Matrix Games Forums

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)

I think the calculations were based upon usn torpedoes. FWIW, the few sites I looked up show the Helena as taking three.

thats why any attempt at assigning a theoetical statistic on how much damage can be abosorbed must be taken with a large grain of salt. As Friedman said, engineers are continually frustrated at designing protection schemes as often ships are sunk by damage factors not accounted for in the original design. Yamato IIRC was designed to stay operational after around 4-6 torpedoes. above 6 it was mission kill, meaing it was time to break off an head for a port ASAP. Above 6 only made the latter more imperative. . At the time a reasonable goal. By the time of Yamato's demise she was being attacked with Torpex armed warheads of far greater power than the torpedoes she was designed to face, and more powerful than those used to kill PoW and Repulse.

, 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: 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.

True enough.

Speaking of ship durability,Bismarck was hit by no less than 600 shells and 7-10 torpedoes and still afloat.
Then German sailors help Brittish and sinks her[;)]

Example:
Dorsetshire closed the range and fired two 21 inch MK VII torpedoes from 3,000 meters at the starboard side of the Bismarck. Both of them hit, but no appreciable effect was observed.[8D]

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)

Yes--Long Lances. 3-4 *standard* torpedoes, on the average, 2-3 Long Lances. Note that one torpedo was sometimes enough--note what happened to the Ark Royal! The battles in Iron Bottom Sound were intense enough to give a broad distribution of results.

The Long Lances were rather dangerous to have on board. A bomb or large shell landing in their magazine or on their mount could and did cause a world of hurt.

Actually not the most modern of designs (an updated Baden) with some interesting vulnerabilities, one of which led to her demise.

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.

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.

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.

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.

5 inchers!!
Should i answer that!!
I have a headache.

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.....

I am taking no side in this, but it did get me curious to do a quick websearch - and This site http://www.kbismarck.com/design.html had this to say...

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.

Gentlemen, please continue to discuss...

Demosthenes

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]

Ok... no more edits, I promise.... but one last morsel of food for thought. In his book on the Bismarck, WWII Kriegsmarine veteran Gerhard Koops says:

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.

Most of that was to scuttle the hulk.

Leaving the heavy hitting up to Herwin and Hawker, I have no steak in this at all...but I think they may be both right to some degree.

It looks like the the Bismark was a new design of post WW I origin - BUT - 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.

To say that the Iowa class BBs or Yamato was not based on Bayern would sound logical to aynone since neither the USA nor Japan built the Bayern. But it seems to me equally logical that 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....

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....

That gets my vote.

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! [;)]

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.

It has been thirty years since I translated the German design materials for Nathan Okun, and I hardly remember anything from them. (However I do remember why American naval architects were rather negative about the inter-war German warship designs.) OK, the issues as I recall were the general protection scheme layout (based on that of the Bayern), the mediocre quality of the armor (not that important), the old-style design of the armor belt (vertical and low), the thin and very low deck armor, and the limited reserve buoyancy. Then there was the relatively low rate of fire and mediocre performance of the main armament, the use of SP secondary guns, the propulsion plant layout (based on that of the Bayern), and the short radius of action.

I'm sorry about not going into the details, but I don't have much at hand.

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! [;)]

Funny, but that is an interesting comparison(Bismark and Hornet).[:)]

The other thing this thread touched on - when measuring the toughness of warships we look at how many times the were hit before they went down, and assume that's what it took to sink them.

Obviously that's not the case at all - that's just how much punishment they took before they 'escaped beneath the waves'...

B

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.

Hardly a basis for comparison as Shinano was unfinished with many of her watertight doors and portals unfinished and open. Combined with a crew that hadn't trained together and was basically unfamiliar with the ship and its no wonder she went down like she did.

The fact that Musashi lasted so long after all those hits is a better indicator of the durability of the class though its probable she would still have sunk with 25-30% fewer hits.

Chez