a thin tutleback, and the Cavour and Duilio classes also had turtlebacks even after their rebuilds... the Germans weren't the only ones still using turtlebacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
566
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,962 posts
1 hour ago, dseehafer said:

 

Dunkerque and Strasbourg used a turtleback, so did Richelieu, the Littorios also had a thin tutleback, and the Cavour and Duilio classes also had turtlebacks even after their rebuilds... the Germans weren't the only ones still using turtlebacks.

They didn't use them at the expense of their machinery spaces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,741
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles
28 minutes ago, TornadoADV said:

They didn't use them at the expense of their machinery spaces.

 

Dunkerque did...

Image result for dunkerque armor

 

Machinery spaces cramped below the turtleback and subsequent deck ^

 

Same with Richelieu....

Image result for richelieu armor armor

 

Only the Italian ships did not suffer from a lack of machinery space on account of their turtlebacks.

 

In any event, none of the low-turtleback ships suffered so terribly that they could not pull off impressive +29kn speeds all while benefitting from the extra protection afforded by the turtleback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×