Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ask An Expert- Battleships

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by RustyBattleship View Post
    I agree definitely that the first picture of a large ship capsized to port is horribly out of proportion, particularly that enormous turret. Using a magnifying glass on my screen, it appears to have an American flag painted on top but with 50 STARS?

    The second photo does appear to be a Sverdlov class ship. I have seen other photos of 2 or 3 of them washed up on a beach in Spain. They were to be sold for scrap but a heavy storm broke them loose from their moorings wound up looking like my grandkids toys on the floor when they got tired of playing with them.

    Oh, and in a ship identification book we had in the library of LBNSY, it said the Sverdlov had 7.1" guns with a range of 20+ miles. I'll let the artillery experts on this forum debate on that. I have enough to fret over as it is.
    As memory serves from my aforementioned requirement that all TAO school graduates be able to regurgitate the Soviet order of battle by rote (hand made flash cards by the thousands folks:slap:), Sverdlov had 152mm guns, which by my very poor sailor's arithmetic makes them 5.98 inches, although I will buy the 20 mile range. The Soviets always had some interesting, and I suspect, often not very safe for the operators, gun technology.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by desertswo View Post
      I may have mentioned this before, but it bears repeating. We frequently dealt with the situation in some unique ways to make the throttleman's life, and the wear and tear on the ABC systems a bit more genteel. We had standing permission from the commanding officer to give verbal orders to the engineering spaces for making the required speed through the water. So, for the sake of argument, let's say that the bridge ordered "All Ahead Full, Indicate 125 RPM for 20 knots." The spaces from forward to aft in that class are Number One Auxiliary Machinery Room (AMR), Number One Main Machinery Room (MMR), Number Four MMR, Number Two AMR, Number Two MMR, and Number Three MMR. One and Four MMR have the two outboard shafts which are the longest on the ship, and Two and Three MMR have the two shorter inboard shafts.

      In any event, one could let the spaces answer the bell the way the bridge ordered, which in fact they do initially. However, the Engineering Officer of the Watch (EOOW) will take stock of what spaces are carrying the catapults. In this case, let's say that Number Four MMR is feeding the bow cats, and Number Three MMR is feeding the waist cats. So, we would do this, "One Main, Central, Verbal Order 175 RPM; Four Main, Central, Verbal Order 080 RPM; Two Main, Central, Verbal Order 160 RPM; Three Main, Central, Verbal Order 085 RPM. If you count up 125 times four, you get 500 RPM, which divided by four of course gives you 125; the ordered RPM from the bridge, yes? However, if you add 175 + 080 + 160 + 085, you also get 500 RPM, which again divided by four gives us the same 125 RPM ordered from the bridge. The boilers carrying the cats are happier, as are the thottlemen in those spaces, and you get the added perq of effectively demonstrating the ASW countermeasure of "turn count masking." A submarine listening passively doesn't know if he's hearing one large ship, or four smaller ones, all doing different RPM. It's a win-win across the board, and with that, I am going to bed. Good night all.
      Very interesting to read this. It's striking how similar overall, yet extremely different in execution, this is from the way a bell is answered on a nuclear surface ship. (I'm qualified Throttleman on a Nimitz class.)
      "Nature abhors a moron." - H.L. Mencken

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Genosaurer View Post
        Very interesting to read this. It's striking how similar overall, yet extremely different in execution, this is from the way a bell is answered on a nuclear surface ship. (I'm qualified Throttleman on a Nimitz class.)
        Well, I imagine the steam generators have a little more room for forgiveness than a 1200PSI boiler. When I was on the PEB, I traveled with a Captain occasionally who was a surface nuke, and I was fascinated to learn that in many respects, our conventional plants were operating more at what you might call "critical" than the real deal. I don't have any first hand knowledge of course, but I think you might see the point. One other thing that sort of makes your plant more forgiving is that fact that you are dealing with saturated steam vice the superheated genie we were dealing with. Not that it makes a difference to the safety of the watchstanders, but with regard to machinery it certainly does. Again, just a little more safety cushion for very obvious, dare I say "glowing," reasons.

        Comment


        • However, if you add 175 + 080 + 160 + 085 you also get 500 RPM
          that requires that all screws have the same power-efficiency at this RPM Range and also are independent from shaft.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Thoddy View Post
            that requires that all screws have the same power-efficiency at this RPM Range and also are independent from shaft.
            I don'k know what you mean by "independent from shaft" but the screws in that class are all the same. There is no four-blade vs. five-blade like in the battleships. Moreover, the two shafts that are working the "hardest" are in fact in the upper band of their power transfer ability with regard to screw pitch. That is a given. It is not a perfect science, but you know what? You still were doing 20 knots overall, and the boilers in the spaces carrying the cats didn't have to work as hard as those without.

            Comment


            • I've been wondering about the relative effectiveness of a couple of battleship's torpedo defense systems, mainly compared to the (modernized) Queen Elizabeth class's torpedo protection. From what I'm able to find out, it consisted of I 'think' 2 void? compartments for sure, separated by the double bottom, completely unclear if there's two plates with a space there or not, likely not, followed by a 2 inch/50mm holding bulkhead, 16 feet total depth at the thickest point, 15.25 feet in depth in other places. The outermost 5 feet are in an external bulge, for whatever's it worth. Inside of the armored bulkhead over much of the system's length is (I 'think') a single large fuel oil tank, around 14 feet deep in some places, 7 feet deep in others, and not present at the ends.

              Total depth is either 16 feet void-void-2" armored bulkhead or 30 feet void-void-2" armored bulkhead-liquid-(completely unreinforced?) bulkhead at the strongest point, depending on whether you include the fuel oil tank. It's 22 feet void-void-2" armored bulkhead-liquid-(completely unreinforced?) bulkhead just as frequently, including the oil tank. Not the most impressive system, although I'd love to be wrong on any of the details, that would likely make the system stronger.

              I'm wondering how that compares in terms of effectiveness to the Scharnhorst's 14 ft deep void-liquid-armored (2") bulkhead, or the KGV's 13 ft void-(really narrow liquid layer)-void-armored bulkhead system. Machinery spaces behind them in both cases. The brits rated the KGV's against a 1000 lb warhead; considering that much better systems were rated lower by just about every other country, I feel it's rather obvious it's nowhere near that good. They also rated the QE's against a 700 lb warhead, but I suspect that's rather high.

              Compared to the Scharnhorst, it's around 2 feet deeper at every point along it's length, not including the fuel oil tanks behind it in some places, although the QE's don't have a liquid layer before the armored bulkhead. Compared to the KGV's, the QE's it's 2-3 feet deeper over the entire length of the midships section, same thickness at the ends, but the KGV has a much better loading design. All excluding any fuel oil tanks.

              Anybody have any opinions on how well they compared? QE's better, worse, about the same?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by BraselC5048 View Post
                I've been wondering about the relative effectiveness of a couple of battleship's torpedo defense systems, mainly compared to the (modernized) Queen Elizabeth class's torpedo protection. From what I'm able to find out, it consisted of I 'think' 2 void? compartments for sure, separated by the double bottom, completely unclear if there's two plates with a space there or not, likely not, followed by a 2 inch/50mm holding bulkhead, 16 feet total depth at the thickest point, 15.25 feet in depth in other places. The outermost 5 feet are in an external bulge, for whatever's it worth. Inside of the armored bulkhead over much of the system's length is (I 'think') a single large fuel oil tank, around 14 feet deep in some places, 7 feet deep in others, and not present at the ends.

                Total depth is either 16 feet void-void-2" armored bulkhead or 30 feet void-void-2" armored bulkhead-liquid-(completely unreinforced?) bulkhead at the strongest point, depending on whether you include the fuel oil tank. It's 22 feet void-void-2" armored bulkhead-liquid-(completely unreinforced?) bulkhead just as frequently, including the oil tank. Not the most impressive system, although I'd love to be wrong on any of the details, that would likely make the system stronger.

                I'm wondering how that compares in terms of effectiveness to the Scharnhorst's 14 ft deep void-liquid-armored (2") bulkhead, or the KGV's 13 ft void-(really narrow liquid layer)-void-armored bulkhead system. Machinery spaces behind them in both cases. The brits rated the KGV's against a 1000 lb warhead; considering that much better systems were rated lower by just about every other country, I feel it's rather obvious it's nowhere near that good. They also rated the QE's against a 700 lb warhead, but I suspect that's rather high.

                Compared to the Scharnhorst, it's around 2 feet deeper at every point along it's length, not including the fuel oil tanks behind it in some places, although the QE's don't have a liquid layer before the armored bulkhead. Compared to the KGV's, the QE's it's 2-3 feet deeper over the entire length of the midships section, same thickness at the ends, but the KGV has a much better loading design. All excluding any fuel oil tanks.

                Anybody have any opinions on how well they compared? QE's better, worse, about the same?
                WHICH Battleship are you seeking torpedo, artillery shell & aerial bomb defense? If it's the Iowa class, there are many books available that can give you all the basic information with sectioned diagrams, etc. Garzke & Dullin have put out excellent books amd Paul Stillwell can really describe the USS New Jersey (BB-62) and USS Missouri (BB-63), I provided some photos and other information for his book on the Missouri.

                My book is mainly the history of the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, Long Beach Naval Base/Station & Reeves Naval Station (available on Amazon). But I do address armor in various chapters and not just on Battleships but Destroyers as well (I designed most of it).

                I could take a few hours or a couple of days to write up the the entire arrangement with diagrams, etc. But I really don't have that much time and its already been done by other historians and would be boring to other members of this forum who are already familiar with that subject.

                So, just head for your favorite second hand book store. If they don't have any copies in decent condition, Amazon nearly always will find one somwhere and ship it directly to you.
                Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by RustyBattleship View Post
                  WHICH Battleship are you seeking torpedo, artillery shell & aerial bomb defense? If it's the Iowa class, there are many books available that can give you all the basic information with sectioned diagrams, etc. Garzke & Dullin have put out excellent books amd Paul Stillwell can really describe the USS New Jersey (BB-62) and USS Missouri (BB-63), I provided some photos and other information for his book on the Missouri.

                  My book is mainly the history of the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, Long Beach Naval Base/Station & Reeves Naval Station (available on Amazon). But I do address armor in various chapters and not just on Battleships but Destroyers as well (I designed most of it).

                  I could take a few hours or a couple of days to write up the the entire arrangement with diagrams, etc. But I really don't have that much time and its already been done by other historians and would be boring to other members of this forum who are already familiar with that subject.

                  So, just head for your favorite second hand book store. If they don't have any copies in decent condition, Amazon nearly always will find one somwhere and ship it directly to you.
                  I already gave you the information about the ship's torpedo protection. I have the information already, it was in my post. What I'm looking for is an informed opinion on how effective they were in comparison to each other - Is the modernized Queen Elizabeth class better or worse then the King George V class and the Scharnhorst class in the torpedo defense department, based on the information I just gave you. My post didn't say anything about protection from shells or bombs, mentioned exactly which ships I was talking about, and gave a decent amount of information on all the ships involved, certainly enough to base an opinion on. By somebody who actually knows more or as much as I do about torpedo defense systems, not somebody who can't even read past the first sentence.

                  Did you even read my post?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by BraselC5048 View Post
                    I already gave you the information about the ship's torpedo protection. I have the information already, it was in my post. What I'm looking for is an informed opinion on how effective they were in comparison to each other - Is the modernized Queen Elizabeth class better or worse then the King George V class and the Scharnhorst class in the torpedo defense department, based on the information I just gave you. My post didn't say anything about protection from shells or bombs, mentioned exactly which ships I was talking about, and gave a decent amount of information on all the ships involved, certainly enough to base an opinion on. By somebody who actually knows more or as much as I do about torpedo defense systems, not somebody who can't even read past the first sentence.

                    Did you even read my post?
                    All back full emergency there shipmate!!! There's no reason to be a petulant jerk. We're only allowed one, and everybody pretty much agrees that I'm it. I KNOW that Rusty read what you wrote, but he is no doubt as exasperated as some of the rest of us are with trying to scratch your itch.

                    You are asking people, informed as some of us are, for an opinion that is more properly addressed to an actual naval architect from the era in question, and/or someone who rode those ships, took battle damage, and lived to tell about. As far as I know, I'm probably the only one here who has even had shots fired in anger at himself while at sea. There are others here who can talk all about "shootin' and scootin'" in ground combat or in the air, but there just aren't any others with the sort of knowledge AND experience that your quest for an opinion begs. You want to know what a Soviet-made 12.7mm round does to the aluminum superstructure of a modern CRUDES ship, or what a torpedo would do to one (even though I never had THAT "pleasure") then I'm your man.

                    Now, all that said, I don't know about what anyone else thinks, but in my opinion you owe Rusty and apology, and you ought to man up and do it sooner than later. Some weeks back I behaved in a similarly churlish manner with regard to a question that another of our members had regarding modeling (something I don't "get") and was taken to task for it as I should have been. If I can do it, so can you.
                    Last edited by desertswo; 29 Oct 14,, 00:48.

                    Comment


                    • Diddo to what the Skipper said!

                      Eh, he's new here! Time to learn the pecking order in this command!
                      Even I know it's not polite or even the least bit smart to piss off the CO!
                      Or, to challenge someone like Rusty on anything ship related!
                      I'm heading for Sickbay and hide!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by desertswo View Post
                        All back full emergency there shipmate!!! There's no reason to be a petulant jerk. We're only allowed one, and everybody pretty much agrees that I'm it. I KNOW that Rusty read what you wrote, but he is no doubt as exasperated as some of the rest of us are with trying to scratch your itch.

                        You are asking people, informed as some of us are, for an opinion that is more properly addressed to an actual naval architect from the era in question, and/or someone who rode those ships, took battle damage, and lived to tell about. As far as I know, I'm probably the only one here who has even had shots fired in anger at himself while at sea. There are others here who can talk all about "shootin' and scootin'" in ground combat or in the air, but there just aren't any others with the sort of knowledge AND experience that your quest for an opinion begs. You want to know what a Soviet-made 12.7mm round does to the aluminum superstructure of a modern CRUDES ship, or what a torpedo would do to one (even though I never had THAT "pleasure") then I'm your man.

                        Now, all that said, I don't know about what anyone else thinks, but in my opinion you owe Rusty and apology, and you ought to man up and do it sooner than later. Some weeks back I behaved in a similarly churlish manner with regard to a question that another of our members had regarding modeling (something I don't "get") and was taken to task for it as I should have been. If I can do it, so can you.

                        Sorry about that, I guess the apparent lack of relation to what I wrote set me off. It's probably a question best left to WW2 naval buffs with a technical bent. Apparently I'm on the wrong forum. This appears to be a forum for people with extensive first-hand experience with modern navies. Which is good, but not where I should have gone. For what it's worth, the Naval Architects are long since dead, and often produced systems that didn't work nearly as well as they hoped. (Iowa's too rigid lower belt, Yamato's defective riveted seem, Germans who seem to have used the wrong arrangement, King George V's not bounded at the top by deck armor, too narrow and rated vastly higher by the designers then it was worth.)

                        Sorry again, and can you point me in the direction of a forum for WW2 naval buffs who know their stuff? All I've got is the commentary in a series of reference books, and the Navel Technical Board article.

                        BTW, that site hasn't changed in several years. Do you think there's any chance they'd answer an email?

                        Comment


                        • Old training film ....

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2sYtq7hI74

                          Training film for Iowa Class 16-inch/ 50, 3-gun turret .....

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by BraselC5048 View Post
                            Sorry about that, I guess the apparent lack of relation to what I wrote set me off. It's probably a question best left to WW2 naval buffs with a technical bent. Apparently I'm on the wrong forum. This appears to be a forum for people with extensive first-hand experience with modern navies. Which is good, but not where I should have gone. For what it's worth, the Naval Architects are long since dead, and often produced systems that didn't work nearly as well as they hoped. (Iowa's too rigid lower belt, Yamato's defective riveted seem, Germans who seem to have used the wrong arrangement, King George V's not bounded at the top by deck armor, too narrow and rated vastly higher by the designers then it was worth.)

                            Sorry again, and can you point me in the direction of a forum for WW2 naval buffs who know their stuff? All I've got is the commentary in a series of reference books, and the Navel Technical Board article.

                            BTW, that site hasn't changed in several years. Do you think there's any chance they'd answer an email?
                            First of all, don't apologize to me; apologize to Rusty. He started his long and fruitful career at Long Beach Naval Shipyard in 1954. The same year my father was medically retired from the Navy against his wishes, and two years before I stepped into this world. He's the man who has forgotten more about armor than any of us is likely to ever learn, so if he doesn't know, it is highly doubtful that anyone else will.

                            Beyond that, you already touched upon the biggest issue you are confronting. Let me frame that issue this way. I am 58. My father, who survived the torpedoing and sinking of USS Wasp (CV 7) at Guadalcanal, and was ship's Boatswain in USS White Plains (CVE 66) an element of Taffy 3 at the Battle Off Samar (aka "The Last Charge Of The Tin Can Sailors") would, had he not died in 1979 at the age of 61, be 97 on his next birthday. My theory is that he actually was killed in WWII . . . it just took a while to catch up to him. He had his first heart attack at the ripe old age of 34. He wasn't built like me at 6'1" and 190-ish in my prime. No, he was about 5'11" and 140 pounds soaking wet, so unlike today's society, obesity wasn't the issue. Undernourishment during the Great Depression, self-medicating to deal with combat with three-packs of unfiltered Camels per day, gallons of coffee, and a daily highball or three when on the beach, combined with the stress of combat, and a different kind of stress that occurs when a 9th grade education combines with being assigned as a general duty security officer at this place were very much the issues. In other words, he was pretty typical of the people who would have an opinion if they were still around, but when people who were all of 23 when Pearl Harbor went down, are approaching the century mark, your chances of having your question answered diminish quite literally by the day.

                            Our "Greatest Generation" is all but gone here in the US and over in the UK, and the same is true for our erstwhile enemies in Germany, and in Japan. The opinion you want to hear will not be from "history buffs" but would have been from people like that who served in those ships and as I said in my previous post, experienced what it was like to be on the receiving end of battle damage.

                            Long story short, it's not that no one wants to help. Clearly I have no problem listening to myself pontificate on a good many issues, but if I don't know the answer, I defer to those who do, and I would have done in this case, had pretty much all of them not assumed room temperature at this point. I will say this though; as a fleet engineer, my opinion is that the best protection against torpedoes is, was, and always shall be speed. To paraphrase Kirk Douglas in In Harm's Way, "gut bustin', motherlovin' Navy" speed through the water and THAT I can give you chapter and verse on . . . even for WWII era ships.

                            Comment


                            • Desertstwo said: I will say this though; as a fleet engineer, my opinion is that the best protection against torpedoes is, was, and always shall be speed. To paraphrase Kirk Douglas in In Harm's Way, "gut bustin', motherlovin' Navy" speed through the water and THAT I can give you chapter and verse on . . . even for WWII era ships.

                              A perfect example of "speed" was when President Roosevelt was secretly being taken aboard the USS Iowa (BB-61) to Casablanca for the Teheran Conference with Churchill and Stalin. A firing demonstration from the escorts was put on for the President. But on one Destroyer a live torpedo was actually fired at the Iowa. Now here is a 57,000 tonne (long tons) Battleship almost the length of three football fields made a turn so sharp and so fast that not only did the torpedo miss, it blew itself up when it hit the turbulence of those four Essex class propellers (each weighing an average of 18 and a quarter long tonnes each).

                              Now, if you are ever near San Pedro, California you can visit the Iowa. And if I'm aboard (between medical "procedures", other committee meetings, home repair projects or running model trains for my grand children) I would be happy to give you a tour.
                              Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by RustyBattleship View Post
                                Now here is a 57,000 tonne (long tons) Battleship almost the length of three football fields made a turn so sharp and so fast that not only did the torpedo miss, it blew itself up when it hit the turbulence of those four Essex class propellers (each weighing an average of 18 and a quarter long tonnes each).

                                Now, if you are ever near San Pedro, California you can visit the Iowa. And if I'm aboard (between medical "procedures", other committee meetings, home repair projects or running model trains for my grand children) I would be happy to give you a tour.
                                That beings up a question I have had on my mind for some time. How could the Iowas be fitted with the same screws as the Essex carriers? The Essex class had 150,000 shp and the Iowas had 212,000. How could the same set of screws absord so much more power? Did the Iowas turn them at higher RPM?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X