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

[ar]

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?

[chuck]

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.

[chuck]

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.

[ar]

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.

[chuck]

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

[Tiornu]

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?

[chuck]

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.

[ar]

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.

[ar]

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.

[bengtsson]

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.

[ar]

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 ?

[bengtsson]

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.

[chuck]

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.

[ar]

Maybe.

[bengtsson]

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.