The Ship Model Forum

by **bengtsson** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:18 pm

My deck plans "Mittleres Plattformdeck" and "Unteres Plattformdeck u. Stauung", both show the full length bulkhead dividing the two engine rooms. It is also highlighted in thicker and darker print so can't be mistaken for centerline markings. I see now that the third view, "Oberes Plattformdeck" has the bulkhead forward, but NOT aft, due to another undivided compartment being aft. This is listed as "Maschinenleitstand" and four smaller "Niedergang" . So, to sum up, on the two lowerdecks a full bulkhead .On the uppermost deck, another compartment interrupts the the centerline bulkhead at two thirds length. This may be where the question lies??

Bob B.

by ar » Sun Jan 13, 2008 8:18 am

Maybe.

by **chuck** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 3:17 pm

ar wrote:From the builders plans of TIRPITZ, NOT Bismarck;
Frame 100, aft end of the foreward engine room, shows a centreline bulkhead very clearly drawn in.
Frame 112, fore end of the foreward engine room, shows NO centreline bulkhead. Also clearly absent.
I cannot dismiss what I see. These are actual copies of the detailed builders plans. NOT redrawn for commercial use. The Germans liked things to be complicated.

It is hard to accept that forward engine room could have a partial bulkhead that exists in the back of the room at frame 100 but is interrupted before it gets to the front of the room at frame 112.

Frame 112 is exactly at the forward transverse bulkhead delimiting the front end of the forward turbine rooms. In my drawings the centerline bulkhead of the engine room exists only the that engine room. So any centerline bulkhead that might exist in the forward end of forward engine room would only appear on a frame 112 sectional drawing if the drawing looks backwards towards the stern and thus into the engine room, and not forwards towards the bow, and thus into the boiler spaces ahead.

by **bengtsson** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 1:54 pm

ar wrote:I really should be looking for my dividend cheque, however. is there a section for frame 112 shown?
Are the drawings a DIRECT reproduction from the offical plans or are they redrawn ?

Wish I read German, Swedish doesn't help me one bit ! [ Jag borde ha l�rt mig tyska ist�llet !] I have to assume these are redrawn. 1/300 and dated 1990. There is a cross section at frame 112,3 and 106,8. These are the forward engine rooms and both clearly show the Center Line Bulkhead. The Boiler Room cross sections show the three divisions as expected. I don't know what the ,3 and ,8 mean as regards the frame numbers 112 and 106??
Heck, 30K is just pocket change, let the dog digest it

Bob B.

by ar » Sat Jan 12, 2008 1:27 pm

I really should be looking for my dividend cheque, however. is there a section for frame 112 shown?
Are the drawings a DIRECT reproduction from the offical plans or are they redrawn ?

by **bengtsson** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 11:43 am

ar wrote:From the builders plans of TIRPITZ, NOT Bismarck;
Frame 100, aft end of the foreward engine room, shows a centreline bulkhead very clearly drawn in.
Frame 112, fore end of the foreward engine room, shows NO centreline bulkhead. Also clearly absent.
I cannot dismiss what I see. These are actual copies of the detailed builders plans. NOT redrawn for commercial use. The Germans liked things to be complicated.

I'm a bit lost, but that's nothing new!

Anyways, my Tirpitz plans by Schmolke/Koop clearly show the boiler rooms in the three divisions and the forward engineroom in two divisions with the full centerline bulkhead. That must be right. Right?

Bob B.

by ar » Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:17 am

From the builders plans of TIRPITZ, NOT Bismarck;
Frame 100, aft end of the foreward engine room, shows a centreline bulkhead very clearly drawn in.
Frame 112, fore end of the foreward engine room, shows NO centreline bulkhead. Also clearly absent.
I cannot dismiss what I see. These are actual copies of the detailed builders plans. NOT redrawn for commercial use. The Germans liked things to be complicated.

by ar » Sat Jan 12, 2008 7:22 am

In my previous post, I mistakenly transposed the boiler room, engine room subdivision arrangement. Sorry.
My mind was on finding a mislaid dividend cheque for $30,000.00 at the time. I think that the dog has eaten the blasted thing.
Will have another close look at the plans a little later.

by **chuck** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:02 pm

ar wrote:The drawing that you have posted is ot quite correct, according to the detailed buildsers plans that I have.
The fore part of the fore boiler room has NO dividing bulkhead.
This is taken from the sections. If I had good light and a strong glass I might be able to give the frame number.

According to different drawings in Jack Brower's AOTS, and Garzke and Dulin's Axis Battleships, Bismark's forward boiler room is divided by 2 longitudinal bulkheads just like the aft boiler room. In AOTS the section drawing taken at frames 134 and 141 clearly shows 2 longitudinal bulkheads dividing the forward boiler room, as do deck plans of the lower platform deck, middle platform deck, and upper platform deck. If that is not in conformance with reality then it would be most strange on the following counts:

1. In front of the forward boiler room these two longitudinal bulkhead extends through the switching room and plotting rooms, under the main magazine shell rooms, all the way forward end of the citadel. Behind the forward boiler room these two bulkheads extends through the aft boiler room to the turbine rooms. Why interrupt such a continuous structure?

2. The arrangements of the 6 boilers in the forward boiler room is the same as the arrangement of the other 6 identical boilers in the aft boiler room. Why partition the aft boiler room but not the forward boiler room?

3. If the forward boiler room is unpartitioned, it means the ship can loose 6 boilers, or 1/2 of its steam supply, through a single torpedo hit. Why allow this degree of vulnerability in the supply of steam from forward boilers when the design otherwise takes such elaborate precautions against loss of more multiple turbine, generator, or aft boiler rooms? Partitioning the forward boiler room would limit damage in the same scenario to just 2 boilers, or 1/6 the boiler power of the 3 shaft ship.

I suspect your plans somehow omitted the longitudinal bulkheads in the forward boiler room.

by **Tiornu** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:13 pm

I don't know about speed but I'd wager the SoDaks and Washingtons were as fast or faster than the Bismarks too.

I'll cover that. Can we involve a huge some of cash?

by **chuck** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:58 pm

Hmmmm, so there were 6 boilers in one huge forward boiler room?

by ar » Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:54 pm

The drawing that you have posted is ot quite correct, according to the detailed buildsers plans that I have.
The fore part of the fore boiler room has NO dividing bulkhead.
This is taken from the sections. If I had good light and a strong glass I might be able to give the frame number.

by **chuck** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:36 pm

I do seem to have recalled basically correctly based on this drawing found on the web:

The boiler spaces are subdivided by longitudinal and transverse bulkheads into 6 double boiler rooms. There were 2 longitudinal bulkheads in the boiler spaces. There where also extensive longitudinal subdivision in the turbine spaces. I got the double transverse bulkhead wrong. There were actually two double bulkheads, between the fore and aft boiler room groups, and between the outboard and center turbine rooms.

There are a total of 9 major subdivisions in Bismark's machinery space. There were only 4 in Iowa.

by **chuck** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:19 pm

ar wrote:I looked at the plans of the Tirpitz.
The forward boiler room has NO centerline bulkhead.
The aft boiler room HAS a centreline bulkhead.
Both engine rooms have TWO longtitudinal bulkheads.
To sink a WW Two built battleship by gunfire alone is difficult. eg Bismarck.
Bismarck was riddled by gunfire along the waterline at close range over the entire legth of the UNPROTECTED fore and aft ends, leading to progressive flooding. ie she was in a sinking condition before the torpedoes hit and before the Germans pulled the plug. The ship would have sunk without the latter two. It would have taken a little longer that's all.
Comments?

Hmmm, I am going by memory here, I seem to recall the Bismark having at least 6 boiler rooms. I also seem to recall Bismark class having 3 turbine rooms. The two outboard turbine rooms were side by side and divided by a centerline bulkhead. The center turbine room was located behind the outboard turbine rooms and divided from them by a transverse bulkhead. The center turbine room is also divided from two outboard spaces (Generator rooms?) by two longitudinal bulkheads. I don't remember the boiler room arrangements in detail, but I seem to recall there were two groups of 3, each group divided by 2 longitudinal bulkheads, and the two groups were separated from each other by a transverse bulkhead. The two groups of boiler rooms were together separated from the turbine rooms by not one but two transverse bulkheads. I remember there were a total of 4 complete transverse bulkheads in the engineering space, one between the two groups of boiler rooms, two between the boiler rooms and the turbine rooms, and one between the outboard turbine rooms and the center turbine room. I'll look it up.

by ar » Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:06 pm

I looked at the plans of the Tirpitz.
The forward boiler room has NO centerline bulkhead.
The aft boiler room HAS a centreline bulkhead.
Both engine rooms have TWO longtitudinal bulkheads.
To sink a WW Two built battleship by gunfire alone is difficult. eg Bismarck.
Bismarck was riddled by gunfire along the waterline at close range over the entire legth of the UNPROTECTED fore and aft ends, leading to progressive flooding. ie she was in a sinking condition before the torpedoes hit and before the Germans pulled the plug. The ship would have sunk without the latter two. It would have taken a little longer that's all.
Comments?

by ar » Fri Jan 11, 2008 4:16 pm

An increase in beam from 108' in the Iowas to 121' for the Montanas, allowed the machinery spaces to be divided into THREE, longitudually.
See Friedman, battleships pages, 340 and 342. Also Dreadful and Ghastly, pages 170 and 171.
Comments welcome.

by **bengtsson** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:32 pm

chuck wrote:Everyone harps on the trade-offs the Germans made, and points to things the Germans gave up that everyone else got as if Germans were simply stupid or obstinately backwards. I think the Germans in fact thought clearly, made reasonable assumptions, and made a decision that actually turn out to be a good one for a naval war in 1939-1943. Of course they Germans didn't intend to fight a naval war until 1948, but that's a different issue.

I'de tend to agree with that statement. I don't think the Germans made design decisions without looking at the "Most Likely" battle conditions they would encounter, where they planned to fight. I've often said, but could be wrong, "The ideal is the enemy of the practicle".
The German Bismarcks were built to fight other BBs. To fight them first in the North Sea and secondly out in the North Atlantic. On any given day you were more likely to be fighting in lower visibility and thus shorter ranges. There armour would need to be proof at the shorter ranges , as they were the most likely battle ranges to be encountered. As Jacky Fisher often made clear, you want to build ships to fight the Battle you are most likely to encounter, you don't build a ship and then try and fit the battle to suit the ship.
I don't see anything wrong with the German solution for the battle areas they intended to fight in. Modern technology changed things, but really only after 1943.

Bob B.

by **chuck** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:56 pm

In the interwar period, British, American, Japanese and French navies all effectively built their battleships for engagements in the 20,000 - 30,000 yard range. They were designed to be highly survivable to hits at those ranges. Inside 20,000 yards these ships all becoming increasingly vulnerable, as the range of aspect angles present to their opponent inside which they would risking a serious citadel penetrating hit increases from 90 degrees. The Germans appeared to build their battleships for 10,000 - 25,000 yards. Their citadels continue to be immune, thanks to the low armor deck, down to 10,000 yards, and remain difficult to penetrate to something even closer. I think the Germans in fact got the balance right for they of battleship engagements fought before 1944.

Everyone harps on the trade-offs the Germans made, and points to things the Germans gave up that everyone else got as if Germans were simply stupid or obstinately backwards. I think the Germans in fact thought clearly, made reasonable assumptions, and made a decision that actually turn out to be a good one for a naval war in 1939-1943. Of course they Germans didn't intend to fight a naval war until 1948, but that's a different issue.

by **Werner** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:43 pm

Walt, long range gunnery aided by spotting aircraft and other observers, and later Radar, was USN doctrine after WW.I. This led to some interesting consequences during the Washington and London treaty negotiations. Because long range places different demands on a ship's protection scheme than normal combat, the arrangement and proportion of armor weights were quite a surprise to the British (and perhaps other) delegates. The leader of the US delegation wrote the State Department to suggest these details be treated as state secrets and not shared with other negotiators.

It is at least reasonable to assume that these revelations impacted British designs of the 1930s.

by **bengtsson** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:28 pm

With my limited understanding, I thought that Bismarcks were built with an armour scheme that favoured a shorter range battle. A study was done of weather conditions in the North Sea/North Atlantic and it was found maximum visibility conditions were a very rare event. So they were more than willing to be vulnerable at longer ranges and to be more proof aginst hits at medium ranges. I forget where I read that

. My years at sea in the Pacific remind me that visibility was often maximum. Nothing like the North Sea. I'de think Iowas would be built for maximum protection and hitting power at the longest ranges possible.
By the time Iowa hit the water, an action with Bismarcks would be very unlikely. Just due to the state of the naval war by then.

Bob B.

The Ship Model Forum

A naval might have been "Tirpitz -v - Iowa"

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: A naval might have been "Tirpitz -v - Iowa"

Re: A naval might have been "Tirpitz -v - Iowa"

Re: A naval might have been "Tirpitz -v - Iowa"

Re: A naval might have been "Tirpitz -v - Iowa"

Re: A naval might have been "Tirpitz -v - Iowa"

Re: A naval might have been "Tirpitz -v - Iowa"

Re: A naval might have been "Tirpitz -v - Iowa"

Re: A naval might have been "Tirpitz -v - Iowa"

Re: A naval might have been "Tirpitz -v - Iowa"

Re: A naval might have been "Tirpitz -v - Iowa"

Re: A naval might have been "Tirpitz -v - Iowa"

Re: A naval might have been "Tirpitz -v - Iowa"

Re: A naval might have been "Tirpitz -v - Iowa"

Re: A naval might have been "Tirpitz -v - Iowa"

Re: A naval might have been "Tirpitz -v - Iowa"

Re: A naval might have been "Tirpitz -v - Iowa"

Re: A naval might have been "Tirpitz -v - Iowa"

Re: A naval might have been "Tirpitz -v - Iowa"

Re: A naval might have been "Tirpitz -v - Iowa"

Re: A naval might have been "Tirpitz -v - Iowa"

Re: A naval might have been "Tirpitz -v - Iowa"