Something is right with our bloody ships today
- Thread starter martin worsey
- Start date
Zakalwe
Member
I have never heard anything remotely indicating of a mag on Tirpitz exploding when she capsized. There were fires and secondary explosions (what a wonder btw. after three Tallboys), but IF one of the 15" Mags would have gone up, the job of the Norwegian salvage company would have been much easier, I guess...., more like collecting pieces of steel out of the area. Watch what happened with Barham and estimate how her wreck looks like, my bet would be, even worse than Hood. And the Jutland wrecks. Compare with Tirpitz. One intact hull (minus damage from bombs of course), not broken or torn apart. The KM even had to cut through the bottom to get a few survivors out.
As for Scharnhorst, I have to look into my book about the Norwegian expedition which detected and dived the wreck. I don`t recall if they made any suggestions.
As for Scharnhorst, I have to look into my book about the Norwegian expedition which detected and dived the wreck. I don`t recall if they made any suggestions.
martin worsey
Member
My sources would indicate that the 12” belt was equivalent to approximately 14-15” of vertical protection due to its slope. There were contemporary trials undertaken and this system performed well against 15” shells. In any event, the graphs produced tend to suggest that even a 12” belt would have a reasonable chance of keeping out a 15” shell at 18,000 yards.To compare with something else slightly more modern
You can see the Hood was no match for a modern armour scheme
The deck armour was admittedly a different story and your graph does illustrate this nicely. However, it once again appears to suggest that the Hood would have reasonable protection of the magazines at 18,000 yards. Horizontal protection was admittedly weak in many vessels of this period but the effects of plunging fire at longer ranges and aerial attack was some way in the future. Reading the accounts of hits in Campbell would tend to suggest that the thin deck armour was not necessarily a bad compromise when designing a warship. Medium armour protecting secondary batteries would appear to present a greater hazard.
Comparison with the U.S. battleships appears slightly unfair as they were a lot slower than the Hood.
From the Bomber Command Museum of Canada
"The bombs were released and the crews waited thirty long seconds for the results. The first bombs narrowly missed the target, but then a great yellow flash burst on the foredeck and the Tirpitz was seen to tremble as it was hit by at least two Tallboys. A column of steam and smoke shot up to about 300 feet and within a few minutes the ship had started to list badly. It then suffered a tremendous explosion as the ammunition stores magazine went up. She rolled over to port and capsized. About 10 minutes after the first bomb struck, the Tirpitz had completely turned turtle with only the hull visible from the air. Approximately 1000 of her crew were killed. None of the attacking aircraft were significantly damaged and all returned safely to base.2
"The bombs were released and the crews waited thirty long seconds for the results. The first bombs narrowly missed the target, but then a great yellow flash burst on the foredeck and the Tirpitz was seen to tremble as it was hit by at least two Tallboys. A column of steam and smoke shot up to about 300 feet and within a few minutes the ship had started to list badly. It then suffered a tremendous explosion as the ammunition stores magazine went up. She rolled over to port and capsized. About 10 minutes after the first bomb struck, the Tirpitz had completely turned turtle with only the hull visible from the air. Approximately 1000 of her crew were killed. None of the attacking aircraft were significantly damaged and all returned safely to base.2
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY -- NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER
805 KIDDER BREESE SE -- WASHINGTON NAVY YARD
WASHINGTON DC 20374-5060
Finally, on 12 November, Tirpitz was hit and near-missed by several very heavy bombs, causing massive damage. She listed heavily, suffered an ammunition explosion and rolled over. Her wreck was largely scrapped in place after the war.
805 KIDDER BREESE SE -- WASHINGTON NAVY YARD
WASHINGTON DC 20374-5060
Finally, on 12 November, Tirpitz was hit and near-missed by several very heavy bombs, causing massive damage. She listed heavily, suffered an ammunition explosion and rolled over. Her wreck was largely scrapped in place after the war.
Attacking the Tirpitz as seen by Flight Lieutenant Bruce Buckham, 463 Squadron RAAF.
"Suddenly there was a tremendous explosion on board. The Tirpitz appeared to try to heave herself out of the water. Carried away by this turn of events, and the suddenness of it all, we had descended to 200 ft, cameras had been whirring at their task of collecting photographic evidence of the action.
We flew over it, around it, all about it and still it sat there with dignity under a huge mushroom of smoke which plumed up a few thousand feet in the air. There were fires and more explosions on board, a huge gaping hole existed on the port side where a section had been blown out."
"Suddenly there was a tremendous explosion on board. The Tirpitz appeared to try to heave herself out of the water. Carried away by this turn of events, and the suddenness of it all, we had descended to 200 ft, cameras had been whirring at their task of collecting photographic evidence of the action.
We flew over it, around it, all about it and still it sat there with dignity under a huge mushroom of smoke which plumed up a few thousand feet in the air. There were fires and more explosions on board, a huge gaping hole existed on the port side where a section had been blown out."
saddletank
Forum Conscript
I think what people are saying is that it is hardly surprising that the ammunition stores of a ship should explode when it had already been ripped wide open by 2 or 3 huge bombs. For the ammunition of a big ship to NOT explode in such circumstances would be surprising. Even after this explosion the ship's hull was intact, so it was not that great a bang.
By contrast Hood, Queen Mary, Bulwark, Natal, et al all blew to smithereens by one surgical shell hit, or by no apparent effect at all, just sitting at anchor.
The effects of unstable propellant in these second cases far outweighs the explosion following 2 or 3 TallBoy hits on Tirpitz. Thus whether Tirpitz suffered an explosion or not, we are not comparing similar circumstances.
By contrast Hood, Queen Mary, Bulwark, Natal, et al all blew to smithereens by one surgical shell hit, or by no apparent effect at all, just sitting at anchor.
The effects of unstable propellant in these second cases far outweighs the explosion following 2 or 3 TallBoy hits on Tirpitz. Thus whether Tirpitz suffered an explosion or not, we are not comparing similar circumstances.
Review of TV documentary on dive
From the film footage of the wreck which lies upside down on the muddy floor of the Barrent Sea , her torpedos still sit in her tubes never to launch , and one of her secondary gun turrets sits trapped by the sea floor and the deck.
Munitions are scattered all around the wreck which is covered with the remains of trawlling gear lost to the battle cruiser.
Her bows lie broken and twisted some distance from the hull blown away as aresult of a magazine explosion , when death came to Scharnhorst it came sudden and violence.
From memory several easily identifible features of the ship confirm who she is and were spotted on the footage shot , the stern anchor , the shape of the stern - it could only have been her , the front of the bow and the type of screws and twin rudder arrangement - German naval design and 100% Scharnhorst
From the film footage of the wreck which lies upside down on the muddy floor of the Barrent Sea , her torpedos still sit in her tubes never to launch , and one of her secondary gun turrets sits trapped by the sea floor and the deck.
Munitions are scattered all around the wreck which is covered with the remains of trawlling gear lost to the battle cruiser.
Her bows lie broken and twisted some distance from the hull blown away as aresult of a magazine explosion , when death came to Scharnhorst it came sudden and violence.
From memory several easily identifible features of the ship confirm who she is and were spotted on the footage shot , the stern anchor , the shape of the stern - it could only have been her , the front of the bow and the type of screws and twin rudder arrangement - German naval design and 100% Scharnhorst
Zakalwe
Member
Oki,
I know it`s useless, but one last try. There were secondary explosions on Tirpitz. She was already lost at that moment. We don`t know what exploded there, but it was very certainly NOT propellant due to a flash. Maybe shells going off in a fire? And even though it was completely irrelevant to the outcome, as she was already in sinking condition, it was very certainly not a catastrophic explosion as the hull was still in one piece. This was certainly not true to the RN ships at Jutland, which were ripped in (at least) two from propellant gas pressure.
To make it short: there are a hundred reasons why a mag can blow up. Shells penetrating the mag, torp hits, fires, bombs. One of all this is very likely to have happened to Tirpitz or Scharnhorst. It is even likely completely irrelevant to what happened at Jutland, as it is very UNlikely, that Scharnhorst and Tirpitz suffered explosions from a flash ingniting propellant.
And, as already mentioned, you can turn this effect off in-game. And turn on the Greenboys. And set the hit ratio to your liking.
Over and out.
I know it`s useless, but one last try. There were secondary explosions on Tirpitz. She was already lost at that moment. We don`t know what exploded there, but it was very certainly NOT propellant due to a flash. Maybe shells going off in a fire? And even though it was completely irrelevant to the outcome, as she was already in sinking condition, it was very certainly not a catastrophic explosion as the hull was still in one piece. This was certainly not true to the RN ships at Jutland, which were ripped in (at least) two from propellant gas pressure.
To make it short: there are a hundred reasons why a mag can blow up. Shells penetrating the mag, torp hits, fires, bombs. One of all this is very likely to have happened to Tirpitz or Scharnhorst. It is even likely completely irrelevant to what happened at Jutland, as it is very UNlikely, that Scharnhorst and Tirpitz suffered explosions from a flash ingniting propellant.
And, as already mentioned, you can turn this effect off in-game. And turn on the Greenboys. And set the hit ratio to your liking.
Over and out.
saddletank
Forum Conscript
This is entirely supposition on the part of the divers and those who have viewed videotape and still footage of the wreck. It is equally plausible to say a scuttling charge broke the bow off or it simply tore off during the stresses of sinking, and sank a distance away.
What IS incontravertible fact is that Scharnhorst was only scuttled by her crew when totally disabled after a long fight during which she had nearly 90 broadsides fired at her by Duke of York and was hit by an estimated 11 torpedoes.
How much more evidence does anyone need for an extraordinarily well built and tough ship? Compare with Hood. Compare with Barham which sank after I think was it 1 or 3 torpedoes? As Zakalwe says, end of discussion.
Bullethead
Storm Eagle Studios
I've attached what is I think the most recent and definitive analysis of Hood's sinking (and also Bismarck's). This was made following the 2001 expedition to the wrecks with ROVs. In the attached file, the analysis of Hood starts near the bottom of page 14, although the rest is quite interesting, too.
You can find photos of the wreck, here:
http://www.hmshood.com/
and a highly recommended 2007 analysis of the sinking here:
http://www.warship.org/no21987.htm
Anyway, from the wreckage, it's quite definite that the whole 120 tons of cordite in the aft magazine group (4" and 15") exploded, obliterating 85m of hull from just aft of the 2nd funnel to just aft of Y barbette. As you say, the 4" magazine most likely went off first, but it was (in theory anyway) just as well-protected as the 15" ammo. It was under the same number of decks and behind the same belts, on the centerline. IOW, it's protection was nothing like the dangerous arrangements of WW1 RN secondary magazines.
It seems most likely that the fatal shell actually exploded in the 4" magazine and not outside it, based on experiments done with shooting at mock-up magazines. There are several paths it could have taken to get there, depending on how far into her final turn Hood was at that moment. Her rudder was found hard aport so the turn was in progress and Hood would have been heeling over towards Bismarck, decreasing the striking angle on the decks but increasing it on the belts. As such, it seems to me (and those who examined the wreck) most likely that the shell came through the deck of the after engine room, which was thinner there than elsewhere. Because Bismarck was still on Hood's starboard bow, the shell would have traveled a bit aft of its point of impact, probably through the common bulkhead between the engine room and 4" magazine. The 15" magazines were adjacent to the 4", so they went off in a chain reaction.
Here's page 4 of the above analysis, which shows the likely sequence of events drawn on Hood's plans, about 1/2way down the page:
http://www.warship.org/new_page_2.htm
saddletank
Forum Conscript
The William Jurens article is superb. The Hood Association site is also a great resource. Thanks for the links.
Interesting article though I must admit I'm more a practical man than mathmetician, though I am fascinated by his reference to Y turret. Anyway looking at ADM 239/268 circa 1939 and reading the article the Admiralty don't quite have the same faith that either the belt armour or deck armour (3 inchs the Belfast was 3 inchs) as Mr Jurens of course they might be wrong and Jurens right who knows but they went as far as warn the Battlecruiser in the fighting instructions 1939 ADM 239/261 against taking on superior forces ie bigger guns and more armour, though they refer to fleet action they are pretty clear. The RN knew the Hood was a turkey.
Last edited:
Bullethead
Storm Eagle Studios
Well, there's no doubt at all, from the examination of the wreckage, as to what blew up. And minute rehashing of the available evidence ever since has shown conclusively that it was Bismarck, not PE, that did it. It seems way more likely than not that the shell actually exploded inside the magazine, based on various tests. However, there will always be argument over how the shell arrived in the magazine. Given that the forensically critical part of the ship was blown to bits, you can't line up bullet holes with rods like they do on CSI.
As Jurens says, there are several potential paths, given the range and target aspect. Any one of them could have done the trick. He seems to favor a penetration of the upper belt, followed by a penetration of the angled part of the deck, which would have been nearly perpendicular to the shell's path. I favor a penetration of the deck due to the ship's heel during her turn. But either way, the fact remains that a shell defeated whatever armor was in its way at that particular moment, so regardless of what various penetration tables say, and regardless of how improbably somebody might think such a penetration to be, it obviously happened.
No argument there. See that pic early in the Jurens article showing how the addition of a narrow flat deck extension in the wings would have closed at least one (of several) windows of vulnerability to the type of hit that killed her. But Their Lordships kept putting that off until it was too late.
Zakalwe
Member
As for "Scharnhorst" I skipped over the text of the sinking and the wreck (Alf R. Jacobsen - "Die Scharnhorst").
It seems the bow is completely gone in front of the bridge. (Same as the stern. There seem to be a design failure in the German WWII ships btw. From what it sounds, the stern broke off the same way as Bismarcks. IIRC Prinz Eugen (?) suffered the same from a torpedo.)
Survivors said, they felt one or two underwater explosions. The conclusion of the author is, one or two torps possibly triggered a explosion of the bow magazines.
It seems the bow is completely gone in front of the bridge. (Same as the stern. There seem to be a design failure in the German WWII ships btw. From what it sounds, the stern broke off the same way as Bismarcks. IIRC Prinz Eugen (?) suffered the same from a torpedo.)
Survivors said, they felt one or two underwater explosions. The conclusion of the author is, one or two torps possibly triggered a explosion of the bow magazines.
These ships featured a three-shaft propulsion plant which was subdivided into separate engine and fire room complexes by an arrangement of longitudinal and transverse bulkheads similar to that of the Baden and Bayern of World War I. This is why many consider the Bismarck and Tirpitz to be copies of these ships. The propulsion arrangement resulted in a large beam and a relatively substantial GM of 13.41 feet. This large metacentric height, as compared to that of contemporary battleships (Table 2), was a function of the ample stability and low silhouette desired by the Germans.
Fitting a centerline shaft and the requisite sized propellers for the metric horsepower of 150,000 required a much different stem form than was used in World War I German battleship designs. The stem at the centerline had to be configured to give sufficient tip clearance to the large centerline propeller so as to avoid troublesome vibration. This resulted in a loss of underwater lateral area at the stem and a shift of the lateral center of effort forward, which created problems with directional stability.
Locating the rudders midway between the centerline and wing propellers meant that the center to center distance of the rudders was considerably smaller than it would have been in a quadruple-propeller arrangement with the rudders positioned between the propellers on either side. It would appear that the triple-screw arrangement chosen by the German naval constructors resulted in an approximate one-third loss of turning power when compared to a quadruple-screw ship of the same power.
The need to provide clearance for the centerline propeller also resulted in a longer than usual overhang in which the weights of the rudders, steering gear and the protective armor for the steering gear was located. Buoyancy aft was limited by the smaller immersed volumes that resulted from the cutaway. These characteristics led to problems in German cruisers and battleships when they were torpedoed in the stem. Because of the lighter structure and smaller buoyancy than that found in a quadruple stem form these ships were more prone to damage from the whipping phenomena which occurs when the extremities of a ship are subjected to explosion-induced forces. The spectacular stem failures of the armored cruiser Lützow and heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen were examples of this
http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_Bismarck_p1.htm
Fitting a centerline shaft and the requisite sized propellers for the metric horsepower of 150,000 required a much different stem form than was used in World War I German battleship designs. The stem at the centerline had to be configured to give sufficient tip clearance to the large centerline propeller so as to avoid troublesome vibration. This resulted in a loss of underwater lateral area at the stem and a shift of the lateral center of effort forward, which created problems with directional stability.
Locating the rudders midway between the centerline and wing propellers meant that the center to center distance of the rudders was considerably smaller than it would have been in a quadruple-propeller arrangement with the rudders positioned between the propellers on either side. It would appear that the triple-screw arrangement chosen by the German naval constructors resulted in an approximate one-third loss of turning power when compared to a quadruple-screw ship of the same power.
The need to provide clearance for the centerline propeller also resulted in a longer than usual overhang in which the weights of the rudders, steering gear and the protective armor for the steering gear was located. Buoyancy aft was limited by the smaller immersed volumes that resulted from the cutaway. These characteristics led to problems in German cruisers and battleships when they were torpedoed in the stem. Because of the lighter structure and smaller buoyancy than that found in a quadruple stem form these ships were more prone to damage from the whipping phenomena which occurs when the extremities of a ship are subjected to explosion-induced forces. The spectacular stem failures of the armored cruiser Lützow and heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen were examples of this
http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_Bismarck_p1.htm
Bullethead
Storm Eagle Studios
Any ship hit well aft by a torpedo is at serious risk of losing her stern, regardless of the number of shafts she has. All stern designs are essentially cantilevered out abaft the screws with little buoyant support below. A number of 4-shaft, non-German cruisers lost their sterns from such hits. Not counting US ships hit by huge IJN torpedoes, off the top of my head I can think of Edinburgh (hit by a German torp) and Myoko (hit by a US torp).
For sure any stern hit is a bad hit, I dont really think it was a design flaw rather a design compromise but the exaggeration and therefore vunerability was greater in KM ships. Kinda ties in with the Invincible thread, Germany had two primary design requirements for their capital ships, one was to fit through the Kiel canal and the second was to have a high metacentric hieght , 8.5ft Derflinger 6ft Lion for instance. What is interesting is they could not get a satisfactory hull with 4 shafts to meet those requirements when SHP was increased it could not be done the WWI BC's seemed to have suffered from cavitation and turning problems. Conversely the RN looked at the 3 shaft system and realiased it would not work for modern (fast capital ships) , they did however use it with their treaty carriers to save weight on a carrier because metacentric height was not that important.
Last edited:
Bullethead
Storm Eagle Studios
I disagree. Structurally, a odd-numbered shaft arrangement is stronger than an even-numbered outfit because the central shaft's support extends the run of the keel further aft. As mentioned in my last. losing sterns was quite common for ships torpedoed aft so IMHO there's no basis for saying KM ships were worse off in this regard than anybody else's. The Germans didn't have very many ships and by sheer chance the few they had happened to get hit far aft statistically more often than ships of other navies. That, IMHO, is all there is to it.
Actually, high metacentric heights increase rolling motions, but they also increase the amount of list/heel/roll that the ship can recover from. IOW, ships that can't capsize bob like corks or "roll their guts out" in old sailor parlance. OTOH, ships with low metacentric heights are quite stable but will capsize at a lower angle of roll.
Thus, metacentric height is a compromise between general stability and overall safety. Too much of it and you have a lousy gun platform or flying surface. Too little and you have HMS Captain. In between, it's the best you can get both ways. It took naval architects most of the latter half of the 1800s to come to grips with this, because they were so in the habit of designing sailing ships whose best speed was obtained with the lee rail under.