-
Posts
593 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Contact Methods
-
Website URL
http://
Tiornu's Achievements

Crew (2/3)
0
Reputation
-
When PoW returned from pursuing Bismarck, she had only 6% of her fuel remaining. There's a fine summation of British logistical limitations (which included a lack of suitable oilers, the inefficiency of oiling gear, and a lack of oiling expertise) in "Ernest King and the British Pacific Fleet," The Journal of Military History, Jan. 2001. The same issues are mentioned in Peter Smith's book Task Force 57 (see esp. p 55 in the 2001 paperback). I'm sure Winton covers it as well.
-
I have a copy of Hobbs's new book on the BPF, but I haven't delved into it yet. I'm wondering if it has anything new to say on the subject. A glance at the Index reveals numerous references to the Logistic Support Group, so I'm optimistic that Hobbs will give this its due.
-
Baddest Battleships - World War I Edition
Tiornu replied to DesertFox's topic in General Naval and Air
Here are some penetration calculations that illustrate the comparative qualities of shells and armor: http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Penetration_index.htm The tables assume a 90-degree target angle. Scaling effects for face-hardened armor tend to reduce slightly as obliquity increases. -
The lack of range was a significant drawback, in my opinion. A lot of drama might have been eliminated from the Bismarck episode if PoW had been able to stay in contact. The logistics problems of the British Pacific Fleet are well known.
-
Baddest Battleships - World War I Edition
Tiornu replied to DesertFox's topic in General Naval and Air
The relative values for face-hardened armors will vary according to the caliber of the shell that hits it. This is referred to as "scaling effects." US armor suffers greatly, so that versus the largest shells (i.e., 460mm), it is actually worse than Japanese armor. But by the time you get down to 8in or so, US armor is perhaps the best. The Italians appear to have been the only ones who understood scaling effects and thus produced first-rate armor for battleships and for cruisers. -
Baddest Battleships - World War I Edition
Tiornu replied to DesertFox's topic in General Naval and Air
I think we'll agree there is no optimal turret shape. You can start playing with the angles, but that also changes the size of various plates, which changes their weights, and it's all very frustrating. Maybe a sphere would be best, except that battleship gun mounts don't take up a spherical volume. I don't think we can say a vertical turret face is best. It implies large gun ports (as mentioned above) and almost certain penetration by short-range gunfire. The only way to defeat short-range shells is a thick face with a significant slope back. This will also make for smaller gun ports. At the same time, the shells that have the most favorable angle against this plate will also be striking at a range where their velocity is at its minimum (usually at a descent angle of 35 degrees or so). Yamato's faceplate is a good illustration. A vertical plate of equal thickness would be penetrable at short ranges, but angled as it is in Yamato, it is virtually impenetrable by any shell at any range. Iowa has a slim chance of accomplishing something at a range of 40,000 yards, but otherwise you're out of luck. Some of you may recall the postwar test in which an Iowa-type shell defeated a Yamato-type plate. In order to recreate those penetration circumstances in a naval battle, you'd have to put Yamato 20,000 yards away from Iowa and give her a 20-degree list, or something along those lines--not too likely. At short range, Bismarck's faceplate represents the largest target area, and it is penetrable; the angled plate is also a significant target, and it is not secure either. As ranges increase, the angled plate becomes more prominent and more vulnerable. At longer ranges, the angled plate continues to be vulnerable while the flat roof becomes the larger target and vulnerable. Even Dunkerque had thicker armor on her flat roof (though Scharnhorst had only 100mm). If the Germans wanted to specialize for short ranges, they'd have been better served with heavily sloped faces. A lot of battleship mounts used thick back plates as a counterweight. For modern ships, wouldn't it have been better to use some of that weight on the roof? Even if it's only the rear portion of the roof. -
Baddest Battleships - World War I Edition
Tiornu replied to DesertFox's topic in General Naval and Air
A lot of the weight growth is probably tied to a serious case of gizmo-mania in the KM. Some of Bisnarck's gun directors had gained so much weight through added equipment that they literally began grinding through their bearings. And with all those cool new toys, you need cool new personnel to man them. Ask yourself why Eugen had more men at Denmark Strait than Hood. -
Baddest Battleships - World War I Edition
Tiornu replied to DesertFox's topic in General Naval and Air
I've never heard any comment that Baden had weak turrets. Bismarck had different proportions for her turret protection, but I'm not sure that the change was to her benefit. I think it is fair to say Bismarck had weak turrets, and shockingly weak. The armor was vulnerable to penetration at all ranges by any WWII battleship gun. I don't know any treaty rival that was similarly vulnerable. I don't see anything in Bismarck's experience that vindicates her armor scheme. I like her subdivision, though. The Bismarck TDS shows little advance over that of German WWI designs. An analogous comment might be made regarding American battleships, but that reflects more on the advanced nature of the TDS in the Big Five. I have never found a comparison of Bismarck's rudder gear with Baden's. That would be interesting. It's worth noting that Bismarck's rudder compartment had pretty good armor protection, better than KGV's -
Fisher was certainly a man of active imagination, but he doesn't appear to have wasted much time trying to form a coherent understanding of some issues.
-
Baddest Battleships - World War I Edition
Tiornu replied to DesertFox's topic in General Naval and Air
I think DKB got a little over-exuberant regarding Vanguard, as he thought she could duel Yamato on an equal footing. Personally, I don't find the Bismarck-Baden comparison to be very instructive. Bismarck would have beaten the snot out of Baden, so what do we learn by linking the two? Back to WWI, I have tried to make the case that (if she'd been completed) Izmail would have deserved consoderation among the best of the best. Not armored all that well, but man, that firepower! -
Tanknet Authors (by popular request)
Tiornu replied to Dan Robertson's topic in General Naval and Air
I have a new booklet from Nimble Books, Thunder in Its Courses: Essays on the Battlecruiser. It is now available on both sides of the Atlantic in Kindle/Nook form, and hard copies will be out within two weeks. Here's the promotional blurb: Few subjects in naval history have elicited as much romance and disdain as the battlecruiser. And few subjects have gone so grossly misunderstood. Fundamental errors regarding the battlecruiser’s origins and the technology of the times continue to distort hindsight, obscuring the historical context of these powerful, majestic ships. Thunder in Its Courses clears away the misconceptions, with essays establishing the basic facts of the capital-ship cruiser as well as thorny issues regarding individual designs. Richard Worth writes for the Warship and Warship International journals. His book titles include In the Shadow of the Battleship, Raising the Red Banner (with Vladimir Yakubov), On Seas Contested (edited with Vincent P. O’Hara and W. David Dickson), and Fleets of World War II. -
Thunder in Its Courses is due out by June from Nimble. I also hope to have a revised Fleets ready in the near future. I haven't started on a WWI Fleets book, but there is a chance a WWI version of On Seas Contested will get hatched, assuming that Lady Gaga will lend us her egg. And WWI fans will be cheered to know that the WWI version of Campbell's WWI weapons book is nearing completion (by Norman Friedman). The report of a straddle on the third salvo came from one of the nearby cruisers, not from Rodney herself. The timeline also makes the cruiser's claim seem unlikely, unless Rodney was waiting 5-10 minutes between salvos. It may be that Rodney's initial fire was so far off that the cruiser didn't even take note of it. Rodney was en route to a refit at this time with a somewhat thrown-together crew.
-
Many of these points have already been made, since I'm jumping in late. For twenty years, Hood was the largest warship in the world. It may be easy for us to forget, but she was the first ship to match the armor and firepower of a battleship with the speed of a cruiser. That gave her capabilities that no other ship could match. So yes, for quite a while, she was a very big deal. Battlecruisers are not lighter than battleships--they tend to be heavier than battleships. But the words change meaning over time. The term "battlecruiser" does more harm than good, I think. I have a title coming out in a couple months, Thunder in Its Courses, that specifically focuses on the terminology of capital ships and other issues regarding battlecruisers. It shouldn't be too pricey, so you may want to give it a look. When engaged by KGV and Rodney, Bismarck was moving in an erratic course, generally to the NW, not circling. I'm still a bit confused about that final battle. It took Rodney something like 17 salvos to finally score a straddle, so what was Bismarck doing all that time? The RN had a stated preference for engaging battleships at relatively short range. This preference derived in part from the idea that the British would have numerical superiority. At long range, luck would play a greater part, and luck is an unwelcome participant when you have the stronger force. Hey, who knows, a plunging hit might get into your vitals and blow you up. Holland brought his ships down near the range the RN preferred and then ordered a turn to parallel the enemy. Whatever his reasons were, they sure look to be in conformity with RN standards. PoW achieved a hit rate at Denmark Strait that roughly matched Bismarck's.
-
Giorgerini is explicit that the outer plate was there for its "scappucciante" function, same as in Littorio.
-
6" vs 8" cruiser armament - reason for RN adoption of 6".
Tiornu replied to Chris Werb's topic in General Naval and Air
I don't think that the losses at Guadalcanal say anything specific about vulnerability in the Atlanta class. I'll nitpick and say the ships weren't "promptly" sunk--one survived a 24in torpedo hit in the guts and sank only after the main battle when torpedoed again amidships by a submarine; the other took a 24in torpedo hit, a deluge of some of the most devastating short-range gunfire in the Pacific War, and then died a slow death of progressive flooding. In my view, these were both creditable performances. However, there's not much of a sample pool beyond this. There was an incident in the Korean War--a CLAA blasted some attacking MTBs into splinters.