BS & TP - wet ships?

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
_Derfflinger_
Supporter
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:01 pm
Location: Missouri, USA

BS & TP - wet ships?

Post by _Derfflinger_ »

In moderate to heavy seas, both Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were very wet ships forward, in spite of the addition of their "Atlantic" bows.

Were Bismarck and Tirpitz free of this problem? I know they were better than SH and GU, but were they described as being "wet" ships also?

Thanks.

Derf
ufo
Supporter
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Rhu, Scotland

Post by ufo »

In February 1941 the Seekriegsleitung, the German Naval High Command, discussed a memoir about the performance of the Kriegsmarine vessels during the first year of the war and of subsequent requirements for further projects.

In depth and length the bad sea keeping qualities of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau are described. Then it goes: “… The sea keeping qualities of the vessels have to improve significantly. After preliminary examination even with the latest additions (battleships type ‘Bismarck’ and destroyer 36a) there are doubts if an improvement has been achieved already.“

It seems they were less than impressed.

An other hind would be the removal of the Rangefinders of Bismarck’s turret Anton. They apparently were useless due to spray in everything but a village pond.

So I think there was a big improvement versus the Scharnhorst class but it seems they did not really stamp out all the trouble.

Ciao,
Ufo
Paul L
Senior Member
Posts: 317
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 9:04 pm
Location: Vancouver Canada

Post by Paul L »

So how drastic a solution would you need to go to, in order to resolve that problem... without range finders guns can't shoot?

With S&G if you removed the front A turret and plated over the deck with maybe a twin 6" turret or couple of flak batteries....would that have solved the 'wet problem' of these ships?

How much difference did it really make?
User avatar
ontheslipway
Supporter
Posts: 233
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 8:19 am

Post by ontheslipway »

Well. that's nearly as ineffective as not going sea!
Paul L
Senior Member
Posts: 317
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 9:04 pm
Location: Vancouver Canada

Post by Paul L »

foeth wrote:Well. that's nearly as ineffective as not going sea!
Maybe , but would if have solved the problem.
Paul L
Senior Member
Posts: 317
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 9:04 pm
Location: Vancouver Canada

Post by Paul L »

I've heard that 'breakwaters' mounted on the bow ahead of the guns ,are sometimes employed to solve these types of problems. Could that have worked for Bismarck?
User avatar
ontheslipway
Supporter
Posts: 233
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 8:19 am

Post by ontheslipway »

Maybe , but would if have solved the problem.
I assume you mean not going to sea is. If the rangefinders are rendered ineffective by spray and the turret is frequently flooded, replaced it with a smaller turret does NOT solve the problem. Adding open Flak batteries is certainly very unpleasant and they are washed away in heavy seas easily. A breakwater may help somewhat, but a lot of spray also comes from the bowwater over the sides. The ships were already fitted with a double breakwater, one in front of A-turret and one flanking B turret, a setup used by most navies.
Paul L
Senior Member
Posts: 317
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 9:04 pm
Location: Vancouver Canada

Post by Paul L »

I'm not following your logic. If the problem is caused by heavy ship front end , meaning the front rides too low in the water, surely lightning up the front should reverse that problem?

At what sea state does this problem occur with S & G and Bismarck?
User avatar
ontheslipway
Supporter
Posts: 233
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 8:19 am

Post by ontheslipway »

Although getting a turret out may indeed reduce trim (I misunderstood you on this point), her hull characteristics aren't changed much. The weight distrubution changed somewhat but in heavy swells isn't going to radically change the seakeeping habits of bow diving. Not only the bow, but more of less the entire midsection of the ship was sometimes flooded. Changing to a newer bow can help but I think it would be difficult to add a lot of buoyancy the the bow area?

Removing a turret basically reduces her to a panzerschiff, while she's better of with twin 15"'s (other discussion).
Paul L
Senior Member
Posts: 317
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 9:04 pm
Location: Vancouver Canada

Post by Paul L »

Seems like there is no easy answer here and alot of this could be seen as a 'design choice'? Heres a comment from another board.

It applies to all ships to different extents. RN ships were generally very poor sea boats due to a requirement that they could fire over the bows at zero elevation. The KGVs were very wet forward in even moderate seas and during the bismark action the forward magazines were nearly flooded by water coming over the bows and through the turret openings.

S & G were given clipper bows which improved things somewhat but didn't elimate the problem.

Hood had a general problem in that she was heavily overweight relative to her design displacement. At high speed the quarter deck could be unsafe due to the water coming over it. This led to her being named the largest submarine in the fleet.
Note he is referening to prewar designs .
Tiornu
Supporter
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:13 am
Location: Ex Utero

Post by Tiornu »

If you get to the point where you have to use your forward turret rangefinders, you're already in deep trouble.
Tiornu
Supporter
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:13 am
Location: Ex Utero

Post by Tiornu »

"RN ships were generally very poor sea boats due to a requirement that they could fire over the bows at zero elevation."
I don't know any RN battleships from this period that were poor seaboats. Wetness is only one factor.
I also can't specify which designs had the spec for 0deg fire forward. It apparently was part of the KGV requirement, but that's all I know.
Post Reply