Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

Yes Italians first and then Germans and it included DD fire also it is not the same as firng in a moving ship. i have to search Morrison but it think they were only a couple of miles from Coast. Not long range.

Here is a discussion about the not glowing results of BB fire against Coastal Guns which as everybody knows it is a fixed target.

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/battleships-forum/44677-16-guns-vs-hard-targets-reality-check.html

In short my conclusion is that at long range, the perennial luck still have a big saying in clear daytime, Radar or no Radar.

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu
Yes, I think you must be right in that no one was going over rivets with a magnifying glass. However, there were problems matching the hull sections. If this is of sufficient interest, I can try to find a direct quote.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikemike
This is a bit overstated. The workforce was experienced enough, but low on body count, which slowed construction. They may have been demoralized, but I imagine the Gestapo may have compensated for that. The air threat was considerable, of course, that is why much of the section work was shifted to bunkers. Most section yards escaped being targeted for bombing, anyway, because they had nothing showing on the slips anymore. An interesting detail in this context is that, when sections were assembled, this was done by four welders simultaneously, evenly distributed around the circumference of the hull, and that the welding process was not to be interrupted for any reason, even under air attack.

quote:


Sections were, as I've said, designated for specific boats from the start. There wasn't normally any mixing/matching, except when sections were destroyed by bombing.

I also don't believe in poorly-made components on a large scale. The section yards were responsible for delivering only sections that were up to specifications, meaning they had to do extra remedial work when supplied with substandard components or the section wouldn't have been accepted by the relevant team of the War Production Ministry.

Sections were not misaligned as such on assembly, proper (longitudinal) alignment was very carefully checked by optical measuring methods. However, if the diameters of the sections differed too much, the methods used to adapt the sections to each other might well have weakened the structure.

quote:


I agree that the Type XXI program would have progressed smoother and faster if the section yards had built the whole section by themselves, but the planning called for building rates that couldn't have been achieved in that way, so some subassembly was farmed out to subcontractors. This is still a risk even today, witness the Boeing 787 troubles.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
I'm still curious about the why behind the hydraulics placement. Is there any info regarding this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikemike
3) Impractical Hydraulic system.

This was the first type using hydraulics, earlier boats were mainly electric, but the higher rudder forces at higher underwater speeds could better be handled by hydraulic actuators; in addition, this saved copper. The system was overly complex at first, but was considerably simplified following trials and gave no trouble afterwards. The only essential part outside the pressure hull was the actuating system for the forward dive planes; these were, another first for German subs, retractable, and for simplicity the whole mechanism was copied from the Dutch O25 class. Rudder/Stern planes were actuated by hydraulic rams inside the pressure hull via rods. I respectfully suggest that the system may have seemed "too complex and delicate" to US crews of the time where engineering officers didn't always have engineering backgrounds but may not have posed any particular problems to German engineering staff.

quote:

I'm still curious about the why behind the hydraulics placement. Is there any info regarding this?

quote:

Also are there any real examples of long range gunnery by US ships against other ships in 43,44,45?

quote:

I would appreciate it muchly. very interested in this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
I'm still curious about the why behind the hydraulics placement. Is there any info regarding this?

I think mikemike’s comments on this are perfect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikemike
3) Impractical Hydraulic system.

This was the first type using hydraulics, earlier boats were mainly electric, but the higher rudder forces at higher underwater speeds could better be handled by hydraulic actuators; in addition, this saved copper. The system was overly complex at first, but was considerably simplified following trials and gave no trouble afterwards. The only essential part outside the pressure hull was the actuating system for the forward dive planes; these were, another first for German subs, retractable, and for simplicity the whole mechanism was copied from the Dutch O25 class. Rudder/Stern planes were actuated by hydraulic rams inside the pressure hull via rods. I respectfully suggest that the system may have seemed "too complex and delicate" to US crews of the time where engineering officers didn't always have engineering backgrounds but may not have posed any particular problems to German engineering staff.

You have to have a thru-hull somewhere, and it doesn’t make sense to put the mechanism outside, and thru-hull the command link. There are so many dissimilar materials in the mechanism, including the fluid itself, that it would be a corrosion nightmare.

If you have to have a thru-hull, the only thing that makes sense is a port for the actuators; mechanism stays inside the pressure hull, and actuators (electrolytically inert wrt to the hull and fitting contact surfaces) link to the blades.

Also agree with his suggestions about the lack of experience and comprehension of our investigators. The forces associated with rigging out bow planes and controlling your blades (bow planes and rudders) at high speed in 25 atmospheres of water pressure weren’t that well understood.

Just mho. Looking at this practically, don’t have any references, just gut feel.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

Hey, do I get a gold watch and maybe a pension when I reach a thousand posts?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

quote:

I would appreciate it muchly. very interested in this.

All right, I found the following quotes. They're from Henry Schade, a member of the NTM in Europe. You may want to track down his article that appeared in the Transactions of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol 54, 1946--in fact, I'm certain you'll want to see it because it spends several pages covering the entire Type XXI construction process. As a bonus, you'll also find articles on turbine development and ice-breaker design.
"In an effort to meet the unrealistic quotas, the section yards and the fitting yards would move assemblies along to the next yard in an uncompleted status which served only to magnify the troubles and eventually cause delays at the assembly yards waiting for the missing items. Because of difficulties of the inexperienced structural plants in producing sections within tolerance, the assembly yards tried to reshuffle sections to get a better match, and some confusion and inefficiency thereby resulted."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

If radar functions properly without interference, you might get about 25% more hits. So in our inescapable Yamato-v-Iowa ramblings, can Iowa stand three 46cm hits as well as Yamato can stand four 16in hits?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

You have to have a thru-hull somewhere, and it doesn’t make sense to put the mechanism outside, and thru-hull the command link. There are so many dissimilar materials in the mechanism, including the fluid itself, that it would be a corrosion nightmare.

If you have to have a thru-hull, the only thing that makes sense is a port for the actuators; mechanism stays inside the pressure hull, and actuators (electrolytically inert wrt to the hull and fitting contact surfaces) link to the blades.

Also agree with his suggestions about the lack of experience and comprehension of our investigators. The forces associated with rigging out bow planes and controlling your blades (bow planes and rudders) at high speed in 25 atmospheres of water pressure weren’t that well understood.

Just mho. Looking at this practically, don’t have any references, just gut feel.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

The NTM report on Japanese FC is available online for everybody to see. The Americans concluded that Japanese systems were good, not quite as good as USN systems, lacking mostly in its radar capability. If radar functions properly without interference, you might get about 25% more hits. So in our inescapable Yamato-v-Iowa ramblings, can Iowa stand three 46cm hits as well as Yamato can stand four 16in hits?

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

Hey, do I get a gold watch and maybe a pension when I reach a thousand posts?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

Hey, do I get a gold watch and maybe a pension when I reach a thousand posts?

Sure you do. I've got 28 gold watches... It was 32, but Matrix made me give four of them back.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

True to a certain extent, but the force was also let down terribly by Kurita, who abandoned control of the Battle of Samar the instant it began, with his "general attack" order.

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

quote:

Truk was the best example. The shooting against Nowaki was quite good, even though no hits were scored. But it is possible to get carried away with extrapolations that lack a substantial basis. The NTM report on Japanese FC is available online for everybody to see. The Americans concluded that Japanese systems were good, not quite as good as USN systems, lacking mostly in its radar capability. If radar functions properly without interference, you might get about 25% more hits. So in our inescapable Yamato-v-Iowa ramblings, can Iowa stand three 46cm hits as well as Yamato can stand four 16in hits?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

True... but if we leave the higher command asides for now it always puzzled me that, for example, Yamato in the "Battle of the Leyte Gulf" did so poorly... the Yamato was big, stable gun platform and with tall superstructure with best possible elevation for rangefinders and fire control (and Japanese had good optics)... so... what went so terribly wrong in those hours where, by any objective analysis, the battle should have been simple "shooting the fish in the barrel" - the Yamato was, after all, made for such thing and had years to train for the event...


Leo "Apollo11"

quote:

No. you get a gold star!

quote:

so it would seem that the rush rush part is the primary culprit.

quote:

Does this account for any differences in rate of fire?

quote:

Would you comment on penetration likelihood 46cm on Iowa versus 16in on Yamato?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

Hey, do I get a gold watch and maybe a pension when I reach a thousand posts?

Sure you do. I've got 28 gold watches... It was 32, but Matrix made me give four of them back.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11


True... but if we leave the higher command asides for now it always puzzled me that, for example, Yamato in the "Battle of the Leyte Gulf" did so poorly... the Yamato was big, stable gun platform and with tall superstructure with best possible elevation for rangefinders and fire control (and Japanese had good optics)... so... what went so terribly wrong in those hours where, by any objective analysis, the battle should have been simple "shooting the fish in the barrel" - the Yamato was, after all, made for such thing and had years to train for the event...


Leo "Apollo11"

quote:

All he got was that tattoo of Dr. Phil on the back of his head!

quote:

Yamato in the "Battle of the Leyte Gulf" did so poorly

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Jelous...

quote:

Actually i think Tiornu should get a gold watch for finally learning how to use the 'quote' feature.

quote:

when and where will the article come out?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

quote:

Would you comment on penetration likelihood 46cm on Iowa versus 16in on Yamato?

I will say only that Iowa has no Immune Zone to 46cm fire. Yamato does have an IZ whose outer edge can be brought in as close as 30,000 yards if Iowa uses the reduced velocity that her guns were capable of (that is, firing as though they were 45cal guns). I don't know how to gauge the likelihood of Iowa's crew attempting this, but I can say it was not entirely fanciful. You can use the penetration tables at http://www.geocities.com/kop_mic/ , but these do not account for angled armor. You may want to go ahead and do your only calcuations using Nathan Okun's formulae.