Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
And i've not seen anything conclusive that suggests that any ship under those conditions would have had adequate control without a main rudder under those sea conditions. I thus, don't think her screw arrangement was a *major* flaw.
ORIGINAL: Dili
One might point out that one 16" shell from Nelson took out both forward turrets of the Bismarck during her final battle - destroying one turret and jamming the other in train. So twice as many turrets does not guarantee that one shell won't take out half your main armament won't happen.
And?. What is the size of the area where that problems can happen?
ORIGINAL: Dili
I dont think so. With propellers and auxiliary rudders why would not work?
I find strange that specific Sea conditions are enough for you to not consider the arrangement flawed.
ORIGINAL: Shark7
ORIGINAL: Terminus
The I-400 was a horrible waste of time and resources. The aircraft-carrying submarine was a cul-de-sac in submarine design, and the I-400 was the worst of the bunch. Huge, lumbering and ungainly, and only capable of carrying 3 aircraft, even though it was meant to be capable of strike operations. Just awful.
The Shimakaze was probably too fast to be useful. I'd nominate the Akitsukis instead.
As for the Brooklyns, those would get my vote too, even though they were Treaty cruisers.
The British carriers get lots of praise for their armour, but they were critically deficient in the one thing that aircraft carriers have to be able to do (carry aircraft). I like the Essex better.
He didn't ask what we thought were the best all around, rather what we thought was one of three. I will state my reasoning.
I-400: Far ahead of its time in concept. While the actual production models might have been unmitigated disasters, the general idea behind it was brilliant. It made transporting of aircraft using stealth possible. Imagine an airstrike appearing out of nowhere, and how do you defend against it when the enemy can strike in your rear areas?
Shimakaze: Wrong ship at the time. But no one can deny it was a very good design for its intended use. Sure a few more Akitzuki's would have been a better deal, but the design of Shimakaze was in no way flawed, only built about 20 years too late.
British Carriers: Again, those heavily armored flight decks were revolutionary at the time. While it limited the ships in other ways, it did allow those ships to remain operational and able to launch aircraft in situations where other carriers would be badly damamged. Not to mention that the armored flight decks were much less likely to catch on fire.
True innovation doesn't come often though. BBs were last truly innovative with the launch of HMS Dreadnaught. Most designs have simply been a variation since then. Such is the way with ships, you rarely have a wholescale jump in design improvement, but rather a whole bunch of smaller improvements over time.
ORIGINAL: Terminus
ORIGINAL: Shark7
ORIGINAL: Terminus
The I-400 was a horrible waste of time and resources. The aircraft-carrying submarine was a cul-de-sac in submarine design, and the I-400 was the worst of the bunch. Huge, lumbering and ungainly, and only capable of carrying 3 aircraft, even though it was meant to be capable of strike operations. Just awful.
The Shimakaze was probably too fast to be useful. I'd nominate the Akitsukis instead.
As for the Brooklyns, those would get my vote too, even though they were Treaty cruisers.
The British carriers get lots of praise for their armour, but they were critically deficient in the one thing that aircraft carriers have to be able to do (carry aircraft). I like the Essex better.
He didn't ask what we thought were the best all around, rather what we thought was one of three. I will state my reasoning.
I-400: Far ahead of its time in concept. While the actual production models might have been unmitigated disasters, the general idea behind it was brilliant. It made transporting of aircraft using stealth possible. Imagine an airstrike appearing out of nowhere, and how do you defend against it when the enemy can strike in your rear areas?
Shimakaze: Wrong ship at the time. But no one can deny it was a very good design for its intended use. Sure a few more Akitzuki's would have been a better deal, but the design of Shimakaze was in no way flawed, only built about 20 years too late.
British Carriers: Again, those heavily armored flight decks were revolutionary at the time. While it limited the ships in other ways, it did allow those ships to remain operational and able to launch aircraft in situations where other carriers would be badly damamged. Not to mention that the armored flight decks were much less likely to catch on fire.
True innovation doesn't come often though. BBs were last truly innovative with the launch of HMS Dreadnaught. Most designs have simply been a variation since then. Such is the way with ships, you rarely have a wholescale jump in design improvement, but rather a whole bunch of smaller improvements over time.
I still maintain that the aircraft-carrying submarine was a dead-end. 3 aircraft carrying one bomb or torpedo each are useless, and the submarine lying stock still on the surface getting ready to launch them is a death trap, especially one as big as the Sen Toku/I-400, which would take forever to dive.
Submarines are for submarine operations and the I-400 was not far ahead of its time, but rather behind the times, trying to make a flawed concept operational. They were specifically designed to carry aircraft to attack the Panama Canal, and SO many resources were wasted in design and production that could have been used so much better elsewhere.
The only good thing in that whole debacle was the Seiran attack floatplane. Fine aircraft, that one.
As for the RN carriers, aircraft carriers are for carrying aircraft; you may have an operational ship, but if you've got no aircraft, what good are you? Also, it was easier to repair damaged US carriers than their RN counterparts.
Because one, you are assuming that only Littorio's main rudder will be disabled or jammed.
Second, a hit in that area might well damage multiple devices in close proximity as with Prince of Wales.
Third, Sea conditions are CRITICAL to such an argument, especially when considering an ersatz class designed for calmer waters.
Fourth, aux rudders are not unique to the Littorio. On other designs they did not work so well which is why the feature was far from universal.
This all doesn't make it a good design. It's still a bad, useless design. Just because the idea led to a good class of subs decades later, the I-400 is - as T said - useless and a wast of ressources.I-400: The idea did come to a very successfull result later on, when the aircraft were replaced by cruise missiles and ICBMs. The cruise missile/ICBM launching submarine is the same basic idea, only now we have the proper weapons systems to make it work. Far from a dead-end, it just needed more time to find the systems to make it work. The idea was the same though, using a submarine to make long range strikes at targets behind enemy lines with low probability of intercept. Only modern submarines can actually carry out the mission, unlike the I-400s.
ORIGINAL: Dili
Well that hapened to Bismarck isnt it? The hit in rear of Littorio at Taranto also only affected the rudder.
Well i also pointed out that KGV was a flawed design because it was all concentrated. The propellers are much more near the rudder than even in Bismarck. That was what doomed the Prince of Wales. Does not happens in Littorios.
Well sea conditions are critical IF it it impossible to steer a ship with propellers and auxiliary rudders and IF that kind of Sea conditions are prevalecent in many days of the year. Something you didnt supported with. I have read many instance with ships using the propellers only not even taking in account auxiliary rudders. Littorios have 2 one in each side, in surface area they are near 1 single rudder.
Not only that. Littorios had the hangars and aircraft instalation at back so they had a more gentle rear with much more space to "waste".
ORIGINAL: Shark7
ORIGINAL: Terminus
ORIGINAL: Shark7
He didn't ask what we thought were the best all around, rather what we thought was one of three. I will state my reasoning.
I-400: Far ahead of its time in concept. While the actual production models might have been unmitigated disasters, the general idea behind it was brilliant. It made transporting of aircraft using stealth possible. Imagine an airstrike appearing out of nowhere, and how do you defend against it when the enemy can strike in your rear areas?
Shimakaze: Wrong ship at the time. But no one can deny it was a very good design for its intended use. Sure a few more Akitzuki's would have been a better deal, but the design of Shimakaze was in no way flawed, only built about 20 years too late.
British Carriers: Again, those heavily armored flight decks were revolutionary at the time. While it limited the ships in other ways, it did allow those ships to remain operational and able to launch aircraft in situations where other carriers would be badly damamged. Not to mention that the armored flight decks were much less likely to catch on fire.
True innovation doesn't come often though. BBs were last truly innovative with the launch of HMS Dreadnaught. Most designs have simply been a variation since then. Such is the way with ships, you rarely have a wholescale jump in design improvement, but rather a whole bunch of smaller improvements over time.
I still maintain that the aircraft-carrying submarine was a dead-end. 3 aircraft carrying one bomb or torpedo each are useless, and the submarine lying stock still on the surface getting ready to launch them is a death trap, especially one as big as the Sen Toku/I-400, which would take forever to dive.
Submarines are for submarine operations and the I-400 was not far ahead of its time, but rather behind the times, trying to make a flawed concept operational. They were specifically designed to carry aircraft to attack the Panama Canal, and SO many resources were wasted in design and production that could have been used so much better elsewhere.
The only good thing in that whole debacle was the Seiran attack floatplane. Fine aircraft, that one.
As for the RN carriers, aircraft carriers are for carrying aircraft; you may have an operational ship, but if you've got no aircraft, what good are you? Also, it was easier to repair damaged US carriers than their RN counterparts.
I-400: The idea did come to a very successfull result later on, when the aircraft were replaced by cruise missiles and ICBMs. The cruise missile/ICBM launching submarine is the same basic idea, only now we have the proper weapons systems to make it work. Far from a dead-end, it just needed more time to find the systems to make it work. The idea was the same though, using a submarine to make long range strikes at targets behind enemy lines with low probability of intercept. Only modern submarines can actually carry out the mission, unlike the I-400s.
And that is the real reason why I feel the I-400 was ahead of its time. Given ICBMs or cruise missiles, the Japanese I-400 could have worked, and worked well. They had the right idea (using submarines to get into airstrike launching positions), just not the tools to make it work.
The hits at Taranto would have sank the ship had she not beached herself making a discussion of her steering gear irrelevent. Not a good example IMO.
What doomed PoW was the damage to both her props and the resultant extra flooding it caused....something that could very well happen to a Littorio.
Noone has shown that Littorio would have been adequately navigable under similar conditions in the sea state that Bismarck found herself in, with her primary rudder disabled by debris.
I know that her open arrangement at the stern for her aircraft would have made them more or less useless for ops in the Atlantic. I am not aware of any benefit the arrangement gave insofar as her steering gear.
ORIGINAL: Dili
Well an answer with the intention of changing the issue.
[/quote]In POW propeller went to the hull and hit the rudder because they were so closely placed . The front and ends of the ships are the best place to contain flooding, CA Tone(or Chikuma) took torpedo hit at back without catastrophic loss. Littorios i think are the ships that comulatively took more torpedo hits in their careers, in Matapan took one at back(slighty in front of propellers and still sailed at 20kt w/ +1000t of water.
Okay now the issue is that show that you dont know Mediterranean Sea at all.
Strange how do you recover the aircraft in that horrible Atlantic or is it when it is at Sea State 3/4 at much? ...anyway that is sidestepping again.
They had 2 secundary rudders. If Bismarck could have dropped the rudder(i dont know if she had a system for that) she would not have any other rudder.
Yes, we're much smarter here in the 21st Century than the poor dolts in the age before television. I don't know whether or not the Germans tried this.Out of curiosity, what do you make of the claims that Bismarck could have "backed" into port*?
I often get Rodney and Nelson mixed up too. The exact cause-effect of the first 16in hit(s) remains something of a mystery. One feature I don't think anyone has mentioned regarding Bismarck's "flaws" is the placement of the magazines above the shell rooms. Doesn't that bother anyone? Scharnhorst certainly seems to have suffered for having that arrangement.One might point out that one 16" shell from Nelson took out both forward turrets of the Bismarck during her final battle - destroying one turret and jamming the other in train.
Well she was designed, like her prior bretheren mainly for fighting in the more restricted conditions of the North Sea (and to a lesser degree, the Atlantic) where ranges would tend to be more limited.
I could post a drawing of North Carolina and her skegs and say that Littorio was badly flawed. Littorio, by the way, had some of the weakest steering gear armor of any modern battleship.Bismarck was a very flawed design
Well main rudder jammed when there is secundary rudders is easy it is just dropping the jammed rudder (i know the might not work in some situations like i said there are no certainities), but Bismark wasnt not even designed with that.
Stop making sense, I tell you!As for the RN carriers, aircraft carriers are for carrying aircraft; you may have an operational ship, but if you've got no aircraft, what good are you?
ORIGINAL: Tiornu
I often get Rodney and Nelson mixed up too. The exact cause-effect of the first 16in hit(s) remains something of a mystery. One feature I don't think anyone has mentioned regarding Bismarck's "flaws" is the placement of the magazines above the shell rooms. Doesn't that bother anyone? Scharnhorst certainly seems to have suffered for having that arrangement.
I don't think it's possible to say she was intended primarily for that. Were the French scripted to come up and fight there? The German design process was such a mess at that point--who knows what they were thinking?
