|Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
|WorldWar2.ro Forum > Romanian Royal Navy > A question about GERMAN Navy|
|Posted by: ragewolf April 03, 2004 12:02 am|
| look this:
I don't know german, who can tell me what does this picture mean?
what kind of poster is this?
|Posted by: Dénes April 03, 2004 12:05 am|
| It appears to be a Kriegsmarine (German Navy) recruiting poster.
'Einsatz' means something like 'combat mission'. The rest is obvious.
'Dead-Cat' might refine the translation...
|Posted by: ragewolf April 03, 2004 12:31 am|
| thank you!
The ship on this poster is Bismarck? :?:
|Posted by: dragos April 03, 2004 12:50 am|
| [quote]The ship on this poster is Bismarck? [/quote]
All the ships in the row are identical. They are a generic representations. All German battleships had similar superstructure (Graf Spee, Gneisenau, Scharnhorst etc)
|Posted by: USAF1986 April 03, 2004 12:54 am|
| Hello! The ships on the poster seem to be stylized versions of the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau...note the triple turrets. This poster apparently makes use of images of the ships during the Channel Dash. On the night of 11 February 1942, Vizeadmiral Otto Ciliax, Commander of Battleships, led the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, the heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen, six destroyers, 14 torpedo boats and numerous smaller craft from Brest, France to begin their daring daylight dash to Germany— codenamed Operation “Cerebus”—through the English Channel. Protected by a heavy Luftwaffe fighter umbrella directed by Oberst Adolf Galland, the German ships successfully warded off determined British air and destroyer attacks. Although both the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were mined along the way, the squadron arrived in German waters on 13 February 1942.
|Posted by: ragewolf April 03, 2004 01:34 am|
| The informaitons you guys provide are very valuable to me.
Thanks a lot!
|Posted by: Robert October 02, 2004 05:04 am|
|I wouldn't try to take the ships depicted in the poster too literally. The poster is a propaganda poster, not something that is supposed to be an accurate representation of the ships involved.|
|Posted by: Iamandi October 04, 2004 06:09 am|
| Could anyone tell me some links to sites with complete data for "Z" class destroyers?
I tryed Google, but Google is now wat it was Altavista in her falling days - over 90 % of results is sites with scale models.... too commercial!
|Posted by: tjk October 04, 2004 11:54 am|
|I suggest you try the www.german-navy.de site.|
|Posted by: Robert October 04, 2004 05:36 pm|
| "Z" is the first letter of the German word for destroyer, and was used to designate all destroyers. There were several different classes of destroyer in the German navy during W.W.2, all of which had a designation beginning with the letter "Z" (the designations were followed by the penant number of the first ship in that class (i.e. Z-1).
Anyone who has any interest W.W.2 naval topics should go buy a copy of Conway's All the World's Navies 1922-1946. They also produce is a similar volume for 1860-1905; 1905-1922; and post W.W.2. Those books are well-researched and give extensive technical details, as well as line-drawings or photos for all fighting ships down to and including PT Boats, S-Boats, and landing craft. They usually mention, but do not give details for tugs, barges and other auxilliary vessels.
|Posted by: Iamandi October 05, 2004 08:07 am|
Thanks tjk and Robert! I find www.german-navy.de some time ago, but in this site is just ... little quantity of words... I want some with more details, pictures, etc.
How much is the cost of this book, Robert? And where i can find it? At a book store, not on net... Amazon, etc.
|Posted by: Robert October 07, 2004 05:52 pm|
| Naval Institute Press is currently selling it new for about $80.00 U.S.
|Posted by: Robert October 07, 2004 06:50 pm|
| Ooops, I don't think that link came across in my last message.
The website for the Naval Institute Press is: www.usni.org. From there you can go to their webstore at: http://www.usni.org/webstore/webstore.html
Just type "Conway" as a search item under "books" and you should find it.
I believe that the Naval Institute Press is the publisher of Conways, as well as numerous other books on naval and aircraft matters.
|Posted by: dead-cat October 07, 2004 07:39 pm|
| Conway is a great resource for military maritime research and i only can recommend it. i own the 1906-1921 warships volume. the only omission were the austro-hungarian river monitors, otherwise i found it very well researched and exhaustive.
on amazon.co.uk the 1980 edition sells for 31,50 GBP+shipping.
|Posted by: Florin December 24, 2004 07:32 am|
If we forget the fact that the poster is not supposed to offer accuracy:
Bismark and Tirpitz had 2 canons for every main turret, so a turret showing 3 canons per turret automatically cannot be on Bismark or Tirpitz !
|Posted by: Florin April 27, 2006 03:59 am|
As many of you know, when Bismark was hit by those torpedoes, it was during a maneuver the ship did to avoid the British biplanes and their torpedoes. Because of that, in the moment the ship lost its control over direction, it was facing toward the shore of Great Britain. Then, for hours, to the surprise of the British who in the beginning did not realized what is happening, the battleship was traveling toward Britain, doomed.
Few days ago I suddenly realized how Bismark could change direction toward France, even without steering control. (Maybe because I was learning for an engineering test.) The 4 big 380's from the 2 turrets in front of the ship should rotate 90 degrees to the left. The 4 big 380's from the 2 turrets located in the rear should rotate 90 degrees to the right. When the 8 great canons would start to fire, each salvo would create a torque able revolve the battleship with about 1 degree, or more (it is obvious performing some simple mathematics, and using some easy physics).
After 40...80 shots from all 8 big 380's, positioned as described above, the battleship would turn with 90 degrees.
Well, the guys had available only few hours to figure this, but there were hundreds of men with technical education there, and it seems the idea did not occur to no one.
|Posted by: Imperialist April 27, 2006 02:57 pm|
Maybe the recoil did not transmit itself to the ship in such a degree as to revolve it enough, so that wasnt a solution.
|Posted by: Florin April 28, 2006 04:01 am|
The law of conservation of impulse says that for an action, an equal reaction in opposite direct will appear to keep the sum constant.
The shells of the 380's should be about one ton and a half each (1500 kg, total metal shell plus explosive) and they would leave the muzzle of the 380 with about 1000 m/s (at least). Every single shell fired would push for one meter in opposite direction a mass of 1500 tons. 4 shells would push for 20 cm a mass of 30,000 tons (a half of Bismark, with everything loaded on board, had 28,000 tons). The other 4 canons would push the other half for 20 cm. After you get the distance between the resultants of the two pairs of turrets, you'll obtain the angle - for one salvo. This will give the number of shots for a desired angle of revolution.
As secondary arguments, the other canons of the ship could try their little help, and because this was a floating body, once it gets an acceleration, it will continue to revolve a little, due to the inertia of the huge mass.
|Posted by: Dénes April 28, 2006 03:54 pm|
| You didn't consider the friction with the body of water.
|Posted by: Imperialist April 28, 2006 04:54 pm|
I dont know much about the design of naval guns in the 20th century, but my idea was that the canon is not pinned to the ship so the recoil is not transferred to the whole mass. The cannon doesnt push the ship. Considering the weight of the gun, its recoil (about 80 cm for a 28cm cannon) could have a slight effect on the ship, but they would need a huge amount of shots to move it even slightly.
|Posted by: SiG April 28, 2006 05:01 pm|
|I'm allso no expert, but common sense makes me think that such a ship would have some kind of recoil absorbing mechanism. Most of the time, naval guns are used for hitting the enemy, not for steering the ship. And in that case you need a stable gun platform, not one that starts to spin around at every salvo.|
|Posted by: Imperialist April 28, 2006 05:01 pm|
| Also note that battleships have/had recoil hydraulic brakes and recoil counterweights that would've taken a lot of the energy you mention.
EDIT - SiG beat me to it
|Posted by: Florin May 06, 2006 05:20 am|
I don't think this ever happened.
It is my idea, supposedly original.
|Posted by: Florin May 06, 2006 05:25 am|
If the main big canons of the battleships have mechanical systems to absorb the recoil, you are right.
|Posted by: Victorian January 13, 2007 01:59 pm|
Hello friends! As clever as it may look, using gun recoil to steer the Bismarck would have been technically impossible! Only the small guns are put on a fixed mount. The bigger guns always have a recoil absorber built within, which is actually a big spring, or an assortment of springs round the gun barrel, otherwise the first round fired would have, if not shattered the whole ship, at least shaken seriously its structure! I tried to find some technical drawings to show you the recoil absorbers on "Bismarck". I have found none so far, but on the following site:
you can actually find the gun recoil range, which for Bismarck is stated to be 1,050 m (41,3 in). This "recoil range" actually means how much the recoil absorbers on each gun were compressed when a shot was fired. After each shot, the compressed springs would have pushed the gun back to its firing position, causing no damage to the bearing, to the turret OR the ship herself!
Therefore, unfortunately, with the rudder damaged, Bismark was doomed!
|Posted by: Tiornu February 04, 2007 08:49 am|
|Bismarck's problem was that her lack of steering control left her at the mercy of the wind and seas. She was heading out to sea, not because that was the direction she faced when damaged, but because that was the direction she was being pushed by the elements. The suggested use of guns to steer her is very creative, but the guns (if we accept that this was possible) would simply nudge her momentarily to one side before the sea again pointed her northwest.|
|Posted by: Petre June 12, 2009 07:34 pm|
| Kriegsmarine casualties in WW II :
* Der Kommandierender Admiral Schwarzes Meer, VizeAdmiral Gustav Kieseritzky, KIA (19 Nov 1943) in Kamysch-Burun, Crimea, in his car, in a Sov.planes attak.
* The leader of Marinelehrstab Bukarest (Naval Training Staff), then Marineverbindungsstab Rumänien (Naval Liaison Staff), Adm. z.V. Werner Tillessen has died 23 Aug 1944 in Bucarest.
* Char. Konteradmiral Wilhelm Friedrich Starke, Prisenhof Berlin-Südost, stellv. Reichskommissar, 24.10.1941 died in crash plane near Galatzi, Romania