Bismarck/Tirpitz = most powerfull European battleships
Moderator: Bill Jurens
Re: Bismarck/Tirpitz = most powerfull European battleships
Thorsten,
You really think the volume of the boiler room was greater than the volume of the TDS void spaces flooded by the explosion of PoW's shell?
It seems to me that loss of buoyancy in outboard voids would have much more effect on trim than a space quite a bit further inboard. You don't agree? The effect on Bismarck from two shell hits seems to me to have been quite a bit more substantial than the type 95 torpedo hit caused on North Carolina, a significantly smaller ship.
You really think the volume of the boiler room was greater than the volume of the TDS void spaces flooded by the explosion of PoW's shell?
It seems to me that loss of buoyancy in outboard voids would have much more effect on trim than a space quite a bit further inboard. You don't agree? The effect on Bismarck from two shell hits seems to me to have been quite a bit more substantial than the type 95 torpedo hit caused on North Carolina, a significantly smaller ship.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 919
- Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm
Re: Bismarck/Tirpitz = most powerfull European battleships
after short measure my estimate in the size of the boiler room was something underrated
Boiler Room 2 size 13,5m x 7,5m x 8m ~810m³
Electricity Plant 4 (i forgot in the other post) size 8,5m x 7,0m x 4,0 m ~238m³
TDS 2 X void spaces sum 2,0m x 5,5m x 13,5m ~143 m³
Boiler Room 2 size 13,5m x 7,5m x 8m ~810m³
Electricity Plant 4 (i forgot in the other post) size 8,5m x 7,0m x 4,0 m ~238m³
TDS 2 X void spaces sum 2,0m x 5,5m x 13,5m ~143 m³
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!
- Herr Nilsson
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1580
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Bismarck/Tirpitz = most powerfull European battleships
Boiler Room 2 = 978 m³ list 2°28'
Electricity Plant 4 = 274 m³ list 0°46'
In case of flooding all port void spaces (no tanks!) of the TDS in compartments XIII and XIV:
Void space in XIV 93 m³ list 0°29'
All void spaces in XIII 179 m³ list 0°58'. It has to be considered that only 84 m³ (list 0°27') were adjacent to the bulkhead 145,6.
Electricity Plant 4 = 274 m³ list 0°46'
In case of flooding all port void spaces (no tanks!) of the TDS in compartments XIII and XIV:
Void space in XIV 93 m³ list 0°29'
All void spaces in XIII 179 m³ list 0°58'. It has to be considered that only 84 m³ (list 0°27') were adjacent to the bulkhead 145,6.
Regards
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Re: Bismarck/Tirpitz = most powerfull European battleships
Does the listed volume of the boiler room assume there are no boilers and other machinery in it?
One would assume I think that a torpedo would open a lot more than two void compartments to the sea.
One would assume I think that a torpedo would open a lot more than two void compartments to the sea.
- Herr Nilsson
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1580
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Bismarck/Tirpitz = most powerfull European battleships
Well, hard to say, but these values are the values that were taken as basis for evaluating the volumes of counterflooding.Bgile wrote:Does the listed volume of the boiler room assume there are no boilers and other machinery in it?
Oh, I thought we were talking about the PoW hit and the damage of void spaces and not about the tanks of the TDS, because these tanks are to be considered as filled (neglecting the air pocket) and would cause no (or better not very much) list.Bgile wrote:One would assume I think that a torpedo would open a lot more than two void compartments to the sea.
In case of a torpedo hit the hull plating, bulkheads and even the double bottom can be affected. Depending on where the ship was hit the effect can be very severe, of course.
Regards
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Re: Bismarck/Tirpitz = most powerfull European battleships
There's also the practical aspect to look at. For instance using the data at:Serg wrote:The designed resistance for the Bismarck side protection system was 250 kg of TNT and 300 kg for the Richelieu. But it is not known what actually are.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_WWII.htm
The US MKXIII early war had a 182 Kg TNT warhead soe both should be ok vs it. Late war it had a 262 KG Torpex warhead so roughly equivalant of 400kg of TNT. In this case both are overmatched.
Marks -XIV through XVIII are similar or larger than the late war MK XIII. The Mk 21 had a 159kg Torpex warhead so about 240 kg of TNT. Both should be proof against it but it's getting close to Bismarck's limit and depending on the exact explosing characteristics might exceed it. The earlier Mk 10-12s had ~225kg warheads so both should have been able to defeat it.
If we look at British torpedoes http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTBR_WWII.htm early war arial ones had 170 KG TNT warheads so both should defeat them. Late war they carried 247 or 272 kg of Torpex so they overmatch both TDSs. Their 21" torps start out at over 300Kg of TNT and then switch to Torpex so they overmatch the TDS from the start. Except for the Mk X which have 300 Kg TNT war heads.
looking at http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTGER_WWII.htm for the German torpedos there 21" ones had 300Kg Hexanite warheads. (it notes that conflicting data exist on the actual warhead weight.) Hexanite is ~7% more powerful than TNT.
The Italians seem to have used 250 or 270 kg TNT charges in their 21" torpedoes. and 200kg ones on their 17.7" torpedoes.
So late war both are in trouble vs the allies. Early war they both should be ok vs arial torps and there might be a difference vs British ship or sub launched torps. Vs US torps both should do well early war and poorly late war.
Looks to me like location will be more critical than differences in the TDS.
- Dave Saxton
- Supporter
- Posts: 3148
- Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
- Location: Rocky Mountains USA
Re: Bismarck/Tirpitz = most powerfull European battleships
spicmart wrote:What about Vanguard in a comparison to Bismarck/Tirpitz in an overview?
Thank you
..................Vanguard.............Tirpitz
Displacement: 45,214................43,646
Length:.........248 m.................251m
beam:...........33 m..................36m
Speed:..........~30knots................~30knots
Deck armour....127mm-150mm......130mm-150mm
Main belt........355mm...............320mm + 120mm scarp
Protected Length:60%.................70%
External belt.....yes...................yes
Main armament. 8x15" (4 twin turrets) 8x15" (4 twin turrets)
Turret Face:....330mm C............360mmKc
Barbets:.........330mmC.............340mmkc
Radar:...........yes....................yes
On the face of it, they look roughly equal. I agree, but the Tirpitz' more modern 15" guns are more powerful with normally longer range, and the Tirpitz's belt plus scarp provides far greater belt protection.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
- Karl Heidenreich
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4808
- Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
- Location: San José, Costa Rica
Re: Bismarck/Tirpitz = most powerfull European battleships
Very similar Vanguard and Bismarck Class. Both had the quadruple turret arragement which was, according to the RN experts, as the best one for artillery purposes. Any of them was clearly superior to any other battleship with the sole exception of Yamato.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Sir Winston Churchill
Re: Bismarck/Tirpitz = most powerfull European battleships
Even including Iowa?
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 919
- Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm
Re: Bismarck/Tirpitz = most powerfull European battleships
typical Herr Nilson
67 % Trinitrotoluol (TNT), 8 % Hexanitrodiphenylamin und 25 % Aluminium
for G7e
warhead weight 380 kg
thereof maincharge 300 kg Schießwolle 36
german torpedoes contain Schießwolle 36lwd wrote: looking at http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTGER_WWII.htm for the German torpedos there 21" ones had 300Kg Hexanite warheads. (it notes that conflicting data exist on the actual warhead weight.) Hexanite is ~7% more powerful than TNT.
67 % Trinitrotoluol (TNT), 8 % Hexanitrodiphenylamin und 25 % Aluminium
for G7e
warhead weight 380 kg
thereof maincharge 300 kg Schießwolle 36
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!
Re: Bismarck/Tirpitz = most powerfull European battleships
Thanks for the responses.
How did Vanguard's TDS compare to Tirpitz's?
Thank you
How did Vanguard's TDS compare to Tirpitz's?
Thank you
Re: Bismarck/Tirpitz = most powerfull European battleships
Vanguard's SPS was designed to defeat an 1100lb TNT charge, amidships.spicmart wrote:Thanks for the responses.
How did Vanguard's TDS compare to Tirpitz's?
Thank you
- Dave Saxton
- Supporter
- Posts: 3148
- Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
- Location: Rocky Mountains USA
Re: Bismarck/Tirpitz = most powerfull European battleships
The Vanguard and the Tirpitz used very different approaches to TDS design. The Vanguard used a layered system with a void -liquid -void. The Tirpitz used a inboard liquid load against a armoured bulkhead of Ww material.
The Tirpitz system used a liquid load to disperse the load over a large area and the energy was consumed by the distortion of the bulkhead. The liquid load also slowed down debris before they could perforate the inner armoured bulkhead. The British system dissipated energy by dispacement of the middle liquid load mass. Japanese testing/studies found that properly designed void -liquid -void systems, and the Tirpitz like system were of equal effectiveness.
After the Prince of Wales disaster, the British design was revised. The main revisions on Vanguard were to extend the wing tanks bukhead's height all the way to the main armoured deck above, so that flooding could not occur over top of the system.
The Tirpitz system used a liquid load to disperse the load over a large area and the energy was consumed by the distortion of the bulkhead. The liquid load also slowed down debris before they could perforate the inner armoured bulkhead. The British system dissipated energy by dispacement of the middle liquid load mass. Japanese testing/studies found that properly designed void -liquid -void systems, and the Tirpitz like system were of equal effectiveness.
After the Prince of Wales disaster, the British design was revised. The main revisions on Vanguard were to extend the wing tanks bukhead's height all the way to the main armoured deck above, so that flooding could not occur over top of the system.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
Re: Bismarck/Tirpitz = most powerfull European battleships
What does SPS mean? Sorry for my ignorance..dunmunro wrote:Vanguard's SPS was designed to defeat an 1100lb TNT charge, amidships.spicmart wrote:Thanks for the responses.
How did Vanguard's TDS compare to Tirpitz's?
Thank you
So it was to defeat a much larger charge of TNT than the Bismarck class TDS...,is that correct?
But Dave Saxton wrote that the systems were equally effective...?
Thanks for any enlightenment regarding this supject.
Re: Bismarck/Tirpitz = most powerfull European battleships
Vanguard's SPS liquid layer was extended one deck higher, but it still stopped one deck short of the MAD.Dave Saxton wrote:
After the Prince of Wales disaster, the British design was revised. The main revisions on Vanguard were to extend the wing tanks bukhead's height all the way to the main armoured deck above, so that flooding could not occur over top of the system.
Vanguard's SPS:
http://www.kbismarck.org/photos/vanguardarmor01.jpg
SPS = Side Protection System, which was RN speak for TDS.
There is no way to really know the ultimate limits of either system without testing them side by side. However, even if both were equal, the RN system provides the same protection while taking up less of the ships beam.