Nikademus
Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dili
We are going circles . I already pointed out of a Battleship without armor protection for its amno as an extreme example. Shouldn't she be criticized?. Not having a better redundancy of a so decisive part of the ship is a design flaw in whatever Battleship in my opinion. Propulsion and Steering are essential.
There's a difference between criticism and labeling a ship Flawed. I am arguing that Bismarck had strong and weak points, same as any other BB. I do not consider her a "flawed" design anymore than i do Littorio which also had strengths and weaknesses.
quote:
Factual data. If you have more bring it here, it is weird your superiority talk when you bring nothing.
If by factual, you mean someone in the Italian high command wrote up a report blaming the crew in it's entirty as you say, I'll take your word for it. Based on the "factual" information i've examined from other sources such as Garzke, I do not conclude that the crew is solely to blame.
quote:
In what posterior engagement there was an hit that put more water inside the ship than in other comparable ships? V.V. in Matapan an hit outside TDS put 3000t of water initially is not dissimilar of others ships with hits outside TDS, the second hit in Littorio in bow in 1942 it put 1600t. If i am not mistaken even Yamato took 3000t(outside TDS?), HMS Nelson with an hit outside TDS also +3000t.
You said no other incident occured where serious flooding resulted with the Littorio's. That was incorrect. However what i find relevent to your demand that I provide more examples other than Taranto, which you originally brought up, is why I must do so to prove a point when you on the other hand, are only required to cite one incident. That is inconsistant.
quote:
Just a precision. The ship was put in a shallow place diferent that where it was torpedoed.
If you mean "precaution" then yes, and wise one indeed given the severe flooding and trim adjustment. Had Littorio been in Bismarck's place when this damage occured she would have been in serious difficulties. I stand by my earlier statements in that regard.
quote:
A Design flaw like in Bismarck manifests in many other alternate realities:
what is your opinion ?
I think i've mentioned it several times now. One; Noone can gurantee that any one class is immune to one type of damage. In relation to this, I do not feel that any other ship would have done much better given the exact same circumstances that day in which Bismarck was badly damaged. While Littorio's redunancy might have assisted her, there is no gurantee that it would have made a difference in the end, especially in those sea conditions and with the additional damages suffered as it is just as probable that the Littorio's crew would have been just as hindered in making emergency repairs as Bismarck's crew was. You have no problem blaming the crew for Littorio's poor showing at Taranto, saying they were unprepared and/or untrained. Using that same logic one can cite that Bismarck's crew was handicapped by the heavy seas which made it more difficult and dangerous to attempt emergency repairs. In calmer waters, they might have unjammed the rudders and established manual control.
Two: Bismarck's designers opted for a more traditional arrangement as did other nations while the Italians opted for an alternate arrangement that conveyed less overall maneuverability in exchange for redundancy of systems. As Tiornu mentioned several pages back, If not having one main + 2 aux rudders is indicative of a design flaw than all battleships save Littorio were flawed. Myself, I feel that each class traded pros and cons based on what the designers felt was most important to them and that this is an example of such a choice.
Three: As mentioned in Garke, and also in this thread by Tironu, the only reason Bismarck's steering arrangement recieves such scrutiny today is because of the lucky hit she recieved that led to her destruction during her maiden voyage. Outside of that hit, I doubt much scrutiny would be made.
quote:
I agree that same size rudder sytems benefit those that are in extremity of the ship.
But with the Bismarck v.s Littorio all things werent equal as demonstrated by rudder area size diference. Plus the references to its maneuverality.
Can you post the part or refer where he talks about auxiliary rudder systems?
I didn't say they were equal in maneuverability. What i said, repeatedly, was that a traditional two primary rudder layout conveys more manueverability vs the arrangment chosen for Littorio. This doesn't mean Littorio wasn't maneuverable or that she wasn't more maneuverable than Bismarck...it means she could have been still more manueverable had the designers opted for a different choice. However the Italians preferred redunancy over extra maneuver ability. You can find this in Gazrke's Volume on Axis BB's of WWII. I recommend it. An essential set for battleship enthusiaists.
quote:
You are misreading: "The Bismarck class rudder has been criticized as being too small to effectively turn the ship quickly, and is excessively vulnerable compared to the double rudder setup of the American Iowa class. These latter criticisms are justified by the single torpedo hit scored on Bismarck's rudder by Fairey Swordfish torpedo bombers during the British pursuit of the vessel.[14]"
Not misreading. The salient point is "These latter criticisms are justified by the single torpedo hit scored on Bismarck's rudder by Fairey Swordfish torpedo bombers during the British pursuit of the vessel.
I stand by what i wrote in response to this assumption based on one hit, particularily given the reference to the torpedo hit does not allow for Bismarck's already damaged condition and the sea state, both of which impeeded her max speed and maneuverability. Despite this she avoided most of the missles aimed at her. I also note that the original claim by you that Bismarck was "flawed design" was based on the steering gear/prop vulnerability due to close proximity to each other. With that argument going nowhere, we now get criticism of Bismarck's turning radius. Yet in reading up on Bismarck and her sister's action vs torpedo planes in Garzke, both ships managed to avoid plenty of torpedoes aimed at them quite competently. It would appear that Bismarck's steering ability worked just fine in RL.
quote:
The propeller layout and rudder size has almost nil to do with stability but they hit maneuverality. It is not only the good stability of Bismarck that was hiting her maneuverality.
I'm highlighting the fact that you keep picking and choosing your design elements in your dismissal of the Bismarck class without acknowledging that its all connected. Your now criticising her ability to turn and as your proof you google up a Wikipedia entry that basically criticises Bismark's ability to steer based on sole fact that the already damaged warship received a lucky hit to the stern. I mention that if Bismarck was not the most maneuverable ship this was due in no small part to the fact that the designers were most concerned with buiding a ship of great stability for firing and ability to absorb damage. One cannot dismiss the importance of stability and strength anymore than one can maneuverability. Further as I already mentioned, based on the battle accounts, Bismarck and Tirpitz both maneuvered just fine in avoiding potential damage.
quote:
I considered KGV layout a design flaw at start of this thread. But Bismarck increases the already bad layout by marginal propeller steering.
I know...and i disagreed and still do. All ships are inherantly vulneable to stern hits by torpedoes and bombs. Littorio's spread out arrangment with reduancies was a good response to the threat at the cost of additional maneuverability and increased area where propulsion and steering damage can occur. Other nations chose more traditional methods. A closer arrangement means a smaller area of vulnerability but increases the danger of collateral damage. In the end there's no guarntee. Despite the closeness of the arrangements, only Bismarck's steering gear was impacted, not her propulsion. One would have thought both would be based on this discussion. By the same token Veneto suffered both propulsion and steering damage despite her more spread out arrangement and at one point was immobilized completely with serious damage.
< Message edited by Nikademus -- 7/2/2008 7:44:34 PM >
_____________________________
|
Printable Version
RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII - 
How fast are those subs? And how slow are Western torps? 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread