Romanian Military History Forum - Part of Romanian Army in the Second World War Website



Pages: (2) 1 [2]   ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> A question about GERMAN Navy
Florin
Posted: April 27, 2006 03:59 am
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1870
Member No.: 17
Joined: June 22, 2003



QUOTE (Florin @ Dec 24 2004, 02:32 AM)
QUOTE (ragewolf @ Apr 2 2004, 07:31 PM)
.....

The ship on this poster is Bismarck?  :?:

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 !

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.
PM
Top
Imperialist
Posted: April 27, 2006 02:57 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (Florin @ Apr 27 2006, 03:59 AM)

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.

Maybe the recoil did not transmit itself to the ship in such a degree as to revolve it enough, so that wasnt a solution.
PM
Top
Florin
Posted: April 28, 2006 04:01 am
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1870
Member No.: 17
Joined: June 22, 2003



QUOTE (Imperialist @ Apr 27 2006, 09:57 AM)
Maybe the recoil did not transmit itself to the ship in such a degree as to revolve it enough, so that wasnt a solution.

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.

This post has been edited by Florin on April 28, 2006 04:03 am
PM
Top
Dénes
Posted: April 28, 2006 03:54 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4356
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



You didn't consider the friction with the body of water.

Gen. Dénes
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Imperialist
Posted: April 28, 2006 04:54 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (Florin @ Apr 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.

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.






PM
Top
SiG
Posted: April 28, 2006 05:01 pm
Quote Post


Fruntas
*

Group: Members
Posts: 86
Member No.: 616
Joined: June 29, 2005



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.
PMEmail Poster
Top
Imperialist
Posted: April 28, 2006 05:01 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



Also note that battleships have/had recoil hydraulic brakes and recoil counterweights that would've taken a lot of the energy you mention.

take care

EDIT - SiG beat me to it :)

This post has been edited by Imperialist on April 28, 2006 05:06 pm
PM
Top
Florin
Posted: May 06, 2006 05:20 am
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1870
Member No.: 17
Joined: June 22, 2003



QUOTE (SiG @ Apr 28 2006, 12:01 PM)
.... Most of the time, naval guns are used for hitting the enemy, not for steering the ship....

I don't think this ever happened.
It is my idea, supposedly original.
PM
Top
Florin
Posted: May 06, 2006 05:25 am
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1870
Member No.: 17
Joined: June 22, 2003



QUOTE (Imperialist @ Apr 28 2006, 12:01 PM)
Also note that battleships have/had recoil hydraulic brakes and recoil counterweights that would've taken a lot of the energy you mention.
.................

If the main big canons of the battleships have mechanical systems to absorb the recoil, you are right.

This post has been edited by Florin on May 07, 2006 12:52 am
PM
Top
Victorian
Posted: January 13, 2007 01:59 pm
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 23
Member No.: 894
Joined: April 30, 2006




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:

http://www.bismarck-class.dk/technicallayo...ry380skc34.html

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!

PMEmail Poster
Top
Tiornu
Posted: February 04, 2007 08:49 am
Quote Post


Fruntas
*

Group: Members
Posts: 83
Member No.: 75
Joined: August 08, 2003



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.

This post has been edited by Tiornu on February 04, 2007 08:49 am
PM
Top
Petre
Posted: June 12, 2009 07:34 pm
Quote Post


Maior
*

Group: Members
Posts: 729
Member No.: 2434
Joined: March 24, 2009



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

This post has been edited by Petre on September 29, 2009 10:48 am
PMEmail Poster
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Pages: (2) 1 [2]  Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0220 ]   [ 14 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]