real mistake the Admiral Hipper class and destroyers?

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Kriegsmarine except those dealing with the U-Boat forces.
User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: real mistake the Admiral Hipper class and destroyers?

#31

Post by Urmel » 27 Feb 2014, 00:00

LWD wrote:Indeed but the question is, is that really the case?
The considerably higher power per ton of displacement would indicate that it was really the case?
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

User avatar
Polar bear
Member
Posts: 2543
Joined: 25 Sep 2010, 16:49
Location: Hanover, Lower Saxony

Re: real mistake the Admiral Hipper class and destroyers?

#32

Post by Polar bear » 27 Feb 2014, 00:57

hi,
Urmel wrote: but let's say the S-Boot engines weighed 11.5 tons
less, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daimler-Benz_DB_602
The later MB 501 20 cylinder-motor was some 0,5 t heavier , 3 x 2,5 t = 7,5 t
However, with all auxiliary engines etc. the machinery may have come up to something like you said.
LWD wrote:The S-boats may have been planeing hulls which would help as displacement hulls have a "hull speed" that's porportional to the length (or the squar root there of) so the longer the hulls the greater the hull speed.
No. The S-boats had displacement hulls, which enabled them to operate in a heavier sea state than RN MTB/MGB with planeing hulls.

greetings, the pb
Peace hath her victories no less renowned than War
(John Milton, the poet, in a letter to the Lord General Cromwell, May 1652)


User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: real mistake the Admiral Hipper class and destroyers?

#33

Post by Urmel » 27 Feb 2014, 01:47

Seriously, I just made up the number to illustrate the point. :) I haven't got the foggiest how much the engines weighed. Do I look like an engineer to you?

So there.
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 22 Jan 2014, 04:16

Re: real mistake the Admiral Hipper class and destroyers?

#34

Post by thaddeus_c » 27 Feb 2014, 03:08

Urmel wrote:If you go for a smaller vessel, how can you sustain a raiding trip? You reduce space while increasing machinery size and weight compared to turbines. So you have now reduced endurance, ability to carry additional ammunition/torpedoes, spares and supplies, which means you are extremely dependent on the supply network functioning.

The dreamboat also has smaller calibre main armament, so it is going to be outgunned even by destroyers now, let alone 6" cruisers. It'll again be like the Falklands every time they encounter a target.

I just don't see it.

You overlook that the FTB44 was supposed to work as part of the fleet, not as a single raider.
what's ignored is that it WOULD be part of a fleet just not the surface fleet, conception is to work with u-boats, seaplanes, auxiliary cruiser lurking nearby.

S.Atlantic and Indian ocean are just a sideshow but divert Brits. surface ship is using approx. the same weaponry although doing away with deck guns for u-boats was mooted.

only use half dozen (?) FTB44s ocean going at a time, the vast majority WOULD be in service in the North Sea and Baltic.

keep all the large ships facing British home fleet a la Tirpitz.

on a cynical note, it is correct FTB44s would be sunk in combat with a destroyer or cruiser if they could not outrun or otherwise evade them but they could be built in numbers and replaced, the large capital ships were a finite resource, 10Xs the tonnage (minimum) and worth (in the Allied view) being tracked with considerable effort.

thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 22 Jan 2014, 04:16

Re: real mistake the Admiral Hipper class and destroyers?

#35

Post by thaddeus_c » 27 Feb 2014, 03:09

LWD wrote:I'm guessing they achieved this by the following:
1) No armor
2) relativly light weapons (save the torpedoes)
3) Fairly short range (compared to DDs and up)
Anything else?
wooden hulls.

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: real mistake the Admiral Hipper class and destroyers?

#36

Post by Urmel » 27 Feb 2014, 09:29

thaddeus_c wrote:
Urmel wrote:If you go for a smaller vessel, how can you sustain a raiding trip? You reduce space while increasing machinery size and weight compared to turbines. So you have now reduced endurance, ability to carry additional ammunition/torpedoes, spares and supplies, which means you are extremely dependent on the supply network functioning.

The dreamboat also has smaller calibre main armament, so it is going to be outgunned even by destroyers now, let alone 6" cruisers. It'll again be like the Falklands every time they encounter a target.

I just don't see it.

You overlook that the FTB44 was supposed to work as part of the fleet, not as a single raider.
what's ignored is that it WOULD be part of a fleet just not the surface fleet, conception is to work with u-boats, seaplanes, auxiliary cruiser lurking nearby.

S.Atlantic and Indian ocean are just a sideshow but divert Brits. surface ship is using approx. the same weaponry although doing away with deck guns for u-boats was mooted.

only use half dozen (?) FTB44s ocean going at a time, the vast majority WOULD be in service in the North Sea and Baltic.

keep all the large ships facing British home fleet a la Tirpitz.

on a cynical note, it is correct FTB44s would be sunk in combat with a destroyer or cruiser if they could not outrun or otherwise evade them but they could be built in numbers and replaced, the large capital ships were a finite resource, 10Xs the tonnage (minimum) and worth (in the Allied view) being tracked with considerable effort.
I think you're firmly in What-If territory now. Have fun with it.
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: real mistake the Admiral Hipper class and destroyers?

#37

Post by LWD » 27 Feb 2014, 15:20

thaddeus_c wrote:
LWD wrote:...
Anything else?
wooden hulls.
Thanks, I was wondering about that but from the pictures it was hard to tell and none of the sights mentioned it although a number did show a metal framework.

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: real mistake the Admiral Hipper class and destroyers?

#38

Post by LWD » 27 Feb 2014, 15:41

Urmel wrote:Seriously, I just made up the number to illustrate the point. :) I haven't got the foggiest how much the engines weighed. Do I look like an engineer to you?
...
It was clear to me anyway that your number was an example that you create to make a point. It was quite adequate for that so I decided it would also help me make mine. Don't know why I didn't think of looking them up before though. Here's the wiki page for the s-boat engines
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daimler-Benz_DB_602
They weighed in at a bit over 2 1/3 tons so 3 of them would be 7 tons. Looks to me like your initial estimate was quite close especially if you added in the weight of mounts and such.
I haven't been able to find the weight of the turbines and boilers for the destroyers though.
The propellor and shafts for the destroyers should be porportually greater though as the strength of the shaft scales as the square of the linear dimensions while the weight is scaling as the cube. Not sure that's enough to make much difference. On the otherhand that may indeed be the answer an accumulation of fairly minor things adding up to something significant.

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: real mistake the Admiral Hipper class and destroyers?

#39

Post by LWD » 27 Feb 2014, 15:51

Polar bear wrote:...
LWD wrote:The S-boats may have been planeing hulls which would help as displacement hulls have a "hull speed" that's porportional to the length (or the squar root there of) so the longer the hulls the greater the hull speed.
No. The S-boats had displacement hulls, which enabled them to operate in a heavier sea state than RN MTB/MGB with planeing hulls.
Interesting, Using 107.48 ft as their water line length I come up with a hull speed of just under 14 knots.
Looking at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull_speed
I apparently had some misunderstandings of the implications of hull speed.

thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 22 Jan 2014, 04:16

Re: real mistake the Admiral Hipper class and destroyers?

#40

Post by thaddeus_c » 28 Feb 2014, 23:51

back to original question, real mistake the Admiral Hipper class and destroyers?

what design change lead the "Hippers" to be considered unstable? they were 50% +/- heavier than the preceding Deutschland-class, what changed? all the weight in the superstructure making them top heavy?

when you add up the tonnage of 5 Adm.Hipper class, 2 Scharnhorst class, 2 Bismarck class, and an aircraft carrier it's appox. 300,000 tons, 10 vessels.

at least the 4 heavier ships were considered a threat, not sure Adm.Hipper-class garnered that respect.

possible to build 3 more Panzerschiffes and 6 more light cruisers for one third that tonnage? what improvements could have been made to those designs WITHOUT adding weight?

could have used the capacity to build u-boats, and commercial ships; oil tankers, ocean liners etc. (convert to auxiliary cruisers later.)

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: real mistake the Admiral Hipper class and destroyers?

#41

Post by Urmel » 01 Mar 2014, 00:01

www.german-navy.de data

Hipper Scheer
Dimensions Dimensions
Size (Max):     18200 t Size (Max):     15423 t
Length (Total):     205,9 m Length (Total):     186,0 m (187,9 m)
Length (Waterline):      Length (Waterline):     181,7 m
Beam:     21,3 m Beam:     21,34 m
Draft:     7,7 m Draft:     7,25 m
Crew:     ~1600 Crew:     1001-1150
Weapons Weapons
20,3cm SK (8"):     8 28 cm L/52 C/28:     6
10,5 cm L/65 C/33:     12 15 cm L/55 C28:     8
4 cm Flak:     6 8,8cm L/75 C/32:     6 later replaced with 10.5 cm L/65 C/33
3,7 cm L/83:     8   3,7 cm L/83: 8
2 cm MG L/64:     32 2 cm MG L/64: 8 (28)
53,3 cm Torpedoes:     12 53,3 cm Torpedoes: 8
Aircraft Aircraft
Arado Ar 196:     3 Arado Ar 196: 2
Armor Armor
Deck:     12-50 mm Deck: 45 mm (max)
Belt:     70-80 mm Belt: 80mm (max)
Command Tower:     50 - 150 mm Command Tower: 150 mm
Turrets:     70 - 105 mm Turrets: 140 mm (max)
Engines Engines
Shafts:     3 Shafts: 2
Turbines:     3 Engines: 8
Type:     Blohm & Voß Type: MAN 9-cyl. diesel
Performance Performance
Total Performance:     132000 shp Total Performance: 52050 shp
Speed:     32,5 kn Speed: 28,3 kn
Range:     8000 miles at 20 kn Range: 17460 miles at 15 kn
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

Post Reply

Return to “Kriegsmarine surface ships and Kriegsmarine in general”