KMS BLUCHER

From the Washington Naval Treaty to the end of the Second World War.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: KMS BLUCHER

Post by RF »

Thor managed to sink HMS Voltaire with gunfire alone, this is worth noting as Thor's guns were peashooters compared with the armament of light cruisers. Its often overlooked that the broadside of a hilfskreuzer was half that of a light cruiser, yet look at the damage Kormoran did to HMAS Sydney in a matter of minutes. Yes, it was the torpedo hit on the bow that eventually sank the Sydney but it is likely Sydney would have foundered anyway.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1852
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Re: KMS BLUCHER

Post by marcelo_malara »

RF wrote: Tue Feb 27, 2024 7:45 am Thor managed to sink HMS Voltaire with gunfire alone, this is worth noting as Thor's guns were peashooters compared with the armament of light cruisers. Its often overlooked that the broadside of a hilfskreuzer was half that of a light cruiser, yet look at the damage Kormoran did to HMAS Sydney in a matter of minutes. Yes, it was the torpedo hit on the bow that eventually sank the Sydney but it is likely Sydney would have foundered anyway.
Yes, a ship on fire would eventually sink because of the softening of the steel structure due to the high temperature. Steel at 500° has 60% of its strength, the action of waves would distort the hull and water would start filling it.


Image
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: KMS BLUCHER

Post by RF »

Using that analysis we can presumably say that Bismarck would have sunk anyway on 27 May 1941 without the torpedo hits in the final battle or scuttling charges laid by the crew.

Whilst it is difficult to sink a heavily armoured ship by gunfire alone its not so difficult if the attackers have plenty of time in which to do it, allowing for the collateral damage caused by shelling to unstable the ship.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: KMS BLUCHER

Post by RF »

As a general point looking at the chart it seems that iron and steel strengthen with small heat increases, so small fires would not be effective in unsettling the ship? However would the heat increase not expand the metal creating weaknesses there, such as bending or warping?
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1852
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Re: KMS BLUCHER

Post by marcelo_malara »

RF wrote: Tue Feb 27, 2024 6:57 pm As a general point looking at the chart it seems that iron and steel strengthen with small heat increases, so small fires would not be effective in unsettling the ship? However would the heat increase not expand the metal creating weaknesses there, such as bending or warping?
Well, I took a graphic found quickly on the web :D . Do not know how much steel expands with temperature, but all metals have an elastic region of the elongation curve where the metal would come back to original dimensions without permanent damage.
Post Reply