Battle of North Cape.

[Getz]

And RN ships did not? Care to look at pictures of RN ships burying their bows and keeping turrets reversed in comparatively moderate seas in WW1, let alone WW2? KGVs buried their bows in moderate seas. As I stated previously the only RN BB that did not was Vanguard, the last BB design built.

 

Because burying your bows at 33 knots is a much bigger deal than doing so at 28 knots. I pointed that this tendancy would force an Iowa to slow down (probably to about 30 knots or so) not that it would break the ship in half or something...

 

As to the Sharnhorst, one assumes she was able to maintain a high speed in rough weather because she didn't have a tendancy to bury her bows... She was a wet ship because she made a lot of spray, not because she buried her bows.

 

Look, the point of the fact is that it's highly doubtfull that any US BB could do significantly better than the DoY did at North Cape, and if what I've read about the Iowas' behavior in rough choppy seas is true then they may not have been able to do even that.

 

Ultimately, however, the Battleship question is a red herring - the ships what really sank the Scharnhorst were the cruisers and Destroyers, so the critical bit of this comparison was whether the US medium and light forces could do what the RN ones did historically, and that really comes down to a comparison of torpedos.

Edited October 18, 2007 by Getz

[Animal Mother]

Ultimately, however, the Battleship question is a red herring - the ships what really sank the Scharnhorst were the cruisers and Destroyers, so the critical bit of this comparison was whether the US medium and light forces could do what the RN ones did historically, and that really comes down to a comparison of torpedos.

 

They sunk her after Duke of York managed to damage her propulsion. She was making 28 knots and getting away, when she was damaged in her forward boiler room, reducing her speed to 22 knots, which allowed the destroyers to close in and torpedo her. Fraser was actually about to call off the chase when they started to catch up with her again.

[DesertFox]

Trouble is that it is likely you are not comparing them fairly.

Basically, the discussion of the Iowa class usually involves a Typhoon which is far more powerful than a North Atlantic storm

 

I can find a picture of the Scharnhorst burying her bow and the seas do not look all that bad.

 

Also, the Duke of York seems to have had similar problems:

 

The USS New Jersey is in a Typhoon:

[Getz]

Trouble is that it is likely you are not comparing them fairly.

Basically, the discussion of the Iowa class usually involves a Typhoon which is far more powerful than a North Atlantic storm

 

Well, I understand the Iowas rode the long, heavy swells of Pacific Typhoons very well. It was the Short choppy waves of the atlantic that were supposed to be the problem.

 

Those are interesting pictures, DesertFox, thanks for posting them, but they don't tell us much without us being able to judge what period of the pitch they are in, which is a pity.

[DesertFox]

Well, I understand the Iowas rode the long, heavy swells of Pacific Typhoons very well. It was the Short choppy waves of the atlantic that were supposed to be the problem.

 

I have several military history books with items that are simply wrong. Sometimes stories get repeated to the point where everything gets messed up. Some cases include elevations of guns and thickness of armor. Jane's is actually one of the worst offenders. What source did you use and in what context?

 

edit: I used to have a book on the USS Missouri, I wish I could remember what it said about operations in the North Atlantic

 

edit2: Do you have anything indicating that that the British destroyers were superior in such seas to US Destroyers?

Edited October 19, 2007 by DesertFox

[Getz]

I have several military history books with items that are simply wrong. Sometimes stories get repeated to the point where everything gets messed up. Some cases include elevations of guns and thickness of armor. Jane's is actually one of the worst offenders. What source did you use and in what context?

 

edit: I used to have a book on the USS Missouri, I wish I could remember what it said about operations in the North Atlantic

 

edit2: Do you have anything indicating that that the British destroyers were superior in such seas to US Destroyers?

 

Well, the Flush deckers were supposed to have been pretty parlous in Atlantic conditions compared to their RN contemporaries, but I've just noticed that the OP actually specified the Fletchers as his choice of destroyer. Aside from a general observation that the Fletcher's were flush decked whereas RN destroyers of this era universally had a raised forecastle I have no reason to believe that they suffered from significantly worse seakeeping than RN destroyers. However, I understand that British torpedos were generally superior having a larger warhead, longer range and greater reliability.

Edited October 19, 2007 by Getz

[DesertFox]

Well, the Flush deckers were supposed to have been pretty parlous in Atlantic conditions compared to their RN contemporaries, but I've just noticed that the OP actually specified the Fletchers as his choice of destroyer. Aside from a general observation that the Fletcher's were flush decked whereas RN destroyers of this era universally had a raised forecastle I have no reason to believe that they suffered from significantly worse seakeeping than RN destroyers. However, I understand that British torpedos were generally superior having a larger warhead, longer range and greater reliability.

 

Ah, generally when the term "Flush Deck" is used, it is referring to US WW1 destroyers such as the Wickes class.

They are far smaller than the Fletcher class (1250 vs 2100 tons) and simply do not have the advancement of 30 years of destroyer design.

 

As far as torpedoes, the problem was solved by around August 1943. The US Torpedo is slightly slower but not considerably and has a larger warhead.

Edited October 19, 2007 by DesertFox

[Marek Tucan]

As far as torpedoes, the problem was solved by around August 1943. The US Torpedo is slightly slower but not considerably and has a larger warhead.

 

Also when tasked with finishing off a crippled battlecruiser, I don't think the torpedo parameters will do much difference. Esp. if the BC is crippled by 16" instead of 14" shells (assuming equal number of hits)

[Getz]

Also when tasked with finishing off a crippled battlecruiser, I don't think the torpedo parameters will do much difference. Esp. if the BC is crippled by 16" instead of 14" shells (assuming equal number of hits)

 

Well, that's the thing, isn't it... The Scharhorst was crippled by twenty odd torpedos from a destroyer attack - not gunfire.

 

The DoY did hit the Scharhorst and may have been responsible for temporarily slowing her from about 30 knots to about 20, but the Sharnhorst was able to work back up to about 25 knots relatively quickly. Irrespective of whether the loss of speed was due to a shell strike or a machinery failure from pushing the engine (historians still argue about this, although I understand the shell hit is the more popular theory) it's critical effect was to let the Destroyers catch up and attack the Scharnhorst, but it hardly "crippled" her.

[hojutsuka]

Also when tasked with finishing off a crippled battlecruiser, I don't think the torpedo parameters will do much difference. Esp. if the BC is crippled by 16" instead of 14" shells (assuming equal number of hits)

It won't make as much difference as you seem to think.

 

The USN 16" 2700lb AP shell is much better at penetration than the RN 14" 1590lb AP shell, but the damage done when the shell explodes is mostly a matter of the explosive content.

 

The explosive as percentage of the shell weight was 1.5% for USN and 2.5% for RN (a deliberate choice on the part of the navies, USN going for maximum penetration which meant a very heavy shell with small cavity for explosive). So the USN 16" AP had 40.5lbs of explosive approximately, while the RN 14" AP had 39.75lbs of explosive approximately, so close that there is likely little difference in damage done when they explode.

 

Hojutsuka

[binder001]

Interesting points by all. Personally I would think that IF there was a US "fast battleship" operating there it would have been a North Carolina or a South Dakota class. The fast BBs were optimized for use with the carrier task forces and that's where Ernie King, et. al. would have wanted them. Iowa, Washington etc spent time in the North Atlantic for final work ups, as stated. Washington, at least made a foray or two into the North Atlantic (as recounted in Musicant's "Battleship At War").

 

1) Would the improved radar suite of a 1943 US BB have made any difference? Would the weather have degraded it significantly? Obviously if you are trying to trap your foe, long-range detection is a huge advantage.

 

2) In "Battleship At War" there is comments that during the Washington's time with the RN there was cross-talk about gunnery techniques. The US was oriented to prefer long-range fire versus the RN seemed oriented to "close in and slug it out". Is there any truth to this? If the US ship could score hits at longer range, then the speed difference could be negated soon.

 

3) In actual service it would be more likely that the destroyers would be the pre-Fletcher variety as the Fletchers were sent to the Pacific ASAP it seems. How did these ships fare in sub-Arctic conditions? Their armament would be ruoghly comparable to a Fletcher except for the light AA (4-5 5"/38's and 5-10 tubes).

 

4) Instead of Brooklyns, change one or two to a repaired "treatY" cruiser working up after damage in the Solomons. Any advantage to a US 8" being in the fray?

 

Thanks for comments.

[Marek Tucan]

4) Instead of Brooklyns, change one or two to a repaired "treatY" cruiser working up after damage in the Solomons. Any advantage to a US 8" being in the fray?

 

Dunno, IRL there was an 8in ship as well, so not much difference IMO.

[KingSargent]

Ultimately, however, the Battleship question is a red herring - the ships what really sank the Scharnhorst were the cruisers and Destroyers, so the critical bit of this comparison was whether the US medium and light forces could do what the RN ones did historically, and that really comes down to a comparison of torpedos.

If it is such a frigging red herring, why did you start all this "RN is great, US ships would be totally ineffective" bullcrap in the first place?

 

On the DD question, the Fletchers, Sumners, and Gearings were all flush decked. They did tend to go to the PTO (except for detours like the Sumners at OMAHA Beach), but that was more a question of range and heavier AA armament than sea-keeping concerns. The pre-Fletchers had forecastles and did quite well in the Atlantic, and apparently didn't sacrifice structural strength (the forecastle tends to be a weak point).

 

BTW, if RN torpedoes were so great, how come the RN cruisers torpedoed themselves in Artcic waters?

[Getz]

If it is such a frigging red herring, why did you start all this "RN is great, US ships would be totally ineffective" bullcrap in the first place?

 

Because I was responding to a specific question. I'm sorry if I'm intruding on your rose tinted made up world where all US warships are invincible and infinately superior to everything ever concieved by any other nation, but that's not the world that the rest of us live in. That the Iowa class was wet forward in high seas is a documented fact. The only point of argument is whether this characteristic would have prevented an Iowa from shooting effectively at North Cape - I suggested it might have, other have disagreed, but you can't tell me I'm wrong because there is no way for any of us to test our theories. Similarly, I suggested that on the basis that the NC's still had unresolved vibration problems in the winter of 1943, they might not have been able to effectively chase the Scharnhorst. As it happens, I have found myself to be wrong in this area, as it turns out that as of late 1943, the NC's only suffered from vibration in a relatively narrow speed band between 19-21 knots. This would have no impact on their ability in a chase scenario, so they would probably have been as able as the SoDaks to chase down the Scharnhorst.

 

At no point did I claim the KGV's were superior to any US battleship in general, but instead merely that the DoY was self evidently capable of getting the job done, but because she was designed with different priorities to US ships, it does not necessarily follow that a US ship would perform as well under the same circumstances. For the record, I believe that a SoDak or NC would have performed about the same as the DoY did under the conditions, but would not have performed significantly better as their principle advantage of greater firepower doesn't make that much difference when both the 14"/45 and 16"/45 guns significantly overkill the protection carried by the Scharnhorst.

 

As to the Iowas, it all depends on the seakeeping question.

 

On the DD question, the Fletchers, Sumners, and Gearings were all flush decked. They did tend to go to the PTO (except for detours like the Sumners at OMAHA Beach), but that was more a question of range and heavier AA armament than sea-keeping concerns. The pre-Fletchers had forecastles and did quite well in the Atlantic, and apparently didn't sacrifice structural strength (the forecastle tends to be a weak point).

 

I don't think the class of destroyer will really make all that much difference. So long as we're assuming a modern type then we should assume it can cope with the sea state. This means it all comes down to torpedos, on which subject...

 

BTW, if RN torpedoes were so great, how come the RN cruisers torpedoed themselves in Artcic waters?

 

One torpedo with a defective gyro and suddenly all the British cruisers are torpedoing themselves? I don't think so. The misfortune of HMS Trinidad was a single, rather freakish event and doesn't say a thing about the general performance of British torpedos in service. By the same token, if US torpedos were so great how come about a quater to a third of the fish launched from US submarines in the pacific were duds? Are we to assume that all the torpedos fired by our hypothetical US destroyers at the Scharnhorst will fail to go off?

Edited October 21, 2007 by Getz

[KingSargent]

Because I was responding to a specific question. I'm sorry if I'm intruding on your rose tinted made up world where all US warships are invincible and infinately superior to everything ever concieved by any other nation, but that's not the world that the rest of us live in.

In your world - at least as presented in the Gospel According to Getz (hereinafter GAG) earlier - the RN is perfect and USN ships are all flawed.

 

That the Iowa class was wet forward in high seas is a documented fact.

Whether it was any wetter than a KGV is the question. Another question is why do you think being wet forward would have any effect on shooting?

 

The only point of argument is whether this characteristic would have prevented an Iowa from shooting effectively at North Cape - I suggested it might have, other have disagreed, but you can't tell me I'm wrong because there is no way for any of us to test our theories.

You didn't "suggest it might have" you stated as GAG that an Iowa would be totally ineffective. Period.

 

Similarly, I suggested that on the basis that the NC's still had unresolved vibration problems in the winter of 1943, they might not have been able to effectively chase the Scharnhorst. As it happens, I have found myself to be wrong in this area, as it turns out that as of late 1943, the NC's only suffered from vibration in a relatively narrow speed band between 19-21 knots. This would have no impact on their ability in a chase scenario, so they would probably have been as able as the SoDaks to chase down the Scharnhorst.

Once again, there was no "suggestion" involved. You presented it as GAG, and got shot down by a whole bunch of people.

 

At no point did I claim the KGV's were superior to any US battleship in general, but instead merely that the DoY was self evidently capable of getting the job done, but because she was designed with different priorities to US ships, it does not necessarily follow that a US ship would perform as well under the same circumstances. For the record, I believe that a SoDak or NC would have performed about the same as the DoY did under the conditions, but would not have performed significantly better as their principle advantage of greater firepower doesn't make that much difference when both the 14"/45 and 16"/45 guns significantly overkill the protection carried by the Scharnhorst.

IIRC, in the GAG the performance of the guns was immaterial as the USN warships would not be able to fire at all. I told you I agreed with the obvious argument that the DoY's armament could do the job (hard to dispute since it did), I asked what made you think that a more reliable US armament would be unable to do the job? I NEVER said the DoY couldn't do it, you GAGged that USN BBs couldn't do it.

 

As to the Iowas, it all depends on the seakeeping question.

And there is no demonstrable evidence that the Iowa was any wetter than anybody than anybody except Vanguard. There is definitely no evidence that spray coming over a long bow was going to handicap a BB's shooting more than spray coming over a short flat bow.

The question is not whether the ships were wet, it is whether they could function when wet.

 

I don't think the class of destroyer will really make all that much difference.

Oh? A few hundred tons of displacement and increased armament doesn't matter? Nice to know.

 

So long as we're assuming a modern type then we should assume it can cope with the sea state.

Oh, now we are assuming that US DDs are capable? How nice of you. The RN certainly suspected that USN DDs might be OK after Kearney survived damage that would have sent a British DD to the bottom right smartly.

 

This means it all comes down to torpedos, on which subject...

According to data I read a long time ago, the British expended 56 torpedoes at North Cape, of which seven hit and exploded on a crippled (immobile in later stages) target.

I know of no data on US torpedo performance under the conditions at North Cape, and 12% hits is certainly better than Jutland and Vian v. Bismarck.

 

One torpedo with a defective gyro and suddenly all the British cruisers are torpedoing themselves? I don't think so. The misfortune of HMS Trinidad was a single, rather freakish event and doesn't say a thing about the general performance of British torpedos in service. By the same token, if US torpedos were so great how come about a quater to a third of the fish launched from US submarines in the pacific were duds? Are we to assume that all the torpedos fired by our hypothetical US destroyers at the Scharnhorst will fail to go off?

1) Where did I say that all British cruisers would torpedo themselves? And there was more than one circle. I would put the failures down to the effects of cold (freezing control vanes). There was also a correlation in failures between height of launch (ie, drop into water) and malfunction.

2) How about we say that the first 1/4 to 1/3 were likely to be duds (and the RN and the Germans had problems at first too) and those were fired in the first half of the US participation in the war.

3) If the US DD torpedoes were fired in October 1942, we can assume a very high failure rate. If they were fired in October 1943 we can assume a good success rate. If they were fired in October 1944, we can assume an almost perfect success rate. This is based on the attempted scuttling of Hornet, the Battle of Vella Gulf, and Surigao Strait.

[Getz]

In your world - at least as presented in the Gospel According to Getz (hereinafter GAG) earlier - the RN is perfect and USN ships are all flawed.

 

I never said that and I challenge you to quote a sentence where I did. I'm happy to debate with you, but not if you're going to make a habit of misrepresenting my position.

 

Whether it was any wetter than a KGV is the question. Another question is why do you think being wet forward would have any effect on shooting?

 

Because historically it has. It impared the KGV's ability to fight in heavy seas and was identified as a problem with the Bismark during her trials (and subsequently corrected before her cruise, IIRC).

 

You didn't "suggest it might have" you stated as GAG that an Iowa would be totally ineffective. Period.

 

I stated my opinion that it would be. That doesn't make it a fact, it makes it a point for discussion. Reasoned discussion is preferred over the jingoism flavoured zero sum argument you're indulging in.

 

Once again, there was no "suggestion" involved. You presented it as GAG, and got shot down by a whole bunch of people.

 

Again, a point for discussion, not a statement of fact. Furthermore, a point where it turned out that my knowledge was incomplete and therefore my theory was flawed. I don't know if you noticed, but I just acknowledged that fact and revised my opinion. This is how reasonable discussion is conducted, I am not always right and I freely admit it. When I am wrong I will admit my error and modify my opinion. So far in this thread I have been demonstrated to be wrong on two clear issues (Vibration in the NC's, seakeeping in US destroyers) and have accepted my error in both instances. I wonder if you can do the same - my previous experience on other threads leads me to doubt it.

 

IIRC, in the GAG the performance of the guns was immaterial as the USN warships would not be able to fire at all. I told you I agreed with the obvious argument that the DoY's armament could do the job (hard to dispute since it did), I asked what made you think that a more reliable US armament would be unable to do the job? I NEVER said the DoY couldn't do it, you GAGged that USN BBs couldn't do it.

 

Again, you're misrepresenting me. My proposition was only that the Iowa class would be unable to bring their weapons into play, not any US warship. The size and type of weapon is immaterial because both weapons overkilled the Scharhorst's armour singificantly and both had about the same bursting effect. Therefore a hit by a US 16" projectile would do about the same amount as damage as a hit by a British 14" shell (assuming all other factors to be equal, of course). They both defeat the armour in bursting condition and their burster charge does about the same amount of damage. Certainly the 16"/45 would be able to defeat a better armoured ship than the Scharnhorst which the 14"/45 might not - but that's immaterial because we're not fighting a better armoured ship, we're fighting the Scharnhorst.

 

And there is no demonstrable evidence that the Iowa was any wetter than anybody than anybody except Vanguard. There is definitely no evidence that spray coming over a long bow was going to handicap a BB's shooting more than spray coming over a short flat bow.

The question is not whether the ships were wet, it is whether they could function when wet.

 

Which was exactly my point. The KGV's were undoubtedly wet ships, but the DoY was obviously capable of fighting under the conditions experienced at North Cape. I did, however, point out that the KGV's tended to flood their bows rather than make spray - and spray is a problem because a big wall of surf can deflect and potentially even fuse shell if they hit it. It also obscures visual sighting and can interfere with radar. However, much more important is the pitch and roll characteristics of the ship. If the ship pitches faster than or beyond the limits of the guns elevation and depression then accurate shooting is impossible. My propostion was based primarily on the understanding that the Iowas pitched heavily in North Atlantic seas (partly a function of their bow design and partly a function of their length, IIRC) which may have made shooting accurately very difficult if not impossible. I am not aware of the NCs and SoDaks sharing this characteristic, so I assume they would have no such problems.

 

Oh? A few hundred tons of displacement and increased armament doesn't matter? Nice to know.

 

h, now we are assuming that US DDs are capable? How nice of you. The RN certainly suspected that USN DDs might be OK after Kearney survived damage that would have sent a British DD to the bottom right smartly.

 

It was already been pointed out to me that only the older flushed decked US DDs were unsuitable for the North atlantic winter. I imagine I got my memory of WWI and WWII US destroyers mixed up which caused me to make that error. Either way, I've already accepted that point and moved on. Try to keep up

 

According to data I read a long time ago, the British expended 56 torpedoes at North Cape, of which seven hit and exploded on a crippled (immobile in later stages) target.

I know of no data on US torpedo performance under the conditions at North Cape, and 12% hits is certainly better than Jutland and Vian v. Bismarck.

 

The following link leads to a reasonably detailed account of the battle.

http://www.scharnhorst-class.dk/scharnhors...rnostfront.html

 

The articles claim that 55 torpedos of which probably 11 hit the ship, which is about the same as your source claims. However, it doesn't make clear that the Scharhorst was able to work up to speed again after being temporarily slowed by the boiler room hit. Sources vary on what kind of speed she made, but the most common figure is about 25 knots. In either instance, although the Sharnhorst had had her fighting ability seriously degraded at this point (the entire forward armament was out of action, for example) she was hardly dead in the water - it was the torpedo attack at 1900 that permanently killed her speed.

 

1) Where did I say that all British cruisers would torpedo themselves? And there was more than one circle. I would put the failures down to the effects of cold (freezing control vanes). There was also a correlation in failures between height of launch (ie, drop into water) and malfunction.

 

Your choice of words was "BTW, if RN torpedoes were so great, how come the RN cruisers torpedoed themselves in Artcic waters?" Notice the pluralisation which strongly implies it happened more than once. Seeing as the Trinidad torpedoing herself was a unique event, yor implication was false. I was merely highlighing its absurdity through hyperbole. And yes, there was more than one circle, but I thought we were talking about cruisers torpedoing themselves. Incidentally. I've read about as many competing theories on torpedo circling in the artic as I have read books on the subject - mostly involving the freezing of one part or another - but he launch height one is new to me. Where did you hear that one?

 

2) How about we say that the first 1/4 to 1/3 were likely to be duds (and the RN and the Germans had problems at first too) and those were fired in the first half of the US participation in the war.

3) If the US DD torpedoes were fired in October 1942, we can assume a very high failure rate. If they were fired in October 1943 we can assume a good success rate. If they were fired in October 1944, we can assume an almost perfect success rate. This is based on the attempted scuttling of Hornet, the Battle of Vella Gulf, and Surigao Strait.

 

My point exactly. Just because US torpedos had a significant failure rate early on, it doesn't mean they were all duds all the time. Similarly, not all British torpedos circled and to suggest otherwise is absurd.

[KingSargent]

Incidentally. I've read about as many competing theories on torpedo circling in the artic as I have read books on the subject - mostly involving the freezing of one part or another - but he launch height one is new to me. Where did you hear that one?

 

Not specifically an arctic problem; US DD torpedoes apparently had fewer problems if launched from deck-level tubes than if launched from atop the engine room casing, which would indicate that perhaps the shock of hitting the water from a deck-level higher disarranged things. OTOH, deck-level tubes were subject to weather damage, so there are problems either way. The US also found that TT on the stern (as many early US DDs had) were a bad idea because of deflection when they went through the wake.

 

I believe it was D.K. Brown who I read that said the RN Treaty cruisers broke their torpedoes when they launched from three decks above water in the 1920s. A sturdier mark of torpedo was adopted for cruisers (Mark VII?).

 

As for the rest, I guess I misunderstood you; you seemed to me to be asserting your position as fact, not inviting debate.

 

As for the seaworthiness debate, I am still waiting for evidence to indicate that spray seriously degraded radar-controlled gunfire, or fire controlled from a high director. A gun in local control would have a problem, I'll agree with that. BTW, good luck on finding hard evidence. If anybody ever held test shoots in heavy weather, I've never heard about it. Anyone who has, please pipe up.

[hojutsuka]

It impared the KGV's ability to fight in heavy seas and was identified as a problem with the Bismark during her trials (and subsequently corrected before her cruise, IIRC).

Could you provide a reference where it says that the Bismarck suffered from being wet forward and had to be modified?

 

I know that the pocket battleships and Scharnhorst and Gneisenau suffered from wetness forward and were modified to have a higher, raked bow. But after the problems with the earlier ships, the Germans made special efforts to solve the problem with the Bismarck class (for example the new system for bow anchors) and was AFAIK successful. Siegfried Breyer describes them as excellent seaboats, and AFAIK no modification was made to the Bismarck's bow before her last operation.

 

Hojutsuka

[DKTanker]

Could you provide a reference where it says that the Bismarck suffered from being wet forward and had to be modified?...

Siegfried Breyer describes them as excellent seaboats, and AFAIK no modification was made to the Bismarck's bow before her last operation.

 

Hojutsuka

Bismark's bow was modified during construction with an "Atlantic bow", after trials by Scharnhorst and Gneisenau proved them wet forward.

[Getz]

Not specifically an arctic problem; US DD torpedoes apparently had fewer problems if launched from deck-level tubes than if launched from atop the engine room casing, which would indicate that perhaps the shock of hitting the water from a deck-level higher disarranged things. OTOH, deck-level tubes were subject to weather damage, so there are problems either way. The US also found that TT on the stern (as many early US DDs had) were a bad idea because of deflection when they went through the wake.

 

I believe it was D.K. Brown who I read that said the RN Treaty cruisers broke their torpedoes when they launched from three decks above water in the 1920s. A sturdier mark of torpedo was adopted for cruisers (Mark VII?).

 

I shall definately have to read up on this. I'd have thought that it might have occured to someone that this would be a problem at the design stage of the torpedos...

 

As for the rest, I guess I misunderstood you; you seemed to me to be asserting your position as fact, not inviting debate.

 

That's quite okay. If you misunderstood me, then that means I must have left myself open to misunderstanding. I'll try to be clear aboutwhat my position is in the future.

 

As for the seaworthiness debate, I am still waiting for evidence to indicate that spray seriously degraded radar-controlled gunfire, or fire controlled from a high director. A gun in local control would have a problem, I'll agree with that. BTW, good luck on finding hard evidence. If anybody ever held test shoots in heavy weather, I've never heard about it. Anyone who has, please pipe up.

 

It's one of those things about which I dobt hard data actually exists, but certainly the pitch and roll issue should be quantifiable.

 

Could you provide a reference where it says that the Bismarck suffered from being wet forward and had to be modified?

 

I know that the pocket battleships and Scharnhorst and Gneisenau suffered from wetness forward and were modified to have a higher, raked bow. But after the problems with the earlier ships, the Germans made special efforts to solve the problem with the Bismarck class (for example the new system for bow anchors) and was AFAIK successful. Siegfried Breyer describes them as excellent seaboats, and AFAIK no modification was made to the Bismarck's bow before her last operation.

 

Hojutsuka

 

I'm afraid I can't give you reference becauwse I only heard about this in a discussion on the Warships1 forum - however, as I understand it the problem wasn't with the bow design but rather the turret's water tightness. In either instance, the problem was identified on trials and elimianted before she entered service.

Edited October 21, 2007 by Getz

[KingSargent]

I shall definately have to read up on this. I'd have thought that it might have occured to someone that this would be a problem at the design stage of the torpedos...

I don't see why it would occur to anybody. I can't think of a single design through WW1 where there were launches from upper decks. Up until around 1910 world cruisers had submerged tubes. The earliest I recall ofhand with deck tubes were the small British 'Scout' CLs that were designed to work with DDs.

 

And DDs were kept small and lowslung to reduce the target they presented, so the problem of dropping from a height was not experienced. Even early torpedo-bombing was done at very low level with small boat (14") torpedoes.

 

IIRC the Kents were the first to have TT mounted so high up and thus the first to experience problems.