Stern section of the Bismarck - question

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.

Moderator: Bill Jurens

Randy Stone
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: The Left Coast

I believe the topic is Bismarck...

Post by Randy Stone »

George:

...and as to whether Bill can carry his own water or not is hardly the issue. The fact is that the attacks on him were both gratuitous and unnecessary.

Now, moving to the real issue, you originally made the statement that “...DP batteries didn't really become viable AA tools until the fuzing issue was addressed...” not -- as you are now espousing -- "...that early war AA was found wanting..." which is an entirely different proposition.

My position -- you apparently misread what I wrote (which is why I posted it for you twice) -- was that it is fair to consider the USN ahead of the game wrt DP armament inasmuch as they began laying the groundwork for DP secondaries beginning around late '28. The date is important considering Tiornu was bringing up various dates in the '30's.

As he pointed out, this concept was way ahead of the other navies (for various reasons such as I outlined) and therefore removed from, and in advance of -- IMAVHO, the 'main sequence' of warship construction. Which is, as I wrote, one of the reasons I consider Bismarck an 'average' vessel for her class.

Randy
Randy Stone
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: The Left Coast

Re: Bismarck Book

Post by Randy Stone »

Mr. Roumbos:

Thank you for your translation of this monograph. We weren't aware of who translated the work but I can assure you that your English is far better than my Greek.

Rest assured that your translation of key excerpts is gratifying and I am certain the author will not begrudge you the exposure you are giving his work. I -- for one -- will purchase this monograph.

Frankly, based upon the excerpts you translated, I was very impressed with the work; an 80 page limit is not necessarily a disadvantage. Often brevity is far preferable to becoming mired in minutia.

Again, thank you for the translations.

Randy Stone
Tiornu
Supporter
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:13 am
Location: Ex Utero

Re: stern

Post by Tiornu »

"I can ask him to translate the whole book in English."
That would be quite a task. If you are in contact with the author, and if he knows English, it would be great to extend him an invitation to join us here at the forum. Of course, he can visit even if he does know English, but I don't think even my browser knows Greek....
George Elder
-
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:23 pm

A kind of serious question...

Post by George Elder »

Given you have a wife and kids -- how do you ever find time to post so much on the web? I mean, you must spend hours on various websites, and I ponder how such a thing is possible given the usual time demands life imposes, as in a job, PTA, shopping, teaching the children, etc., etc.. Just curious...

George
George Elder
-
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:23 pm

"The fact is that the attacks on him were...

Post by George Elder »

... both gratuitous and unnecessary," is the claim. I would say the claim that the welding approaches used by the Germans were sophmoric needed to be challenged, and Dave's piece shows why. After all, what is fair for the goose is fair for the gander. Moreover, the hyperbole involved swings all ways -- and the questions I asked Bill were those I would put to ANY expert or scholar. I have pondered Bill's works long and hard, as I have a number of others -- and I have strudied some of the claims in a far greater depth than you might suspect. In some cases, I cannot find support for some contentions, as in the bit about sophmoric welding. In other instances, Bill fully supports his position.
Yes, I push him and others, and I will continue to do so. But did I push him any harder than you pushed Rob W.? Do you want me to post the things you wrote about his works here and compare them with what I said to Bill? Randy, it's a bit difficult to play moral high ground when you sling mudd, although I do note that you are striving to control your discourse here. That is noteworthy.
As for the VT fuze issue and the changes it made in AA effectiveness, I can understand why you don't want to address this issue. I won't push it, for there is no new knowledge to be gained. Well, since nothing new is being presented -- it seems like it is time to move on. I am moderately pleased.

George
Randy Stone
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: The Left Coast

Since...

Post by Randy Stone »

...you were the one to change subjects, I'd say...
George Elder wrote:...As for the VT fuze issue...I won't push it, for there is no new knowledge to be gained.
...you executed a very well advised tactical retreat while I was away copying some primary documentation for Jon Parshall's benefit.

I too am very pleased.

Randy
User avatar
George Roumbos
Supporter
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:42 pm
Location: Ioannina - Greece

book

Post by George Roumbos »

Randy,
I did the translation only to back up my questions and not publish, unauthorized from the author, any excerpts of his work.
In one of my first posts, you'll find the ISBN and all other data about the book.
If you want, you can contact the publishers direct, at:

"War and History" magazine
Communications SA
10 Messogion str.
11527 Athens
tel: 0030-1 7488366 or 0030-1 7488367
fax: 0030-1 7488387
e-mail: min@otenet.gr
Web: http://www.strategy.gr

Although I'm a reader of this particular magazine for years, right when it was first published, I've never heard of the author before.
I'll try to contact the guy anyway, since he used this website for his book, maybe he'll join our forum community as well.

Thanks for your kind words about the translation.

Feel free to call me by my first name, George

Rgds, George
"Ich lasse mir doch mein Schiff nicht unter dem Arsch wegschiessen. Feuererlaubnis !"

George "tango-echo" Roumbos, Hellas

www.emioannina.gr
User avatar
George Roumbos
Supporter
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:42 pm
Location: Ioannina - Greece

Tiornu

Post by George Roumbos »

Hi Tiornu,
Well, as I said to Randy, I don't know the guy and will try to contact him. If he agrees to share his book here (for free or not I don't know yet), maybe I can ask him to consider a translation of his work.
I agree on inviting him to join our forum community.
Given the extend of his bibliography and the fact he used this site aswell, I'd say he probablly knows English :D
I can see a Greek message being a sort of a ...problem :shock:
All the best,
George
"Ich lasse mir doch mein Schiff nicht unter dem Arsch wegschiessen. Feuererlaubnis !"

George "tango-echo" Roumbos, Hellas

www.emioannina.gr
Randy Stone
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: The Left Coast

On damaged sterns...

Post by Randy Stone »

Hi Javier:

I can’t see the irrelevance of the issue simply because the shafting configuration between Bismarck/Prinz Eugen and Lutzow was different. While one could make a case for additional factors imposed on the structure of the former vessels the real issue is highlighted by this worrisome and critical damage suffered by different designs. After all, it wasn’t like most navies suffered such a large fraction of major flaws in the great portion of their surface warships above the type of light cruiser.

I have yet to see any serious assertion that Bismarck was in danger of plunging following her torpedo hit aft. It would also be likely that she could have made France following the hit had no rudder damage occurred. However, any debate centering about the defects of Bismarck’s design is hardly limited to the loss of her stern.

Lutzow (and to some extent, Prinz Eugen) is another story. It is difficult to accept that her torpedoing left her in anything but dire circumstances. The exact nature and degree by which her stern damage revolves (pun intended) around the discontinuity underlying her forecastle break is another issue...but it sure looks awful suspicious.

One other point, I'd be a little careful in selecting damaged bows over damaged sterns.

Randy
Randy Stone
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: The Left Coast

On the latest Bismarck Monograph...

Post by Randy Stone »

Mr. Roumbos:

Thank you very much. For the moment I’ll address you as Mr. Roumbos, simply because we have another ‘George’ around here.

While your translation may be unauthorized, I have to support the points you made. I hardly think the author will fault you for that.

Although it is too much to expect him to distribute his work for free, I am certain he will find a good market in English.

Randy
User avatar
Javier L.
Member
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Madrid (España)

Post by Javier L. »

Hello Randy,

Perhaps I did not use the correct word here (irrelevant), but what I was trying to say is that the author of the Greek book is somehow wrong, because according to George R. translation he attributes the "flaw" of having a 3-shaft configuration to the Lutzow which had actually only 2 shafts.
"...the use of a triple screw system instead of a double or quadruple screw system had it's flaws. Because of the increased power output (SHP), they had to use larger diameter screws.
In order to avoid vibrations, they had to assure enough strength between the hull and the central screw blades, resulting to a reduced draft of the stern and reduced buoyancy of the same section.
This flaw showed its catastrophic results after a torpedo hit on the Pocket Battleship Lützow on June 12th to 13th 1941, followed by the spectacular collapse of Prinz Eugen's stern from a single torpedo hit on February 23rd 1942."
But I think we should read the whole book before jumping into conclusions and judging the author's claims.

You mentioned damaged bows vs. damaged sterns. Remember what happened to the Argentine cruiser Belgrano (ex-USS Phoenix) during the Falklans War. The cruiser was hit by 2 x Mk 8 torpedoes and 1 of them hit 15 meters from the bow that collapsed and simply disappeared. Can we attribute this to a design flaw present in all WWII American cruisers? Because if this had happened to the Prinz Eugen I can easily imagine a legion of thousands attributing that to a design flaw, :lol: but I have never heard of anyone saying the Belgrano was poorly built.

Now seriously talking, I don't think we can attribute the lost of a bow or stern to a construction design flaw. These portions of a ship were simply not built to withstand torpedo warheads.

Javier

Photo of Belgrano sinking after torpedo hits. Look at the bow!
Just imagine how the stern would look like had the torpedo hit there.
...and now we would be debating why the stern of the Belgrano broke away...
...and many could be arguing: "poor welding techniques used in American ships!!"
Image

Photo of Belgrano
Image
George Elder
-
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:23 pm

Retreat?

Post by George Elder »

Hi Randy and George:

Randy, if you have data showing the US was content with it's 1942 AA performance, by all means please share it. If you also have numbers that note the effectiveness of pre and post VT fuse AA, please also share that. Indeed, I tend to warship at the alter of data.
As for the following translations:

"...the use of a triple screw system instead of a double or quadruple screw system had it's flaws. Because of the increased power output (SHP), they had to use larger diameter screws.

As Mr. F notes, a larger screw is usually a more efficient power transmitter, so the author seems a bit contrary to what we've been told by someone who actually designs underwtaer propulsion systems.

"In order to avoid vibrations, they had to assure enough strength between the hull and the central screw blades, resulting to a reduced draft of the stern and reduced buoyancy of the same section."

Perhaps the auther means "enough distance" between the hull and central screw blades -- which would certainly be consistant with the desighn and its probable rational with regard to vibration reduction. If he says strength -- then I cannot fully understand the passage. It may mean that the elevated stern was not immersed, and thus subject to vibration effects -- which is very plausible.

"This flaw showed its catastrophic results after a torpedo hit on the Pocket Battleship Lützow on June 12th to 13th 1941, followed by the spectacular collapse of Prinz Eugen's stern from a single torpedo hit on February 23rd 1942."

This is very bad research if it is related to the issue of triple shafting. Incidently, this also demonstrates that the hull form was selected for reason that went beyound shafting concerns. Now, wouldn't it be nice to examine the design teams rational in this area?

George
Randy Stone
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: The Left Coast

Belgrano and bows...

Post by Randy Stone »

Javier:

I agree with you that we should await a full text before making any judgments as to precisely what the excerpts we have seen address more fully. I have already mentioned my concern some time ago wrt certain ‘terms’ which were used by the author. However, in all fairness, awaiting the full translation would be wise before expending a whole lot of ink pursuing wild geese.

Taking the reasonable assumption that Belgrano’s hull was well maintained between the time she was sold by the US Government to Argentina and her loss, it would be little surprise that her bow was dropped by a Mark VIII torpedo. The warhead of this torpedo had at least 20% more explosive power than was necessary to remove sufficient structure as to drop (or remove) Belgrano’s bow. The fact that we can observe her bow in the picture you supplied indicates to me that the torpedo hit somewhere around 10-12 feet below the waterline and forward of the armored strake -- the latter which is a structural discontinuity, I might add. I may have the depth settings used by Conqueror but the damage would indicate my numbers are likely within the impact zone.

So while we can speculate over what may or may not be said regarding Prinz Eugen, we do know that no design flaw (again assuming Belgrano was well maintained post-World War II) was involved in Belgrano’s sinking. Damage control may be another issue, however.

Randy
Tiornu
Supporter
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:13 am
Location: Ex Utero

Re: Belgrano and bows...

Post by Tiornu »

What condition would Belgrano's hull have been in at the time? She was, what, 45 years old? Wouldn't that be analogous to old Blenheim getting torpedoed by a Balilla in 1940?
User avatar
Javier L.
Member
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Madrid (España)

Post by Javier L. »

Hello Randy,

That is exactly my point. I don't think Belgrano lost her bow because of a design flaw either. It is just that a Mk 8 torpedo would have blown up the bow (or stern) of any WWII cruiser 99 out of 100 times. For the same reason I don't think German warship sterns were lost because of design flaws. How can someone be surprised of Prinz Eugen losing her stern after the hit of a 21-inch torpedo?

The case of the Bismarck is a bit different since she was hit by a smaller aerial 18-inch torpedo. But as pointed out on a previous post, Bismarck stern broke away after (or when) the Bismarck sank about 12 hours after the torpedo hit, and not right after the explosion.

I am not an expert in the field, and don't know if German sterns, had welding-riveting or any other flaws, but I don't think we can attribute the lost of these sterns to construction flaws.

Javier
Post Reply