Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
ORIGINAL: Iridium
ORIGINAL: irrelevant
The treaty cruisers were three or four.
Northampton, Indianapolis, and Helena all succumbed to two.
Probably large warheads on those torpedos. Ships were designed for certain torpedos too. Something like 4 x 500 kg warhead torpedos or 2 x 800 kg warhead torpedos. (Not real statistics just an example)
, the few sites I looked up show the Helena as taking three.
ORIGINAL: irrelevant
, the few sites I looked up show the Helena as taking three.
You're right, my bad. Reading more, it sounds like any two of those three hits would have done her though.
ORIGINAL: Iridium
ORIGINAL: irrelevant
The treaty cruisers were three or four.
Northampton, Indianapolis, and Helena all succumbed to two.
Probably large warheads on those torpedos. Ships were designed for certain torpedos too. Something like 4 x 500 kg warhead torpedos or 2 x 800 kg warhead torpedos. (Not real statistics just an example)
ctually not the most modern of designs (an updated Baden) with some interesting vulnerabilities, one of which led to her demise.
ORIGINAL: hawker
ctually not the most modern of designs (an updated Baden) with some interesting vulnerabilities, one of which led to her demise.
You are very wrong,Bismarck is not improved Baden. I am kind a expert for BB Bismarck and anyone who tell that her are improved Baden knows nothing.
So,first do some researching and dont jump to conclusion of something you (obviusly)dont know.
Care to deconstruct my statement critically? I'm interested, since a lot of specialists seem to see the Bismarck as an evolved Baden/Bayern design.
Take a look at what it took to sink Hornet, IIRC it was 3 or 4 bombs plus soemthing like 7 or 8 torpedoes and several hundred rounds of 5 Inchers.
ORIGINAL: hawker
Care to deconstruct my statement critically? I'm interested, since a lot of specialists seem to see the Bismarck as an evolved Baden/Bayern design.
I am getting tired of this.
1.What specialists,they are probably Brittish[;)]
2.You start this discussion so give me evidence for your claims,i will beat them then.....
BISMARCK'S DESIGN
Introduction.
Contrary to what some authors have suggested, the origin of the design of the Bismarck Class battleships had nothing to do with the Bayern Class of World War I except for the fact that they were also equipped with eight 38cm guns in four twin turrets and a three-shaft propulsion plant. The battleships of the Bismarck Class were the product of a warship development that had begun with the construction of the pocket battleships (Panzerschiffe) of the Deutschland Class in the late 20's and early 30's under the restrictions of the Treaty of Versailles.
Historical Background.
Bismarck class battleships
Displ: 41,700 tons standard; 50,900 tons full load
(Tirpitz 42,900 standard; 52,600 tons full load)
Dim: 813.5 x 118 x 28.5 feet
Prop: Steam turbines, 12 boilers, 3 shafts, 138,00 hp, 29 knots
Crew: 2092 (Tirpitz 2608)
Arm: 4 dual 15/47, 6 dual 5.9/55, 8 dual 4.1/65, 8 dual 37 mm, 12 20 mm
Armor: 10.6-12.6 inch belt, 3.1-4.7 inch deck, 14.2 inch turrets,
13.8 inch CT
Designed as long range unsinkable commerce raiders, design
was based on WWI Baden class.
Their design owed a lot to the Bayern class battleship possibly the best German design of the First World War. The disposition of the turrets and machinery was much the same.
Internal subdivision was extensive, a characteristic carried over from World War I German ship design. In fact, much of the Bismarck class design was based on the final German WW Ibattleship design, Baden. Because of this, Tirpitz exhibited some curiously old fashioned design features for a ship laid down in 1936, and completed in 1941.
The ships' [Bismarck and Tirpitz]construction was based on the system of transverse and longitudinal frames proven in practice by the Imperial Navy.... The basic design had been oriented towards compliance with the 35,000-ton limit for standard displacement.
ORIGINAL: MkXIV
Take a look at what it took to sink Hornet, IIRC it was 3 or 4 bombs plus soemthing like 7 or 8 torpedoes and several hundred rounds of 5 Inchers.
ORIGINAL: DeepSix
Not taking sides, either, but I found the following at http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/battleships/germ_dr.htm
Bismarck class battleships
Displ: 41,700 tons standard; 50,900 tons full load
(Tirpitz 42,900 standard; 52,600 tons full load)
Dim: 813.5 x 118 x 28.5 feet
Prop: Steam turbines, 12 boilers, 3 shafts, 138,00 hp, 29 knots
Crew: 2092 (Tirpitz 2608)
Arm: 4 dual 15/47, 6 dual 5.9/55, 8 dual 4.1/65, 8 dual 37 mm, 12 20 mm
Armor: 10.6-12.6 inch belt, 3.1-4.7 inch deck, 14.2 inch turrets,
13.8 inch CT
Designed as long range unsinkable commerce raiders, design
was based on WWI Baden class.
"...design was based on ... Baden class." I don't know the veracity of this, but I thought it was worth sharing.
On the other hand, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bismarck_class_battleship says,Their design owed a lot to the Bayern class battleship possibly the best German design of the First World War. The disposition of the turrets and machinery was much the same.
And this, from http://www.chuckhawks.com/post_treaty_battleships.htm
Internal subdivision was extensive, a characteristic carried over from World War I German ship design. In fact, much of the Bismarck class design was based on the final German WW Ibattleship design, Baden. Because of this, Tirpitz exhibited some curiously old fashioned design features for a ship laid down in 1936, and completed in 1941.
So it just proves that you can find anything you want on the internet.[:D]
ORIGINAL: Demosthenes
...the design almost had to be based on the Bayern to some degree. You can't just invent a ship out of thin air - you would use the lessons learned with past projects - and then incorporate new ideas.... a 'new' Germany would use some of it's experience from past projects to build their next generation BB - which is not the same thing as saying that Bismark was 'just' and updated Bayern....
Most of that was to scuttle the hulk.
ORIGINAL: hawker
Care to deconstruct my statement critically? I'm interested, since a lot of specialists seem to see the Bismarck as an evolved Baden/Bayern design.
I am getting tired of this.
1.What specialists,they are probably Brittish[;)]
2.You start this discussion so give me evidence for your claims,i will beat them then.
ORIGINAL: mdiehl
Most of that was to scuttle the hulk.
Surely, but you could say that about Bismarck as well. Although in the Hornet's case the Japanese gave up and left her there (she sank, alone, unobserved by anyone, some time the following day). Whereas Bismarck simply sank under the RN pounding. Which naturally means that the Hornet was a much more tough nut to crack than the Bismarck.
Ducking now! [;)]
And of course Shinano 's demise demonstrates something more like the real durability of the Yamato class vs. torpedoes... in a phrase... NOT that impressive.
